1) Democracy with a population that is at least minimally engaged and angrily stays that
way (including removing powerful special interests from premises with pitchforks)
2) Being "managed" on behalf of various power centers. This can be liveable or can turn into
strip mining of your "resources".
Sadly, there is no algorithm that allows you to detect whether your are engaged or are
being engaged on behalf of others. That would be easy. But one should start with a minimal
state, hard money and the sons of the upper crust on the front lines and forbidden from
taking office in government.
That being said, this article is a bit meandering. Came for Bellingcat but was
confused.
Who presented the Emmy Award to the film makers, but none other than the rebel
journalist Chris Hedges.
@El Dato "1) Democracy with a population that is at least minimally engaged and angrily
stays that way (including removing powerful special interests from premises with pitchforks)"
There are no revolutions by means of pitchforks in a democracy, everything is weakened by
compromise, false promises, infiltration, manipulation, etc. You cannot stay angry all the
time too, it is very bad for your health, it needs to be short and intense to be effective,
which is exactly what democracy prevents.
Democracy turns you into a petted animal.
It is reasonably cheap to buy a journalist and turn him into the attack dog on particular, inconvenient or dangerious for the
financial oligarchy candidate.
New article about Tulsi Gabbard being viciously attacked over religion during Christmas.
Angry Bernie Sanders supporters whom I guess forgot to take their meds over the holidaze
are viciously attacking Tulsi because of Jesus? LOL. This new article is specifically about
Mike Figueroa from The Humanist Report, a semi-popular vlogger, and also a fanatic atheist
type.
He used to be a Tulsi supporter, but since he is connected to the TYT network which is
funded by Hollywood Billionaire and major DNC Clinton funder Katzenberg, he must have
recently been told to toe the party line on smearing Tulsi if he wanted to reap the funding
benefits of TYT who are hardcore Tulsi haters, following the DNC line.
I guess Tulsi showing the Christmas spirit gave him a reason to look hardcore to his
fellow fanatics and appease TYT money folks. Anyways, here is the new article Like, In The
Year 2024
@earthling1
I honestly do believe that she thinks long term and, for whatever reason, her decision not to
run for her own congressional seat is a part of her long term plans. Despite her being
smeared over and over by the media, Tulsi has the unique ability to effectively expand the
electorate by appealing to rational people, regardless of party affiliation.
The establishment is terrified of her message. Otherwise, why would they be attacking her
so viciously despite her reported low polling numbers?
While Tulsi is a practicing Hindu, she was raised in a multi faith family with her father
being a still practicing Catholic. And she mentioned that they had attended a Baptist church
in South Carolina on Christmas Eve. I noticed that her parents were in attendance at the
dinner that her brother in law and his mother prepared.
is detonating.
Someone is gonna have to clean up the debri and make some kind of use of what is left
over. Recycle the trash. Make it green. Bernie is past his best by date.
This is what I have suspected all along. To save the Party, we must completely destroy
it.
Even if it means four more years of Trump. By then, climate change will be obvious to
even the dullest among us.
Tulsi is angling to be there to clean up the mess.
IMHO
@gulfgal98
She will not be campaigning as a Dem this cycle, unless perhaps Bernie gets the nomination.
The severance from Congress means de facto severance from the Democrat Party. The stink of
said party becomes more and more apparent daily as Shiftless, No-Nads, Nervous Nancy et. al.
continue their demeaning and angering stupidity. More Dems are getting turned off by the
House sham impeachment daily.
#2 I honestly do
believe that she thinks long term and, for whatever reason, her decision not to run for
her own congressional seat is a part of her long term plans. Despite her being smeared
over and over by the media, Tulsi has the unique ability to effectively expand the
electorate by appealing to rational people, regardless of party affiliation.
The establishment is terrified of her message. Otherwise, why would they be attacking
her so viciously despite her reported low polling numbers?
While Tulsi is a practicing Hindu, she was raised in a multi faith family with her
father being a still practicing Catholic. And she mentioned that they had attended a
Baptist church in South Carolina on Christmas Eve. I noticed that her parents were in
attendance at the dinner that her brother in law and his mother prepared.
@earthling1
that suggest that the Democratic Party is "detonating"?
It looks to me that the Democrats are settling in for a long period of existence as
America's Vichy party. The Democrats are that party that exists so that those Americans who
are afraid of Republican policymakers can vote for them so that, when elected, they can find
clever ways of giving away power to the Republicans.
As for destroying the Democratic Party, we are on the same page.
is detonating.
Someone is gonna have to clean up the debri and make some kind of use of what is left
over. Recycle the trash. Make it green. Bernie is past his best by date.
This is what I have suspected all along. To save the Party, we must completely destroy
it.
Even if it means four more years of Trump. By then, climate change will be obvious to
even the dullest among us.
Tulsi is angling to be there to clean up the mess.
IMHO
@Cassiodorus
friends and family demexiting even today. Many of my union buddies are still pissed that the
union bosses supported Her in 2016.
The teacher strikes last year and before showed the leadership out of step with the rack and
file.
Now, in France the union leadership is being ignored entirely by the membership and see them
as sell-outs to the labor movment.
Ditto in Chile, Peru, Ecuador, and numerous other countries around the globe.
It's the same all over the world. Working people are seeing their representation being
deminished by union leaders.
IMHO
#2 that suggest that
the Democratic Party is "detonating"?
It looks to me that the Democrats are settling in for a long period of existence as
America's Vichy party. The Democrats are that party that exists so that those Americans
who are afraid of Republican policymakers can vote for them so that, when elected, they
can find clever ways of giving away power to the Republicans.
As for destroying the Democratic Party, we are on the same page.
@earthling1
Those French union bosses, btw, really like that lockstep marching. One of the primary
reasons for the current general strike is that the union bosses in France finally gave their
okay to the whole thing. Or at least this is what my source, who hails from Montpellier,
tells me.
As for your friends and family, Demexiting has one really big advantage -- they will no
longer be persecuted for not voting for Democrats. Can they still vote for Bernie
Sanders?
#2.5
friends and family demexiting even today. Many of my union buddies are still pissed that
the union bosses supported Her in 2016.
The teacher strikes last year and before showed the leadership out of step with the rack
and file.
Now, in France the union leadership is being ignored entirely by the membership and see
them as sell-outs to the labor movment.
Ditto in Chile, Peru, Ecuador, and numerous other countries around the globe.
It's the same all over the world. Working people are seeing their representation being
deminished by union leaders.
IMHO
her chances will be much better in 2024 if Bernie wins in 2020. She will have a base to
lead in place rather than in the wilderness. In short, there will still be an America.
@doh1304
So maybe not should he win and hangs on for all four. (Two big hypotheticals). And unless he
picks her for VP, she will still be in the wilderness in 2024.
her chances will be much better in 2024 if Bernie wins in 2020. She will have a base
to lead in place rather than in the wilderness. In short, there will still be an
America.
Alligator Ed
on Wed, 12/25/2019 - 11:02pm After bravely contesting a nomination she knows she cannot
win, Tulsi Gabbard has and continues to exhibit a tenacious adherence to achievement of
purpose. What is that purpose? I believe it is evident if you only let your eyes see and your
ears hear. Listen to what she says. Looks at what she does.
What this does is obvious. However, please forgive me if I proceed to explain the meaning.
People see what apparently is her home milieu. I've been to Filipino homes for dinner as many
of my nurse friends were Filipino. Tulsi is so human. Despite Hindu belief, she is respectful
to the presence and perhaps the essence of Jesus, and does not sound pandering or
hypocritical.
Getting to know Tulsi at the beginning of her hoped-for (by me) political ascendancy. Get in
on almost the ground floor of what will become an extremely powerful force in future American
life.
Why? What's the hurry?
The more support and the earlier Tulsi receives it propel the campaign. That's what momentum
means: a self-generating growing strength.
One doesn't have to be a Tulsi supporter to hopefully receive some ideas which may not have
occurred to you. This essay does not concern any specific Gabbard policy. What I write here is
what I perceive of her character and thus her selected path. Mind-reading, perhaps. Arm-chair
speculation, possibly.
Tulsi has completed phase 2A in her career. The little that I know of her early life,
especially politically (such as how she voted in HI state legislature) limits a deep
understanding which such knowledge would provide. As the tree is bent, etc.
Phase 1A: youth, formative years, military
Phase 1B: state legislature
Phase 1C: Congress
Phase 2B and possibly subsequent: interim between Congress and Presidential campaigning with
realistic chance of victory.
We are in Phase 2B. Tulsi, as I wrote in another essay, is letting the tainted shroud of
Democrat corruption fall off her shoulders without any effort of her own. The Democrat party is
eating itself alive. It is all things to all people at once. That is a philosophy incapable of
satisfaction.
Omni Democraticorundum in tres partes est (pardon the reference to the opening of Caesar's
Gallic Wars, with liberal substitution by me).
The Dems trifurcate and the division will be neither pleasant nor reconcilable. Tribalism
will be reborn after Trump crushes whomever in 2020.
Tribe one: urban/techno/überkinden.
Tribe two: leftward bound to a place where no politician has ever ventured. Not socialism.
Not Communism. We could call it Fantasy Land, although I fear Disney owns that name.
Tribe three: progressive realists. By using such positive wording, you will correctly
suspect my bias as to which Tribe I belong to.
Once again, policy will not be discussed. Only strategy and reality. Can't have good
strategy without a good grasp of reality. This is why Establidems are bereft of thematic
variability. For the past 3.3 years, they have been singing from a hymn book containing but one
song. You know the title. Orange Man Bad. Yeah, that's it. If they don't like that
title, we establidems have another song for ya. It's called Orange Man Bad. Like that
one, huh? Wazzat, ya didn't like the song the first time. Hey, we thought the song would grown
on you.
Them Dems, noses up, can't see the sidewalk. Oops. Stepped in something there, huh? Oh, yeah
like the Impeachment.
But I digress: The latter part of Phase 2B is not clear. Tulsi will continue to accept small
donor contributions, even after not obtaining the nomination next year. Public appearances will
be important but should be low key with little press attention. Press attention is something
however that won't be available when most desirable. What else Tulsi will do may be to form a
nucleus of like-minded activists, thinkers, and other supporters to promote an agenda for a
more liberal, tolerant society.
If Sanders' candidacy continues to be taken seriously, he will eventually be subjected to
the scrutiny that Warren and Biden have faced for prolonged stretches. That includes an
examination of his electability. "That conversation has never worked well for anyone,"
Pfeiffer said.
What a bunch of hypocritical horseshit. Bernie not getting scrutiny? In 2016, when not
being derided for this, that or the other, Bernie was always scrutinized. There are only two
things voters have learned since the DNC 2016 convention:
1. Bernie had a heart attack
2. Bernie supported H. Rodent Clinton in the general election.
. . . and to the much noted "Bernie blackout" up until now this time around.
It's gotten to the point given the polls and the first primary in being held in about a
month where TPTB in conjunction with the MSM can no longer afford to turn a blind eye towards
Bernie. It's gonna get really nasty.
The most recent tropes on the twitters, probably in response to Brock talking point memos,
have been pushing Bernie as an anti-Semite and him purportedly triggering rape survivors. Of
course it's horsehit but it's the propagandistic method of the Big Lie.
I'm genuinely curious. How will you react if Tulsi endorses the Dem nominee and it ain't
Bernie? Bernie's endorsement of she-who-shall-not-be-named in 2016 seems to have pretty much
completely soured him to you. Endorsing Biden better? Or at least acceptable? Not for me.
Bernie doing so in 2016 I could understand and forgive. But this is my last go round absent a
Bernie miracle.
If Sanders' candidacy continues to be taken seriously, he will eventually be
subjected to the scrutiny that Warren and Biden have faced for prolonged stretches.
That includes an examination of his electability. "That conversation has never worked
well for anyone," Pfeiffer said.
What a bunch of hypocritical horseshit. Bernie not getting scrutiny? In 2016, when not
being derided for this, that or the other, Bernie was always scrutinized. There are only
two things voters have learned since the DNC 2016 convention:
1. Bernie had a heart attack
2. Bernie supported H. Rodent Clinton in the general election.
@Wally
She might back Yang--who won't get nominated. But I hope she doesn't do anything more than a
neutral statement, somewhat to the effect that "We must defeat Donald Trump", then not
campaign otherwise.
. . . and to the much noted "Bernie blackout" up until now this time around.
It's gotten to the point given the polls and the first primary in being held in about
a month where TPTB in conjunction with the MSM can no longer afford to turn a blind eye
towards Bernie. It's gonna get really nasty.
The most recent tropes on the twitters, probably in response to Brock talking point
memos, have been pushing Bernie as an anti-Semite and him purportedly triggering rape
survivors. Of course it's horsehit but it's the propagandistic method of the Big Lie.
I'm genuinely curious. How will you react if Tulsi endorses the Dem nominee and it
ain't Bernie? Bernie's endorsement of she-who-shall-not-be-named in 2016 seems to have
pretty much completely soured him to you. Endorsing Biden better? Or at least acceptable?
Not for me. Bernie doing so in 2016 I could understand and forgive. But this is my last
go round absent a Bernie miracle.
. . . to campaign in support of their candidacies.
Maybe Biden will accept her support. I've still never been able to figure why she never
and probably still won't take any shots at his warmongering and otherwise cruddy record
regarding domestic affairs.
#2.1.1.1.1 She might
back Yang--who won't get nominated. But I hope she doesn't do anything more than a
neutral statement, somewhat to the effect that "We must defeat Donald Trump", then not
campaign otherwise.
. . . to campaign in support of their candidacies.
Maybe Biden will accept her support. I've still never been able to figure why she
never and probably still won't take any shots at his warmongering and otherwise cruddy
record regarding domestic affairs.
@Alligator
Ed@Alligator
Ed be unfamiliar with the neutral position. Though I wonder if she would feel
comfortable dipping into that well again given how much grief she got the last time.
Of course, if she again puts it in Neutral, and doesn't support the D nominee (anyone but
Bloomberg), she will be finished as a Dem pol. She might as well go off and start a Neutral
Party.
#2.1.1.1.1 She might
back Yang--who won't get nominated. But I hope she doesn't do anything more than a
neutral statement, somewhat to the effect that "We must defeat Donald Trump", then not
campaign otherwise.
@wokkamile
Her dismissal papers will be submitted to her after she is barred entry into the DNC
convention, regardless of how many delegates she may have won.
#2.1.1.1.1.1
#2.1.1.1.1.1 be unfamiliar with the neutral position. Though I wonder if she would
feel comfortable dipping into that well again given how much grief she got the last
time.
Of course, if she again puts it in Neutral, and doesn't support the D nominee (anyone
but Bloomberg), she will be finished as a Dem pol. She might as well go off and start a
Neutral Party.
Don't forget that 15% state threshold for eligibility to be awarded delegates.
#2.1.1.1.1.1.2 Her
dismissal papers will be submitted to her after she is barred entry into the DNC
convention, regardless of how many delegates she may have won.
I will be surprised if Tulsi gets so much as one delegate.
More than a few knowledgeable people think he has a very good shot of winning California.
I am less optimistic about NYS but I think he will do well enough to get a good number of
delegates especially if he does well in the earlier primaries (NYS comes April 28).
I don't feel solidly about making any kind of predictions at this point but given the
nature of the Democratic Party, I don't see it as falling into oblivion anytime soon or in
our lifetimes.
As far as Bernie goes, I am not optimistic but I still have some hope. I still fervantly
believe that his candidacy is the best chance we will have in our lifetimes of bringing about
any substantial change -- and if he and his critical mass of supporters can't pull it off
this time around, we're all phluckled big time, even alligators, in terms of combating
climate change and putting a kabosh on endless wars. I wish you good future luck with Tulsi
though. I just don't see it. But I've been wrong on more than one occasion in my life.
As the New Cold War gathers up speed and escalates, we are entering a "fact free world" as
allegations are made that are proved not to be true are promoted; for example, the allegation
that the DNC was hacked by Russia has been officially debunked -- no one could name the
seventeen intelligence agencies, the Coast Guard was one. The notion of the hacking was cooked
up by two agencies: by the DNI's head James Clapper and Brennan at the CIA. Nevertheless,
recently News Anchor Chuck Todd of NBC (the most pro-Russiagate network, the ones who
shamelessly accused presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard of being a Russian asset) took it one
step further: ignoring the facts, Todd again stated that seventeen intelligence agencies agreed
that the Russians not only interfered in the election but that they swung the election to
Trump. While interference is one thing, no one has previously made that allegation.
Consequently, we are now in a fact free discourse in America: no evidence is necessary to prove
anything, falsehoods are taken up by the legacy media, what Professor Cohen would call a world
of tabloid gossip media, except in their favor the tabloids, fearing lawsuits, will do some
fact checking, which is conspicuous in its absence in the legacy media. And Professor Cohen
noted that it's hard to get traction and you can't have a conversation with someone when you
don't agree upon the facts.
In conversation on a cruise with fellow liberals, Professor Cohen noted most take the view
that where there is smoke there is fire and there is something to these allegations of
Russiagate and Putin's control over Trump; they state the media wouldn't continue to promote
these conspiracy theories, these allegations about Trump's nefarious relations with the
Kremlin, without reason and so there must be something to them. Yet while facts have become
absolutely critical Cohen notes you can't get people to focus on the facts; for that reason, he
feels despair and observes that for the first time in his life in his public discussions of
Russia there are no basic premises that people accept any more, for if you say "If there's
smoke, there's fire," that is just not a logical way of thinking: you either have the facts or
you don't.
Batchelor also points out in the impeachment charges there is a great deal of presumption;
there are no facts regarding the president as well, and he cites Trump's letter to Nancy Pelosi
and poses this question: what does the Kremlin think about the impeachment?
Cohen answers that the Russian high policy class in the 1990s -- the America worship period
-- they and not just the youth, strongly believed that Russia's future was with the West and
America in particular, and now what strikes Russians most is the role of Russian intelligence
services in the Western allegations. Pro-America Russians thought that American intelligence
services didn't play the role that the Soviet ones did. In Russian history classes and as a
staple of popular culture, the sinister role of the "secret police" goes back to the Czarist
era but what distinguished America was that it didn't have anything comparable in abuses by its
intelligence services -- or so it was believed. Consequently, for those who looked up to
America, it's a source of disillusion and shock to learn that the American special services
"went off the reservation" for quite a long time, not unlike Russia's, and so they have become
disillusioned while for those who tried to get Russians to be more nationalistic, their
perspective is to say with gratification, "We told you so. Now will you please grow up!"
Russians call the American agencies "the organs" perhaps not being clear on the difference
between the CIA and the FBI and conflating them. For Russians, the role of such agencies is
baked into the culture and this has resulted in rethinking not only about America but about
their own special services. An Op-Ed piece in a Russian liberal newspaper the Russian liberal
author wrote, after watching what's unfolding in America, we used to beat up on our
intelligence services for decades but now maybe we need them. Contrary to a "cult of the
intelligence services," Cohen thinks what must be determined is the role of the American
intelligence services in creating Russiagate from the very beginning.
Yet what is critical is to know how Russiagate began in America, with the Barr-Durham probe
into the origins of Russia and Russiagate will continue to be a major issue in the 2020
election. What struck Cohen about the letter from Trump to Pelosi -- which was so eloquent he
doubts Trump wrote it -- was that he understands it will be an issue in the 2020 elections, and
it was a campaign document. That aside, Trump is aware that Democrats are campaigning still on
Russiagate; nothing has turned up that it factual. Therefore, despite the absence of facts,
this will be a major issue. Ukraine has turned into a stand-in for Russia.
Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post, once a quintessential conservative, published an
article titled "Time to Call out and Remove Putin's Propagandist in America." While the article
is slightly cagier than that headline, essentially she wants to shutdown and deprive access to
media who aren't espousing and promoting the Russiagate/Russophobic narratives. Cohen condemns
that kind of behavior is that. On opposite side of Rubin, Cohen stated he himself has never
advocated the silencing and removal of those who promote among other falsehoods the provably
false Russiagate narrative. He asks where are things drifting and he answers discourse and
relations are becoming ugly and awful.
Returning to the past, he notes there was an assumption that Russia under Yeltsin would
emerge as a replica and junior partner of America; Cohen believes those who promote the
Russiagate narrative and demonize Trump because their "impossible dream" failed -- Russia is
too old, too vast to ever be a replica of America. What took Professor Cohen aback in the
testimony from Fiona Hill and others was how deep and wide the Russophobia runs in the
Washington think tanks. Until she spoke and testified he had no idea how much she -- and the
other Russia experts -- hate Russia.
Batchelor noted this is the language of civil war in Trump's letter; Trump uses the term
"Star Chamber of partisan persecution" and "coup" which are the language of a country torn in
half and he asked the question whether the weakening of the civil contract to be an advantage
to Putin and Russia. Cohen notes every newspaper and media source in America say Putin is
delighted since it is his goal is to foment disarray in America.
The fact is, however, this chaos and dysfunction and enmity is one of the last things Putin
wants. Putin's purpose is to rebuild Russia from the economic and political catastrophes of the
1990s; Putin's role is to reverse the demographic trend -- men died in their fifties in the
1990s -- and spend funds on modernization; that would be his legacy. Four hundred billion
dollars has been saved to implement the modernization program. That attempt would be taken with
modernizing partnerships with the West. Therefore, the last thing he wants is a new Cold War;
the last thing he wants is political turmoil in America or in any Western nation. Cohen points
out President Macron of France appears to understand that; he called for a rethinking of
relations and said there could be no European security without Russia. Macron has broken with
Washington and there will be a hell of fight because Washington is against it. But the notion
that Putin wants to disrupt American society is wrong; Putin wants stability and partners.
Cohen still thinks that leadership -- the new President of Ukraine, Trump and Putin --
I always listen to the Prof's podcast shows at Batchelor. What bothers me is that so many
Trump supporters and public commentators BELIEVE, or at least parrot the idea that Russia
INVADED both western Ukraine and Crimea.
As the Prof has pointed out and seconded by many others, Crimea has been a part of Russia
since late 18th century. Because Khrushchev "gave' it to Ukraine in 50s when it was all one
country does not obviate the fact that Crimeans consider themselves Russians as proved by all
polling and a plebiscite. They had permanent bases there and the alleged invasion was nothing
more than politely escorting the Ukrainian military off from the peninsula without any
injuries to either side. Some invasion.
Surely some Russians (whether incognito military/intelligence forces or private citizens)
were part of the Donbass forces that rebelled against Kiev. And they had good reasons to
rebel witness the horrors of Odessa when 40 something citizens of Russian ancestry were
burned alive trapped in a building by Ultra-Ukrainian nazi-like forces.
Now Senate Foreign Relations committee, chaired by Senator from my state, has called for
designating Russia as a "terror supporting state." I emailed him and asked if he was insane.
He returned a long letter that is full of obfuscations and lies, and I will compose a
detailed response soon. But the question presents: is the Deep State and their globalists'
master deliberately trying to force Russia into a military alliance with China? Could we
prevail against that combination? Haunting resemblance to conditions that created
Ribbentrop/Molotov pact in late 30s. And what that foretell?
Well, I guess when you have such luminaries as members of the Council on Foreign Relations
spieling the same level of ignorance, blindness, prejudice, propaganda and plain
perverseness, you have to expect it from all levels of "Governance"
For anyone who knows even a small amount about Russia and her leader, go listen to a recent
YouTube convention headed Russia's Resurgence: Prospects for stability in Russia-US
relationship.
One thing is for sure – as long as these supposed "think tank leaders" can deliberately
blind themselves to reality as this trio did, and spout the utterly brain dead stupidity they
used to instigate a Q & A, there is no hope whatsoever of any stability in Russia –
US relationship.
The people of the media lie because they are for sale and are paid to lie. Rather uninspiring
but understandable: they do it for the money and to stay in front of the cameras. But what's
everyone else's excuse? Putin is a Svengali who mind-controls Trump? I thought people like
that wore turbans and robes. How stupid are Americans, anyway? Who'd have thought something
like this would have any traction whatsoever? It's simply incredible.
I was born into the Cold War in 1944. I got my draft notice in 1965. I had been expecting it
all my young life. The Berlin wall did not fall until 1989.
This new Cold War will be over soon. It will turn hot and we will all die or the "West"
will collapse and will repatriate it's legions. The Anglo/Zio Empire is in steep decline
while Russia and her allies are ascendant.
I agree that the truth is no defense against the "left". Their long march is completed and
they occupy the high ground whether it's politics or culture. They have taken over the
country just in time to preside over its demise.
Russians who thought their future was with the West were not completely wrong. If the U.S.
has a future it is probably with Russia.
There is a couple of points I would like to add on a changing European perspective on the
dynamics between the USA and Russia, with Europe caught in-between.
1.) After the Second World War the choice between Bolshevism and US liberal democracy
seemed blatantly obvious; for Germany especially it was a question of national survival,
since Stalin was viewed as a serious threat by the Adenauer government. Germany had actually
enjoyed more internal independence from leading US doctrines in this period. US rule of law,
the character of its elites and the general morality of the society had not completely
degraded yet either. Today institutional erosion of American democracy, the rule of law and a
cynical Neocon approach towards "promoting democracy abroad" turned the USA into a
non-appealing leader of 'the West'. The increasing "Sovietization" of its state apparatus
emphasizes this point: the expansion of the surveillance state, selective access to real
political and economic access to a select few of the privileged; often hereditary dynasties
of oligarchs, a political-media complex of agitation and propaganda. Thus, the accusations
against Russia (or China for that matter) about a lack of transparency, pluralism and the
rule of law sound entirely hollow.
2.) Thus secondly NATO has turned from a credible alliance of defense against the Soviet
Union into a tool of US imperialism; especially after the USA has declared victory in the
Cold War. Wars surrounding Europe and even inside of it – The Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia and in Ukraine – were the result. Nations were destroyed, heads of state
publicly executed or tortured to death like Muammar Gaddafi and millions of people were
killed; many more were made homeless and a refugee crisis was created. And concealing wars of
aggression as "human rights promotion" opened a can of worms for cynical nihilism as the new
norm of US foreign policy – WMD lies, Abu-Ghuraib and NSA scandals included. Just as
the established political-media apparatus is guilty of everything populism is accused of:
post factual parallel realities, fake news and fake realities, systematic disinformation,
social engineering and conditioning into hysteria and the frenzy of the mob. The pathology of
the new US ruling class personified by Hillary Clinton and Madeleine Albright
3.) There is indeed no lasting European stability imaginable without a permanent peaceful
agreement between Western- and Eastern-Europe and Russia. Russia's role as the Eurasian land
bridge to China is also essential this century. Mutual agreement has to be found to settle
old grievances and fears regarding Napoleon and Hitler on the Russian side and Stalinism and
the Soviet Union on the European side. A situation which the USA also currently exploits for
political destabilization – especially in Poland.
4.) Germany, currently the central country in the EU, owes its unification largely to
Russia. Unfortunately it was a mistake on the Russian side when they had unilaterally
withdrawn all their troops from German territory, that they did not demand the same from
US/NATO forces. In that moment the transformation of NATO was sealed and the New Cold War had
begun. Yet while the attitudes of the older generations are shaped by the US-Soviet Union
Cold War, for new generations it's a different story. Increasingly the USA is seen as a more
credible threat and/or bully with its war policy, real political meddling and especially in
my country the fact that Germany was both forced to sanction Russia, which went against its
own vital interests, and then be sanctioned as well.
5.) I am leaving out the value and identity politics debate. Fundamentally the general
public on both sides of the Atlantic agrees on the theory on foundations of functioning
democracy. Although I do think that since the end of the last Cold War the influence of the
USA has been more harmful and corrosive than helpful and stabilizing.
Conclusion: In this new Cold War which was, I think, initiated by the US establishment, we
could see a future in which Germany and Russia begin to view themselves more in the light of
the Prussian-Russian coalition against the new "Napoleon", the United States. Although this
arising conflict could rightly be dubbed: The Unnecessary Cold War.
that the truth is no defense against the "left". Their long march is completed and they
occupy the high ground whether it's politics or culture.'
'
Left ? Do you believe that the establishment crowd of Democrats (Liberals,) and the
managed news (Liberals,) and others Liberals, neoliberals, neocons, or anything else
comprising the Russiagate hoax can be describes as Leftist?
It's been determined that the Democrats intentionally jettisoned the Working Class decades
ago. It shouldn't be news to working people that they don't have a party!
It was a rational decision to unload the workers, and substitute special interest and
identity politics, because of trends of the decline of union membership in age of technology,
automation, and YUPPIES! The Democrats are now slick pretenders of social justice, but not
left.
@RJJCDA " is the Deep State and their globalists' master deliberately trying to force
Russia into a military alliance with China? "
Hard to say what their intentions are. (The old ploy of unity at home by means of an
external enemy ?) Whatever they are -- US foreign policy (FO) re Russia should go down with
Iraq (II) as among the US's greatest FO blunders.
As the Saker has pointed out– Russia & China are in symbiosis, which runs deeper
than an alliance.
Russiagate is a kind of "two birds with one stone" deal: you get to bash Trump & Russia
using each as a club to beat the other. That this whole base concoction of lies seems to
still have legs speaks volumes as to the deep of Trump derangement syndrome & the
universality of msm propaganda.
Mr Cohen is so far ahead of Washington , when it comes to Russia and other foreign matters,
it just boggles the mind of us normies. The Ukraine Gate is all about the Kyivian Jew
Oligarchs, trying to oust the thief Democrats from all the IMF looting , that those Kyivians
, had their eyes/hands on. It's like – thanks for doing the Coup but all the money we
get is – Ours for the looting. And there are hundreds of millions – missing.
Russia Gate will go on, until the American public – " Grows Up " as Mr. Cohen says.
What damns the US media, both anti-Trump and Fox News, is that America has been massively
meddling in elections all over the globe since Day One, including Russia, and this is known
or should be known to anyone with a basic knowledge of international relations, yet it is
almost NEVER mentioned when the subject of Russian meddling comes up.
There is a feeling that it would be unpatriotic (treasonous?) to admit it. This is
something new for America. In the old days American foreign policy was sharply debated and
America's sins were much discussed by the left. But now, the left is on the CIA's side. This
probably has to do with the Jewishness of the left. Jews tend to hate Russia as much as they
tended to like the Soviet Union. They see post-Communist Russia as politically incorrect
(e.g. anti-gay) and Christian, a potentially nationalistic society that could turn
anti-Semitic.
Because of Russia's nuclear capability it is not possible for the US to invade it, so we
are relying on internal subversion and economic tactics to bring down Putin, leading to the
installation of a US lackey with neocon approval. Even as we speak of Russian meddling the
CIA is busy organizing and funding anti-Putin elements in Russia.
"We're just trying to spread democracy. What's wrong with that!?"
@Back1 Stupidity does not produce the invention and promotion of lie after lie,
Nor is stupidity consistent with the selection of the best lies from those total of lies
generated.
Only lies that work on the minds targeted are repeated.
Repeat the lie but hide it, camouflage the lie with some truth, and embedded the lie into
the propaganda that establishes the narrative, and then mass produce the lie embedded
propaganda that establishes the false or misleading narrative is a complicated process.
Repeat and repeat the false narrative is a hat trick that often deceives innocent minds into
adopting, embedding and acting on beliefs established in innocent minds by mind control
technology. These process are not consistent with stupidity, but instead suggest diabolical
genius at work.
When only the lies that work; that is, that control, deceive or influence innocent minds
are repeated you are looking process which took intelligence to make work. Inventing lies
takes imagination, producing them into propaganda takes skill, and promoting the produced
invented lie takes money, power and access.
Selection (of the best or most suitable lie) is an process that requires identification
and sufficient intelligence to sort; while repetition requires the selected object be either
committed to memory, or to be continuously and precisely regenerated for each
promotion(campaign). Promotion is a delicate process; its success so dependant on so many
things, that many people have obtained Phds from the subject matter that surround the
technology of deceit.
The point is that promoting false narratives is an invented developing technology that
takes professionally trained persons to make work. Someone is paying the mind control
professionals (MCPs) that are working to embed false narrative into the memory of the minds
of the governed masses. MCPs are not stupid people. Not only are they highly trained
professionals but also they don't work for free. So who is paying them.
Why is Steven Cohen credited with this article when obviously it is written by another? What
gives, Unz? It is an example of the same facts twisting it rails against.
@Antiwar7 "If there's smoke, there's fire" is not so much stupid as devious. You have to
understand that many political leaders nowadays have realised that they don't need hard facts
and figures or logic to sway opinion.
Increasingly, political divisions are tribal; and the worst condemnation is "you are not
one of us". Disagreeing with the party line shows that a person is "not one of us".
That is especially the case when the party line is obviously untrue. Then sticking to it
is an absolute proof of devoted, unthinking loyalty. It's more like a pledge of allegiance
than a rational statement of fact.
I agree that the truth is no defense against the "left". Their long march is completed
and they occupy the high ground whether it's politics or culture. They have taken over the
country just in time to preside over its demise.
It is the right as well on important issue to the Deep State there is no right and
left.
Does it really matter? America is already a Jewish/Bolshevik occupied nation?
To achieve absolute power, Lenin focused on fomenting a class war, while Hitler set his
sights on a race war. Either way, the divide-and-conquer modus operandi of fascist and
communist demagogues is pretty much the same, no matter what each side might claim about
the other. Their propaganda content may differ, but not so much their divide-and-conquer
methods. Attitudes of supremacy come in a virtual rainbow of flavors and colors.
theamericanconservative.com : "Forget Trump : The
Military-Industrial-Complex is still running the show " By Bruce Fein , July 18, 2018 theintercept.com " Defense
contractors say Russian threat is great for business "
Did Russian believe that any assurances could prevent Nato being drawn right up to the
borders of Russia? Did Ukrainians believe the UK and US's security assurances 'against the
threat or use of force against Ukraine's territory or political independence' could replace
Ukraine's possession of nuclear weapons? Zbigniew Brzezinski did speak of Russia
"increasingly passing into de facto western receivership" .
They say the Russians only heard what that wanted to hear, but the record suggests the
Americans misrepresented their intentions, and gave assurances that the Russians took at face
value. Russia permitted an American campaign to spent vast sums and organise Yeltsin's
reelection, which would not have happened without them. The Russian foreign minister at that
time, Andrei Kozyrev, now lives in Miami.
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2018-03-16/nato-expansion-what-yeltsin-heardD.C
., March 16, 2018 – Declassified documents from U.S. and Russian archives show that
U.S. officials led Russian President Boris Yeltsin to believe in 1993 that the Partnership
for Peace was the alternative to NATO expansion, rather than a precursor to it, while
simultaneously planning for expansion after Yeltsin's re-election bid in 1996 and telling
the Russians repeatedly that the future European security system would include, not
exclude, Russia.
The declassified U.S. account of one key conversation on October 22, 1993, (Document 8)
shows Secretary of State Warren Christopher assuring Yeltsin in Moscow that the Partnership
for Peace was about including Russia together with all European countries, not creating a
new membership list of just some European countries for NATO; and Yeltsin responding, "this
is genius!"
Christopher later claimed in his memoir that Yeltsin misunderstood – perhaps from
being drunk – the real message that the Partnership for Peace would in fact "lead to
gradual expansion of NATO";[1] but the actual American-written cable reporting the
conversation supports subsequent Russian complaints about being misled.[2]
After obtaining a succession of huge US-backed IMF loans, being found on Pennsylvania
Avenue, drunk, in his underwear and trying to hail a taxi cab in order to find pizza in 1995,
Yeltsin chose Putin the teetotal former counterintelligence specialist to succeed him. What a
sense of humour Yeltsin must have had.
@jack daniels I agree that the paraphraser should not go anonymous. But more important is
to bring to the reader's attention that a broadcast podcast is available at the article's
end.
@Vaterland The American elutes might be forgiven theirvicious follies by Americans if
they had not impoverished so many Americans and,at best leaving them struggling.
@9/11 Inside job We do not call it "the Military-Industrial-Complex".
We do not call it "the Banks".
We do not call it "the FED"
We do not call it "the Wall Street"
We do not call it "the Media"
@Realist Agreed. Truth is no defense against the Deep State which is neither left nor
right.. Still, it is the ideological left that denies the existence of objective reality. For
them there are no facts. Only subjective experience. Useful idiots and propagandists for the
Deep State, they "know" Trump is a Russian agent because they can feel it. They don't
need no steenking evidence.
The (left) media promote hatred. Orange Man Bad. The ideological left understands and
enjoys hatred. They can feel it. When you hate somebody you are ready and eager to
believe the worst about them.
@EdNels Thank you. Well said, and not nearly enough.
It's my opinion that the relentless use of "left" to describe the neoliberal half of the
Republicrat/Wall Street/war industry party is no accident.
Describing the "Democrats" of the Clinton DNC as "left" is useful to discredit and
marginalize any political stance that, fairly and realistically, could be considered "left."
It produces chaos and confusion, which is the objective of the neocon/neoliberal grifters who
control both halves of the war party.
@Realist I suspect that the paraphraser is our own Ron Unz since he strikes me as a
hands-on operator. Secondary suspect is Phil Giraldi, UR's National Security Editor.
In any event it's important to dissimulate Cohen's views since he's literally A
Geopolitical Voice Crying Out in the Wilderness! For this both Batchelor and Unz are to be
commended!!
@Realist There's a left alright; there's just no right. Since the 1960's the conservative
movement and Republican Party have conserved exactly nothing while the left has completely
transformed America, successfully implementing much of the 1930's communist agenda and
turning the government into the enemy of the society at large.
In his Myth of Religious Violence William T Cavanaugh points out that before the
arrival of Frankfurter on the Supreme Court, religion, meaning chiefly Christianity, was held
by the court to be the fundamental source of social cohesion and peace in America, while
since the late 1940s and post-Frankfurter, religion, now meaning only Christianity,
has been consistently held to be not only divisive, but the fundamental source of violence.
The point is, this upending of society was accomplished by legislating from the bench, while
the Republicans and Conservatism Inc, as we now learn, were funded to neutralize opposition,
blowing smoke in Americans' eyes about legalisms at a time when at least 90% of this country
was conservative.
Sites like The American Conservative and American Thinker, for example, are apparently
funded to publish fawning material about the Jews and Israel that the latter would be too
ashamed to write themselves, which also pretty much sums up the Republican's m.o. in
Congress.
It's about time the American electorate saw candidates for national and state office as
figureheads for their largest donors, who're presently portrayed as almost incidental by the
msm. Instead of saying that Mitch McConnell or Lindsey Graham said this or that, accuracy
requires we say Paul Singer and Sheldon Adelson's spokesman in the Senate, some so-and-so
stooge, said this or that. It's the same on both sides of the aisle, obviously, and it turns
out that the owners of both parties are kin when it comes to destroying the social fabric of
this country for their own hateful reasons.
@Patrikios Stetsonis You forgot , an aspect. "We do not call it Z.O.G."
Which commands and guides the US government in both domestic and foreign policy.
On similar note to your closing statement ,
To quote Treitschke 1879 "The Jews are our misfortune"
The zionists hate Christians and since Russia is becoming more Christian the zionists hate
towards Russia has reached a hysteria that is only matched by their demonic hate of
Christians and one of the ways to strike at Russia is through lies and false flags blamed on
Russia.
The ZUS is winning the war against Christians here in America with abortions and
pedophilia in high places and the worship of satan in Hellywood and elsewhere and the
penetration of the Christian churches by zionist elements.
The zionists will not stop until America is destroyed, zionism is the most dangerous
element in America.
Read the Protocols of Zion, it is all right there.
*All* mainstream media is propaganda from clown world. This defines our era in US. Mass
psychosis is the new reality.
The Russia nonsense tells me that US establishment people are stupid and self deluded,
truly sad sack dummies.
Several commenters around here have claimed the Apollo moon landing hoax "does not
matter".
[MORE]
It is old news, not relevant to today, too controversial, etc.
The problem is that once the elites get away with lying, it encourages them to do more of
it. This hoax _is_ going to be exposed, and fairly soon–and it may unravel the whole
ball of string of intelligence agency and mass media lies.
It is _not_ a left/right issue, so folks of any and all political persuasions will be able
to accept it without crushing their ideological dreams.
@Desert Fox Judaic identity is essentially about hating Christians, as the Talmud makes
clear, and as most anyone who's worked with Jews on Wall Street will attest. Michael Hoffman
proves this in his books on Judaism, pointing out that modern Talmudic Judaism came into
being nearly two centuries after the rise of Christianity and in opposition to it.
" is the Deep State and their globalists' master deliberately trying to force Russia
into a military alliance with China? "
Hard to say what their intentions are. (The old ploy of unity at home by means of an
external enemy ?) Whatever they are -- US foreign policy (FO) re Russia should go down with
Iraq (II) as among the US's greatest FO blunders.
Agreed that it's a mistake, but when they've successfully pulled off the WMD lies, the
9/11 fakery, the destruction of Iraq, Libya etc., control the US media, and can dictate to
Congress, then it's understandable that they get rather arrogant.
They simply want to kick Russia and Putin because he was the one that spoiled their
Yeltsin looting party – and worst of all arrested and imprisoned their top guy
Khodorkovsky. That it drives Germany and the EU towards Russia and strengthens Russian ties
with China is secondary. After all, Hitler (after great military success), likened invading
Russia to kicking down a rotten barn door, and he didn't work out the implications of
declaring war on the US.
@Anonymous I agreed with you, except there is a Deep State and it is not made up of just
Jews. But I do concede that Jews are disproportionately represented, as both sponsors and
minions, for their demographics.
I believe the Deep State consists of the very wealthy who are greedy for more wealth and
power. There are 607 billionaires in the US. There is no reason for the Deep State members to
formally collude they all know what needs to be done and how to do it. They use a relatively
small amount of their money to place their minions in positions of power heads of the movie
industry, the media, the federal government, academia. From then on if the lessers in these
groups want to keep their jobs/lives they will toe the line. It becomes self sustaining from
tax money and the Deep State glories in more wealth and power. Here is an excellent example
of the Deep State in action: The SCOTUS has passed down egregious decisions that abridge the
First Amendment and show contempt for the concept of a representative democracy. Buckley v.
Valeo, 424 U.S. 1976 and exacerbated by continuing stupid SCOTUS decisions First National
Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and McCutcheon v.
Federal Election Commission.
These decisions have codified that money is free speech thereby giving entities of wealth and
power almost total influence in elections. By gaining control of the SCOTUS the Deep State is
able to further their goals.
The Democrats are now slick pretenders of social justice, but not left.
Excellent summary. What goes under "left" moniker (Cultural Marxist, "communists",
socialists etc.) in the West nowadays is not left. Agree. it is just another iteration of
Neo-liberal politics serving as a substitution for dealing with actual problems of Labor.
"Their respective ambitions led the two men[Trump and Putin] – along with Trump's
future son-in-law, Jared Kushner -to build a set of close, over-lapping relationships in a
small world that overlaps on Chabad , an international Hasidic movement most people have
never heard of ."
@gotmituns @ gotmituns <=Why then did you read the article?
At the heart of the impeachment process (Article II, Section 2, paragraph 3 and 4) are two
questions that should interest most folks: @ paragraph 3 lays out a big part of Trump's
defense in my view "Section 3 requires ..that the President shall take Care that the Laws be
faithfully executed, <=execution requires action so which law did the President not
execute faithfully? <= I do not see such a question in the Articles of Impeachment.. @ Sec
II, Art. II, paragraph 4 "The President shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and
Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.. " < the house
found evidence it says, strong enough to indite the president on charges that .. he violated
which of these 4 things?
Some think Trump should have been impeached for failure to deliver his tax Return.. but I
do not see failure to deliver a tax return as failure to execute a law, or as a high crime,
or as treason, or as an act of Bribery, or as a misdemeanor.. so the current impeachment
indictment by the House against Trump reveals that the constitution is inadequate. The
constitution does not express a government that can protect the Americans such a government
governs; from the possibility, or the reality, that a deceitful president will be empowered
to that job?
The best governed Americans can hope for from the USA is that the Congress of the USA
rather than impeaching will decide to amend the constitution, so that the constitution denies
any one that can be shown to be deceitful, to be the President. This one amendment could
eliminate making campaign promises and do just the opposite once in office.
Of course such an amendment would mean few in politics today could be the President.
Most likely no matter the outcome of the impeachment, Trump will probably be reappointed
President by the electoral college.. (recall that persons who animate the functions allowed
to the USA to governed Americans are not elected by those who the USA governs. (Americans c/n
vote for their president or their vice president because President and VP are article II
persons; and article II persons are appointed to office by processes conducted at the state
level, that appoint persons to the electoral college, and it is the electoral college that
elects the President and the Vice President). Who has written a book on the electoral
college? I have requested information from the government on the electoral college activities
since the beginning and to date have received nothing but referrals to others.
@EdNels Left ? Do you believe that the establishment crowd of Democrats (Liberals,) and
the managed news (Liberals,) and others Liberals, neoliberals, neocons, or anything else
comprising the Russiagate hoax can be describes as Leftist?
No. I do not believe that. I agree with you entirely. But common usage has the people you
are talking about as LEFT and I am tired of bitching about it.
@RJJCDA Russia no more "invaded" Ukraine than the United States "invaded" Texas, Ohio or
Florida. Ukraine has been a Russian fiefdom for centuries longer than it has ever been
"independent," and its fate is no more the business of the United States or Western Europe
than the fate of Hong Kong or Syria should be.
Please just let me ask americans some opinions about
if pastor John Hagee and his followers are jews or christians ? , if the thousands of
pastors in the USA like Hagee and their millions of followers are jews or christians ? if the
US puritan founding fathers were jews of christians ? , if the british angloisraelites are
jews or christians ? , if the yankees are jews or christians ? if the wasps are jews or
christians ? if the US " deep state " is jew or chistian ? , if the US masses are jew or
christian ?
. because blaming the jews all the time of every problem and pretending that that the
anglo-yankees are so pure and naive does not seem to be very realistic
@Antiwar7 Americans should have believed into the existence
of thousands Mayan gods when they first saw the smoke billowing out of the sacrificial pit in
front of the menacing idols.
Some things never change. Russiagate is no aberration. Establishment Authority, police state
apparatuses and religious catechisms, are NOT based on reasoning and evidence, but rather
fact-free Narratives handed down from above and grounded by Fear of the Other, the bogeymen
(be it Russians, White Supremacists, Black men, Assad, Trump, the Devil, etc), without which
authority will collapse. As the historian Will Durant noted, Strabo said it best 2000 years
ago:
"For in dealing with a crowd of women a philosopher cannot influence them by reason or
exhort them to reverence, piety or faith; nay, there is need of religious fear also, and this
cannot be aroused without myths and marvels the founders of states gave their sanctions to
these things as bugbears wherewith to scare the simple-minded."
@Anon John Hagee, his followers and other Christian Zionists are morons. Happily, they
are not nearly as common as you imply. Being a Christian Zionist takes a special kind of
stupid
I cannot see Haggee without immediately recalling Christ's warning to beware of obese
wolves in sheep's clothing, who take jiggly church secretaries and XXXL Italian silk suits as
proof of God's blessing.
Cohen is another Jewish voice in the Jewish Mafia War between factions. I don't consider him
that insightful or honest, as he never mentions the glaringly obvious: the attempt to oust
Trump is a Jew Coup.
Start telling the truth about the Hostile Elite destroying America Cohen. Until then you are
just another lying Jew destroying the country that welcomed your ancestors.
When will the Traitors be routed out and hung?
No country can withstand Treason from Within going unpunished for any length of time. We
either destroy these scum or they will destroy America.
I gotta hand it to Larry King, even with one foot in the grave he's still doing these
interviews and with Professor Cohen no less. Kudos to the old coot. (Grin)
Steven Cohen should be a special advisor to the POTUS. It would be a demotion for Cohen but
good for Trump and for America.
At the end of the nineteenth century, Lord Palmerston stated what he thought was obvious,
that "England has no eternal friends, England has no perpetual enemies, England has only
eternal and perpetual interests." Palmerston was saying that national interests should drive
the relationships with foreigners. A nation will have amicable relations most of the time with
some countries and difficult relations with some others, but the bottom line should always be
what is beneficial for one's own country and people.
If Palmerston were alive today and observing the relationship of the United States of
America with the rest of the world, he might well find Washington to be an exception to his
rule. The U.S., to be sure, has been adept at turning adversaries into enemies and
disappointing friends, and it is all done with a glib assurance that doing so will somehow
bring democracy and freedom to all. Indeed, either neoliberal democracy promotion or the
neoconservative version of the same have been seen as an overriding and compelling interest
during the past twenty years even though the policies themselves have been disastrous and have
only damaged the real interests of the American people.
The U.S. relationship with Israel is, for example, driven by a powerful and wealthy domestic
lobby rather than by any common interests at all yet it is regularly falsely touted as being
between two "close allies" and "best friends." It has cost Americans hundreds of billions of
dollars in subsidies for the Jewish state and Israeli influence over U.S. policy in the Middle
East region has led to catastrophic military interventions in Afghanistan, Lebanon, Iraq,
Syria, Mogadishu and Libya. Currently, Israel is agitating for U.S. action against the
nonexistent Iranian "threat" while also unleashing its lobby in the United States to make
illegal criticism of any of its war crimes, effectively curtailing freedom of speech and
association for all Americans.
Far more dangerous is the continued excoriation of the Kremlin over the largely mythical
Russiagate narrative. Congress has
recently approved a bill that would give to Ukraine $300 million in supplementary military
assistance to use against Russia. The money and authorization appear in the House of
Representatives version of the national defense authorization act (NDAA) that passed last
week.
The bill is a renewal of the controversial Ukraine
Security Assistance Initiative that Donald Trump allegedly manipulated to bring about an
investigation of Joe Biden's son Hunter. The new version expands on the former assistance
package to include coastal defense cruise missiles and anti-ship missiles as offensive weapons
that are acceptable for export to Kiev. It also authorizes an additional $50 million in
military assistance on top of the $250 million congress had granted in last year's bill, "of
which $100 million would be available only for lethal assistance."
Ukraine sought the money and arms to counter Russian naval dominance in the Black Sea
through its base at Sevastopol in the Crimea. One year ago the Russian navy
captured three Ukrainian warships and Kiev was unable to push back against Moscow because
it lacked weapons designed to attack ships. Now it will have them and presumably it will use
them. How Russia will react is unknowable.
Dmytro Kuleba, Ukraine's Deputy Prime Minister for European and Euro-Atlantic Integration,
has been in Washington lobbying for the additional military assistance. He has had considerable
success, particularly as there is bipartisan support in Congress for aid to Kiev and also
because the Trump Departments of Defense and State as well as the National Security Council are
all on board in countering the "Russian threat" in the Black Sea. President Trump signed the
NDAA last week, which completed the process.
Far more ominously, Kuleba and his interlocutors in the administration and congress have
been revisiting a proposal first surfaced under Bill Clinton, that Ukraine and Georgia should
be admitted to the NATO alliance. Like the $300 million in military aid, there appears to be
considerable bipartisan support for such a move. NATO already has a major presence on the Black
Sea with Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey all members. Adding Ukraine and Georgia would completely
isolate the Russian presence and Moscow would undoubtedly see it as an existential threat.
The NDAA also provides seed money to initiate the so-called Space Force ,
which President Trump inaugurated by describing it as "the world's newest war-fighting domain.
Amid grave threats to our national security, American superiority in space is absolutely vital.
We're leading, but we're not leading by enough, but very shortly we'll be leading by a lot. The
Space Force will help us deter aggression and control the ultimate high ground."
If that isn't bad enough, the new defense budget ominously also requires the Trump
administration to impose sanctions "with respect to provision of certain vessels for the
construction of certain Russian energy export pipelines." Last week the House of
Representatives and Senate
approved specific sanctions relating to the companies and governments that are
collaborating on the construction of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline that will cross the Baltic Sea
from Vyborg to Greifswald to connect Germany with Russian natural gas. President Trump has
signed off on the legislation.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Please
enter a valid email Thank you for subscribing!Something went wrong. Please refresh
and try again.
The United States has opposed the project ever since it was first mooted, claiming that it
will make Europe "hostage" to Russian energy, will enrich the Russian government, and will also
empower Russian President Vladimir Putin to be more aggressive. Engineering companies that will
be providing services such as pipe-laying will be targeted by Washington as the Trump
administration tries to halt the completion of the $10.5 billion project.
Now that the NDAA has been signed, the Trump administration has 60 days to identify
companies, individuals and even foreign governments that have in some way provided services or
assistance to the pipeline project. Sanctions would block individuals from travel to the United
States and would freeze bank accounts and other tangible property that would be identified by
the U.S. Treasury. One company that will definitely be targeted for sanctions is the
Switzerland-based Allseas, which has been contracted with by Russia's Gazprom to build the
offshore section of pipeline. It has suspended work on the project while it examines the
implications of the sanctions.
Bear in mind that Nord Stream 2 is a peaceful commercial project between two countries that
have friendly relations, making the threats implicit in the U.S. reaction more than somewhat
inappropriate. Increased U.S. sanctions against Russia itself are also believed to be a
possibility and there has even been some suggestion that the German government and its energy
ministry might be sanctioned. This has predictably resulted in pushback from Germany, normally
a country that is inclined to go along with any and all American initiatives. Last week German
Foreign Minister Heiko Maas asked Congress not to meddle in European energy policy, saying "We
think this is unacceptable, because it is ultimately a move to influence autonomous decisions
that are made in Europe. European energy policy is decided in Europe, not in the U.S."
German Bundestag member Andreas Nick warned that "It's an issue of national sovereignty,
and it is potentially a liability for trans-Atlantic relations." That Trump is needlessly
alienating important countries like Germany that are genuine allies, unlike Israel and Saudi
Arabia, over an issue that is not an actual American interest is unfortunate. It makes one
think that the wheels have definitely come off the cart in Washington.
The point is that Donald Trump, Mike Pompeo, Mike Pence and Mike Esper (admittedly too
many Mikes) wouldn't know a national interest if it hit them in the face. Their
politicization of policy to "win in 2020" promoting apocalyptic nonsense like war in space has
also reinforced an existing tunnel vision on what Russia under Vladimir Putin is all about that
is extremely dangerous. Admittedly, Team Trump throws out sanctions in all directions with
reckless abandon, mostly aimed at Russia, Iran, North Korea and, the current favorite,
Venezuela. No one is immune. But the escalation going from sanctions to arming the Kremlin's
enemies is both reckless and pointless. Russia will definitely strike back if it is attacked,
make no mistake about that, and war could easily escalate with tragic consequences for all of
us. That war is perhaps becoming thinkable is in itself deplorable, with Business
Insiderrunning a recent
piece on surviving a nuclear attack. New homes in target America will likely soon come
equipped with bomb shelters, just like in the 1950s. Tags Politics
"... Some, such as General David Petraeus , seem to sincerely believe that the U.S. was on the right track and could have made progress if only those pesky civilians in the Beltway hadn't pulled the rug out from under them by announcing a premature withdrawal. ..."
When Will the Afghan War Architects Be Held Accountable?
Even after the release of the Afghanistan Papers, our elites are still determined to escape
without blame. CERNOBBIO, ITALY - SEPTEMBER 06: Chairman of the KKR Global Institute David
Howell Petraeus attends the Ambrosetti International Economic Forum 2019 "Lo scenario
dell'Economia e della Finanza" on September 6, 2019 in Cernobbio, Italy. (Photo by Pier Marco
Tacca/Getty Images)
Almost two weeks after the Washington Post 's Craig Whitlock published his six-part
series on the trials, tribulations, and blunders of Washington's 19-year-long social science
experiment in Afghanistan, those involved in the war effort are desperately pointing fingers as
to who is to blame. An alternative narrative has emerged among this crop of elite policymakers,
military officers, and advisers that while American policy in Afghanistan has been horrible,
the people responsible for it really did believe it would all work out in the end. Call it the
"we were stupid" defense.
There were no lies or myths propagated by senior U.S. officials, we are told, just honest
assessments that later proved to be wrong. Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution, who
has advised U.S. commanders on Afghanistan war policy, wrote that "no, there has not been a
campaign of disinformation, intentional or subliminal." Former defense secretary Jim Mattis,
who led CENTCOM during part of the war effort, called the Post 's reporting "not really
news" and was mystified that the unpublished interviews from the U.S. special inspector general
were generating such shock. Others have faulted the Post for publishing the material to
begin with, claiming that public disclosure would scare future witnesses from cooperating and
threaten other fact-finding inquiries (the fact that the newspaper was legally permitted to
publish the transcripts after winning a court case against the government is apparently
irrelevant in the minds of those making this argument).
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
All of these claims and counter-claims should be seen for what they truly are: the flailings
of a policymaking class so arrogant and unaccountable that it can't see straight. That they're
blaming the outrage engendered by the Afghanistan Papers on anything other than themselves is
Exhibit A that our narcissistic policy elite is cocooned in their own reality.
Analysts have been pouring over the Afghanistan interview transcripts for over a week in
order to determine how the war went wrong. Some of the main lessons learned have long been
evident. The decision to impose a top-down democratic political order on a country that
operated on a system of patronage and tribal systems from the bottom-up was bound to be
problematic. Throwing tens of billions of dollars of reconstruction assistance into a nation
that had no experience managing that kind of money -- or spending it properly -- helped fuel
the very nationwide corruption Washington would come to regret. Paying off warlords to fight
the Taliban and keep order while pressuring those very same warlords into following the rules
was contradictory. The mistakes go on and on and on: as Lieutenant General Douglas Lute said,
"We didn't have the foggiest notion of what we were undertaking."
One of the most salient findings about this ghastly two-decade-long misadventure surfaced
after the Afghanistan Papers were released: the commentariat will stop at nothing to absolve
themselves of the slightest responsibility for the disaster they supported. The outright
refusal of the pundit class to own up to its errors is as disturbing as it is infuriating. And
even when they do acknowledge that errors were committed, they tend to minimize their own role
in those mistakes, explaining them away as unfortunate consequences of fixed withdrawal
deadlines, inter-agency tussling, Afghanistan's poor foundational state, or the inability of
the Afghans to capitalize on the opportunities Washington provided them. Some,
such as General David Petraeus , seem to sincerely believe that the U.S. was on the right
track and could have made progress if only those pesky civilians in the Beltway hadn't pulled
the rug out from under them by announcing a premature withdrawal.
It's always somebody else's fault.
Whether out of arrogance, ego, or fear of not being taken seriously in Washington's foreign
policy discussions, the architects of the war refuse to admit even the most obvious mistakes.
Instead they duck and weave like a quarterback escaping a full-on defensive rush, attempting
yet again to fool the American public.
But the public has nothing to apologize for. It is those who are making excuses who have
exercised disastrous judgment on Afghanistan. And they owe the country an apology.
Daniel R. DePetris is a columnist for the Washington Examiner and a contributor
to The American Conservative.
French far left leader Jean-Luc Mélenchon responded to Labour's general election
defeat by accusing his country's main Jewish federation Crif of being a group of arrogant
sectarians who send out orders to politicians.
Mr Mélenchon wrote that Britain's Chief Rabbi and "pro-Likud networks" had
orchestrated a campaign against Jeremy Corbyn, adding that "unlike Corbyn", he would never
give in to Jewish groups.
His comments, which were backed by some of MPs in his France Unbowed party, were
criticised by government officials.
"He (Corbyn) faced unsubstantiated, churlish antisemitism claims from England's chief
rabbi and pro-Likud networks," Mr Mélenchon wrote, saying their accusations were one
of the major reasons for Labour's defeat. "Instead of firing back, he spent his time
apologising and making pledges. In both cases, he showed weakness."
He continued by saying "Labour and Corbyn's terrible defeat did not surprise me" and
vowing to adopt an apparently opposite strategy.
"I will never give in. The pension reform, a liberal and German Europe, Green
capitalism, bowing to the arrogant and sectarian dictates of the Crif: No! No means
No!"
What if France is next? That would be the death of the EU right there!
anti-semites who speak of bolshevikism and bolsheviks are cowards who are afraid to tackle
judaism(jewish supremacism) which originates from the old testament, with the talmid as
appendices. why are the afraid to call out the old testament? because they are low IQ cowards
who cannot leave the loathsome religion of the moses and its derivatives. the other reason
they use vocabulary such as bolshevism is because they were brainwashed into mindless cold
war anticommunism or they wish to rid the elites of jewishness, but not of the elitist
supremacy system based on financial hucksterism which is the jewishness of the worldly jew(as
expounded by karl marx) therefore they are not enemies of jewishness but only of jewish
domination of the jewish system, or they are frauds, pied pipers preventing and overthrow of
the jewish system by focusing on race instead of the jewish nature of all elite systems. they
are also ignorant of history. The Catholic church and royalty were the protectors of Jews.
They were the tax farmers of the nobility.
The least Jewish controlled countries today have communist pasts. And the most Jewish
controlled countries are those that were at the forefront of fighting communism. makes you
think doesn't it.
Any system that places labour above capital is inherently anti-Jewish. Capitalism is
Judaism. especially when combined with the ass backwards idea that money is virtue or value
of an individual. the elites believe their ability to jew society out of money is proof that
they should rule and decide for the rest of us.
A good article. Jewish power in UK politics should be openly discussed.
The reason that it isn't, is that it's excessive and undemocratic (same as the US). It's
exercised through private threats/deals with people on power rather than the ballot box.
How many British voters are aware of the pro-Jewish orientation of Johnson, Patel, Javid
and Raab? Or that CFI is Britain's most powerful lobbying group? Or that this lobby
prioritizes the interests of a foreign country (Israel)? From this POV, the British public
could easily be dragged (against their wishes) into a disastrous Iran war.
It is really shameful how the UK has changed. In 1962-68, I went to private schools in
England. Jewish kids were treated abominably. English kids treated them like rubbish. I was
born in Egypt and lived there my first 12 years. I was shocked. I never took part in this
bullying. And no one bullied me because I was not easy for them. They always pick on the
morally weak.
At the first private school I went to, where I spent almost 2 years, there was a boy
called Levi who was bullied mercilessly by an English boy and a Canadian boy. I was younger
than all of them. It was a school for dimwits who needed to catch up so as to enter a "Public
School" or kids like me who had a foreign background. They did not hit or punch Levi or
anything like that. They merely had to threaten and Levi, who was not small, would cringe and
beg them to be merciful to him. It was sickening to watch. On at least one occasion he tried
to divert the attention of his tormentors towards me.
At night, the English boy – his name was Henderson – would tell Levi that he
had a fart and that Levi should come to smell it. We were in a dormitory with maybe 12 kids.
Levi would beg and whine but Henderson would insist. Eventually, Levi would put his face near
the orifice of Henderson and receive his blessing. This sort of thing went on continuously. I
am sure that if they asked him to taste their shit, he would have done so.
The last time we left school, they were all laughing on the bus taking us to the railway
station. Apparently, they tied Levi to the overhead pipes. They trussed him up properly so
that he was aligned with the pipe with his feet not touching the ground. I have no idea when
he was found and how he got home. I guess the cleaners found him or his parents called the
school when he did not arrive at Victoria station.
At the second school, it was much more civilised as there were no dimwits. But there were
plenty of insults thrown at Jewish kids. We had compulsory sport (rugby, cricket and hockey)
4 days of the week and one day when we dressed as soldiers and marched about. There was an
armoury on the school grounds with hundreds of ex-WW2 Lee Enfield rifles and a few bazookas.
I was in "signals" and responsible for a huge ex-WW2 Canadian set C52 wireless transmitter
.
I was the best shot the school had up to that time. I became a member of the "School's
Hundred" at Bisley. The school had been participating since the 1920's. Of course, because of
my Egyptian background, they did not give me a sporting tie or anything of the sort. The
headmaster never mentioned my success and it never entered the school newspaper. But I still
have the badge.
The most noticeable thing about the Jewish kids at this school was the efforts they made
to avoid sports and to avoid military training. The lengths that they would go to –
fake medical symptoms, letters from doctors, maternal phone calls to the headmaster and so
on.
It has come to my notice that the school has joined in the grovelling. How things have
changed in England!
Stowe is delighted to have become a Holocaust Beacon School which is a status given by
University College, London's Centre for Holocaust Education. This exciting backing from UCL
is only awarded to a handful of schools each year and reflects the School's commitment to
developing our pupils' understanding of the Holocaust.
The least Jewish controlled countries today have communist pasts.
In the case of the Soviet Union and the E. European countries, we owe this fact to Stalin
and nothing else. Before he was firmly in control of the USSR, it was almost totally (I know
the term offends you, but it fits) a Jew-Bolshevik enterprise. It was Stalin who
gradually transformed it into something a bit more national-socialism. (See: Francis Parker
Yockey.)
As far as China, Vietnam, etc. are concerned–well, they'd never had any Jews to
begin with. Communism, for them, was just a way to modernize their civilizations without
having to mortgage their countries to Anglo-American (i.e., Jewish) capital. So these
countries were basically NS right from the start.
@Urban Moving breakingisraelnews.com : "New UK Prime Minister descended from Rabbi 'feels
Jewish'" :
"Johnson refers to himself as a 'passionate Zionist' who 'loves the great country of
Israel '"
@Miro23 Jews in the US and UK control the msm, movies, and publishing, completely, and so
the public forum or de facto propaganda machine that forms men's attitudes and
determines the outcomes of elections.
In an angry reply on camera to a question about Jewish power, Richard Perle said Jews
control all but about 5 out of 535 seats in Congress, which was borne out just a few years
ago when every member but one gave Netanyahu 29 standing ovations, on cue from Schumer,
despite Netanyahu's insulting end run around the President of this country -- just in case
the President wondered where Congress' true loyalty laid. As Cynthia McKinney revealed, every
member must sign a written pledge to support Israel before all else and has an AIPAC handler
either on staff or assigned to staff.
And as it's coming out all over now, the Republican Party is as much owned by Jewish
billionaires like Adelson and Singer as the Democratic, who it turns out are all Jews united
in subverting the social fabric of this nation. No wonder, as Kevin MacDonald points out,
Conservatism Inc and the Republican Party have conserved nothing, literally nothing at all,
in over sixty years of cultural warfare!
Gathering up the whole sordid picture in one volume, E Michael Jones's Jewish
Revolutionary Spirit uses the most prominent of Jewish sources, in their own words, in
scrupulous context, to make it clear that the West has no greater enemy than organized Jewry
and never has. The fact that Jews own Parliament and Congress and all the determinants of pop
culture still cannot create the Second Reality, and so nothing but brutal totalitarianism can
achieve their goals. If this is considered an extreme conclusion, maybe the voices of 60+
million Russians and Ukrainians who got in the way of Jewish supremacism during the last
century may serve as a warning.
@Wizard of Oz Gee Wiz -- - over 9,000 comments – most of them defending Jews
– and you are still Not-a-Jew.
Here is the "blinding " truth about the those poor Jews, you endlessly defend.
'Blinding the truth': Israeli snipers target Gaza protesters in the eyes
https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/file/getimagecustom/3862df2f-7729-4f5e-8b5e-068946a695fd/850/479
"Some of these protesters and journalists were hit in the eye with teargas canisters, but
most were targeted directly with what is commonly called a 'rubber bullet,' giving the
impression they are somehow benign," says Ashraf Alqedra, MD, a treating physician at Gaza
City's al-Shifa Hospital and spokesperson for the Ministry of Health.
"But there is still steel at the core, and although these bullets don't usually kill,
they do grave damage. It is impossible
While the state of Arkansas became a hub for CIA activity during the Reagan years and the
Iran-Contra scandal, another state appeared to take its place in the 1990s -- Ohio. Just as
Arkansas oligarch Jackson Stephens helped attract the CIA to his home state during Iran-Contra,
it was also an Ohio oligarch and his close associate that helped attract the CIA to the Buckeye
State. Those men were Leslie Wexner and Jeffrey Epstein, respectively.
In
Part III of this series, MintPress detailed Wexner's alleged ties to organized crime
and his links to the still unsolved homicide of Columbus, Ohio lawyer Arthur Shapiro. Shapiro,
who was representing Wexner's company "The Limited" at the time of his death, was set to
testify before a grand jury about tax evasion and his involvement with "questionable tax
shelters." Columbus police described the Shapiro murder as "a Mafia 'hit'" and a suppressed
police report implicated Wexner and his business associates as being involved in or benefiting
from Shapiro's death, and as having links to prominent New York-based crime syndicates.
However, Wexner and The Limited also appear to have had a relationship with the CIA. In
1995, Southern Air Transport (SAT) -- a well-known front company for the CIA --
relocated from Miami, Florida to Columbus, Ohio. First founded in the late 1940s, SAT from
1960 until 1973 was
directly owned by the CIA, which sought to use the company as a cover for covert
operations. After 1973, the company was placed in private hands, although all of its subsequent
owners would have CIA ties, including James Bastian, a former lawyer for the CIA, who owned SAT
at the time of its relocation to Ohio.
SAT was intimately involved in the Iran-Contra affair, having been used to funnel
weapons and drugs to and from the Nicaraguan Contras under the guise of delivering
"humanitarian aid," while also sending American weapons to Israel that were then sold to Iran
in violation of the U.S. arms embargo. In 1986 alone, SAT
transported from Texas to Israel 90 tons of TOW anti-tank missiles, which were then sold to
Iran by Israel and Mossad-linked intermediaries like Saudi arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi.
Even though the airline's CIA links were well known, Leslie Wexner's company, The Limited,
sought to coax SAT to relocate its headquarters from Miami, Florida to Columbus, Ohio, a move
that was realized in 1995. When Edmund James, president of James and Donohew Development
Services,
told the Columbus Dispatch in March 1995 that SAT was relocating to Columbus'
Rickenbacker airfield, he stated that "Southern Air's new presence at Rickenbacker begins in
April with two regularly scheduled 747 cargo flights a week from Hong Kong," citing SAT
President William Langton. "By fall, that could increase to four a week. Negotiations are
underway for flights out of Rickenbacker to the Far East Much of the Hong Kong-to-Rickenbacker
cargo will be for The Limited," Wexner's clothing company. "This is a big story for central
Ohio. It's huge, actually," James said at the time.
The day following the press conference, Brian Clancy, working as a cargo analyst with
MergeGlobal Inc.,
told the Journal of Commerce that the reason for SAT's relocation to Ohio was
largely the result of the lucrative Hong Kong-to-Columbus route that SAT would run for Wexner's
company. Clancy specifically stated that the fact that "[The] Limited Inc., the nation's
largest retailer, is based in Columbus undoubtedly contributed in large part to Southern Air's
decision."
According to documents obtained by journalist Bob Fitrakis from the
Rickenbacker Port Authority, Ohio's government also tried to sweeten the deal to bring SAT to
Columbus in order to please powerful Ohio businessmen like Wexner. Orchestrated by Governor
George Voinovich's then-Chief of Staff Paul Mifsud, the Rickenbacker Port Authority and the
Ohio Department of Development created a package of several financial incentives, funded by
Ohio taxpayers, to lure the airline to relocate to Ohio. The Journal of Commercedescribed the
"generous package of incentives from the state of Ohio" as "including a 75 percent credit
against its corporate tax liability for the next 10 years, a $5 million low-interest loan, and
a $400,000 job-training grant."In 1996, then-SAT spokesman David Sweet had told Fitrakis that the CIA-linked airline had
only moved to Columbus because "the deal [put together by the development department] was too
good to turn down."
Though SAT had promised Ohio's government that it would create 300 jobs in three years, it
quickly laid off numerous workers and failed to construct the maintenance facility it had
promised, even though it had already accepted $3.5 million in taxpayer funds for that and other
projects. As the company's financial problems mounted, Ohio's government declined to recoup the
millions in dollars it loaned the company, even after it was alleged that $32 million in the
bank account of Mary Bastian, the wife of SAT's owner and former CIA lawyer James Bastian,
were actually company funds . On October 1, 1998, SAT filed for bankruptcy. It was the very
same day that the CIA's Inspector General had published a comprehensive report on the airline's
illicit involvement in drug trafficking.
Furthermore, Fitrakis noted that in addition to Wexner the other main figures who were key in securing
SAT's relocation to Ohio were Alan D. Fiers Jr., a former chief of the CIA Central American
Task Force, and retired Air Force Major General Richard Secord, head of air logistics for SAT's
covert action in Laos between 1966 and 1968, while the company was still known as Air America.
Secord was also the air logistics coordinator in the illegal Contra resupply network for Oliver
North during Iran-Contra. Fiers was one of the key individuals involved in Iran-Contra who was
later pardoned by George H.W. Bush with the assistance of then-Attorney General Bill Barr. Barr
-- currently serving as attorney general in the Trump administration, and top of the chain of
DOJ command in the investigation of Epstein's death in prison -- has refused to recuse himself
from the investigation into Epstein's network and his recent death.
Despite the involvement of these CIA-linked men, as well as the organized crime-linked
Leslie Wexner, the then-president of SAT
told the Columbus Dispatch that the airline was "no longer connected to the
CIA."
Notably, It was during this same time that Epstein exerted substantial control over Wexner's
finances; and, according to Fitrakis and his extensive reporting on Wexner from this period, it
was Epstein who orchestrated logistics for Wexner's business operations, including The Limited.
As was revealed in the Arthur Shapiro murder file and in ties between SAT and The Limited, much
of The Limited's logistics involved figures and companies connected to organized crime and U.S.
intelligence. It is also important to note that SAT was well-known for being a CIA front
company prior to the efforts of Wexner et al. to bring the airline to Columbus, and that, a few
years prior, Epstein himself had previously worked for intelligence-linked figures also
involved in Iran-Contra, such as Adnan Khashoggi.
In addition, during this time period, Epstein had already begun to live in the now infamous
New York penthouse that had first been purchased by Wexner in 1989. Wexner had apparently
installed CCTV and recording equipment in an odd bathroom in the home after his purchase, and
never lived in the home, as was noted in
Part III of this series.
In an exclusive interview, Bob Fitrakis told MintPress that Epstein and Wexner's
involvement with SAT's relocation to Ohio had caused suspicion among some prominent state and
local officials that the two were working with U.S. intelligence. Fitrakis specifically stated
that then-Ohio Inspector General David Strutz and then-Sheriff of Franklin County Earl Smith
had personally told him that they believed that both Epstein and Wexner had ties to the CIA.
These claims further corroborate what was first reported by Nigel Rosser in the Evening
Standard that Epstein had claimed to have worked for the CIA in the past.
Fitrakis also told MintPress that Strutz had referred to SAT's route between Hong
Kong and Columbus on behalf of Wexner's company The Limited as "the Meyer Lansky run," as he
believed that Wexner's association with SAT was related to his ties to elements of organized
crime that were connected to the Lansky-created National Crime Syndicate. In addition,
Catherine Austin Fitts -- the former investment banker and government official, who has
extensively investigated the intersection of organized crime, black markets, Wall Street and
the government in the U.S. economy -- was told by an ex-CIA employee that Wexner was one of
five key managers of organized crime cash flows in the United States.
As this series has noted in previous reports, Meyer Lansky was a pioneer of sexual
blackmail operations and was deeply connected to both U.S. intelligence and Israel's Mossad.
Furthermore, many members of the so-called Mega Group, which Wexner co-founded, had direct ties
to the Lansky crime syndicate.
Another shadowy figure with connections to the Mega Group, Mossad, U.S. intelligence and
organized crime is the "fugitive financier" Marc Rich, whose pardon during the last days of the
Clinton White House is both well-known and still mired in controversy years after the fact.
Marc Rich was a commodities trader and hedge fund manager best known for founding the
commodity trading and mining giant Glencore and for doing business with numerous dictatorships,
often in violation of sanctions. He worked particularly closely with Israel and, according to
Haaretz :
In the years after the 1973 Yom Kippur War and the ensuing global Arab oil embargo, a
period when nobody wanted to sell oil to Israel, for almost 20 years Rich was the main source
of the country's oil and energy needs."
It was that trading on Israel's behalf that would ultimately lead to Rich being charged in
1983 for violating the U.S. oil embargo on Iran by selling Iranian oil to Israel. Rich was also
charged with tax evasion, wire fraud, racketeering and several other crimes.
Haaretz
also noted that Rich's businesses were "a source of funding for secret financial
arrangements" and that "his worldwide offices, according to several reliable sources,
frequently served Mossad agents, with his consent." Rich had more direct ties to the Mossad as
well. For instance, his foundation -- the Rich Foundation -- was run by the former Mossad agent
Avner Azulay. Rich was also friendly with prominent Israel politicians, including former Prime
Ministers Menachem Begin and Ehud Barak, and was
a frequent provider of "services" for Israeli intelligence, services he freely
volunteered.
Marc Rich, right, is pictured with Israel's Shimon Peres in a photo from Mark
Daneil Ammann's "The King of Oil."
According to Rich's biographer, Daniel Ammann, Rich also fed information to U.S.
intelligence but declined to give specifics. "He did not want to tell with whom he cooperated
within the U.S. authorities or which branch of the U.S. government he supplied with
intelligence," Ammann said in an interview with the Daily
Beast .
One clue as to the nature of Rich's relationship to U.S. intelligence is his apparent ties
to BCCI. "The BCCI Affair" report mentions Rich as a person to investigate in relation to the
bank and states :
BCCI lending to Rich in the 1980s amounted to tens of millions of dollars. Moreover,
Rich's commodities firms were used by BCCI in connection with BCCI's involv[ement] in U.S.
guarantee programs through the Department of Agriculture. The nature and extent of Rich's
relationship with BCCI requires further investigation."
Rich was also deeply tied to the Mega Group, as he was one of the main donors to the
Birthright Israel charity along with Mega Group co-founder Charles Bronfman and Mega Group
member Michael Steinhardt. Steinhardt was particularly close to Rich, first meeting the
commodities trader in the 1970s and
then managing $3 million for Rich, Rich's then-wife Denise, and Rich's father-in-law from
the early 1980s to the mid-1990s through his hedge fund. In the late 1990s, Steinhardt would
enlist other Mega Group members, such as Edgar Bronfman, in the effort to settle the criminal
charges against Rich, which eventually came to pass with Clinton's controversial pardon in
2001. Steinhardt claimed to have
come up with the idea of a presidential pardon for Rich in late 2000.
Rich's pardon was controversial for several reasons, and many mainstream outlets asserted
that it "reeked of payoff." As
the New York Post noted in 2016, in the run-up to the presidential pardon the
financier's ex-wife Denise had donated $450,000 to the fledgling Clinton Library and "over $1
million to Democratic campaigns in the Clinton era." In addition, Rich had hired high-powered
lawyers with links to powerful individuals in both the Democratic and Republican parties as
well as the Clinton White House, including Jack Quinn, who has previously served as general
counsel to the Clinton administration and as former chief of staff to Vice President Al
Gore.
However, per
Clinton's own words and other supporting evidence, the main reason behind the Rich pardon
was the heavy lobbying from Israeli intelligence, Israeli politicians and members of the Mega
Group like Steinhardt, with the donations from Denise Rich and Quinn's access to the president
likely sweetening the deal.
Among the most ardent
lobbyists for Rich's pardon were then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, former Prime
Minister Shimon Peres, then-Mayor of Jerusalem Ehud Olmert, then-former Foreign Minister Shlomo
Ben-Ami and former Director of the Mossad Shabtai Shavit. According to Haaretz , Barak was so adamant that Clinton pardon Marc Rich that he was heard
shouting at the president on at least one occasion. Former adviser to Barak, Eldad Yaniv,
claimed that Barak had shouted that the pardon was "important Not only from the financial
aspect, but also because he helped the Mossad in more than one instance."
The Israel lobbying effort had considerable help from Mega Group member Michael Steinhardt
as well as Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which was at the time heavily funded
by Mega Group members, including Ronald Lauder and Edgar Bronfman.
There has been speculation for years that Clinton's decision to pardon Rich may have been
the result of "leverage" or blackmail that Israel had acquired on the then-president's
activities. As was noted in
Part III of this report, the Mossad-linked "Mega" spy scandal broke in 1997, whereby
Israeli intelligence had been targeting Clinton's effort to broker a peace agreement between
Israel and Palestine and had sought to go to "Mega," likely a reference to the Mega Group, to
obtain a sensitive document.
In addition, Israel is known to have acquired phone conversations between Clinton and Monica
Lewinsky before their affair was made public. Author Daniel Halper -- relying on on-the-record
interviews with former officials and hundreds of pages of documents compiled in the event that
Lewinsky took legal action against Clinton -- determined
that Benjamin Netanyahu told Clinton that he had obtained recordings of the sexually-tinged
phone conversations during the Wye Plantation talks between Israel and Palestine in 1998.
Netanyahu attempted to use this information to get Clinton to pardon convicted Israeli spy
Jonathan Pollard. Clinton considered pardoning Pollard but decided against it after CIA
Director George Tenet threatened to resign if the pardon was given.
Investigative journalist and author Gordon Thomas had
made similar claims years prior and asserted that the Mossad had obtained some 30 hours of
phone-sex conversations between Lewinsky and Clinton and used them as leverage. In addition,
a
report in Insight magazine in May 2000 claimed that Israeli intelligence had
"penetrated four White House telephone lines and was able to relay real-time conversations on
those lines from a remote site outside the White House directly to Israel for listening and
recording."
Those phone taps apparently went well beyond the White House, as revealed by a December 2001
investigative report by Carl Cameron for FOX News . According to
Cameron's report :
[Israeli telecommunications company Amdocs] helped Bell Atlantic install new telephone
lines in the White House in 1997 [and] a senior-level employee of Amdocs had a separate T1
data phone line installed from his base outside of St. Louis that was connected directly to
Israel
[I]nvestigators are looking into whether the owner of the T1 line had a 'real time'
capacity to intercept phone calls from both the White House and other government offices
around Washington, and sustained the line for some time, sources said. Sources familiar with
the investigation say FBI agents on the case sought an arrest warrant for the St. Louis
employee but [Clinton] Justice Department officials quashed it."
[Both Amdocs and Verint Inc. (formerly Comverse Infosys)] are based in Israel -- having
arisen to prominence from that country's cornering of the information technology market --
and are heavily funded by the Israeli government, with connections to the Israeli military
and Israeli intelligence
The companies' operations, sources suggest, have been infiltrated by freelance spies
exploiting encrypted trapdoors in Verint/Amdocs technology and gathering data on Americans
for transfer to Israeli intelligence and other willing customers (particularly organized
crime)."
Given the extent of phone tapping of the U.S. government by Israeli intelligence-linked
companies and Netanyahu's previous use of intercepted phone calls to pressure Clinton to pardon
Jonathan Pollard, it is entirely reasonable to speculate that some other trove of intercepted
communications could have been used to push Clinton to pardon Rich in the final hours of his
presidency.
Also notable is the fact that several figures who heavily lobbied Clinton over the Rich
pardon had ties to Epstein, who also had ties to Israeli intelligence and Israeli
intelligence-linked tech companies, as discussed in
Part III of this series. For example, Ehud Barak, a close friend and business associate of
Epstein, and Shimon Peres, who introduced Barak to Epstein, were the major players in convincing Clinton to
pardon Marc Rich.
Furthermore, as will be shown in a subsequent section of this report, Jeffrey Epstein had
developed ties with the Clinton administration beginning in 1993 and those ties expanded,
particularly in 1996, when Epstein's intelligence-linked sexual blackmail operation was
underway. Clinton would later fly on Epstein's infamous private jet, nicknamed the "Lolita
Express," and Epstein would later donate to the Clinton Foundation and claim to have played
a key role in the creation of the Clinton Global Initiative.
In addition to the role of figures close to Epstein in securing Rich's pardon, Epstein
himself appeared to share some level of connection with Rich's former business partners. For
instance, Felix Posen -- who ran Rich's London operations for years and
whom Forbes described as "the architect of Rich's immensely profitable but suddenly
very controversial business with the Soviet Union" -- appears in
Epstein's book of contacts . In addition, Epstein's offshore structured investment vehicle
(SIV), Liquid Funding, has the same attorney and director as several Glencore entities :
Alex Erskine of the law firm
Appleby.
The significance of that connection, however, is unclear, given that Erskine was connected to a total of
274 offshore entities at the time of the "Paradise Papers" leak in 2014. Catherine Austin Fitts
told MintPress that it could suggest that Epstein's Liquid Funding -- 40 percent of
which
had been owned by Bear Stearns , and which may have received
a "secret" bail-out from the Federal Reserve -- is part of the same shadow economy
"syndicate" as Glencore.
This possibility merits further investigation, given that Glencore is partially
owned by British financier Nathaniel Rothschild, whose father, Jacob Rothschild, is on the
board of advisers of Genie Energy, which includes Michael Steinhardt as well as several alleged
associates of Epstein, such as Bill Richardson and Larry Summers. In addition, Nathaniel
Rothschild's cousin by marriage, Lynn Forester de Rothschild, is a long-time associate of
Jeffrey Epstein with considerable ties to the New York City "Roy Cohn machine." Marc Rich had
long-standing ties to the Rothschild family, going back to
the early 1970s when he began commodity trading at Philipp Brothers.
After Epstein's arrests first in 2007 and then again last month, numerous media reports
emerged detailing the links between Epstein and Clinton, with most asserting that they had met
not long after Clinton left office in 2001 and, as recently mentioned, issued the controversial
pardon of Marc Rich.
Those reports claimed that the Epstein-Clinton relationship had been facilitated by
Epstein's long-time girlfriend and alleged madam Ghislaine Maxwell. However, documents obtained
from the Clinton presidential library have revealed that the ties between Epstein and Clinton
date back years earlier and were facilitated by powerful individuals who have largely evaded
scrutiny in connection with the Epstein case.
One major player who has been largely overlooked in bringing Epstein and the Clintons
together is Lynn Forester de Rothschild. Notably, Forester de Rothschild has long been
connected to neoconservative Reagan era officials -- the Lewis Rosenstiel/Roy Cohn network
described in Parts 1 and 2 of this series, as well as the Mega Group, which was detailed in
Part 3 of this series.
Lynn Forester de Rothschild became involved in the world of Democratic Party politics in the
late 1970s when she
worked on the 1976 campaign of hawkish Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) alongside
now-notorious neoconservatives like
Elliott Abrams , who would go on to play an important role in the Iran-Contra affair during
the Reagan era and later serve in the State Department under Trump. She was also introduced to
her second husband, Evelyn de Rothschild, by Henry Kissinger at a Bilderberg conference.
Several of the individuals connected to the Mega Group and the Mossad-linked media mogul Robert
Maxwell -- including Mark Palmer, Max Fisher and John Lehman -- were one-time aides or advisers
to Henry Kissinger.
Before marrying into the Rothschild family in 2000, Lynn
had previously been married to Andrew Stein, a major figure in New York Democratic
politics, with whom she had two sons. Andrew's brother, James Finkelstein, married Cathy Frank,
the granddaughter of Lewis Rosenstiel, the mob-linked businessman who ran a sexual blackmail
operation exploiting underage boys, as was discussed in Part 1 of this series. Rosenstiel's
protege Roy Cohn
was the lawyer for Cathy Frank and James Finkelstein and it was at their behest that Cohn
attempted to trick a nearly comatose Rosenstiel to into naming Cohn, Frank and Finkelstein the
executors and trustees of his estate, valued at $75 million (more than $334 million in today's
dollars).
According to the
New Yorker , Lynn Forester de Rothschild requested "financial help" from none other
than Jeffrey Epstein in 1993 during her divorce from Andrew Stein.
As far as Forester de Rothschild's ties to the Mega Group go, she is currently on the
board of directors of Estee Lauder companies, which was founded and is still owned by the
family of Ronald Lauder -- a member of the Mega Group, a former Reagan official, a family
friend of Roy Cohn, and the alleged source of Jeffrey Epstein's now-infamous Austrian passport.
In addition, Forester de Rothschild also partnered with Matthew
Bronfman -- son of Mega Group member Edgar Bronfman and grandson of Samuel Bronfman, who had
close ties to Meyer Lansky -- in creating the investment advisory firm Bronfman E.L. Rothschild
LP.
It is unclear when Lynn Forester de Rothschild first met Jeffrey Epstein, but she was one of
his leading advocates and had the ear of then-President Bill Clinton in the early 1990s,
speaking to Clinton specifically about Epstein during her "fifteen seconds of access" with the
president and also introducing Epstein to lawyer Alan Dershowitz in 1996.
Living History by
Hilary Clinton Book Party Hosted Lynn Forester and Evelyn De Rothschild pose with Bill and
Hilary Clinton at the Kensington Palace in London. Photo | Alan Davidson
Forester de Rothschild is a long-time associate of the Clintons and has been a major donor
to both Bill and Hillary Clinton since 1992. Their ties were so close that Forester de
Rothschild spent the first night of her honeymoon at the Lincoln Bedroom in the White House
while Clinton was president. Furthermore, a leaked email between Forester de Rothschild and
Hillary Clinton saw Clinton
request "penance" from Forester de Rothschild for asking Tony Blair to accompany Clinton on
official business while she was secretary of state, preventing Blair from making a planned
social visit to Forester de Rothschild's home in Aspen, Colorado. Humbly requesting forgiveness
is not something Hillary Clinton is known for, given that her former bodyguard once said she
could "make Richard Nixon look like Mahatma Gandhi."
In 1995, Forester de Rothschild, then a member of Clinton's National Information
Infrastructure Advisory Council, wrote the following to then-President Clinton:
Dear Mr. President: It was a pleasure to see you recently at Senator Kennedy's house.
There was too much to discuss and too little time. Using my fifteen seconds of access to
discuss Jeffrey Epstein and currency stabilization, I neglected to talk to you about a topic
near and dear to my heart. Namely, affirmative action and the future."
Forester de Rothschild then states that she had been asked to prepare a memo on behalf of
George Stephanopoulos, former Clinton communications director and currently a broadcast
journalist with ABC News . Stephanopoulos attended a
dinner party hosted by Epstein at his now infamous Manhattan townhouse in 2010 after
Epstein's release from prison for soliciting sex from a minor.
While it is unknown what Forester de Rothschild discussed with Clinton regarding Epstein and
currency stabilization, a potential lead may lie in the links of both Forester de Rothschild
and Epstein to Deutsche Bank. Journalist Vicky Ward reported in 2003 that
Epstein boasted of "skill at playing the currency markets 'with very large sums of money'" and
he appears to have done much of this through his long-standing relationship with Deutsche
Bank.
[Epstein] appears to have been doing business and trading currencies through Deutsche Bank
until just a few months ago, according to two people familiar with his business activities.
But as the possibility of federal charges loomed, the bank ended its client relationship with
Mr. Epstein. It is not clear what the value of those accounts was at the time they were
closed."
In the case of Forester de Rothschild, she served as an advisor
to the Deutsche Bank Microfinance Consortium for several years and is currently a board member
of the Alfred Herrhausen Society of International Dialogue of Deutsche Bank.
The same year that Forester de Rothschild made the above-noted comments to Bill Clinton
about Jeffrey Epstein, Epstein attended
another Clinton fundraiser , hosted by Ron Perelman at his personal home, that was very
exclusive, as the guest list included only 14 people.
Even before Forester de Rothschild's 1995 meeting with Clinton, Epstein was already an
established Clinton donor. Records obtained
by the Daily Beast revealed that Epstein had donated $10,000 to the White House
Historical Association and attended a Clinton donor reception alongside Ghislaine Maxwell as
early as 1993.
The Daily Beast suggests that Bill Clinton's long-time friend from his college days,
A. Paul Prosperi, was the facilitator of that early relationship, as Prosperi had a
decades-long relationship with Epstein and even visited Epstein at least 20 times while he was
in jail in 2008. Prosperi was intimately involved with the 1993 fundraiser for the White House
Historical Association noted above.
The relationship between Epstein and Clinton would continue well after Clinton left office
in 2001, a fact well-documented by Bill Clinton's now-infamous flights on Epstein's (recently
sold) private jet -- often referred to as the "Lolita Express." Clinton flew on the Lolita
Express no less than
26 times in the early 2000s according to flight logs. On some of those flights, Clinton was
accompanied by his Secret Service detail but he was unaccompanied on other flights.
Arguably the most infamous flight taken by Clinton on Epstein's jet was
a lengthy trip to Africa, where actor Kevin Spacey, who has also been accused of
raping minors ; Ghislaine Maxwell; and Ron Burkle, a billionaire friend of Clinton's who
has
been accused of soliciting the services of "super-high-end call girls," were also present.
Clinton specifically requested that Epstein make his jet available for the trip well in
advance, with Doug Band as the intermediary. President Donald Trump, also a friend of Epstein,
is said to have flown on the plane but appears
only once on flight logs.
In addition to flights, an Epstein-run foundation
gave $25,000 to the Clinton Foundation according to the 2006 filing tax return of Epstein's
former charity, the C.O.U.Q. Foundation. Notably, Epstein's lawyers, Alan Dershowitz among
them,
claimed in 2007 that Epstein had been "part of the original group that conceived the
Clinton Global Initiative, which is described as a project 'bringing together a community of
global leaders to devise and implement innovative solutions to some of the world's most
pressing challenges.'"
Before the associations between Epstein and the Clinton White House in the early 1990s were
made public, Ghislaine Maxwell was thought to
have been the bridge between Epstein and the Clinton family because of her close
relationship to the family. However, the close relationship between Maxwell and the Clintons
appears to have developed in the 2000s, with Politico
reporting that it began after Bill Clinton left office. Clinton associate Doug Band was
also reportedly friendly to Maxwell, appearing at an exclusive dinner party she hosted at her
residence in New York in 2005. Maxwell later became particularly close to Chelsea Clinton,
vacationing with Chelsea in 2009 and attending her wedding a year later. Maxwell was also
associated with the Clinton Global Initiative at least up until 2013.
Other close Clinton associates and officials in the early 1990s also had notable
relationships with Jeffrey Epstein, including Mark Middleton, who was a special assistant to
Clinton Chief of Staff Mack McClarty beginning in 1993, and met with Epstein on
at least three occasions in the White House during the early Clinton years. In addition,
White House social secretary under Clinton, Ann Stock,
appears in Epstein's "little black book" as does Doug
Band , once referred to by New
York Magazine as "Bill Clinton's bag carrier, body man, fixer, and all-purpose
gatekeeper." Band also appears several times in the flight logs of Epstein's private jet.
Epstein was also
associated with both Bill Richardson, former ambassador to the UN and former secretary of
energy under Clinton, and Larry Summers, secretary of the treasury under Clinton. Both
Richardson and Summers sit on the advisory board of controversial energy company Genie Energy,
alongside CIA director under Clinton, James Woolsey; Roy Cohn associate and media mogul, Rupert
Murdoch; Mega Group member Michael Steinhardt; and Lord Jacob Rothschild. Genie Energy is
controversial primarily for its exclusive rights to drill in the Israeli-occupied Golan
Heights. Bill Richardson also has ties to Lynn Forester de Rothschild as she was on the
Secretary of Energy's Advisory Board while
Richardson was secretary of energy.
Bill Richardson appears to be among the Clinton era officials closest to Jeffrey Epstein,
having
personally visited Epstein's New Mexico ranch and been the recipient of Epstein donations
of $50,000 to his 2002 and 2006 gubernatorial campaigns. Richardson gave Epstein's donation in
2006 to charity after allegations against Epstein were made public. Richardson was also accused
in recently released court documents of engaging in sex with Epstein's underage victims, an
allegation that he has denied.
In 1990, Danny Casolaro began his fateful one-year investigation of "the Octopus," an
investigation that played no small role in his untimely death. Shortly after he was found
lifeless in a hotel bathtub, Casolaro's friend Lynn Knowles was threatened and told the following : "What
Danny Casolaro was investigating is a business Anyone who asks too many questions will end up
dead."
Nearly thirty years later, that same "Octopus" and its "business" remains with us and has
become ever more wrapped around the levers of power -- particularly in the worlds of
government, finance and intelligence.
This MintPress investigative series has endeavored to show the nature of this network
and how the world of "the Octopus" is the same world in which Jeffrey Epstein and his
predecessors -- Craig Spence, Edwin Wilson and Roy Cohn among them -- operated and profited. It
is a world where all that matters is the constant drive to accumulate ever more wealth and ever
more power and to keep the racket going at all costs.
While this network has long been able to ensure its success through the use of sexual
blackmail, often acquired by the unconscionable exploitation of children, it has also been a
driving force behind many other ills that plague our world and it goes far beyond human and
child trafficking. Indeed, many of the figures in this same sordid web have played a major role
in the illicit drug and weapons trades, the expansion of for-profit prisons, and the endless
wars that have claimed an untold number of lives across the world, all the while enriching many
of these same individuals.
Earlier this week, the Observer reported on a spat that had broken out between a
division of the giant Samsung empire and the American hedge fund Elliott Management. The
most newsworthy feature of the dispute involved a series of articles on Korean business
sites that pointedly criticized Elliott's CEO Paul Singer and directly attacked him for
being Jewish, noting that "Jewish money has long been known to be ruthless and merciless"
and claiming "It is a well-known fact that the US government is swayed by Jewish
capital."
"Do the Jews Really Control America?" asked one Chinese newsweekly headline in 2009. The
factoids doled out in such articles and in books about Jews in China -- for example: "The
world's wealth is in Americans' pockets; Americans are in Jews' pockets" -- would rightly
be seen to be alarming in other contexts. But in China, where Jews are widely perceived as
clever and accomplished, they are meant as compliments. Scan the shelves in any bookstore
in China and you are likely to find best-selling self-help books based on Jewish knowledge.
Most focus on how to make cash. Titles range from 101 Money Earning Secrets From Jews'
Notebooks to Learn To Make Money With the Jews.
It turns out that the US military hires more shills and clowns and runs more "news"
worldwide than all the real news agencies, combined.
For Soetoro to turn this $hit loose on us exposes his truly sinister intent. Here you all
are, thinking the bull$hit on TV is remotely relevant other than exposing the gangsters who
direct it and rob us to pay for it against our will.
All these High Crimes on Pelosi and Schumer's watch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Information_Awareness
was shut down in 2003 by Congress after dinosaur exposed mass surveillance abuses
establishing "Total Information Awareness" over all US citizens. The program was continued in
overt defiance of Congress through Trillions in black funding.
Or you could just point to the massive expansion of debt and reduction of freedoms signed
by Trump last night while the whole government was telling you "nothing up my sleeve!"
"... oligarchic greed; a military dedicated to protecting the wealth of oligarchs; and, wars over resources. Granted Bill Clinton began the current charade about 'humanitarian wars' but it was Bush II and Obama who turned our focus into resource wars and the hegemons (Malignant Overlords) who decided it was time to take it all. ..."
Long ago (1968) after returning from Vietnam with a bullet hole in my leg (my 90 wonder, post-ROTC officer shot me when he
panicked) I wondered off to a down-at-the-heel cow college. There I took a class and C Wright Mills 'The Power Elite' was required
reading.
I had just finished 'War is a fraud' and read an article by Paul Ehrlich an then 'The Population Bomb' shortly thereafter.
The three books created an interesting fusion in my mind:
More or less after the year 2000 the world would be plagued by resource wars;
The primary role of the military is to enforce what capitalists want; and
Behind the alleged scenes of our form of government hovered oligarchs who would demand more and more.
I recently found a paper I had written long ago. It wasn't very well written, but even then the handwriting was on the wall:
oligarchic greed; a military dedicated to protecting the wealth of oligarchs; and, wars over resources. Granted Bill Clinton
began the current charade about 'humanitarian wars' but it was Bush II and Obama who turned our focus into resource wars and the
hegemons (Malignant Overlords) who decided it was time to take it all.
I guess the point of all of this is (except for the details) Ehrlich, Mills and Butler warned us. As did Huxley and Orwell
... we were just too damned dumb (or distracted) to see it.
Maybe with the Queen of Chaos, the above will result in either annihilation or in a severe reduction in the numbers of people
... (hopefully including all of the oligarchic class) and the chance to start over?
Nah ... we'll just fuck it up again ... as a species we refuse to learn. Sigh ...
"... Every US military action and ultimatum to a foreign state has been aggressively pushed by the losing Democrats and particularly 'liberal' mainstream media, any dissent met with smears, censorship or worse. I would argue that today similarities with events leading up to previous global conflicts are too striking and numerous to ignore. ..."
"... Israel and its US relationship – I think Syria is where global conflict is still likely to start. As Syria has been winning, the involvement of Turkey and Saudi Arabia appears to receding. More recently Israel have taken their place and is relentless and unyielding and has its own wider, destructive plans for the Middle East. Israeli influence in the US is now so great that the US has more or less ceded its foreign policy in the Middle East to Israel. In 1914 Austro-Hungary pursued a series of impossible demands against Serbia managing to drag its close and more powerful ally Germany (led by someone equally as obstinate and militaristic as the US leadership) into World War I. Incidentally, some readers may have noticed the similarity between the 1914 diktats and modern-day US bullying towards Venezuala and other states – and perhaps most striking, by Saudi Arabia in its dispute with Qatar not long ago ..."
"... Ideology, paranoia and unstable leaders – history tells us that ideology, paranoia and power are not a good mix and this is in abundance in western elites and media. These establishments are rabidly hostile to Iran and Russia. ..."
"... Media deception and propaganda – The media have been responsible for getting us to where we are today. Without them, the public would have woken up long ago. Much of the deception has been about the presentation of the narrative and the leaders. And it's been a campaign of distraction on our news where the daily genocide in Yemen gives way to sensationalised non-events and celebrity trivia. ..."
"... Appeasement – because of its relative weakness and not wanting a war, Russia has to some extent appeased Western and Israeli aggression in Syria and beyond. To be fair, given the aggression it faces I don't think Russia has had much choice than playing for time. However at some point soon, with the West pushing more and more, something will have to give. Likewise, in the 1930s a militarily unprepared UK and France appeased Germany's expansion. The more they backed off the more Germany pushed until war was the only way. ..."
"... False flags – for those watching events in Syria know that the majority of the 'chemical attacks' have been carried out by Western supported opposition. The timing and nature of these suggest co-ordination at the highest levels. Intelligence Services of the UK and other agencies are believed to co-ordinate these fabrications to provoke a western response aimed at the Syrian Army. On more than one occasion these incidents have nearly escalated to a direct conflict with Russia showing the dangerous game being played by those involved and those pushing the false narrative in the media ..."
As a history student years ago I remember our teacher explaining how past events are linked to what happens in the future. He
told us human behaviour always dictates that events will repeat in a similar way as before. I remember we studied 20th century history
and discussed World War I and the links to World War II. At this time, we were in the middle of the Cold War and in unchartered waters
and I couldn't really link past events to what was likely to happen next. Back then I guess like many I considered US presidents
more as statesman. They talked tough on the Soviet Union but they talked peace too. So, the threat to humanity was very different
then to now. Dangerous but perhaps a stable kind of dangerous. After the break up of the Soviet Union we then went through a phase
of disorderly change in the world. In the early 1990s the war in the Former Yugoslavia erupted and spread from republic to republic.
Up until the mid-to-late nineties I didn't necessarily sense that NATO and the West were the new threat to humanity. While there
was a clear bias to events in Yugoslavia there was still some even-handedness or fairness. Or so I thought. This all changed in 1999
with the war in Kosovo. For the first time I witnessed shocking images of civilian targets being bombed, TV stations, trains, bridges
and so on. But my wake-up call was the daily NATO briefings on the war. The NATO spokesman boasted of hundreds of Serbian tanks being
destroyed. There was something new and disturbing about his manner, language and tone, something I'd not encountered from coverage
of previous conflicts. For the first time I found myself not believing one word of the narrative.
When the peace agreement was reached, out of 300 Serbian tanks which had entered Kosovo at the start of the conflict, over 285
were counted going back into Serbia proper which was
confirmation he had been
lying .
From this conflict onwards I started to see clear parallels with events of the past and some striking similarities with the lead
up to previous world wars. This all hit home when observing events in Syria and more recently Venezuala. But looking around seeing
people absorbed in their phones you wouldn't think the world is on the brink of war. For most of us with little time to watch world
events there are distractions which have obscured the picture historians and geopolitical experts see more clearly.
Recent and current
western leaders haven't been short people in military uniform shouting. That would be far too obvious. It's still military conflict
and mass murder but in smart suits with liberal sound-bites and high-fives. Then the uncool, uncouth conservative Trump came along
and muddied the waters.
Briefly it seemed there might be hope that these wars would stop. But there can be little doubt he's been
put under pressure to comply with the regime change culture embedded in the Deep State. Today, through their incendiary language
we see US leaders morphing into the open style dictators of the past. The only thing missing are the military uniforms and hats.
Every US military action and ultimatum to a foreign state has been aggressively pushed by the losing Democrats and particularly 'liberal'
mainstream media, any dissent met with smears, censorship or worse. I would argue that today similarities with events leading up
to previous global conflicts are too striking and numerous to ignore.
Let's look at some of these:
1) Military build up, alliances and proxy wars – for all the chaos and mass murder pursued by the Obama Administration he did
achieve limited successes in signing agreements with Iran and Cuba. But rather than reverse the endless wars as promised Trump cancels
the agreements leaving the grand sum of zilch foreign policy achievements. NATO has been around for 70 years, but in the last 20
or so has become obsessed with military build up. Nowadays it has hundreds of bases around the world but keeps destablising non-aligned
states, partly to isolate Russia and China. And Syria sums up the dangers of the regime change model used today. With over a dozen
states involved in the proxy war there is a still high risk of conflict breaking out between US and Russia. The motives for military
build up are many. First there are powerful people in the arms industry and media who benefit financially from perpetual war. The
US while powerful in military terms are a declining power which will continue, new powers emerging. The only return on their money
they can see is through military build up. Also there are many in government, intelligence services and media who can see that if
the current order continues to crumble they are likely to be prosecuted for various crimes. All this explains the threatening language
and the doubling-down on those who challenge them. In 1914, Europe had two backward thinking military alliance blocks and Sarajevo
showed how one event could trigger an unstoppable escalation dragging in many states. And empires such as Austro-Hungary were crumbling
from within as they are now. So a similar mentality prevails today where the powerful in these empires under threat favour conflict
to peace. For these individuals it's a last throw of the dice and a gamble with all our lives.
2) Israel and its US relationship – I think Syria is where global conflict is still likely to start. As Syria has been winning,
the involvement of Turkey and Saudi Arabia appears to receding. More recently Israel have taken their place and is relentless and
unyielding and has its own wider, destructive plans for the Middle East. Israeli influence in the US is now so great that the US
has more or less ceded its foreign policy in the Middle East to Israel. In 1914 Austro-Hungary pursued a
series of impossible
demands against Serbia managing to drag its close and more powerful ally Germany (led by someone equally as obstinate and militaristic
as the US leadership) into World War I. Incidentally, some readers may have noticed the similarity between the 1914 diktats and modern-day
US bullying towards Venezuala and other states – and perhaps most striking, by Saudi Arabia in its dispute with
Qatar not long ago.
3) Ideology, paranoia and unstable leaders – history tells us that ideology, paranoia and power are not a good mix and this is
in abundance in western elites and media. These establishments are rabidly hostile to Iran and Russia. In addition we face a situation
of highly unpredictable, ideological regional leaders in Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Israel. Most worrying of all, the language, threats
and actions of Trump, Pompeo and Bolton suggests there are psychopathic tendencies in play. Behind this is a Deep State and Democrat
Party pushing even harder for conflict. The level of paranoia is discouraging any notion of peace. 30 years ago Russia and US would
sit down at a summit and reach a consensus. Today a US leader or diplomat seen talking to a Russian official is accused of collusion.
When there are limited channels to talk in a crisis, you know we are in trouble. In Germany in the 1930s, ideology, propaganda and
creating enemies were key in getting the population on side for war. The leaders within the Nazi clique, Hitler, Goring and Himmler
look disturbingly similar to the Trump, Pompeo, Bolton line up.
4) Media deception and propaganda – The media have been responsible for getting us to where we are today. Without them, the public
would have woken up long ago. Much of the deception has been about the presentation of the narrative and the leaders. And it's been
a campaign of distraction on our news where the daily genocide in Yemen gives way to sensationalised non-events and celebrity trivia.
The terms and words; regime change, mass murder and terrorist have all been substituted by the media with 'humanitarian intervention',
'limited airstrikes' and 'moderate rebels' to fool a distracted public that the victims of the aggression are the bad guys. Western
funded 'fact checking' sites such as Bellingcat have appeared pushing the misdirections to a surreal new level. Obama was portayed
in the media as a cool guy and a little 'soft' on foreign policy. This despite the carnage in Libya, Syria and his drones. Sentiments
of equal rights and diversity fill the home affairs sections in the liberal press, while callous indifference and ethno-centrism
towards the Middle East and Russia dominate foreign affairs pages. In the press generally, BREXIT, non-existent anti-Semitism and
nonsense about the 'ISIS bride' continues unabated. This media circus seeks to distract from important matters, using these topics
to create pointless divisions, causing hostility towards Muslims and Jews in the process. The majority of a distracted public have
still not twigged largely because the propaganda is more subtle nowadays and presented under a false humanitarian cloak. A small
but vocal group of experts and journalists challenging these narratives are regularly smeared as
Putin
or Assad "apologists" . UK journalists are regularly caught out lying and some long standing hoaxes such as Russiagate exposed.
Following this and Iraq WMDs more people are starting to see a pattern here. Yet each time the media in the belief they've bamboozled
enough move on to the next big lie. This a sign of a controlled media which has reached the point of being unaccountable and untouchable,
deeply embedded within the establishment apparatus. In the lead up to World War II the Nazis ran an effective media propaganda campaign
which indoctrinated the population. The media in Germany also reached the point their blindingly obvious lies were rarely questioned.
The classic tactic was to blame others for the problems in Germany and the world and project their crimes on to their victims. There
are some differences as things have evolved. The Nazis created the media and state apparatus to pursue war. Nowadays this is the
opposite way around. Instead the state apparatus is already in place so whoever is leader whether they describe themself as liberal
or conservative, is merely a figurehead required to continue the same pro-war policies. Put a fresh-looking president in a shiny
suit and intoduce him to the Queen and you wouldn't think he's the biggest mass murderer since Hitler. Although there are some differences
in the propaganda techniques, all the signs are that today's media are on a similar war-footing as Germany's was just prior to the
outbreak of World War II.
5) Appeasement – because of its relative weakness and not wanting a war, Russia has to some extent appeased Western and Israeli
aggression in Syria and beyond. To be fair, given the aggression it faces I don't think Russia has had much choice than playing for
time. However at some point soon, with the West pushing more and more, something will have to give. Likewise, in the 1930s a militarily
unprepared UK and France appeased Germany's expansion. The more they backed off the more Germany pushed until war was the only way.
6) False flags – for those watching events in Syria know that the majority of the 'chemical attacks' have been carried out by
Western supported opposition. The timing and nature of these suggest co-ordination at the highest levels. Intelligence Services of
the UK and other agencies are believed to co-ordinate these fabrications to provoke a western response aimed at the Syrian Army.
On more than one occasion these incidents have nearly escalated to a direct conflict with Russia showing the dangerous game being
played by those involved and those pushing the false narrative in the media. The next flashpoint in Syria is Idlib, where it's highly
likely a new chemical fabrication will be attempted this Spring. In the 1930s the Nazis were believed to use false flags with increasing
frequency to discredit and close down internal opposition. Summary – We now live in a society where exposing warmongering is a more
serious crime than committing it. Prisons hold many people who have bravely exposed war crimes – yet most criminals continue to walk
free and hold positions of power. And when the media is pushing for Julian Assange to be extradicted you know this is beyond simple
envy of a man who has almost single-handedly done the job they've collectively failed to do. They are equally complicit in warmongering
hence why they see Assange and others as a threat. For those not fooled by the smart suits, liberal platitudes and media distraction
techniques, the parallels with Germany in the 1930s in particular are now fairly obvious. The blundering military alliances of 1914
and the pure evil of 1939 – with the ignorance, indifference and narcissism described above make for a destructive mix. Unless something
changes soon our days on this planet are likely be numbered. Depressing but one encouraging thing is that the indisputable truth
is now in plain sight for anyone with internet access to see and false narratives have collapsed before. It's still conceivable that
something may create a whole chain of events which sweep these dangerous parasites from power. So anything can happen. In the meantime
we should keep positive and continue to spread the message.
Kevin Smith is a British citizen living and working in London. He researches and writes down his thoughts on the foreign wars
promoted by Western governments and media. In the highly controlled and dumbed down UK media environment, he's keen on exploring
ways of discouraging ideology and tribalism in favour of free thinking.
2- 'Israel and its US relationship'. The 'hands off' policy of the Western powers, guarantees that Syria cannot even be a trigger
to any 'global conflict', supposing that a 'global conflict' was on the cards, especially when Russia is just a crumbling shadow
of the USSR and China a giant with feet of clay, heavily dependent on Western oligarchic goodwill, to maintain its economy and
its technological progress.
In 1914, the Serbian crisis was just trigger of WWI and not a true cause. It is not even clear if it was Germany that dragged
Austria-Hungary into the war or Russia. Although there was a possibility (only a possibility), that a swift and 'illegal' attack
by Austria-Hungary (without an ultimatum), would have localised and contained the conflict.
There is no similarity whatsoever between the 1914 'diktats' and modern US policy, as the US is the sole Superpower and its
acts are not opposed by a balancing and corresponding alliance. Save in the Chinese colony of North Korea, where the US is restrained
by a tacit alliance of the North Eastern Asiatic powers: China, Russia, Japan and South Korea, that oppose any military action
and so promote and protect North Korean bullying. Qatar, on the other hand, is one of the most radical supporters of the Syrian
opposition and terrorist groups around the muslim world, even more than Saudi Arabia and there are powerful reasons for the confrontation
of the Gulf rivals.
You should go back in Time and STUDY what really happened .. that means going back to the Creation of the socalled British Empire
..the Bank of England , the British East Indian Company , the Opium Wars and the Opium Trafficing , the Boer Wars for Gold and
Diamonds , the US Civil War and its aftermath , the manipulations of Gold and Silver by socalled british Financial Interests ,
The US Spanish Wars , the Japanese Russian War , the failed Coup against Czar Russia 1905 , the Young Turk Coup against the Ottoman
Empire 1908, the Armenian Genocide , the Creation of the Federal Reserve 1913 , the Multitude of Assinations and other Terror
Attacks in the period from 1900 and upwards , WHO were the perpetraders ? , , WW 1 and its originators , the Bolshevik Coup 1917
, the Treaty of Versailles and the Actors in that Treaty ,the Plunder of Germany , the dissolution of Austria Hungary , the Bolshevik
Coup attempts all over Europe , and then the run up to WW 2 , the Actions of Poland agianst Germans and Czechs .. Hitler , Musolini
and finally WW 2 .the post war period , the Nuernberg Trials , the Holocaust Mythology , the Creation of Israel , Gladio , the
Fall of the Sovjet Empire and the Warshav Pact , the Wars in the Middle East , the endless Terror Actions , the murder of Kennedy
and a mass of False Flag Terrorist Attacks since then , the destruction of the Balkans and the Middle east THERE IS PLENTY of
EXCELLENT LITERATURE and ANALYSIS on all subjects .
It was your Obama that 'persecuted' Mr Assange !!!
Syria demonstrates that there has NOT been a Western strategy for regime change (specially after the 'defeats' in Iraq and
Afghanistan), let alone a proxy war, but, on the contrary, an effort to keep the tyranny of Assad in power, in a weaker state,
to avoid any strong, 'revolutionary' rival near Israel. Russia has been given a free hand in Syria, otherwise, if the West had
properly armed the resistance groups, it would have been a catastrophe for the Russian forces, like it was in Afghanistan during
the Soviet intervention.
Trump's policy of 'equal' (proportional) contributions for all members of NATO and other allies, gives the lie to the US military
return 'argument' and should be understood as part of his war on unfair competition by other powers.
The 'military' and diplomatic alliances of 1914 were FORWARD thinking, so much so that they 'repeated' themselves during WWII,
with slight changes. But it is very doubtful that the Empires, like the Austro-Hungarian o the Russian ones, would have 'crumbled'
without the outbreak of WWI. They were never under threat, as their military power during the war showed. Only a World War of
cataclysmic character could destroy them. A war, triggered, but not created, by the 'conflict seeking mentality' of the powerful
in the small countries of the Balkans.
Generally attributed to Senator Hiram Warren Johnson in 1918 that 'when war comes the first casualty is truth' is as much a truism
now as it was then.
I'm more inclined to support hauptmanngurski's proposition that the members of the armed forces, from both sides, who return
from conflicts with life-changing injuries or even in flag-draped caskets defended only the freedom of multinational enterprises
and conglomerates to make and continue to make vast profits for the privileged few at the population's expense.
As Kevin Smith makes abundantly clear we are all subject to the downright lies and truth-stretching from our government aided
and abetted by a compliant main stream media as exemplified in the Skripal poisoning affair, which goes far beyond the counting
of Serbian tanks supposedly destroyed during the Balkans conflict. The Skripals' are now God knows where either as willing participants
or as detainees and our government shows no signs of clarifying the matter, so who would believe what it put out anyway in view
of its track record of misinformation ? The nation doesn't know what to believe.
Sadly, I believe this has always been the way of things and I cannot even speculate on how long it will be before this nation
will realise it is being deliberately mis-led.
In any case withdrawal from Syria was a surprising and bold move on the Part of the Trump. You can criticizes Trump for not doing
more but before that he bahvaves as a typical neocon, or a typical Republican presidents (which are the same things). And he started
on this path just two month after inauguration bombing Syria under false pretences. So this is something
I think the reason of change is that Trump intuitively realized the voters are abandoning him in droves and the sizable faction
of his voters who voted for him because of his promises to end foreign wars iether already defected or is ready to defect. So this is
a move designed to keep them.
Notable quotes:
"... "America shouldn't be doing the fighting for every nation on earth, not being reimbursed in many cases at all. If they want us to do the fighting, they also have to pay a price," Trump said. ..."
President Trump's big announcement to pull US troops out of Syria and Afghanistan is now emerging less as a peace move, and more
a rationalization of American military power in the Middle East. In a surprise visit to US forces in Iraq this week, Trump
said he had no intention of withdrawing the troops in that country, who have been there for nearly 15 years since GW Bush invaded
back in 2003.
Hinting at private discussions with commanders in Iraq, Trump boasted that US forces would in the future launch attacks from there
into Syria if and when needed. Presumably that rapid force deployment would apply to other countries in the region, including Afghanistan.
In other words, in typical business-style transactional thinking, Trump sees the pullout from Syria and Afghanistan as a cost-cutting
exercise for US imperialism. Regarding Syria, he has bragged about Turkey being assigned, purportedly, to "finish off" terror
groups. That's Trump subcontracting out US interests.
Critics and supporters of Trump are confounded. After his Syria and Afghanistan pullout call, domestic critics and NATO allies
have accused him of walking from the alleged "fight against terrorism" and of ceding strategic ground to US adversaries Russia
and Iran.
Meanwhile, Trump's supporters have viewed his decision in more benign light, cheering the president for "sticking it to"
the deep state and military establishment, assuming he's delivering on electoral promises to end overseas wars.
However, neither view gets what is going on. Trump is not scaling back US military power; he is rationalizing it like a cost-benefit
analysis, as perhaps only a real-estate-wheeler-dealer-turned president would appreciate. Trump is not snubbing US militarism or
NATO allies, nor is he letting loose an inner peace spirit. He is as committed to projecting American military as ruthlessly and
as recklessly as any other past occupant of the White House. The difference is Trump wants to do it on the cheap.
Here's what he said to reporters on Air Force One before touching down in Iraq:
"The United States cannot continue to be the policeman of the world. It's not fair when the burden is all on us, the United
States We are spread out all over the world. We are in countries most people haven't even heard about. Frankly, it's ridiculous."
He added: "We're no longer the suckers, folks."
Laughably, Trump's griping about US forces "spread all over the world" unwittingly demonstrates the insatiable, monstrous
nature of American militarism. But Trump paints this vice as a virtue, which, he complains, Washington gets no thanks for from the
150-plus countries around the globe that its forces are present in.
As US troops greeted him in Iraq, the president made explicit how the new American militarism would henceforth operate.
"America shouldn't be doing the fighting for every nation on earth, not being reimbursed in many cases at all. If they want
us to do the fighting, they also have to pay a price," Trump said.
This reiterates a big bugbear for this president in which he views US allies and client regimes as "not pulling their weight"
in terms of military deployment. Trump has been browbeating European NATO members to cough up more on military budgets, and he has
berated the Saudis
and other Gulf Arab regimes to pay more for American interventions.
Notably, however, Trump has never questioned the largesse that US taxpayers fork out every year to Israel in the form of nearly
$4 billion in military aid. To be sure, that money is not a gift because much of it goes back to the Pentagon from sales of fighter
jets and missile systems.
The long-held notion that the US has served as the "world's policeman" is, of course, a travesty.
Since WWII, all presidents and the Washington establishment have constantly harped on, with self-righteousness, about America's
mythical role as guarantor of global security.
Dozens of illegal wars on almost every continent and millions of civilian deaths attest to the real, heinous conduct of American
militarism as a weapon to secure US corporate capitalism.
But with US economic power in historic decline amid a national debt now over $22 trillion, Washington can no longer afford its
imperialist conduct in the traditional mode of direct US military invasions and occupations.
Perhaps, it takes a cost-cutting, raw-toothed capitalist like Trump to best understand the historic predicament, even if only
superficially.
This gives away the real calculation behind his troop pullout from Syria and Afghanistan. Iraq is going to serve as a new regional
hub for force projection on a demand-and-supply basis. In addition, more of the dirty work can be contracted out to Washington's
clients like Turkey, Israel and Saudi Arabia, who will be buying even more US weaponry to prop the military-industrial complex.
This would explain why Trump made his hurried, unexpected visit to Iraq this week. Significantly, he
said
: "A lot of people are going to come around to my way of thinking", regarding his decision on withdrawing forces from Syria
and Afghanistan.
Since his troop pullout plan announced on December 19, there has been serious pushback from senior Pentagon figures, hawkish Republicans
and Democrats, and the anti-Trump media. The atmosphere is almost seditious against the president. Trump flying off to Iraq on Christmas
night was
reportedly his first visit to troops in an overseas combat zone since becoming president two years ago.
What Trump seemed to be doing was reassuring the Pentagon and corporate America that he is not going all soft and dovish. Not
at all. He is letting them know that he is aiming for a leaner, meaner US military power, which can save money on the number of foreign
bases by using rapid reaction forces out of places like Iraq, as well as by subcontracting operations out to regional clients.
Thus, Trump is not coming clean out of any supposed principle when he cuts back US forces overseas. He is merely applying his
knack for screwing down costs and doing things on the cheap as a capitalist tycoon overseeing US militarism.
During past decades when American capitalism was relatively robust, US politicians and media could indulge in the fantasy of their
military forces going around the world in large-scale formations to selflessly "defend freedom and democracy."
Today, US capitalism is broke. It simply can't sustain its global military empire. Enter Donald Trump with his "business solutions."
But in doing so, this president, with his cheap utilitarianism and transactional exploitative mindset, lets the cat out of the
bag. As he says, the US cannot be the world's policeman. Countries are henceforth going to have to pay for "our protection."
Inadvertently, Trump is showing up US power for what it really is: a global thug running a protection racket.
It's always been the case. Except now it's in your face. Trump is no Smedley Butler, the former Marine general who in the 1930s
condemned US militarism as a Mafia operation. This president is stupidly revealing the racket, while still thinking it is something
virtuous.
Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages.
Originally from Belfast, Northern Ireland, he is a Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor
for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. For over 20 years he worked
as an editor and writer in major news media organizations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent. Now a freelance journalist
based in East Africa, his columns appear on RT, Sputnik, Strategic Culture Foundation and Press TV.
dnm1136
Once again, Cunningham has hit the nail on the head. Trump mistakenly conflates fear with respect. In reality, around the world,
the US is feared but generally not respected.
My guess is that the same was true about Trump as a businessman, i.e., he was not respected, only feared due to his willingness
to pursue his "deals" by any means that "worked" for him, legal or illegal, moral or immoral, seemingly gracious or mean-spirited.
William Smith
Complaining how the US gets no thanks for its foreign intervention. Kind of like a rapist claiming he should be thanked for
"pleasuring" his victim. Precisely the same sentiment expressed by those who believe the American Indians should thank the Whites
for "civilising" them.
Phoebe S,
"Washington gets no thanks for from the 150-plus countries around the globe that its forces are present in."
That might mean they don't want you there. Just saying.
ProRussiaPole
None of these wars are working out for the US strategically. All they do is sow chaos. They seem to not be gaining anything,
and are just preventing others from gaining anything as well.
Ernie For -> ProRussiaPole
i am a huge Putin fan, so is big Don. Please change your source of info Jerome, Trump is one man against Billions of people
and dollars in corruption. He has achieved more in the USA in 2 years than all 5 previous parasites together.
Truthbetold69
It could be a change for a better direction. Time will tell. 'If you do what you've always been doing, you'll get what you've
always been getting.'
"... While I admire America's democratic society, I hate how America brought wars and chaos to the world in guise of "freedom and liberation". ..."
"... Was it necessary to bomb civilians of Ossetia for Georgia to get rid of Russia? Was it necessary to provoke a coup d'état against fully legitimate and democratically elected government in Ukraine? Life isn't fair indeed : not only they will never enter in NATO (even less EU) and no one will protect them, but they can say farewell to the land they lost. People in Georgia and Ukraine are less and less gullible and Pro Russians sentiment is gaining ground btw. Ask yourself why ? ..."
"... Sphere of influence, the same reason why Cuba and Venezuela will pay for their insolence against the hegemon. The world is never a fair place. ..."
While I admire America's democratic society, I hate how America brought wars and chaos to the world in guise of "freedom and
liberation".
I hate how America exploit the weak. president moon should offer an olive branch to fatty Kim by sending back the
thaad to America and pulling out American base and troops. he should convince fatty Kim that should he really like to proliferate
his nuclear missile development as deterrence, aim it only to America and America only. there is no need for Koreans to kill fellow
Koreans.
Very good idea, after having pushed Ukraine and Georgia to a war lost in advance, lets hope US will abandon South Korea and
Japan because they were helpless in demilitarizing one of the poorest countries in the world....
Was it necessary to bomb civilians of Ossetia for Georgia to get rid of Russia?
Was it necessary to provoke a coup d'état against fully legitimate and democratically elected government in Ukraine? Life
isn't fair indeed : not only they will never enter in NATO (even less EU) and no one will protect them, but they can say
farewell to the land they lost. People in Georgia and Ukraine are less and less gullible and Pro Russians sentiment is gaining
ground btw. Ask yourself why ?
In this person's opinion, the article raises a good point with regards to US defense subsidies. However, its examples are dissimilar.
Japan spends approximately 1% of its GDP on defense; South Korea spends roughly 2.5% of its GDP defense.
In fact, it seems to this person that a better example of US Defense Welfare would be direct subsidies granted to the state
of Israel.
"... Barnett's main thesis in "The Pentagon's New Map" is that the world is composed of two types of states: those that are part of an integrated and connected "Core," which embrace globalization; and states of the "Gap," which are disconnected from the effects of globalization. Barnett proclaims that globalization will move the world into an era of peace and prosperity, but can only do so with the help of an indispensable United States. He writes that America is the lynchpin to the entire process and he believes that the United States should be midwife to a new world that will one day consist of peaceful democratic states and integrated economies. Barnett is proposing no less than a new grand strategy - the historical successor to the Cold War's strategy of containment. His approach to a future world defined by America's "exportation of security" is almost religious in its fervor and messianic in its language. ..."
"... At this point in his book, Barnett also makes bold statements that America is never leaving the Gap and that we are therefore never "bringing our boys home." He believes that there is no exiting the Gap, only shrinking it. These statements have incited some of Barnett's critics to accuse him of fostering and advocating a state of perpetual war. Barnett rebuts these attacks by claiming that, "America's task is not perpetual war, nor the extension of empire. It is merely to serve as globalization's bodyguard wherever and whenever needed throughout the Gap." Barnett claims that the strategy of preemptive war is a "boundable problem," yet his earlier claim that we are never leaving the Gap and that our boys are never coming home does not square with his assertion that there will not be perpetual war. He cannot have it both ways. ..."
"... Barnett therefore undermines his own globalization-based grand strategy by pointing out in detail at least ten things that can go wrong with globalization - the foundation upon which his theory is built. ..."
"... Globalization is likely here to stay, though it may be slowed down or even stopped in some regions of the planet. ..."
"... I would strongly recommend "The Pentagon's New Map" to students who are studying U.S. foreign policy. I would also recommend it to those who are studying the Bush administration as well as the Pentagon. The ideas in the book seem to be popular with the military and many of its ideas can be seen in the current thinking and policy of the Pentagon and State Department. ..."
"... I would only caution the reader that Barnett's theories are heavily dependent upon the continued advancement of globalization, which in turn is dependent upon the continued economic ability of the U.S. to sustain military operations around the world indefinitely. Neither is guaranteed. ..."
"... "Globalization" has turned out to be nothing but the polite PR term to disguise and avoid the truth of using the more accurate name, "Global Empire" --- and there is no doubt that Barnett is more than smart enough to see that this has inexorably happened. ..."
"... Liberty, democracy, justice, and equality Over Violent/'Vichy' Rel 2.0 Empire, ..."
"... We don't MERELY have; a gun/fear problem, or a 'Fiscal Cliff', 'Sequestration', and 'Debt Limit' problem, or an expanding wars problem, or a 'drone assassinations' problem, or a vast income & wealth inequality problem, or a Wall Street 'looting' problem, or a Global Warming and environmental death-spiral problem, or a domestic tyranny NDAA FISA spying problem, or, or, or, or .... ad nauseam --- we have a hidden EMPIRE cancerous tumor which is the prime CAUSE of all these 'symptom problems'. ..."
"... "If your country is treating you like ****, and bombing abroad, look carefully --- because it may not be your country, but a Global Empire only posing as your former country." ..."
Barnett's main thesis in "The Pentagon's New Map" is that the world is composed of two types of states: those that are
part of an integrated and connected "Core," which embrace globalization; and states of the "Gap," which are disconnected from
the effects of globalization. Barnett proclaims that globalization will move the world into an era of peace and prosperity, but
can only do so with the help of an indispensable United States. He writes that America is the lynchpin to the entire process and
he believes that the United States should be midwife to a new world that will one day consist of peaceful democratic states and
integrated economies. Barnett is proposing no less than a new grand strategy - the historical successor to the Cold War's strategy
of containment. His approach to a future world defined by America's "exportation of security" is almost religious in its fervor
and messianic in its language.
The foundation upon which Barnett builds his binary view of the world is heavily dependant upon the continued advancement of
globalization - almost exclusively so. However, advancing globalization is not pre-ordained. Barnett himself makes the case that
globalization is a fragile undertaking similar to an interconnected chain in which any broken link destroys the whole. Globalization
could indeed be like the biblical statue whose feet are made of clay. Globalization, and therefore the integration of the Gap,
may even stop or recede - just as the globalization of the early 20th century ended abruptly with the onset of WW I and a global
depression. Moreover, Barnett's contention that the United States has an exceptional duty and moral responsibility for "remaking
the world in America's image" might be seen by many as misguided and perhaps even dangerous.
The divide between the `Functioning Core' and the `Non-Integrating Gap' differs from the gulf between rich and poor in a subtle
yet direct way. State governments make a conscious decision to become connected vs. disconnected to advancing globalization. States
and their leaders can provide the infrastructure and the opening of large global markets to their citizens in ways that individuals
cannot. An example can serve to illustrate the point: You can be rich and disconnected in Nigeria or poor and disconnected in
North Korea. In each case the country you live in has decided to be disconnected. Citizens in this case have a limited likelihood
of staying rich and unlimited prospects of staying poor. But by becoming part of the functioning Core, the enlightened state allows
all citizens a running start at becoming part of a worldwide economic system and thus provide prospects for a better future because
global jobs and markets are opened up to them. A connected economy such as India's, for example, enables citizens who once had
no prospects for a better life to find well-paying jobs, such as computer-related employment. Prospects for a better Indian life
are directly the result of the Indian government's conscious decision to become connected to the world economy, a.k.a. embracing
globalization.
After placing his theory of the Core/Gap and preemptive war strategy firmly into the church of globalization, Barnett next
places his theory squarely upon the alter of rule sets. Few would argue that the world is an anarchic place and Barnett tells
us that rule sets are needed to define `good' and `evil' behavior of actors in this chaotic international system. An example of
such a rule set is the desire of the Core to keep WMDs out of the hands of terrorist organizations. Other examples are the promulgation
of human rights and the need to stop genocide. Barnett also uses rule sets to define `system' rules that govern and shape the
actions, and even the psychology, of international actors. An example that Barnett gives of a system-wide rule set is the creation
of the `rule' defined by the United States during the Cold War called Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). Barnett claims that this
rule set effectively ended the possibility of war for all time amongst nuclear-capable great powers. Barnett states that the U.S.
now should export a brand new rule set called `preemptive war,' which aims to fight actors in the lawless Gap in order to end
international terrorism for all time. Barnett makes it clear that the Core's enemy is neither a religion (Islam) nor a place (Middle
East), but a condition (disconnectedness).
Next, Barnett points out that system-wide competition has moved into the economic arena and that military conflict, when it
occurs, has moved away from the system-wide (Cold War), to inter-state war, ending up today with primarily state conflict vs.
individuals (Core vs. bin Laden, Core vs. Kim, etc.). In other words, "we are moving progressively away from warfare against states
or even blocs of states and toward a new era of warfare against individuals." Rephrased, we've moved from confrontations with
evil empires, to evil states, to evil leaders. An example of this phenomenon is the fact that China dropped off the radar of many
government hawks after 9/11 only to be replaced by terrorist groups and other dangerous NGOs "with global reach."
Barnett also points out that the idea of `connectivity' is central to the success of globalization. Without it, everything
else fails. Connectivity is the glue that holds states together and helps prevent war between states. For example, the US is not
likely to start a war with `connected' France, but America could more likely instigate a war with `disconnected' North Korea,
Syria or Iran.
Barnett then examines the dangers associated with his definition of `disconnectedness.' He cleverly describes globalization
as a condition defined by mutually assured dependence (MAD) and advises us that `Big Men', royal families, raw materials, theocracies
and just bad luck can conspire to impede connectedness in the world. This is one of few places in his book that Barnett briefly
discusses impediments to globalization - however, this short list looks at existing roadblocks to connectedness but not to future,
system-wide dangers to globalization.
At this point in his book, Barnett also makes bold statements that America is never leaving the Gap and that we are therefore
never "bringing our boys home." He believes that there is no exiting the Gap, only shrinking it. These statements have incited
some of Barnett's critics to accuse him of fostering and advocating a state of perpetual war. Barnett rebuts these attacks by
claiming that, "America's task is not perpetual war, nor the extension of empire. It is merely to serve as globalization's bodyguard
wherever and whenever needed throughout the Gap." Barnett claims that the strategy of preemptive war is a "boundable problem,"
yet his earlier claim that we are never leaving the Gap and that our boys are never coming home does not square with his assertion
that there will not be perpetual war. He cannot have it both ways.
Barnett then takes us on a pilgrimage to the Ten Commandments of globalization. Tellingly, this list is set up to be more like
links in a chain than commandments. Each item in the list is connected to the next - meaning that each step is dependent upon
its predecessor. If any of the links are broken or incomplete, the whole is destroyed. For example, Barnett warns us that if there
is no security in the Gap, there can be no rules in the Gap. Barnett therefore undermines his own globalization-based grand
strategy by pointing out in detail at least ten things that can go wrong with globalization - the foundation upon which his theory
is built.
What else could kill globalization? Barnett himself tells us: "Labor, energy, money and security all need to flow as freely
as possible from those places in the world where they are plentiful to those regions where they are scarce." Here he is implying
that an interruption of any or all of these basic necessities can doom globalization. Barnett states clearly: "...(these are)
the four massive flows I believe are essential to protect if Globalization III is going to advance." Simply put, any combination
of American isolationism or closing of borders to immigration, a global energy crisis, a global financial crisis or rampant global
insecurity could adversely affect "connectedness," a.k.a. globalization. These plausible future events, unnerving as they are,
leave the inexorable advancement of globalization in doubt and we haven't yet explored other problems with Barnett's reliance
on globalization to make the world peaceful, free and safe for democracy.
Barnett goes on to tell us that Operation Iraqi Freedom was an "overt attempt to create a "System Perturbation" centered in
the Persian Gulf to trigger a Big Bang." His definition of a Big Bang in the Middle East is the democratization of the many totalitarian
states in the region. He also claims that the Big Bang has targeted Iran's "sullen majority."
Barnett claims that our problem with shrinking the Gap is not our "motive or our means, but our inability to describe the enemies
worth killing, the battles worth winning, and the future worth creating." Managing the global campaign to democratize the world
is no easy task. Barnett admits that in a worst-case scenario we may be stuck in the "mother of all intifadas" in Iraq. Critics
claim this is something that we should have planned for - that the insurgency should not have been a surprise, and that it should
have been part of the "peacemaking" planning. Barnett blithely states that things will get better "...when America internationalizes
the occupation." Barnett should not engage in wishful thinking here, as he also does when he predicted that Iraqis would be put
in charge of their own country 18 months after the fall of Baghdad. It would be more accurate if he claimed this would happen
18 months after the cessation of hostilities. Some critics claim that Iraq is an example that we are an "empire in a hurry" (Michael
Ignatieff), which then results in: 1) allocating insufficient resources to non-military aspects of the project and 2) attempting
economic and political transformation in an unrealistically short time frame.
The final basic premise of Barnett's theory of the Core and the Gap is the concept of what he calls the "global transaction
strategy." Barnett explains it best: "America's essential transaction with the outside world is one of our exporting security
in return for the world's financing a lifestyle we could far more readily afford without all that defense spending." Barnett claims
that America pays the most for global stability because we enjoy it the most. But what about the other 80 countries in the Core?
Why is America, like Atlas, bearing the weight of the world's security and stabilization on its shoulders?
Barnett claims that historical analogies are useless today and point us in the wrong direction. I disagree. James Madison cautioned
us not to go abroad to seek monsters to destroy. We can learn from his simple and profound statement that there are simply too
many state (and individual) monsters in today's world for the U.S. to destroy unilaterally or preemptively. We must also avoid
overstretching our resources and power. Thucydides reminds us that the great democracy of Athens was brought to its knees by the
ill-advised Sicilian expedition - which resulted in the destruction of everything the Athenians held dear. Do not ignore history
as Barnett councils; heed it.
Globalization is likely here to stay, though it may be slowed down or even stopped in some regions of the planet.
Therefore, America needs to stay engaged in the affairs of the world, but Barnett has not offered conclusive evidence that the
U.S. needs to become the world's single Leviathan that must extinguish all global hot wars. Barnett also has not proved that America
needs to be, as he writes, "the one willing to rush in when everyone else is running away." People like Barnett in academia and
leaders in government may proclaim and ordain the U.S. to be a global Leviathan, but it is a conscious choice that should be thoroughly
debated by the American people. After all, it is upon the backs of the American people that such a global Leviathan must ride.
Where is the debate? The American people, upon reflection, may decide upon other courses of action.
I would strongly recommend "The Pentagon's New Map" to students who are studying U.S. foreign policy. I would also recommend
it to those who are studying the Bush administration as well as the Pentagon. The ideas in the book seem to be popular with the
military and many of its ideas can be seen in the current thinking and policy of the Pentagon and State Department.
It seems to be well researched - having 35 pages of notes. Many of Barnett's citations come from the Washington Post and the
New York Times, which some may see as a liberal bias, but I see the sources as simply newspapers of record.
I would only caution the reader that Barnett's theories are heavily dependent upon the continued advancement of globalization,
which in turn is dependent upon the continued economic ability of the U.S. to sustain military operations around the world indefinitely.
Neither is guaranteed.
I don't think poorly of Thomas Barnett himself. He's very bright and, I think, good hearted, BUT his well thought-out, well
argued pride and joy (and positive intellectual pursuit) is being badly distorted ---- which happens to all 'tools' that Empire
gets its hands on.
For those who like predictions, I would predict that Barnett will wind up going through an epiphany much like Francis Fukuyama
(but a decade later) and for much the same reason, that his life's work gets misused and abused so greatly that he works to reverse
and correct its misuse. Fukuyama, also brilliant, wrote "The End of History" in 1992 (which was misused by the neocons to engender
war), and now he's working just as hard to reverse a misuse that he may feel some guilt of his work supporting, and is writing
"The Future of History" as a force for good --- and I suspect (and hope) that Barnett will, in even less time, be counter-thinking
and developing the strategy and book to reverse the misuse of his 2004 book before the Global Empire pulls down the curtain.
"Globalization" has turned out to be nothing but the polite PR term to disguise and avoid the truth of using the more accurate
name, "Global Empire" --- and there is no doubt that Barnett is more than smart enough to see that this has inexorably happened.
Best luck and love to the fast expanding 'Occupy the Empire' educational and revolutionary movement against this deceitful,
guileful, disguised EMPIRE, which can't so easily be identified as wearing Red Coats, Red Stars, nor funny looking Nazi helmets
---- quite yet!
Liberty, democracy, justice, and equality Over Violent/'Vichy' Rel 2.0 Empire,
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
We don't MERELY have; a gun/fear problem, or a 'Fiscal Cliff', 'Sequestration', and 'Debt Limit' problem, or an expanding
wars problem, or a 'drone assassinations' problem, or a vast income & wealth inequality problem, or a Wall Street 'looting' problem,
or a Global Warming and environmental death-spiral problem, or a domestic tyranny NDAA FISA spying problem, or, or, or, or ....
ad nauseam --- we have a hidden EMPIRE cancerous tumor which is the prime CAUSE of all these 'symptom problems'.
"If your country is treating you like ****, and bombing abroad, look carefully --- because it may not be your country, but
a Global Empire only posing as your former country."
"... Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski has written extensively about the purges of the patriots in the Defense Department that happened in Washington during the lead up and after the commencement of the Iraq war in 2003. ..."
"... If anybody thinks what I have written is an exaggeration, research what the late Admiral Thomas Moorer had to say years ago about the total infiltration of the Defense Department by Israeli agents. ..."
People who seem to think that Trump's generals will somehow go along and support his original vision are sadly mistaken.
Since 2003, Israel has had an increasingly strong hand in the vetting who gets promoted to upper positions in the American
armed forces. All of the generals Trump has at his side went through a vetting procedure which definitely involved a very close
look at their opinions about Israel.
Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski has written extensively about the purges of the patriots in the Defense Department that happened
in Washington during the lead up and after the commencement of the Iraq war in 2003.
Officers who openly oppose the dictates of the Israel Lobby will see their prospects for advancement simply vanish like a whiff
of smoke.. Those who support Israel's machinations are rewarded with promotions, the more fervent the support the more rapid the
promotion especially if this knowledge is made known to their congressman or senator..
Generals who support Israel already know that this support will be heavily rewarded after their retirements by being given
lucrative six figure positions on company boards of directors or positions in equally lucrative think tanks like the American
Enterprise Institution or the Hoover Institute. They will receive hefty speaking fees. as well. They learned early that their
retirements could be truly glorious if they only "went" along with The Lobby. They will be able to then live the good life in
expensive places like Washington, New York or San Francisco, often invited to glitzy parties with unlimited amount of free prawns
"the size of your hand".
On the other hand, upper officers who somehow get then get "bad" reputations for their negative views about Israel ( like Karen
U. Kwiatkowski for instance) will end up, once retired, having to depend on just their often scanty pensions This requires getting
an often demeaning second jobs to get by in some place where "their dollar goes further". No bright lights in big cities for them.
No speaking fees, no college jobs. Once their fate becomes known, their still active duty contemporaries suddenly decide to "go
along".
If anybody thinks what I have written is an exaggeration, research what the late Admiral Thomas Moorer had to say years
ago about the total infiltration of the Defense Department by Israeli agents.
Face it, we live in a country under occupation by a hostile power that we willingly pay large amounts monetary tribute to.
Our government does whatever benefits Israel regardless of how negatively this effects the USA. We are increasing troop strength
in Afghanistan because, somehow, this benefits Israel. If our presence in Afghanistan (or the Mideast in general) didn't benefit
Israel, our troops would simply not be there.
"... The destruction of Syria and Libya created massive refugee flows which have proved that the European Union was totally unprepared to deal with such a major issue. On top of that, the latest years, we have witnessed a rapid rise of various terrorist attacks in Western soil, also as a result of the devastating wars in Syria and Libya. ..."
"... Whenever they wanted to blame someone for some serious terrorist attacks, they had a scapegoat ready for them, even if they had evidence that Libya was not behind these attacks. When Gaddafi falsely admitted that he had weapons of mass destruction in order to gain some relief from the Western sanctions, they presented him as a responsible leader who, was ready to cooperate. Of course, his last role was to play again the 'bad guy' who had to be removed. ..."
"... Despite the rise of Donald Trump in power, the neoliberal forces will push further for the expansion of the neoliberal doctrine in the rival field of the Sino-Russian alliance. ..."
"... We see, however, that the Western alliances are entering a period of severe crisis. The US has failed to control the situation in Middle East and Libya. The ruthless neo-colonialists will not hesitate to confront Russia and China directly, if they see that they continue to lose control in the global geopolitical arena. The accumulation of military presence of NATO next to the Russian borders, as well as, the accumulation of military presence of the US in Asia-Pacific, show that this is an undeniable fact. ..."
The start of current decade revealed the most ruthless face of a global neo-colonialism. From Syria and Libya to Europe and Latin
America, the old colonial powers of the West tried to rebound against an oncoming rival bloc led by Russia and China, which starts
to threaten their global domination.
Inside a multi-polar, complex terrain of geopolitical games, the big players start to abandon the old-fashioned, inefficient direct
wars. They use today other, various methods like
brutal proxy
wars , economic wars, financial and constitutional coups, provocative operations, 'color revolutions', etc. In this highly
complex and unstable situation, when even traditional allies turn against each other as the global balances change rapidly, the forces
unleashed are absolutely destructive. Inevitably, the results are more than evident.
Proxy Wars - Syria/Libya
After the US invasion in Iraq, the gates of hell had opened in the Middle East. Obama continued the Bush legacy of US endless
interventions, but he had to change tactics because a direct war would be inefficient, costly and extremely unpopular to the American
people and the rest of the world.
The result, however, appeared to be equally (if not more) devastating with the failed US invasions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US
had lost total control of the armed groups directly linked with the ISIS terrorists, failed to topple Assad, and, moreover, instead
of eliminating the Russian and Iranian influence in the region, actually managed to increase it. As a result, the US and its allies
failed to secure their geopolitical interests around the various pipeline games.
In addition, the US sees Turkey, one of its most important ally, changing direction dangerously, away from the Western bloc. Probably
the strongest indication for this, is that Turkey, Iran and Russia decided very recently to proceed in an agreement on Syria without
the presence of the US.
Yet, the list of US failures does not end here. The destruction of Syria and Libya created massive refugee flows which have
proved that the European Union was totally unprepared to deal with such a major issue. On top of that, the latest years, we have
witnessed a rapid rise of various terrorist attacks in Western soil, also as a result of the devastating wars in Syria and Libya.
Evidence from
WikiLeaks has shown that the old colonial powers have started a new round of ruthless competition on Libya's resources.
The usual story propagated by the Western media, about another tyrant who had to be removed, has now completely collapsed. They don't
care neither to topple an 'authoritarian' regime, nor to spread Democracy. All they care about is to secure each country's resources
for their big companies.
The Gaddafi case is quite interesting because it shows that
the Western
hypocrites were using him according to their interests .
Whenever they wanted to blame someone for some serious terrorist attacks, they had a scapegoat ready for them, even if they
had evidence that Libya was not behind these attacks. When Gaddafi falsely admitted that he had weapons of mass destruction in order
to gain some relief from the Western sanctions, they presented him as a responsible leader who, was ready to cooperate. Of course,
his last role was to play again the 'bad guy' who had to be removed.
Economic Wars, Financial Coups – Greece/Eurozone
It would be unthinkable for the neo-colonialists to conduct proxy wars inside European soil, especially against countries which
belong to Western institutions like NATO, EU, eurozone, etc. The wave of the US-made major economic crisis hit Greece and Europe
at the start of the decade, almost simultaneously with the eruption of the Arab Spring revolutionary wave and the subsequent disaster
in Middle East and Libya.
Greece was the easy victim for the global neoliberal dictatorship to impose catastrophic measures in favor of the plutocracy.
The Greek experiment enters its seventh year and the plan is to be used as a model for the whole eurozone. Greece has become also
the model for the looting of public property, as happened in the past with the East Germany and the
Treuhand Operation
after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
While Greece was the major victim of an economic war, Germany used its economic power and control of the European Central Bank
to impose unprecedented austerity, sado-monetarism and neoliberal destruction through silent financial coups in
Ireland ,
Italy and
Cyprus . The Greek political establishment collapsed with the rise of SYRIZA in power, and the ECB was forced to proceed
in an open financial coup against
Greece when the current PM, Alexis Tsipras, decided to conduct a referendum on the catastrophic measures imposed by the ECB, IMF
and the European Commission, through which the Greek people clearly rejected these measures, despite the propaganda of terror inside
and outside Greece. Due to the direct threat from Mario Draghi and the ECB, who actually threatened to cut liquidity sinking Greece
into a financial chaos, Tsipras finally forced to retreat, signing another catastrophic memorandum.
Through similar financial and political pressure, the Brussels bureaufascists and the German sado-monetarists along with the IMF
economic hitmen, imposed neoliberal disaster to other eurozone countries like Portugal, Spain etc. It is remarkable that even the
second eurozone economy, France,
rushed to
impose anti-labor measures midst terrorist attacks, succumbing to a - pre-designed by the elites - neo-Feudalism, under
the 'Socialist' François Hollande, despite the intense protests in many French cities.
Germany would never let the United States to lead the neo-colonization in Europe, as it tries (again) to become a major power
with its own sphere of influence, expanding throughout eurozone and beyond. As the situation in Europe becomes more and more critical
with the ongoing economic and refugee crisis and the rise of the Far-Right and the nationalists, the economic war mostly between
the US and the German big capital, creates an even more complicated situation.
The decline of the US-German relations has been exposed initially with the
NSA interceptions
scandal , yet, progressively, the big picture came on surface, revealing a
transatlantic
economic war between banking and corporate giants. In times of huge multilevel crises, the big capital always intensifies
its efforts to eliminate competitors too. As a consequence, the US has seen another key ally, Germany, trying to gain a certain degree
of independence in order to form its own agenda, separate from the US interests.
Note that, both Germany and Turkey are medium powers that, historically, always trying to expand and create their own spheres
of influence, seeking independence from the traditional big powers.
A wave of neoliberal onslaught shakes currently Latin America. While in Argentina, Mauricio Macri allegedly took the power normally,
the constitutional
coup against Dilma Rousseff in Brazil, as well as, the
usual actions
of the Right opposition in Venezuela against Nicolás Maduro with the help of the US finger, are far more obvious.
The special weight of these three countries in Latin America is extremely important for the US imperialism to regain ground in the
global geopolitical arena. Especially the last ten to fifteen years, each of them developed increasingly autonomous policies away
from the US close custody, under Leftist governments, and this was something that alarmed the US imperialism components.
Brazil appears to be the most important among the three, not only due to its size, but also as a member of the BRICS, the team
of fast growing economies who threaten the US and generally the Western global dominance. The constitutional coup against Rousseff
was rather a sloppy action and reveals the anxiety of the US establishment to regain control through puppet regimes. This is a well-known
situation from the past through which the establishment attempts to secure absolute dominance in the US backyard.
The importance of Venezuela due to its oil reserves is also significant. When Maduro tried to approach Russia in order to strengthen
the economic cooperation between the two countries, he must had set the alarm for the neocons in the US. Venezuela could find an
alternative in Russia and BRICS, in order to breathe from the multiple economic war that was set off by the US. It is characteristic
that the economic war against Russia by the US and the Saudis, by keeping the oil prices in historically low levels, had significant
impact on the Venezuelan economy too. It is also known that the US organizations are funding the opposition since Chávez era, in
order to proceed in provocative operations that could overthrow the Leftist governments.
The case of Venezuela is really interesting. The US imperialists were fiercely trying to overthrow the Leftist governments since
Chávez administration. They found now a weaker president, Nicolás Maduro - who certainly does not have the strength and personality
of Hugo Chávez - to achieve their goal.
The Western media mouthpieces are doing their job, which is propaganda as usual. The recipe is known. You present the half truth,
with a big overdose of exaggeration.
The establishment
parrots are demonizing Socialism , but they won't ever tell you about the money that the US is spending, feeding the
Right-Wing groups and opposition to proceed in provocative operations, in order to create instability. They won't tell you about
the financial war conducted through the oil prices, manipulated by the Saudis, the close US ally.
Regarding Argentina, former president, Cristina Kirchner, had also made some important moves towards the stronger cooperation
with Russia, which was something unacceptable for Washington's hawks. Not only for geopolitical reasons, but also because Argentina
could escape from the vulture funds that sucking its blood since its default. This would give the country an alternative to the neoliberal
monopoly of destruction. The US big banks and corporations would never accept such a perspective because the debt-enslaved Argentina
is a golden opportunity for a new round of huge profits. It's
happening right
now in eurozone's debt colony, Greece.
'Color Revolutions' - Ukraine
The events in Ukraine have shown that, the big capital has no hesitation to ally even with the neo-nazis, in order to impose the
new world order. This is not something new of course. The connection of Hitler with the German economic oligarchs, but also with
other major Western companies, before and during the WWII, is well known.
The most terrifying of all however, is not that the West has silenced in front of the decrees of the new Ukrainian leadership,
through which is targeting the minorities, but the fact that the West allied with the neo-nazis, while according to some information
has also funded their actions as well as other extreme nationalist groups during the riots in Kiev.
Plenty of indications show that US organizations have 'put their finger' on Ukraine. A
video , for
example, concerning the situation in Ukraine has been directed by Ben Moses (creator of the movie "Good Morning, Vietnam"), who is
connected with American government executives and organizations like National Endowment for Democracy, funded by the US Congress.
This video shows a beautiful young female Ukrainian who characterizes the government of the country as "dictatorship" and praise
some protesters with the neo-nazi symbols of the fascist Ukranian party Svoboda on them.
The same organizations are behind 'color revolutions' elsewhere, as well as, provocative operations against Leftist governments
in Venezuela and other countries.
Ukraine is the perfect place to provoke Putin and tight the noose around Russia. Of course the huge hypocrisy of the West can
also be identified in the case of Crimea. While in other cases, the Western officials were 'screaming' for the right of self-determination
(like Kosovo, for example), after they destroyed Yugoslavia in a bloodbath, they can't recognize the will of the majority of Crimeans
to join Russia.
The war will become wilder
The Western neo-colonial powers are trying to counterattack against the geopolitical upgrade of Russia and the Chinese economic
expansionism.
Despite the rise of Donald Trump in power, the neoliberal forces will push further for the expansion of the neoliberal doctrine
in the rival field of the Sino-Russian alliance. Besides, Trump has already shown his hostile feelings against China, despite
his friendly approach to Russia and Putin.
We see, however, that the Western alliances are entering a period of severe crisis. The US has failed to control the situation
in Middle East and Libya. The ruthless neo-colonialists will not hesitate to confront Russia and China directly, if they see that
they continue to lose control in the global geopolitical arena. The accumulation of military presence of NATO next to the Russian
borders, as well as, the accumulation of military presence of the US in Asia-Pacific, show that this is an undeniable fact.
The USA state of continuous war has been a bipartisan phenomenon starting with Truman in Korea and proceeding with Vietnam, Lebanon,Somalia,
Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya and now Syria. It doesn't take a genius to realize that these limited, never ending wars are expensive
was to enrich MIC and Wall Street banksters
The one thing your accurate analysis leaves out is that the goal of US wars is never what the media spouts for its Wall Street
masters. The goal of any war is the redistribution of taxpayer money into the bank accounts of MIC shareholders and executives,
create more enemies to be fought in future wars, and to provide a rationalization for the continued primacy of the military class
in US politics and culture.
Occasionally a country may be sitting on a bunch of oil, and also be threatening to move away from the petrodollar or talking
about allowing an "adversary" to build a pipeline across their land.
Otherwise war is a racket unto itself. "Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable,
and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. "
― George Orwell
Also we've always been at war with Oceania .or whatever that quote said.
There have been numerous smears of Tulsi Gabbard that have been repeated over and over the
last few years after she went to Syria. She started to give the foreign policy blob a lot of
grief for their support of the overthrow of Syria to install a theocratic jihadi government
controlled by the usual suspects.
One smear they like to use is to call Tulsi an Islamophobe. That began years ago when she
criticized Our Savior Obama (pbaj) for claiming ISIS was not a religious extremist
organization, that it was a criminal group and the US needed to give Iraqi men more to do and
then they wouldn't join those criminal gangs like...ISIS.
Anyways, this article goes into a deeper state (yup, deeper than usual) conspiracy by
various actors to smear Tulsi for a variety of reasons subservient to foreign interests, with
a surprise intro to another often unspoken of interest with a lot of hidden power in
Washington.
"... Yes. "War is a force that gives us meaning," as Chris Hedges wrote. It provides (false) meaning and purpose. It's an amazingly powerful force, which is one reason why only Congress should declare war. And the last time that happened in the USA was December of 1941. ..."
I just read your article in TD. In my opinion you buried the reason for never ending wars.
You mention exceptionalism. I call that concept preeminence. With it is one of the few ways
we try to fill the void, or as you said in fewer words, try to give meaning to life. There
can be no doubt our lives are becoming increasingly meaningless so we double down and double
down again with what we know despite the self-destruction. https://thelastwhy.ca/poems/2015/6/25/life-a-reaction-to-the-void
Yes. "War is a force that gives us meaning," as Chris Hedges wrote. It provides (false)
meaning and purpose. It's an amazingly powerful force, which is one reason why only Congress
should declare war.
And the last time that happened in the USA was December of 1941.
Doug Barr–It appears to me you are trying to blur some lines, or perhaps you are
confused about, what one might call general human psychology and the official policies of a
specific government, that of the USA. [As a student of Anthropology, I point out that though
our primate ancestors are prone to outbursts of violence, there is no evidence that making
war, especially in the contemporary phase of human society, fulfills an innate "need."] Yes,
the US seeks to be "pre-eminent"–or to be blunter, DOMINANT–over the rest of the
globe. Where "exceptionalism"–which I have designated the American Disease–enters
the picture is the attempt to justify military aggression by suggesting (some are less subtle
and openly assert) that the US somehow has been granted a "right" to do this by "a higher
power." (Apparently God Himself revealed to George W. Bush that he was born to be "a war
president" and the genius Rick Perry asserted recently that Donald Trump was put in the
presidency by direct Divine action.) A "right" to send assassin drones anywhere, anytime, to
target anyone who's been designated a Bad Guy. This is absurd, if not insane, on the face of
it. (In olden times, Rudyard Kipling called it "the white man's burden" to bring civilization
to less "enlightened" peoples.) If there was an international court that had some teeth, the
US would be vigorously swatted down, ordered to cease and desist. But one of the greatest
tragedies of our time is that there is no power on Earth that could stand up to this Monster
(as John Kay and his band Steppenwolf rightly identified the US 50 years ago) even if it
could find the backbone to make the attempt.
After more than 17 years of the United States pouring blood and treasure into the effort
to build an Afghan army and government, why is it that the Kabul government continues to lose
ground against the Taliban? Further, why were we unsuccessful creating an Iraqi army that
could stand on its own against the Islamic State?
Before that, of course, came Vietnam.
Nor was that the start of the failure of American-backed armies. I was a teenager in 1949
when Chiang Kai-shek's American-backed Nationalist army lost to the Communist forces of Mao
Zedong in China. The American secretary of state, Dean Acheson, having conducted a study on
why our side lost, declared: "The Nationalist armies did not have to be defeated; they
disintegrated. History has proved again and again that a regime without faith in itself, and
an army without morale, cannot survive the test of battle."
Forty-four years ago, the American-trained and American-supplied army of South Vietnam
simply melted away before the less-well-equipped but better-motivated army of North Vietnam.
In 1975, I watched South Vietnamese soldiers taking off their uniforms and running away in
their underwear as the North Vietnamese closed in on Saigon.
Five years ago, the world watched another American-trained and American-equipped Iraqi
army bolt and run when the better motivated Islamic State forces overran Mosul in Northern
Iraq.
Why, over and over again, does the side America has backed in these civil wars end up
defeated? Four threads connect these lost wars of the last 70 years: corruption, patriotic
nationalism, a misplaced belief in American exceptionalism, and self-deception.
I saw corruption on a grand scale in Saigon. Generals and government officials were
funneling America's tax dollars into bank accounts abroad, fielding ghost armies in which
there were fewer soldiers on the ground than on the official payrolls. In Baghdad during the
American occupation, I learned that billions of American taxpayer dollars were bleeding out
to the Persian Gulf and Jordan, causing a laundered money real estate boom in the Jordanian
capital. In Afghanistan I learned that Afghan officers and soldiers routinely robbed the
villages they were sent to protect. Corruption sapped the people's belief in their US-backed
government in all four wars. Soldiers saw no reason to die for corrupt officials.
A second thread is that our side always appeared to be fighting on the side of foreigners,
while the Communists in China and Vietnam, as well as the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan,
always had a better grip on patriotic nationalism and resistance to foreigners. The
anti-colonial struggle was more important than the threat of Communism in most of the
post-World War II world, and the Islamist insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan knew how to
exploit the traditional resistance to foreign rule. The Taliban could appeal to patriotism
while trying to expel the infidel forces of the United States, just as their fathers,
grandfathers, and great grandfathers had resisted the Russians and the British before that in
the name of jihad.
A third thread is a curiously American trait of willfully ignoring other people's history
and cultures. I remember asking an American officer in Vietnam if he had read anything of the
French experience in Vietnam. His answer: "No, why should I? They lost, didn't they?" Robert
McNamara, defense secretary and an architect of our Vietnam War, said in later life that
Americans had never understood the Vietnamese. There were plenty of people who could have
helped him understand, but he wasn't interested. We were Americans -- exceptional, and
therefore not susceptible to the same forces that thwarted other efforts.
I met Americans in the Green Zone in Baghdad who knew nothing about the great schism
between Sunnis and Shia Muslims that was tearing the country apart. American-style democracy
was the answer to all ills, they felt. In Afghanistan I met Americans who thought purple ink
on the fingers of Afghans who had voted was the answer to a thousand years of tribal and
ethnic rivalries.
The fourth thread is self-deception. In Saigon, in Baghdad, and in Kabul I attended
briefings in which progress was always being made, the trend lines were always favorable, and
we were always winning wars we were actually losing. Wishful thinking is no substitute for
reality. Americans can train and assist the armies of those whom we want to support in the
civil wars of others, but we cannot supply the motivation and morale that is necessary to
survive the test of battle.
As we observe another anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attack that shattered American
life 18 years ago, its full impact is still unfolding. Those who planned it succeeded beyond
their wildest dreams. The airborne assaults that took nearly 3,000 lives on that day may now
be seen as the most diabolically successful terror attack in history. That attack not only
wreaked carnage at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in rural Pennsylvania.
It wound up dragging the United States into an endless state of war that has drained our
treasury, poisoned our politics, created waves of new terrorism, and made us the enemy of
millions around the world.
The apparent chief perpetrator of the 9/11 attack, Osama bin Laden, presumably cackled
with joy when he heard news of his success on that stunning day. He lived for another 10
years, long enough to cackle with even greater glee at Washington's self-defeating response
to the attack. Using the 9/11 attack as a pretext, the United States invaded Iraq in 2003.
Bin Laden died knowing that he had lured us into the greatest foreign policy disaster in
American history.
It is a truism that our lives are shaped not by what happens to us, but by how we react to
what happens to us. The same applies to nations. Devastating as the death toll was on Sept.
11, 2001, it turned out to be only a taste of what was to come. The United States has been at
war ever since. Thousands of Americans have died. So have hundreds of thousands of civilians
in the Middle East and beyond. This nearly two-decade-long spasm of attacking, bombing, and
occupying countries has decisively shaped the United States and its image in the world. Every
day that our "forever war" continues is a triumph for bin Laden. So is every wounded veteran
who returns home, every newly minted terrorist infuriated by an American attack, every
citizen of the world who recoils at what US forces are being sent to do. We did not simply
fall into bin Laden's trap, we raced in at full speed. Even now, we show little will to
extricate ourselves.
America's determination to strike back with devastating force after 9/11 was
understandable given our shared sense of ravaged innocence. We might have launched a
concentrated strike against the gang of several hundred criminals whose leaders attacked the
United States, and then come home. Instead we have used the 9/11 attack to justify wars and
military deployments around the world.
On Sept. 14, 2001, Congress passed an "authorization for the use of military force"
against the perpetrators of that week's attack and against their "associated forces." Three
presidents have used that authorization to deploy troops across the Middle East and in
countries from Kenya to Georgia to the Philippines. Every call for US withdrawal from
Afghanistan or Iraq or Syria is met by warnings that ending wars could produce "another
9/11." This has become the paralyzing mantra that prevents us from halting the hydra-headed
military campaign we have been waging for 18 years. We also use it to justify atrocities at
prisons like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Bin Laden has succeeded even in colonizing our
minds.
Soon after passing its highly elastic authorization for military action against
"associated forces," Congress approved another, even more sweeping law: the Patriot Act. It
gave the government broad new power to monitor people and businesses, and has become a
foundation stone of our emerging "surveillance state." The 9/11 attack led us to distort not
only our approach to the world, but also the balance between freedom and security at
home.
Another pernicious aftereffect of the terror attack has been the deepening of our national
us-against-them narrative. This began with President George W. Bush's assertion that every
country in the world had to be "either with us or against us." Crusader rhetoric posits the
United States as the indispensable guardian of civilization, entitled to act as it chooses in
order to fend off a threatening tide of barbarism. Now this approach has leaked back into the
United States. Racist attacks that tear at our social fabric are the domestic reflection of
foreign policies that see the rest of the world as a hostile "other" bent on destroying our
way of life.
Last month it was announced that the five surviving alleged plotters of the 9/11 attack
will finally be brought to trial in 2021. If they are aware of what is happening in the
world, they will arrive in court with a deep sense of satisfaction. Their great triumph was
not the attack. It was the damage the United States has since inflicted upon itself.
Acheson is parroting Napoleon: "In war the moral is to the material as 3 is to 1."
He is wrong in the matter of "faith", unless the Chiang's army lost faith in Chiang's
moral poverty, what he stood for.
A better quote about Chiang losing is written by George C. Marshall, who went over and
came back sure Chiang was done for.
He said: "The US would not be dragged through the mud by those reactionaries". Meaning
Chiang was not the moral power in China.
Same for Vietnam US puppets were not and had no moral power/authority.
In Afghanistan same!
Iraq is split in moral authority, the areas populated by Shi'a are okay as long as the
central government does not pander to the Sunni 1/3 (Baathists were suppressing Shi'a).
I do not agree with quoting Acheson when there is plenty of professional soldier writings
that say it more clearly.
After Korea the professional soldiers were no longer expressive when it cme to propping
thugs, with no moral power in their own borders (granted many of the borders surround
fictional counties).
US has stood with thugs for most of its quagmire experience.......
This week US is looking for a way to start a new quagmire with Iran for royal murderers'
sharing their oil company!
Regarding your last sentence: this is the great truth that Washington's world hegemonists would have you forget. Taking into
account the untapped vast resources of Canada and Alaska and its expansive offshore economic zones extending deep into the Atlantic,
the Pacific, the Gulf of Mexico and the Arctic Ocean, the North American anglosphere could be entirely self-sufficient and do
quite nicely on its own for hundreds of years to come, it just wouldn't be the sole tyrannical state presumably ruling the entire
planet.
Why, it might even entertain the idea of actually cooperating with other regional powers like Russia, China, the EU, India,
Iran, Turkey, the Middle East, greater central Asia, Latin America and even Africa to everyone's benefit, rather than bullying
them all because god ordained us to be the boss of all humans.
America's major malfunction is its lack of historical roots compared to the other societies mentioned. All those places had
thousands of years to refine their sundry cultures and international relationships, certainly through trial and error and many
horrible setbacks, most notably wars, famines, pestilence, genocide and human bondage which people did not have the foresight
to nip in the bud. They learned by their mistakes and some, like the great world wars, were doozies.
The United States, and some of its closest homologues like Canada, Australia, Brazil and Argentina, were thrown together very
rapidly as part of developing colonial empires. It was created through the brute actions of a handful of megalomaniacal oligarchs
of their day. What worked to suppress vast tracts of aboriginal homelands, often through genocide and virtual extinction of the
native populations, was so effective that it was institutionalized in the form of slavery and reckless exploitation of the local
environment. These "great leaders," "pioneers" and "founding fathers" were not about to give up a set of principles -- no matter
how sick and immoral -- which they knew to "work" and accrued to them great power and riches. They preferred to label it "American
exceptionalism" and force it upon the whole rest of the world, including long established regional powers -- cultures going back
to antiquity -- and not just conveniently sketched "burdens of the white man."
No, ancient cultures like China, India, Persia and so forth could obviously be improved for all concerned merely by allowing
a handful of Western Europeans to own all their property and run all their affairs. That grand plan fell apart for most of the
European powers in the aftermath of World War Two, but Washington has held tough and never given up its designs of micromanaging
and exploiting the whole planet. It too is soon to learn its lesson and lose its empire. Either that or it will take the world
down in flames as it tries to cling to all that it never really owned or deserved. The most tragic (or maybe just amusing) part
is that Washington still had most of the world believing its bullshit about exceptionalism and indispensability until it decided
it had to emulate every tyrannical empire that ever collapsed before it.
Realist , April 30, 2019 at 02:08
"ex·tor·tion /ik?stôrSH(?)n/ noun The practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats."
"Racketeering refers to crimes committed through extortion or coercion. A racketeer attempts to obtain money or property from
another person, usually through intimidation or force. The term is typically associated with organized crime."
I see. So, American foreign policy, as applied to both its alleged enemies and presumed allies, essentially amounts to an exercise
in organised crime. So much for due process, free trade, peaceful co-existence, magical rainbows and other such hypocritical platitudes
dispensed for domestic consumption in place of the heavy-handed threats routinely delivered to Washington's targets.
That's quite in keeping with the employment of war crimes as standard "tactics, techniques and procedures" on the battlefield
which was recently admitted to us by Senator Jim Molan on the "60 Minutes" news show facsimile and discussed in one of yesterday's
forums on this blog.
Afghanistan was promised a carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs as incentive to bend to our will (and that of Unocal which,
unlike Nordstream, was a pipeline Washington wanted built). Iraq was promised and delivered "shock and awe" after a secretary
of state had declared the mass starvation of that country's children as well worth the effort. They still can't find all the pieces
left of the Libyan state. Syria was told it would be stiffed on any American contribution to its rebuilding for the effrontery
of actually beating back the American-recruited, trained and financed ISIS terrorist brigades. Now it's being deliberately starved
of both its energy and food requirements by American embargoes on its own resources! North Korea was promised utter annihilation
by Yankee nukes before Kim's summit with our great leader unless it submitted totally to his will, or more likely that of Pompous
Pompeo, the man who pulls his strings. Venezuela is treated to cyber-hacked power outages and shortages of food, medicines, its
own gold bullion, income from its own international petroleum sales and, probably because someone in Washington thinks it's funny,
even toilet paper. All they have to do to get relief is kick out the president they elected and replace him with Washington's
chosen puppet! Yep, freedom and democracy blah, blah, blah. And don't even ask what the kids in Yemen got for Christmas from Uncle
Sam this year. (He probably stole their socks.) A real American patriot will laughingly take Iran to task for ever believing in
the first place that Washington could be negotiated with in good faith. All they had to do was ask the Native Americans (or the
Russians) how the Yanks keep their word and honor their treaties. It was their own fault they were taken for suckers.
"... Why have we supported Nguema, Karimov, and Kagame but not the ones who are thorns in our sides? The reasons are obvious. It's not the lives of their citizens - it's power for the elite class. We intervene abroad because we want to further the interest of the wealthy. ..."
"... America will always pick and choose the leaders it props up and tears down. It never was and never will be for humanitarian reasons -- that is a clever veil. We denounce ethnic cleansing and then fund it. We call for free elections and then support Pinochet, Stroessner, and Videla. ..."
"... Opposing war is a noble and courageous act, and there will always be smears. Opposing war isn't supporting dictators; it's opposing death and destruction in the service of the wealthy. Never believe what they tell you about why they're sending your kids to die. Never. ..."
Idealistic Realist , Apr 27, 2019 1:24:45 PM |
link
Best analysis by a candidate for POTUS ever:
American foreign policy is not a failure. To comfort themselves, observers often say that our leaders -- presidents, advisors,
generals -- don't know what they're doing. They do know. Their agenda just isn't what we like to imagine it is.
To quote Michael Parenti: "US policy is not filled with contradictions and inconsistencies. It has performed brilliantly
and steadily in the service of those who own most of the world and who want to own all of it."
The vision of our leaders as bunglers, while more accurate than the image of them as valiant public servants, is less accurate
and more rose-tinted than the closest approximation of the truth, which is that they are servants of their class interest.
That is why we go to war.
Those who buy the elite class's foreign policy BS, about the Emmanuel Goldsteins they conjure up every three years, are
fools. Obviously Hussein and Milošević were bad; but "government bad" does not mean we must invade. Wars occur for economic,
not humanitarian, reasons.
Teodoro Obiang Nguema, the president of Equatorial Guinea, is a kleptocrat, murderer, and alleged cannibal. This is
him and his wife with Barack and Michelle Obama.
Islam Karimov, the president of Uzbekistan, was said to have boiled political prisoners to death, massacred hundreds
of prisoners, and made torture an institution. This is him with John Kerry.
Paul Kagame, the president of Rwanda, has been involved in the assassination of political opponents, perpetrated obvious
election fraud, and had his term extended until 2034. This is him with Barack and Michelle Obama.
Why have we supported Nguema, Karimov, and Kagame but not the ones who are thorns in our sides? The reasons are obvious.
It's not the lives of their citizens - it's power for the elite class. We intervene abroad because we want to further the interest
of the wealthy.
America will always pick and choose the leaders it props up and tears down. It never was and never will be for humanitarian
reasons -- that is a clever veil. We denounce ethnic cleansing and then fund it. We call for free elections and then support
Pinochet, Stroessner, and Videla.
Opposing war is a noble and courageous act, and there will always be smears. Opposing war isn't supporting dictators;
it's opposing death and destruction in the service of the wealthy. Never believe what they tell you about why they're sending
your kids to die. Never.
New book by David NorthA Quarter Century of War: The US Drive for Global Hegemony 1990–2016
Notable quotes:
"... "Landler informs his readers that Obama "went for a walk among the tombstones at Arlington National Cemetery before giving the order to send 30,000 additional troops into Afghanistan." He recalls a passage from Obama's 2009 speech accepting the Nobel Prize, in which the president wearily lamented that humanity needed to reconcile "two seemingly irreconcilable truths -- that war is sometimes necessary, and war at some level is an expression of human folly." ..."
"... Typical American philosophy... "War is peace!"... ..."
We publish here the preface to A Quarter Century of War: The US Drive for Global Hegemony, 1990-2016 by David North.
The book will be published on August 10, and is available for preorder today at Mehring Books in both
softcover
and hardcover
.
***
"In the period of crisis the hegemony of the United States will operate more completely, more openly, and more ruthlessly than
in the period of boom."
-- Leon Trotsky, 1928
"U.S. capitalism is up against the same problems that pushed Germany in 1914 on the path of war. The world is divided? It must
be redivided. For Germany it was a question of 'organizing Europe.' The United States must 'organize' the world. History is bringing
mankind face to face with the volcanic eruption of American imperialism."
-- Leon Trotsky, 1934
This volume consists of political reports, public lectures, party statements, essays, and polemics that document the response
of the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI) to the quarter century of US-led wars that began in 1990–91. The
analyses of events presented here, although written as they were unfolding, stand the test of time. The International Committee does
not possess a crystal ball. But its work is informed by a Marxist understanding of the contradictions of American and world imperialism.
Moreover, the Marxist method of analysis examines events not as a sequence of isolated episodes, but as moments in the unfolding
of a broader historical process. This historically oriented approach serves as a safeguard against an impressionistic response to
the latest political developments. It recognizes that the essential cause of an event is rarely apparent at the moment of
its occurrence.
Much of what passes for analysis in the bourgeois press consists of nothing more than equating an impressionistic description
of a given event with its deeper cause. This sort of political analysis legitimizes US wars as necessary responses to one or another
personification of evil, such as Saddam Hussein in Iraq, the "warlord" Farah Aideed in Somalia, Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia, Osama
bin Laden of Al Qaeda, the Mullah Omar in Afghanistan, Muammar Gaddafi in Libya; and, most recently, Bashar al Assad in Syria, Kim
Jong Un in Korea, and Vladimir Putin in Russia. New names are continually added to the United States' infinitely expandable list
of monsters requiring destruction.
The material in this volume is the record of a very different and far more substantial approach to the examination of the foreign
policy of the United States.
First, and most important, the International Committee interpreted the collapse of the Stalinist regimes in Eastern Europe in
1989–90, and the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, as an existential crisis of the entire global nation-state system, as it
emerged from the ashes of World War II. Second, the ICFI anticipated that the breakdown of the established postwar equilibrium would
lead rapidly to a resurgence of imperialist militarism. As far back as August 1990 -- twenty-six years ago -- it was able to foresee
the long-term implications of the Bush administration's war against Iraq:
It marks the beginning of a new imperialist redivision of the world. The end of the postwar era means the end of the
postcolonial era. As it proclaims the "failure of socialism," the imperialist bourgeoisie, in deeds if not yet in words, proclaims
the failure of independence. The deepening crisis confronting all the major imperialist powers compels them to secure control
over strategic resources and markets. Former colonies, which had achieved a degree of political independence, must be resubjugated.
In its brutal assault against Iraq, imperialism is giving notice that it intends to restore the type of unrestrained domination
of the backward countries that existed prior to World War II. [
1 ]
This historically grounded analysis provided the essential framework for an understanding, not only of the 1990–91 Gulf War, but
also of the wars that were launched later in the decade, as well as the post-9/11 "War on Terror."
In a recently published front-page article, the New York Times called attention to a significant milestone in the presidency
of Barack Obama: "He has now been at war longer than Mr. Bush, or any other American president." But with several months remaining
in his term in office, he is on target to set yet another record. The Times wrote:
If the United States remains in combat in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria until the end of Mr. Obama's term -- a near-certainty
given the president's recent announcement that he will send 250 additional Special Operations forces to Syria -- he will leave
behind an improbable legacy as the only president in American history to serve two complete terms with the nation at war. [
2 ]
On the way to setting his record, Mr. Obama has overseen lethal military actions in a total of seven countries: Iraq, Afghanistan,
Syria, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen. The number of countries is growing, as the United States escalates its military operations
in Africa. The efforts to suppress the Boko Haram insurgency involve a buildup of US forces in Nigeria, Cameroon, Niger, and Chad.
Without any sense of irony, Mark Landler, author of the Times article, notes Obama's status as a Nobel Peace Prize winner
in 2009. He portrays the president as "trying to fulfill the promises he made as an antiwar candidate. . . ." Obama "has wrestled
with this immutable reality [of war] from his first year in the White House . . ."
Landler informs his readers that Obama "went for a walk among the tombstones at Arlington National Cemetery before giving the
order to send 30,000 additional troops into Afghanistan." He recalls a passage from Obama's 2009 speech accepting the Nobel Prize,
in which the president wearily lamented that humanity needed to reconcile "two seemingly irreconcilable truths -- that war is sometimes
necessary, and war at some level is an expression of human folly."
During the Obama years, folly has clearly held the upper hand. But there is nothing that Landler's hero can do. Obama has found
his wars "maddeningly hard to end."
The Times ' portrayal of Obama lacks the essential element required by genuine tragedy: the identification of objective
forces, beyond his control, that frustrated and overwhelmed the lofty ideals and humanitarian aspirations of the president. If Mr.
Landler wants his readers to shed a tear for this peace-loving man who, upon becoming president, made drone killings his personal
specialty, and turned into something akin to a moral monster, the Times correspondent should have attempted to identify the
historical circumstances that determined Obama's "tragic" fate.
But this is a challenge the Times avoids. It fails to relate Obama's war-making record to the entire course of American
foreign policy over the past quarter century. Even before Obama entered office in 2009, the United States had been at war on an almost
continuous basis since the first US-Iraq War of 1990–91.
The pretext for the Gulf War was Iraq's annexation of Kuwait in August 1990. But the violent US reaction to Iraqi President Saddam
Hussein's dispute with the emir of Kuwait was determined by broader global conditions and considerations. The historical context
of the US military operation was the imminent dissolution of the Soviet Union, which was finally carried out in December 1991. The
first President Bush declared the beginning of a "New World Order." [
3 ] What Bush meant by this phrase was
that the United States was now free to restructure the world in the interests of the American capitalist class, unencumbered by either
the reality of the countervailing military power of the Soviet Union or the specter of socialist revolution. The dissolution of the
USSR, hailed by Francis Fukuyama as the "End of History," signified for the strategists of American imperialism the end of military
restraint.
It is one of the great ironies of history that the definitive emergence of the United States as the dominant imperialist power,
amid the catastrophe of World War I, coincided with the outbreak of the 1917 Russian Revolution, which culminated in the establishment
of the first socialist workers state in history, under the leadership of the Bolshevik Party. On April 3, 1917, President Woodrow
Wilson delivered his war message to the US Congress and led the United States into the global imperialist conflict. Two weeks later,
V.I. Lenin returned to Russia, which was in the throes of revolution, and reoriented the Bolshevik Party toward the fight to overthrow
the bourgeois Provisional Government.
Lenin and his principal political ally, Leon Trotsky, insisted that the struggle for socialism was indissolubly linked to the
struggle against war. As the historian R. Craig Nation has argued:
For Lenin there was no doubt that the revolution was the result of a crisis of imperialism and that the dilemmas which it posed
could only be resolved on the international level. The campaign for proletarian hegemony in Russia, the fight against the war,
and the international struggle against imperialism were now one and the same. [
4 ]
Just as the United States was striving to establish its position as the arbiter of the world's destiny, it faced a challenge,
in the form of the Bolshevik Revolution, not only to the authority of American imperialism, but also to the economic, political,
and even moral legitimacy of the entire capitalist world order. "The rhetoric and actions of the Bolsheviks," historian Melvyn P.
Leffler has written, "ignited fear, revulsion and uncertainty in Washington." [
5 ]
Another perceptive historian of US foreign policy explained:
The great majority of American leaders were so deeply concerned with the Bolshevik Revolution because they were so uneasy about
what President Wilson called the "general feeling of revolt" against the existing order, and about the increasing intensity of
that dissatisfaction. The Bolshevik Revolution became in their minds the symbol of all the revolutions that grew out of that discontent.
And that is perhaps the crucial insight into the tragedy of American diplomacy. [
6 ]
In a desperate effort to destroy the new revolutionary regime, Wilson sent an expeditionary force to Russia in 1918, in support
of counterrevolutionary forces in the brutal civil war. The intervention was an ignominious failure.
It was not until 1933 that the United States finally granted diplomatic recognition to the Soviet Union. The diplomatic rapprochement
was facilitated in part by the fact that the Soviet regime, now under Stalin's bureaucratic dictatorship, was in the process of repudiating
the revolutionary internationalism that had inspired the Bolsheviks in 1917. It was abandoning the perspective of world revolution
in favor of alliances with imperialist states on the basis of "collective security." Unable to secure such an alliance with Britain
and France, Stalin signed the notorious Non-Aggression Pact with Hitler in August 1939. Following Hitler's invasion of the Soviet
Union in June 1941, and the entry of the United States into World War II in December 1941, the exigencies of the struggle against
Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan required that the administration of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt forge a military alliance
with the Soviet Union. But once Germany and Japan were defeated, relations between the United States and the Soviet Union rapidly
deteriorated. The Truman administration, opposing the extension of Soviet influence into Eastern Europe, and frightened by the growth
of Communist parties in Western Europe, launched the Marshall Plan in 1948 and triggered the onset of the Cold War.
The Kremlin regime pursued nationalistic policies, based on the Stalinist program of "socialism in one country," and betrayed
working class and anti-imperialist movements all over the world. But the very existence of a regime that arose out of a socialist
revolution had a politically radicalizing impact throughout the world. William Appleman Williams was certainly correct in his view
that "American leaders were for many, many years more afraid of the implicit and indirect challenge of the revolution than they were
of the actual power of the Soviet Union." [
7 ]
In the decades that followed World War II, the United States was unable to ignore the existence of the Soviet Union. To the extent
that the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China, which was established in 1949, provided limited political and material
support to anti-imperialist movements in the "Third World," they denied the US ruling class a free hand in the pursuit of its own
interests. These limitations were demonstrated -- to cite the most notable examples -- by the US defeats in Korea and Vietnam, the
compromise settlement of the Cuban missile crisis, and the acceptance of Soviet domination of the Baltic region and Eastern Europe.
The existence of the Soviet Union and an anticapitalist regime in China deprived the United States of the possibility of unrestricted
access to and exploitation of the human labor, raw materials, and potential markets of a large portion of the globe, especially the
Eurasian land mass. It compelled the United States to compromise, to a greater degree than it would have preferred, in negotiations
over economic and strategic issues with its major allies in Europe and Asia, as well as with smaller countries that exploited the
tactical opportunities provided by the US-Soviet Cold War.
The dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991, combined with the restoration of capitalism in China following the Tiananmen
Square massacre of June 1989, was seen by the American ruling class as an opportunity to repudiate the compromises of the post-World
War II era, and to carry out a restructuring of global geopolitics, with the aim of establishing the hegemony of the United States.
There was no small element of self-delusion in the grandiose American response to the breakup of the Soviet Union. The bombastic
claims that the United States had won the Cold War were based far more on myth than reality. In fact, the sudden dissolution of the
Soviet Union took the entire Washington foreign policy establishment by surprise. In February 1987, the Council on Foreign Relations
published an assessment of US-Soviet relations, authored by two of its most eminent Sovietologists, Strobe Talbott and Michael Mandelbaum.
Analyzing the discussions between Reagan and Gorbachev at meetings in Geneva and Reykjavik in 1986, the two experts concluded:
No matter how Gorbachev comes to define perestroika in practice and no matter how he modifies the official definition
of security, the Soviet Union will resist pressure for change, whether it comes from without or within, from the top or the bottom.
The fundamental conditions of Soviet-American relations are therefore likely to persist. This, in turn, means that the ritual
of Soviet-American summitry is likely to have a long run. . . . [
8 ]
The "long run," Talbott and Mandelbaum predicted, would continue not only during the reign of "Gorbachev's successor," but also
his "successor's successor." No substantial changes in relations between the United States and the Soviet Union were to be expected.
The two prophets from the Council on Foreign Relations concluded:
Whoever they are, and whatever changes have occurred in the meantime, the American and Soviet leaders of the next century will
be wrestling with the same great issue -- how to manage their rivalry so as to avoid nuclear catastrophe -- that has engaged the
energies, in the latter half of the 1980s, of Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev. [
9 ]
In contrast to the Washington experts, who foresaw nothing, the International Committee recognized that the Gorbachev regime marked
a climactic stage in the crisis of Stalinism. "The crisis of Gorbachev," it declared in a statement dated March 23, 1987, "has emerged
as every section of world Stalinism confronts economic convulsions and upheavals by the masses. In every case -- from Beijing to
Belgrade -- the response of the Stalinist bureaucrats has been to turn ever more openly toward capitalist restorationism." [
10 ]
The Cold War victory narrative encouraged, within the ruling elite, a disastrous overestimation of the power and potential of
American capitalism. The drive for hegemony assumed the ability of the US to contain the economic and political centrifugal forces
unleashed by the operation of global capitalism. Even at the height of its power, such an immense project was well beyond the capacities
of the United States. But amid the euphoria generated by the end of the Soviet Union, the ruling class chose to ignore the deep-rooted
and protracted crisis of American society. An objective observer, examining the conditions of both the United States and the Soviet
Union between 1960 and 1990, might well have wondered which regime was in greater crisis. During the three decades that preceded
the dissolution of the USSR, the United States exhibited high levels of political, social, and economic instability.
Consider the fate of the presidential administrations in power during those three decades: (1) The Kennedy administration ended
tragically in November 1963 with a political assassination, in the midst of escalating social tensions and international crises;
(2) Lyndon B. Johnson, Kennedy's successor, was unable to seek reelection in 1968, as a result of urban riots and mass opposition
to the US invasion of Vietnam; (3) Richard Nixon was compelled to resign from office in August 1974, after the House of Representatives'
Judiciary Committee voted for his impeachment on charges related to his criminal subversion of the Constitution; (4) Gerald Ford,
who became president upon Nixon's resignation, was defeated in the November 1976 election amid popular revulsion over Nixon's crimes
and the US military debacle in Vietnam; (5) Jimmy Carter's one term in office was dominated by an inflationary crisis that sent the
federal prime interest rate to 20 percent, a bitter three month national coal miners strike, and the aftershocks generated by the
Iranian Revolution; and (6) Ronald Reagan's years in office, despite all the ballyhoo about "morning in America," were characterized
by recession, bitter social tension, and a series of foreign policy disasters in the Middle East and Central America. The exposure
of an illegal scheme to finance paramilitary operations in Nicaragua (the Iran-Contra crisis) brought Reagan to the very brink of
impeachment. His administration was saved by the leadership of the Democratic Party, which had no desire to remove from office a
president who was politically weakened and already exhibiting signs of dementia.
The one persistent factor that confronted all these administrations, from Kennedy to Reagan, was the erosion in the global economic
position of the United States. The unquestioned dominance of American finance and industry at the end of World War II provided the
economic underpinnings of the Bretton Woods system of dollar-gold convertibility that formed the basis of global capitalist growth
and stability. By the late 1950s, the system was coming under increasing strain. It was during the Kennedy administration that unfavorable
tendencies in the US balance of trade first began to arouse significant concern. On August 15, 1971, Nixon suddenly ended the Bretton
Woods system of fixed international exchange rates, pegged to a US dollar convertible at the rate of $35 per ounce of gold. During
the 1970s and 1980s, the decline in the exchange rate of the dollar mirrored the deterioration of the American economy.
The belligerent response of the United States to the 1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union reflected the weakness, not the strength,
of American capitalism. The overwhelming support within the ruling elite for a highly aggressive foreign policy arose from the delusion
that the United States could reverse the protracted erosion of its global economic position through the deployment of its immense
military power.
The Defense Planning Guidance, drafted by the Department of Defense in February 1992, unambiguously asserted the hegemonic ambitions
of US imperialism:
There are other potential nations or coalitions that could, in the further future, develop strategic aims and a defense posture
of region-wide or global domination. Our strategy must now refocus on precluding the emergence of any potential future global
competitor. [ 11 ]
The 1990s saw a persistent use of US military power, most notably in the first Gulf War, followed by its campaign to break up
Yugoslavia. The brutal restructuring of the Balkan states, which provoked a fratricidal civil war, culminated in the US-led 1999
bombing campaign to compel Serbia to accept the secession of the province of Kosovo. Other major military operations during that
decade included the intervention in Somalia, which ended in disaster, the military occupation of Haiti, the bombing of Sudan and
Afghanistan, and repeated bombing attacks on Iraq.
The events of September 11, 2001 provided the opportunity to launch the "War on Terror," a propaganda slogan that provided an
all-purpose justification for military operations throughout the Middle East, Central Asia and, with increasing frequency, Africa.
They furnished the Bush administration with a pretext to institutionalize war as a legitimate and normal instrument of American foreign
policy.
The administration of the second President Bush ordered the invasion of Afghanistan in the autumn of 2001. In speeches that followed
9/11, Bush used the phrase "wars of the twenty-first century." In this case, the normally inarticulate president spoke with precision.
The "War on Terror" was, from the beginning, conceived as an unending series of military operations all over the globe. One war would
necessarily lead to another. Afghanistan proved to be a dress rehearsal for the invasion of Iraq.
The military strategy of the United States was revised in line with the new doctrine of "preventive warfare," adopted by the US
in 2002. This doctrine, which violated existing international law, decreed that the United States could attack any country in the
world judged to pose a potential threat -- not only of a military, but also of an economic character -- to American interests.
In a verbal sleight of hand, the Bush administration justified the invasion of Iraq as a preemptive war, undertaken in
response to the imminent threat posed by the country's "weapons of mass destruction" to the national security of the United States.
Of course, the threat was as non-existent as were Saddam Hussein's WMDs. In any event, the Bush administration rendered the distinction
between preemptive and preventive war meaningless, by asserting the right of the United States to attack any country, regardless
of the existence or non-existence of an imminent threat to American national security. Whatever the terminology employed for propaganda
purposes by American presidents, the United States adheres to the illegal doctrine of preventive war.
The scope of military operations continuously widened. New wars were started while the old ones continued. The cynical invocation
of human rights was used to wage war against Libya and overthrow the regime of Muammar Gaddafi in 2011. The same hypocritical pretext
was employed to organize a proxy war in Syria. The consequences of these crimes, in terms of human lives and suffering, are incalculable.
The last quarter century of US-instigated wars must be studied as a chain of interconnected events. The strategic logic of the
US drive for global hegemony extends beyond the neocolonial operations in the Middle East and Africa. The ongoing regional wars are
component elements of the rapidly escalating confrontation of the United States with Russia and China.
It is through the prism of America's efforts to assert control of the strategically critical Eurasian landmass, that the essential
significance of the events of 1990–91 is being revealed. But this latest stage in the ongoing struggle for world hegemony, which
lies at the heart of the conflict with Russia and China, is bringing to the forefront latent and potentially explosive tensions between
the United States and its present-day imperialist allies, including -- to name the most significant potential adversary -- Germany.
The two world wars of the twentieth century were not the product of misunderstandings. The past is prologue. As the International
Committee foresaw in 1990–91, the American bid for global hegemony has rekindled interimperialist rivalries simmering beneath the
surface of world politics. Within Europe, dissatisfaction with the US role as the final arbiter of world affairs is being openly
voiced. In a provocative essay, published in Foreign Affairs , the journal of the authoritative US Council on Foreign Relations,
German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier has bluntly challenged Washington's presumption of US global dominance:
As the United States reeled from the effects of the Iraq war and the EU struggled through a series of crises, Germany held
its ground. . . .
Today both the United States and Europe are struggling to provide global leadership. The 2003 invasion of Iraq damaged the
United States' standing in the world. After the ouster of Saddam Hussein, sectarian violence ripped Iraq apart, and U.S. power
in the region began to weaken. Not only did the George W. Bush administration fail to reorder the region through force, but the
political, economic, and soft-power costs of this adventure undermined the United States' overall position. The illusion of a
unipolar world faded. [ 12 ]
In a rebuke to the United States, Steinmeier writes: "Our historical experience has destroyed any belief in national exceptionalism
-- for any nation." [ 13 ]
The journalists and academics, who work within the framework of the official narrative of the defense of human rights and the
"War on Terror," cannot explain the progression of conflicts, from the 1990–91 Gulf War, to the current expansion of NATO eight hundred
miles eastward, and the American "pivot to Asia." On a regular basis, the United States and its allies stage war games in Eastern
Europe, in close proximity to the borders of Russia, and in strategically critical waters off the coast of China. It is not difficult
to conceive of a situation in which events -- either as a result of deliberate calculation or of reckless miscalculation -- erupt
into a clash between nuclear-armed powers. In 2014, as the centenary of World War I approached, a growing number of scholarly papers
called attention to the similarities between the conditions that precipitated the disaster of August 1914 and present-day tensions.
One parallel between today and 1914 is the growing sense among political and military strategists that war between the United
States and China and/or Russia may be inevitable. As this fatalistic premise increasingly informs the judgments and actions of the
key decision makers at the highest level of the state, it becomes a dynamic factor that makes the actual outbreak of war more likely.
A specialist in international geopolitics has recently written:
Once war is assumed to be unavoidable, the calculations of leaders and militaries change. The question is no longer whether
there will or should be a war, but when the war can be fought most advantageously. Even those neither eager for nor optimistic
about war may opt to fight when operating in the framework of inevitability. [
14 ]
Not since the end of World War II has there existed so great a danger of world war. The danger is heightened by the fact that
the level of popular awareness of the threat remains very limited. What percentage of the American population, one must ask, realizes
that President Barack Obama has formally committed the United States to go to war in defense of Estonia, in the event of a conflict
between the small Baltic country and Russia? The media has politely refrained from asking the president to state how many human beings
would die in the event of a nuclear war between the United States and either Russia or China, or both at the same time.
On the eve of World War II, Leon Trotsky warned that a catastrophe threatened the entire culture of mankind. He was proven correct.
Within less than a decade, the Second World War claimed the lives of more than fifty million people. The alarm must once again be
sounded. The working class and youth within the United States and throughout the world must be told the truth.
The progressive development of a globally integrated world economy is incompatible with capitalism and the nation-state system.
If war is to be stopped and a global catastrophe averted, a new and powerful mass international movement, based on a socialist program,
and strategically guided by the principles of revolutionary class struggle, must be built. In opposition to imperialist geopolitics,
in which national states fight brutally for regional and global dominance, the International Committee counterposes the strategy
of world socialist revolution. As Trotsky advised, we "follow not the war map but the map of the class struggle. . . ." [
15 ]
In the weeks prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, there were mass protests against the war policies of the United States and
its allies. Millions took to the streets. But after the war began, public opposition virtually disappeared. The absence of popular
protest did not signify support for the war. Rather, it reflected the repudiation, by the old middle-class protest movement, of its
former Vietnam-era opposition to imperialism.
There are mounting signs of political radicalization among significant sections of the working class and youth. It is only a matter
of time before this radicalization gives rise to conscious opposition to war. It is the aim of this volume to impart to the new antiwar
movement a revolutionary socialist and internationalist perspective and program.
The quotes from Trotsky are glaring. These and others were used to argue against socialism in the post war decades, but all that
was needed was time and the working of the forces of capitalism itself. History never ended, it is right on schedule
"Landler informs his readers that Obama "went for a walk among the tombstones at Arlington National Cemetery before giving
the order to send 30,000 additional troops into Afghanistan." He recalls a passage from Obama's 2009 speech accepting the Nobel
Prize, in which the president wearily lamented that humanity needed to reconcile "two seemingly irreconcilable truths -- that
war is sometimes necessary, and war at some level is an expression of human folly."
VI lenin crushed the Krondstadt rebellion that was the true 'soviet union' model and instituted a hard right revolutionary regime
of ruthless dictatorial control from smolny, not a workers state. The US borgeouis (and french and english) intervened to keep
russia in the war and 160 german divisions from leaving the eastern front. The threat of a workers state was not the concern of
the victors. The failure of revolutionary russia to represent what this article is propping it up to be (some kind of genuine
workers state) leaves me deeply suspect about the other conclusions he's bent history to. Anyone who's read "2 years in russia"
by emma goldman, and "the victors dilemma" - john silverlight and any number of books on the russian civil war, it is clear that
the intervention was for military tactical reasons and that the nascient state was in no ways a workers state but a totalitarian
military dictatorship. Emma Goldman's disillusionment is not her falling out of love with her ideals, but her coming to terms
with the reality vs the PR of Russia. Which is why this website (Wsws) advertised a book repudiating the rejection of socialism
with the faiure of the soviet union as a false narrative a year or few ago.
The historical memoir is clear, diaries, memos, news articles, and the Western soldier revolts, time to smash the revolution.
Kronstadt was a tragedy, but the regime was under threat. history is messy.
I can imagine that
the leadership of imperialist countries was underestimating the bolsheviks in 1917, but once the Russian revolution had given
enough confidence to the German masses to make the war stop one year later, once the French black sea fleet had rebelled in 1919,
etc... they were all very conscious of the risks (potential risks, not immediate threats).
The evidence in favour of what Trotsky wrote about Kronstadt is simply overwhelming. A cmd above gave some basic evidence. Trotsky
was absolutely right and absolutely honest on what he wrote later on ("hue and cry over Kronstadt")
The working class has been the victim of betrayal after betrayal by pseudo-left forces in the 20th century, which led to two catastrophic
world wars and all the other conflicts that have created needless bloodshed around the world. The great task will be, when the
new mass working class anti-war movement arises, to give the working class the political knowledge it needs to not fall for the
traps that dissipated anti-war movements in the past. It must be made clear to the workers of the world that for us, it's do or
die time - literally, as the obscene levels of social inequality and the prospect of nuclear confrontation prove.
I understand this very well, having seen what happened to what I thought at the time was a powerful antiwar movement in the 1960s
against the war in Vietnam. I was quite politically naive at the time and became so disillusioned with politics in general and
what I then thought to be the "left" in particular, that I went off politics completely and started reading Ayn Rand.
After being turned off by Rand's misanthropy and hatred of the working class (even though I admired her atheism), I became
more or less apolitical until 1998, when I first read the World Socialist Web Site and found what I had been looking for.
for this affirming comment. Me too, having all but given up on politics and following a last ditch
search of the web I was rewarded with a political program and party that was more than compatible with my world view and personal
values. Something I had not thought possible, thank you ICFI/SEP.
There are times when even we as Marxists find ourselves scouring the past for a word that befits the character and luminosity
of a moment in human understanding. In this respect David North has given new meaning to the word 'Biblical'.
As a word, its essence is transcendent. For whoever defines an epoch in the clearest and most profoundest way as this, is elevated
to the realms of Greatness.
As the bourgeoisie now scrabbles, in fights, and drowns in the last dregs of its alchemy, a Phoenix arises out of their chaos
lest the bourgeoisie commits all to the Fires of Hell ....
Most excellent words comrade David ...a most excellent call to class struggle .
This is a remarkably panoramic account, grounded in both history and economics, of the unfolding of U.S. militarism and imperialist
warfare over the past 30 or so years. It is without peer in anything else I have seen in terms of showing that events and tendencies
- which we may have been separately aware of - were in fact part of a historical continuum growing out of economic developments
and the perceived interests of the U.S. ruling class.
Always interesting to read cmd. North. ''First, and most important, the International Committee interpreted the collapse of the
Stalinist regimes in Eastern Europe in 1989–90, and the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, as an existential crisis of the
entire global nation-state system, as it emerged from the ashes of World War II. Second, the ICFI anticipated that the breakdown
of the established postwar equilibrium would lead rapidly to a resurgence of imperialist militarism''. This is great but we also
have German militarism on the rise and we should not underestimate. The working class must be prepared for economic and even actual
wars in Europe and elsewhere. The redivision of markets and resources is evident with Germany and China on the table.
March 12, 2019 at 5:25
pm GMT • 200 Words @AnonFromTN
Superfluously impossible, AnonfromTN said: "It is simple, really. The US needs a law
prohibiting anyone with dual citizenship to hold public office."
Hi AnonfromTN.
Hard to comprehend how you persist to deny how the "US law" is Zionized. (Zigh) Israeli
"dual citizenship and holding "Homeland" public office is an irretractable endowment lawlessly
given to US Jews by ruling international Jewry.
They barged into our Constitution like a cancer and feast upon The Bill of Rights.
What's worse now is how livin' the "American dream" has reversed, and at present, President
t-Rump demands huge increases in war funding.
No one gets informed that future wars converge with Israel's will.
Please consider looking at the Wikileaks video linked below? It illustrates a barbaric type
of war crime-free & unaccountability to "international law," including a lawless US
military Rules of Engagement modus operandi, which governed the serial killing activity of an
Apache attack chopper crew in the Baghdad sky. Look close at the posed threat!
Tell me AnonfromTN? As you likely know, Bradley Chelsea Manning is, and under "Homeland"
law, in-the-klink for exposing the war crimes to America. Is their one (1) US Congressman
raising objection to the imprisonment? Fyi, you can look at the brave writing of Kathy Kelly on
the Manning case, and which appears at Counterpunch.org.
@ChuckOrloski I
can only agree. The patient (the US political system) is too far gone to hope for recovery.
As comment #69 rightly points out, our political system is based on bribery. Lobbyism and
donations to political campaigns and PACs are perfectly legal in the US, while all of these
should be criminal offenses punished by jail time, like in most countries. Naturally,
desperate Empires losing their dominant position resort to any war crimes imaginable, and
severely punish those who expose these crimes.
I can add only one thing: you are right that greedy Jews are evil, but greedy people of
any nationality are just as evil as greedy Jews. Not all greedy globalists and MIC thieves
are Jews, but they are all scum. I watch with dismay the US Empire heading to its crash.
Lemmings running to the cliff are about as rational as our degenerate elites. Israel
influence is toxic, but that's not the only poison the Empire will die from.
Information from local sources said that US army helicopters have already transported the gold bullions under cover of darkness
on Sunday [February 24th], before transporting them to the United States.
The sources said that tens of tons that Daesh had been keeping in their last hotbed in al-Baghouz area in Deir Ezzor countryside
have been handed to the Americans, adding up to other tons of gold that Americans have found in other hideouts for Daesh, making
the total amount of gold taken by the Americans to the US around 50 tons, leaving only scraps for the SDF [Kurdish] militias that
serve them [the US operation].
Recently, sources said that the area where Daesh leaders and members have barricaded themselves in, contains around 40 tons
of gold and tens of millions of dollars.
Allegedly, "US occupation forces in the Syrian al-Jazeera area made a deal with Daesh terrorists, by which Washington gets tens
of tons of gold that the terror organization had stolen, in exchange for providing safe passage for the terrorists and their leaders
from the areas in Deir Ezzor where they are located."
ISIS was financing its operations largely by the theft of oil from the oil wells in the Deir Ezzor area, Syria's oil-producing
region, and they transported and sold this stolen oil via their allied forces, through Turkey, which was one of those US allies trying
to overthrow Syria's secular Government
and install a Sunni fundamentalist regime that would be ruled from Riyadh (i.e., controlled by the Saud family) . This gold is
the property of the Syrian Government, which owns all that oil and the oil wells, which ISIS had captured (stolen), and then sold.
Thus, this gold is from sale of that stolen black-market oil, which was Syria's property.
The US Government evidently thinks that the public are fools, idiots. America's allies seem to be constantly amazed at how successful
that approach turns out to be.
Jihadists were recruited from throughout the world to fight against Syria's secular Government. Whereas ISIS was funded mainly
by black-market sales of oil from conquered areas, the Al-Qaeda-led groups were mainly funded by the Sauds and other Arab royal families
and their retinues, the rest of their aristocracy. On 13 December 2013, BBC headlined
"Guide to the Syrian rebels" and opened "There are
believed to be as many as 1,000 armed opposition groups in Syria, commanding an estimated 100,000 fighters." Except in the Kurdish
areas in Syria's northeast, almost all of those fighters were being led by Al Qaeda's Syrian Branch, al-Nusra. Britain's Center on
Religion & Politics headlined on 21 December 2015,
"Ideology
and Objectives of the Syrian Rebellion" and reported: "If ISIS is defeated, there are at least 65,000 fighters belonging to other
Salafi-jihadi groups ready to take its place." Almost all of those 65,000 were trained and are led by Syria's Al Qaeda (Nusra), which
was protected by
the US
In September 2016 a UK official
"FINAL REPORT OF THE TASK
FORCE ON COMBATING TERRORIST AND FOREIGN FIGHTER TRAVEL" asserted that, "Over 25,000 foreign fighters have traveled to the battlefield
to enlist with Islamist terrorist groups, including at least 4,500 Westerners. More than 250 individuals from the United States have
also joined." Even just 25,000 (that official lowest estimate) was a sizable US proxy-army of religious fanatics to overthrow Syria's
Government.
On 26 November 2015, the first of Russia's videos of Russia's bombing ISIS oil trucks headed into Turkey was bannered at a US
military website
"Russia Airstrike on ISIS Oil Tankers" , and exactly a month later, on 26 December 2015, Britain's Daily Express headlined
"WATCH: Russian fighter jets smash ISIS oil tankers after spotting 12,000 at Turkish border" . This article, reporting around
twelve thousand ISIS oil-tanker trucks heading into Turkey, opened: "The latest video, released by the Russian defence ministry,
shows the tankers bunched together as they make their way along the road. They are then blasted by the fighter jet." The US military
had nothing comparable to offer to its 'news'-media. Britain's Financial Times headlined on 14 October 2015,
"Isis Inc: how oil fuels the jihadi terrorists" . Only America's allies were
involved in this commerce with ISIS -- no nation that supported Syria's Government was participating in this black market of stolen
Syrian goods. So, it's now clear that a lot of that stolen oil was sold for gold as Syria's enemy-nations' means of buying that oil
from ISIS. They'd purchase it from ISIS, but not from Syria's Government, the actual owner.
An estimated 20,000-40,000 barrels of oil are produced daily in ISIS controlled territory generating $1-1.5 million daily profit
for the terrorist organization. The oil is extracted from Dir A-Zur in Syria and two fields in Iraq and transported to the Kurdish
city of Zakhu in a triangle of land near the borders of Syria, Iraq and Turkey. Israeli and Turkish mediators come to the city
and when prices are agreed, the oil is smuggled to the Turkish city of Silop marked as originating from Kurdish regions of Iraq
and sold for $15-18 per barrel (WTI and Brent Crude currently sell for $41 and $45 per barrel) to the Israeli mediator, a man
in his 50s with dual Greek-Israeli citizenship known as Dr. Farid. He transports the oil via several Turkish ports and then onto
other ports, with Israel among the main destinations.
The US had done the same thing when it took over Ukraine by
a brutal coup in February 2014
: It grabbed the gold. Iskra News in Russian
reported, on 7 March 2014 , that "At 2 a.m. this morning ... an unmarked transport plane was on the runway at Borosipol Airport"
near Kiev in the west, and that, "According to airport staff, before the plane came to the airport, four trucks and two Volkswagen
minibuses arrived, all the truck license plates missing." This was as translated by Michel Chossudovsky at Global Research headlining
on 14 March,
"Ukraine's Gold Reserves Secretly Flown Out and Confiscated by the New York Federal Reserve?" in which he noted that, when asked,
"A spokesman for the New York Fed said simply, 'Any inquiry regarding gold accounts should be directed to the account holder.'" The
load was said to be "more than 40 heavy boxes." Chossudovsky noted that, "The National Bank of Ukraine (Central Bank) estimated Ukraine's
gold reserves in February to be worth $1.8 billion dollars." It was allegedly 36 tons. The US, according to Victoria Nuland (
Obama's detail-person
overseeing the coup ) had invested around $5 billion in the coup. Was her installed Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk
cleaning out the nation's gold reserves in order to strip the nation so that the nation's steep indebtedness for Russian gas would
never be repaid to Russia's oligarchs? Or was he doing it as a payoff for Nuland's having installed him? Or both? In any case: Russia
was being squeezed by this fascist
Ukrainian-American ploy.
The Syria operation was about oil, gold, and guns. However, most of America's support was to Al-Qaeda-led jihadists, not to ISIS-jihadists.
As the great independent investigative journalist Dilyana
Gaytandzhieva reported on 2 July 2017 :
"In December of last year while reporting on the battle of Aleppo as a correspondent for Bulgarian media I found and filmed
9 underground warehouses full of heavy weapons with Bulgaria as their country of origin. They were used by Al Nusra Front (Al
Qaeda affiliate in Syria designated as a terrorist organization by the UN)."
Furthermore, On
8 March 2013, Richard Spenser of Britain's Telegraph reported that Croatia's Jutarnji List newspaper had reported that "3,000
tons of weapons dating back to the former Yugoslavia have been sent in 75 planeloads from Zagreb airport to the rebels, largely via
Jordan since November. The airlift of dated but effective Yugoslav-made weapons meets key concerns of the West, and especially Turkey
and the United States, who want the rebels to be better armed to drive out the Assad regime."
Also, a September 2014 study by Conflict Armaments Research (CAR), titled
"Islamic State Weapons
in Iraq and Syria" , reported that not only east-European, but even US-made, weapons were being "captured from Islamic State
forces" by Kurds who were working for the Americans, and that this was very puzzling and disturbing to those Kurds, who were risking
their lives to fight against those jihadists.
In December 2017, CAR headlined
"Weapons of the Islamic State"
and reported that "this materiel was rapidly captured by IS forces, only to be deployed by the group against international coalition
forces." The assumption made there was that the transfer of weapons to ISIS was all unintentional.
That report ignored contrary evidence, which I summed up on 2 September 2017 headlining
"Russian TV
Reports US Secretly Backing ISIS in Syria" , and reporting there also from the Turkish Government an admission that the US was
working with Turkey to funnel surviving members of Iraq's ISIS into the Deir Ezzor part of Syria to help defeat Syria's Government
in that crucial oil-producing region. Moreover, at least one member of the 'rebels' that the US was training at Al Tanf on Syria's
Jordanian border had quit because his American trainers were secretly diverting some of their weapons to ISIS. Furthermore: why hadn't
the US bombed Syrian ISIS before Russia entered the Syrian war on 30 September 2015? America talked lots about its supposed effort
against ISIS, but why did US wait till 16 November 2015 before taking action,
"'Get Out Of Your Trucks And Run Away': US Gives ISIS 45 Minute Warning On Oil Tanker Strikes" ?
So, regardless of whether the US Government uses jihadists as its proxy-forces, or uses fascists as its proxy-forces, it grabs
the gold -- and grabs the oil, and takes whatever else it can.
This is today's form of imperialism.
Grab what you can, and run. And call it 'fighting for freedom and democracy and human rights and against corruption'. And the
imperial regime's allies watch in amazement, as they take their respective cuts of the loot. That's the deal, and they call it 'fighting
for freedom and democracy and human rights and against corruption around the world'. That's the way it works. International gangland.
That's the reality, while most of the public think it's instead really "fighting for freedom and democracy and human rights and against
corruption around the world." For example, as
RT reported on Sunday , March 3rd,
about John Bolton's effort at regime-change in Venezuela, Bolton said: "I'd like to see as broad a coalition as we can put together
to replace Maduro, to replace the whole corrupt regime,' Bolton told CNN's Jake Tapper." Trump's regime wants to bring clean and
democratic government to the poor Venezuelans, just like Bush's did to the Iraqis, and Obama's did to the Libyans and to the Syrians
and to the Ukrainians. And Trump, who pretends to oppose Obama's regime-change policies, alternately expands them and shrinks them.
Though he's slightly different from Obama on domestic policies, he never, as the US President, condemns any of his predecessors'
many coups and invasions, all of which were disasters for everybody except America's and allies' billionaires. They're all in on
the take.
The American public were suckered into destroying Iraq in 2003, Libya in 2011, Syria in 2011-now, and so many other countries,
and still haven't learned anything, other than to keep trusting the allegations of this lying and psychopathically vicious and super-aggressive
Government and of its stenographic 'news'-media. When is enough finally enough ? Never? If not never, then when ? Or do most people
never learn? Or maybe they don't really care. Perhaps that's the problem.
Back on 21 December 2018, one of the US regime's top 'news'-media, the Washington Post, had headlined
"Retreating ISIS army smuggled a fortune in cash and gold out of Iraq and Syria" and reported that "the Islamic State is sitting
on a mountain of stolen cash and gold that its leaders stashed away to finance terrorist operations." So, it's not as if there hadn't
been prior reason to believe that some day some of the gold would be found after America's defeat in Syria. Maybe they just hadn't
expected this to happen quite so soon. But the regime will find ways to hoodwink its public, in the future, just as it has in the
past. Unless the public wises-up (if that's even possible).
The USA 'lost' in Syria, the opposing coalition incl. Iran and Russia couldn't be faced off successfully.
Destroying Afgh., Iraq, Lybia, - all 'failures' in the sense of not garnering 'advantage' for the USA as a territory, a Federated
Nation, its citizens, its trade, boosting hopeful expansion, etc. One aim rarely mentioned is keeping allies on board, e.g. Sarkozy's
France, to invade Lybia. In France many say it was Sark I who did DE-ss-troy! Lybia.
The word *failure* is based on the acceptance of a stated aim reminiscent of old-style-colonialism: grab resources, exploit
super-cheap labor, control the natives, mine, exploit, shunt the goods / profits to home base.
If the aim is to stop rivals breathing, blast them back to the Stone Age, the success is good but relative. (see Iraq.) Private
GloboCorps (e.g. Glencore.. ) are in charge behind the curtain, many Gvmts are just stooges for them in the sense of unawoved
partnerships, the one feeding into the other, in a kind of desperado death spiral.
I have always been struck by the fact that Oil Projects / Management in Iraq, even wiki gives lists that shows major movers
and profiteers are not USA oil cos. / interests, but China, Malaysia, many others.
"... The US strategy is based on two core principles: (1) Maintain – extend hegemony over whole world. (Resources, military etc etc) (2) Act as Israel's Golom. ..."
"... Of course this (very abbreviated) view of US "strategy" is open to the criticisms that it's both dumb & evil. As if US establishment cares. Compared to cost of traditional "war" it's pretty cheap ..."
In truth, infinite war is a strategic abomination, an admission of professional military
bankruptcy. Erster General-Quartiermeister Ludendorff might have endorsed the term,
but Ludendorff was a military fanatic.
Check that. Infinite war is a strategic abomination except for arms merchants, so-called
defense contractors, and the " emergency
men " (and women) devoted to climbing the greasy pole of what we choose to call the
national security establishment. In other words, candor obliges us to acknowledge that, in some
quarters, infinite war is a pure positive, carrying with it a promise of yet more profits,
promotions, and opportunities to come. War keeps the gravy train rolling. And, of course,
that's part of the problem.
Who should we hold accountable for this abomination? Not the generals, in my view. If they
come across as a dutiful yet unimaginative lot, remember that a lifetime of military service
rarely nurtures imagination or creativity. And let us at least credit our generals with this:
in their efforts to liberate or democratize or pacify or dominate the Greater Middle East they
have tried every military tactic and technique imaginable. Short of nuclear annihilation,
they've played just about every card in the Pentagon's deck -- without coming up with a winning
hand. So they come and go at regular intervals, each new commander promising success and
departing after a couple years to
make way for someone else to give it a try.
... ... ...
Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election
already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to
declare: "Enough! Stop this madness!" Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white,
that person will deserve the nation's gratitude and the support of the electorate.
Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity.
No doubt Saudi and Israeli leaders will cheer, Europeans who remember their Great War will
scratch their heads in wonder, and the Chinese will laugh themselves silly. Meanwhile, issues
of genuinely strategic importance -- climate change offers one obvious example -- will continue
to be treated like an afterthought. As for the gravy train, it will roll on.
1. WW1 had total casualties (civilian and military) of around 40M. WW2 had total
casualties of 60M. So yes WW2 was more deadly but "pales in comparison" is hardly justified,
especially relative to population.
2. Marshal Foch, 28 June, 1919: "This is not a peace. It is an armistice for 20
years."
WW1 inevitably led to WW2.
The only politician with a modest national stage to have said that (and meant it) in the
last 50 years was Ron Paul, who was booed and mocked as crazy. Trump made noises in that
direction, but almost as soon as the last words of his oath echoed off into the brisk January
afternoon, he seemed to change his tune. Whether he never meant it, or decided to avoid the
JFK treatment, who knows.
No, as I believe Will Rogers said, democracy is that form of government where the people
get what they want, good and hard.
I supported Ron Paul in 2012. But after his candidacy was crookedly subverted by the
Establishment (cf., Trump's) I vowed never to vote again for anyone that I believe unworthy
of the power wielded through the public office. I haven't voted since, and don't expect to
until the Empire collapses.
Kirk Douglas starred in a great film about fighting in World War I: "Paths of Glory." I
highly recommend the film for its accuracy, best described in Wiki by the reaction of
governments:
Controversy
On its release, the film's anti-military tone was subject to criticism and censorship.
In France, both active and retired personnel from the French military vehemently
criticized the film -- and its portrayal of the French Army -- after it was released in
Belgium. The French government placed enormous pressure on United Artists, (the European
distributor) to not release the film in France. The film was eventually shown in France in
1975 when social attitudes had changed.[17]
In Germany, the film was withdrawn from the Berlin Film Festival to avoid straining
relations with France;[18] it was not shown for two years until after its release.
In Spain, Spain's right-wing government of Francisco Franco objected to the film. It was
first shown in 1986, 11 years after Franco's death.
In Switzerland, the film was censored, at the request of the Swiss Army, until
1970.[18]
At American bases in Europe, the American military banned it from being shown.[18]
No, it's not the generals who have let us down, but the politicians to whom they
supposedly report and from whom they nominally take their orders.
I'd say both. The generals have greatly assisted in stringing along the trusting public,
always promising that victory is just around the corner, provided the public supports this or
that final effort. Petraeus in particular willingly played his part in misleading the public
about both Iraq and Afghanistan. His career would be a great case study for illuminating what
is wrong with the U.S. today.
As to the apparent failure of the Afghanistan war – one must be careful to separate
stated goals from real ones. What kind of "lasting success" can the U.S. possibly hope for
there? If they managed to defeat the Taliban, pacify the country, install a puppet regime to
govern it, and then leave, what would that achieve? The puppet regime would find itself
surrounded by powers antagonistic to the U.S., and the puppets would either cooperate with
them or be overthrown in no time. The U.S. are not interested in winning and leaving –
they want to continue disrupting the peaceful integration of East, West, and South Asia.
Afghanistan is ideally placed for this purpose, and so the U.S. are quite content with
dragging out that war, as a pretext for their continued presence in the region.
I would disagree on one point though: "Today, Washington need not even bother to
propagandize the public into supporting its war. By and large, members of the public are
indifferent to its very existence."
This is an error. A majority of the American public think that wasting trillions of
dollars on endless pointless foreign wars is a stupid idea, and they think that we would be
better off spending that money on ourselves. It's just that we don't live in a democracy, and
the corporate press constantly ignores the issue. But just because the press doesn't mention
something, doesn't mean that it does not exist.
So during the last presidential election Donald Trump echoed this view, why are we
throwing away all this money on stupid wars when we need that money at home? For this he was
attacked as a fascist and "literally Hitler" (really! It's jaw-dropping when you think about
it). Despite massive propaganda attacking Trump, and a personal style that could charitably
be called a jackass, Trump won the election in large part because indeed most American don't
like the status quo.
After the election, Trump started to deliver on his promises – and he was quickly
beaten down, his pragmatist nationalist advisors purged and replaced with defense-industry
chickenhawks, and now we are back to the old status quo. The public be damned.
No, the American people are not being propagandized into supporting these wars. They are
simply being ignored.
When are you going to stop insulting our intelligence with this Boy's State civics crap?
You're calling on political leaders to stop war, like they don't remember what CIA did to
JFK, RFK, Daschle, or Leahy. Or Paul Wellstone.
Your national command structure, CIA, has impunity for universal jurisdiction crime. They
can kill or torture anyone they want and get away with it. That is what put them in charge.
CIA kills anybody who gets in their way. You fail to comprehend Lenin's lesson: first destroy
the regime, then you can refrain from use of force. Until you're ready to take on CIA, your
bold phrases are silent and odorless farts of feckless self-absorption. Sack up and imprison
CIA SIS or GTFO.
Since Spain was smart enough to stay out of both World Wars (as was Switzerland, of
course), I wonder what Franco was thinking when he banned the film. Anyway, the final scene
may be the best final scene in the history of movies.
This writer, a retired military officer whose son died in service to the yankee imperium
seems to have as good a grasp as any if not a better grasp than any about the nature of the
yankee system of permanent war.
While I agree the slave-American is ignored, I think the elected, salaried members of the
elected government are also ignored.. The persons in charge are Pharaohs and massively
powerful global in scope corporations.
Abe Lincoln, McKinnley, Kennedy discovered that fact in their fate.
Organized Zionism was copted by the London bankers and their corporations 1897, since then
a string of events have emerged.. that like a Submarine, seeking a far off target, it must
divert to avoid being discovered, but soon, Red October returns to its intended path. here
the path is to take the oil from the Arabs.. and the people driving that submarine are
extremely wealthy Pharaohs and very well known major corporations.
I suggest to quit talking about the nation states and their leaders as if either could
beat their way out of a wet paper sack. instead starting talking about the corporations and
Pharaohs because they are global.
The yawning silence accompanying the centennial of the Great War is baffling to me. It was
the pivotal event of the 20th century. It was the beginning of the unmanning, the
demoralization of Western Civilization. It was the calamity that created the World we inhabit
today.
I've heard nary a peep about it in the U.S. over the last four years. It's as if it were
as remote in people's consciousness as the Punic Wars.
The World Wars (I and II) can be seen as an increasingly desperate attempt of a fading
British Empire to hold on to and maintain its power and hegemony, with the material, human,
and moral cost of the wars actually accelerating the empire's demise.
Likewise, the current endless "War on Terra" can be seen as an increasingly desperate
attempt of a fading American Empire to hold on to and maintain its power and hegemony, again
with the material, human, and moral cost of this war actually accelerating its demise.
But in the meantime, in both examples, the Bankers and the MIC just keep reaping their
profits, even at the expense of the empires they purportedly support and defend.
In a traditional sense the author is right. Strategy is the attainment of political goals,
within existing constraints. (diplomatic, political, resources etc)
"Goals" traditionally means "victories". (WWI is a great example of the sometimes dubious
idea of victory)
Has the US ceased to have a strategy ? No. (Their strategy is myopic & self destructive
– ie it's not a "good" strategy)
The US strategy is based on two core principles: (1) Maintain – extend hegemony
over whole world. (Resources, military etc etc) (2) Act as Israel's Golom. Afghanistan,
at (relatively) minimal cost, US controls key land mass (& with possible future access to
fantastic resources). Threaten, mess up Russian – Chinese ambitions in this area. Iraq:
Israeli enemy, strategic location, resource extraction. Syria: Israeli enemy, strategic
location, key location for resource transfer to markets (EU esp). Deny Russia an ally. Libya:
who cares ? Gaddafi was a pain in the arse. Iran: Israeli enemy, fantastic resources, hate
them regardless.
Of course this (very abbreviated) view of US "strategy" is open to the criticisms that
it's both dumb & evil. As if US establishment cares. Compared to cost of traditional
"war" it's pretty cheap ( which is funny, because it's such a yummy gravy train for the
1% sorry, actually, forgot the FIRST core principle of US strategy: enrich all the "right"
people)
'There has never been a just [war], never an honorable one–on the part of the
instigator of the war. I can see a million years ahead, and this rule will never change in so
many as half a dozen instances. The loud little handful–as usual–will shout for
the war. The pulpit will– warily and cautiously–object–at first; the great,
big, dull bulk of the nation will rub its sleepy eyes and try to make out why there should be
a war, and will say, earnestly and indignantly, "It is unjust and dishonorable, and there is
no necessity for it." Then the handful will shout louder. A few fair men on the other side
will argue and reason against the war with speech and pen, and at first will have a hearing
and be applauded; but it will not last long; those others will outshout them, and presently
the anti-war audiences will thin out and lose popularity.
Before long you will see this
curious thing: the speakers stoned from the platform, and free speech strangled by hordes of
furious men who in their secret hearts are still at one with those stoned speakers–as
earlier– but do not dare to say so. And now the whole nation–pulpit and
all– will take up the war-cry, and shout itself hoarse, and mob any honest man who
ventures to open his mouth; and presently such mouths will cease to open. Next the statesmen
will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man
will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and
refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that
the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of
grotesque self-deception'.
- Satan, in Mark Twain's "The Mysterious Stranger" (1908)
European politicians, the war on terror, and the triumph of Bankers United: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/06/12/europe-brainwashed-normalize-relations-russia/
"Europe has not had an independent existence for 75 years. European countries do not know
what it means to be a sovereign state. Without Washington European politicians feel lost, so
they are likely to stick with Washington .
Russian hopes to unite with the West in a war against terrorism overlook that terrorism is
the West's weapon for destabilizing independent countries that do not accept a unipolar
world."
The world is ripe for barter exchange. Screw the money changers.
On January 8, 2018, former government advisor Edward Luttwak wrote an opinion piece for
Foreign Policy titled "It's Time to Bomb North Korea."
Luttwak's thesis is relatively straightforward. There is a government out there that may
very soon acquire nuclear-weapons capabilities, and this country cannot be trusted to
responsibly handle such a stockpile. The responsibility to protect the world from a rogue
nation cannot be argued with, and we understandably have a duty to ensure the future of
humanity.
However, there is one rogue nation that continues to hold the world ransom with its nuclear
weapons supply. It is decimating non-compliant states left, right, and center. This country
must be stopped dead in its tracks before anyone turns to the issue of North Korea.
In August of 1945, this rogue nation dropped two atomic bombs on civilian targets, not
military targets, completely obliterating between 135,000 and
300,000 Japanese civilians in just these two acts alone. Prior to this event, this country
killed even more civilians in the infamous
firebombing of Tokyo and other areas of Japan, dropping close to 500,000 cylinders of
napalm and petroleum jelly on some of Japan's most densely populated areas.
Recently, historians have become more open to the possibility that dropping the atomic bombs
in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not actually necessary to end World War II. This has also been
confirmed by those who actually took part in it. As the Nation
explained:
Fleet Adm. Chester Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, stated in a public
address at the Washington Monument two months after the bombings that 'the atomic bomb played
no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan ' Adm. William
"Bull" Halsey Jr., Commander of the US Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946 that 'the first
atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment . It was a mistake to ever drop it . [the
scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it
A few months' prior, this rogue country's
invasion of the Japanese island of Okinawa also claimed at least one quarter of Okinawa's
population. The Okinawan people have been protesting this country's military presence ever
since. The most recent ongoing protest
has lasted well over 5,000 days in a row.
This nation's bloodlust continued well after the end of World War II. Barely half a decade
later, this country bombed North Korea into complete oblivion, destroying over 8,700 factories,
5,000 schools, 1,000 hospitals, 600,000 homes, and
eventually killing off as much as 20 percent of the country's population. As the Asia
Pacific Journal has noted, the assaulting country dropped so many bombs that they eventually
ran out of targets to hit, turning to bomb the irrigation systems, instead:
By the fall of 1952, there were no effective targets left for US planes to hit. Every
significant town, city and industrial area in North Korea had already been bombed. In the
spring of 1953, the Air Force targeted irrigation dams on the Yalu River, both to destroy the
North Korean rice crop and to pressure the Chinese, who would have to supply more food aid to
the North. Five reservoirs were hit, flooding thousands of acres of farmland, inundating
whole towns and laying waste to the essential food source for millions of North Koreans."
This was just the beginning. Having successfully destroyed the future North Korean
state, this country moved on to the rest of East Asia and Indo-China, too. As Rolling Stone's
Matt Taibbi
has explained :
We [this loose cannon of a nation] dumped 20 million gallons of toxic herbicide on Vietnam
from the air, just to make the shooting easier without all those trees, an insane plan to win
'hearts and minds' that has left about a million still disabled from defects and disease
– including about 100,000 children, even decades later, little kids with misshapen
heads, webbed hands and fused eyelids writhing on cots, our real American legacy, well out of
view, of course.
This mass murder led to the deaths of between 1.5 million and 3.8 million people,
according to the Washington Post. More bombs were dropped on Vietnam than were unleashed
during the entire
conflict in World War II . While this was going on, this same country was also
secretly bombing Laos and Cambodia, too, where there are over 80 million
unexploded bombs still killing people to this day.
This country also decided to bomb Yugoslavia ,
Panama
, and
Grenada before invading Iraq in the early 1990s. Having successfully bombed Iraqi
infrastructure, this country then punished Iraq's entire civilian population with brutal
sanctions. At the time, the U.N.
estimated that approximately 1.7 million Iraqis had died as a result, including
500,000 to 600,000 children . Some years later, a prominent medical journal attempted
to absolve the cause of this infamous history by refuting the statistics involved despite
the fact that, when interviewed during the sanctions-era, Bill Clinton's secretary of state,
Madeleine Albright, intimated that to this rogue government, the
deaths of half a million children were "worth it" as the "price" Iraq needed to pay. In other
words, whether half a million children died or not was irrelevant to this bloodthirsty nation,
which barely blinked while carrying out this murderous policy.
This almighty superpower then invaded Iraq again in 2003 and plunged the entire region
into chaos . At the end of May 2017, the Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR)
released a study
concluding that the death toll from this violent nation's 2003 invasion of Iraq had led to over
one million deaths and that at least one-third of them were caused directly by the invading
force.
Not to mention this country also invaded Afghanistan prior to the invasion of Iraq (even
though the militants plaguing Afghanistan were
originally trained and financed by this warmongering nation). It then
went on to bomb Yemen, Syria, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, and the
Philippines .
Libya famously
had one of the highest standards of living in the region. It had state-assisted healthcare,
education, transport, and affordable housing. It is now a lawless war-zone
rife with extremism where slaves are openly traded like commodities
amid the power vacuum created as a direct result of the 2011 invasion.
In 2017, the commander-in-chief of this violent nation took the monumental death and
destruction to a new a level by removing
the restrictions on delivering airstrikes, which resulted in thousands upon
thousands of civilian deaths. Before that, in the first six months of 2017, this country
dropped
over 20,650 bombs , a monumental increase from the year that preceded it.
Despite these statistics, all of the above conquests are mere child's play to this nation.
The real prize lies in some of the more defiant and more powerful states, which this country
has already unleashed a containment strategy upon. This country has deployed its own troops all
across the border
with Russia even though it promised in the early 1990s it
would do no such thing. It also has a specific policy of
containing Russia's close ally, China, all the while threatening China's borders with talks
of direct strikes on North Korea (again, remember it already did so in the 1950s).
This country also elected a president who not only believes it is okay to embrace this rampantly violent
militarism but who openly calls other
countries "shitholes" – the very same term that aptly describes the way this country
has treated the rest of the world for decades on end. This same president also reportedly once
asked three times in a meeting
, "If we have nuclear weapons, why don't we use them?" and shortly after proposed a policy to
remove the constraints protecting the world from his dangerous supply of advanced nuclear
weaponry.
If we have any empathy for humanity, it is clear that this country must be stopped. It
cannot continue to act like this to the detriment of the rest of the planet and the safety and
security of the rest of us. This country
openly talks about using its nuclear weapons, has used them before, and has continued to
use all manner of weapons unabated in the years since while threatening to expand the use of
these weapons to other countries.
Seriously, if North Korea seems like a threat, imagine how the rest of the world feels while
watching one country violently take on the rest of the planet single-handedly, leaving nothing
but destruction in its wake and promising nothing less than a nuclear holocaust in the years to
come.
There is only one country that has done and that continues to do the very things North Korea
is being accused of doing.
Take as much time as you need for that to resonate.
1 The Korean War ends (1953
2 President Kennedy invades South Vietnam (1962)
3 The US overthrows Allende in Chile (1973)
4 The West installs Iranian dictator the Shah (1953)
5 The US-led Iraq invasion (2003)
Many honorable mentions including:
– NATO bombing of Serbia
– Libya
– Afghanistan
– Syria (support of ISIS and its predecessors and spinoffs)
The US body count is simply staggering – many millions killed, millions more wounded
or poisoned (Vietnam – agent orange and other chemical agents) and tens of millions of
lives forever damaged.
USA! USA! USA! (its elites that rule us of course!)
"... In a society often bereft of historical memory and in thrall to the propaganda of its "exceptionalism", Burns' "entirely new" Vietnam war is presented as "epic, historic work". Its lavish advertising campaign promotes its biggest backer, Bank of America, which in 1971 was burned down by students in Santa Barbara, California, as a symbol of the hated war in Vietnam. ..."
"... The cynical fabrication of "false flags" that led to the invasion of Vietnam is a matter of record – the Gulf of Tonkin "incident" in 1964, which Burns promotes as true, was just one. The lies litter a multitude of official documents, notably the Pentagon Papers ..."
"... Today, according to secret Nato documents obtained by the German newspaper, Suddeutsche Zetung, this vital treaty is likely to be abandoned as "nuclear targeting planning is increased". The German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel has warned against "repeating the worst mistakes of the Cold War All the good treaties on disarmament and arms control from Gorbachev and Reagan are in acute peril. Europe is threatened again with becoming a military training ground for nuclear weapons. We must raise our voice against this." ..."
"... Barack Obama provided the apotheosis, with seven simultaneous wars, a presidential record, including the destruction of Libya as a modern state. Obama's overthrow of Ukraine's elected government has had the desired effect: the massing of American-led Nato forces on Russia's western borderland through which the Nazis invaded in 1941. ..."
In a society often bereft of historical memory and in thrall to the propaganda of its
"exceptionalism", Burns' "entirely new" Vietnam war is presented as "epic, historic work". Its
lavish advertising campaign promotes its biggest backer, Bank of America, which in 1971 was
burned down by students in Santa Barbara, California, as a symbol of the hated war in
Vietnam.
Burns says he is grateful to "the entire Bank of America family" which "has long supported
our country's veterans". Bank of America was a corporate prop to an invasion that killed
perhaps as many as four million Vietnamese and ravaged and poisoned a once bountiful land. More
than 58,000 American soldiers were killed, and around the same number are estimated to have
taken their own lives.
I watched the first episode in New York. It leaves you in no doubt of its intentions right
from the start. The narrator says the war "was begun in good faith by decent people out of
fateful misunderstandings, American overconfidence and Cold War misunderstandings".
The dishonesty of this statement is not surprising. The cynical fabrication of "false flags"
that led to the invasion of Vietnam is a matter of record – the Gulf of Tonkin "incident"
in 1964, which Burns promotes as true, was just one. The lies litter a multitude of official
documents, notably the Pentagon Papers , which the great whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg
released in 1971.
There was no good faith. The faith was rotten and cancerous. For me – as it must be
for many Americans ! it is difficult to watch the film's jumble of "red peril" maps,
unexplained interviewees, ineptly cut archive and maudlin American battlefield sequences.
... ... ...
The sheer energy and moral persistence of these great movements largely succeeded; by 1987
Reagan had negotiated with Mikhail Gorbachev an Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF)
that effectively ended the Cold War.
Today, according to secret Nato documents obtained by the German newspaper, Suddeutsche
Zetung, this vital treaty is likely to be abandoned as "nuclear targeting planning is
increased". The German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel has warned against "repeating the worst
mistakes of the Cold War All the good treaties on disarmament and arms control from Gorbachev
and Reagan are in acute peril. Europe is threatened again with becoming a military training
ground for nuclear weapons. We must raise our voice against this."
But not in America. The thousands who turned out for Senator Bernie Sanders' "revolution" in
last year's presidential campaign are collectively mute on these dangers. That most of
America's violence across the world has been perpetrated not by Republicans, or mutants like
Trump, but by liberal Democrats, remains a taboo.
Barack Obama provided the apotheosis, with seven simultaneous wars, a presidential record,
including the destruction of Libya as a modern state. Obama's overthrow of Ukraine's elected
government has had the desired effect: the massing of American-led Nato forces on Russia's
western borderland through which the Nazis invaded in 1941.
"... Using data compiled by a Geography and Native Studies professor from Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington, the indy100 team created an interactive map of U.S. military incursions outside its own borders from Argentina in 1890 to Syria in 2014. ..."
"... " Deployment of the military to evacuate American citizens, covert military actions by US intelligence, providing military support to an internal opposition group, providing military support in one side of a conflict, use of the army in drug enforcement actions. ..."
Tyler Durden
Aug 26, 2017 9:15 PM 0
SHARES
US has had a military presence across the world
, from almost day one of its independence.
For those who have ever wanted a clearer picture of the true reach of the United States
military - both historically and currently - but shied away due to the sheer volume of research
required to find an answer,
The Anti Media points out
that
a crew at the
Independent
just made things a whole lot simpler.
Using data compiled by a Geography and Native Studies
professor
from Evergreen State College in
Olympia, Washington, the indy100 team
created
an interactive map of U.S. military incursions outside its own borders from
Argentina in 1890 to Syria in 2014.
To avoid confusion, indy100 laid out its prerequisites for what constitutes an invasion:
" Deployment of the military to evacuate American citizens, covert military actions by US
intelligence, providing military support to an internal opposition group, providing military
support in one side of a conflict, use of the army in drug enforcement actions.
But indy100 didn't stop there.
To put all that history into context, using
data
from the Department
of Defense (DOD), the team also put together a map to display all the countries in which nearly
200,000 active members of the U.S. military are now stationed.
"... As for Washington and the proverbially bombastic, failed futurists across the Beltway, do they even know what is the end game of "investing" in two never-ending wars with no visible benefits? ..."
As for Washington and the proverbially bombastic, failed futurists across the Beltway, do they even know what is the
end game of "investing" in two never-ending wars with no visible benefits?
You start by assuming that the absence of war is the ultimate good, but none can say what a world without war would be like,
or how long it would last.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/20/wars-john-gray-conflict-peace
Has the world seen moral progress? The answer should not depend on whether one has a sunny or a morose temperament. Everyone
agrees that life is better than death, health better than sickness, prosperity better than privation, freedom better than tyranny,
peace better than war. All of these can be measured, and the results plotted over time. If they go up, that's progress.
For John Gray, this is a big problem. As a part of his campaign against reason, science and Enlightenment humanism, he insists
that the strivings of humanity over the centuries have left us no better off. This dyspepsia was hard enough to sustain when
Gray first expressed it in the teeth of obvious counterexamples such as the abolition of human sacrifice, chattel slavery and
public torture-executions. But as scholars have increasingly measured human flourishing, they have found that Gray is not just
wrong but howlingly, flat-earth, couldn't-be-more-wrong wrong. The numbers show that after millennia of near-universal poverty
and despotism, a steadily growing proportion of humankind is surviving infancy and childbirth, going to school, voting in democracies,
living free of disease, enjoying the necessities of modern life and surviving to old age.
And more people are living in peace. In the 1980s several military scholars noticed to their astonishment that the most
destructive form of armed conflict – wars among great powers and developed states – had effectively ceased to exist. At the
time this "long peace" could have been dismissed as a random lull, but it has held firm for an additional three decades.
In my opinion Gray, though wrong that violence is not decreasing, is onto something about the future being bleak because of
the rise of meliorist assumptions, because perpetual peace will be humanity's tomb.
While many suggest a danger for our world along the lines of
Brian Cox's explanation for the Fermi Paradox (ie intelligent life forms cross grainedly bring on self-annihilation through
unlimited war) I take a different view.
Given that Pinker appears substantially correct that serious war (ie wars among great powers and developed states) have effectively
ceased to exist, the trend is for peace and cooperation. Martin Nowak in his book The Supercoperators shows cooperation, not fighting,
to be the defining human trait (and indeed the most cooperative groups won their wars in history, whereby nation states
such the US are the result of not just individuals but familial tribal regional , and virtually continental groupings coming together
for mutual advantage and defence .
The future is going to be global integration pursuit of economic objectives, and I think this exponential moral progress bill
begat technological advances beyond imagining.. An escape from the war trap is almost complete and the Singularity becomes. The
most likely culprit in the paradox is a technological black hole event horizon created by unlimited peace and progress.
Cross-grained though it may be to say that the good war hallows every cause, I think it not so bad in comparison with the alternative.
Well put. These people are like the "nobles" of medieval times. They care not a whit about the "peasants" they trample. They
are wealth bigots, compounded by some ethnic bigotry or other, in this case Jewish supremacism. America has an oligarchy problem.
At the center of that oligarchy is a Jewish mafia controlling the banks, and thereby the big corporations, and thereby the media
and the government. This oligarchy sees America as a big, dumb military machine that it can manipulate to generate war profits.
"... There has been a gradual decline in the rationality of UK forces thinking. They insisted on UN legal cover cover the invasion of Iraq but were totally on board with pre-emptive action in Libya, happily training effectively ISIS forces before Gaddafi was removed. They are now training Ukrainian Neo-Nazis and training ISIS/whatever in Syria, effectively invading the country. I guess this may reflect the increasing direct Zionist control of Perfidious Albion with attendant levels of hubris. ..."
The Russians were there in Yugoslavia but they were not following NATO's script. There was an incident where Russian forces
took control of a key airport to the total surprise of NATO. The US overall commander ordered the UK to go in and kick the Russians
out. The UK ground commander wisely said he was not prepared to start WW III over Russian control of an airfield.
There has been a gradual decline in the rationality of UK forces thinking. They insisted on UN legal cover cover the invasion
of Iraq but were totally on board with pre-emptive action in Libya, happily training effectively ISIS forces before Gaddafi was
removed. They are now training Ukrainian Neo-Nazis and training ISIS/whatever in Syria, effectively invading the country. I guess
this may reflect the increasing direct Zionist control of Perfidious Albion with attendant levels of hubris.
According to some commenters at MoA the US neocons can be viewed as a flavor of political psychopaths: "Linear thinking is precisely
how Washington psychopaths think and execute once they have identified a targeted population for subservience and eventual exploitation.
It's a laser-like focus on control using the tools psychopaths understand: money, guns and butter. U.S. leaders use linear thinking
because, as psychopaths, they do not have the ability to think otherwise. Linear thinking give leaders control over how their subordinates
think and execute. A culture of psychopathy means subordinates and supporters will offer slavish devotion to such a linear path. Anyone
straying from the path is not insightful or innovative, they are rebels that sow confusion and weaken leaders. They must be silenced
and banished from the Washington tribe."
and " the Neocons seem to suffer from something almost worse - a misguided belief in their own propaganda. Even the psychopath
manages to fake plausibility - although he has no empathy for the victim and takes a thrill out of hurting them, he can still know enough
about them to predict how they will react and to fake empathy himself. This ability seems to be missing in the folk who send the troops
in. Here there seems to be the genuine but unquestioning belief in one's own infallibility - that there is one right way of doing things
to which all others must and will yield if enough pressure is applied. The line by one of GWB's staff was, supposedly, that "we create
our own reality". It is this creation of a reality utterly divorced from the real world that seems to lead to disaster every single
time. "
Notable quotes:
"... Provided the gross flaws of the intelligence, one has to wonder about the quality of the education in politics provided by Harvard and other expensive universities.. What they seem to learn very well there is lying. ..."
"... Barack CIA 0bama. ..."
"... It seems the, "Mission Possible" of the alphabet agencies is not intelligence, but chaos. ..."
"... Did the U.S. enter the First World War to save the world and democracy, or was it a game of waiting until the sides were exhausted enough that victory would be a walkover, the prize a seat at the center of power and the result that the U.S. could now take advantage of a superior position over the now exhausted former superpowers, having sat out the worst of the fighting and sold to both sides at a healthy profit? ..."
"... Invading Afghanistan and Iraq gives the U.S. a dominant role in the center of the Asian continent, the position coveted by Britain, Russia, France and the Ottoman Empire during the Great Power rivalry leading up to the Great War. It can be seen as partial success in a policy of encirclement of Russia and China. Redefining the Afghanistan and Iraq wars along these lines make them look more successful, not less, however odious we may thing these objectives might be from moral and international law perspectives. ..."
"... you mean non-conforming realities like the rule of law, and possible future contingencies like war crimes tribunals? ..."
"... it seems to me that trying to write some kind of rational analysis of a US foreign policy without mentioning the glaring fact that it's all absolutely illegal strikes me as an exercise in confusion. ..."
"... the author's focus on successful implementation of policy is misguided. That the Iraq War was based on a lie, the Libyan bombing Campaign was illegal, and the Syrian conflict was an illegal proxy war does not trouble him. And the strategic reasons for US long-term occupation of Afghanistan escapes him. ..."
"... Although he laments the failure to plan for contingencies, the words "accountable" and "accountability" never appear in this essay. Nor does the word "neocon" - despite their being the malignant driving force in US FP. ..."
"... There have been many lessons for the Russians since Afghanistan, two that Russia was directly involved with were the 90's break-up of Yugoslavia in the 90's (and the diplomatic invention of R2P) and the Chechen turmoil of the last decade. ..."
"... My only gripe with his work is that he always describes multiple aspects of psychopathy in his observations of U.S. foreign policy and the Washington ruling elite, but never goes as far as to conclude the root of all our problems are psychopathic individuals and institutions, or a culture of psychopathy infesting larger groups of the same, e.g., Washington elite, "The Borg", etc. ..."
"... Linear thinking is precisely how Washington psychopaths think and execute once they have identified a targeted population for subservience and eventual exploitation. It's a laser-like focus on control using the tools psychopaths understand: money, guns and butter. U.S. leaders use linear thinking because, as psychopaths, they do not have the ability to think otherwise. Linear thinking give leaders control over how their subordinates think and execute. A culture of psychopathy means subordinates and supporters will offer slavish devotion to such a linear path. Anyone straying from the path is not insightful or innovative, they are rebels that sow confusion and weaken leaders. They must be silenced and banished from the Washington tribe. ..."
"... the military was told "Go to Iraq, overthrow Saddam, everything will work out once we get our contractors and corporations in after you." Paul Bremer's CPA and his "100 Orders" were supposed to fix everything. But the Iraqis objected strenuously to the oil privatization selloff (and the rest of it) and the insurgency was launched. Okay, the military was told, break the insurgency. In comes the CIA, Special Forces, mass surveillance - what comes out? Abu Ghraib torture photos. The insurgency gets even stronger. Iran ends up winning the strategic game, hands down, and has far more influence in Iraq than it could ever dream of during the Saddam era. The whole objective, turning Iraq into a client state of the U.S. neoliberal order, utterly failed. ..."
"... Here's the point I think you're missing: the Washington strategists behind all this are batshit crazy and divorced from reality. Their objectives have to be rewritten every few years, because they're hopeless pipe dreams. They live and work and breathe in these Washington military-industrial think tanks, neocons and neoliberals both, that are largely financed by arms manufacturers and associated private equity firms. As far as the defense contractors go, one war is as good as another, they can keep selling arms to all regardless. Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Syria - cash cows is all they are. So, they finance the PR monkeys to keep pushing "strategic geopolitical initiatives" that are really nonsensical and have no hope of working in the long run - but who cares, the cash keeps flowing. ..."
"... It's all nonsense, there's no FSA just Al Qaeda and ISIS affiliates, plus the Kurdish proxy force is a long-term dead end - but it keeps the war going. A more rational approach - work with Russia to defeat ISIS, don't worry about economic cooperation between Syria and Iran, tell the Saudis and Israelis that Iran won't invade them (it won't), pull back militarily and focus instead on domestic problems in the USA - the think tanks, defense contractors, Saudi and Israeli lobbyists, they don't like that. ..."
"... Brenner is trying to mislead us with bombastic terminology like "The Linear Mindset". The root cause of America's problems is what Michael Scheuer calls Imperial Hubris: The idea that they are Masters of the Universe and so they have omnipotent power to turn every country into a vassal. But when this hubris meets reality, they get confused and don't know what to do. In such a case, they resort to three standard actions: sanctions, regime change or chaos. If these three don't work, they repeat them! ..."
"... Politicians are mere puppets. Their real owners are the 1% who use the Deep State to direct policy. Among this 1% there are zionists who have enormous influence on US Middle Eastern policy and they use the neocons as their attack dogs to direct such policy. This hubris has caused so much pain, destruction and death all over the world and it has also caused America so much economic damage. ..."
"... America is waning as a global power but instead of self-introspection and returning to realism, they are doubling down on neocon policy stupidity. Putin, China and Iran are trying to save them from their stupidity but they seem to be hell-bent on committing suicide. But I hope the policy sophistication of Russia, China and Iran, as well as their military capabilities that raise the stakes high for US military intervention will force the Masters of the Universe to see sense and reverse their road to destruction. ..."
"... the Neocons seem to suffer from something almost worse - a misguided belief in their own propaganda. Even the psychopath manages to fake plausibility - although he has no empathy for the victim and takes a thrill out of hurting them, he can still know enough about them to predict how they will react and to fake empathy himself. This ability seems to be missing in the folk who send the troops in. Here there seems to be the genuine but unquestioning belief in one's own infallibility - that there is one right way of doing things to which all others must and will yield if enough pressure is applied. The line by one of GWB's staff was, supposedly, that "we create our own reality". It is this creation of a reality utterly divorced from the real world that seems to lead to disaster every single time. ..."
"... The propaganda part is inventing, manufacturing and embellishing some embodiment of evil that must be defeated to liberate their victims and save humanity. That's the cover story, not the underlying purpose of U.S. aggression. ..."
"... Neocons do not believe that exclusively as a goal in itself - it merely dovetails rather nicely with their ultimate obsession with control, and it's and easy sell against any less-than-perfect targeted foreign leader or government. Irrational demonization is the embodiment of that propaganda. ..."
"... The methods of ultimately controlling the liberated people and their nation's resources are cloaked in the guise of 'bringing Western democracy'. Methods for corrupting the resulting government and usurping their laws and voting are hidden or ignored. The propaganda then turns to either praising the resulting utopia or identifying/creating a new evil that now must also be eliminated. The utopia thing hasn't worked out so well in Libya, Iraq or Ukraine, so they stuck with the 'defeat evil' story. ..."
"... Apart from psychopathy in US leadership, the US has no understanding, nor respect of, other cultures. This is not just in US leadership, but in the exceptional people in general. It shows up from time to time in comments at blogs like this, and is often quite noticeable in comments at SST. ..."
"... The essence of imperial hubris is the belief that one's country is omnipotent; that the country can shape and create reality. The country's main aspiration is to create clients, dependencies and as the Godfather Zbigniew Bzrezinski candidly put it, "vassals".Such a mindset does not just appreciate the reality of contingency; it also does not appreciate the nature of complex systems. The country's elites believe that both soft and hard power should be able to ensure the desired outcomes. But resistance to imperial designs and blowback from the imperial power's activities induce cognitive dissonance. Instead of such cognitive crises leading to a return to reality, they lead to denial amongst this elite. This elite lives in a bubble. Their discourse is intellectually incestuous and anybody that threatens this bubble is ostracized. Limits are set to what can be debated. That is why realists like John Mearsheimer, Steve Walt, Michael Scheuer and Stephen Cohen are ignored by this elite even though their ideas are very germane. If other countries don't bow down to their dictates, they have only a combination of the following responses: sanctions, regime change and chaos. The paradox is that the more they double down with their delusions the more the country's power continues to decline. My only hope is that this doubling down will not take the world down with it. ..."
"linear"?, I would say amateurish and often stupid! It seems that the USA cannot see far enough as it's submitted to regime changes
every 5 years and decisions are finally left to powerful lobbies that have a better continuity.
Provided the gross flaws
of the intelligence, one has to wonder about the quality of the education in politics provided by Harvard and other expensive
universities.. What they seem to learn very well there is lying.
"Linear" and all that is the mushy feel-good stuff on top of your arrogance. Kleptocracy only NOW putting down its roots? Come
on. Let's get back to the 90's where it started. Vengeance for 9/11? Cover?
It seems the, "Mission Possible" of the alphabet agencies is not intelligence, but chaos. All's well in the world with
them as long as the USSA is grinding away on some near helpless ME country. Drugs and other natural resources flow from and death
and destruction flow to the unsuspecting Muslim targets.
With America, you're our friend, (or at least we tolerate you) until you're not (or we don't), then God help you and your innocent
hoards.
The organized and well scripted chaos has been just one act in the larger play of destroying western civilization with throngs
of Muslims now flooding western Europe and to a lesser degree, USA. Of course, the Deep State had felt confident in allowing Latinos
to destroy America...Trump has put a large crimp in the pipeline--one of the reasons he is hated so badly by the destructive PTB.
Your analysis of linearity is interesting. However, you make what I believe is a critical error. You assume you know the objective
and the path to follow and base your critique accordingly.
It is entirely possible that the underlying objective of, for instance, invading Iraq was to win a war and bring democracy.
Subsequent behaviour in Iraq (and Afghanistan) indicates that there might be (likely is) a hidden but central other objective.
I do not want to state that I know what that is because I am not "in the know". However, much that you attribute to failure from
linear thinking just as easily can be explained by the complexity of realizing a "hidden agenda".
Perhaps we can learn from history. Did the U.S. enter the First World War to save the world and democracy, or was it a
game of waiting until the sides were exhausted enough that victory would be a walkover, the prize a seat at the center of power
and the result that the U.S. could now take advantage of a superior position over the now exhausted former superpowers, having
sat out the worst of the fighting and sold to both sides at a healthy profit?
Invading Afghanistan and Iraq gives the U.S. a dominant role in the center of the Asian continent, the position coveted
by Britain, Russia, France and the Ottoman Empire during the Great Power rivalry leading up to the Great War. It can be seen as
partial success in a policy of encirclement of Russia and China. Redefining the Afghanistan and Iraq wars along these lines make
them look more successful, not less, however odious we may thing these objectives might be from moral and international law perspectives.
Russia learnt a huge lesson from their experience in Afghanistan. There they retreated in the face of a violent Wahabist insurgency
and paid the price. The Soviet union collapsed and became vulnerable to western free-market gangsterism as well as suffering the
blowback of terrorism in Chechnya, where they decided to play it very differently. A bit more like how Assad senior dealt with
the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1980's.
Russia knew that if ISIS and friends were allowed to destroy Syria like the Mujahadeen
had done in Afghanistan, then it would only be a matter of time before blowback would come again to Russia.
Russia's involvement is entirely rational and in their national interest. It should never have come as a surprise to the US,
and the US should shake off their cold war propaganda and be grateful that people are willing to put their lives on the line to
defeat Wahabist terrorism. Russia has played a focused line with integrity. Many Syrians love them for this, and many more in
the Middle East will likewise adopt a similar line.
In other words, the linear mindset blocks out all non-conforming realities in the present and those contingent elements
which might arise in the future
you mean non-conforming realities like the rule of law, and possible future contingencies like war crimes tribunals?
i kinda skimmed this piece, but it seems to me that trying to write some kind of rational analysis of a US foreign policy
without mentioning the glaring fact that it's all absolutely illegal strikes me as an exercise in confusion.
Brenner: Washington never really had a plan in Syria.
Really? Firstly, the author's focus on successful implementation of policy is misguided. That the Iraq War was based on
a lie, the Libyan bombing Campaign was illegal, and the Syrian conflict was an illegal proxy war does not trouble him. And the
strategic reasons for US long-term occupation of Afghanistan escapes him.
Although he laments the failure to plan for contingencies, the words "accountable" and "accountability" never appear in
this essay. Nor does the word "neocon" - despite their being the malignant driving force in US FP.
The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities
has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic
to Al Qaeda.
In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January [2007], Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said
that there is "a new strategic alignment in the Middle East," separating "reformers" and "extremists"; she pointed to the Sunni
states as centers of moderation, and said that Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah were "on the other side of that divide."
Lastly, Brenner's complaint that Obama has been "scape-goated" as having created ISIS conveniently ignores Obama's allowing ISIS
to grow by down-playing the threat that it represented. Obama's called ISIS al Queda's "JV team" and senior intelligence analysts
dutifully distorted intelligence to down-play the threat (see below). This was one of many deceptions that Obama took part in
- if not orchestrated (others: "moderate rebels", Benghazi, the "Fiscal Cliff", bank bailouts).
After months of investigation, this much is very clear: from the middle of 2014 to the middle of 2015, the United States
Central Command's most senior intelligence leaders manipulated the command's intelligence products to downplay the threat from
ISIS in Iraq" . . .
The Joint Task Force can find no justifiable reason why operational reporting was repeatedly used as a rationale to change
the analytic product, particularly when the changes only appeared to be made in a more optimistic direction . . .
There have been many lessons for the Russians since Afghanistan, two that Russia was directly involved with were the 90's
break-up of Yugoslavia in the 90's (and the diplomatic invention of R2P) and the Chechen turmoil of the last decade.
Russia has also benefited through the non-linear analysis of US diplomacy failures of the last two decades. Russia has created
a coalition backing up their military entry into the Middle East that allows achievement of tangible objectives at a sustainable
cost.
But b's article is about the US's dismal diplomacy that is exacerbating its rapid empire decline and it does very well to help
explain the rigid lack of thought that hastens the deterioration of US influence.
This article makes a lot of good points, but I didn't really grasp exactly what "linear" thinking is. OK. Venezuela very well
may be turning into a situation. What is the "linear" approach? What, instead, would be the "non-linear" approach? This article
cites many "linear" failures. It would be helpful also to learn of some non-linear successes. If not by the United States then
by somebody else.
Let me clarify my prior posting. This article seems to be asserting that the United States has attempted to pound the square peg
of its policy objectives into the round hole of the Middle East. I pretty much agree with that idea. But how is this "linear,"
as opposed to "bull-headed"? How does being "non-linear" help with the pounding? Would not adapting our policies to pound a round
peg instead be just as "linear" but more clever?
Thanks for posting these great observations by Michael Brenner, b.
The link to his bio on University of Pitsburg site is broken and the page is gone, but it still exists for now in Google's
cache from Aug. 1st
here . His bio can also be found under this ">https://www.theglobalist.com/united-states-common-man-forgotten-by-elites/">this
article from The Globalist
Everything I've read of Dr. Brenner that I've stumbled across is brilliant. My only gripe with his work is that he always
describes multiple aspects of psychopathy in his observations of U.S. foreign policy and the Washington ruling elite, but never
goes as far as to conclude the root of all our problems are psychopathic individuals and institutions, or a culture of psychopathy
infesting larger groups of the same, e.g., Washington elite, "The Borg", etc.
While he is quite accurate in describing the symptoms, one is left with the impression that they are the things to be
fixed. Linear thinking in a U.S. foreign policy of aggression? Absolutely, but it's pointless to 'fix' that without understanding
the cause.
Linear thinking is precisely how Washington psychopaths think and execute once they have identified a targeted population
for subservience and eventual exploitation. It's a laser-like focus on control using the tools psychopaths understand: money,
guns and butter. U.S. leaders use linear thinking because, as psychopaths, they do not have the ability to think otherwise. Linear
thinking give leaders control over how their subordinates think and execute. A culture of psychopathy means subordinates and supporters
will offer slavish devotion to such a linear path. Anyone straying from the path is not insightful or innovative, they are rebels
that sow confusion and weaken leaders. They must be silenced and banished from the Washington tribe.
Does anyone in Washington REALLY want to 'save' the Persians and 'rebuild' Iran as they imagine America did post WWII to German
and Japan? Or is the more overriding intent to punish and destroy a leadership that will not submit to the political and commercial
interests in the US? Of course the U.S. fails to deliver any benefits to the 'little people' after destroying their country and
government - they are incapable of understanding what the 'little people' want (same goes for domestic issues in the U.S.).
The U.S. government and leadership do not need lessons to modify their techniques or 'thinking' - they are incapable of doing
so. You can't 'talk a psychopath into having empathy' any more than you can talk them out of having smallpox. 'The law' and voting
were intentionally broken in the U.S. to make them all but useless to fix Washington, yet a zombified American public will continue
to use the religiously (or sit back and watch others use them religiously) with little result. Because we're a democracy and a
nation of laws - the government will fix anything broken with those tools.
In a certain sense, I'm glad Brennan does NOT go on about psychopathy in his articles. He would sound as tedious and nutty
as I do here and would never be allowed near Washington. I'll just be grateful for his thorough illustration of the symptoms for
now.
Your analysis of linearity is interesting. However, you make what I believe is a critical error. You assume you know the objective
and the path to follow and base your critique accordingly.
First, this is more an analysis of military failure to "do the job" that Washington "strategic thinkers" tell them to do, and
the reasons why it's such a futile game. In our system of government, the military does tactics, not strategy. And the above article,
which should be passed out to every politician in this country, isn't really about "the objective".
For example, the military was told "Go to Iraq, overthrow Saddam, everything will work out once we get our contractors
and corporations in after you." Paul Bremer's CPA and his "100 Orders" were supposed to fix everything. But the Iraqis objected
strenuously to the oil privatization selloff (and the rest of it) and the insurgency was launched. Okay, the military was told,
break the insurgency. In comes the CIA, Special Forces, mass surveillance - what comes out? Abu Ghraib torture photos. The insurgency
gets even stronger. Iran ends up winning the strategic game, hands down, and has far more influence in Iraq than it could ever
dream of during the Saddam era. The whole objective, turning Iraq into a client state of the U.S. neoliberal order, utterly failed.
Here's the point I think you're missing: the Washington strategists behind all this are batshit crazy and divorced from
reality. Their objectives have to be rewritten every few years, because they're hopeless pipe dreams. They live and work and
breathe in these Washington military-industrial think tanks, neocons and neoliberals both, that are largely financed by arms manufacturers
and associated private equity firms. As far as the defense contractors go, one war is as good as another, they can keep selling
arms to all regardless. Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Syria - cash cows is all they are. So, they finance the PR monkeys to
keep pushing "strategic geopolitical initiatives" that are really nonsensical and have no hope of working in the long run - but
who cares, the cash keeps flowing.
And if you want to know why the Borg State got firmly behind Hillary Clinton, it's because they could see her supporting this
agenda wholeheartedly, especially after Libya. Here's a comment she wrote to Podesta on 2014-08-19, a long 'strategy piece' ending
with this note:
Note: It is important to keep in mind that as a result of this policy there probably will be concern in the Sunni regions of
Iraq and the Central Government regarding the possible expansion of KRG controlled territory. With advisors in the Peshmerga
command we can reassure the concerned parties that, in return for increase autonomy, the KRG will not exclude the Iraqi Government
from participation in the management of the oil fields around Kirkuk, and the Mosel Dam hydroelectric facility. At the same
time we will be able to work with the Peshmerga as they pursue ISIL into disputed areas of Eastern Syria, coordinating with
FSA troops who can move against ISIL from the North. This will make certain Basher al Assad does not gain an advantage from
these operations. Finally, as it now appears the U.S. is considering a plan to offer contractors as advisors to the Iraqi Ministry
of Defense, we will be in a position to coordinate more effectively between the Peshmerga and the Iraqi Army.
It's all nonsense, there's no FSA just Al Qaeda and ISIS affiliates, plus the Kurdish proxy force is a long-term dead end
- but it keeps the war going. A more rational approach - work with Russia to defeat ISIS, don't worry about economic cooperation
between Syria and Iran, tell the Saudis and Israelis that Iran won't invade them (it won't), pull back militarily and focus instead
on domestic problems in the USA - the think tanks, defense contractors, Saudi and Israeli lobbyists, they don't like that.
Regardless, it looks like end times for the American empire, very similar to how the Soviet Union collapsed in the 1980s, and
the last days of the French and British empires in the 1950s. And good riddance, it's become a dead weight dragging down the standard
of living for most American citizens who aren't on that gravy train.
Brenner is trying to mislead us with bombastic terminology like "The Linear Mindset". The root cause of America's problems
is what Michael Scheuer calls Imperial Hubris: The idea that they are Masters of the Universe and so they have omnipotent power
to turn every country into a vassal. But when this hubris meets reality, they get confused and don't know what to do. In such
a case, they resort to three standard actions: sanctions, regime change or chaos. If these three don't work, they repeat them!
Politicians are mere puppets. Their real owners are the 1% who use the Deep State to direct policy. Among this 1% there
are zionists who have enormous influence on US Middle Eastern policy and they use the neocons as their attack dogs to direct such
policy. This hubris has caused so much pain, destruction and death all over the world and it has also caused America so much economic
damage.
America is waning as a global power but instead of self-introspection and returning to realism, they are doubling down
on neocon policy stupidity. Putin, China and Iran are trying to save them from their stupidity but they seem to be hell-bent on
committing suicide. But I hope the policy sophistication of Russia, China and Iran, as well as their military capabilities that
raise the stakes high for US military intervention will force the Masters of the Universe to see sense and reverse their road
to destruction.
There's a lot in both this piece and the comments. In a sense, I wonder if the core issue behind the Neocon/Imperial mindset isn't
a complete inability to see the other side's point of view. Psychopathy, short-termism (a common fault in businesspeople), divorce
from reality and hubris are likely a good part of it, as somebody, Paveway IV, Makutwa and nonsense factory put it, but the
Neocons seem to suffer from something almost worse - a misguided belief in their own propaganda. Even the psychopath manages to
fake plausibility - although he has no empathy for the victim and takes a thrill out of hurting them, he can still know enough
about them to predict how they will react and to fake empathy himself. This ability seems to be missing in the folk who send the
troops in. Here there seems to be the genuine but unquestioning belief in one's own infallibility - that there is one right way
of doing things to which all others must and will yield if enough pressure is applied. The line by one of GWB's staff was, supposedly,
that "we create our own reality". It is this creation of a reality utterly divorced from the real world that seems to lead to
disaster every single time.
I would paraphrase critics of b that he (she?) has fallen into linearity trap: one point is the resources spent by USA on wars
of 21-st century (a lot), the second points are positive results (hardly any), and an intellectual charge proceeds from A to B.
However between A and B there can be diversity of problems. We can stock enough gasoline, run out of potable water. And indeed,
you can encounter pesky terrain. I recall a family vacation trip where we visited Natural Bridges National Monument and we proceeded
to Arizona on an extremely straight highway through pretty flat plateau. Then the pavement end, and the acrophobic designated
driver has to negotiate several 180* hairpins to get down on a cliff flanking Monument Valley. After second inspection, the map
had tiny letters "switchbacks" and a tiny fragment of the road not marked with the pavement. Still better than discovering "bridge
out" annotation on your map only when you gaze at the water flowing between two bridge heads. (If I recall, during late 20-th
century Balkan intervention, US military needed a lot of time to cross Danube river that unexpectedly had no functioning bridge
where they wanted to operate. Landscape changes during a war.)
That said, military usually has an appreciation for terrain. But there are also humans. On domestic side, the number of experts
on those distant societies is small, and qualified experts, minuscule. Because the qualified ones were disproportionally naysayers,
the mere whiff if expertise was treated as treason, and we had a purge of "Arabists". And it was of course worse in the lands
to charm and conquer. Effective rule requires local hands to follow our wishes, people who can be trusted. And, preferably, not
intensely hated by the locals they are supposed to administer. And like with gasoline, water, food, etc. on a vacation trip (who
forgot mosquito repellent!), the list of needed traits is surprisingly long. Like viewing collaboration with Israel supporting
infidels as a mortal sin that can be perpetrated to spare the family from starvation (you can recruit them, success!), but it
has to be atoned through backstabbing (local cadres are disappointing).
Great analysis! This is an excellent example for why I read MOA at least once a day and most of the comments! There's something
of a sad irony that Trump has made at least some kind of effort to thwart the neocons and their relentless rush toward armageddon,
seeing as how lacking in any real intellectual capcity they all seem and with Trump at the helm?
Mostly tptb, our political class, and the pundits for the masses, seem all to exhibit an astonishingly dull witted lack of
true concern or humanity for anybody anywhere, and in my years on earth so far, at least in America, they have inculcated in the
population very dubious ethical chioces, which you would think were tragic, and decisions, which you would believe were doomed,
from the wars being waged, to the lifestyles of the citizenry especially toward the top of the economic ladder, and I don't know
about others here but I for one have been confronting and dealing with these problems both in family and aquaintances for my entire
adult life! Like the battle at Kurushetra. At least they say they "have a plan," scoffingly.
Where is chipnik to weigh in on this with his poetic observations, or I think long ago it was "slthrop" who may have been bannned
for foul language as he or she raged on at the absurdities that keep heaping up exponentially? I do miss them!
Oh well, life is relatively short and we will all be gone at some point and our presense here will be one and all less than
an iota. An awareness of this one fact and its implications you would think would pierce the consciousness of every human being
well before drawing their final breath, but I guess every McCain fails to realize until too late that the jig is up?
Justin Glyn@20 "but the Neocons seem to suffer from something almost worse - a misguided belief in their own propaganda."
The propaganda part is inventing, manufacturing and embellishing some embodiment of evil that must be defeated to liberate
their victims and save humanity. That's the cover story, not the underlying purpose of U.S. aggression.
Neocons do not believe that exclusively as a goal in itself - it merely dovetails rather nicely with their ultimate obsession
with control, and it's and easy sell against any less-than-perfect targeted foreign leader or government. Irrational demonization
is the embodiment of that propaganda.
The methods of ultimately controlling the liberated people and their nation's resources are cloaked in the guise of 'bringing
Western democracy'. Methods for corrupting the resulting government and usurping their laws and voting are hidden or ignored.
The propaganda then turns to either praising the resulting utopia or identifying/creating a new evil that now must also be eliminated.
The utopia thing hasn't worked out so well in Libya, Iraq or Ukraine, so they stuck with the 'defeat evil' story.
Apart from psychopathy in US leadership, the US has no understanding, nor respect of, other cultures. This is not just in
US leadership, but in the exceptional people in general. It shows up from time to time in comments at blogs like this, and is
often quite noticeable in comments at SST.
That it why the US in its arrogance has failed in Syria, and Russia with its tiny force has been so successful.
The essence of imperial hubris is the belief that one's country is omnipotent; that the country can shape and create reality.
The country's main aspiration is to create clients, dependencies and as the Godfather Zbigniew Bzrezinski candidly put it, "vassals".Such
a mindset does not just appreciate the reality of contingency; it also does not appreciate the nature of complex systems. The
country's elites believe that both soft and hard power should be able to ensure the desired outcomes. But resistance to imperial
designs and blowback from the imperial power's activities induce cognitive dissonance. Instead of such cognitive crises leading
to a return to reality, they lead to denial amongst this elite. This elite lives in a bubble. Their discourse is intellectually
incestuous and anybody that threatens this bubble is ostracized. Limits are set to what can be debated. That is why realists like
John Mearsheimer, Steve Walt, Michael Scheuer and Stephen Cohen are ignored by this elite even though their ideas are very germane.
If other countries don't bow down to their dictates, they have only a combination of the following responses: sanctions, regime
change and chaos. The paradox is that the more they double down with their delusions the more the country's power continues to
decline. My only hope is that this doubling down will not take the world down with it.
"... A lot of art depicts war scenes, and why not? War is incredibly exciting, dynamic, destructive, and otherwise captivating, if often in a horrific way. But I want to consider war and art in a different manner, in an impressionistic one. War, by its nature, is often spectacle; it is also often chaotic; complex; beyond comprehension. Perhaps art theory, and art styles, have something to teach us about war. Ways of representing it and capturing its meaning as well as its horrors. But also ways of misrepresenting it; of fracturing its meaning. Of manipulating it. ..."
"... My point (and I think I have one) is that America's wars are in some sense elaborate productions and representations, at least in the ways in which the government constructs and sells them to the American people. To understand these representations -- the ways in which they are both more than real war and less than it -- art theory, as well as advertising, may have a lot to teach us. ..."
"... Afghanistan as the unfinished masterpiece....most people forget that the government is yet to complete it except when a Marine dies, they think about it for a day and then forget all over again. ..."
Consider this article a work of speculation; a jumble of ideas thrown at a blank canvas.
A lot of art depicts war scenes, and why not? War is incredibly exciting, dynamic, destructive, and otherwise captivating,
if often in a horrific way. But I want to consider war and art in a different manner, in an impressionistic one. War, by its nature,
is often spectacle; it is also often chaotic; complex; beyond comprehension. Perhaps art theory, and art styles, have something to
teach us about war. Ways of representing it and capturing its meaning as well as its horrors. But also ways of misrepresenting it;
of fracturing its meaning. Of manipulating it.
For example, America's overseas wars today are both abstractions and distractions. They're also somewhat surreal to most Americans,
living as we do in comparative safety and material luxury (when compared to most other peoples of the world). Abstraction and surrealism:
two art styles that may say something vital about America's wars.
If some aspects of America's wars are surreal and others abstract, if reports of those wars are often impressionistic and often
blurred beyond recognition, this points to, I think, the highly stylized representations of war that are submitted for our consideration.
What we don't get very often is realism. Recall how the Bush/Cheney administration forbade photos of flag-draped coffins returning
from Iraq and Afghanistan. Think of all the war reporting you've seen on U.S. TV and Cable networks, and ask how many times you saw
severed American limbs and dead bodies on a battlefield. (On occasion, dead bodies of the enemy are shown, usually briefly and abstractly,
with no human backstory.)
Of course, there's no "real" way to showcase the brutal reality of war, short of bringing a person to the front and having them
face fire in combat -- a level of "participatory" art that sane people would likely seek to avoid. What we get, as spectators (which
is what we're told to remain in America), is an impression of combat. Here and there, a surreal report. An abstract news clip. Blown
up buildings become exercises in neo-Cubism; melted buildings and weapons become Daliesque displays. Severed limbs (of the enemy)
are exercises in the grotesque. For the vast majority of Americans, what's lacking is raw immediacy and gut-wrenching reality.
Again, we are spectators, not participants. And our responses are often as stylized and limited as the representations are. As
Rebecca Gordon put it from a different angle at
TomDispatch.com , when it comes to America's wars, are we participating in reality or merely watching reality TV? And why are
so many so prone to confuse or conflate the two?
Art, of course, isn't the only lens through which we can see and interpret America's wars. Advertising, especially hyperbole,
is also quite revealing. Thus the US military has been sold, whether by George W. Bush or Barack Obama, as "the world's finest military
in history" or WFMH, an acronym I just made up, and which should perhaps come with a copyright or trademark symbol after it. It's
classic advertising hyperbole. It's salesmanship in place of reality.
So, when other peoples beat our WFMH, we should do what Americans do best: sue them for copyright infringement. Our legions of
lawyers will most certainly beat their cadres of counsels. After all, under Bush/Cheney, our lawyers tortured logic and the law to
support torture itself. Talk about surrealism!
My point (and I think I have one) is that America's wars are in some sense elaborate productions and representations, at least
in the ways in which the government constructs and sells them to the American people. To understand these representations -- the
ways in which they are both more than real war and less than it -- art theory, as well as advertising, may have a lot to teach us.
As I said, this is me throwing ideas at the canvas of my computer screen. Do they make any sense to you? Feel free to pick up
your own brush and compose away in the comments section.
P.S. Danger, Will Robinson. I've never taken an art theory class or studied advertising closely.
William J. Astore is a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF). He taught history for fifteen years at military and civilian schools
and blogs at Bracing Views . He can be reached at
[email protected] . Reprinted from Bracing
Views with the author's permission.
Afghanistan as the unfinished masterpiece....most people forget that the government is yet to complete it except when a
Marine dies, they think about it for a day and then forget all over again.
"... It is understandable why so many are angry at the leaders of America's institutions, including businesses, schools and governments," Dimon, 61, summarized. "This can understandably lead to disenchantment with trade, globalization and even our free enterprise system, which for so many people seems not to have worked. ..."
"JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon has two big pronouncements as the Trump administration starts reshaping
the government: "The United States of America is truly an exceptional country," and "it is clear that something is wrong."
Dimon, leader of world's most valuable bank and a counselor to the new president, used his 45-page annual letter to shareholders
on Tuesday to list ways America is stronger than ever -- before jumping into a much longer list of self-inflicted problems that
he said was "upsetting" to write.
Here's the start: Since the turn of the century, the U.S. has dumped trillions of dollars into wars, piled huge debt onto students,
forced legions of foreigners to leave after getting advanced degrees, driven millions of Americans out of the workplace with felonies
for sometimes minor offenses and hobbled the housing market with hastily crafted layers of rules.
Dimon, who sits on Donald Trump's business forum aimed at boosting job growth, is renowned for his optimism and has been voicing
support this year for parts of the president's business agenda. In February, Dimon predicted the U.S. would have a bright economic
future if the new administration carries out plans to overhaul taxes, rein in rules and boost infrastructure investment. In an
interview last month, he credited Trump with boosting consumer and business confidence in growth, and reawakening "animal spirits."
But on Tuesday, reasons for concern kept coming. Labor market participation is low, Dimon wrote. Inner-city schools are failing
poor kids. High schools and vocational schools aren't providing skills to get decent jobs. Infrastructure planning and spending
is so anemic that the U.S. hasn't built a major airport in more than 20 years. Corporate taxes are so onerous it's driving capital
and brains overseas. Regulation is excessive.
" It is understandable why so many are angry at the leaders of America's institutions, including businesses, schools and
governments," Dimon, 61, summarized. "This can understandably lead to disenchantment with trade, globalization and even our free
enterprise system, which for so many people seems not to have worked. "...
"Inner-city schools are failing poor kids. High schools and vocational schools aren't providing skills to get decent jobs. Infrastructure
planning and spending is so anemic that the U.S. hasn't built a major airport in more than 20 years. Corporate taxes are so onerous
it's driving capital and brains overseas. Regulation is excessive."
Let's unpack his list. The 4th (last) sentence is his hope that his bank can back to the unregulated regime that brought us
the Great Recession. His 3rd sentence is a call for more tax cuts for the rich.
We may like his first 2 sentences here but who is going to pay for this? Not Jamie Dimon. See sentence #3.
Why would you object to government creating more demand for labor? Over time, wages will rise and higher wages will fund more
demand for labor produced goods.
"... As the steward-in-chief of the American empire, Obama continued Bush's Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, and extended his "War on Terror" into Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and elsewhere in Africa and the Middle East. He also became a terrorist himself and a serial killer, weaponized drones and special ops assassins being his weapons of choice. ..."
Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize -- for not being George W. Bush. This seemed unseemly at the time, but not outrageous.
Seven years later, it seems grotesque.
As the steward-in-chief of the American empire, Obama continued Bush's Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, and extended his "War on Terror"
into Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and elsewhere in Africa and the Middle East. He also became a terrorist himself and a serial killer, weaponized drones and special ops assassins being his weapons of choice.
ANDREW LEVINE is a Senior Scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, the author most recently of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY
(Routledge) and POLITICAL KEY WORDS
(Blackwell) as well as of many other books and articles in political philosophy. His most recent book is
In Bad Faith: What's Wrong With the
Opium of the People . He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy)
at the University of Maryland-College Park. He is a contributor to
Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics
of Illusion (AK Press).
Jewish financists are no longer Jewish, much like a socialist who became minister is no
longer a socialist minister. Unregulated finance promotes a set of destructive behaviors which
has nothing to do with nationality or ethnicity.
Of course that Joyce is peddling his own obsessions, but I have to admit that Singer &
comp. are detestable. I know that what they're doing is not illegal, but it should be (in my
opinion), and those who are involved in such affairs are somehow odious. The same goes for Icahn,
Soros etc. Still Ethnic angle is evident, too: how come Singer works exclusively with his
co-ethnics in this multi-ethnic USA? Non-Jewish & most Jewish entrepreneurs don't behave that
way.
It was very gratifying to see Tucker Carlson's
recent attack on the activities of Paul Singer's vulture fund, Elliot Associates, a group I
first
profiled four years ago. In many respects, it is truly remarkable that vulture funds like
Singer's escaped major media attention prior to this, especially when one considers how
extraordinarily harmful and exploitative they are. Many countries are now in very significant
debt to groups like Elliot Associates and, as Tucker's segment very starkly illustrated, their
reach has now extended into the very heart of small-town America. Shining a spotlight on the
spread of this virus is definitely welcome. I strongly believe, however, that the problem
presented by these cabals of exploitative financiers will only be solved if their true nature
is fully discerned. Thus far, the descriptive terminology employed in discussing their
activities has revolved only around the scavenging and parasitic nature of their activities.
Elliot Associates have therefore been described as a quintessential example of a "vulture fund"
practicing "vulture capitalism." But these funds aren't run by carrion birds. They are operated
almost exclusively by Jews. In the following essay, I want us to examine the largest and most
influential "vulture funds," to assess their leadership, ethos, financial practices, and how
they disseminate their dubiously acquired wealth. I want us to set aside colorful metaphors. I
want us to strike through the mask.
It is commonly agreed that the most significant global vulture funds are Elliot Management,
Cerberus, FG Hemisphere, Autonomy Capital, Baupost Group, Canyon Capital Advisors, Monarch
Alternative Capital, GoldenTree Asset Management, Aurelius Capital Management, OakTree Capital,
Fundamental Advisors, and Tilden Park Investment Master Fund LP. The names of these groups are
very interesting, being either blankly nondescript or evoking vague inklings of Anglo-Saxon or
rural/pastoral origins (note the prevalence of oak, trees, parks, canyons, monarchs, or the use
of names like Aurelius and Elliot). This is the same tactic employed by the Jew Jordan Belfort,
the "Wolf of Wall Street," who operated multiple major frauds under the business name Stratton
Oakmont.
These names are masks. They are designed to cultivate trust and obscure the real background
of the various groupings of financiers. None of these groups have Anglo-Saxon or venerable
origins. None are based in rural idylls. All of the vulture funds named above were founded by,
and continue to be operated by, ethnocentric, globalist, urban-dwelling Jews. A quick review of
each of their websites reveals their founders and central figures to be:
Elliot Management
-- Paul Singer, Zion Shohet, Jesse Cohn, Stephen Taub, Elliot Greenberg and Richard Zabel
Cerberus -- Stephen Feinberg, Lee Millstein, Jeffrey Lomasky, Seth Plattus, Joshua Weintraub,
Daniel Wolf, David Teitelbaum FG Hemisphere -- Peter Grossman Autonomy Capital -- Derek Goodman
Baupost Group -- Seth Klarman, Jordan Baruch, Isaac Auerbach Canyon Capital Advisors -- Joshua
Friedman, Mitchell Julis Monarch Alternative Capital -- Andrew Herenstein, Michael Weinstock
GoldenTree Asset Management -- Steven Tananbaum, Steven Shapiro Aurelius Capital Management --
Mark Brodsky, Samuel Rubin, Eleazer Klein, Jason Kaplan OakTree Capital -- Howard Marks, Bruce
Karsh, Jay Wintrob, John Frank, Sheldon Stone Fundamental Advisors -- Laurence Gottlieb,
Jonathan Stern Tilden Park Investment Master Fund LP -- Josh Birnbaum, Sam Alcoff
The fact that all of these vulture funds, widely acknowledged as the most influential and
predatory, are owned and operated by Jews is remarkable in itself, especially in a contemporary
context in which we are constantly bombarded with the suggestion that Jews don't have a special
relationship with money or usury, and that any such idea is an example of ignorant prejudice.
Equally remarkable, however, is the fact that Jewish representation saturates the board level
of these companies also, suggesting that their beginnings and methods of internal promotion and
operation rely heavily on ethnic-communal origins, and religious and social cohesion more
generally. As such, these Jewish funds provide an excellent opportunity to examine their
financial and political activities as expressions of Jewishness, and can thus be placed in the
broader framework of the Jewish group evolutionary strategy and the long historical trajectory
of Jewish-European relations.
How They Feed
In May 2018, Puerto Rico declared a form of municipal bankruptcy after falling into more
than
$74.8 billion in debt, of which more than $34 billion is interest and fees. The debt was
owed to
all of the Jewish capitalists named above, with the exception of Stephen Feinberg's
Cerberus group. In order to commence payments, the government had instituted a policy of fiscal
austerity, closing schools and raising utility bills, but when Hurricane Maria hit the island
in September 2017, Puerto Rico was forced to stop transfers to their Jewish creditors. This
provoked an aggressive attempt by the Jewish funds to seize assets from an island suffering
from an 80% power outage, with the addition of further interest and fees. Protests broke out in
several US cities calling for the debt to be forgiven. After a quick stop in Puerto Rico in
late 2018, Donald Trump pandered to this sentiment when he told Fox News, "They owe a lot of
money to your friends on Wall Street, and we're going to have to wipe that out." But Trump's
statement, like all of Trump's statements, had no substance. The following day, the director of
the White House budget office, Mick Mulvaney, told reporters: "I think what you heard the
president say is that Puerto Rico is going to have to figure out a way to solve its debt
problem." In other words, Puerto Rico is going to have to figure out a way to pay its Jews.
Trump's reversal is hardly surprising, given that the President is considered extremely
friendly to Jewish financial power. When he referred to "your friends on Wall Street" he really
meant his friends on Wall Street. One of his closest allies is Stephen Feinberg, founder
and CEO of Cerberus, a war-profiteering vulture fund that has now accumulated
more than $1.5 billion in Irish debt , leaving the country prone to a "
wave of home repossessions " on a scale not seen since the Jewish mortgage traders behind
Quicken Loans (Daniel Gilbert) and Ameriquest (Roland Arnall)
made thousands of Americans homeless . Feinberg has also been associated with mass
evictions in Spain, causing a collective of Barcelona anarchists to
label him a "Jewish mega parasite" in charge of the "world's vilest vulture fund." In May
2018, Trump made Feinberg
chair of his Intelligence Advisory Board , and one of the reasons for Trump's sluggish
retreat from Afghanistan has been the fact Feinberg's DynCorp has enjoyed years of lucrative government
defense contracts training Afghan police and providing ancillary services to the military.
But Trump's association with Jewish vultures goes far beyond Feinberg. A recent piece
in the New York Post declared "Orthodox Jews are opening up their wallets for Trump in
2020." This is a predictable outcome of the period 2016 to 2020, an era that could be neatly
characterised as How Jews learned to stop worrying and love the Don. Jewish financiers
are opening their wallets for Trump because it is now clear he utterly failed to fulfil
promises on mass immigration to White America, while pledging his commitment to Zionism and to
socially destructive Jewish side projects like the promotion of homosexuality. These actions,
coupled with his commuting
of Hasidic meatpacking boss Sholom Rubashkin 's 27-year-sentence for bank fraud and money
laundering in 2017, have sent a message to Jewish finance that Trump is someone they can do
business with. Since these globalist exploiters are essentially politically amorphous, knowing
no loyalty but that to their own tribe and its interests, there is significant drift of Jewish
mega-money between the Democratic and Republican parties. The New York Post reports, for
example, that when Trump attended a $25,000-per-couple luncheon in November at a Midtown hotel,
where 400 moneyed Jews raised at least $4 million for the America First [!] SuperPAC, the
luncheon organiser Kelly Sadler, told reporters, "We screened all of the people in attendance,
and we were surprised to see how many have given before to Democrats, but never a Republican.
People were standing up on their chairs chanting eight more years." The reality, of course, is
that these people are not Democrats or Republicans, but Jews, willing to push their money in
whatever direction the wind of Jewish interests is blowing.
The collapse of Puerto Rico under Jewish debt and elite courting of Jewish financial
predators is certainly nothing new. Congo , Zambia , Liberia ,
Argentina , Peru ,
Panama , Ecuador ,
Vietnam , Poland , and
Ireland are just some of the countries that have slipped fatefully into the hands of the
Jews listed above, and these same people are now closely watching
Greece and
India . The methodology used to acquire such leverage is as simple as it is ruthless. On
its most basic level, "vulture capitalism" is really just a combination of the
continued intense relationship between Jews and usury and Jewish involvement in medieval
tax farming. On the older practice, Salo Baron writes in Economic History of the Jews
that Jewish speculators would pay a lump sum to the treasury before mercilessly turning on the
peasantry to obtain "considerable surpluses if need be, by ruthless methods." [1] S. Baron
(ed) Economic History of the Jews (New York, 1976), 46-7. The activities of the
Jewish vulture funds are essentially the same speculation in debt, except here the trade in
usury is carried out on a global scale with the feudal peasants of old now replaced with entire
nations. Wealthy Jews pool resources, purchase debts, add astronomical fees and interests, and
when the inevitable default occurs they engage in aggressive legal activity to seize assets,
bringing waves of jobs losses and home repossessions.
This type of predation is so pernicious and morally perverse that both the
Belgian and
UK governments have taken steps to ban these Jewish firms from using their court systems to
sue for distressed debt owed by poor nations. Tucker Carlson, commenting on Paul Singer's
predation and the ruin of the town of Sidney, Nebraska, has said:
It couldn't be uglier or more destructive. So why is it still allowed in the United
States? The short answer: Because people like Paul Singer have tremendous influence over our
political process. Singer himself was the second largest donor to the Republican Party in
2016. He's given millions to a super-PAC that supports Republican senators. You may never
have heard of Paul Singer -- which tells you a lot in itself -- but in Washington, he's
rock-star famous. And that is why he is almost certainly paying a lower effective tax rate
than your average fireman, just in case you were still wondering if our system is rigged. Oh
yeah, it is.
Aside from direct political donations, these Jewish financiers also escape scrutiny by
hiding behind a mask of simplistic anti-socialist rhetoric that is common in the American
Right, especially the older, Christian, and pro-Zionist demographic. Rod Dreher, in a
commentary on Carlson's
piece at the American Conservative , points out that Singer gave a speech in May
2019 attacking the "rising threat of socialism within the Democratic Party." Singer continued,
"They call it socialism, but it is more accurately described as left-wing statism lubricated by
showers of free stuff promised by politicians who believe that money comes from a printing
press rather than the productive efforts of businesspeople and workers." Dreher comments: "The
productive efforts of businesspeople and workers"? The gall of that man, after what he did to
the people of Sidney."
What Singer and the other Jewish vultures engage in is not productive, and isn't even any
recognisable form of work or business. It is greed-motivated parasitism carried out on a
perversely extravagant and highly nepotistic scale. In truth, it is Singer and his co-ethnics
who believe that money can be printed on the backs of productive workers, and who ultimately
believe they have a right to be "showered by free stuff promised by politicians." Singer places
himself in an infantile paradigm meant to entertain the goyim, that of Free Enterprise vs
Socialism, but, as Carlson points out, "this is not the free enterprise that we all learned
about." That's because it's Jewish enterprise -- exploitative, inorganic, and attached to
socio-political goals that have nothing to do with individual freedom and private property.
This might not be the free enterprise Carlson learned about, but it's clearly the free
enterprise Jews learn about -- as illustrated in their extraordinary
over-representation in all forms of financial exploitation and white collar crime. The
Talmud, whether actively studied or culturally absorbed, is their code of ethics and their
curriculum in regards to fraud, fraudulent bankruptcy, embezzlement, usury, and financial
exploitation. Vulture capitalism is Jewish capitalism.
Whom They Feed
Singer's duplicity is a perfect example of the way in which Jewish finance postures as
conservative while conserving nothing. Indeed, Jewish capitalism may be regarded as the root
cause of the rise of Conservative Inc., a form or shadow of right wing politics reduced solely
to fiscal concerns that are ultimately, in themselves, harmful to the interests of the majority
of those who stupidly support them. The spirit of Jewish capitalism, ultimately, can be
discerned not in insincere bleating about socialism and business, intended merely to entertain
semi-educated Zio-patriots, but in the manner in which the Jewish vulture funds disseminate the
proceeds of their parasitism. Real vultures are weak, so will gorge at a carcass and
regurgitate food to feed their young. So then, who sits in the nests of the vulture funds,
awaiting the regurgitated remains of troubled nations?
Boston-based Seth Klarman (net worth $1.5 billion), who like Paul Singer has
declared "free enterprise has been good for me," is a rapacious debt exploiter who was
integral to the financial collapse of Puerto Rico, where he hid much of activities behind a
series of shell companies. Investigative journalists eventually discovered that Klarman's
Baupost group was behind much of the aggressive legal action intended to squeeze the decimated
island for bond payments. It's clear that the Jews involved in these companies are very much
aware that what they are doing is wrong, and they are careful to avoid too much reputational
damage, whether to themselves individually or to their ethnic group. Puerto Rican journalists,
investigating the debt trail to Klarman, recall trying to follow one of the shell companies
(Decagon) to Baupost via a shell company lawyer (and yet another Jew) named Jeffrey Katz:
Returning to the Ropes & Gray thread, we identified several attorneys who had worked
with the Baupost Group, and one, Jeffrey Katz, who -- in addition to having worked directly
with Baupost -- seemed to describe a particularly close and longstanding relationship with a
firm fitting Baupost's profile on his experience page. I called
Katz and he picked up, to my surprise. I identified myself, as well as my affiliation with
the Public Accountability Initiative, and asked if he was the right person to talk to about
Decagon Holdings and Baupost. He paused, started to respond, and then evidently thought
better of it and said that he was actually in a meeting, and that I would need to call back
(apparently, this high-powered lawyer picks up calls from strange numbers when he is in
important meetings). As he was telling me to call back, I asked him again if he was the right
person to talk to about Decagon, and that I wouldn't call back if he wasn't, and he seemed to
get even more flustered. At that point he started talking too much, about how he was a lawyer
and has clients, how I must think I'm onto some kind of big scoop, and how there was a person
standing right in front of him -- literally, standing right in front of him -- while I rudely
insisted on keeping him on the line.
One of the reasons for such secrecy is the intensive Jewish philanthropy engaged in by
Klarman under his Klarman Family
Foundation . While Puerto Rican schools are being closed, and pensions and health
provisions slashed, Klarman is regurgitating the proceeds of massive debt speculation to his "
areas of
focus " which prominently includes " Supporting the global Jewish community
and Israel ." While plundering the treasuries of the crippled nations of the goyim, Klarman
and his co-ethnic associates have committed themselves to "improving the quality of life and
access to opportunities for all Israeli citizens so that they may benefit from the country's
prosperity." Among those in Klarman's nest, their beaks agape for Puerto Rican debt interest,
are the American Jewish Committee, Boston's Combined Jewish Philanthropies, the Holocaust
Memorial Museum, the Honeymoon Israel Foundation, Israel-America Academic Exchange, and the
Israel Project. Klarman, like Singer, has also been an enthusiastic proponent of liberalising
attitudes to homosexuality, donating $1 million to a Republican super PAC aimed at supporting
pro-gay marriage GOP candidates in 2014 (Singer donated $1.75 million). Klarman, who also
contributes to candidates
who support immigration reform, including a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants,
has said "The right to gay marriage is the largest remaining civil rights issue of our time. I
work one-on-one with individual Republicans to try to get them to realize they are being
Neanderthals on this issue."
Steven Tananbaum's GoldenTree Asset Management has also fed well on Puerto Rico, owning $2.5
billion of the island's debt. The Centre for Economic and Policy Research has
commented :
Steven Tananbaum, GoldenTree's chief investment officer, told a business conference in
September (after Hurricane Irma, but before Hurricane Maria) that he continued to view Puerto
Rican bonds as an attractive investment. GoldenTree is spearheading a group of COFINA
bondholders that collectively holds about $3.3 billion in bonds. But with Puerto Rico facing
an unprecedented humanitarian crisis, and lacking enough funds to even begin to pay back its
massive debt load, these vulture funds are relying on their ability to convince politicians
and the courts to make them whole. The COFINA bondholder group has spent
$610,000 to lobby Congress over the last two years, while GoldenTree itself
made $64,000 in political contributions to federal candidates in the 2016 cycle. For
vulture funds like GoldenTree, the destruction of Puerto Rico is yet another opportunity for
exorbitant profits.
Whom does Tananbaum feed with these profits? A brief glance at the spending of the
Lisa and Steven Tananbaum Charitable Trust reveals a relatively short list of beneficiaries
including United Jewish Appeal Foundation, American Friends of Israel Museum, Jewish Community
Center, to be among the most generously funded, with sizeable donations also going to museums
specialising in the display of degenerate and demoralising art.
Following the collapse in Irish asset values in 2008, Jewish vulture funds including OakTree
Capital swooped on mortgagee debt to seize tens of thousands of Irish homes, shopping malls,
and utilities (Steve Feinberg's Cerberus took control of public waste disposal). In 2011,
Ireland emerged as a hotspot for distressed property assets, after its bad banks began selling
loans that had once been held by struggling financial institutions. These loans were quickly
purchased at knockdown prices by Jewish fund managers, who then aggressively sought the
eviction of residents in order to sell them for a fast profit. Michael Byrne, a researcher at
the School of Social Policy at University College Dublin, Ireland's largest university,
comments : "The
aggressive strategies used by vulture funds lead to human tragedies." One homeowner, Anna Flynn
recalls how her mortgage fell into the hands of Mars Capital, an affiliate of Oaktree Capital,
owned and operated by the Los Angeles-based Jews Howard Marks and Bruce Karsh. They were "very,
very difficult to deal with," said Flynn, a mother of four. "All [Mars] wanted was for me to
leave the house; they didn't want a solution [to ensure I could retain my home]."
When Bruce Karsh isn't making Irish people homeless, whom does he feed with his profits? A
brief glance at the spending of the
Karsh Family Foundation reveals millions of dollars of donations to the Jewish Federation,
Jewish Community Center, and the United Jewish Fund.
Paul Singer, his son Gordin, and their Elliot Associates colleagues Zion Shohet, Jesse Cohn,
Stephen Taub, Elliot Greenberg and Richard Zabel, have a foothold in almost every country, and
have a stake in every company you're likely to be familiar with, from book stores to dollar
stores. With the profits of exploitation, they
fund campaigns for homosexuality and mass migration , boost Zionist politics,
invest millions in security for Jews , and promote wars for Israel. Singer is a Republican,
and is on the Board of the Republican Jewish Coalition. He is a former board member of the
Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, has funded neoconservative research groups like
the Middle East Media Research Institute and the Center for Security Policy, and is among the
largest funders of the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies. He was also
connected to the pro-Iraq War advocacy group Freedom's Watch. Another key Singer project was
the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI), a Washington D.C.-based advocacy group that was founded in
2009 by several high-profile Jewish neoconservative figures to promote militaristic U.S.
policies in the Middle East on behalf of Israel and which received its seed money from
Singer.
Although Singer was initially anti-Trump, and although Trump once
attacked Singer for his pro-immigration politics ("Paul Singer represents amnesty and he
represents illegal immigration pouring into the country"), Trump is now essentially funded by
three Jews -- Singer, Bernard Marcus, and Sheldon Adelson, together accounting for over $250
million in pro-Trump political money . In return, they want war with Iran. Employees of
Elliott Management were one of the main sources of funding for the 2014 candidacy of the
Senate's most outspoken Iran hawk, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), who urged Trump to conduct a
"retaliatory strike" against Iran for purportedly attacking two commercial tankers. These
exploitative Jewish financiers have been clear that they expect a war with Iran, and they are
lobbying hard and preparing to call in their pound of flesh. As one political commentator put
it, "These donors have made their policy preferences on Iran plainly known. They surely expect
a return on their investment in Trump's GOP."
The same pattern is witnessed again and again, illustrating the stark reality that the
prosperity and influence of Zionist globalism rests to an overwhelming degree on the predations
of the most successful and ruthless Jewish financial parasites. This is not conjecture,
exaggeration, or hyperbole. This is simply a matter of striking through the mask, looking at
the heads of the world's most predatory financial funds, and following the direction of
regurgitated profits.
Make no mistake, these cabals are everywhere and growing. They could be ignored when they
preyed on distant small nations, but their intention was always to come for you too. They are
now on your doorstep. The working people of Sidney, Nebraska probably had no idea what a
vulture fund was until their factories closed and their homes were taken. These funds will move
onto the next town. And the next. And another after that. They won't be stopped through blunt
support of "free enterprise," and they won't be stopped by simply calling them "vulture
capitalists."
Strike through the mask!
Notes
[1] S.
Baron (ed) Economic History of the Jews (New York, 1976), 46-7.
To what extent is Jewish success a product of Jewish intellect and industry versus being a
result of a willingness to use low, dirty, honorless and anti-social tactics which, while
maybe not in violation of the word of the law, certainly violate its spirit?
An application of "chutzpah" to business, if you will -- the gall to break social
conventions to get what you want, while making other people feel uncomfortable; to wheedle
your way in at the joints of social norms and conventions -- not illegal, but selfish and
rude.
Krav Maga applies the same concept to the martial arts: You're taught to go after the
things that every other martial art forbids you to target: the eyes, the testicles, etc. In
other sports this is considered "low" and "cheap." In Krav Maga, as perhaps a metaphor for
Jewish behavior in general, nothing is too low because it's all about winning .
There's a rather good article on the New Yorker discussing the Sacklers and the
Oxycontin epidemic. It focusses on the dichotomy between the family's ruthless promotion of
the drug and their lavish philanthropy. 'Leave the world a better place for your presence'
and similar pieties and Oxycontin.
The article lightly touches on the extent of their giving to Hebrew University of
Jerusalem -- but in general, treads lightly when it comes to their Judaism.
understandably. The New Yorker isn't exactly alt-right country, after all. But can
Joyce or anyone else provide a more exact breakdown on the Sacklers' giving? Are they genuine
philanthropists, or is it mostly for the Cause?
@anon'To what extent is Jewish success a product of Jewish intellect and industry versus being
a result of a willingness to use low, dirty, honorless and anti-social tactics which, while
maybe not in violation of the word of the law, certainly violate its spirit? '
It's important not to get carried away with this. Figures such as Andrew Carnegie, while
impeccably gentile, were hardly paragons of scrupulous ethics and disinterested virtue.
I won't defend high finance because I don't like it either. But this is a retarded and highly
uninformed attack on it.
1. The article bounces back and forth between two completely different fields: private
equity and distressed debt funds. The latter is completely defensible. A lot of bondholders,
probably the majority, cannot hold distressed or defaulted debt. Insurance companies often
can't by law. Bond mutual funds set out in their prospectuses they don't invest in anything
rated lower than A, AA, or whatever. Even those allowed to hold distressed debt don't want
the extra costs involved with doing so, such as carefully following bankruptcy proceedings
and dealing with delayed and irregular payments.
As a result, it is natural that normal investors sell off such debt at a discount to funds
that specialize in it.
2. Joyce defends large borrowers that default on their debt. Maybe the laws protecting
bankrupts and insolvents should be stronger. But you do that, and lenders become more
conservative, investment declines, and worthy businesses can't get investments. I think
myself the laws in the US are too favorable to lenders, but there's definitely a tradeoff,
and the question is where the happy middle ground is. In Florida a creditor can't force the
sale of a primary residence, even if it is worth $20 million. That's going too far in the
other direction.
3. " either blankly nondescript or evoking vague inklings of Anglo-Saxon or rural/pastoral
origins "
More retardation. Cerberus is a greek dog monster guarding the gates of hell. Aurelius is
from the Latin word for gold. "Hemisphere" isn't an Anglosaxon word nor does in invoke rural
origins.
Besides being retardedly wrong, the broader point is likewise retarded: when
English-speaking Jews name their businesses they shouldn't use English words. Naming a
company "Oaktree" should be limited to those of purely English blood! Jews must name their
companies "Cosmopolitan Capital" or RosenMoses Chutzpah Advisors."
4. The final and most general point: it's trivially easy to attack particular excesses of
capitalism. Fixing the excesses without creating bigger problem is the hard part. Two ideas I
favor are usury laws and Tobin taxes.
Jewishness aside, maximizing shareholder is the holy grail of all capitalist enterprises. The
capitalist rush to abandon the American working class when tariff barriers evaporated is just
another case of vulturism. Tax corporations based on the domestic content of their products
and ban usury and vulturism will evaporate.
Someone with the username kikz posted a link to this article in the occidental observer. I
read it and thought it was a great article. I'm glad it's featured here.
The article goes straight for the jugular and pulls no punches. It hits hard. I like
that:
1. It shines a light on the some of the scummiest of the scummiest Wall Street
players.
2. It names names. From the actual vulture funds to the rollcall of Jewish actors running
each. It's astounding how ethnically uniform it is.
3. It proves Trump's ties with the most successful Vulture kingpin, Singer.
4. It shows how money flows from the fund owners to Zionist and Jewish causes.
This thing reads like a court indictment. It puts real world examples to many of the
theories that are represents on this site. Excellent article.
Elliott Management is perhaps most notorious for its 15-year battle with the government
of Argentina, whose bonds were owned by the hedge fund. When Argentine president Cristina
Kirchner attempted to restructure the debt, Elliott -- unlike most of the bonds' owners --
refused to accept a large loss on its investment. It successfully sued in US courts, and in
pursuit of Argentine assets, convinced a court in Ghana to detain an Argentine naval
training vessel, then docked outside Accra with a crew of 22o. After a change of its
government, Argentina eventually settled and Singer's fund received $2.4 billion, almost
four times its initial investment. Kirchner, meanwhile, has been indicted for
corruption.
@Lot
You give partial information which seem misleading and use arguments which are also weak and
not enlightening.
1- Even if its natural that unsafe bonds are sold, this doesn't justify the practices and
methods of those vulture fonds which buy those fonds which are socially damaging. I'm not
certain of the details because it's an old case and people should seek more information. Very
broadly, in the case of Argentina most funds accepted to make an agreement with the country
and reduce their demands. Investors have to accept risks and losses. Paul Singer bought some
financial papers for nothing at that time and forced Argentina to pay the whole price. For
years Argentina refused to pay, but with the help of New York courts and the new Argentinian
president they were forced to pay Singer. This was not conservative capitalism but
imperialism. You can only act like Singer if you have the backing of courts, of a government
which you control and of an army like the US army. A fast internet search for titles of
articles: "Hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer's ruthless strategies include bullying CEOs,
suing governments and seizing their navy's ships". "How one hedge fund made $2 billion from
Argentina's economic colapse".
Andrew Sayer, professor in an English university, says in his book "Why we can't afford
the rich" that finances as they are practiced now may cost more than bring any value to a
society. It's a problem if some sectors of finances make outsized profits and use methods
which are more than questionable.
2- You say that if borrowers become more protected "lenders become more conservative,
investment declines, and worthy businesses can't get investments." I doubt this is true. In
the first place, risk investments by vulture fonds probably don't create any social value.
The original lenders who sold their bonds to such vulture fonds have anyway big or near total
losses in some cases and in spite of that they keep doing business. Why should we support
vulture fonds, what for? What positive function they play in society? In Germany, capitalism
was much more social in old days before a neoliberal wave forced Germany to change Rhine
capitalism. Local banks lended money to local business which they knew and which they had an
interest that they prosper. Larger banks lended money to big firms. Speculation like in
neoliberal capitalism wasn't needed.
3- The point which you didn't grasp is that there is a component of those business which
isn't publicly clear, the fact that they funcion along ethnic lines.
4- It would be easy to fix excesses of capitalism. The problem is that the people who
profit the most from the system also have the power to prevent any change.
@Robjil
This is an example of what I was saying. Less Euro whites in the world is not going to be a
good world for Big Js. Non-Euros believe in freedom of speech.
Jewish Bigwigs can't get control of businesses in East Asia. They have been trying. Paul
Singer tried and failed. In Argentina he got lots of "success". Why? Lots of descendants of
Europeans there went along with "decisions" laid out by New York Jews.
Little Paulie tried to get control of Samsung. No such luck for him in Korea. In Korea
there are many family monopolies, chaebols. A Korean chaebol stopped him. Jewish Daniel Loeb
tried to get a board seat on Sony. He was rebuffed.
I was moved to reflect on the universality of this theme recently when surveying media
coverage on Korean and Argentinian responses to the activities of Paul Singer and his
co-ethnic shareholders at Elliott Associates, an arm of Singer's Elliott Management hedge
fund. The Korean story has its origins in the efforts of Samsung's holding company, Cheil
Industries, to buy Samsung C&T, the engineering and construction arm of the wider
Samsung family of businesses. The move can be seen as part of an effort to reinforce
control of the conglomerate by the founding Lee family and its heir apparent, Lee Jae-yong.
Trouble emerged when Singer's company, which holds a 7.12% stake in Samsung C&T and is
itself attempting to expand its influence and control over Far East tech companies,
objected to the move. The story is fairly typical of Jewish difficulties in penetrating
business cultures in the Far East, where impenetrable family monopolies, known in Korea as
chaebols, are common. This new story reminded me very strongly of last year's efforts by
Jewish financier Daniel Loeb to obtain a board seat at Sony. Loeb was repeatedly rebuffed
by COO Kazuo Hirai, eventually selling his stake in Sony Corp. in frustration.
Here is how the Koreans fought off Paul Singer.
The predominantly Jewish-owned and operated Elliott Associates has a wealth of
self-interest in preventing the Lee family from consolidating its control over the Samsung
conglomerate. As racial outsiders, however, Singer's firm were forced into several tactical
measures in their 52-day attempt to thwart the merger. First came lawsuits. When those
failed, Singer and his associates then postured themselves as defending Korean interests,
starting a Korean-language website and arguing that their position was really just in aid
of helping domestic Korean shareholders. This variation on the familiar theme of Jewish
crypsis was quite unsuccessful. The Lee family went on the offensive immediately and,
unlike many Westerners, were not shy in drawing attention to the Jewish nature of Singer's
interference and the sordid and intensely parasitic nature of his fund's other
ventures.
Cartoons were drawn of Singer being a vulture.
Other cartoons appearing at the same time represented Elliott, literally, as humanoid
vultures, with captions referring to the well-known history of the fund. In the above
cartoon, the vulture offers assistance to a needy and destitute figure, but conceals an axe
with which to later bludgeon the unsuspecting pauper.
ADL got all worked about this. The Koreans did not care. It is reality. Freedom of speech
works on these vultures. The west should try some real freedom of speech.
After the cartoons appeared, Singer and other influential Jews, including Abraham
Foxman, cried anti-Semitism. This was despite the fact the cartoons contain no reference
whatsoever to Judaism – unless of course one defines savage economic predation as a
Jewish trait. Samsung denied the cartoons were anti-Semitic and took them off the website,
but the uproar over the cartoons only seemed to spur on even more discussion about Jewish
influence in South Korea than was previously the case. In a piece published a fortnight
ago, Media Pen columnist Kim Ji-ho claimed "Jewish money has long been known to be ruthless
and merciless." Last week, the former South Korean ambassador to Morocco, Park Jae-seon,
expressed his concern about the influence of Jews in finance when he said, "The scary thing
about Jews is they are grabbing the currency markets and financial investment companies.
Their network is tight-knit beyond one's imagination." The next day, cable news channel YTN
aired similar comments by local journalist Park Seong-ho, who stated on air that "it is a
fact that Jews use financial networks and have influence wherever they are born." It goes
without saying that comments like these are unambiguously similar to complaints about
Jewish economic practices in Europe over the course of centuries. The only common
denominator between the context of fourteenth-century France and the context of
twenty-first-century South Korea is, you guessed it, Jewish economic practices.
The Koreans won. Paulie lost. Good win for humanity. The Argentines were not so lucky.
They don't have freedom speech like the Koreans and East Asians have.
In the end, the Lee strategy, based on drawing attention to the alien and exploitative
nature of Elliott Associates, was overwhelmingly effective. Before a crucial shareholder
vote on the Lee's planned merger, Samsung Securities CEO Yoon Yong-am said: "We should
score a victory by a big margin in the first battle, in order to take the upper hand in a
looming war against Elliott, and keep other speculative hedge funds from taking short-term
gains in the domestic market." When the vote finally took place a few days ago, a
conclusive 69.5% of Samsung shareholders voted in favor of the Lee proposal, leaving
Elliott licking its wounds and complaining about the "patriotic marketing" of those behind
the merger.
What our Jewish friends have done to Argentina, through maneuvering the elections, killing
dissidents, and marking territory, is a cautionary tale to anybody woke enough to see with
their own eyes.
Zion had the opportunity to go to Uganda and Ugandans were willing, but NO Zion had to
have Palestine, and they got it through war, deception, and murder. It was funded by usury,
as stolen purchasing power from the Goyim.
The fake country of Israel, is not the biblical Israel, and it came into being by
maneuverings of satanic men determined to get their way no matter what, and is supported by
continuous deception. Even today's Hebrew is resurrected from a dead language, and is fake.
Many fake Jews (who have no blood lineage to Abraham), a fake country, and fake language.
These fakers, usurers, and thieves do indeed have their eyes set on Patagonia, what they call
the practical country.
@Anon
"If debts can simply be repudiated at will, capitalism cannot function."
Is this children's capitalist theory class time? throwing around some simple slogans for a
susceptible congregation of future believers?
Should be quite obvious that people, groups of people, if not whole nations , can be
forced and or seduced into depths by means of certain practices. There are a thousand ways of
such trickery and thievery, these are not in the theory books though. In these books things
all match and work out wonderfully rationally
Then capitalism cannot function? Unfortunately it has become already dysfunctional, if not
a big rotten cancer.
Lobelog ran some articles in Singer, Argentina, Iran Israel and the attorney from Argentina
who died mysteriously . Singer is a loan shark. Argentinian paid dearly .
Google search –
NYT's Argentina Op-Ed Fails to Disclose Authors – LobeLog
https://lobelog.com/tag/paul-singer/
Paul Singer NYT's Argentina Op-Ed Fails to Disclose Authors' Financial Conflict of Interest
by Eli Clifton On Tuesday, Mark Dubowitz and Toby Dershowitz, two executives at the hawkish
Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), took
The Right-Wing Americans Who Made a Doc About Argentina
https://lobelog.com/the-right-wing-americans-who-made-a-doc-about-argentina/
Oct 7, 2015 One might wonder why a movie about Argentina, in Spanish and . of Nisman's and
thought highly of the prosecutor's work, told LobeLog, FDD, for its part, has been an
outspoken critic of Kirchner but has From 2008 to 2011, Paul Singer was the group's
second-largest donor, contributing $3.6 million.
NYT Failed to Note Op-Ed Authors' Funder Has $2 Billion
What our Jewish friends have done to Argentina, through maneuvering the elections,
killing dissidents, and marking territory, is a cautionary tale to anybody woke enough to
see with their own eyes.
"... One of the most revealing and absurd responses to rejections of forever war is the ridiculous dodge that the U.S. isn't really at war when it uses force and kills people in multiple foreign countries: ..."
"... The distinction between "real war" and the constant U.S. involvement in hostilities overseas is a phony one. The war is very real to the civilian bystanders who die in U.S. airstrikes, and it is very real to the soldiers and Marines still getting shot at and blown up in Afghanistan. This is not an "antidote to war," but rather the routinization of warfare. ..."
"... The routinization and normalization of endless, unauthorized war is one of the most harmful legacies of the Obama administration. ..."
"... When the Obama administration wanted political and legal cover for the illegal Libyan war in 2011, they came up with a preposterous claim that U.S. forces weren't engaged in hostilities because there was no real risk to them from the Libyan government's forces. According to Harold Koh, who was the one responsible for promoting this nonsense, U.S. forces weren't engaged in hostilities even when they were carrying out a sustained bombing campaign for months. That lie has served as a basis for redefining what counts as involvement in hostilities so that the president and the Pentagon can pretend that the U.S. military isn't engaged in hostilities even when it clearly is. When the only thing that gets counted as a "real war" is a major deployment of hundreds of thousands of troops, that allows for a lot of unaccountable warmaking that has been conveniently reinvented as something else. ..."
One of the most revealing and absurd responses to
rejections of forever war
is the ridiculous dodge that the U.S. isn't really at war when it uses force and kills people in multiple foreign countries:
Just like @POTUS , who put a limited op of NE
#Syria under heading of "endless
war," this op-ed has "drone strikes & Special Ops raids" in indictment of US-at-war. In fact, those actions are antidote to war.
Their misguided critique is insult to real war. https://t.co/DCLS9IDKSw
War has become so normalized over the last twenty years that the constant use of military force gets discounted as something other
than "real war." We have seen this war denialism on display several times in the last year. As more presidential candidates and analysts
have started rejecting endless war, the war's
defenders have often
chosen to
pretend
that the U.S. isn't at war at all. The distinction between "real war" and the constant U.S. involvement in hostilities overseas is
a phony one. The war is very real to the civilian bystanders who die in U.S. airstrikes, and it is very real to the soldiers and
Marines still getting shot at and blown up in Afghanistan. This is not an "antidote to war," but rather the routinization of warfare.
Because Obama is relatively less aggressive and reckless than his hawkish opponents (a very low bar to clear), he is frequently
given a pass on these issues, and we are treated to misleading stories about his supposed "realism" and "restraint." Insofar as
he has been a president who normalized and routinized open-ended and unnecessary foreign wars, he has shown that neither of those
terms should be used to describe his foreign policy. Even though I know all too well that the president that follows him will
be even worse, the next president will have a freer hand to conduct a more aggressive and dangerous foreign policy in part because
of illegal wars Obama has waged during his time in office.
The attempt to define war so that it never includes what the U.S. military happens to be doing when it uses force abroad has been
going on for quite a while. When the Obama administration wanted political and legal cover for the illegal Libyan war in 2011, they
came up with a preposterous claim that U.S. forces weren't engaged in hostilities because there was no real risk to them from the
Libyan government's forces. According to Harold Koh, who was the one responsible for promoting this nonsense, U.S. forces weren't
engaged in hostilities even when they were carrying out a sustained bombing campaign for months. That lie has served as a basis for
redefining what counts as involvement in hostilities so that the president and the Pentagon can pretend that the U.S. military isn't
engaged in hostilities even when it clearly is. When the only thing that
gets counted as a "real war" is a major deployment
of hundreds of thousands of troops, that allows for a lot of unaccountable warmaking that has been conveniently reinvented as something
else.
It isn't just physical war that results in active service body bags but our aggression has alreay cost lives on the home front
and there is every reason to believe it will do so again.
We were not isolationists prior to 9/11/2001, Al Qaeda had already attacked but we were distracted bombing Serbia, expanding
NATO, and trying to connect Al Qaeda attacks to Iran. We were just attacked by a Saudi officer we were training on our soil to
use the Saudis against Iran.
It remains to be seen what our economic warfare against Iran, Venezuela, Syria, Yemen, and our continued use of Afghanistan
as a bombing platform will cost us. We think we are being clever by using our Treasury Dept and low intensity warfare to minimize
direct immediate casualties but how long can that last.
This article confirms what the last Real Commander-in-Chief, General/President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned about when he retired
58 years ago.
His wise Council based on his Supreme Military-Political experience has been ignored.
The MSM, Propagandists for the Military-Industrial Complex, won't remind the American People.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could,
with time and as required, make swords as well.
But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments
industry of vast proportions.
Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on
military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total
influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government.
We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the
very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought,
by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for
granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military
machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
The psychological contortionism required to deny that we are at war amazes me. US military forces are killing people in other
countries – but it's not war? Because we can manufacture comforting euphemisms like "police action" or "preventive action" or
"drone strike," it's not war? Because it's smaller scale than a "real" war like WWII?
Cancer is cancer. A small cancer is still a cancer. Arguing that it's not cancer because it's not metastatic stage IV is, well,
the most polite term is sophistry. More accurate terms aren't printable.
Have any of you read Bill Browder's book Red Notice?
It's a great read.
The grandson of the General Secretary of the United States Communist Party, whose great
auntie worked for the NKVD. His brother, Lev, is a great mathematician.
Browder worked with Robert Maxwell as an intern. That's the father of Ghislaine Maxwell,
Jeffrey Epstein's facilitator.
Browder went on to Salomen Brothers and ended up being one of the largest capitalists in
Eastern Europe.
For some reason the Russians believed that Browder was using front companies to aquire
stakes in Russian strategic assets, then remove billions without paying taxes, apparently
worth in excess of 4 billion. If Russian 'propaganda' is to be believed.
They must have wrong because Browder was able to achieve the Magnitsky Act in
response.
It seemed the Russians unfairly seized shares from Browder he acquired in Gazprom,
Surgutneftegaz, Unified Energy Systems, and Sidanco.
In July 2017, Browder testified to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee on Russia's alleged
interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
As everyone knows, this claim about Russian collusion by Trump is 100% true, and supports
the veracity of all his other claims. As the number one capitalist in Russia following the
fall of the Soviet Union.
And he was a hero too. Speaking out about how Jewish Oligarchs defenestrated Russia with
Yeltsin in the early 2000s and late 90s. He spoke out against his fellow Jews in what most
regard as conspiracy theories. Putin even praised him for assisting in liberation from the
Oligarchs.
What the Russians did was terrifying. They established a precedent where Jewish
international assets and capital could be seized for interference with affairs of state.
Of course what they apparently did was steal $230m off of Browder's fund shareholders.
Russia is of course very corrupt. And Browder's testimony against Trump for alleged Russia
collusion given what everyone knows speaks for his utmost veracity.
I came out of that book with the utmost admiration for Bill Browder. He did his best in
Poland with depressed assets, and he had a grand adventure. He's clearly amazingly good at
finance.
I came out of that book with the utmost admiration for Bill Browder.
You don't seem to be serious, if I understood what you want to say. Even Der Spiegel has
published a critical article in English about Browder, Browder is the one who pushed for
sanctions against Russia because of the case Magnitsky:
Questions Cloud Story Behind U.S. Sanctions
The story of Sergei Magnitsky has come to symbolize the brutal persecution of
whistleblowers in Russia. Ten years after his death, inconsistencies in Magnitsky's story
suggest he may not have been the hero many people -- and Western governments -- believed him
to be.
@Anon
After reading the book of this MI6 asset (and potential killer) who tried to fleece Russia,
you probably can benefit from watching a movie by Nekrasov about him. See references in:
It looks like it was Browder who killed Magnitsky, so that he can't spill the beans. And
then in an act of ultimate chutzpah played the victim and promoted Magnitsky act.
@Colin
Wright Intelligence and bias for co-operation may lead some groups to far greater
achievements, in scams as well as in everything else.
That aside, I think we daily meet plenty of individuals who'd sell their mothers, and
maybe kill lives, for pennies. They are like machines not even conscious of what they are
doing.
I meet them daily, in whatever activity, and none of them is Jewish. Also their shops,
businesses, and so on are always the ones that prosper more: people love being scammed, and
people love the show of power implicit in making you pay some extra for the service you
requested, and still keeping plenty of customers with you.
So, it's the usual with Joyce (and not only Joyce of course). You take something that is
human, talk of Jews, point to that something in Jews, and pretend, trusting that your readers
will pretend the same, that it's a Jewish-specific something.
Because if you were to say: everyone does this, everywhere, but when Jews do it it's just on
a larger scale, then you'd be shining light on the fact that what changes with Jews is just
skills, and that they are intelligent enough to co-operate more than the others.
Like when Mac Donald speaks of Jewish self-deception.
I feel I am swimming in self-deception everytime I talk with people (more so with women), and
they aren't Jewish. Do people do anything, but self-deceive?
So?
Elliott Management is perhaps most notorious for its 15-year battle with the government
of Argentina, whose bonds were owned by the hedge fund. When Argentine president Cristina
Kirchner attempted to restructure the debt, Elliott -- unlike most of the bonds' owners --
refused to accept a large loss on its investment. It successfully sued in US courts, and in
pursuit of Argentine assets, convinced a court in Ghana to detain an Argentine naval
training vessel, then docked outside Accra with a crew of 22o. After a change of its
government, Argentina eventually settled and Singer's fund received $2.4 billion, almost
four times its initial investment. Kirchner, meanwhile, has been indicted for
corruption.
This massive transfer of the American tech industry has largely been the work of one
leading Republican donor -- billionaire hedge fund manager Paul Singer, who also funds the
neoconservative think tank American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Islamophobic and
hawkish think tank Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), the Republican Jewish
Coalition (RJC), and also funded the now-defunct Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI).
Singer's project to bolster Israel's tech economy at the U.S.' expense is known as
Start-Up Nation Central, which he founded in response to the global Boycott, Divest and
Sanctions (BDS) movement that seeks to use nonviolent means to pressure Israel to comply
with international law in relation to its treatment of Palestinians.
@Lot
You give partial information which seem misleading and use arguments which are also weak and
not enlightening.
1- Even if its natural that unsafe bonds are sold, this doesn't justify the practices and
methods of those vulture fonds which buy those fonds which are socially damaging. I'm not
certain of the details because it's an old case and people should seek more information. Very
broadly, in the case of Argentina most funds accepted to make an agreement with the country
and reduce their demands. Investors have to accept risks and losses. Paul Singer bought some
financial papers for nothing at that time and forced Argentina to pay the whole price. For
years Argentina refused to pay, but with the help of New York courts and the new Argentinian
president they were forced to pay Singer. This was not conservative capitalism but
imperialism. You can only act like Singer if you have the backing of courts, of a government
which you control and of an army like the US army. A fast internet search for titles of
articles: "Hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer's ruthless strategies include bullying CEOs,
suing governments and seizing their navy's ships". "How one hedge fund made $2 billion from
Argentina's economic colapse".
Andrew Sayer, professor in an English university, says in his book "Why we can't afford
the rich" that finances as they are practiced now may cost more than bring any value to a
society. It's a problem if some sectors of finances make outsized profits and use methods
which are more than questionable.
2- You say that if borrowers become more protected "lenders become more conservative,
investment declines, and worthy businesses can't get investments." I doubt this is true. In
the first place, risk investments by vulture fonds probably don't create any social value.
The original lenders who sold their bonds to such vulture fonds have anyway big or near total
losses in some cases and in spite of that they keep doing business. Why should we support
vulture fonds, what for? What positive function they play in society? In Germany, capitalism
was much more social in old days before a neoliberal wave forced Germany to change Rhine
capitalism. Local banks lended money to local business which they knew and which they had an
interest that they prosper. Larger banks lended money to big firms. Speculation like in
neoliberal capitalism wasn't needed.
3- The point which you didn't grasp is that there is a component of those business which
isn't publicly clear, the fact that they funcion along ethnic lines.
4- It would be easy to fix excesses of capitalism. The problem is that the people who
profit the most from the system also have the power to prevent any change.
The article bounces back and forth between two completely different fields: private
equity and distressed debt funds. The latter is completely defensible. A lot of
bondholders, probably the majority, cannot hold distressed or defaulted debt. Insurance
companies often can't by law. Bond mutual funds set out in their prospectuses they don't
invest in anything rated lower than A, AA, or whatever. Even those allowed to hold
distressed debt don't want the extra costs involved with doing so, such as carefully
following bankruptcy proceedings and dealing with delayed and irregular payments.
The author is not a finance expert but he correctly spotlights flaws of so-called
'predatory capitalism' which is disproportionately Jewish.
Private equity is rife with vices like asset-stripping and looting e.g Eddie Lampert
('Jewishness' member) plus El Trumpo appointee Steven Mnuchin at Sears.
Vulture funds often load all sorts of costs, even frivolous ones, and extra interest
charges on the original debt to maximize profit.
Some countries have the Duplum rule which limits the amount you are liable to a creditor
when you default on a debt.
I generally like Tucker but thought his piece on Singer was way off base and a silly hit job.
As others above have commented, if you think it's wrong to buy or try to collect on defaulted
debt, what is the alternative set of laws and behavior you are recommending? If debts can
simply be repudiated at will, capitalism cannot function. (Also, while it would take too much
time and space to debate the Puerto Rico situation here, it bears noting that the entire PR
public debt burden of ~$75 billion comes to around $25,000 per resident -- about a third of
the comparable burden of public sector debt per person in the United States, which itself
ignores tens of trillions of "off balance" sheet liabilities for underfunded social security,
Medicare, Medicaid and public sector pension obligations. The source of PR's problems lies
pretty clearly at the feet of PR's long corrupt politicians -- not the incidental holders of
its bonds who would simply like to be repaid or have the debt reasonably restructured.)
Other minor points worth noting:
Joyce names a few Jews associated with Baupost but misleadingly omits its president, the
guy who is running the show: Jim Mooney, a proud graduate of Holy Cross and big supporter of
Catholic and Jesuit causes. If memory serves, Jim was also the guy behind some of Baupost's
biggest and most successeful distressed debt (or "vulture" to use Joyce's pejorative term)
trades. The firm's Jewish founder (Seth Klarman) has also donated tons of money to secular
causes, including something like $60 million for a huge facility at Cornell.
Speaking of donations and Jews, I believe Bloomberg (not technically a "vulture"
capitalist but clearly just as bad -- I.e., Jewish -- on the Joyce scale) gave $1.5 billion
to his alma mater, Johns Hopkins. If memory serves, that may have been the largest donation
to any university ever. Maybe Carnegie's donations were greater in "real" dollars, but
Bloomberg's donation is still pretty significant -- with likely more to come.
@sally
Sally, please, knock it off. If you worked on Wall Street you'd know this article is just the
tip of the iceberg of Jewish financial criminality. Years ago Jim Cramer of CNBC fame, who
used to appear with Goldman Sachs' former and current PR man Larry Kudlow, also headed Wall
Street's top hedge fund at the time, Cramer Berkowitz. A former employee and Jewish at that
wrote an expose, Trading With the Enemy letting non-Jews in the reading public in on
what's really going on. Of course there's a Jewish pipeline giving them the news before it's
news, which is what it means to be a Wall Street insider. Or so says Jim Cramer, and the book
establishes this with solid evidence and not speculation.
For example, one of the Jewish anchors on CNBC would routinely call Cramer, which the
author overheard at the trading desk, and tip Cramer off about a market moving news story
about to be aired so Cramer could front run the market, fanatically divvying the orders out
to avoid scrutiny. His most important client was Norman Podoretz of socialist fame, who put
up the seed money for Cramer, who'd be on the phone to Cramer throughout the day checking on
his investments when not pushing socialism on the stupid goys. That's what socialism means in
America. The big names among Jewish stock and bond analysts at the big houses would also be
on the line with Cramer right before market making analysis was about to be released.
It's also the case that no economy and society can survive the sort of FIRE parasitism
this country's now burdened with, which as Spengler put it a century ago, amounts to tricking
a profit off every penny of goyisher labor. A dog can handle a number of ticks and fleas
sucking its blood, but will die soon enough when the ticks and fleas are consuming a quarter
or more of its blood. As Dr Joyce points out in yet another brilliant article, DJT is
demonstrably a puppet of the Jewish billionaires mentioned, who're in a rage to destroy the
families and everything the fools attending his rallies hold dear.
@J
Adelman Yes, the Jews have always stood up for the underdog (except when they were slave
traders) and promoted social harmony (except for cultural Marxism) and "Jewish influence" is
purely a figment of your imagination (except WWI and the Communist revolution .and and ). And
they definitely have nothing to do with the financial industry or banks (it is all a
conspiracy the protocols ya know).
Do you really believe your own poopaganda? A little introspection goes a long way. Why
have you been persecuted or kicked out of every country you have ever lived in? You never,
ever do anything wrong?
No one is demonizing you. You do it to yourself. People like Epstein and Weinstein are
your standard bearers. Events like 9/11 are your trophies. Your infiltration of the body
politic and malign influence in society is once again becoming visible to everyone and it is
making you afraid.
You have done it again. You never, ever learn. You play the perpetual victim .everyone
hates me without a reason. My sin is greater than I can bear (Cain) everyone who comes across
me will kill me. I spend my time wandering the earth (boo ho). And despite slaying your
brother you are accorded divine protection.
Jesus said (paraphrasing here) that if the unclean spirit is cast out of a man and is not
replaced with something wholesome he takes "seven other spirits" into himself and becomes
totally insane. You did this to yourself and you will realize that your problem is no longer
with man but with God himself. Jacob the deceiver has wrestled all his life against his
fellow man and triumphed but now he will confront God himself. Get ready to meet your Maker
and see how far your excuses will get you with the Almighty.
Jewish financists are no longer Jewish, much like a socialist who became minister is no
longer a socialist minister. Unregulated finance promotes a set of destructive behaviors which
has nothing to do with nationality or ethnicity.
Of course that Joyce is peddling his own obsessions, but I have to admit that Singer &
comp. are detestable. I know that what they’re doing is not illegal, but it should be (in
my opinion), and those who are involved in such affairs are somehow odious. The same goes for
Icahn, Soros etc. Still Ethnic angle is evident, too: how come Singer works exclusively with his
co-ethnics in this multi-ethnic USA? Non-Jewish & most Jewish entrepreneurs don’t
behave that way.
It was very gratifying to see Tucker Carlson's
recent attack on the activities of Paul Singer's vulture fund, Elliot Associates, a group I
first
profiled four years ago. In many respects, it is truly remarkable that vulture funds like
Singer's escaped major media attention prior to this, especially when one considers how
extraordinarily harmful and exploitative they are. Many countries are now in very significant
debt to groups like Elliot Associates and, as Tucker's segment very starkly illustrated, their
reach has now extended into the very heart of small-town America. Shining a spotlight on the
spread of this virus is definitely welcome. I strongly believe, however, that the problem
presented by these cabals of exploitative financiers will only be solved if their true nature
is fully discerned. Thus far, the descriptive terminology employed in discussing their
activities has revolved only around the scavenging and parasitic nature of their activities.
Elliot Associates have therefore been described as a quintessential example of a "vulture fund"
practicing "vulture capitalism." But these funds aren't run by carrion birds. They are operated
almost exclusively by Jews. In the following essay, I want us to examine the largest and most
influential "vulture funds," to assess their leadership, ethos, financial practices, and how
they disseminate their dubiously acquired wealth. I want us to set aside colorful metaphors. I
want us to strike through the mask.
It is commonly agreed that the most significant global vulture funds are Elliot Management,
Cerberus, FG Hemisphere, Autonomy Capital, Baupost Group, Canyon Capital Advisors, Monarch
Alternative Capital, GoldenTree Asset Management, Aurelius Capital Management, OakTree Capital,
Fundamental Advisors, and Tilden Park Investment Master Fund LP. The names of these groups are
very interesting, being either blankly nondescript or evoking vague inklings of Anglo-Saxon or
rural/pastoral origins (note the prevalence of oak, trees, parks, canyons, monarchs, or the use
of names like Aurelius and Elliot). This is the same tactic employed by the Jew Jordan Belfort,
the "Wolf of Wall Street," who operated multiple major frauds under the business name Stratton
Oakmont.
These names are masks. They are designed to cultivate trust and obscure the real background
of the various groupings of financiers. None of these groups have Anglo-Saxon or venerable
origins. None are based in rural idylls. All of the vulture funds named above were founded by,
and continue to be operated by, ethnocentric, globalist, urban-dwelling Jews. A quick review of
each of their websites reveals their founders and central figures to be:
Elliot Management
-- Paul Singer, Zion Shohet, Jesse Cohn, Stephen Taub, Elliot Greenberg and Richard Zabel
Cerberus -- Stephen Feinberg, Lee Millstein, Jeffrey Lomasky, Seth Plattus, Joshua Weintraub,
Daniel Wolf, David Teitelbaum FG Hemisphere -- Peter Grossman Autonomy Capital -- Derek Goodman
Baupost Group -- Seth Klarman, Jordan Baruch, Isaac Auerbach Canyon Capital Advisors -- Joshua
Friedman, Mitchell Julis Monarch Alternative Capital -- Andrew Herenstein, Michael Weinstock
GoldenTree Asset Management -- Steven Tananbaum, Steven Shapiro Aurelius Capital Management --
Mark Brodsky, Samuel Rubin, Eleazer Klein, Jason Kaplan OakTree Capital -- Howard Marks, Bruce
Karsh, Jay Wintrob, John Frank, Sheldon Stone Fundamental Advisors -- Laurence Gottlieb,
Jonathan Stern Tilden Park Investment Master Fund LP -- Josh Birnbaum, Sam Alcoff
The fact that all of these vulture funds, widely acknowledged as the most influential and
predatory, are owned and operated by Jews is remarkable in itself, especially in a contemporary
context in which we are constantly bombarded with the suggestion that Jews don't have a special
relationship with money or usury, and that any such idea is an example of ignorant prejudice.
Equally remarkable, however, is the fact that Jewish representation saturates the board level
of these companies also, suggesting that their beginnings and methods of internal promotion and
operation rely heavily on ethnic-communal origins, and religious and social cohesion more
generally. As such, these Jewish funds provide an excellent opportunity to examine their
financial and political activities as expressions of Jewishness, and can thus be placed in the
broader framework of the Jewish group evolutionary strategy and the long historical trajectory
of Jewish-European relations.
How They Feed
In May 2018, Puerto Rico declared a form of municipal bankruptcy after falling into more
than
$74.8 billion in debt, of which more than $34 billion is interest and fees. The debt was
owed to
all of the Jewish capitalists named above, with the exception of Stephen Feinberg's
Cerberus group. In order to commence payments, the government had instituted a policy of fiscal
austerity, closing schools and raising utility bills, but when Hurricane Maria hit the island
in September 2017, Puerto Rico was forced to stop transfers to their Jewish creditors. This
provoked an aggressive attempt by the Jewish funds to seize assets from an island suffering
from an 80% power outage, with the addition of further interest and fees. Protests broke out in
several US cities calling for the debt to be forgiven. After a quick stop in Puerto Rico in
late 2018, Donald Trump pandered to this sentiment when he told Fox News, "They owe a lot of
money to your friends on Wall Street, and we're going to have to wipe that out." But Trump's
statement, like all of Trump's statements, had no substance. The following day, the director of
the White House budget office, Mick Mulvaney, told reporters: "I think what you heard the
president say is that Puerto Rico is going to have to figure out a way to solve its debt
problem." In other words, Puerto Rico is going to have to figure out a way to pay its Jews.
Trump's reversal is hardly surprising, given that the President is considered extremely
friendly to Jewish financial power. When he referred to "your friends on Wall Street" he really
meant his friends on Wall Street. One of his closest allies is Stephen Feinberg, founder
and CEO of Cerberus, a war-profiteering vulture fund that has now accumulated
more than $1.5 billion in Irish debt , leaving the country prone to a "
wave of home repossessions " on a scale not seen since the Jewish mortgage traders behind
Quicken Loans (Daniel Gilbert) and Ameriquest (Roland Arnall)
made thousands of Americans homeless . Feinberg has also been associated with mass
evictions in Spain, causing a collective of Barcelona anarchists to
label him a "Jewish mega parasite" in charge of the "world's vilest vulture fund." In May
2018, Trump made Feinberg
chair of his Intelligence Advisory Board , and one of the reasons for Trump's sluggish
retreat from Afghanistan has been the fact Feinberg's DynCorp has enjoyed years of lucrative government
defense contracts training Afghan police and providing ancillary services to the military.
But Trump's association with Jewish vultures goes far beyond Feinberg. A recent piece
in the New York Post declared "Orthodox Jews are opening up their wallets for Trump in
2020." This is a predictable outcome of the period 2016 to 2020, an era that could be neatly
characterised as How Jews learned to stop worrying and love the Don. Jewish financiers
are opening their wallets for Trump because it is now clear he utterly failed to fulfil
promises on mass immigration to White America, while pledging his commitment to Zionism and to
socially destructive Jewish side projects like the promotion of homosexuality. These actions,
coupled with his commuting
of Hasidic meatpacking boss Sholom Rubashkin 's 27-year-sentence for bank fraud and money
laundering in 2017, have sent a message to Jewish finance that Trump is someone they can do
business with. Since these globalist exploiters are essentially politically amorphous, knowing
no loyalty but that to their own tribe and its interests, there is significant drift of Jewish
mega-money between the Democratic and Republican parties. The New York Post reports, for
example, that when Trump attended a $25,000-per-couple luncheon in November at a Midtown hotel,
where 400 moneyed Jews raised at least $4 million for the America First [!] SuperPAC, the
luncheon organiser Kelly Sadler, told reporters, "We screened all of the people in attendance,
and we were surprised to see how many have given before to Democrats, but never a Republican.
People were standing up on their chairs chanting eight more years." The reality, of course, is
that these people are not Democrats or Republicans, but Jews, willing to push their money in
whatever direction the wind of Jewish interests is blowing.
The collapse of Puerto Rico under Jewish debt and elite courting of Jewish financial
predators is certainly nothing new. Congo , Zambia , Liberia ,
Argentina , Peru ,
Panama , Ecuador ,
Vietnam , Poland , and
Ireland are just some of the countries that have slipped fatefully into the hands of the
Jews listed above, and these same people are now closely watching
Greece and
India . The methodology used to acquire such leverage is as simple as it is ruthless. On
its most basic level, "vulture capitalism" is really just a combination of the
continued intense relationship between Jews and usury and Jewish involvement in medieval
tax farming. On the older practice, Salo Baron writes in Economic History of the Jews
that Jewish speculators would pay a lump sum to the treasury before mercilessly turning on the
peasantry to obtain "considerable surpluses if need be, by ruthless methods." [1] S. Baron
(ed) Economic History of the Jews (New York, 1976), 46-7. The activities of the
Jewish vulture funds are essentially the same speculation in debt, except here the trade in
usury is carried out on a global scale with the feudal peasants of old now replaced with entire
nations. Wealthy Jews pool resources, purchase debts, add astronomical fees and interests, and
when the inevitable default occurs they engage in aggressive legal activity to seize assets,
bringing waves of jobs losses and home repossessions.
This type of predation is so pernicious and morally perverse that both the
Belgian and
UK governments have taken steps to ban these Jewish firms from using their court systems to
sue for distressed debt owed by poor nations. Tucker Carlson, commenting on Paul Singer's
predation and the ruin of the town of Sidney, Nebraska, has said:
It couldn't be uglier or more destructive. So why is it still allowed in the United
States? The short answer: Because people like Paul Singer have tremendous influence over our
political process. Singer himself was the second largest donor to the Republican Party in
2016. He's given millions to a super-PAC that supports Republican senators. You may never
have heard of Paul Singer -- which tells you a lot in itself -- but in Washington, he's
rock-star famous. And that is why he is almost certainly paying a lower effective tax rate
than your average fireman, just in case you were still wondering if our system is rigged. Oh
yeah, it is.
Aside from direct political donations, these Jewish financiers also escape scrutiny by
hiding behind a mask of simplistic anti-socialist rhetoric that is common in the American
Right, especially the older, Christian, and pro-Zionist demographic. Rod Dreher, in a
commentary on Carlson's
piece at the American Conservative , points out that Singer gave a speech in May
2019 attacking the "rising threat of socialism within the Democratic Party." Singer continued,
"They call it socialism, but it is more accurately described as left-wing statism lubricated by
showers of free stuff promised by politicians who believe that money comes from a printing
press rather than the productive efforts of businesspeople and workers." Dreher comments: "The
productive efforts of businesspeople and workers"? The gall of that man, after what he did to
the people of Sidney."
What Singer and the other Jewish vultures engage in is not productive, and isn't even any
recognisable form of work or business. It is greed-motivated parasitism carried out on a
perversely extravagant and highly nepotistic scale. In truth, it is Singer and his co-ethnics
who believe that money can be printed on the backs of productive workers, and who ultimately
believe they have a right to be "showered by free stuff promised by politicians." Singer places
himself in an infantile paradigm meant to entertain the goyim, that of Free Enterprise vs
Socialism, but, as Carlson points out, "this is not the free enterprise that we all learned
about." That's because it's Jewish enterprise -- exploitative, inorganic, and attached to
socio-political goals that have nothing to do with individual freedom and private property.
This might not be the free enterprise Carlson learned about, but it's clearly the free
enterprise Jews learn about -- as illustrated in their extraordinary
over-representation in all forms of financial exploitation and white collar crime. The
Talmud, whether actively studied or culturally absorbed, is their code of ethics and their
curriculum in regards to fraud, fraudulent bankruptcy, embezzlement, usury, and financial
exploitation. Vulture capitalism is Jewish capitalism.
Whom They Feed
Singer's duplicity is a perfect example of the way in which Jewish finance postures as
conservative while conserving nothing. Indeed, Jewish capitalism may be regarded as the root
cause of the rise of Conservative Inc., a form or shadow of right wing politics reduced solely
to fiscal concerns that are ultimately, in themselves, harmful to the interests of the majority
of those who stupidly support them. The spirit of Jewish capitalism, ultimately, can be
discerned not in insincere bleating about socialism and business, intended merely to entertain
semi-educated Zio-patriots, but in the manner in which the Jewish vulture funds disseminate the
proceeds of their parasitism. Real vultures are weak, so will gorge at a carcass and
regurgitate food to feed their young. So then, who sits in the nests of the vulture funds,
awaiting the regurgitated remains of troubled nations?
Boston-based Seth Klarman (net worth $1.5 billion), who like Paul Singer has
declared "free enterprise has been good for me," is a rapacious debt exploiter who was
integral to the financial collapse of Puerto Rico, where he hid much of activities behind a
series of shell companies. Investigative journalists eventually discovered that Klarman's
Baupost group was behind much of the aggressive legal action intended to squeeze the decimated
island for bond payments. It's clear that the Jews involved in these companies are very much
aware that what they are doing is wrong, and they are careful to avoid too much reputational
damage, whether to themselves individually or to their ethnic group. Puerto Rican journalists,
investigating the debt trail to Klarman, recall trying to follow one of the shell companies
(Decagon) to Baupost via a shell company lawyer (and yet another Jew) named Jeffrey Katz:
Returning to the Ropes & Gray thread, we identified several attorneys who had worked
with the Baupost Group, and one, Jeffrey Katz, who – in addition to having worked
directly
with Baupost – seemed to describe a particularly close and longstanding relationship
with a firm fitting Baupost's profile on his experience page. I called
Katz and he picked up, to my surprise. I identified myself, as well as my affiliation with
the Public Accountability Initiative, and asked if he was the right person to talk to about
Decagon Holdings and Baupost. He paused, started to respond, and then evidently thought
better of it and said that he was actually in a meeting, and that I would need to call back
(apparently, this high-powered lawyer picks up calls from strange numbers when he is in
important meetings). As he was telling me to call back, I asked him again if he was the right
person to talk to about Decagon, and that I wouldn't call back if he wasn't, and he seemed to
get even more flustered. At that point he started talking too much, about how he was a lawyer
and has clients, how I must think I'm onto some kind of big scoop, and how there was a person
standing right in front of him – literally, standing right in front of him –
while I rudely insisted on keeping him on the line.
One of the reasons for such secrecy is the intensive Jewish philanthropy engaged in by
Klarman under his Klarman Family
Foundation . While Puerto Rican schools are being closed, and pensions and health
provisions slashed, Klarman is regurgitating the proceeds of massive debt speculation to his "
areas of
focus " which prominently includes " Supporting the global Jewish community
and Israel ." While plundering the treasuries of the crippled nations of the goyim, Klarman
and his co-ethnic associates have committed themselves to "improving the quality of life and
access to opportunities for all Israeli citizens so that they may benefit from the country's
prosperity." Among those in Klarman's nest, their beaks agape for Puerto Rican debt interest,
are the American Jewish Committee, Boston's Combined Jewish Philanthropies, the Holocaust
Memorial Museum, the Honeymoon Israel Foundation, Israel-America Academic Exchange, and the
Israel Project. Klarman, like Singer, has also been an enthusiastic proponent of liberalising
attitudes to homosexuality, donating $1 million to a Republican super PAC aimed at supporting
pro-gay marriage GOP candidates in 2014 (Singer donated $1.75 million). Klarman, who also
contributes to candidates
who support immigration reform, including a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants,
has said "The right to gay marriage is the largest remaining civil rights issue of our time. I
work one-on-one with individual Republicans to try to get them to realize they are being
Neanderthals on this issue."
Steven Tananbaum's GoldenTree Asset Management has also fed well on Puerto Rico, owning $2.5
billion of the island's debt. The Centre for Economic and Policy Research has
commented :
Steven Tananbaum, GoldenTree's chief investment officer, told a business conference in
September (after Hurricane Irma, but before Hurricane Maria) that he continued to view Puerto
Rican bonds as an attractive investment. GoldenTree is spearheading a group of COFINA
bondholders that collectively holds about $3.3 billion in bonds. But with Puerto Rico facing
an unprecedented humanitarian crisis, and lacking enough funds to even begin to pay back its
massive debt load, these vulture funds are relying on their ability to convince politicians
and the courts to make them whole. The COFINA bondholder group has spent
$610,000 to lobby Congress over the last two years, while GoldenTree itself
made $64,000 in political contributions to federal candidates in the 2016 cycle. For
vulture funds like GoldenTree, the destruction of Puerto Rico is yet another opportunity for
exorbitant profits.
Whom does Tananbaum feed with these profits? A brief glance at the spending of the
Lisa and Steven Tananbaum Charitable Trust reveals a relatively short list of beneficiaries
including United Jewish Appeal Foundation, American Friends of Israel Museum, Jewish Community
Center, to be among the most generously funded, with sizeable donations also going to museums
specialising in the display of degenerate and demoralising art.
Following the collapse in Irish asset values in 2008, Jewish vulture funds including OakTree
Capital swooped on mortgagee debt to seize tens of thousands of Irish homes, shopping malls,
and utilities (Steve Feinberg's Cerberus took control of public waste disposal). In 2011,
Ireland emerged as a hotspot for distressed property assets, after its bad banks began selling
loans that had once been held by struggling financial institutions. These loans were quickly
purchased at knockdown prices by Jewish fund managers, who then aggressively sought the
eviction of residents in order to sell them for a fast profit. Michael Byrne, a researcher at
the School of Social Policy at University College Dublin, Ireland's largest university,
comments : "The
aggressive strategies used by vulture funds lead to human tragedies." One homeowner, Anna Flynn
recalls how her mortgage fell into the hands of Mars Capital, an affiliate of Oaktree Capital,
owned and operated by the Los Angeles-based Jews Howard Marks and Bruce Karsh. They were "very,
very difficult to deal with," said Flynn, a mother of four. "All [Mars] wanted was for me to
leave the house; they didn't want a solution [to ensure I could retain my home]."
When Bruce Karsh isn't making Irish people homeless, whom does he feed with his profits? A
brief glance at the spending of the
Karsh Family Foundation reveals millions of dollars of donations to the Jewish Federation,
Jewish Community Center, and the United Jewish Fund.
Paul Singer, his son Gordin, and their Elliot Associates colleagues Zion Shohet, Jesse Cohn,
Stephen Taub, Elliot Greenberg and Richard Zabel, have a foothold in almost every country, and
have a stake in every company you're likely to be familiar with, from book stores to dollar
stores. With the profits of exploitation, they
fund campaigns for homosexuality and mass migration , boost Zionist politics,
invest millions in security for Jews , and promote wars for Israel. Singer is a Republican,
and is on the Board of the Republican Jewish Coalition. He is a former board member of the
Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, has funded neoconservative research groups like
the Middle East Media Research Institute and the Center for Security Policy, and is among the
largest funders of the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies. He was also
connected to the pro-Iraq War advocacy group Freedom's Watch. Another key Singer project was
the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI), a Washington D.C.-based advocacy group that was founded in
2009 by several high-profile Jewish neoconservative figures to promote militaristic U.S.
policies in the Middle East on behalf of Israel and which received its seed money from
Singer.
Although Singer was initially anti-Trump, and although Trump once
attacked Singer for his pro-immigration politics ("Paul Singer represents amnesty and he
represents illegal immigration pouring into the country"), Trump is now essentially funded by
three Jews -- Singer, Bernard Marcus, and Sheldon Adelson, together accounting for over $250
million in pro-Trump political money . In return, they want war with Iran. Employees of
Elliott Management were one of the main sources of funding for the 2014 candidacy of the
Senate's most outspoken Iran hawk, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), who urged Trump to conduct a
"retaliatory strike" against Iran for purportedly attacking two commercial tankers. These
exploitative Jewish financiers have been clear that they expect a war with Iran, and they are
lobbying hard and preparing to call in their pound of flesh. As one political commentator put
it, "These donors have made their policy preferences on Iran plainly known. They surely expect
a return on their investment in Trump's GOP."
The same pattern is witnessed again and again, illustrating the stark reality that the
prosperity and influence of Zionist globalism rests to an overwhelming degree on the predations
of the most successful and ruthless Jewish financial parasites. This is not conjecture,
exaggeration, or hyperbole. This is simply a matter of striking through the mask, looking at
the heads of the world's most predatory financial funds, and following the direction of
regurgitated profits.
Make no mistake, these cabals are everywhere and growing. They could be ignored when they
preyed on distant small nations, but their intention was always to come for you too. They are
now on your doorstep. The working people of Sidney, Nebraska probably had no idea what a
vulture fund was until their factories closed and their homes were taken. These funds will move
onto the next town. And the next. And another after that. They won't be stopped through blunt
support of "free enterprise," and they won't be stopped by simply calling them "vulture
capitalists."
Strike through the mask!
Notes
[1] S.
Baron (ed) Economic History of the Jews (New York, 1976), 46-7.
To what extent is Jewish success a product of Jewish intellect and industry versus being a
result of a willingness to use low, dirty, honorless and anti-social tactics which, while
maybe not in violation of the word of the law, certainly violate its spirit?
An application of "chutzpah" to business, if you will – the gall to break social
conventions to get what you want, while making other people feel uncomfortable; to wheedle
your way in at the joints of social norms and conventions – not illegal, but selfish
and rude.
Krav Maga applies the same concept to the martial arts: You're taught to go after the
things that every other martial art forbids you to target: the eyes, the testicles, etc. In
other sports this is considered "low" and "cheap." In Krav Maga, as perhaps a metaphor for
Jewish behavior in general, nothing is too low because it's all about winning .
There's a rather good article on the New Yorker discussing the Sacklers and the
Oxycontin epidemic. It focusses on the dichotomy between the family's ruthless promotion of
the drug and their lavish philanthropy. 'Leave the world a better place for your presence'
and similar pieties and Oxycontin.
The article lightly touches on the extent of their giving to Hebrew University of
Jerusalem -- but in general, treads lightly when it comes to their Judaism.
understandably. The New Yorker isn't exactly alt-right country, after all. But can
Joyce or anyone else provide a more exact breakdown on the Sacklers' giving? Are they genuine
philanthropists, or is it mostly for the Cause?
@anon'To what extent is Jewish success a product of Jewish intellect and industry versus being
a result of a willingness to use low, dirty, honorless and anti-social tactics which, while
maybe not in violation of the word of the law, certainly violate its spirit? '
It's important not to get carried away with this. Figures such as Andrew Carnegie, while
impeccably gentile, were hardly paragons of scrupulous ethics and disinterested virtue.
I won't defend high finance because I don't like it either. But this is a retarded and highly
uninformed attack on it.
1. The article bounces back and forth between two completely different fields: private
equity and distressed debt funds. The latter is completely defensible. A lot of bondholders,
probably the majority, cannot hold distressed or defaulted debt. Insurance companies often
can't by law. Bond mutual funds set out in their prospectuses they don't invest in anything
rated lower than A, AA, or whatever. Even those allowed to hold distressed debt don't want
the extra costs involved with doing so, such as carefully following bankruptcy proceedings
and dealing with delayed and irregular payments.
As a result, it is natural that normal investors sell off such debt at a discount to funds
that specialize in it.
2. Joyce defends large borrowers that default on their debt. Maybe the laws protecting
bankrupts and insolvents should be stronger. But you do that, and lenders become more
conservative, investment declines, and worthy businesses can't get investments. I think
myself the laws in the US are too favorable to lenders, but there's definitely a tradeoff,
and the question is where the happy middle ground is. In Florida a creditor can't force the
sale of a primary residence, even if it is worth $20 million. That's going too far in the
other direction.
3. " either blankly nondescript or evoking vague inklings of Anglo-Saxon or rural/pastoral
origins "
More retardation. Cerberus is a greek dog monster guarding the gates of hell. Aurelius is
from the Latin word for gold. "Hemisphere" isn't an Anglosaxon word nor does in invoke rural
origins.
Besides being retardedly wrong, the broader point is likewise retarded: when
English-speaking Jews name their businesses they shouldn't use English words. Naming a
company "Oaktree" should be limited to those of purely English blood! Jews must name their
companies "Cosmopolitan Capital" or RosenMoses Chutzpah Advisors."
4. The final and most general point: it's trivially easy to attack particular excesses of
capitalism. Fixing the excesses without creating bigger problem is the hard part. Two ideas I
favor are usury laws and Tobin taxes.
Jewishness aside, maximizing shareholder is the holy grail of all capitalist enterprises. The
capitalist rush to abandon the American working class when tariff barriers evaporated is just
another case of vulturism. Tax corporations based on the domestic content of their products
and ban usury and vulturism will evaporate.
Someone with the username kikz posted a link to this article in the occidental observer. I
read it and thought it was a great article. I'm glad it's featured here.
The article goes straight for the jugular and pulls no punches. It hits hard. I like
that:
1. It shines a light on the some of the scummiest of the scummiest Wall Street
players.
2. It names names. From the actual vulture funds to the rollcall of Jewish actors running
each. It's astounding how ethnically uniform it is.
3. It proves Trump's ties with the most successful Vulture kingpin, Singer.
4. It shows how money flows from the fund owners to Zionist and Jewish causes.
This thing reads like a court indictment. It puts real world examples to many of the
theories that are represents on this site. Excellent article.
Andrew Carnegie left behind institutions like Carnegie Hall, Carnegie-Mellon University,
and over 2500 Free Libraries from coast to coast, in a time when very little was done to
help what we now call the “underprivileged”.
And he funded the building of the Peace Palace (“Vredespaleis”) in The Hague,
presently the seat of the International Court of Justice, an institution not held in high
esteem in the home country of the generous donor.
"I could not in good conscience vote against impeachment because I believe President Trump
is guilty of wrongdoing," she said. "I also could not in good conscience vote for impeachment
because removal of a sitting President must not be the culmination of a partisan process,
fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country."
A censure would "send a strong message to this president and future presidents that their
abuses of power will not go unchecked, while leaving the question of removing Trump from
office to the voters to decide," Gabbard said.
"The CIA was the central protagonist in Russiagate. The origins of the New Cold War are found
in Bill Clinton's first term, when administration neo-cons looted, plundered and moved NATO
against a prostrate Russia in
contradiction to explicit guarantees not to do so made by the George H.W. Bush
administration. Vladimir Putin's apparent crime was to oust the Clintonites from Russia and
restore Russian sovereignty." CounterPunch.org
"Russiagate was a declaration of war by the 'intelligence community' against a duly elected
President. As argued below, the CIA's motive is to move its own foreign policy agenda forward
without even the illusion of democratic consent." CounterPunch.org
Notable quotes:
"... Actions in the Washington cesspool never surprise -- by members of both right wing of the US war party. They represent the greatest threat to world peace and ordinary people everywhere at home and abroad. Pro-war, pro-business, pro-Wall Street, anti-progressive Speaker Pelosi is part of the problem, never part of the solution. ..."
Actions in the Washington cesspool never surprise -- by members of both right wing of the US
war party. They represent the greatest threat to world peace and ordinary people everywhere at home and
abroad. Pro-war, pro-business, pro-Wall Street, anti-progressive Speaker Pelosi is part of the
problem, never part of the solution.
Her long disturbing congressional record shows she exclusively serves wealth and power
interests at the expense of the vast majority of Americans she disdains, proving it time and
again.
Her deplorable voting record speaks for itself, backing:
the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Blily Act repeal of Glass-Steagall, permitting some of the most
egregious financial abuses in the modern era;
the September 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), permitting endless
wars of aggression in multiple theaters, raging endlessly;
annual National Defense Authorization Acts and US wars of aggression;
Obama's neoliberal harshness, continuing under Trump, along with tax cuts for the rich,
benefitting her and her husband enormously, without admitting it;
increasingly unaffordable marketplace medicine, ripping off consumers for profit, leaving
millions uninsured, most Americans way underinsured;
the USA Patriot Act, Anti-Terrorism Act and other police state law;
the 9/11 whitewash Commission Recommendation Act;
the FISA Amendments Act -- permitting warrantless spying post-9/11, Big Brother watching
everyone;
NAFTA and other anti-consumer/corporate coup d'etat trade bills;
the repressive US gulag prison system, the world's largest by far; incarcerating
millions by federal, state, and local authorities, it includes global torture prisons;
unapologetic support for Israeli apartheid viciousness;
fierce opposition to Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, North Korea, and other
nonbelligerent sovereign states threatening no one;
the Russiagate witch hunt and Ukrainegate scams.
Calling exploitive/predatory "free market (capitalism) our greatest asset" shows her
contempt for equity and justice.
Her support for the military, industrial, security, media complex is all about backing
endless wars of aggression against invented enemies. No real ones exist.
Pelosi represents what belligerent, plutocratic, oligarchic, increasingly totalitarian rule
is all about, notably contemptuous of nations on the US target list for regime change --
Russia, China and Iran topping the list.
On Friday, she falsely accused Russia of involvement in Ukrainegate, a failed Russiagate
scam spinoff with no legitimacy, supported by undemocratic Dems and their echo-chamber
media.
Repeating the long ago debunked Russian US election meddling Big Lie that won't die, she
falsely accused Moscow of "ha(ving) a hand in this."
Referring to the Ukrainegate scam, she offered no evidence backing her accusation because
none exists.
During a Friday press conference on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York,
Sergey Lavrov slammed Pelosi's Big Lie, saying:
"Russia's been accused of all the deadly sins, and then some. It's paranoia, and I think
it's obvious to everyone."
It's unacceptable anti-Russia hate-mongering, what goes on endlessly, Cold War 2.0
raging.
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said the following on her facebook
page:
"Speaker of the lower house of Congress Nancy Pelosi believes that Russia is involved in the
scandal over July telephone conversation between us and Ukraine Presidents Donald Trump and
Vladimir Zelensky."
"This (baseless) assumption was made on Friday Pelosi (not) explaining what it means, and
without providing evidence of her words."
"Considering that it was Nancy Pelosi who caused the 'Scandal around the telephone
conversation between the presidents of the United States and Ukraine,' then, according to the
speaker's logic, Russia attached the hand to her."
What's going on is continuation of the most shameful political chapter in US history,
ongoing since Trump took office, along with railroading Richard Nixon.
Both episodes represent McCarthyism on steroids – supported by establishment media,
furious about Trump's triumph over Hillary, targeting him largely for the wrong reasons,
ignoring plenty of right ones.
Mueller's probe ended with a whimper, not the bang Dems wanted, Ukrainegate their second
bite of the apple to try discrediting Trump for political advantage ahead of November 2020
elections.
That's what Russiagate and Ukrainegate are all about.
These actions by undemocratic Dems and their media press agents are further clear proof that
Washington's deeply corrupted political system to its rotten core is far too debauched to
fix.
Afghan war demonstrated that the USA got into the trap, the Catch 22 situation: it can't
stop following an expensive and self-destructive positive feedback loop of threat inflation
and larger and large expenditures on MIC, because there is no countervailing force for the
MIC since WWII ended. Financial oligarchy is aligned with MIC.
This is the same suicidal grip of MIC on the country that was one of the key factors
in the collapse of the USSR means that in this key area the USA does not have two party
system, It is a Uniparty: a singe War party with two superficially different factions.
Feeding and care MIC is No.1 task for both. Ordinary Americans wellbeing does matter much
for either party. New generation of Americans is punished with crushing debt and low paying
jobs. They do not care that people over 50 who lost their jobs are essentially thrown out
like a garbage.
"41 Million people in the US suffer from hunger and lack of food security"–US Dept.
of Agriculture. FDR addressed the needs of this faction of the population when he delivered
his One-Third of a Nation speech for his 2nd Inaugural. About four years later, FDR expanded
on that issue in his Four Freedoms speech: 1.Freedom of speech; 2.Freedom of worship;
3.Freedom from want; 4.Freedom from fear.
Items 3 and 4 are probably unachievable under neoliberalism. And fear is artificially
instilled to unite the nation against the external scapegoat much like in Orwell 1984.
Currently this is Russia, later probably will be China. With regular minutes of hate replaced
by Rachel Maddow show ;-)
Derailing Tulsi had shown that in the USA any politician, who try to challenge MIC, will
be instantly attacked by MIC lapdogs in MSM and neutered in no time.
One interesting tidbit from Fiona Hill testimony is that neocons who dominate the USA
foreign policy establishment make their living off threat inflation. They literally are
bought by MIC, which indirectly finance Brookings institution, Atlantic Council and similar
think tanks. And this isn't cheap cynicism. It is simply a fact. Rephrasing Samuel Johnson's
famous quote, we can say, "MIC lobbyism (which often is presented as patriotism) is the last
refuge of scoundrels."
The House impeachment is driven by several factors:
After Russiagate, when Trump began to investigate its fraudulent origins, the Dems feared the exposure of Obama-era
corruption if not high crimes. Hence Ukrainegate is preemptive political tactics.
The investigation into Russiagate led right to Ukraine, and thus to Biden. In the context of Sanders' campaign,
Ukrainegate became an imperative for the factions of the capitalist class that dominates the DNC. If Biden falls on Ukraine
issues, then Sanders is inevitable; an anathema to Wall Street and Big Tech DNC donors.
3. While 1 and 2 dominate DNC machinations, foreign policy is also a factor. The foreign policy establishment is absolutely
against any hesitation with respect to confronting Russia as part of a regional and global strategy for primacy. Trump's limited
prevarications on Russia might threaten the long established strategy to expand Nato to Ukraine and thereby to encircle Russia
and maintain US dominance over Europe. So, even though Trump names great power rivalry as the name of the game today, his inclination
for making nice with Putin threatens to weaken the US hold over Europe, which Trump wants to label as an economic competitor.
It is with these points that the strategic differences become apparent: Trump is raising a realist, neo-mercantalist strategy
against ALL potential competitors; the DNC and the deep state hold a strategy of liberal hegemony: globalization and US primacy
through dominating regional alliances, and impregnating US hegemony INSIDE the vassal States of the empire.
All of this, however, is bound to fail for the DNC, and down the road for Trump himself.
The contradictions of US empire and global capitalism cannot be mitigated by either more liberal strategies or realist ones.
@ Posted by: jalp | Dec 19 2019 6:00 utc | 80 with the Green Party status....Thanks
If Tulsi is totally left out of the Democratic race, is it possible that she could be a
Green candidate? When is the "drop dead" date for that to occur? How is the VP pick
handled?
I see Tulsi Gabbard managed to distance herself from the affair and rise above it by
voting "present" instead of "yes" or "no". I sense she is purposely putting a lot of space
between herself and the DNC, and may even be positioning herself to run as an independent
come spring, despite saying that was not her objective only a couple of months ago. Given the
lack of wisdom and loss of sense of direction being shown by the Democrat leadership it would
be a very wise move.
Pres. Trump wants to go down in history for something other than the impeachment
charade.
He thinks outside the box, is afraid of nothing, can turn on a dime, and may be the only
person who can kick open a door that seems jammed, thereby healing half the nation.
"... But as we know it has become politically incorrect on the left to do anything but to put on your clown makeup and join the circus. ..."
"... But Tulsi Gabbard as usual doesn't play their game. And because of that, like Trump she is also a target of the deep state and not just the deep state of America--it is the deep state of the entire 5-Eyes security apparatus who together work overtime to overthrow Trump and any and all who resist their attempt to rule the world. ..."
"... Today's Deep State most resembles the colonial administrations during the heyday of European imperialism. These too worked to run their own secret foreign policy, and to bring their power to bear on domestic policy as well. ..."
Tulsi Gabbard did the smart thing and abstained in the vote from the circus. But as we know
it has become politically incorrect on the left to do anything but to put on your clown
makeup and join the circus.
But Tulsi Gabbard as usual doesn't play their game. And because of that, like Trump she is
also a target of the deep state and not just the deep state of America--it is the deep state
of the entire 5-Eyes security apparatus who together work overtime to overthrow Trump and any
and all who resist their attempt to rule the world.
Historically the ability of unelected, unaccountable, secretive bureaucracies (aka the "Deep
State") to exercise their own policy without regard for the public or elected officials,
often in defiance of these, has always been the hallmark of the destruction of democracy and
incipient tyranny.
Today's Deep State most resembles the colonial administrations during the heyday of
European imperialism. These too worked to run their own secret foreign policy, and to bring
their power to bear on domestic policy as well.
Although both halves of the One-Party really want the effective tyranny of state and
corporate bureaucracies, it's not surprising that it's the Democrats (along with the MSM)
taking the lead in openly defending the tyrannical proposition that the CIA should be
running its own foreign (and implicitly domestic) policy, and that the president should be
just a figurehead which follows orders. That goes with the Democrats' more avowedly
technocratic style, and it goes with the ratchet effect whereby it's usually Democrats which
push the policy envelope toward ever greater inequality, ecocide and tyranny.
Now is a time of rising irredentism and the decline of all the ideas of
globalization and technocracy, though the reality is likely to hang on for awhile. The whole
Deep State-Zionist-Russia-Deranged-Trump-Deranged-MSM-social media censorship campaign is
globalization trying to maintain its monopoly of ideas by force, since it knows it can never
win in a free clash of ideas.
Impeachment, and the pro-bureaucracy anti-democracy campaign related to it, besides its
more petty purposes (distraction from real social problems; forestalling Sanders), is the
culmination of technocracy's attempted coup against a president who, even though he agrees
with this cabal on all policy matters, is considered too unreliable, too undisciplined, too
damn honest about the evil of the US empire. If they can take him down, they think
they can restore the full business-as-usual status quo including the compliance of the rest
of the world.
Since impeachment's going to fail, we can expect the system to try other ways.
But also may I compliment Kali@18 and Russ@19 for their terrific comments. I have just
finished reading the link provided by Kali, which is an outstanding essay by Pam Ho- a
paradigm shifter if ever there was one! I have been making a determined effort to liberate my
thinking from ideological partisanship and reading this essay was like pressing a refresh
button in my brain.
Despite the ra ra b. s.,Trump's letter will become an historical document, as it does
encapsulate all the manufactured tribulations that have been foisted on his presidency,
though I would have liked b to include all those words which were CAPITALIZED. He's quite a
personality, your president The best summation of the man is, curiosly enough, provided by
Syria's president Assad. There is an honesty about him even when he's uttering a bald-faced
lie!
Tulsi has been newsworthy for a number of years now and right from the getgo I said to
myself "she's my kind of gal"
Here is a woman of courage and presence. She's young and principled, even if she's a
member of a very corrupted party.
@ Posted by: Australian lady | Dec 19 2019 3:26 utc | 71 who ended her comment expressing
support for Tulsi Gabbard
When the impeachment vote was taken today, there were two Dems that voted against and
Tulsi voted Present
She will be ostracized for her non vote but I give her credit for distancing herself from
the impeachment circus. Given that she has stated that she won't run again for Congress, I
speculate that she may jump to the Green Party if given the chance to run ahead of or with
Jill Stein.....any barflies know how the Greens are shaping up for this coming election?
I read in a couple of places today that the strategy of the Dems is to not forward the
impeachment to the Senate for an indeterminate amount of time......let the stew, the Senate
and Trump simmer a bit.....more kabuki for the masses while the public continues to be
screwed economically.
Frequently attributed, often in the context of strikebreaking activities during the
Great Southwest Railroad
Strike of 1886 . See for example Philip Sheldon Foner, History of the Labor Movement in the
United States, Volume 2 - Page 50 (1975). A contemporary source has not been identified.
Varying forms of the quotation circulated in the labor press as early as 1893, with or without
the attribution to Gould.
@sally " ..the
goal is to establish conflict ."
Good ole Jay Gould, the very archetype of a rapacious wall street oligarch, put it succinctly
over 100 years ago when he reflected that "he could always pay half the working class to
murder the other half". Truer words were never spoken.
Neocons lie should properly be called "threat inflation"
The underlying critical
point-at-issue is credibility as I noted in my comment on b's 2017 article. I've since
linked to tweets and other items by that trio; the one major change seems to have been the
epiphany by them that they needed to go to where the action is and report it from there to
regain their credibility.
The fact remains that used car salespeople have a stereotypical reputation for lacking
credibility sans a confession as to why they feel the need to lie to sell cars.
Their actions belie the guilt they feel for their choices, but a confession works much
better at assuaging the soul while helping convince the audience that the change in heart's
genuine. And that's the point as b notes--genuineness, whose first predicate is
credibility.
The recent shootings of three U.S. soldiers in Florida at the hands of a Saudi citizen raises a standard question in the U.S.
government's perpetual "war on terrorism": "Why do they hate us?"
Soon after the 9/11 attacks, the official mantra began being issued: The terrorists just hate us for our "freedom and values."
No other explanation for motive was to be considered. If anyone suggested an alternative motive -- such as "They are retaliating
for U.S. governmental killings over there" -- U.S. officials and interventionists would immediately go on the attack, heaping a mountain
of calumny on that person, accusing him of treason, hating America, loving the terrorists, and justifying their attacks.
It happened to me and other libertarians who dared to challenge the official motive behind the 9/11 attacks. Shortly after the
attacks, I spoke at a freedom conference in Arizona consisting of both libertarians and conservatives. When I pointed out that the
attacks were the predictable consequence of a foreign policy that kills people over there, another of the speakers was filled with
anger and rage over such an "unpatriotic" suggestion. Then, a few weeks after the 9/11 attacks, FFF published an article by me entitled,
" Is This the Wrong Time
to Question Foreign Policy? " in which I pointed out the role that U.S. interventionism had played in the attacks. FFF was hit
with the most nasty and angry attacks I have ever seen.
Eighteen years later, the evidence is virtually conclusive that the reason that the United States has been suffering a constant,
never-ending threat of terrorism is because U.S. military and CIA forces have been killing people in the Middle East and Afghanistan
since at least the end of the Cold War, and even before.
After all, if the terrorists hate us for our "freedom and values," why haven't they been attacking the Swiss? They have pretty
much the same freedom and values that Americans have. And they are much closer geographically to Middle East terrorists than the
United States is. Why haven't the terrorists been attacking them?
The answer is simple: the Swiss government, unlike the U.S. government, hasn't been killing, maiming, and injuring people and
hasn't been bombing and destroying countries in the Middle East and Afghanistan.
A long history of U.S. interventionism
U.S. interventions in the Middle East began, of course, long before the 9/11 attacks. There was the 1953 CIA coup that destroyed
Iran's experiment with democracy with a coup that replaced the democratically elected prime minister of the country with a tyrannical
pro-U.S. dictator. Not surprisingly, that produced the violent Iranian revolution almost 25 years later. The Iranian revolutionaries
didn't hate America for its "freedom and values." They hated America for the U.S. government's installation, training, and support
of the tyrannical regime against which they revolted.
In the 1980s, there was the sending of U.S. troops into Lebanon as interventionist "peacekeepers." The terrorists ended up blowing
up a Marine barracks, killing 241 U.S. soldiers. The terrorists didn't hate America for its "freedom and values." They hated America
for the federal government's interventionism into Lebanon. As soon as all U.S. troops were withdrawn from Lebanon, which was the
right thing to do, there were obviously no more deaths of U.S. soldiers in that country.
It was after the Pentagon and the CIA lost their official Cold War enemy, the Soviet Union (i.e., Russia), that they proceeded
headlong into the Middle East and began killing multitudes of people. There was the Persian Gulf War, waged without the constitutionally
required congressional declaration of war, where thousands of Iraqis were killed or injured. That was followed by a decade of brutal
sanctions against Iraq, which contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children.
Thus, when Ramzi Yousef, one of the terrorists who tried to bring down the World Trade Center with a bomb in 1993, appeared before
a federal judge for sentencing, he angrily told the judge that it was U.S. officials who were the butchers, for killing multitudes
of innocent children in Iraq.
As those Iraqi children were dying, there were retaliatory terrorist strikes on the USS Cole and the U.S. embassies in East Africa.
Once again, however, U.S. officials continued to steadfastly maintain that was all about hatred for America's "freedom and values"
and had nothing to do with the deadly and destructive U.S. interventionism in the Middle East.
Then came Osama bin Laden's declaration of war against the United States, in which he expressly cited U.S. interventionism in
the Middle East as his motivating factor. That was followed by the 9/11 attacks, along with other terrorist attacks both here and
abroad. Through it all, U.S. officials and interventionists have blindly maintained that the terrorists hate us for our "freedom
and values," not because the U.S. government kills, maims, injures, and destroys people over there.
The recent Florida killings
And now we have the latest killing spree, this one at the hands of a Saudi citizen in Florida. According to
a story in yesterday's Washington Post about the killing of three U.S. soldiers, the killer, Ahmed Mohammed al-Shamrani
was described as "strange" and "angry." "He looked like he was angry at the world," said one person who knew him. Another said that
he looked at people in an "angry, challenging" way.
The article says that "the FBI has not yet determined a motive for the mass shooting."
Well, of course it hasn't. That's undoubtedly because the FBI hasn't yet found any statements in which the killer states that
he hates America for its "freedom and values."
But the Post article does point out something quite interesting. The article states: "The gunman, who was shot dead by
a sheriff's deputy responding to the shooting, is thought to have written a 'will' that was posted to the account a few hours before
the rampage. In it, he blasts U.S. policies in Muslim countries."
Well, isn't that interesting! Unfortunately, the Post didn't provide a verbatim transcript of the killer's "will" in which
he "blasts U.S. policies in the Muslim countries." The Post does point out though that "the writer says he does not dislike
Americans per se -- 'I don't hate you because of your freedoms,' he begins -- but that he hates U.S. policies that he views as anti-Muslim
and 'evil.'"
I n an article at antiwar.com entitled, " Pensacola: Blowback Terrorism ," Scott Horton provides a verbatim transcript of the
killer's "will," in which the killer states in part:
I'm not against you for just being American, I don't hate you for your freedom, I hate you because every day you supporting,
funding, and committing crimes not only against Muslims but also humanity. I am against evil, and America as a whole has turned
into a nation of evil. What I see from America is the supporting of Israel which is invasion of Muslim countrie, I see invasion
of many countries by it's troops, I see Guantanamo Bay. I see cruise missiles, cluster bombs and UAV.
Now, if one goes back to Ramzi Yousef's sentencing hearing in 1995 -- some 24 years ago -- one will see that Yousef angrily said
much the same thing to the federal judge who was getting ready to sentence him to jail for his 1993 terrorist attack on the World
Trade Center.
Americans have a choice:
One, continue the U.S. government's decades-long killing spree in the Middle East, in which case America will continue to experience
never-ending terrorist retaliation, the perpetual "war on terrorism, and the ongoing destruction of our liberty and privacy at the
hands of our government, which is purportedly protecting us from the terrorist threats that it produces with its foreign interventionism.
Or, two, stop U.S. forces from killing any more people, bring them all home and discharge them, which would help get America back
on the right track, one toward liberty, peace, prosperity, morality, normality, and harmony with the world.
This post was written by: Jacob G. Hornberger
Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received
his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for
twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. In 1987,
Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become director of programs at the Foundation for Economic Education. He has advanced
freedom and free markets on talk-radio stations all across the country as well as on Fox News' Neil Cavuto and Greta van Susteren
shows and he appeared as a regular commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano's show Freedom Watch . View these interviews at
LewRockwell.com and from
Full Context
. Send him email .
@Peripatetic
Commenter "He has built more wall than the last three presidents and is on track to have
one fully built by November next year. He has also reduced the amount of illegal immigration
into the US."
To date (August 2019), the administration has replaced about 60 miles of dilapidated
barriers with new fencing. And a major component of Trump's pledge -- that Mexico would pay for
the wall -- hasn't been part of the equation. U.S. taxpayers have paid the cost.
"So right now, 78 miles have been built, have been built where there was an existing form of
barrier," [Acting CBP Commissioner Mark] Morgan said, effectively admitting that none of the
wall that has been constructed has been in new areas.
For the record, I have no problem with rebuilding and/or replacing our border wall. But
Trump has failed to deliver on his campaign promise.
This war is 18 years old. It's no longer a minor in the eyes of the law. It's old enough to
think for itself, to vote, to move out of the house and get it's own place. Afghanistan will
figure it out. Once we withdraw to allow Afghanistan to return to self-governance.
started by an unemployed Englishman named Eliot Higgins
Good on him – being able to create a thing that rises to such prominence in such a
short space of time speaks volumes about this Higgins guy's entrepreneurial ability. And if
he wasn't mobbed-up to begin with, he sure as fuck is now – which is a double-
mitzvah (for him).
If he did so starting from being unemployed, then anybody who turned down a job
application from the guy must be kicking themselves. (' Unemployed ' is obviously used
pejoratively in the blockquote; 'Englishman' is purely-descriptive).
.
Also, the entire article accepts Bernays' conclusion, but disagrees as to which objectives
should be pursued.
Bernays' conclusions are hardly controversial: most people are gullible imbeciles .
It's not clear to me how much more empirical evidence we need before that becomes just a
thing that everyone with an IQ above 115 accepts.
So the question then becomes " OK, now what? ".
As usual, the right answer is " Depends " – and not just for those with
bladder control problems.
If you want to do things that are just , exploiting gullible imbeciles would appear
to violate the playing conditions. It would be hors jeu ; not done; just not
cricket .
As the Laconian famously said . " IF ."
For those for whom the 'if' condition returns 'false', it does very little to bleat about
how awful they are. You're not going to cause a little switch in their brain to flick on (or
off?), whereupon they realise the error of their ways and make a conscious decision to leave
the gullible imbeciles unexploited.
It's even unlikely to affect their victims (remember, they're imbeciles) – because
otherwise some infra-marginal imbeciles would have to process their way through quite a bit
of cognitive dissonance, and they're not wired for introspection (or processing).
So the sole real purpose (apart from κάθαρσις
catharsis ) is prophylaxis (προ +
φύλαξις – guarding ). Both good enough aims
obviously the writer is the one who gets the cathartic benefit, but who is going to be on
heightened alert as a result of this Cassandra -ish jeremiad -ing?
Non-imbeciles don't need it; imbeciles won't benefit.
Here's the thing: the gullible imbeciles are going to be exploited by
someone .
.
This is something that people of my persuasion struggle with. It boils down to the
following:
Let's assume that a reprehensible thing exists already, and is unlikely to be overthrown
by my opposition to it. Should I just participate and line my pockets?
The resources used are going to be used whether I participate or not, so it may as well
be me who gets them. After all, I will put them to moral uses – and while inside, I
can do things that are contrary to the interests of the reprehensible thing.
There is no satisfactory counter-argument to that line of reasoning, and yet I reject
it.
Then again: I was dropped on my head as an infant, so YMMV.
The US lied about the Gulf of Tonkin in order to justify attacking North Vietnam, it then
proceeded to lie about the conduct of the war and the terrible genocide it was committing. No
lesson learned because in a heartbeat the US was lying about Chile, Brazil, Argentina,
Colombia, Nicaragua and El Salvador, committing a wide range of atrocities in each.
Add Somalia, Libya, proxy wars in Angola and Yemen, efforts to destabilize Cuba, Venezuela
and Iran, illegal wars in the Lebanon and Syria, the annihilation of Afghanistan in
retaliation for what was actually a Saudi terrorist act, the destruction of modern Iraq and
her people using trumped up claims, to say nothing of Clinton's cheery disregard for the
welfare of Balkan residents when the US rained (illegal) uranium bombs down on the hapless
inhabitants.
And now the WP and Congress are worked up over spending a trillion dollars when plainly
they could care less about the Afghan casualties and American war crimes. Heck this goes back
to Theodore Roosevelt seizing Cuba claiming he was saving it from the ravages of Spain or
even further back to government backed settler land grabs "saving their white women from the
savages". Savages, indeed. Zero accountability and Britain still playing faithful lap
dog.
My take on this is that the American Department of Defense war machine remained in a state of
perpetual excitement after their successes in WW11.. almost as if they had to continuously
invent an enemy in order to maintain their war time budget.. (and therefore demonstrate their
ongoing prowess etc etc) in a cycle of wars starting with Korea and bringing us up to date
with Afghanistan.. so that's nearly 70 years worth of international hubris on display.
All on the excuse of spreading their version of democracy.. is money talks!!
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted
influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential
for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the
weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take
nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper
meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods
and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
That both the Afghan war and the invasion of Iraq could happen at all tells us that the UN
Security Council is not fit for purpose. These wars also told us that British pretense at
being the voice of reason or the steadying hand that prevents US foreign policy being
subsumed by the visceral and synthesised reactions of a US public is no more than empty cant.
If the US is unable to prevent foreign and defence policy being captured by money
interests and remains inclined to deliver revenge to its public on demand howsoever it might
be misdirected then the US should not be on the UN Security Council at all. They are fast
becoming the number one major rogue state. And the outlook suggests this is more likely to
get worse than improve. Whatever happens to Trump One more (and likely smarter) Trumps are
coming down the track. More Dick Cheneys too. More Bushes, more Rumsfelds, more Nixons,
Boltons, Kissingers, Johnsons and a host of others we'd all much rather were one offs. The US
is the biggest extant threat to world peace. It is too powerful and far too easily played by
warmongers and terrorists of every stripe and every persuasion. And by those seeking to
profit from war.
To call war profiteering and murder a geopolitical "mistake" is to EXCUSE criminal activity.
Anyone responding to this latest revelation of military dishonest as a "mistake" is
actually part of the crime. They are aiding the abettors. Everyone in Congress knows what
everyone in this comments section knows: our military and its global actions are, first and
foremost, a financial fraud.
But not American oil companies which were basically shut out outside of a few minor service
and procurement contracts. Looks like all the "Blood for Oil" poster were BS.
The Iraq War was only partly, however, about big profits for Anglo-American oil
conglomerates - that would be a bonus (one which in the end has failed to materialise - not
for want of trying though).
Yes, and it made no conclusion as to whether the war was legal or not.
" The inquiry did not reach a view on the legality of the war , saying this
could only be assessed by a "properly constituted and internationally recognised court", but
did make a damning assessment of how the decision was made."
Just think - the USA spends more on its military then the combined amount of the next 10
nations in the list (incl. China/Russia/India). That is a major major spend commitment. A
small percentage of that could be used for US citizens to fund their healthcare - but I
suppose they prefer to spend it to threaten and bomb other nations to their will.
Just to think - a similar report was produced post Vietnam and in the 50's even Eisenhower
was worried about the US military backed by private companies becoming a perpetual spending
machine.
But there's one big question the Post report raises but does not address: why? Why did
so many people – from government contractors and high-ranking military officers, to
state department and National Security Council officials – feel the need to lie about
how the war in Afghanistan was going?
Because "how the war is going" is not the operating question. Because it does not matter
if the war is just or unjust, whether it's winnable or not winnable, nor whether it's
supported in the "homeland" or not. No, the operating principle is that there is a war. By
its existence, the war creates funding and jobs and profits for the people that matter, the
people the author mentions, from the Security/Military complex corporations all the way to
careerists in the Pentagon and State.
So, it is NOT a waste of $1 trillion dollars ... it is just as it was supposed to be. That
is why the war president (W), the peace president (Obama), and the swamp drainer (Trump) have
all supported it. The war is doing what it's supposed to do.
In time, the US national debt will force them to rein in their military spending. By lowering
taxes while continuing to spend like drunken sailors on military adventures the national debt
is ballooning. US government debt is currently rated AA whereas Canada is AAA. US debt to GDP
is significantly higher than Canada's. (and that's just Canada vs the US). Trump is trying to
create a mafia style protection racket to force other countries to subsidize reckless US
military spending. "Pay up or who knows what might happen?" It is high time US taxpayers ask
why the US can't lower its' out of control military spending rather than pressuring others to
match their profligate ways? Some US citizens say they pay low taxes but it seems they get
nothing in return; no health care, no equal access to education, decaying public
infrastructure, etc. The rest feel overtaxed when they realize they get nothing in return but
don't question the elephant in the room. If other countries maintain responsible levels of
military spending the US will dig itself deeper into debt until the debt markets force them
to see sense.
Military spending is a fine way to transfer wealth from the general population to the rich.
War has always been a fabulous business opportunity, but what has never been so very clear is
how, even for the winning side, it represents a major defeat as wealth is transferred from
the common good into the hands of the rich.
In such matters always consider 'Who will prosper'.
Follow the money...
Considering the United States has been involved in one war or another, directly or
indirectly, for all but about 20 years of its existence, this latest revelation shouldn't
shock anyone. We're a violent country with a violent history and never more so than now, with
our built-on-conflict empire losing steam. We point fingers ("It's the Russians!" "It's the
Chinese!" It's the Iranians!") to deceive ourselves and others, but we're the real threat to
peace. Us. The United States.
Every time I see a person on the street nobly collecting 50ps or the odd fiver for a good
cause like Cancer Research or some other charity, I wonder why they have to do this when the
US has spent over a USD$1 trillion on the Afghan war and other militaries continue to soak up
massive amounts of funding. How much more could we have achieved by now for the real good of
humanity if these funds were focused on research and real human need?
Te US military has been practicing genocide around the world since WW2, millions have been
murdered and still are. But hey, they are the leaders of the free world, the corruption in
the US government, corporations, and military has no bounds. Their own poorer members of this
society are dying in their thousands for lack of medical care, innocent black people are
murdered by police, yet the greed must go on nothing else matters. The only question now
being, which country will they invade next, which government will they plot to overthrow. How
many will be murdered in the process, not that it matters, greed cannot be measured in dead
people.
World peace and the safety of the American public has never been a priority. Entirely the
opposite. Standard procedure: foment fear to wage immoral, endless, profitable war.
This isn't conjecture or "conspiracy theory"; it's as obvious as the sun rising. Anyone
casting this in any other way is either behind the curve or dangerously soft pedaling -- or
lying to stave off actual accountability.
Please stop pretending that our "leaders" are mistaken. They aren't They're doing the jobs
for which they were paid.
It's worse even than a crime... it's insanity to keep excusing a failed 18 year strategy
costing a trillion dollars, resulting in the death of more than 100,000, and the country
ending up worse than when they started. The military, politicians and the media are all to
blame. The military for being too frightened and too stupid to admit they were losing and had
no idea how to correct it.. the politicians for being too frightened to call out their
beloved but incompetent military, and for not "getting it" after more than a trillion dollars
had already been spent; the press and media for being embedded (sometimes literally) with the
military and acting as no more than unquestioning cheerleaders for a self-evidently failed
strategy. It is a terrible indictment of the US on so many levels... where were the public
anti-war protests or activists? Couldn't they see or didn't they care? Either way it's
pathetic.
Almost every year US generals stood before the media and politicians, jutting jaws and
feeble minds, to say that this year was going to be decisive against the Taliban. The fact
is, after Al Qaeda was scattered in 2001, the US picked on the Taliban pointlessly. They
stayed pretending they were engaged in countering the return of al Qaeda (that was never
going to happen) but actually made a new enemy of the Taliban by picking the wrong side in
what was a civil war. The US never understood what it was trying to do so it lied and lied
out of fear of being found out. I find it sickening that this country -the US - pretends it
is a force for good in the world when they are quite prepared to keep killing innocent people
in order to mask the generals' cowardice about facing the truth of their own
incompetence.
A terrible but interesting dichotomy. You have Governments and a broad part of the public
fiercely opposed to public spending and any kind of redistribution. It is all about the
individual.
Yet they sport and actually worship an institution where the individual counts for naught.
In the military it always is about the collective. They throw huge swaths of money to the
military. Which is the only place in the US where dreaded universal healthcare, pensions and
free education exists. Not only that, even the army shops sell goods as subsidised prices,
something unthinkable outside the barracks.
Entirely intentional according the PNAC document Rebuilding America's Defences, Orwellian for
we're going to make a lot of pointless weapons with huge mark-ups for profit by bombing the
shit out of foreigners.
I was listening to NPR about how Veterans turned against the Vietnam war. The people of south
Vietnam would collect shells and explosives that did not detonate and gave to US troops for a
small financial reward. In one such case - the shell exploded killing few kids and injuring a
girl. That girl was refused treatment from US medics because she was one of them. That
soldier involved later joined the anti war movement.
All the veterans were surprised with the image that soldiers coming back from war were spat
at and disrespected by the anti war protesters - this could not have been further from truth.
Back in Vietnam you were taught how to destroy a village, poison drinking water sources
etc. And understandably many GIs fought back.
There are similar stories out of Afghanistan - the naked prisoners with soldiers acting as
if they are engaging in a sexual act and many such shameless incidents. These soldiers were
acquitted which is another way of saying - An Afghan and his life and honor are below us. It
has de-stabilized the region for many decades.
There is a bright side to Donny and his conmen - maybe there will be less intervention and
more introspection - which can only be good for the World.
I think it should have been seen as a thirty year campaign and the same with Iraq and Libya.
The northern Ireland campaign took 30 years and many people are as bitter as they ever were
much of it secondhand from younger people who weren't even alive during the conflict. The
idea of a quick war is a very big mistake I think and flawed short-term thinking.
The West and the USA in particular have always taken the stand that their ideology is the
only right one. That they have a right to interfere in the interns, affairs of other
countries but their own internal affairs are sacrosanct.
So - USA, with UK support decided that Saddam Hussein had to be removed. They moved in to
do so - they killed Saddam but had no plan to return the country to a functioning nation.
Instead they facilitated the unleashing of internal wars and have now left the citizens of
that country in utter turmoil.
& then went and repeated the exercise n Libya.
Decades ago, Britain decided that Palestinians could be thrown out of their homes to make
way for the creation of Israel and laid the foundation for the Middle-East turmoil that has
caused untold misery and suffering. They followed that up with throwing out the Chagosians
out of their homes and making them homeless. Invited Caribbean's to the 'Mother Country' to
serve their erstwhile lords, ladies, masters and mistresses only to then drive to despair the
children and grandchildren of the invitees who had contributed to the 'Mother Country' for
decades.
We are 18 years into an illegal invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. We are the invaders,
the terrorists. The Taliban are fighting for their country, they may use brutal methods but
so did the French, Dutch, Russian freedom fighters during the Nazi invasions. America's
puppet regime in Afghanistan is reminiscent of the Quislings of WW2. And to use drones to
kill Afghans and to say it is progress that there is more transparency is the height of
hubris. All it does is show the corrosive effect of unfettered power in America and it's
military. Why do we tolerate this inhuman action on another country's society? America is by
far the greatest contributor to the rise in terrorism in the world and if not somehow stopped
the greatest threat to world peace. It keeps on invading country after country with it's MSM
propaganda machine claiming it is spreading Democracy throughout the globe. Thank you America
!
Email This Page to Someone
Remember My
Information
=>
List of Bookmarks
◄
►
◄
►
▲
▼
Remove
from Library
B
Show
Comment
Next New Comment
Next
New Reply
Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More...
This Commenter
This Thread
Hide Thread
Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They
are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My
Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Email Comment
Ignore
Commenter
Follow Commenter
Bookmark
Toggle
All
ToC
▲
▼
Add
to Library
Search Text
Case
Sensitive
Exact Words
Include Comments
Search
Clear
Cancel
I have just finished reading William
Shirer's
Berlin Diary
. (This may not fascinate you, but I am coming to something.) I first
encountered it in high school. It is of course Shirer's account as a correspondent in Germany of the rise of
the Nazis. Most of it is well known to the educated. The Nazis, who had control over the domestic press,
convinced the German population that the Poles were threatening Germany, as plausible as Guatemala
threatening the United States. The Poles were said to be committing atrocities against Germans.
Then the Reich, with no justification
whatever, having absolute air superiority, attacked Poland, bombing undefended cities and killing huge
numbers of people. It was a German pattern several times repeated. Many reporters told of the smell of
rotting bodies, of refugees dying of hunger and thirst. Today the Reich is endlessly remembered as a paragon
of evil. It was.
How did Nazi Germany differ from the
United States today? There is the same lying. Washington insisted that Iraq was about to get nuclear
weapons, biological agents, that it had poisonous gas. None of this was true. The government, unimpeded by
the media, persuaded over half of the American population that Iraq was responsible for Nine-Eleven. Now it
says that Iran works to get nuclear weapons, and of course that the Russians are coming. The American press,
informally but strictly controlled, carefully doesn't challenge any of this.
Having prepped the American public as the
Nazis prepped theirs, Washington unleashed a savage attack against Iraq, deliberately destroying
infrastructure, leaving the country without power or purified water. The slaughter was godawful. But, said
America, the war was to rid the Iraqi people of an evil dictator, to bring them democracy, freedom, and
human rights. (The oil was entirely incidental. The oil is always incidental.)
Fallujah, Iraq, after the American military brought it democracy, human rights, and freedom.
Guernica, after the visit of the Kondor Legion. For the historically challenged, this was the Spanish
city bombed during the Spánish Civil War by the Germans in support of the Falangists.
Washington never sleeps in its campaigns to improve the lives of people
whose most fervent wish is that America stop improving their lives. To give the Afghans democracy, human
rights, and American values, the US has for eighteen years been bombing, bombing, bombing a largely
illiterate population in a nation where America has no business. It is a coward's war with warplanes
butchering peasants who have no defenses. The pilots and drone operators who do this deserve contempt, as
does the country that sends them. How many more years? For what purpose? And how were the German Nazis
different?
The German Gestapo perpetrated sickening
torture in hidden basements. America does the same, mainltaining torture prisons around the world. In these,
men, and no doubt women, are hung by their wrists for days, naked in very cold rooms, kept awake and
periodically beaten (exactly as described by survivors of Soviet torture. Nazis, whether American, Russian,
or German, are Nazis.)
Photos of Iraqis at the American torture
operation at Abu Ghraib showed prisoners, almost naked, lying in pools of blood. Tell me, please, how this
differs from what was done by the Reich? (The bloodier photos are no longer online. Many that remain seem to
have been edited.)
Abu Ghraib.
A happy American girl soldier. Note rubber gloves. The US military used many
female soldiers for this duty. They apparently were kinky, as they seemed to get a kick out of it. A
female general ran the operation.
Gina Haspel, head of the CIA, is a sadist
who tortured Moslem prisoners, reminiscent of Ilse Koch, the notorious Nazi torturess, who also worked in
prisons. It is easy to find victims there, I suppose.
An Abu Ghraib pic apparently no longer online. I found it on an ancient memory stick. Are we having
fun yet?
President Trump has just
pardoned
several American war criminals, saying he wanted to give US soldiers the "confidence to
fight." This amounts to blanket permission to commit atrocities. A purpose of military training being to
extirpate human decency and mercifulness, the obscene barbarism is not surprising. Atrocities are what
soldiers do, and will do as long as the wars go on, being furiously denied by the government. (When I
covered Force Recon, the Marine Corps Special Forces, the motto on the wall was "Crush Their Skulls and Eat
Their Faces.")
Perhaps the best known example of
implied approval was Nixon's pardon of Lt. Calley, who ordered the murder of Vietnamese villagers, for which
he received three years of house arrest.
The Germans wanted empire,
lebensraum,
and resources, in particular oil. Americans want empire and oil, control of which allows
control of the world They go about getting them by invasion and intimidation. Thus America wants to bring
democracy and human rights to Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, and Nigeria, which have
lots
of oil, while it
has occupation troops in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and elsewhere in the Mideast. What part of Syria is Trump
occupying? Surprise, surprise! The part with the oil. Oil for the Americans, land for the Germans.
As Shirer points out, the German public
was not enthusiastic about the war, at least not through 1940, as neither is the American public today.
Neither public showed any concern about the hideousness its government inflicted around the world. What is
the difference?
The parallels with the Reich are not
complete. Washington does not essay genocide against Jews or blacks or any other internal population, being
content with killing whoever its bombs fall upon. Trump cannot reasonably be likened to Hitler. He lacks the
vision, the backbone, and apparently the viciousness. Hitler was a very smart, very evil man who knew
exactly what he was doing, at least politically. This cannot be said of Trump. However, Hitler was, and
Trump is, surrounded by freak-show curiosities of great bellicosity. Adolf had Goering, Goebbels, Himler,
Rheinhardt Heydrich, Julius Streicher, Eichman. Trump has John Bolton, as amoral and pathologically
aggressive as any in the Fuehrer's entourage, or under a log. Pompeo, a bloated toad of a man, bears an
uncanny resemblance to Goering. Both he and Pence are Christian heretics, Evangelicals, who believe they are
connected to God on broadband. O'Brien sounds like Bolton. All want war with Iran and perhaps with China and
Russia. Sieg heil, and run like hell.
My Lai, after Lt. Calley of the SS Totenkopf Div excuse me, the Americal Division, I meant to say,
brought human rights, freedom, and the American way.
Wikipedia:
"Between 347 and 504 unarmed people were killed by U.S. Army soldiers Victims
included men, women, children, and infants. Some of the women were gang-raped and their bodies mutilated as
were children as young as 12.")
For this Calley got three years house
arrest, less than the sentence for a bag of methamphetamine, until pardoned by Nixon. Many Americans said,
and many still say, that he should not have been punished at all, that we needed to take the gloves off, let
the troops fight. Again, this is what Trump said.
The German Nazis worshiped Blood and
Soil, the land of Germany and the Teutonic race, which they believed to be genetically superior to all
others. Americans can't easily worship race. Instead they think themselves Exceptional, Indispensable, a
Shining City on a Hill, the greatest civilization the world has known. Same narcissism and arrogance,
slightly different foundation.
Nazi Germany was, like Nazi America,
intensely militaristic. The US has hundreds of bases around the world (China has one overseas base, in
Djibouti), spends appallingly on the military despite the lack of a credible military enemy. It currently
buys new missile submarines (the Columbia class), aircraft carriers (the Ford class), intercontinental
nuclear bombers (the B21), and fighter planes (the F-35).
Nazi Germany attacked Poland, Norway,
Belgium, France, Russia, America, and England. America? Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Syria, supports a
brutal proxy war against Yemen (Yemen is a grave threat to America), threatens Venezuela, China, and Iran
with attack, embargoes Cuba. These are recent. Going back a bit, we have Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam,
Yugoslavia, the intervention in Panama, on and on. Millions and millions killed.
The Third Reich was, and America is, the
chief threat to peace on the planet, a truly rogue state.
Is this something to be proud of?
Other stuff
La FIL,
Feria Internacional
de Libros
, International Book Fair, Guadalajara, an annual event. I post the photo with the joyous sense
of mischief of an eleven-year-old poking a nest of wasps. It will infuriate the Dissident Right, or Alt
Right, or Race Realists. Their leaders excepted, most of these are ill-tempered naifs who insist, and seem
to hope desperately, that Latin Americans are illiterate. I occasionally have conservative friends down and
they are astonished to find that Guadalajara, a large international city, has the sorts of bookstores had by
large international cities. Duh. (If interested,
here
are a couple of dozen.)
Another and cherished conceit of the
Dissident Right is that Latin Americans who can read must be white. Well, I guess. Why, you could easily
mistake the crowd above for Norwegians. Their ancestors probably arrived with Leif Erikson.
Merry Christmas to all! Happy "Winter
Holidays" to none.
Write Fred at
[email protected].
Put the letters "pdq" anywhere in the subject line to avoid autodeletion. All read, reply not guaranteed due
to volume.
This meritorious and beneficial column
will go into hibernation until after New Year, after which it will likely return.
It's almost a century since Smedley Butler wrote his incisive pamphlet War is a Racket.
If you've never read it, it takes about 15-20 minutes to do so. It will astound, anger and
depress you that the only thing that's changed is the number or zeroes on the eye waterering
profits. Oh, and the players. What is it exactly that makes the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
untouchable? (Answers on a postcard C/O Beelzebub.)
Smedley Butler knew of what he lectured about, being the most decorated officer in the
history of the Marine Corps.
A brief insight into this insightful all American action man man Hollywood seems to have
overlooked:
"I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this
country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks
from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time
being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In
short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
"I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I
helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues
in.
I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall
Street.
"The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international
banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for
American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its
way unmolested.
"During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket.
Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could
do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."
There's been a century of endless war and profits since then with this century shaping up
nicely for the racketeers, whose finest day might well have been September 11th, 2001.
Anyway, here's a link to a pdf file of War is a Racket if you're interested.
Is it just part of the human condition that as any writer or any publication gains a
reputation for truth and revelation and dependability, that that reputation is sooner or
later leveraged for gain or influence or access?
I can think of a number of examples where I'm almost certain that that is the case,
although I'll avoid writing their names.
In the end, we are all of us really quite alone in the universe, enjoying only periods
with the illusion of support and fellowship.
On the example of the Kennedys, the assassinations provide perhaps the greatest
illustration of how things work.
I should say that I regard them as two chapters in one book. John's killers had to be
Bobby's killers also because that intense younger man, once holding the powers of the
presidency, would have relentlessly hunted down his brother's killers.
We know that he did not believe the Warren Commission, though he did not go around saying
that. He even apparently had some idea of who the killers might be, never telling others any
details of his suspicions.
Books have for decades been churned out by either the CIA or friends of the CIA or
unwitting assets of the CIA arguing for the truth of the Warren Commission.
On the other hand, as someone with a long interest in the events, I believe that a great
many of the books against the Warren Commission were also written by the same interests. Not
all of them, but many.
Books especially that either are so preposterous or poorly written and edited that they
effectively discredit those who do not accept the (absurd) findings of the Warren
Commission.
After all, it was some CIA disinformation officer who came up with the term "conspiracy
theorist" in the 1960s to discredit genuine critics of the Warren Commission, a term of such
lasting power, it is still widely used, its application having spread to a large number of
topics.
Those with power do tend to keep guiding events no matter how hard we struggle to
understand and correct the course of affairs.
Power is a very real thing, almost physical in its presence, and it is rarely overturned
by truth or justice or fairness.
It's not an inspiring view, but I fear it is reality.
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), the outspoken, independent thinker from Hawaii running for the
loftiest perch in the land, has just said "no" to taking the next Democratic presidential
primary debate stage. This signals either a surrender or a strategic end-run around the field.
Yes, we've been down this road before. It is the same sentiment she expressed prior to the last
debate; although she threatened to boycott the circus, she did qualify, show up, and rebuke the
other candidates and the Democratic Party.
Gabbard has been Public Enemy #1 in those
circles since. Instead of playing into the cemented narrative, Tulsi, who has not so far
reached the conditions imposed for participation in the next round, is not wasting her
time.
The Most Repetitive Show On Earth
As the sixth platform for national domination looms, Gabbard tweeted a different plan,
saying:
"For a number of reasons, I have decided not to attend the December 19th 'debate' --
regardless of whether or not there are qualifying polls. I instead choose to spend that
precious time directly meeting with and hearing from the people of New Hampshire and South
Carolina."
Whether her bold decision is based on not quite reaching the necessary baseline
requirements, or because she has had enough of the game playing, Tulsi seems indifferent to
striving
for inclusion . And we all know Gabbard is not one to tread water in the shallow end of the
pool when a good, strong crawl will cover more territory.
Tulsi Gabbard
The Democratic National Committee (DNC) has upped the ante for primetime pandering by
requiring candidates to have a minimum of 4% support in selected national polls and 6% in two
state polls of the early primary states Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, or Nevada.
The deadline for polling qualification is Dec. 12 at the witching hour of 11:59 p.m. in the
Eastern time zone. How dramatic for what is likely to be a boring rehash of Trump-bashing, held
a scant week later.
Although Tulsi has the sheer donor numbers needed – the support of at least 200,000
unique donors – her national polling numbers haven't yet reached the threshold. Those on
the survey leaderboard are Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Amy Klobuchar
(D-MN), former Vice President Joe Biden, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, billionaire Tom Steyer, and
businessman Andrew Yang.
A Diverse Or One-Note Race?
Tulsi has been tilting
at the DNC and its primary prerequisites since the get-go, claiming the surveyors they used
weren't "accurate" enough, or that the venues were biased. Gabbard's campaign released a
statement in August, which said:
"Many of the uncertified polls, including those conducted by highly reputable
organizations such as The Economist and the Boston Globe, are ranked by Real Clear Politics
and FiveThirtyEight as more accurate than some DNC 'certified' polls."
The DNC was insistent that its criteria for inclusion have been fair and balanced. Just ask
the committee's spokeswoman Xochitl Hinojosa, who responded:
"This has been the most inclusive debate process with more women and candidates of color
participating in more debates than billionaires. We are proud of this historic and diverse
field with 20 candidates participating in the first two debates and at least 10 candidates in
each debate after that."
What's ironic is that no people of color – because of the strident stipulations
imposed – will be at the Dec. 19 debate hosted by PBS NewsHour and Politico at the Loyola
Marymount University in Los Angeles. PBS is set to broadcast the debate, and most likely, fewer
people will watch the event than Gabbard can reach by holding town halls or meet and greets.
Perhaps she's on to something, after all.
Jacques Ellul's 1973 Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Minds is still the antidote to
Bernaysian brainwashing. Short of reading it, there are excellent reviews on Amazon and
elsewhere. Ellul makes the same point as the author here, that no group is more taken in by
propaganda than the educated classes who fancy themselves above propaganda for being
constantly immersed in it.
Any particular American war has no purpose, but the USA waging it does. The main points of
what war does:
1. Transfers wealth from social services to the military industrial complex. Americans
don't have education, infrastructure, or healthcare, but they do have a generation of
soldiers with PTSD, national debt, worldwide hatred, and an ever increasing sense of
exceptionalism.
2. Traps Americans in a cycle of fear and persecution. Americans don't need a bogeyman,
but our corporate overlords do, its how they monetize the populace. Find some disparate
population of brown people who want self autonomy, send in the CIA to fuck them up, and when
they retaliate tell Americans that people who live in a 3rd world land locked country several
thousands of miles away are a threat to their very existence and way of life because they
don't like God and Walmart.
Sadly the US uses the MIC to keep a large chunk of its population under control, as well as
providing a convenient coverup of the actual numbers of people who are unemployable or would
be unemployed if it were'nt for the taxpayer funding humungous spending in the so-called
defence sector, which needs a a constant supply of conflict to keep going. The frankly
moronic 'thank you for your service' soundbite drives me insane but it shows how much the
American public has been brainwashed.
For years my home state of Washington had a New Deal Democrat Senator named Henry Jackson,
AKA the Senator from Boeing.
He did good things for the state & was hugely popular here. One reason being that because
he brought the Federal pork back home.
IMO the things Gen. Butler wrote about in the 1920s are still the modus operandi of US
foreign policy.
If the Afghanistan war ends, the USA will go to war with someone else. You cannot spend so
much on military & not be at war. America must have an enemy. And, don’t forget,
they always have “God on our side!”
The neocons in power during 2001 were hell bent on taking out Saddam Hussein. When 9/11
happened, they were looking for avenues to blame Iraq so that they could launch the war on
that nation. Since things could not be put together, and all evidence pointed to Afghanistan,
they took a detour in their war plan with a half hearted approach.
In fact Afghanistan was never the problem - It was Pakistan that held Afghanistan on the
string and managed all terror related activities. Everything related to 9/11 and beyond
pointed directly at Pakistan. Whatever threat Bush and his cronies projected about Iraq was
true in the case of Pakistan. The war was lost when they made Pakistan an ally on the war on
terror. It is like allying with Al Capone to crack down on the mafia.
Pakistan bilked the gullible American war planners, protected its assets and deflected all
the rage on to the barren lands of Afghanistan. They hid all key Al Qaeda operatives and
handed off the ones that did not align with their strategic interests to the US, while
getting reward for it. War in Iraq happened in a hurry because the Bush family had scores to
settle in Iraq. Pressure was lifted on Afghanistan. This is when the war reached a dead
end.
The Taliban knew time was on their hands and waited it out. Obama did understand the
situation and tried to put Af-Pak together and tightened the grip on Pakistan. He got the
troops out of Iraq. Pakistan is almost bankrupt now for its deep investment on terror
infrastructure. The US has drained billions of dollars and lives in Afghanistan due to
misdirected goals. I am surprised Bush and Cheney have not been sent to jail on lies to
launch the Iraq war and botching the real war on terror.
This war is 18 years old. It's no longer a minor in the eyes of the law. It's old enough to
think for itself, to vote, to move out of the house and get it's own place. Afghanistan will
figure it out. Once we withdraw to allow Afghanistan to return to self-governance.
Why did so many people -- from government contractors and high-ranking military officers, to
state department and National Security Council officials -- feel the need to lie about how
the war in Afghanistan was going?
This is because it's easy cash cow for the old boys club by sending working class kids
to be killed in a far off land.
The pentagon with the full cooperation of MSM will sell it as we are defending our ways of
life by fighting a country 10,000 kms away. This show the poor literacy, poor analytical
thinking of US population constantly brain washed by MSM, holy men, clergy, other neo con
organisations like National rifle club etc.
I never knew USA dropped 2.7 millions tons of bombs and now so many left unexploded and
its same in Vietnam, Cambodia as neutral,
but i met so many injured kids etc from the bombs,.
the total MADNESS OF USA IS NAZI SM AT ITS BEST,.NO SHAME OR COMPASSION FOR THE
VICTIMS.
I cannot comprehend the money it cost USA,. AN ALSO PROFITS FOR SOME,.
With the exceptions of two attacks on American soil-Pearl Harbor and 911- the American people
and for the most part their legislative representatives in Congress- will always remain
cluless what the United States Government does overseas.
This country runs on its own drum beats. The ordinary man on the street needs to take care
of his economic needs. The Big Boys always take care of themselves. That includes the
military establishment, that is always entitled to an absurd amounts of monies, fueled by an
empire building machinery, pushed by the elites that control the fate of economic might, and
political orchestra that feeds its ego and prestige.
Time and again, our American sociopaths in power have a strangle hold on us, regardless of
the destruction and animosity they heap on distant peoples and lands the world over in the
name of national security and the democratic spiel, as they like to tell us ....
Richard Nixon, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson- Vietnam and the South East Asian countries of
Laos , Cambodia, are an example .
Years later, the establishment manufactures blatant cover-ups with lies upon lies to accuse
on record, as general Powell eloquently presented at the United Nations: That Iraq has
weapons of mass destruction and needs to be held accountable.And now, this report on
Afghanistan with all this pathological violence.
Is it reasonable to conclude that our democracy and its pathological actors in government
and big business will always purchase it by demagoguery and self vested interest, because the
ordinary man whose vote should count will never have the ultimate say when it comes to war
and destruction!
@AnonFromTN It is heartening that there are people who are expecting salvation from
Germany. Let me tell you guys, it is GONE. And it is certainly not heroic to say this, but I
can live with having past my service at an old peoples home, instead, and I can live with not
sending my son off to a trench. And I absolutely subscribe to what Jim Christian said (thanks
for his comments, as for quite some others! ), if you touch my wife or son, I will get wild,
but the rest is not worth defending.
But here is my thought: Agreed, that western and american military is today disfunctional
and deluded about themselves. But they are absolutely superior when it comes to psyop. 9/11
was marvellously executed and to root up the whole middle east and pump the destitute people
from there into Europe to blow it up, that is quite something.
@AnonFromTN It is heartening that there are people who are expecting salvation from
Germany. Let me tell you guys, it is GONE. And it is certainly not heroic to say this, but I
can live with having past my service at an old peoples home, instead, and I can live with not
sending my son off to a trench. And I absolutely subscribe to what Jim Christian said (thanks
for his comments, as for quite some others! ), if you touch my wife or son, I will get wild,
but the rest is not worth defending.
But here is my thought: Agreed, that western and american military is today disfunctional
and deluded about themselves. But they are absolutely superior when it comes to psyop. 9/11
was marvellously executed and to root up the whole middle east and pump the destitute people
from there into Europe to blow it up, that is quite something.
From that perspective, Russiagate is a gift. If any argument was still needed to tell the
peoples of the world that the western empire is terminaly deranged, that is it.
Millions of mistresses are being expensively supported by defense contractors and their
employees. Horny men are not ready to give up defense spending needed to support their gals
for the sake of international peace. Blame it on those expensive Harlots for keeping them
bullets flying.
The world is simply re-bifurcating into 2 camps. More specifically, the Anglo-World is
splitting away from whatever parts it can't bring into their sphere of dominance. They
couldn't dominate the whole playground, so they're taking their toys and carving out a corner
of it for themselves.
The current demonisation of China and Russia sets the stage for the real split that
will happen in the 2020s. Gotta get the sheeple used to the notion so that they will accept,
even demand, bringing the Bamboo Curtain down when the time comes.
What we're seeing now in Europe, the M.E., S. America etc is nothing more than the
Anglo-World's attempt to bring more along with them, and the RoW's attempts to minimize their
success.
With people like these, who needs the ptb ???
The PTB needs the people, not the other way around. People are happy to believe
anything that makes them comfortable. Instilling Sino/Russo-phobia in their otherwise empty
heads is but the prelude to splitting them off from demonic Eurasia/Eastasia, and also so
they'll be happy with whatever they get in Oceania.
They'll be living in the Free World again! Smaller this time around, but Freeeee!!!
It worked the last time. It'll work this time too. One stands in awe of how easy it
is.
Shoigu is 64, while Putin is 67.
This means Shoigu is a one-term successor, if we're talking age. Someone capable of long-term
work and planning after that would be a must. Medvedev is currently 54, which mean he'll be
the age Shoigu is now, if Putin stands down in say a decade.
Which means he himself–Medvedev, that is–will be good for a decade.
So that's one scenario: ten more years of less of Putin, then one mandate by Shoigu, then
another decade by Medvedev. Or fifteen years by Medvedev immediately after Putin, with Shoigu
being his cardinal
We've yet to see what happens to the reds and the browns. The leader of the
commies–Zuyganov–is 75, and the leader of the empire
revivalists–Zhirinovski–is 73. So again, at most a decade from now, the commies
and the far right will either collapse, or choose new strong leaders.
In this sense there a very serious possible reshuffle looming all across the Russian
political landscape. After all, only four parties matter: Putin's national conservatives,
Zyuganov's commies, Zhirinovski's imperialists, and Mironov's social democrats. Mironov is
66, the youngest of the batch.
Russia is still very much a "leader-based" society. Her political parties are also
"leader-based". We'll see if these parties can function beyond the lifespan of their current
leaders. If yes–then Russia has transcended the curse of the "wise emperor" formula,
where stuff only works if you've got a superhuman at the top, and the moment he's gone, shit
falls apart.
One of things which concerns me most about this site and most others inhabited by
contrarian blokes of a certain age is the way that topics discussed are most often the same
topics as those fed to the mugs via corporate media.
Sure the opinions are vastly different, but the subjects are not. So much energy and
time wasted on pointless topics like the amerikan prez when we all know that it really
doesn't matter who jags that gig nothing meaningful will alter for amerikans or the people
outside amerika oppressed by empire.
Now the prez thing is a bit of a troll since so many amerikans have been intensely
indoctrinated right through their lives to believe that all the prezdency guff is
meaningful when it so obviously isn't. That in reality the odds of any amerikan suddenly
having an epiphany about the pointlessness of DC kibuki from reading this, or something
similar written by someone else, are negligible.
So we have to accept, to a degree, that Washington Housewives and Days of Our Lives DC
will continue to feature at MoA.
But what happens when the corporate media chooses not to consider much larger, more
pernicious forms of imperialism than is currently occurring in the ME because that
imperialism is nascent, awful things are being done to humans western populations who have
not been sufficiently propagandised against, so may not greet the tales of murder and
mayhem generated by the actions of french foreign legionaires, english SAS or amerikan
special forces with sufficient approval?
Easy, we just don't talk about it except when told to or where there is no choice
because some action by the imperial thugs for hire has attracted too much attention. In
that case the barest of details make it into the news and we will be told that whoever it
was who had their families butchered belonged to an organisation which 'western
intelligence' said was 'associated with ISIS'. No specificity, not details at all apart
from the one unsubstantiated claim, which lets face it says any village of humans anywhere
that contains a single resident which western intelligence believes is somehow associated
with ISIS, is worthy of being genocided out of existence.
I reckon one of the best indicators of imperial violence is displaced persons. We saw in
the ME that various forms of ethnic cleansing were practised to persuade people to move off
their traditional lands in order to either exploit the natural resources in the area (see
Saudi Amerika driving tribes from the newly discovered hydrocarbon prospects in North
Yemen), or to create lebensraum for another group of humans currently held in favour by the
empire (see the shifting of arabs and Turkamen from North Syria to give ready made villages
to Kurds which only lasted for as long as the Kurds were needed by empire).
So many people were displaced in the ME during the first half of the teens that shock,
horror some european countries felt obliged to allow a few of those whose lives had been
destroyed into their communities.
That was then, yet we still all talk about the ME as though it is where the empire is
committing its most egregious harm, but that is no longer the case.
If you check
this Pew Center article you will see
The total number of people living in
sub-Saharan Africa who were forced to leave their homes due to conflict reached a new high
of 18.4 million in 2017, up sharply from 14.1 million in 2016 -- the largest regional
increase of forcibly displaced people in the world" .
If one checks the chart Pew has provided we can see that the numbers of decent humans in
the ME who have been displaced from their land is alleged to currently be 21.5 million
while the number of persons displaced in sub-Sahara Africa is about 3 million less at 18.4
million.
See so more action in the ME still. No, firstly the ME curve has flattened right out
over the years since 2016 meaning that new displacements are relatively low unless of
course it is your whanau that has been displaced in which case it wouldn't feel
nearly as benign. Secondly if you look at the fine-print on that chart you will see the 21.5 million line is
labelled "Middle East-North Africa".
Libya is an African state which happens to have a proportion of arabic speaking people
in its population, it also contains Berbers (e.g. Muammar Ghadaffi) and what the chart
calls "sub-Saharan Africans when they want say negro but the unfortunate connotations
associated with that term (99% the result of horrific whitefella behaviour) means that
negro is no longer a la mode in whitefella land.
Not enough to rape, steal & steal from black Africans, now we also remove the means
to identify them as a distinct group.
The Libya africa/ME issue matters a great deal because prior to the fukusi rape of
Libya, that nation acted as a bulwark for all the supra-saharan nations, some Saharan eg
Niger and that was just as likely a reason for amerika to destroy Libya setting loose the
ethno-centrists of Misratah to kill black africans, standover Berbers & Turks to ensure
that only Arab speaking semites can get control. This is the deal the empire struck. Not to
enable italy to get some of that sweet sweet crude at the sort of bargain basement prices
Italy hadn't enjoyed since Mussolini invaded Libya - that was purely a minor side benefit,
now the good colonel was no more, fukus became the only game in town. There was no longer any white knight determined to protect his/her neigbours from the
outright theft, extortion, bribery, rape & murder which are the empire's stock in
trade.
It is foolish and counterproductive to ignore the horrors that a US-led fukus mission
which runs across the entire African continent has created in the name of more billions to
the already rich. Do it if you want, but all you are really achieving is enabling the arseholes.
There is a scarcity of relevant links for the usual reasons. Not only are you more
likely to put faith in info from sources you already know & trust, getting there will
help you comprehend this crime far better than something easily digestible from a user, and
most importantly the final paras were done long after the sun rose over the yardarm
here.
@ A User 72
All very true. I would place the de jure war onslaughts within the overall context of
globalization and in particular the imperialistic assault of corporate industrial agriculture
upon Africa, the last great semi-frontier which wasn't fully assimilated by the first "Green
Revolution" onslaught. A main goal as the global empire faces decline or collapse is to seize
control of all land and drive the people OUT.
Globalization acts to destroy all local production and distribution. It destroys this
outright or seizes control of it in order to force it into the global commodity framework. It
seizes control of indigenous land and resources. It dumps subsidized Western goods. It
destroys any functional politics and democracy. It imposes the control of multinational
corporations over every part of life it can. It does this purely in the power interests of
Western elites. Any benefits it lets trickle down to locals are purely calculated payouts to
accomplices. Much of the global South has been crushed under the corporate boot this way, and
Africa has already been subject to the IMF and World Bank’s debt indenture shock
treatment (“structural adjustment”).
All this has been accompanied by the systematic ravaging of African ecosystems,
culminating in the rising climate chaos driven by the patterns of energy consumption, waste,
and ecological destruction practiced and imposed by Western industrialized productionism and
consumerism. Climate change is caused by these actions. Since corporate state elites and
their supporters have long known this and in spite of lots of lip service have refused to do
anything to avert the worst of it, it’s long been true that climate change is an
intentional campaign of aggression against the Earth and all vulnerable peoples. Thus climate
change takes its place as the most extreme and far-reaching of the corporate campaigns
designed to cause disaster, destruction, and chaos. According to this pattern of disaster
capitalism the corporations then proceed to use the crises they intentionally generate as
further opportunities for aggression and profit. All corporate sectors practice this, and
corporate agriculture is the most aggressive and destructive practitioner of all. Today
Africa is its primary new target.
Corporate control of agriculture and food has always been at the core of the globalization
onslaught. In accordance with its food weapon the US government systematically has waged
economic, political, chemical, biological (both of the former in the form of poison-based
agriculture and other pretexts for systemic and systematic environmental poisoning), and
often literal shooting warfare. Throughout this history of war and sublimated war, corporate
agriculture has been a constant weapon and battleground as well as its aggrandizement being a
constant goal.
Don't be so sure. Note that Trump congratulated Tulsi on Kamala's demise. If she isn't the
nominee, her mere presence in the campaign is a boon to Trump because she exposes the rot in
the DNC and the Empire.
Dem Establishment can't control me and that scares the hell out of them
"... The way I see it now he basically had the backing of big Jewish gangstas like Adelson plus his own charisma resonated with a lot of people plus the fact that what self-respecting human on earth could vote for the she-devil Hillary ? ..."
"... I think too a lot of people were sick of Obama who was clearly one of the greatest con artists of all time President Hopium, as Mike Whitney tagged him ..."
"... So other than his rich Jewish friends The Donald really is pretty much alone except for a very lot of regular folks and I mean right across the socio-economic spectrum it's not just the blue collar folks, but a lot of people I know in my own profession [and others] ..."
"... So all things considered, I think Trump has actually made some pretty spectacular plays considering he is a one-man football team LOL ..."
"... As for Trump I think he's going to be re-elected the 'resistance' is just making themselves look incredibly bad they are getting up everyone's fucking nose and even Pelosi, as she was standing there the other day announcing the 'impeachment' darn well knew it they are toast ..."
"... I too believe he isn't dumb, but the real question is whether he's playing the fool in furtherance of a plan, or whether it's just who he is and his successes are accidental. ..."
"... The Deep State's (aka: PFPE's) ongoing behaviour indicates that Trump's using buffoonery to work a plan that's anathema to their created realities, and their increasing shrillness indicates it's working. At every turn, he's managed to make unavailable the resources their reality called for. From the M.E., to the Ukraine to N. Korea to Venezuela, things just aren't working the way they're supposed to. In fact, they're invariably working out in a way that exposes the Deep State's ineptitude and malevolence, and maximizes its embarrassment. ..."
"... Even though I can't imagine a more effective single handed way to accomplish what he promised to do, that he's lasted this long and has been so effective is astonishing. I guess we'll see if he abandons buffoonery when his opponents finally sink into the tar. ..."
"... Trump is a thief and an occupier in Syria, Afghanistan and many other countries. Only dummies think that he is a man of 'peace'. Only impostors spread lies that he wants to bring 'peace' but the 'deep state' does not allow. In fact the phony 'deep state' does not want war with Iran because knows that they will never win, only chaos. Israel wants war, and his servant Trump is pushing for one. ..."
"... I agree with you about all those examples Ukraine, Venezuela, even Iran seem to be a case of giving 'his' neocon 'team' enough rope to hang themselves while POTUS holds the hammer and ultimately gives a big NAY to going kinetic and then the whole thing crumbles into cracker crumbs ..."
"... On 1 May, Mosaddegh nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, canceling its oil concession (expired in 1993) and expropriating its assets. ..."
"... In March 1953, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles directed the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which was headed by his younger brother Allen Dulles, to draft plans to overthrow Mossadegh. On 4 April 1953, Allen Dulles approved $1 million to be used "in any way that would bring about the fall of Mosaddegh". Soon the CIA's Tehran station started to launch a propaganda campaign against Mossadegh. ..."
"... The zionized "progressives" have a new battle cry -- "Putin is new Hitler." Worked great for Hillary Clinton, this model of "humanitarian" interventionist. ..."
"... It does not do any good for your brains to read the Atlantic Council's idiotic propaganda. It is the same as the "Integrity Initiative" production, the dirty and poisonous brew made on orders by NATO/MIC/the Lobby. ..."
"... When Nazi propagandist Julius Streicher could get hanged at Nuremberg in 1946 for crimes against humanity, I wonder, why not the likes of Amanpour? Guess history is written by the winning side. ..."
"... Say hello to more than a century of perpetual war for profit. The Deep State, consisting of Jewish bankers and their hanger-ons, has been calling the shots since passage of the Federal Reserve Act in the closing hours of 1913, while most members of Congress were home on holiday recess. ..."
"... The current demonisation of China and Russia sets the stage for the real split that will happen in the 2020s. Gotta get the sheeple used to the notion so that they will accept, even demand, bringing the Bamboo Curtain down when the time comes. ..."
"... The PTB needs the people, not the other way around. People are happy to believe anything that makes them comfortable. Instilling Sino/Russo-phobia in their otherwise empty heads is but the prelude to splitting them off from demonic Eurasia/Eastasia, and also so they'll be happy with whatever they get in Oceania. ..."
I had assumed that a real outsider couldn't have gotten to his position and that they
had a plan and would make a stand against the Empire's nomenclatura to try to turn the
ship of state to face the coming crisis head on.
Everybody has a plan until they get hit in the face.–'Iron' Mike Tyson
Yes indeed E I think PCR has commented at length about how Trump just doesn't have anyone in
his corner and yes, it is kind of surprising
Now the funny thing is that I too thought for the longest time there must be some kind of
establishment faction behind the scenes that was backing the Trump agenda of getting real and
changing course from an obvious dead end path
But I'm not so sure about that anymore Trump may indeed be the guy that 'wasn't supposed to
win' as far as all the invisible heavyweights behind the curtain are concerned
The way I see it now he basically had the backing of big Jewish gangstas like Adelson plus
his own charisma resonated with a lot of people plus the fact that what self-respecting human
on earth could vote for the she-devil Hillary ?
I think too a lot of people were sick of Obama who was clearly one of the greatest con
artists of all time President Hopium, as Mike Whitney tagged him
So other than his rich Jewish friends The Donald really is pretty much alone except for a
very lot of regular folks and I mean right across the socio-economic spectrum it's not just
the blue collar folks, but a lot of people I know in my own profession [and others]
But at this point it becomes abundantly clear that what Prof Cohen says here is what
everybody knows the ' permanent foreign policy establishment' which is quite out in the
open and neither 'deep' nor secret
For me that 'Anonymous' oped in the NYT was the milestone event that they could be that
brazen and open about basically ripping the wheel out of the president's hands I mean that's
brass they even called themselves the 'steady state' not even worried one bit about what that
says about this sham 'democracy'
It's like everyone knows right and is cool with it ?
Amazing
So all things considered, I think Trump has actually made some pretty spectacular plays
considering he is a one-man football team LOL
I point to the Syria almost-withdrawal which is in reality almost as good as a full
withdrawal since the SAA has regained almost its entire northern border and the remaining fleck
of a US footprint is a logistical and political impossibility
Let's face it for all the complainers [and yes, we've all got a lot of legit beefs] who the
fuck would have been able to do even this anyone else would have escalated a long time ago this
is the die-hard imperialist mentality of the neocons
I remember reading how some of these very people named here [including I think the harpy
Fiona Hill] were mouth-foaming freaking out at the SDF leadership and literally breaking
pencils in their face to try to stop them from accepting the lifesaver offered by the Russians
and SAA, with the Turks bearing down on them
I mean these people are just NUTS they are simply not rooted in reality at some point you
run into a brick wall going 500 miles an hour that is what awaits this crowd
As for Trump I think he's going to be re-elected the 'resistance' is just making themselves
look incredibly bad they are getting up everyone's fucking nose and even Pelosi, as she was
standing there the other day announcing the 'impeachment' darn well knew it they are toast
In the second term watch out Trump is not as dumb as they think
In the days of Kissinger, Baker, et al the Imperial Staff were well coached in the
Calculus of Power, knew the limits to Empire and thrived within them. Since the end of
history, and the apparent end of limits, policy makers had no more need of realists and their
confusing calculations and analyses.
The US had power, and no-one else had any. That's all they needed to know, and set about
creating new, wonderfully intoxicating realities. As Rove famously inverted the MO they'll
act first, creating realities and the analysis and calculation can come later. In awe of
their creations, they failed to notice that while history may have ended in Washington,
elsewhere it moved on to surround them with a reality where they found themselves in
zugzwang, with no understanding how they got there. Flailing (and wailing) like a Mastodon in
a tar pit, they've managed only to attract an unhelpful crowd of onlookers, fascinated by the
abomination.
In the second term watch out Trump is not as dumb as they think
I too believe he isn't dumb, but the real question is whether he's playing the fool in
furtherance of a plan, or whether it's just who he is and his successes are accidental.
The Deep State's (aka: PFPE's) ongoing behaviour indicates that Trump's using buffoonery
to work a plan that's anathema to their created realities, and their increasing shrillness
indicates it's working. At every turn, he's managed to make unavailable the resources their
reality called for. From the M.E., to the Ukraine to N. Korea to Venezuela, things just
aren't working the way they're supposed to. In fact, they're invariably working out in a way
that exposes the Deep State's ineptitude and malevolence, and maximizes its
embarrassment.
If that's so, his is the most extraordinary political performance I thought I'd ever see.
Even though I can't imagine a more effective single handed way to accomplish what he promised
to do, that he's lasted this long and has been so effective is astonishing. I guess we'll see
if he abandons buffoonery when his opponents finally sink into the tar.
The latest zionist plan designed by Donald Trump and associate to zionist stooges Pompeo and
Brian Hook, intend to expand the war against Iran, has been failed. Trump ordered fomenting
riots using the poor citizen of these countries who are under the Jewish mafia economic
sanction in Iraq, Iran and Lebanon to create choas for the expansion of Jewish mafia and
Israel in the region that he is a member of. Trump expanded the WAR against these counties,
axis of resistance, using the US treasury runs by dual citizens pro Israel, and then
supporting a US/Israel/Saudi proxies in these counties funded by the Saudi Arabia – to
kill the citizens who are fed up with economic pressure force upon them by the criminal Tribe
and its stooge Trump, and to burn buildings to create chaos so Trump can use it against Iran.
This project was funded by the MBS Saudi Arabia and UAE.
Brian Hook, a U.S. Special Representative for Iran, has done everything to satisfy his
masters, the Jewish mafia and made a big HOOK to bring down Iran, but he couldn't and now
they are trying to go after Iran with FABRICATED news, spreading lies that Iran has killed up
to 1000 people.
Trump must answer his own crimes against humanity FIRST and then shut up and focus on US
interest NOT a Israel interests, because he will be viewed as a fifth column.
Trump is a thief and an occupier in Syria, Afghanistan and many other countries. Only
dummies think that he is a man of 'peace'. Only impostors spread lies that he wants to bring
'peace' but the 'deep state' does not allow. In fact the phony 'deep state' does not want war
with Iran because knows that they will never win, only chaos. Israel wants war, and his
servant Trump is pushing for one.
they failed to notice that while history may have ended in Washington, elsewhere it
moved on to surround them with a reality where they found themselves in zugzwang ,
with no understanding how they got there.
Flailing (and wailing) like a Mastodon in a tar pit, they've managed only to
attract an unhelpful crowd of onlookers, fascinated by the abomination.
LOL that is quote-worthy E
What can I add here you've pretty much nailed 'er down to the floor
I agree with you about all those examples Ukraine, Venezuela, even Iran seem to be a case
of giving 'his' neocon 'team' enough rope to hang themselves while POTUS holds the hammer and
ultimately gives a big NAY to going kinetic and then the whole thing crumbles into cracker
crumbs
If that's so, his is the most extraordinary political performance I thought I'd ever
see. Even though I can't imagine a more effective single handed way to accomplish what he
promised to do, that he's lasted this long and has been so effective is astonishing.
Yup the one-man football team and he's actually WINNING LOL
@Priss
Factor Over the years that we've been reading Dr. Cohen who has written about Russia, the
US, etc., we've become more and more convinced that Dr. Cohen, as a Jew, refuses to come out
in bold-faced print to tell the real truths; in this case The Ukraine.
If he were to do so, his Jewish brethren, as seen in The Deep State and in Ukraine would
simply destroy this man. In effect, he's a milquetoast figure of little importance.
"Chinese will soon become a majority in swaths of Russia; why not let them vote
to secede & join the Han motherland?"
-- You think by the zionists' rules, whether the rules are applied in Palestine or
Ukraine. Just give some efforts to learning the history of Russia and the history of Ukraine.
You might also need to refresh your knowledge of the history of the Middle East, for good
measure.
@NegroPantera
Leave the ancient civilization of Persia alone. Тhe US that had been messing with
democratic development in Iran in the 1950-s. The "chosen" behave like homicidal maniacs
towards Iran and cannot wait to see Americans dying for Eretz Israel project.
On 1 May, Mosaddegh nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, canceling its oil
concession (expired in 1993) and expropriating its assets.
"Our long years of negotiations with foreign countries have yielded no results thus far.
With the oil revenues, we could meet our entire budget and combat poverty, disease, and
backwardness among our people. Another important consideration is that by the elimination
of the power of the British company, we would also eliminate corruption and intrigue, by
means of which the internal affairs of our country have been influenced. Once this tutelage
has ceased, Iran will have achieved its economic and political independence."
In March 1953, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles directed the Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA), which was headed by his younger brother Allen Dulles, to draft plans to
overthrow Mossadegh. On 4 April 1953, Allen Dulles approved $1 million to be used "in any
way that would bring about the fall of Mosaddegh". Soon the CIA's Tehran station started to
launch a propaganda campaign against Mossadegh.
The zionized "progressives" have a new battle cry -- "Putin is new Hitler."
Worked great for Hillary Clinton, this model of "humanitarian" interventionist.
It does not do any good for your brains to read the Atlantic Council's idiotic propaganda.
It is the same as the "Integrity Initiative" production, the dirty and poisonous brew made on
orders by NATO/MIC/the Lobby.
Here are some of the Atlantic Council stars: Eliot Higgins (Bellingcat) and Anne Applebaum
("historian").
Eliot Higgins is no journalist -- his forte has been to manage sales of ladies underwear
and to produce laughable and ignorant stuff about Ukraine and Syria. He has zero (0) training
in engineering, military, sciences. He is a perfect useful idiot and successful
war-profiteer.
The exposing of the Integrity Initiative has just scratched the surface of what appears
to be a much more sophisticated, insidious, and extremely online version of Operation
Mockingbird.
Don't be so sure. Note that Trump congratulated Tulsi on Kamala's demise. If she isn't the
nominee, her mere presence in the campaign is a boon to Trump because she exposes the rot in
the DNC . and the Empire.
Dem Establishment can't control me and that scares the hell out of them
@anonymous
Because Israel is cautious not to cross a line beyond which Russia will have no choice but to
retaliate. Contrary to Americans, Russians don't have a short fuse and don't feel the need to
"pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the
world she means business". Since Russia got involved, Israel's actions have had exactly zero
effect on the course of events in Syria. Russia's goal is not to further ignite the Middle
East. Overreacting to Israel's gesticulations would be counterproductive.
Scum like Amanpour operating from within anti-imperialist countries are the reason why
those places ever needed laws curtailing the hallowed "freedom of the press." Words ARE
weapons, and the West knows this
Comments:
When Nazi propagandist Julius Streicher could get hanged at Nuremberg in 1946 for crimes
against humanity, I wonder, why not the likes of Amanpour? Guess history is written by the
winning side.
Say hello to more than a century of perpetual war for profit. The Deep State, consisting of
Jewish bankers and their hanger-ons, has been calling the shots since passage of the Federal
Reserve Act in the closing hours of 1913, while most members of Congress were home on holiday
recess.
The world is simply re-bifurcating into 2 camps. More specifically, the Anglo-World is
splitting away from whatever parts it can't bring into their sphere of dominance. They
couldn't dominate the whole playground, so they're taking their toys and carving out a corner
of it for themselves.
The current demonisation of China and Russia sets the stage for the real split that
will happen in the 2020s. Gotta get the sheeple used to the notion so that they will accept,
even demand, bringing the Bamboo Curtain down when the time comes.
What we're seeing now in Europe, the M.E., S. America etc is nothing more than the
Anglo-World's attempt to bring more along with them, and the RoW's attempts to minimize their
success.
With people like these, who needs the ptb ???
The PTB needs the people, not the other way around. People are happy to believe anything
that makes them comfortable. Instilling Sino/Russo-phobia in their otherwise empty heads is
but the prelude to splitting them off from demonic Eurasia/Eastasia, and also so they'll be
happy with whatever they get in Oceania.
They'll be living in the Free World again! Smaller this time around, but Freeeee!!!
It worked the last time. It'll work this time too. One stands in awe of how easy it
is.
@Realist
True. If he appointed all these banksters and neocons by mistake, then there should have
been a few who weren't neocons or banksters. Making a lot of mistakes could be seen as
proof of stupidity. Making nothing but mistakes has to be by design
That pos said that those who commit "hate crimes" should get the death penalty without
trail.
@Dave from Oz Dietrich Doerner's Logic of Failure makes clear that decision makers
consistently make grotesque errors based on faulty modeling of the world, incomplete feedback
assumed to be complete, and so on. Even the data are often mistaken for deductive truths, but
if one looks at, for example, the number of actual weather data points used to create those
complex surface maps, it becomes obvious why the results are disappointing -- in that case
possibly spoiling a picnic, but with the military, destroying a civilization.
You might recall the lessons of Longterm Capital Management's use of predictions based on
PDE's, with results that should have been foreseen as being predictably as unreliable as
weather forecasting, and for the same reasons -- that beneath all the fancy math lie guesses
of all too fallible men.
Regarding a faulty worldview, could there possibly be a more distorted model of reality
than America serving as Israel's footstool, the country that with its fifth column is
responsible for Lavon, USS Liberty, JFK/RFK, and, not least, 9/11. In the world of
probabilities, there is no standard of textual evidence evaluation or mathematical
demonstration so low it won't give cover to the Pentagon's costumed bureaucrats and members
of Congress to look the other way regarding Israel and its fifth columns' acts of war against
the country they're all sworn to protect.
MLK became a problem when he joined RFK against Vietnam in early 1968. When he started
counseling his young Black men against Vietnam, he had to go too. I'll never forget that.
Hideous.
Why do they always shoot their rivals in the head? Never a miss back then, ever..
@Anonymous I have doubts that zionists were central to, or instigators of, the JFK coup,
but the Jewish mob sure was in on it, and since they knew and were involved, as was Lyndon,
that gave the zionists Mossad the blackmail they needed to put Lyndon in their pocket. They
proved this when he covered up the Liberty affair. Since then the zionists have been free to
do as they wished. I propose these changes were gradual, and that zionism has been curated as
a MI6 intelop since the Balfour Declaration, in part to create the 5th column we have now.
Looks like it got out of control, Golem-like. This is a pity, as it may result in the ruin of
their own people, just as we see Semitic zionists shooting Semitic natives in a sort of
turkeyshoot every Friday is it kosher to kill on Shabbos? I wonder.. . a kind of civil war,
so we see a vast schism forming between Jews and nominally Jewish zionists.
@Walter The Zionism Psy-Op began much earlier than the Balfour declaration. It was a
result of losing sovereignty when Poland disappeared in 1772 and was partitioned between
Prussia, Russia, and Austria. (Poland was a condominium with two governments, a Jewish one
and a Polish one. The Jews had their own parliament, and the Poles theirs, plus a king. This
evolved out of the original agreements the Khazars of the south made with the Lithuanians to
be a mercenary army, police force, and tax collectors.) Having lost control of one country,
Poland (through their own misuse of taxes), the High Command in Lithuania decided they needed
another country. The propaganda was that the riots -- pogroms -- that began in Russia at the
end of the 19th century were anti-Jewish riots; that the Czar was anti-Jewish, etc. And the
big Psy-Op was the Dreyfus Affair, which was completely fake. Which is why the original
written offer to sell "secrets" -- which were not secrets at all -- mysteriously disappeared
before the Germans occupied France in 1940. But the phony Dreyfus Affair immediately led to
the first Zionist Congress in Basel. Herzl was only a hired propagandist, and disposed off
when he finished the job for which he was recruited as a journalist (as was Wilhelm Marr --
who popularized the term "Antisemitism"). World War I and the Balfour agreement to get
America into the war on the British side delivered the goods.
The world is simply re-bifurcating into 2 camps. More specifically, the Anglo-World is
splitting away from whatever parts it can't bring into their sphere of dominance. They
couldn't dominate the whole playground, so they're taking their toys and carving out a corner
of it for themselves.
The current demonisation of China and Russia sets the stage for the real split that
will happen in the 2020s. Gotta get the sheeple used to the notion so that they will accept,
even demand, bringing the Bamboo Curtain down when the time comes.
What we're seeing now in Europe, the M.E., S. America etc is nothing more than the
Anglo-World's attempt to bring more along with them, and the RoW's attempts to minimize their
success.
With people like these, who needs the ptb ???
The PTB needs the people, not the other way around. People are happy to believe
anything that makes them comfortable. Instilling Sino/Russo-phobia in their otherwise empty
heads is but the prelude to splitting them off from demonic Eurasia/Eastasia, and also so
they'll be happy with whatever they get in Oceania.
They'll be living in the Free World again! Smaller this time around, but Freeeee!!!
It worked the last time. It'll work this time too. One stands in awe of how easy it
is.
@anonymous
Because Israel is cautious not to cross a line beyond which Russia will have no choice but to
retaliate. Contrary to Americans, Russians don't have a short fuse and don't feel the need to
"pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world
she means business".
Since Russia got involved, Israel's actions have had exactly zero effect
on the course of events in Syria. Russia's goal is not to further ignite the Middle East.
Overreacting to Israel's gesticulations would be counterproductive.
Clamoring for retaliation. Putin only retaliated economically, although it was pretty bad for
Turkey. The Uncle showed his "gratitude" by helping the coup. Putin likely forewarned the
sultan about that coup, so it failed miserably as the result.
Now he holds sultan firmly by the
balls, economically, politically, and militarily, using Turks to push the US around in Syria
and selling them S-400, so that Uncle won't be able to "democratically" bomb Turkey.
That's the
game worthy of the Grand Master, while Trump and pathetic Europeans play checkers, at best
(their game often degenerates to the level of tick-tack-toe).
Shoigu is 64, while Putin is 67.
This means Shoigu is a one-term successor, if we're talking age. Someone capable of long-term
work and planning after that would be a must. Medvedev is currently 54, which mean he'll be
the age Shoigu is now, if Putin stands down in say a decade.
Which means he himself–Medvedev, that is–will be good for a decade.
So that's one scenario: ten more years of less of Putin, then one mandate by Shoigu, then
another decade by Medvedev. Or fifteen years by Medvedev immediately after Putin, with Shoigu
being his cardinal
We've yet to see what happens to the reds and the browns. The leader of the
commies–Zuyganov–is 75, and the leader of the empire
revivalists–Zhirinovski–is 73. So again, at most a decade from now, the commies
and the far right will either collapse, or choose new strong leaders.
In this sense there a very serious possible reshuffle looming all across the Russian
political landscape. After all, only four parties matter: Putin's national conservatives,
Zyuganov's commies, Zhirinovski's imperialists, and Mironov's social democrats. Mironov is
66, the youngest of the batch.
Russia is still very much a "leader-based" society. Her political parties are also
"leader-based". We'll see if these parties can function beyond the lifespan of their current
leaders. If yes–then Russia has transcended the curse of the "wise emperor" formula,
where stuff only works if you've got a superhuman at the top, and the moment he's gone, shit
falls apart.
@Moi You are quite correct. The overly sanguine attitude of many Christians toward
nuclear war one might call "nuclear exceptionalism." They adopted the imaginary hope of
Anglo-Irish 1800's cult leader John Nelson Darby: "Darby has been credited with originating
the pre-tribulational rapture theory wherein Christ will suddenly remove His bride, the
Church, from this world to its heavenly destiny before the judgments of the tribulation."
(Wikipedia).
The military leadership are loaded with rapture believers, in particular the Air Force. So
if the world nukes itself, that's fine by them; they have no skin in the "game."
Except that on Judgment Day they will have to give account for the lives they destroy by
their recklessness. The turning of Christ into a war god is both blasphemy and idolatry, for
which also they will give account. "My Kingdom is not of this world," said the Lord to
Pilate. Christians are to contend for the Gospel through love, not war.
Both Saker reviews are important, and I'll get both books.
My own experience with US Army officers and enlisted – and this extended over40
years off and on, the last encounters six continuous years ending in 1992 – was that
the WW2 men were realists and competent. And that their replacements were delusional fools.
The level of incompetence was breath-taking by 1992 – when NATO as the cloak of Empire
undertook to bomb cities in Yugoslavia – self evidently criminal and foolish officers
went along And I said Adios MoFo
@peterAUS Tactical nukes. Such a humane idea. Doesn't that make everyone feel warm and
fuzzy all over. Nuclear war, even a first strike, is now acceptable. Isn't semantics
wonderful! Tactical nukes are the thing, to NOT prick the conscience of the western public.
I do not envy the Russian position. They can't publicly warn the US/Israel against nuclear
strikes. The MSM would take such a common sense position and spin into more Russian bullying.
How dare they tell us what we can't do! The Russian message would quickly be lost in a wave
of western hysterics.
On the other hand, a secret warning is of limited value. If they listen, great. What if
they call Russia's bluff? Being secret, the Russians could back down and not even lose face.
It seems obvious that the psychopathic thinking among western elites is based on the idea
that they can get away with nuclear strikes against Iran because Russian retaliation will
mean the end of humanity therefore they will not respond.
I'm sure the Russians have already calculated what is and is not acceptable when war comes
to Iran. How much damage will nuking an entire country do to Russia and all of Asia? If the
fall out is that extreme then they might treat such an attack as an attack on Russia itself.
I do think the likely plan is to make the best of whatever happens. No matter how one spins
it, a Russian nuclear response is the end of humanity. An extreme option the Russians will
try to avoid if possible.
All this is based on the assumption Israel or America will use their nuclear arsenal. If
Hitler had the bomb in 1945 would he have used it? Of course he would have. The people
running the West have shown the same callous disregard for human life. There is no moral
deterrent to stop these people. Plus all western propaganda the past 20 years has been aimed
at making the use of nuclear weapons acceptable. Why would they be conditioning their public
unless they wished to have the option to use them?
How do we get there? Yes the US military has the ability to drop lots of bombs and destroy
many things. Yet in any war primary targets will all be hit fairly quickly. Then what? From
Day Two they are into the phase of diminishing returns. This is what confronted the IDF in
2006. So you go to tactical nukes. However I see the nuclear attack coming on the heels of a
ferocious Iranian counter attack. Psychologically can America handle even minimal losses? The
most likely response will be a huge temper tantrum: "how dare they fight back!" The nuclear
option will be taken because things will have gone wrong. It will be as much a show of
weakness as strength. Plus it won't be just one of two bombs. Because the Iranians will not
say "Uncle". The Japanese did after Nagasaki, however the Japanese were trying to surrender
the entire time. The Iranians will never surrender. Therefore 80 million dead might not be
unreasonable. Especially if there is no longer any Reason left in the western world.
This can be prevented but only by the western public. You know the most apathetic/ignorant
and propagandized public on the planet. As Vietnam and Iraq proved, Americans have no
conscience when it comes to dead foreigners. They get what they deserve for "starting" a war
against Uncle Sam. Yet there are two Achilles Heels.
1) Americans hate losing. Iraq was a great success during the Mission Accomplished phase.
The moment the narrative changed Americans quickly switched to hating their leadership for
botching Iraq. So how long before Americans turn against an Iran War that isn't an easy win
– and can't be won because the Iranians will never surrender. Or how well does the MSM
do in turning such losses into part of a patriotic war that Americans' must support and
win?
2) Quality of life. All westerners are the most spoiled people in human history.
Consequently we have become the most materialistic and the most superficial people ever. We
are an "end justifies the means" society. So long as we have our tvs and weekend football and
our quality of life hasn't fallen too far, too fast, we are perfectly happy to give our
political elites a blank cheque to do whatever they like. Bomb Yugoslavia, invade
Afghanistan, destroy Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen, murder Palestinians, sanction or threaten
regime change the list is endless. Everything is on the table – likely nuclear
holocaust too(so long as it's them doing the dying) – just don't mess with our Cozy
Prisons! Support for war on Iran will evaporate pretty fast unless such a war can be
prosecuted quickly and everything can return to normal fast. Definitely westerners –
not just Americans – will support nuclear strikes. There will be some initial shock,
which the MSM will cover over. Then everyone will fall into line because we'll need to win
the war and get back to normal. Nuclear weapons will be seen as the convenient solution for
the problem. End justifies the means.
Maybe I'm wrong about westerners and they still have a conscience. After 20 years of
accepting endless wars, it doesn't seem likely.
Circle 2021 on your calendars. Once Trump is re-elected there will be nothing to stop him.
If there are any history classes in the future then 2021 will be remember like 1914 or 1789
or 1066. I still hope it is remembered as the year the states of Israel and USA ceased to
exist.
@Jim Christian "Fact is, if the elites and corporate defense establishment of the US
would become diplomatic, imagine the cooperation between us and Russia that could take place.
Imagine the prosperity! Even the elites could share in it!"
Exactly so. This was the basis for my immediate initial support for Trump; his calling
bullshit on the entire rationale behind the empire, and the potential benefits of a new
detente. (Even if we were evil geni, it would make more sense to at least pretend to be
non-threatening.) This is the root of the hostility to Trump, IMO.
Incidentally, this piece and it's commentary is greatly supportive of Ron's argument that
heavy users should step up and financially support the UR. I haven't seen this sort of thing
anywhere else easily available on the web. I don't comment much here (feeling somewhat too
short for this ride ) but I do spend hours everyday, reading most of the articles and many
comments. Would definitely donate.
@Andrei Martyanov I suspect that the US is extremely concerned about Russia's
decapitating first strike capability via nuclear armed Zircons (1-2 minutes flight time to
Washington DC or New York) who are hard to detect, almost impossible to stop missiles. The US
does not have a capability like this. This is why the whole talk about buying Greenland. It
is very important to stop russian subs from reaching the Atlantic US Coast.
How can a US president sleep if he knows that a russian tactical nuclear missile could
arrive in 1-2 minutes?
In 1-2 minutes the WhiteHouse, Congress, Federal Reserve HQ, CIA and NSA HQs, Pentagon,
etc will be gone. No wonder Putin is trolling the US about selling some hypersonic
weapons.
.the psychopathic thinking among western elites is based on the idea that they can get
away with nuclear strikes against Iran because Russian retaliation will mean the end of
humanity therefore they will not respond.
Something like that.
I'm sure the Russians have already calculated what is and is not acceptable when war
comes to Iran.
Any interested state-level player has.
No matter how one spins it, a Russian nuclear response is the end of humanity.
Yep.
There is no moral deterrent to stop these people.
You mean TPTBs in the West? Yep ..
The Iranians will never surrender. Therefore 80 million dead might not be
unreasonable.
Disagree.
This can be prevented but only by the western public. You know the most
apathetic/ignorant and propagandized public on the planet.
Don't say.
So how long before Americans turn against an Iran War that isn't an easy win – and
can't be won because the Iranians will never surrender.
The Iranian regime can surrender–>from then on there are a couple of
scenarios.
As, for example:
So long as we have our tvs and weekend football and our quality of life hasn't fallen
too far, too fast, we are perfectly happy to give our political elites a blank cheque to do
whatever they like
And so long as I don't get drafted to be a part of occupying force in Iran among some
other things.
Definitely westerners – not just Americans – will support nuclear strikes.
There will be some initial shock, which the MSM will cover over. Then everyone will fall
into line because we'll need to win the war and get back to normal. Nuclear weapons will be
seen as the convenient solution for the problem. End justifies the means.
Yep.
Maybe I'm wrong about westerners and they still have a conscience. After 20 years of
accepting endless wars, it doesn't seem likely.
Now, the key question is, how is this relevant. I have no doubt that this and previous book
contain good info, but can this info be ever digested by the US politicians and neocons? Of
course not!
The US elites have degenerated to the point of no return. This always happens to the
elites of dying empires. So, discussing the reality, military or economic, with them is like
teaching madhouse inmates calculus. You might be right, but they won't appreciate it.
@Jim Christian There is already some internal opposition to war with Iran. Out of the
various recent provocations, the US has been reluctant to escalate. Maybe its Trump's
skepticism regarding the list of options provided by the military. Or his political
instincts. It would be an unpopular war without a rapid, decisive victory, which is
unrealistic.
I think other than a rather weak veto power, Trump is too weak to prevent a war. So I
think some other faction of the elite is resisting. Maybe the military. It would be logical
for them to resist. They got their big budget without needing a war. And they would be stuck
with the mess.
The war has been teed up for a Trump signoff two or three times lately. If the only
missing piece is finding the sucker to take the blame, it is inevitable. Rather, I would
infer that there is some deep opposition, that is lying low. The large defense contractors
have it pretty good right now, but they probably aren't set up to oppose any war, however
foolish.
@Andrei Martyanov Our societies have been gutted by thieves and their accomplices while
the thieves buddies look on and play loud music to confuse everyone. The thieves are the
buzzard 'capitalists', the accomplices are the crooked politicians and the noise comes from
the media.
The common denominator in the U.S., Canada, Australia, the U.K., NZ and others is that the
thieves den is a triumvirate: Old Money 'elite' (read: scum), New Money Jews and the
politicos (multi-generational civil servant families and the con artists talking head actors
who play president, pm, etc.).
The West has been systematically destroyed. Every institution has been corrupted including
our religions. The Vatican, for example, was completely corrupted in the early 1960's when,
according to Father Malachi Martin, Satan formally enthroned himself in Vatican City.
There is a common denominator here gentlemen: destruction. Satan is always close to any such
destruction which is why Communism has always been so anti-Christian and anti-religion (China
destroyed Buddhism and is destroying Falun Gong, or trying to). Our elites and the elite Jews
have a religion of their own: Luciferianism.
It is time to pray gentlemen. We need a miracle. It isn't too late to turn this ship around.
We just need the willpower to do it. Prayer is the beginning of building the strength to do
what is needed for our progeny.
@Passer by{ the US is extremely concerned about Russia's decapitating first strike
capability} {How can a US president sleep if he knows that a russian tactical nuclear missile could
arrive in 1-2 minutes?}
By making sure US does not initiate a nuke strike on Russia.
Why would Russia initiate a 'decapitating* nuke strike' on US?
What will she gain by it? Nothing.
Both US and Russia will have more than enough surviving nukes to wipe the other out, and then
some, if one of them initiates a nuke first strike.
My guess is Russia continues developing faster, harder to detect nuke strike systems to
deter the psychopaths in US from doing something stupid and awful. But the problem with all
these developments of ever faster strike capabilities – on both sides – is that
the possibility of an accidental nuke strike by one side or another, keeps increasing.
Because it takes a few minutes for a missile to reach its target, you cannot afford to wait:
if your defenses falsely detect a 'launch', then you _have_ to launch and then the runaway
chain reaction of strike-counterstrike-countercounterstrike begins ..and everything ends.
______________________________
* there is no such thing as 'decapitating' nuke strike against US or Russia. Both are
large enough and have enough nuke warheads (8,000-10,000) to render the idea of a
'decapitating' strike meaningless. Just one (surviving) boomer sub (US or Russia) carries
enough nuke warheads/megatons to wipe most of US/Russia.
If only Those Russians could play chess or compose classical music or
write a few serious novels. Oh well, I guess you can't expect everything from people with no
GDP.
I am all for such definitions; their scope is too narrow, if anything.
I'd prefer a broad definition that would describe as anti-Semite any person who attends a
church or a mosque; who does not contribute to Jewish settlements; who does not believe in
God-chosen Jewish nation being above all mortal laws.
Maybe then the Gentiles would be healed of their fear of being labelled 'anti-Semite'.
Citizens of France. To arms! Man the ramparts. The American barbarians are coming. They
shall not pass!
Le Trump's threat to France's splendid wines and Roquefort cheese are the gravest menace
France has faced since the Germans invaded this fair land in 1914. Burgundy wines and France's
300 fromages form the very soul of la Belle France.
Trump does not know or care that France saved America from British mis-rule. He wants
revenge because France – which taxes nearly everything – seeks to tax US IT firms
like Google and Amazon. Trump considers this a personal affront. Besides, he dislikes wine and
lives on desiccated burgers made with petrochemical cheese, washed down by acidic Diet
Cokes.
On top of this outrage comes the squabble over NATO. Trump used to scoff at the Alliance,
saying it was 'obsolete' as well as under-armed and short of money. The president and his
backers really dislike France and all it stands for, including wine and cheese.
"... Primacists use the security threats that are responding to the unnecessary use of U.S. military force to justify why the U.S. shouldn't stop, or in fact increase, the use of force. ..."
"... These stale arguments claim there will be consequences of leaving while conveniently ignoring the consequences of staying, which of course are far from trivial. For example, veteran suicide is an epidemics and military spending to perpetuate U.S. primacy continues at unnecessarily high rates. The presence of U.S. soldiers in these complex conflicts can even draw us into more unnecessary wars. The United States can engage the world in ways that don't induce the security dilemma to undermine our own security; reduce our military presence in the Middle East, engage Iran and other states in the region diplomatically and economically, and don't walk away from already agreed upon diplomatic arraignments that are favorable to all parties involved. ..."
"... September 11th was planned in Germany and the United States, the ability to exist in Afghanistan under the Taliban without persecution didn't enable 9/11, and denying this space wouldn't have prevented it. ..."
"... For those arguing to maintain the ongoing forever wars, American credibility will always be ruined in the aftermath of withdrawal. Here's the WSJ piece on that point: "When America withdraws from the Middle East unilaterally, the Russians internalize this and move into Crimea and Ukraine; the Chinese internalize it and move into the South China Sea and beyond in the Pacific." ..."
"... The exorbitant costs of the U.S.'s numerous military engagements around the world need to be justified by arguing that they secure vital U.S. interests. Without it, Primacists couldn't justify the cost in American lives. Whether the military even has the ability to solve all problems in international relations aside, not all interests are equal in severity and importance. ..."
"... This article originally appeared on LobeLog.com . ..."
The unrivaled and unchallenged exertion of American military power around the world, or
what's known as "primacy," has been the basis for U.S. Grand Strategy over the past 70 years
and has faced few intellectual and political challenges. The result has been stagnant ideas,
poor logic, and an ineffective foreign policy. As global security challenges have evolved, our
foreign policy debate has remained in favor of primacy, repeatedly relying on a select few,
poorly conceived ideas and arguments. Primacy's greatest hits arguments are played on repeat
throughout the policy and journalism worlds and its latest presentation is in a recent
article in
the Wall Street Journal, written by its chief foreign policy correspondent, titled,
"America Can't Escape the Middle East." The piece provides a case study in how stagnant these
ideas have become, and how different actors throughout the system present them without serious
thought or contemplation.
Hyping the threat of withdrawal
The WSJ piece trotted out one of the most well-worn cases for unending American military
deployments in the region. "The 2003 invasion of Iraq proved to be a debacle," it rightly
notes. However, there's always a "but":[B]ut subsequent attempts to pivot away from the region
or ignore it altogether have contributed to humanitarian catastrophes, terrorist outrages and
geopolitical setbacks, further eroding America's standing in the world."
Primacists often warn of the dire security threats that will result from leaving Middle East
conflict zones. The reality is that the threats they cite are actually caused by the
unnecessary use of force by the United States in the first place. For example, the U.S. sends
military assets to deter Iran, only to have Iran increase attacks or provocations in response.
The U.S. then beefs up its military presence
to protect the forces that are already there. Primacists use the security threats that
are responding to the unnecessary use of U.S. military force to justify why the U.S. shouldn't
stop, or in fact increase, the use of force.
These stale arguments claim there will be consequences of leaving while conveniently
ignoring the consequences of staying, which of course are far from trivial. For example,
veteran suicide is an epidemics and military spending to perpetuate U.S. primacy continues at
unnecessarily high rates. The presence of U.S. soldiers in these complex conflicts can even
draw us into more unnecessary wars. The United States can engage the world in ways that don't
induce the security dilemma to undermine our own security; reduce our military presence in the
Middle East, engage Iran and other states in the region diplomatically and economically, and
don't walk away from already agreed upon diplomatic arraignments that are favorable to all
parties involved.
Terrorism safe havens
And how many times have we heard that we must defend some undefined geographical space to
prevent extremists from plotting attacks? "In the past, jihadists used havens in Afghanistan,
Yemen, Syria and Iraq to plot more ambitious and deadly attacks, including 9/11," the WSJ piece
says. "Though Islamic State's self-styled 'caliphate' has been dismantled, the extremist
movement still hasn't been eliminated -- and can bounce back."
The myth of the terrorism safe havens enabling transnational attacks on the United States
has
persisted despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary and significant scholarly research
that contradicts it. The myth persists because it provides a simple and comforting narrative
that's easy to understand. September 11th was planned in Germany and the United States, the
ability to exist in Afghanistan under the Taliban without persecution didn't enable 9/11, and
denying this space wouldn't have prevented it.
Terrorists don't need safe havens to operate, and only gain marginal increases in
capabilities by having access to them. Organizations engage in terrorism because they have such
weak capabilities in the first place. These movements are designed to operate underground with
the constant threat of arrest and execution. The Weatherman Underground in the United States
successfully carried out bombings while operating within the United States itself. The Earth
Liberation Front did the same by organizing into cells where no cell knew anything about the
other cells to prevent the identification of other members if members of one cell were
arrested. Organizations that engage in terrorism can operate with or without safe havens.
Although safe havens don't add significantly to a terrorist groups' capabilities, governing
your own territory is something completely different. ISIS is a commonly used, and misused,
example for why wars should be fought to deny safe havens. A safe haven is a country or region
in which a terrorist group is free from harassment or persecution. This is different from what
ISIS created in 2014. What ISIS had when it swept across Syria and Iraq in 2014 was a
proto-state. This gave them access to a tax base, oil revenues, and governing resources. Safe
havens don't provide any of this, at least not at substantial levels. The Islamic State's
construction of a proto-state in Syria and Iraq did give them operational capabilities they
wouldn't have had otherwise, but this isn't the same as the possible safe havens that would be
gained from a military withdrawal from Middle Eastern conflicts. The conditions of ISIS's rise
in 2014 don't exist today and the fears of an ISIS resurgence like their initial rise are
unfounded .
Credibility doesn't work how you think it works
For those arguing to maintain the ongoing forever wars, American credibility will always
be ruined in the aftermath of withdrawal. Here's the WSJ piece on that point: "When America
withdraws from the Middle East unilaterally, the Russians internalize this and move into Crimea
and Ukraine; the Chinese internalize it and move into the South China Sea and beyond in the
Pacific."
Most commentators have made this claim without recognition of their own contradictions that
abandoning the Kurds in Syria would damage American credibility. They then list all the other
times we've abandoned the Kurds. Each of these betrayals didn't stop them from working with the
United States again, and this latest iteration will be the same. People don't work with the
United States because they trust or respect us, they do it because we have a common interest
and the United States has the capability to get things done. As we were abandoning the Kurds
this time to be attacked by the Turks, Kurdish officials were continuing to
share intelligence with U.S. officials to facilitate the raid on ISIS leader Abu Bakr
al-Baghdadi because both the United States and the Kurds wanted Baghdadi eliminated and only
the United States had the capability to get it done.
Similarly, the idea that pulling out militarily in one region results in a direct chain of
events where our adversaries move into countries or areas in a completely different region is
quite a stretch of the imagination. Russia moved into Crimea because it's a strategic asset and
it was taking advantage of what it saw as an opportunity: instability and chaos in Kiev. Even
if we left troops in every conflict country we've ever been in, Russia would have correctly
assessed that Ukraine just wasn't important enough to spark a U.S. invasion. When the Soviets
withdrew from Afghanistan, did the United States invade Cuba? What alliance did the Soviets or
Chinese abandon before the United States entered the Korean War?
Assessments of credibility , especially in times of crisis (like that in Ukraine), are made
based on what leaders think the other country's interests are and the capabilities they have to
pursue those interests. There is no evidence to support -- in fact there is a lot of evidence
that contradicts -- the idea that withdrawing militarily from one region or ending an alliance
has any impact on assessments of a country's reliability or credibility.
Not all interests are created equal
Threat inflation isn't just common from those who promote a primacy-based foreign policy,
it's necessary. Indeed, as the WSJ piece claimed, "There is no avoiding the fact that the
Middle East still matters a great deal to U.S. interests."
The exorbitant costs of the U.S.'s numerous military engagements around the world need
to be justified by arguing that they secure vital U.S. interests. Without it, Primacists
couldn't justify the cost in American lives. Whether the military even has the ability to solve
all problems in international relations aside, not all interests are equal in severity and
importance. Vital interests are those that directly impact the survival of the United
States. The only thing that can threaten the survival of the United States is another powerful
state consolidating complete control of either Europe or East Asia. This would give them the
capabilities and freedom to strike directly at the territorial United States. This is why the
United States stayed in Europe after WWII, to prevent the consolidation of Europe by the
Soviets. Addressing the rise of China -- which will require some combination of cooperation and
competition -- is America's vital interest today and keeping troops in Afghanistan to prevent a
terrorism safe haven barely registers as a peripheral interest. There are U.S. interests in the
Middle East, but these interests are not important enough to sacrifice American soldiers for
and can't easily be secured through military force anyway.
Consequences
Most of these myths and arguments can be summarized by the claim that any disengagement of
any kind by the United States from the Middle East comes with consequences. This isn't entirely
wrong, but it isn't really relevant either unless compared with the consequences of continuing
engagement at current levels. We currently have 67,000 troops in the
Middle East and Afghanistan and those troops are targets of adversaries, contribute to
instability, empower hardliners in Iran, and provide continuing legitimacy to insurgent and
terrorist organizations fighting against a foreign occupation. One
article in The Atlantic argued that the problem with a progressive foreign policy
is that restraint comes with costs, almost ironically ignoring the fact that the U.S.'s current
foreign policy also comes with, arguably greater, costs. A military withdrawal, or even
drawdown, from the Middle East does come with consequences, but it's only believable that these
costs are higher than staying through the perpetuation of myths and misconceptions that inflate
such risks and costs. No wonder then that these myths have become the greatest hits of a
foreign policy that's stuck in the past.
People : "In
a ceremony in the Great Synagogue of Amsterdam, da Costa was first forced to confess his sins,
then endure 39 lashes, and finally to lie on the (synagogue) threshold and let the entire crowd
step over his body."
Da Costa never recovered from the barbarian ritual. A few months later he shot himself in
the head in the middle of the street.
If Corbyn, his shadow cabinet or anyone else within the Labour party is interested in
forgiveness, the road is open for them to undergo Urial Da Costa's experience.
ORDER IT NOW
However, some major categorical differences between Da Costa and Labour politicians must be
examined before such a development matures into a televised spectacle. While Da Costa was an
exquisite free thinker who served as an inspiration to the great Baruch Spinoza (who was
subjected to similar Rabbinical malevolence just a few years later), Labour's leadership isn't
exactly an intellectual collective. Their contribution to authentic thinking and freedom of
thought is currently in the red. Unlike the sensitive Da Costa who couldn't bear the
humiliation and ended his life under tragic circumstances, Corbyn and the Labour elite are more
than likely to survive such a humiliating scenario, they may even enjoy it. Like most British
politicians, they long ago lost contact with the concepts of dignity and pride.
I am all for such definitions; their scope is too narrow, if anything.
I'd prefer a broad definition that would describe as anti-Semite any person who attends a
church or a mosque; who does not contribute to Jewish settlements; who does not believe in
God-chosen Jewish nation being above all mortal laws.
Maybe then the Gentiles would be healed of their fear of being labelled 'anti-Semite'.
I am all for such definitions; their scope is too narrow, if anything.
I'd prefer a broad definition that would describe as anti-Semite any person who attends a
church or a mosque; who does not contribute to Jewish settlements; who does not believe in
God-chosen Jewish nation being above all mortal laws.
Maybe then the Gentiles would be healed of their fear of being labelled 'anti-Semite'.
After 25 years of repeated failures, Americans want a foreign policy that preserves the
security of the United States, enhances prosperity, and maintains the core U.S. commitment to
individual liberty. They recognize that U.S. power can be a force for good, but only if it is
employed judiciously and for realistic objectives. In short, a large and growing number of
Americans want a foreign policy of restraint.
But what does that mean in practice? In a sense, it's easier to understand what restrainers
don't want. They don't want endless wars, bloated military budgets, and security
commitments that keep expanding, but are never seriously debated or approved by the public. If
restrainers were suddenly put in charge of U.S. foreign and national security policy, however,
what would they do differently? What do restrainers really want?
Without presuming to speak for other members of the Quincy Institute, here's how I would
answer that critical question:
1.Restrainers Want Continued U.S. Economic and Diplomatic Engagement .
Critics often claim that restrainers are isolationists, a bogus charge intended to marginalize
their views and stifle debate before it starts. In fact, restrainers recognize that the United
States benefits from trade, investment, tourism, and other mutually beneficial interactions
with other countries, and they know that Washington must work with foreign powers to address a
number of significant global problems. For these reasons, restrainers reject a return to
"Fortress America" and want the United States to remain fully present in today's world.
2. Restrainers Want a Broad and Honest Debate . In recent years, public debate on
foreign policy and national security has been dominated by those who believe that American
power -- and especially military power -- is the optimal solution to most foreign policy
challenges. As Zack Beauchamp of Vox.com observes
, "Washington's foreign policy debate tends to be mostly conducted between the center and the
right. The issue is typically how much force America should use rather than whether it should
use it at all."
Public discourse on these issues is skewed because the objective case for ceaseless military
intervention is so weak. The United States remains remarkably secure compared to other nations:
it has a large and diverse economy, a robust nuclear deterrent, and faces no powerful enemies
in the Western Hemisphere. Given these enduring advantages, it has little to gain by trying to
reshape politics around the world. To convince the public to go along with an overly ambitious
foreign policy, therefore, proponents of intervention have to inflate threats, exaggerate the
benefits of "global leadership," and mischaracterize the views of their critics. Restrainers
believe a more open and honest debate would undermine the case for military adventurism and
lead to a more prudent and successful foreign policy.
3. Restrainers Want Realistic Foreign Policy Goals . Instead of engaging in costly
and futile efforts to remake the world in our image, restrainers want U.S. foreign policy to
pursue more feasible objectives. The U.S. military must be strong enough to deter attacks on
the U.S. homeland, a task that is relatively easy to accomplish. When necessary, the United
States can also help other states uphold the balance of power and deter war in a few key
strategic areas outside the Western Hemisphere. America's economic clout will also give
Washington considerable influence over the institutions that manage trade, investment and other
beneficial forms of international cooperation, and it should use that influence to ensure these
institutions are working properly. But the United States has neither the need, the capacity,
nor the wisdom to conduct massive social engineering projects ("nation-building") in deeply
divided and conflict prone societies, and it should cease trying.
4. Restrainers Want Credible Foreign Commitments . The United States keeps taking on
new security obligations in Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, but it rarely debates
their wisdom or value. Americans are now formally committed to defending more countries around
the world than at any time in U.S. history, even though some of these states are hard to
defend, have little strategic importance for the United States, and sometimes act in ways that
damage U.S. interests. Washington is also engaged in less visible military activities in dozens
of other countries, some of them shrouded in secrecy. Yet anytime U.S. leaders contemplate
trimming these obligations, alarmists warn that the slightest reduction in America's global
presence will undermine U.S. credibility, embolden rivals, and lead to catastrophe. Having
allowed itself to become overextended, the United States ends up fighting endless wars in
places with no strategic value in order to convince allies and adversaries that it will still
fight in places of greater importance.
Restrainers believe the United States should pledge itself to defending another
country–and thereby risking the lives of its troops -- only when doing so will make a
direct and significant contribution to U.S. security and prosperity, and when these obligations
command broad support from the American people. Carefully considered commitments will be more
credible, because both allies and adversaries can see for themselves why it is in the U.S.
national interest to live up to them.
In short, restrainers want the United States to define its interests more narrowly but
defend those interests more vigorously. It should focus on commitments and missions that can
command strong support from the American people -- such as helping to ensure that a rising
China does not dominate Asia -- and eschew obligations that do not make America more
secure.
5. Restrainers Want Business-like Relations with All Countries and Special Relations with
None . In his Farewell Address, George Washington famously warned against "passionate
attachments" to foreign powers. His wise counsel still rings true today. No two states have
identical interests, and no U.S. allies are so valuable or virtuous to deserve generous U.S.
support no matter what they do. Restrainers believe the U.S. should support its allies when
doing so makes the United States more secure or prosperous, and distance itself from those
allies when they act in ways that are contrary to our interests and values.
Restrainers also want the United States to maintain diplomatic relations with acknowledged
adversaries, both to facilitate cooperation on issues where our interests overlap and to
maximize U.S. leverage. Refusing to talk directly to a country like Iran does not make the
United States or its allies safer or richer; it just allows other states to take the U.S.
support for granted and allows potential rivals like China or Russia to gain greater influence
in an important region. Maintaining ties with all nations gives each of them greater incentive
to do what we want, lest Washington get a better deal from someone else.
6. Restrainers Want More Diplomacy and Less Coercion . Over the past two decades,
Washington has repeatedly tried to compel weaker powers to do its bidding by issuing
ultimatums, imposing sanctions, and in some cases, unleashing its superior military power. Yet
even weak opponents have repeatedly refused to knuckle under to U.S. pressure, because they
cared more about the interests at stake and Washington typically refused to compromise at all.
Even when Washington was able to overthrow a weaker adversary, the result was a failed state, a
costly occupation, or both.
Restrainers believe diplomacy should take center stage in the conduct of America's foreign
relations and that sanctions and the threat or use of force should be our last resort rather
than our first impulse. They recognize that many of America's greatest foreign policy successes
-- the Marshall Plan, the Bretton Woods economic order, the peaceful reunification of Germany,
etc. -- were won not on a battlefield but across a negotiating table. A more restrained foreign
policy strives for mutually beneficial agreements with other countries, rather than
trying to dictate to them.
7 . Restrainers Want U.S. Allies to Bear a Fair Share of Defense Burdens . The United
States currently spends roughly 4 percent of GDP on the Department of Defense, the intelligence
community, and other national security missions, while allies like Germany or Japan spend a
little more than 1 percent. U.S. leaders have complained about this disparity for decades, but
their efforts have failed to convince these wealthy allies to do more.
Restrainers believe allies will pull their weight only when they no longer see Uncle Sam as
their first line of defense. Because NATO's European members are significantly more populous
and prosperous than Russia, they should assume primary responsibility for their own defense.
Furthermore, the United States should withdraw from Afghanistan, curtail spending on
counter-terrorism operations abroad, and let the contending countries in the Middle East
balance each other. It should focus most of its military efforts on making sure that China does
not achieve a dominant position in Asia, while insisting that its Asian partners pull their
weight as well. Above all, the United States should not do more to protect allies than they are
willing to do themselves.
8. Restrainers Want to Set a Good Example for Others . Restrainers are committed to
classic liberal values -- representative government, a market-based economy, the rule of law,
and basic human rights -- but they believe trying to impose these principles on others is
likely to backfire. Indeed, democracy is now in retreat around the world, and the United States
is deeply polarized and increasingly dysfunctional. When The Economist Magazine's annual "
Democracy Index " downgrades the United States from the category of "full democracy" to
"flawed democracy," as it did in 2017, it's a clear sign that something has gone badly
awry.
For restrainers, promoting liberal values abroad begins by setting a good example at home.
Using American power to remake the world has led to illegal wars, excessive government secrecy,
targeted killings, the deaths of thousands of innocent foreign civilians, and repeated
violations of U.S. and international law. At the same time, it has squandered vast resources
that could have been used to build a better society here in the United States, and distracted
Americans from the efforts needed to improve our own institutions.
These are some of the reforms that (most) restrainers want, and so do a growing number of
Americans. Public opinion polls show steadily diminishing support for foreign adventures --
especially among younger Americans -- and it is perhaps the one idea that unites politicians
like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Donald Trump. It is also worth remembering that Bill
Clinton ("It's the economy, stupid"), George W. Bush ("a humble foreign policy"), and Barack
Obama ("nation-building at home") all campaigned pledging to do less abroad and more at home,
even if they did not deliver as promised once they were in the White House.
Restraint is the foreign policy most Americans want and deserve. The only question is: how
long will it be before they get it?
The threat to US official impunity panics the regime more than any number of Russian
Sarmats or nuclear ramjets. The ICC is one very new judicial forum, and its halting efforts
to get its institutional footing panicked the US into imposing illegal sanctions on
accredited diplomats. The real threat of the Rome Statute is the universal obligation to
prosecute or extradite war criminals and enemies of humanity.
An increasing number of the most influential US functionaries will be unable to travel
freely. This is, in effect, pariah-state status more abject than North Korea's. This has been
a mounting challenge for years – GW Bush fled Switzerland, scared off by a war crimes
accusation from a single legislator.
And international criminal law is one jaw of a pincer. It complements the doctrine of
state responsibility for internationally wrongful acts. State responsibility provides the
civil equivalent of international criminal law, with the potential to impose restitution,
reparation, satisfaction, and compensation with interest. Satisfaction articulates directly
with international criminal law by providing for prosecution of designated criminals. The
US faces insupportable liabilities for its internationally wrongful acts, and US
functionaries know that any one of them could be sacrificed to get the regime off the
hook.
Russian policy is to enforce this law at gunpoint. Iranian policy is to make its case in
independent international courts. China is vocal about upholding rule of law, and as its
deterrent improves, it will be increasingly active in applying it. The G-192 – 96% of
the world's population – pitches in by withholding the "waterfall" of G-5 privileges.
The UK recently got pushed off the ICJ bench for the first time ever for its lawless conduct.
The US is next.
The US is an underdeveloped country ineffectually waving second-rate weapons. The world is
leaving it behind.
England and France, two antagonists, two mainstays of European civilisation, are
simultaneously engulfed in paroxysm of Judeophilia. The result of the forthcoming very
important parliamentary elections in Britain hinges on this issue, with Labour and Tories
competing who will express their love of Jews more profusely, while the Jews can't decide whom
they loath less. France, after a year of the middle-class Yellow Vests rebellion, enters the
fresh working class uprising with million strikers rioting on the streets, but its parliament
finds prime time to ponder and rule how Frenchmen should love Jews and hate those who hate
them. What is the meaning of this charade?
Surely they do not argue about Jewish cuisine. While palatable, it is rarely more than that.
A proof can be found in Israel, where Arab food rules, Japanese is recognised, Italian
cherished but Jewish cuisine shines by its absence. It is not Jewish noses, though a
significant feature of facial anatomy, they are not more elaborate or prominent than, say,
Sicilian. It is all about ideas.
Judeophilia, love of Jews is a troublesome symptom of a dangerous malady, of elites'
estrangement from its working classes, the malady presently in full bloom in France and
England. Judeophilia strikes divided societies and could lead to their collapse much faster
than its Siamese counter-twin, antisemitism. It did so in the past, most famously in Kingdom of
Poland, where the szlachta (nobility) loved Jews and despised ordinary folks, the
bydlo ( rednecks), until their state collapsed. In a Christian, or post-Christian
society, Jews are a symbol, a signifier of a certain attitude and behaviour that is profoundly
non-Christian.
Jews are a small minority that defies the large society and opposes it. Jews care for
themselves and disregard the majority and its needs; they have no scruples beyond prescribed
by the criminal law; they feel no communality with the majority. Jews do not share communion
with majority, and do not appeal to the same deity. Jews prosper when the majority regresses.
They are fast to see a break and use it for their advantage.
We won't enter a discussion whether the real Jews fit the description, and to what extent.
That is how they are perceived by those who love them and who hate them. There were Jews who
acted against the paradigm, and they weren't considered 'good for Jews'. Bruno Kreisky, the
Austrian Chancellor, Lazar Kaganovich, the Soviet official, Leon Trotsky or Torquemada weren't
'good for Jews'. And there are plentiful Gentiles who were considered 'good for Jews', like
Hillary Clinton or Tony Blair. Usually they were bad for everybody else. So, while we shall
defer our judgment on 'real Jews', there is no doubt that philo-Semites are bad for your
health.
The dominant economic and political paradigm, Neo-Liberalism claims that Jewish attitude
is the right one, and that we all should emulate Jews. This is an impossible claim; a majority
can't emulate a minority. A society whose members relate to each other as Jews-to-Gentiles is a
cannibals' cabal, and that is exactly what happens in our world. Jews prosper because they are
few; if all emulate Jews, the result is misery, not prosperity . An all-Jewish society
can't exist; Israel is a place where Thai, Chinese, Ukrainians and Palestinians work, the
Russians and Druze guard them, while Jews do usual Jewish things.
In England, the Jews are divided about Boris Johnson. They do not want Brexit to succeed,
but the access of Corbyn scares them even more. Corbyn is an avowed enemy of no, not of Jews,
but of neo-liberalism. Combine it with his rejection of Israeli politics, and you come to the
sum of anti-Jewish attitudes. Yes, Corbyn is anti-Jewish, if you wish, even anti-Semite, i.e. a
man whom Jews hate, for he is against both Jewish modes of operation, the capitalist and the
Zionist. He is perfectly ok with people of Jewish origin, he has no prejudice, he is no racist,
but it is irrelevant. His victory won't be 'good for Jews', neither for Jews who bleed
Palestine, nor for Jews who prosper at the expense of the British worker. Perhaps Corbyn would
be wonderful for Jewish workers, but they are not represented in the Board of Deputies , and the Chief Rabbi does not care
for them.
On the international scene, Corbyn is not a friend of NATO. If he could he would take the UK
out of this obsolete military alliance. So would President Trump, who is looking for a
justification to steer the US out of NATO. Jews do not like this attitude. For them, the US and
the UK should stay in NATO, for NATO is a strong defender and supporter of the Jewish
state.
Brits have a difficult choice in the coming elections. Johnson is not too bad, and his stand
against EU should be applauded. Corbyn is likely to seek compromise on every position,
including Brexit, immigration, NATO, but his initial stand is good. For a working man, he is
the right choice. And the Jewish attitude to him is a strong indicator: of the two contenders,
Corbyn would be better for those who do not emulate Jews.
France
In France, the Jews are very close to power, and it is usually a sign that things do not
go well for native middle and working classes. Indeed things go from bad to worse. While a
million of French workers demonstrated against Macron's government, the French parliamentarians
discussed antisemitism. Not surprisingly, they accepted the definition produced by a Jewish
organisation. Demurring against this definition caused a lot of trouble for Corbyn; Macron had
learned a lesson.
I am all for such definitions; their scope is too narrow, if anything. I'd prefer a broad
definition that would describe as anti-Semite any person who attends a church or a mosque; who
does not contribute to Jewish settlements; who does not believe in God-chosen Jewish nation
being above all mortal laws. Maybe then the Gentiles would be healed of their fear of being
labelled 'anti-Semite'. This fear kills their souls more than the accusation. Though, best of
people, Shakespeare, St John the Divine, Dostoyevsky and Chesterton are considered
anti-Semites, and it did not diminish their fame and glory.
You can't escape this label; if they want they will attach it to your name. Likewise, a man
can't avoid being called a male chauvinist and accused of harassment by a radical feminist.
Anna Ardin, the Swedish feminist who accused Julian Assange of rape and destroyed his life as
surely as if she'd knifed him, also accused a student of harassment because he avoided looking
at her. Such accusations should be shrugged off.
France is not doing well because its elites are engaged in the rip-off and sale of their
country's industrial, political, and cultural assets. In the last few years, France had lost
Alstom, Pechiney, Technip, Alcatel. These premium assets were lost to US companies. French
businessmen and officials who were supposed to care about French heirlooms, betrayed their
trust and defrauded their country, that's why France is not doing well.
Not all of these treacherous men are Jewish, not by a long chalk. But Jews are invaluable
partners in such publicity-shy schemes, and that's why: "The Shoah Memorial is a secular temple
for the entirety of France's post-Christian elite. Holocaust foundations, Jewish communal
projects, Jewish benevolent societies and Jewish philanthropies allow the Jewish community to
discourage reporting affairs they are involved in. They can facilitate the deals in obscurity"
– I was told by a knowledgeable Jewish person, well versed with goings-on within the
French Jewish community and in the higher business, banking and political circles of the
Republic. I'll call him JT (I shall share more of his knowledge in the next essay – ISH).
–
"Jewishness has once again become a way of avoiding scrutiny and accountability. Only
anti-Semites dare to see a link between the sale of Alstom, Macron's career, the Rothschilds,
and the Jewish community." Wink wink.
"At two crucial moments Jewish communal support was decisive to Macron's political career;
first, at the second tour of the French elections, in which major Jewish organizations
unanimously cajoled and preached the Macron vote to all and sundry; second, to suppress the
Yellow Vests Uprising. Only anti-Semites dare to think the Rothschilds had anything to do
with either."
JT is very critical with France and French people: "French White gentiles are ashamed of
their past and identity, flee into hedonism, profligacy, drugs, anti-depressants, libertinism,
pornography, and homosexuality. Their Stockholm syndrome is driven by an
extra-European-birth-cohort whose numbers now exceed that of the native population. Unwilling
to fight for their land and heritage, ignorant of their past and increasingly illiterate, their
love of France is futile, superfluous, and incoherent at best.
"As France increasingly resembles a North African backwater, its Jews, the chief
facilitators of this demographic shift, have become its chief losers, and a process of Jewish
de-assimilation from the Republic has began. French Jews cannot identify with a society on
its last legs, and a spineless native population. In such circumstances, French Jews shift
their focus to survival and opportunism, not to national defence. Israel, Miami, New York
have become second homes. France's Jewish patricians (all to the last dual-citizens since the
fifties), are helpless. Their ties to an increasingly hard-up Israel and to the powerful
Jewish American community make them leaders of the fire-sale of France's industrial,
political, and cultural assets. France is sliding into failed nation status in which everyone
is abandoning ship."
French Jews help the US to rob France, says JT. The American companies supported by
all-powerful DoJ are the main reason why France does not prosper. When France attempted to tax
American Internet companies (Amazon, Google, Facebook) Trump threatened to slap 100% custom
duties on French wine. The right choice for France is to part the company with the Yankee
predator, to cease paying billions of fines for breaking unjustifiable unilateral American
'sanctions', to part with NATO and to laugh at Trump's demands to pay more for unnecessary
American protection. But France, and other European nations are hesitant. They do not jump at
the opportunity offered by Trump's stupidity and arrogance, though the Orange man did
everything he could to free the Europeans. He opened the gates, he insulted them and kicked
them, but they refused to leave the stables.
An Excellent American expert in International relations, Prof Michael Brenner of Pittsburgh
U, has noted:
"Europe's political class is psychologically unable to break free of its
dominant/subordinate relationship with America. This pattern endures despite the presence of
a mentally impaired man in the White House. The prognosis, therefore: 'Wither thou goest, we
go!" American leaders have exploited this compulsive deference ruthlessly. It allows
Washington to ensure European fealty at virtually no cost. Moreover, they can extract
compliance across a wide array of non-security issues – commercial, financial, IT
(warring against Huawei), political, diplomatic – by drawing on the same free-floating
loyalties.
Europe has been obedient to the siren call of Uncle Sam in following it over the cliff
time after time – in Afghanistan, in Iraq (France excepted), on Russia, on Iran (by
acquiescing in severe sanctions), on Saudi Arabia, in Yemen, in embracing Bolsonaro (invited
Keynoter at Davos), even on Venezuela and Bolivia. The ultimate test will come were
Washington to pick a fight with China that it, and the West, cannot win; will Europe then
take the final, fatal leap hand-in-hand?"
It appears that love of Jews is an integral element of this fealty, together with LGBT
nonsense and other peculiar American imports. Love of Jews and love of America – are they
separable at all? If and when France and England regain their independence, their Jews would
recover their normal place in their societies. Admittedly, it won't be a place at the top, but
it would be a respectful place of equals in a healthy society, rather than a place of a symbol
and a facilitator of foreign influence on the ruins of Europe, as it is now.
If only Those Russians could play chess or compose classical music or
write a few serious novels. Oh well, I guess you can't expect everything from people with no
GDP.
Citizens of France. To arms! Man the ramparts. The American barbarians are coming. They
shall not pass!
Le Trump's threat to France's splendid wines and Roquefort cheese are the gravest menace
France has faced since the Germans invaded this fair land in 1914. Burgundy wines and France's
300 fromages form the very soul of la Belle France.
Trump does not know or care that France saved America from British mis-rule. He wants
revenge because France – which taxes nearly everything – seeks to tax US IT firms
like Google and Amazon. Trump considers this a personal affront. Besides, he dislikes wine and
lives on desiccated burgers made with petrochemical cheese, washed down by acidic Diet
Cokes.
On top of this outrage comes the squabble over NATO. Trump used to scoff at the Alliance,
saying it was 'obsolete' as well as under-armed and short of money. The president and his
backers really dislike France and all it stands for, including wine and cheese.
but if you take away still viable American aerospace, automotive and pharmaceutical
industries among very few others, you will find a wasteland of financial speculations and
selling the snake oil
Lovely takes, Andrei. The people that need to read you see your name and immediately retort,
"Agent for Putin", Washington Post-style. Gets them off the hook from thinking because after
all, college deliberately taught them NOT to think. Most of the kids, they're hopeless. They're
hopeless idiots, they know nothing of the Constitution, they think all is normal. And they were
fleeced by the academics that dumbed them down. Meanwhile, we have in effect, been selling each
other hamburgers (services) for the past 50 years. Also, they've been selling the oil and gas
right out from under our feet overseas and putting THAT in their pockets even as we pay a world
price for gasoline and finished product. Every other country that produces crude gets a
discount. Not us. To steal a quote from a movie I watched once, they struck oil under our
garden and all we get is dead tomatoes. Our society is hollowed out, depraved, the women
becoming more and more hideous, all the institutions that held us together, deliberately
broken. decay everywhere.
As for the military? A reflection of our society. When I went into the Navy in 1975, it was
Stars and Stripes and we served in large part for Mom, Apple Pie and Chevrolet.
Today it is clear that the Stars and Stripes should be dollar signs over a defense
contractor logo. The rest? From where I sit today, for most kids, Mom is a divorced slut, Apple
Pie is a turd in a wax paper wrapper and Chevrolet is a bent shit can from China. This isn't a
society I'd defend as a nation worth defending. The feminists sit on their fat, comfortable
asses, made such on the labors of us White guys and they declare their hatred. Only a moron or
a kid that needs a shot at a job or trade or gets a kick out of airplanes or such joins. Our
women in general aren't worth defending on the streets or the world. Not in the Blue cities,
they are hideous. Take care of your own wman and kids and community and hell with the rest.
There's no draft, the society mostly hates Vets, so it isn't for country most serve. It's to
grab something, from a trade, to a pilot's license. A military based on that has no staying
power. And our corruptions and waste and outright theft in military procurement for shitty
weapons makes us ripe for the taking. And our talent is wasted building shitty weapons and the
second level builds shitty airliners. Can't fly into space? We cannot fly, literally, to
anywhere in the newest build out, the Maxx. And we're depending on the Theranos of Aerospace,
Spacex/Musk to get us to space? Right! Except for the nukes, we're ripe, man.
Andrei, speaking of Musk, how the Hell does he smoke big fat doobies and keep his security
clearance when everyone else in Washington gets fired for getting near the stuff? Queer
privilege? I'm convinced the whole thing with Musk is a shell game. You?
Thanks for your work. Very good stuff, but we can't get those who need it to even look. Our
people are incapable of marching in the streets or even seeing why they should. Kudos to those
who did it to us. They did a fine job. Read More Agree: Andrei Martyanov
Replies:
@Arioch ,
@Andrei Martyanov Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread
Display All Comments
@Frederick V. Reed It has a dangerous set of nukes. The tripwires are and have always
been easy-sinkers like our surface ships. The psychos that run our policy have subs and silos
with missiles with lots of nukes.
It's a dangerous game to consider a dopey thought like that Fred. Bet your ass Russia sees
plenty of military here to defend against. Iran, Iraq, Vietnam, to them it was impossible, we
killed millions. There's enough military here that Israel wants and has harnessed it. In what
universe do you reside Fred? Ah yes, the moon name of Tequila. Fred? Go drink something.
Jesus.
"... Today USA even is no more an entity. You can not negotiate a thing with "America" because there is no such institution any more, but a hellish swarm of infighting spiders, each delightfully breaking anything negotiated by a rival spider. ..."
US political "elites" are generally appallingly incompetent in matters of war and are
"educated" mostly through Hollywood and Clansiesque "literature". I am not even sure that
they comprehend what Congressional Research Service prepares for them as compressed
briefings. Neocon wing of US political elite is simply mentally inadequate.
Very true, especially the part about "Hollywood and Clansiesque 'literature.'" I used to
read Clancy's books and, while entertaining, in retrospect they appear ridiculous, even
childish. But they probably capture the popular notion of American military invincibility
better than any other.
Most of Hollywood's output is garbage anyway, and its grasp of real war and military
matters appears to be that of a not so precocious third grader.
Katyn, whoever did it, was much before Cold War and before even first relatively small
nuclear blast.
And if you want to go that far – why not remember crisis over West Berlin, where
tank armees were watching one another, but no one pulled trigger?
Afghanistan was attacking one's own ally. Same as Prague 1968 and Hungary 1956.
If you want to compare – that is like USA invading Panama to remove their no longer
reliable puppet Norriega.
Did American attack on their own Panama risk USSR going ballistic? Hardly so. There was no Soviet invasion into Pakistan nor there was Chinese/American invasion into
India.
And looking away from purely military events, there was no attempt to arrest the whole
embassy stuff them, neither in Moscow nor in DC. No killing Soviet ambassadors in NATO states
during official events.
Those dirty games had red lines, both sides maintained. Today? Today USA even is no more
an entity. You can not negotiate a thing with "America" because there is no such institution
any more, but a hellish swarm of infighting spiders, each delightfully breaking anything
negotiated by a rival spider.
> deploying conventional anti-ballistic missile defenses around their most important
cities.
No, by then effective treaty both USSR and USA had only ONE region they were allowed to
protect.
Those were some nuclear launchpads in USA i guess, and one single city (Moscow) in USSR. No
more.
> deterrence [did not] worked > See the last phrase in bullet 2.
You suppose USSR killed itself trying to keep deterrence working.
That does not show it did not work, already.
That shows it worked so well (at least from Soviet perspective) that they gambled all they
had on the futile effort of keeping that deterrence working into the future.
First problem is that in order to be comparable they are converted into the same currency,
typically dollars. That's a problem because things don't cost the same in different
countries. If you want to measure strength of economy you need to measure the purchasing
power based on where the money is spend and not based on the costs of goods and services in
the US (which you inadvertently do when you convert GDP's in US dollar values).
Second problem is that GDP does not measure the 'size' of the economy. It measures how
much money is being pumped around within an economy and how often it is being pumped around
and then the assumption is made that this represents the size of the economy. It's very easy
to artificially increase this pumping around to inflate the apparent size of an 'economy'.
Companies do this routinely before IPO's for example. The perversions we now have
masquerading as stock markets are another. But mostly it is done by creating debt. When you
get a loan, you get money that mostly did not exist prior to you getting it. It's not
backed by anything but the expectation of profits (in the sense that you're expected
to manage to leverage the money into creating at least enough real economic value to back not
just the issue of your loan but also the interest, representing costs for the providers, and
provide your share of the compensation for those loan receivers who fail in this task, ie
provide backing for the previously non-existing money they received).
So in order to get a genuine measure of the economic power of an economy you need to rate
their GDP in terms of local purchasing power which puts Russia equal to Germany. But you also
need to account for the amount of debt in an economy as the money issued as debt for the most
part does not represent actual existing economic value but at best expected economic value
and at worst will not be recouped at all in which case you need to detract it from the GDP
numbers.
That gets far too complicated for most people who just want simple, reassuring numbers,
like comparing economies on GDP numbers based on dollar values. Dream on.
Here are some facts on the Russian economy:
– in 2018 approx. 82% of GDP was spend domestically and only about 18% exported (see
why purchasing power matters?)
– of that 18% exports about a third represented raw materials, so 6% of GDP
– oil and natural gas represented between 35% and 40% percent of raw material exports,
which means between 2% and 2,5% of GDP consisted of oil and gas exports.
– in 2018 Russia achieved a rare economical feat, a triple surplus. The total
government debt (which was only a few percent of GDP) was less than the surpluses on the
government bank accounts meaning there was no net debt. Instead there was a modest net
surplus. The second surplus was the annual government budget. In 2018 Russian government
spending was less than the government revenues that year. And thirdly, they had a trade
surplus, exporting more than they imported.
In case you failed to notice, they exported more than they imported even though only 18%
of GDP consists of exports. Given the other two surpluses they could import a lot more than
that if they wanted to or if they needed to .
They don't because they don't need to. Russia does not depend on the rest of the world to
keep its economy going. It is about as autarkic as it is nowadays possible to be.
Never in the history of America, probably never in the history of any country, had there
been such open and direct control of governmental activities by the very rich. So long as a
handful of men in Wall Street control the credit and industrial processes of the country, they
will continue to control the press, the government, and, by deception, the people. They will
not only compel the public to work for them in peace, but to fight for them in war. -- John
Turner, 1922
This list tells quite a story. It deserves a name such as "US History Written in Blood," but
more ironically and yet sufficient would be "An Inconvenient List." In any case, mass murder
for fun and profit has defined war throughout the entire history of humankind. That in the
modern era of late that the US has pioneered rentier capitalism as a means of extracting
profits from the industrial war machine is a matter of the natural evolution of state
sanctioned murder, far better at returning profits to investors than the mere slaughter of
stone age natives to steal their land.
OTOH, pacifism is indeed an aberration of political thought, not necessarily an unwarranted
aberration, yet one that should be subject to close inspection for its bona fides. My
Cherokee ancestors inform me to always be suspect of the good intentions of white men
claiming that they despise war.
Pacifism for me is individual. I was a cold warrior (pacifist not!) from '72 to '85 when I
went from supporting operating weapons to the "dark side" in weapons development, which a lot
was also nuclear related.
It's pretty obvious that Team Pelosi is more concerned with the affairs of the Empire,
even though she has no constitutional responsibility. than for the welfare of the American
people. The focus of the impeachment hearing on American policy in Ukraine is further
evidence.
Meanwhile, I have gotten no answer to my basic question: what are the top 5 pieces of
progressive legislation that Pelosi has passed--legislation that representations can brag
about to their constituents when running in 2020? It's pretty obvious that their have been
almost none.
Yet, I have been assured by others here at EV that our two party representative political
system is not merely engaging in so much Kabuki theatre in order to appear relevant. Who
knew?
Outside of the fact that this fellow is a liar of monumental proportion - for instance, this
post alone contains 3 different lies - it is fundamentally untrue that BOTH parties are just
engaged in theater. One actually passes legislation to help people and to reduce the
influence of $$$. The other - as former Republican party member Norm Orenstein has pointed
out - is anti-democracy, pro-despotism and a insurgent danger with a propaganda arm.
Huh... all team Pelosi/Schumer of is rant against the US constitution, demean the congress,
disdain the office of the President and make up things about the Donald.
See the continuing resolution good through 20 Dec because Pelosi who owns the House won't
face the responsibility to try and run the US government's purse.
More selective outrage from EMichael, the partisan hack.
Sure, it's horrendous that Trump pardoned a war criminal. But let's not forget that Obama
never even prosecuted torturers ... or closed Guantanamo as promised.
As usual for EMichael and his ilk, what's a horror when their party does something, it's
perfectly acceptable when his party does it.
All these years of being a almost pacifist and now I am seeing the error in my ways.
Sometimes - hopefully increasingly less often - good people must rise up and stomp out evil.
The pardons were not just condoning war crimes - it was telling the nazi ahs in the ranks
that they can do the same domestically. The right has an army within the US. Most of the
officers are okay - but that said, they are tolerating nazis, white supremacists, oathkeepers
and dominionists in their ranks. These exceptions are to let the other nazis know they can
mass murder if the want.
@FB The
"Agree" button is inadequate here. I'm in full agreement.
In a nutshell, I totally misoverestimated Trump during his Presidential campaign. I had
assumed that its strategic and tactical genius meant a powerful faction of patriotic backers
who'd make themselves more apparent after he'd won had his back. I had assumed that a real
outsider couldn't have gotten to his position and that they had a plan and would make a stand
against the Empire's nomenklatura to try to turn the ship of state to face the coming crisis
head on.
They'd have a great deal of international support (esp from China & Russia) and may
just have been able to save much of the nation by letting the Empire go. The world does not
want the American nation to fall into the abyss. Everyone knows that the US doesn't have the
civilizational depth to pull itself back together like Russia did. Or even like the UK. OTOH,
the world does want the US' Empire to go the way of the USSR, and I thought Trump was just
the man to do it. His extravagant smokescreen of blustering buffoonery would give
clear-headed men the running room they'd need to make the deals and do what needed to be
done.
In the event, instead of the Seven Samurai, he brought the Seven Dwarfs and within
weeks of his inauguration, he lost even them. The Empire struck back on all fronts, fronts
Trump and his Dwarfs didn't even know existed, much less defended.
I get the impression that Trump has fallen back on damaging the Empire through
buffoonery. There are no patriots in Washington, and if there were he'd never get them past
their nomination hearings. By picking the least competent ideologues for his cabinet, the
Empire suffers while he holds on to the Presidency. That's as big a success as he and the
world can now hope for. An American carnival barker, aiming for a Gorbachevian
result.
"... A more plausible explanation is that Trump thought that by appointing such anti-Russian hard-liners he could lay to rest the Russiagate allegations that had hung over him for three years and still did: that for some secret nefarious reason he was and remained a "Kremlin puppet." Despite the largely exculpatory Mueller report, Trump's political enemies, mostly Democrats but not only, have kept the allegations alive. ..."
"... The larger question is who should make American foreign policy: an elected president or Washington's permanent foreign policy establishment? (It is scarcely a "deep" or "secret" state, since its representatives appear on CNN and MSNBC almost daily.) Today, Democrats seem to think that it should be the foreign policy establishment, not President Trump. But having heard the cold-war views of much of that establishment, how will they feel when a Democrat occupies the White House? After all, eventually Trump will leave power, but Washington's foreign-policy "blob," as even an Obama aide termed it , will remain. ..."
"... Listen to the podcast here ..."
"... War With Russia? From Putin & Ukraine to Trump & Russiagate ..."
"... The John Batchelor Show ..."
"... Trump's anti-Iranian fever is every bit as ludicrous as the DNC's anti-Russian fever. There is absolutely nothing to support the anti-Iranian policy argument or the anti JCPOA argument. The only thing that is missing from all of this is Iranian hookers, and that would certainly be an explosive headline! ..."
"... You know why Rhodes called it the blob, right? Why he made it sound so formless and squishy? Ask yourself, how does a failed novelist with zilch for foreign-affairs credentials get the big job of Obama's ventriloquist? That's a CIA billet. It so happens that Rhodes' brother has a big job of his own with CBS News, the most servile of the Mockingbird media propaganda mills. ..."
"... It's not a blob, it's a precisely-articulated hierarchy. And the top of it is CIA. So please for once somebody answer this blindingly obvious question, Who is making US foreign policy? CIA, that's who. For the CIA show trial run by Iran/Contra nomenklatura Bill Barr and his blackmailed flunky Durham, Trump's high crime and misdemeanor is conducting diplomacy without CIA supervision. They come out and say so, pointing to the National Security Act's mousetrap bureaucracy. ..."
"... CIA runs your country. They've got impunity, they do what they want. We've got 400,000 academics paid to overthink it. ..."
"... We cannot trust that the people that destroyed the country will repair it. It is run by a Cult of Hedonistic Satanic Psychopaths. If they were limited to just the CIA, America would be in far better shape than its in. The CIA is not capable of thinking or intelligence, so we should stop paying them. ..."
"... Drumpf has been a tool of the Wall Street/Las Vegas Zionist billionaires for many, many years. so his selection of warmongering Zio neo-con advisors should be no surprise. ..."
"... Perhaps part of the reason that Trump often seems to be surrounded by people who don't support his policies or values is, as Paul Craig Roberts suggested in 2016, that Trump would have real problems simply because he was an outsider. An outsider to the Washington swamp, a swamp that Clinton had been swimming in for decades. In short he didn't know who to trust, who to keep "in the tent" & who to shut out. Thus, we have had this huge churn in Secretaries & on so on downwards. ..."
"... Sociopaths are the ones that do the worst because they lack any concern or "Empathy", like robots. So I read that the socio's are some of the brightest people who often are very successful in business etc. and can hide the fact that they would soon as kill as look at ya, but cool as ice, all they want is to get what the hell they want! They don't give a rats petoot who likes likes it or not, except as . ..."
"... Trump hasn't fired any of the neocons, but he proved that he CAN fire defense executives. He fired the Sec of Navy for disagreeing with some ridiculous personal thing that Trump wanted to do. Since Trump hasn't fired any neocons, we have to conclude that he's fully on board. ..."
"... There are so many security holes in the constitution of the USA including that it was ratified by those who invented it, not by a vote put to the people that would be made to suffer being governed by it. Basically the USA is useless as a defender of human rights (one of which is the right to self determination). The so called bill of rights (1st 10 amendments) are contractual promises, but like all clauses in contracts if there is no way to enforce them, then there is no use for the clause except maybe propaganda value. ..."
"... In a normally functioning world you simply can't simultaneously argue that in one case West can bomb a country to force self-determination as in Kosovo, and also denounce exactly the same thing in Crimea. On to Catalonia and more self-determination ..."
"... Trump, among his other occupations, used to engage with the professional wrestling circuit. In that well-staged entertainment there is always a bad guy – or a ' heel ' – who is used to stir up the crowds, the Evil Sheik or Rocky's hapless movie enemies. It makes it ' real '. The ' heel ' is sometimes allowed to win to better manage the audience. But the narrative never changes. Our rational judgments should focus on what happens, and on outcomes – not on talk, slogans, speeches, etc Based on that, Trump is a classical ' heel ' character. He might even be playing it consciously, or he has no choice. ..."
"... To answer the question who runs ' foreign policy ', let's ignore the stadium speeches, and simply look at what happens. In a world bereft of enough profitable consumer things to do, and enough justifiable careers for unemployable geo-political security 'experts' of all kinds, having enemies and maybe even a small war occasionally is not such an irrational thing to want. Plus there are the deep ethnic hatreds and traumas going back generations that were naively imported into the heart of the Western world. (Washington warned against that 200+ years ago.) ..."
"... or maybe trump was a lying neocon, war-loving, immigration-loving neoliberal all along, and you and the trumptards somehow continue to believe his campaign rhetoric? ..."
"... The fact is Trump is not an anti-neocon (Deep State) president he only talks that way. The fact that he surrounded himself with Deep State denizens gives lie to the thought that he is anti-Deep State no one can be that god damn stupid. ..."
"... "TRUMP SUPPORTERS WERE DUPED – Trump supporters are going to find out soon enough that they were duped by Donald Trump. Trump was given the script to run as the "Chaos Candidate" .He is just a pawn of the ruling elite .It is a tactic known as 'CONTROLLED OPPOSITION' ". Wasn't it FDR who said "Presidents are selected , they are not elected " ? ..."
"... Trump selected the Neocons he is surrounded with. And he's given away all kinds of property that he has absolutely no legal authority to give. He was seeking to please American Oligarchs the likes of Adelson. That's American politics. "Money is free speech." Of course, there is another connection with foreign policy beyond the truly total corruption of American domestic politics, and that's through America's brutal empire abroad. ..."
"... Obama or Trump, on the main matters of importance abroad – NATO, Russia, Israel/Palestine, China – there has been no difference, except Trump is more openly bellicose and given to saying really stupid things. ..."
President Trump campaigned and was elected on an anti-neocon platform: he promised to reduce direct US involvement in areas where,
he believed, America had no vital strategic interest, including in Ukraine. He also promised a new détente ("cooperation") with Moscow.
And yet, as we have learned from their recent congressional testimony, key members of his own National Security Council did not
share his views and indeed were opposed to them. Certainly, this was true of Fiona Hill and Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman. Both of them
seemed prepared for a highly risky confrontation with Russia over Ukraine, though whether retroactively because of Moscow's 2014
annexation of Crimea or for more general reasons was not entirely clear.
Similarly, Trump was slow in withdrawing Marie Yovanovitch, a career foreign service officer appointed by President Obama as ambassador
to Kiev, who had made clear, despite her official position in Kiev, that she did not share the new American president's thinking
about Ukraine or Russia. In short, the president was surrounded in his own administration, even in the White House, by opponents
of his foreign policy and presumably not only in regard to Ukraine.
How did this unusual and dysfunctional situation come about? One possibility is that it was the doing and legacy of the neocon
John Bolton, briefly Trump's national security adviser. But this doesn't explain why the president would accept or long tolerate
such appointees.
A more plausible explanation is that Trump thought that by appointing such anti-Russian hard-liners he could lay to rest the
Russiagate allegations that had hung over him for three years and still did: that for some secret nefarious reason he was and remained
a "Kremlin puppet." Despite the largely exculpatory Mueller report, Trump's political enemies, mostly Democrats but not only, have
kept the allegations alive.
The larger question is who should make American foreign policy: an elected president or Washington's permanent foreign policy
establishment? (It is scarcely a "deep" or "secret" state, since its representatives appear on CNN and MSNBC almost daily.) Today,
Democrats seem to think that it should be the foreign policy establishment, not President Trump. But having heard the cold-war views
of much of that establishment, how will they feel when a Democrat occupies the White House? After all, eventually Trump will leave
power, but Washington's foreign-policy "blob," as even
an Obama aide termed it , will remain.
Listen to the podcast
here . Stephen F. Cohen Stephen F.
Cohen is a professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University. ANationcontributing editor, his most recent book,War With Russia? From Putin & Ukraine to Trump & Russiagate, is available
in paperback and in an ebook edition. His weekly conversations with the host ofThe John Batchelor Show, now in their sixth
year, are available at www.thenation.com .
because of Moscow's 2014 annexation of Crimea or for more general reasons was not entirely clear.
In an otherwise decent overview, this sticks out like a sore thumb. It would be helpful to stop using the word annexation.
While correct in a technical sense – that Crimea was added to the Russian Federation – the word comes with all kinds of connotations,
that imply illegality and or force. Given Crimea was given special status when gifted to Ukraine for administration by the USSR,
one could just as easily apply "annexation" of Crimea to Ukraine. After Ukraine voted to "leave" the USSR, Crimea voted to join
Ukraine. Obviously the "Ukrainian" vote did not include Crimea. Even after voting to join Ukraine, Crimea had special status within
Ukraine, and was semi autonomous. If you can vote to join, you can vote to leave. Either you have the right to self determination,
or you don't.
This is what is so infuriating, Stephen! These silent coups of the executive branch have been taking place for my entire life!
Both parties are guilty of refusing to appoint cabinet members that the elected presidents would have chosen for themselves, because
both parties are more interested in making the president of the opposing party look bad, make him ineffective, and incapable of
carrying out policies that he was elected to carry out. That is the very definition of treason!
Things are a disaster. The JCPOA is at the heart of the issue and Trump and his advisors stubborn refusal to capitulate on
this issue very well may cause Trump to lose the 2020 election. Trump's anti-Iranian fever is every bit as ludicrous as the
DNC's anti-Russian fever. There is absolutely nothing to support the anti-Iranian policy argument or the anti JCPOA argument.
The only thing that is missing from all of this is Iranian hookers, and that would certainly be an explosive headline!
The anti-Iranian fever has created so much havoc not only with Iran, but with every country on earth other than Israel, Saudi
Arabia, and the UAE. Germany announced that it is seeking to unite with Russia, not only for Gazprom, but is now considering purchasing
defense systems from Russia, and Germany is dictating EU policy, by and large. Germany has said that Europe must be able to defend
itself independent of America and is requesting an EU military and Italy is on board with this idea, seeking to create jobs and
weapons for its economy and defense.
The EU is fed up with the economic sanctions placed on countries that the U.S. has black-listed, particularly Russia and Iran,
and China as well for Huwaei 5G.
Nobody in their right mind could ever claim this to be the free market capitalism that Larry Kudlow espouses!
You know why Rhodes called it the blob, right? Why he made it sound so formless and squishy? Ask yourself, how does a failed
novelist with zilch for foreign-affairs credentials get the big job of Obama's ventriloquist? That's a CIA billet. It so happens
that Rhodes' brother has a big job of his own with CBS News, the most servile of the Mockingbird media propaganda mills.
It's not a blob, it's a precisely-articulated hierarchy. And the top of it is CIA. So please for once somebody answer this
blindingly obvious question, Who is making US foreign policy? CIA, that's who. For the CIA show trial run by Iran/Contra nomenklatura
Bill Barr and his blackmailed flunky Durham, Trump's high crime and misdemeanor is conducting diplomacy without CIA supervision.
They come out and say so, pointing to the National Security Act's mousetrap bureaucracy.
CIA runs your country. They've got impunity, they do what they want. We've got 400,000 academics paid to overthink it.
The CIA has no authority what so ever as defined by the supreme law of the land, the constitution. That would make them guilty
of a coup which would be an act of treason, so if what you claim is true, why have they not been prosecuted.
It is a political game between to competing kleptocratic cults. The DNC and RNC are whores and will do what ever their donors
tell them to do. That is also treason. This country is just a total wasteland.
Everyone has pledged allegiance to fraud.
Too big to fail, like the Titanic and the Hindenberg.
We cannot trust that the people that destroyed the country will repair it. It is run by a Cult of Hedonistic Satanic Psychopaths.
If they were limited to just the CIA, America would be in far better shape than its in. The CIA is not capable of thinking or
intelligence, so we should stop paying them.
Drumpf has been a tool of the Wall Street/Las Vegas Zionist billionaires for many, many years. so his selection of warmongering
Zio neo-con advisors should be no surprise.
What kind of stupid question is this? You mean you don't know or asking us for confirmation? If you really don't know then why
are you writing an article about it? If you do know then why are you asking the UNZ readers?
Perhaps part of the reason that Trump often seems to be surrounded by people who don't support his policies or values is,
as Paul Craig Roberts suggested in 2016, that Trump would have real problems simply because he was an outsider. An outsider to
the Washington swamp, a swamp that Clinton had been swimming in for decades. In short he didn't know who to trust, who to keep
"in the tent" & who to shut out. Thus, we have had this huge churn in Secretaries & on so on downwards.
It is run by a Cult of Hedonistic Satanic Psychopaths.
That's ok but it's a bit unfair to Hedonistic Satanic Psychopaths After all most of the country is Hedonistic as hell,
it sells commercials or wtf. Satanic is philosophical and way over the heads of these clowns, though if the be a Satan, then they
are in the plan for sure, and right on the mark. As for psychopaths, those are criminals who are insane, but they can have remorse
and be their own worst enemies, often they just go off and go psycho and bad things happen, but can be unplanned off the wall
stuff, not diabolic.
Sociopaths are the ones that do the worst because they lack any concern or "Empathy", like robots. So I read that the socio's
are some of the brightest people who often are very successful in business etc. and can hide the fact that they would soon as
kill as look at ya, but cool as ice, all they want is to get what the hell they want! They don't give a rats petoot who likes
likes it or not, except as .
So, once upon a time, a people got so hedonistic and they didn't watch the game and theier leaders were low quality
(especially religeous/morals ) and long story short Satan unleashed the Socio's , Things seem to be heading disastrously,
so will bit coin save the day? Green nudeal?
While massive attention is directed towards Russia and the Ukraine, the majority of the public are shown the slight of hand
and their attention is never brought near to the real perpetrators of subverting American and British foreign policy.
Doesn't matter if he's surrounded. A president CAN make foreign policy, and a president CAN fire people who disagree with his
policy. Trump hasn't fired any of the neocons, but he proved that he CAN fire defense executives. He fired the Sec of Navy
for disagreeing with some ridiculous personal thing that Trump wanted to do. Since Trump hasn't fired any neocons, we have to
conclude that he's fully on board.
The CIA has no authority what so ever as defined by the supreme law of the land, the constitution. That would make them
guilty of a coup which would be an act of treason, so if what you claim is true, why have they not been prosecuted.
--
first off the supreme law of the land maybe the Constitution and to oppose it may be Treason, but the Law that is supreme to the
Law of the land is Human rights law.. it is far superior to, and it is the TLD of all laws of the land of all of the Nation States
that mankind has allowed the greedy among its masses, to impose.
There are so many security holes in the constitution of the USA including that it was ratified by those who invented it,
not by a vote put to the people that would be made to suffer being governed by it. Basically the USA is useless as a defender
of human rights (one of which is the right to self determination). The so called bill of rights (1st 10 amendments) are contractual
promises, but like all clauses in contracts if there is no way to enforce them, then there is no use for the clause except maybe
propaganda value.
If you note the USA constitution has seven articles..
Article 1 is about 525 elected members of congress and their very limited powers to control
foreign activities. Each qualified to vote member of the governed (a citizen so to speak) is allowed to
vote for only 3 of the 525 persons. so basically there is no real national election anywhere .
Article II grants the electoral college the power to appoint two persons full control of the assets,
resources and manpower of America to conquer the entire world or to make peace in the entire world.
Either way: the governed are not allowed to vote for either; the EC vote determines the P or VP.
Article III allows the Article II person to appoint yes men to the judiciary
Where exist the power of the governed to deny USA governors the ability to the use the powers the constitution claims
the governors are to have, against the governed? <==No where I can find? Theoretically, the governed are protected from abuse
for as long as it takes to conduct due process?
One person, the Article II person, is basically the king when in comes to constitutional authority to establish, conduct,
prosecute or defend USA involvement in foreign affairs.
No where does the constitution of the USA deny its President the use of American resources or USA military power, to
make and use diplomat appointments, or to use the USA to use the wealth of America and the hegemonic powers of the USA to make
a private or public profit in a foreign land. <= d/n matter if the profit is personal to the President or if it assigned by appointment
(like the feudal powers granted by the feudal kings to the feudal lords) to corporate feudal lords or oligarch personal interest.
AFAICT, the president can USE the USA to conduct war, invade or otherwise infringe on, even destroy, the territory, or a
private or public interest, within a foreign sovereign more or less at will. So if the President wants to command a private
or secret Army like the CIA, he can as far as I can tell, obviously this president does, because he could with his pen alone shut
it down.
Seems to me the "NO" from Wilson's four points
no more secret diplomacy peace settlement must not lead the way to new wars
no retribution, unjust claims, and huge fines <basically indemnities paid by the losers to the winners.
no more war; includes controls on armaments and arming of nations.
no more Trade Barriers so the nations of the world would become more interdependent.
have been made the essence of nation state operations world wide.
IMO, The CIA exists at the pleasure of the President.
@Curmudgeon all of that,
plus the Kosovo precedent.
In a normally functioning world you simply can't simultaneously argue that in one case West can bomb a country to force
self-determination as in Kosovo, and also denounce exactly the same thing in Crimea. On to Catalonia and more self-determination
Trump, among his other occupations, used to engage with the professional wrestling circuit. In that well-staged entertainment
there is always a bad guy – or a ' heel ' – who is used to stir up the crowds, the Evil Sheik or Rocky's hapless movie
enemies. It makes it ' real '. The 'heel ' is sometimes allowed to win to better manage the audience. But
the narrative never changes. Our rational judgments should focus on what happens, and on outcomes – not on talk, slogans, speeches,
etc Based on that, Trump is a classical ' heel ' character. He might even be playing it consciously, or he has no choice.
To answer the question who runs ' foreign policy ', let's ignore the stadium speeches, and simply look at what happens.
In a world bereft of enough profitable consumer things to do, and enough justifiable careers for unemployable geo-political security
'experts' of all kinds, having enemies and maybe even a small war occasionally is not such an irrational thing to want. Plus there
are the deep ethnic hatreds and traumas going back generations that were naively imported into the heart of the Western world.
(Washington warned against that 200+ years ago.)
Trump should have kept Steve Bannon as his advisor and should have fired instead his son-in-law. Perhaps "they" are blackmailing
Trump with photos like here: https://www.pinterest.com/richarddesjarla/creepy/
That would explain why Trump is so ineffective at making a reality anything he campaigned for.
or maybe trump was a lying neocon, war-loving, immigration-loving neoliberal all along, and you and the trumptards somehow
continue to believe his campaign rhetoric?
An anti-neocon president appears to have been surrounded by neocons in his own administration.
The fact is Trump is not an anti-neocon (Deep State) president he only talks that way. The fact that he surrounded himself
with Deep State denizens gives lie to the thought that he is anti-Deep State no one can be that god damn stupid.
or maybe trump was a lying neocon, war-loving, immigration-loving neoliberal all along, and you and the trumptards somehow
continue to believe his campaign rhetoric?
Halfway around the world from Washington's halls of power, Ukraine sits along a civilizational and geopolitical fault line.
To Ukraine's west are the liberal democracies of Europe, governed by rule of law and democratic principles. To its east are
Russia and its client states in Eurasia, almost all of which are corrupt oligarchies. [ ] In this war on democratic movements
and democratic principles, Russia's biggest prize and chief adversary has always been the United States. Until now, however,
Russia has always had to contend with bipartisan resolve to counter
No mention of China, and this is the problem with the whole foreign policy establishment not just the neocons. Russia is more
of an annoyance than anything, but they are still operating assumptions on what is the
Geographical Pivot of History , so they want to talk about Russia. Like an Edwardian sea cadet we are supposed to care about
Russia getting (back) a water port in Crimea. Mahan's definition of sea power included a strong commercial fleet. After tearing
their own environment apart like a car in a wrecking yard and heating up the planet China has taken time out from deforestation
and colonising Tibet, to send huge container vessels full of cheap goods through the melting Arctic round the top of Russia all
the better to get to Europe and deindustrialise it.
Western elites have sold out to China, seen as the future, so we hear about Russia rather than the three million Uyghurs in
concentration camps complete with constantly smoking crematoria, and harvesting of organs for rich foreigners.
Who
poses a greater threat to the West: China or Russia?
By the time the West finds itself in open conflict with Beijing, we will have lost our relative advantage. Brendan Simms and
K.C. Lin [ ] The concept of China being a threat is harder to comprehend. In what way? Yes, its hacking and intellectual property
theft is a headache. But is it worse than what Russia is up to? And don't we need Chinese investment, so does it really matter
if China builds our 5G mobile networks? In London, ministers agonise over these issues -- not knowing whether to pity China
(we still send foreign aid there), beg for its money and contracts (with prime ministerial trade trips), or treat it as a potential
antagonist.
Aid ! They sent robots to the far side of the Moon
Beijing has been the beneficiary of liberal revulsion at the Trump presidency: if the Donald is against the Chinese,
who cannot be for them? As a result, Trump's efforts to address China's unfair trade practices have so far missed the mark
with the domestic and international audience. As Trump declares war on free trade, China -- one of the most protectionist economies
in the world -- is now celebrated at Davos as the avatar of free trade. Later this month, China's Vice-President is likely
to be in attendance at Davos -- and there is even talk of him meeting with Trump. Similarly, the messiness of American politics
has made China's one-party state an apparent poster boy of political stability and governability.
"TRUMP SUPPORTERS WERE DUPED – Trump supporters are going to find out soon enough that they were duped by
Donald Trump. Trump was given the script to run as the "Chaos Candidate" .He is just a pawn of the ruling elite .It is a tactic
known as 'CONTROLLED OPPOSITION' ".
Wasn't it FDR who said "Presidents are selected , they are not elected " ?
Trump selected the Neocons he is surrounded with. And he's given away all kinds of property that he has absolutely no legal
authority to give. He was seeking to please American Oligarchs the likes of Adelson. That's American politics. "Money is free
speech." Of course, there is another connection with foreign policy beyond the truly total corruption of American domestic politics,
and that's through America's brutal empire abroad.
The military/intelligence imperial establishment definitely see Israel as a kind of American colony in the Mideast, and they
make sure that it's well provided for. That's what the Neocon Wars have been about. Paving over large parts of Israel's noisy
neighborhood. And that includes matters like keeping Syria off-balance with occupation in its northeast. And constantly threatening
Iran.
Obama or Trump, on the main matters of importance abroad – NATO, Russia, Israel/Palestine, China – there has been no difference,
except Trump is more openly bellicose and given to saying really stupid things.
By the way, the last President who tried seriously to make foreign policy as the elected head of government left half of his
head splattered on thec streets of Dallas.
@Jon Baptist We have
all been brainwashed by the propaganda screened by the massmedia ,whether it be FOX , MSNBC , CBS ,etc.. SeptemberClues.info has
a good article entitled "The central role of the news media on 9/11 " :
"The 9/11 psyop relied foremostly on that weakspot of ours .We all fell for the images we saw on TV at the time we can only
wonder why so many never questioned the absurd TV coverage proposed by all the major networks The 9/11 TV imagery of the crucial
morning events was just a computer-animated, pre-fabricated movie."
@follyofwar Pat inhabits
a strange Hollywood type world, where the US is always the good guy. He believes that, although the US may make foreign policy
mistakes, its aims and ambitions are nevertheless noble and well intentioned.
In Pat's world it's still circa 1955, but even then, his take on US foreign policy would have been hopelessly unrealistic.
After presiding over a far-right coup in Bolivia, the US dubbed Nicaragua a "national
security threat" and announced new sanctions, while Trump designated drug cartels in Mexico as
"terrorists" and refused to rule out military intervention.
One successful coup against a democratically elected socialist president is not enough, it
seems.
Washington dubbed Nicaragua a threat to US national security, and announced that it will be
expanding its suffocating sanctions on the tiny Central American nation.
Trump is also turning up the heat on Mexico, baselessly linking the country to terrorism and
even hinting at potential military intervention. The moves come as the country's left-leaning
President Andrés Manuel López Obrador warns of right-wing attempts at a coup.
As Washington's rightist allies in Colombia, Brazil, Chile, and Ecuador are desperately
beating back massive grassroots uprisings against neoliberal austerity policies and yawning
inequality gaps, the United States is ramping up its aggression against the region's few
remaining progressive governments.
These moves have led left-wing forces in Latin America to warn of a 21st-century revival of
Operation Condor, the Cold War era campaign of violent subterfuge and US support for right-wing
dictatorships across the region.
Trump admin declares Nicaragua a 'national security
threat'
A day after the US-backed far-right coup in Bolivia, the White House released a statement
applauding the military putsch and making it clear that two countries were next on Washington's
target list: "These events send a strong signal to the illegitimate regimes in
Venezuela and Nicaragua ," Trump declared.
On November 25, the Trump White House then quietly issued a statement characterizing
Nicaragua as an "unusual and
extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States."
This prolonged for an additional year an executive order Trump had signed in 2018 declaring
a state of "national emergency" on the Central American country.
Trump's 2018 declaration came after a failed violent right-wing
coup attempt in Nicaragua . The US government has funded and supported many of
the opposition groups that sought to topple elected Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, and
cheered them on as they sought to overthrow him.
The 2018 national security threat designation was quickly followed by economic warfare. In
December the US Congress approved
the NICA Act without any opposition. This legislation gave Trump the authority to impose
sanctions on Nicaragua, and prevents international financial institutions from doing business
with Managua.
Trump's new 2019 statement spewed outlandish propaganda against Nicaragua, referring to its
democratically elected government -- which for decades has been targeted for overthrow by
Washington -- as a supposedly violent and corrupt "regime."
This executive order is similar to one made by President Barack Obama in 2015, which
designated Venezuela as a threat to US national security.
Both orders were used to justify the unilateral imposition of suffocating economic
sanctions. And Trump's renewal of the order paves the way for an escalated economic attack on
Nicaragua.
The extension received negligible coverage in mainstream English-language corporate media,
but right-wing Spanish-language outlets in Latin America heavily amplified it.
And opposition activists are gleefully cheering on the intensification of Washington's
hybrid warfare against Managua.
More aggressive US sanctions against Nicaragua
Voice of America (VOA), the US government's main foreign broadcasting service, noted that
the extension of the executive order will be followed with more economic attacks.
Washington's ambassador to the Organization
of American States (OAS), Carlos Trujillo, told VOA, "The pressure against Nicaragua is
going to continue."
The OAS representative added that Trump will be announcing new sanctions against the
Nicaraguan government in the coming weeks.
VOA stated clearly that "Nicaragua, along with Cuba and Venezuela, is one of the Latin
American countries whose government Trump has made a priority to put diplomatic and economic
pressure on to bring about regime change."
This is not just rhetoric. The US Department of the Treasury updated the Nicaragua-related
sanctions section of its website as recently as November 8.
And in September, the Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control announced a " more
comprehensive set of regulations ," strengthening the existing sanctions on Nicaragua.
Voice of America's report quoted several right-wing Nicaraguans who openly called for more
US pressure against their country.
Bianca Jagger, a celebrity opposition activist formerly married to Rolling Stones frontman
Mick Jagger, called on the US to impose sanctions on Nicaragua's military in particular.
"The Nicaraguan military has not been touched because they [US officials] are hoping that
the military will like act the military in Bolivia," Jagger said, referring to the military
officials who violently overthrew Bolivia's democratically elected president.
Many of these military leaders had been
trained at the US government's School of the Americas , a notorious base of subversion
dating back to Operation Condor. Latin American media has been filled in recent days with
reports that Bolivian soldiers were paid $50,000 and generals were paid up to $1 million to
carry out the putsch.
VOA added that "in the case of the Central American government [of Nicaragua], the effect
that sanctions can have can be greater because it is a more economically vulnerable
country."
VOA quoted Roberto Courtney, a prominent exiled right-wing activist and executive director
of the opposition group Ethics and Transparency, which monitors elections in Nicaragua and is
supported by the US
government's
regime-change arm , the
National Endowment for Democracy (NED).
Courtney, who claims to be a human rights activist, salivated over the prospects of US
economic war on his country, telling VOA, "There is a bit of a difference [between Nicaragua
and Bolivia] the economic vulnerability makes it more likely that the sanctions will have an
effect."
Courtney, who was described by VOA as an "expert on the electoral process," added, "If there
is a stick, there must also be a carrot." He said the OAS could help apply diplomatic and
political pressure against Nicaragua's government.
These unilateral American sanctions are illegal under international law, and considered an
act of war. Iran's foreign minister,
Javad Zarif , has characterized US economic warfare "financial terrorism," explaining that
it disproportionately targets civilians in order to turn them against their government.
Top right-wing Nicaraguan opposition groups applauded Trump for extending the executive
order and for pledging new sanctions against their country.
The Nicaraguan Civic Alliance for Justice and Democracy, an opposition front group that
brings together numerous opposition groups , several of which are
also
funded by the US government's NED , welcomed the order.
Trump dubs drug cartels in
Mexico "terrorists," refuses to rule out drone strikes
While the US targeting of Nicaragua and Venezuela's governments is nothing new, Donald Trump
is setting his sights on a longtime US ally in Mexico.
In 2018, Mexican voters made history when they elected Andrés Manuel López
Obrador as president in a landslide. López Obrador, who is often referred to by his
initials AMLO, is Mexico's first left-wing president in more than five decades. He ran on a
progressive campaign pledging to boost social spending, cut poverty, combat corruption, and
even decriminalize drugs.
AMLO is wildly popular in Mexico. In February, he had a record-breaking
86 percent approval rating . And he has earned this widespread support by pledging to
combat neoliberal capitalist orthodoxy.
"The neoliberal economic model has
been a disaster, a calamity for the public life of the country," AMLO has declared. "The child
of neoliberalism is corruption."
When he unveiled his multibillion-dollar National Development Plan, López Obrador
announced the end to "the long night of neoliberalism."
AMLO's left-wing policies have caused shockwaves in Washington, which has long relied on
neoliberal Mexican leaders ensuring a steady cheap exploitable labor base and maintaining a
reliable market for US goods and open borders for US capital and corporations.
On November 27 -- a day after declaring Nicaragua a "national security threat" -- Trump
announced that the US government will be designating Mexican drug cartels as "
terrorist organizations ."
Such a designation could pave the way for direct US military intervention in Mexico.
Trump revealed this new policy in an interview with right-wing Fox News host Bill O'Reilly.
"Are you going to designate those cartels in Mexico as terror groups and start hitting them
with drones and things like that?" O'Reilly asked.
The US president refused to rule out drone strikes or other military action against drug
cartels in Mexico.
Trump's announcement seemed to surprise the Mexican government, which immediately called for
a meeting with the US State Department.
The designation was particularly ironic considering some top drug cartel leaders in Mexico
have long-standing ties to the US government. The leaders of the notoriously brutal cartel the
Zetas, for instance, were originally trained in
counter-insurgency tactics by the US military.
Throughout the Cold War, the US government armed, trained, and funded right-wing
death squads throughout Latin America, many of which were involved in drug trafficking. The
CIA also used drug money to fund far-right counter-insurgency paramilitary groups in Central
America.
These tactics were also employed in the Middle East and South Asia. The United States armed,
trained, and funded far-right Islamist
extremists in Afghanistan in the 1980s in order to fight the Soviet Union. These same
US-backed Salafi-jihadists then founded al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
This strategy was later repeated in the US wars on Libya and Syria. ISIS commander
Omar al-Shishani
, to take one example, had been trained by the US military and enjoyed direct support from
Washington when he was fighting against Russia.
The Barack Obama administration also oversaw a campaign called Project Gunrunne r
and Operation Fast and Furious, in which the US government helped send thousands of guns to
cartels in Mexico.
Mexican journalist Alina Duarte explained that, with the Trump administration's designation
of cartels as terrorists, "They are creating the idea that Mexico represents a threat to their
national security ."
"Should we start talking about the possibility of a coup against Lopez Obrador in
Mexico?" Duarte asked.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Please
enter a valid email Thank you for subscribing!Something went wrong. Please refresh
and try again.
She noted that the US corporate media has embarked on an increasingly ferocious campaign to
demonize
AMLO , portraying the democratically elected president as a power-hungry aspiring dictator
who is supposedly wrecking Mexico's economy.
Duarte discussed the issue of US interference in Mexican politics in an interview with The
Grayzone's Max Blumenthal and Ben Norton, on their podcast Moderate
Rebels:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/7OJyCHjxCEs
Now, a whisper campaign over fears that the right-wing opposition may try to overthrow
President Andrés Manuel López Obrador is spreading across Mexico.
AMLO himself has publicly addressed the rumors, making it clear that he will not tolerate
any discussion of coups.
"How wrong the conservatives and their hawks are," López Obrador tweeted on November
2. Referencing the 1913 assassination of progressive President Francisco Madero, who had been a
leader of the Mexican Revolution, AMLO wrote, "Now is different."
"Another coup d'état will now be allowed," he declared.
In recent months, as fears of a coup intensify, López Obrador has swung even further
to the left, directly challenging the US government and asserting an independent foreign policy
that contrasts starkly to the subservience of his predecessors.
AMLO's government has rejected US efforts to delegitimize Venezuela's leftist government,
throwing a wrench in Washington's efforts to impose right-wing activist
Juan Guaidó as coup leader.
AMLO has welcomed Ecuador's ousted socialist leader Rafael Correa and hosted Argentina's
left-leaning Alberto Fernández for his first foreign trip after winning the
presidency.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/D4T0zbASfbA
In October, López Obrador even welcomed Cuban President Díaz-Canel to Mexico
for a historic visit.
Trump's Operation Condor 2.0
For Washington, an independent and left-wing Mexico is intolerable.
In a speech for right-wing, MAGA hat-wearing
Venezuelans in Miami , Florida in February, Trump ranted against socialism for nearly an
hour, threatened the remaining leftist countries in Latin America with regime change.
"The days of socialism and communism are numbered not only in Venezuela, but in Nicaragua
and in Cuba as well," he declared, adding that socialism would never be allowed to take root in
heart of capitalism in the United States.
While Trump has claimed he seeks to withdraw from wars in the Middle East (when he is not
occupying its oil fields
), he has ramped up aggressive US intervention in Latin America.
During the height of the Cold War, Operation Condor thousands of dissidents were murdered,
and hundreds of thousands more were disappeared, tortured, or imprisoned with the assistance of
the US intelligence apparatus.
Today, as Latin America is increasingly viewed through the lens of a new Cold War, Operation
Condor is being reignited with new mechanisms of sabotage and subversion in play. The mayhem
has only begun.
This has nothing to do with ethnicity. Profits before people is the slogan of neoliberlaism.
May be simply Jewish organization adopted neoliberalism earlier and deeper then other.
"(the Chief Rabbi) has actually made the wider Jewish community in the UK much less
safe"
How exactly? And how is this any different from the Rabbi's own hysterical rhetoric? Jews
have their own police force and their own Community Security Trust funded by us the tax
payer. Who else in Britain has such privileges?
"Corbyn has spent his entire political career as an anti-racism campaigner, and his
anti-racism activism as a backbencher was especially prominent inside a party that itself has
traditionally taken the political lead in tackling racism."
No, not really. He's been a particular kind of 'anti racism' campaigner – the type
which is aghast at all forms of racism except against white Britons. After hundreds of racist
attacks on white lads in Oldham in the late 90s and early 00s, a protest was held by the BNP
at the NUJ's head office. It was met by a counter-protest by the SWP, attended by none other
than Jeremy Corbyn. They claimed of course that the BNP were exploiting these attacks. Except
they had no answer as to why the SWP were not organising against these racist attacks
themselves and why they pressed the media to not report on them. Indeed, these same 'anti
racists' went on to claim that the mass rape of tens of thousands of white girls and hundreds
of Sikh girls by Muslim men who held openly racist attitudes were wait for it 'racist myths'.
In other words, they helped create the institutional (non)response to mass child abuse.
"that there is no significant threat posed by antisemitism from the right or the
rapidly emerging far right.
If there is no perceptible populist tide of white nationalism sweeping Europe and the
globe, one that hates immigrants and minorities,"
As far as I can see, what Jonathan means is no one is allowed to criticise Jews except him
and on his terms alone. Europeans aren't allowed to ask why ALL the Jewish organisations have
supported open borders, multiculturalism and hate speech laws.
I don't hate anyone. I have a right to ask why I'm being made in a minority in my country.
You talk of 'minorities' yet you afford no such respect to the majority who were never asked
about any of this and who've faced a relentless psychological barrage to get them to shut up
about opposing any of it.
"White nationalists are all over social media warning of supposed Jewish global
conspiracies, of supposed Jewish control of the media, of supposed Jewish subversion of
"white rights"."
I think you'll find articles by Jews boasting of their control of the media and Hollywood
and you'll find the ADL at the forefront of the campaign to close down free speech. As for
'white rights' in inverted commas, I'll come back to that later.
"It was precisely this kind of thinking that drove European politics a century
ago."
You mean people reacted against Jewish behaviour back then? How dare they, eh? It's ok for
you to rail against Europeans but we can't say a thing about you.
"It was arch-antisemite Arthur Balfour who signed off the Balfour Declaration of 1917
that sought to end Britain's "Jewish problem" by encouraging European Jews to move far away,
to a part of the Middle East then known as Palestine."
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Extremely powerful Zionists (which yes, included
the Rothschilds) lobbied for decades to get the British to agree to what was eventually
promised by Balfour. Would it really be a surprise that a people or government sought to rid
themselves of a problem which the LEFT wing idol Marx himself called "the Jewish
Question"?
"That is, of course, why today's white supremacists love Israel The white supremacists'
love of Israel is intimately bound up with their hatred and fear of Jews."
Some do, some don't. Some hate the Jews who have attacked their ethnic interests, others
just want to be left alone. Please stop projecting, it's bad for you.
"It will persuade them once again that "the Jews" are a "problem"."
It will persuade some people that the major Jewish organisations are a problem and they'd
be right to think that.
"or that white nationalism is no threat to the UK"
Because it isn't and never has been. Might I remind you that according to all the
available research, we are very low in ethnocentricity and that we actually rejected the BUF
/ Mosely and then went on to fight Hitler? I mean, this really is some thanks for that.
"Other surveys show even worse racism among Conservatives towards more obviously
non-white minorities, such as Muslims and black people."
Note how Conservatives here is taken to mean white people only. No mention of the fact
that Jews overwhelmingly vote Tory now as do Hindus and large numbers of Sikhs. But hey, just
imagine if those groups had noticed the epic crime rates owing to blacks and Muslims. How
dare they notice such patterns? How dare Sikhs, whose religion was founded in response to
Islam, be aggrieved that their girls are raped by Muslims. How dare white Britons wonder how
on earth all this ethnic conflict was brought to their once homogeneous land.
"but waves of European Jewish immigrants were either encouraged or compelled to come to
the newly created state of Israel by racist immigration quotas designed to prevent them
fleeing elsewhere, most especially to the United States."
My God Zionists WANTED Jews to go to Israel and Jewish leaders in the US helped them make
it happen but hey! It's still whitey's fault.
"The west helped engineer both the ethnic cleansing of Palestine and Israel's creation
to solve Europe's "Jewish problem". It provided the components necessary for Israel to build
a nuclear bomb that won it a place at the international top table and ensured the
Palestinians were made Israel's serfs in perpetuity. Ever since, the west has provided Israel
with diplomatic cover, military aid and special trading status, even as Israel has worked
relentlessly to disappear the Palestinian people from their homeland."
Extremely wealthy Zionists wanted this and Western politicians gave it to them. At the top
level, they worked together. Stop passing the buck.
Now, here's the really juicy bit: Palestinians and their homeland.
Do I, a native Briton, have a homeland, Jonathan? And if not, why not? And why have Jewish
organisations relentlessly sought to change my homeland? Do you recognise the commonalities
that I have with Palestinians?
"In the UK, the Conservative manifesto similarly promises to bar local councils from
upholding international law and boycotting products from Israel's illegal
settlements."
David Cameron once called the Tories 'the Torah party'. Do you think that might have some
connection with the anti BDS movement?
"But ardent friends of Israel such as Mirvis are blind to these arguments. For them,
one western antisemitic crime – the Holocaust – entirely obscures another western
antisemitic crime: seeking to rid Europe of Jews by forcing them into the Middle East,
serving as pawns on an imperial chessboard that paid no regard to the Palestinians whose
homeland was being sacrificed."
The self pity is truly monstrous. Has it ever occurred to you that if you keep finding
yourselves in trouble, maybe it's you that is the problem?
"The real left in Britain speaks out against Israel not because it hates Jews but
because it holds dear a commitment to justice and a compassion for all."
Yeah, like the tens of thousands of white girls and hundreds of Sikh girls 'the real Left'
left at the mercy of rapists and torturers in Rotherham, Rochdale, Oxford, Telford, Newcastle
and all the other places. Like the countless Muslim girls it allows to be destroyed via FGM
all so the bloc votes keep rolling in.
Truly the most moral of people!!
You really need to get over this monstrous ego that you have and try finding a bit of
dignity.
Mirvis'
intervention in the election campaign makes sense only if he believes in one of two
highly improbable scenarios.
The first requires several demonstrably untrue things to be true. It needs for Corbyn to be
a proven antisemite – and not just of the variety that occasionally or accidentally lets
slip an antisemitic trope or is susceptible to the unthinking prejudice most of us occasionally
display, including (as we shall see) Rabbi Mirvis.
No, for Mirvis to have interfered in the election campaign he would need to believe that
Corbyn intends actively as prime minister to inflame a wider antisemitism in British society or
implement policies designed to harm the Jewish community. And in addition, the chief rabbi
would have to believe that Corbyn presides over a Labour party that will willingly indulge
race-hate speeches or stand by impassively as Corbyn carries out racist policies.
If Mirvis really believes any of that, I have a bridge to sell him. Corbyn has spent his
entire political career as an anti-racism campaigner, and his anti-racism activism as a
backbencher was especially prominent inside a party that itself has traditionally taken the
political lead in tackling racism.
... ... ...
Even now, our most prized rights, such as free speech, are being eroded and subverted to
protect Israel from criticism. In the US, the only infringements on the American public's First
Amendment rights have been legislated to silence those seeking to
pressure Israel over its crimes against the Palestinians with a boycott – similar to the
campaign against apartheid South Africa. In the UK, the Conservative manifesto similarly
promises to
bar local councils from upholding international law and boycotting products from Israel's
illegal settlements.
Rewarding war crimes
The real left focuses on this continuing colonial crime against the Palestinians not because
it is antisemitic (a claim the Economist survey amply refutes), but because the left treats
Israel as emblematic of British and western bad faith and hypocrisy. Israel is the imperial
west's Achilles' heel, the proof that war crimes, massacres and ethnic cleansing are not only
not punished but actively rewarded if these crimes accord with western imperial
interests.
But ardent friends of Israel such as Mirvis are blind to these arguments. For them, one
western antisemitic crime – the Holocaust – entirely obscures another western
antisemitic crime: seeking to rid Europe of Jews by forcing them into the Middle East, serving
as pawns on an imperial chessboard that paid no regard to the Palestinians whose homeland was
being sacrificed.
In his state of historical and political myopia, Mirvis cannot begin to understand that
there might be political activists who, in defending the Palestinian people, are also defending
Jews. That they, unlike him, understand that Israel was created not out of western benevolence
towards Jews, but out of western malevolence towards "lesser peoples". The real left in Britain
speaks out against Israel not because it hates Jews but because it holds dear a commitment to
justice and a compassion for all.
Mirvis, on the other hand, is the Zionist equivalent of a little Englander. He prefers
particularist, short-term interests over universalist, long-term ones.
It was he, remember, who threw his
full support behind Israel in 2014 as it indiscriminately bombed Gaza, killing some 550
children – a bombing campaign that came after years of an Israeli blockade on the
Palestinian population there. That siege has led the United Nations to warn that the enclave
will be uninhabitable by next
year.
It was Mirvis, along with his predecessor Jonathan Sacks, who in 2017 endorsed
the fanatical Jewish settlers – Israel's equivalent of white supremacists – on
their annual march through the occupied Old City of Jerusalem. This is the march where the
majority of the participants are recorded every year waving masses of Israeli flags at
Palestinians and chanting "Death to the Arabs". One Israeli newspaper columnist has
described the Jerusalem Day march as a "religious carnival of hatred".
Just goes to show how ... so called "Chief Rabbi" has become the most important commentator
on a British general election, and the Tories and much of the media in Britain absolutely
love it.
Not even America they would let a Rabbi blatantly interfere with a presidential election.
It's incredible how a British general election has literally become about Jews, I've never
seen anything like it in any other country. The media is so obsessed with what Jews think
anyone would think Corbyn was running to be PM of Israel!
The Epstein Pedoscandal Mossad
Timeline shows in detail how Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell were working for the
Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad.
Link to Unz.com article
The timeline generated many comments at Unz.com but surprisingly most of them dealt whether
Epstein was a pedophile or not. This despite the overwhelming evidence of pedophilia.
Many have also totally missed – or are afraid to notice – the big picture:
Israeli intelligence agencies and especially Mossad seem to be running pedophile rings that
blackmail Western political, business and scientific leaders.
Furthermore, it seems that Ghislaine Maxwell was and still is the master mind behind many of
these pedophile rings.
One of the reasons Epstein and Ghislaine were able to continue sex trafficking with impunity
for so long was the appearance that Epstein was a victim of jealous people and overzealous
police. Many people thought that Epstein had only had sex with a 17-year old girl who had lied
about her age.
This excuse worked well because in Florida the age of consent is 18 while in most other
American states it is 16.
Link to Wikipedia
Epstein was able to play the martyr by not only claiming that unscrupulous girls had lied
their age but also by implying that the age of consent is too high anyway in Florida.
This was also one reason why in New Mexico where Epstein had his Zorro Ranch the officials
refused to register him as a sex offender. In New Mexico the age of consent was 16 until in
2018 it was raised to 18.
Furthermore, unlike in many other states, in New Mexico the courts recognize a mistake of
age defense.
New Mexico courts recognize a mistake of
age defense . The mistake of age defense is basically "I thought she was 17." However,
this is no guarantee that this defense will work in court. Moreover, the mistake of age is
the creation of judges in the absence of a direct statute addressing the defense. State
lawmakers may pass a law overriding the courts on this issue at any time. ( LegalMatch
)
In reality the Epstein-Ghislaine case is not whether it is wrong for an adult to have sex
with a 17 year old. Instead it is about many other things such as prostitution, grooming,
pedophilia and the exploitation of children.
This all is connected to global politics involving sex trafficking, drug and arms trade,
money laundering, Ponzi schemes, spy networks and blackmailing for Mossad.
Epstein's victims were caught in a web of international spy network that used them as pawns
for blackmail operations. The younger the girls were, the more leverage Israel would have over
politicians, billionaires and scientists. Thus Epstein and Ghislaine tried to also recruit
girls who were well under the age of 16.
What is more, they personally enjoyed having sex with these very young girls. Both Epstein
and Ghislaine seem to have been pedophiles who were attracted to prepubescent girls and boys,
i.e. small children.
Note that in order to be a pedophile it is enough to have merely occasional sexual
attraction to prepubescent, i.e. sexually immature children who have not yet developed
secondary
sex characteristics, such as breasts.
Julie Brown from Miami Herald notes that Courtney Wild was only 14 when she was
recruited into Epstein's sex ring.
Wild still had braces on her teeth when she was introduced to him in 2002 at the age of
14.
She was fair, petite and slender, blonde and blue-eyed. (emphasis added. Miami Herald
)
Link to Miami Herald
Julie Brown also notes that Epstein preferred girls who were not only white [and non-Jewish]
but also appeared prepubescent.
Wild, who later helped recruit other girls, said Epstein preferred girls who were
white, appeared prepubescent and those who were easy to manipulate into going further each
time. (Emphasis added. Miami Herald )
For Epstein and Ghislaine it was important that the girls at the very least looked like
small children. This is obviously why they preferred girls who were under 16.
Courtney Wild told the police that she brought Epstein over 70 girls and they were all under
16.
By the time I was 16, I had probably brought him 70 to 80 girls who were all 14 and 15
years old (Emphasis added. Miami Herald )
Some girls were even younger. According to the police many were 13 year old.
The girls -- mostly 13 to 16 -- were lured to his pink waterfront mansion by Wild and
other girls, who went to malls, house parties and other places where girls congregated, and
told recruits that they could earn $200 to $300 to give a man -- Epstein -- a massage,
according to an unredacted copy of the Palm Beach police investigation obtained by the
Herald. (Emphasis added. Miami Herald )
It is also important to note that even 13 was not the minimum age for Epstein and Ghislaine.
In fact, there was no limit to how young the girls could be. Both Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell
emphasized that the younger the better.
Eventually, she said Maxwell trained her to recruit new girls for Epstein.
"Jeffrey was very particular in the kind of girls he wanted. First off, the younger the
better ."
Epstein said that to her, Giuffre claimed, and " Maxwell said that too . During the
training and telling me how to do it, she said 'You always have to go for the
youngest-looking ones .'" (Emphasis added.
The Daily Beast )
Link to The Daily Beast
It seems the primary purpose was not even blackmail since especially Epstein was having sex
with these young girls all the time. On some days Epstein was having sex several times a
day.
Sex games were more important for Epstein than work. Obviously, he was extremely attracted
to these young girls.
In six months, I never saw him do a day's work," Ransome told The Telegraph. "I never
saw him work. He was literally sexually abusing us all day long . (Emphasis added.
Business Insider )
Link to Business Insider
Ghislaine also seemed to be obsessed with sex. Just like her father, Robert Maxwell she was
rumored to be interested in unconventional sex which includes also sex with young children.
As she [Ghislaine] posed for the pics, which ran in a publication meant to promote
Sotheby's vintage fashion collection, she allegedly let slip comments that hinted at a
twisted double life.
"She didn't talk about Epstein, but during the shoot she did tell a story about how she
just hosted a dinner party for a number of young girls, and she put dildos at each place
setting," the source said. "Ghislaine then described how during the dinner two guests, who
were a couple, began demonstrating how to do the perfect fellatio on a man for all at the
table. She was laughing about it."
"A friend of mine has a whole theory about her, that Epstein was like her father Robert
Maxwell, who himself is believed to have had some strange sexual practices." (
Page Six )
Link to PageSix
The Epstein Mossad-Timeline shows how Ghislaine was most probably trained by Mossad to use
sex to gather information. That training would not have been too difficult for her since she
was hypersexual. Many even considered her a nymphomaniac.
In fact, even many Israeli Jews – who usually have much fewer sexual taboos than
puritan English and Americans – were shocked by her raunchy sexuality.
Flirtatious indeed: I understand from a mutual friend that after school she travelled
to Israel and visited a kibbutz; she was immediately ostracised by the other girls for making
a rather-too-obvious beeline for the Adonis-like lifeguard at the kibbutz pool. Very quickly
she got her way, as she would with much in her life. ( Tatler . Emphasis
added.)
Even Ghislaine's friend were sometimes shocked by her open sexuality that so often
contrasted with her otherwise lady-like behavior and position in high society.
Ghislaine was, added Mason, 'fantastically entertaining' and 'saucy' – the paper
said that she talked openly about sex .
In fact, said another acquaintance who saw her often at parties, she was 'obsessed by
sex . She's Sphinx-like, mysterious. The last time I saw her, five, 10 years ago, I said what
are you up to? And she said "I'm selling this product – stainless-steel mini dumb-bells
– that you put up your fanny. For exercising your vaginal muscles, exercise your pelvic
floor, learn the Singapore Grip. I'm giving seminars in LA and they all turn up and I tell
them, this is how you keep your man."' ( Tatler . Emphasis
added.)
Epstein and Ghislaine were both hypersexual. All kind of sex interested them. Little girls
were just part of the menu. Or more specifically, the best – and most profitable –
part.
Epstein and Ghislaine were so attracted to young girls that nothing seemed to satisfy them.
Perhaps this is why Epstein and Ghislaine created the highly risky sexual pyramid scheme. The
girls were offered two alternatives: Either satisfy Epstein and Ghislaine sexually or get more
girls to satisfy them.
In this way Epstein and Ghislaine were able to recruit literally hundreds of young girls.
However, some of these girls went to the police and the sexual pyramid scheme collapsed.
When Epstein got out of jail in 2009 he had half-learned his lesson: American girls are too
risky.
Now Epstein and Ghislaine would only concentrate on East European girls with the help of
their Jewish-Ukrainian friend Peter Listerman.
One of the lesser-known shadowy figures linked to Jeffrey Epstein and his sex ring of
teenage girls and young women is Ukrainian-born Peter Listerman, who has worked as a
businessman and television presenter but is most known for his "match-making"
abilities.
What match-making really means is that Listerman procures women, often underage, for
the jet-set society to use for sexual purposes. His "clients" include Russian oligarchs and
American businessmen and seems to have also
included Jeffrey Epstein. ( Citizen
Truth )
Link to the Citizen Truth.org
Listerman has such a bad reputation that he is shunned even in Ukraine!
Tatiana Savchenko, who founded the first modeling school in Odessa, Ukraine
explained to the Daily Beast the lengths she had to go to keep Listerman from getting his
hands on young women and trafficking them for sex work.
She claimed that he would frequently approach her students and attempt to lure them
with promises of a luxurious lifestyle, and that "It took a lot of work to keep him from
tricking our teen models in his traps." ( Citizen
Truth )
Peter Listerman is the usual suspect. Link to Fishki.net Do you think I am
kidding? I am Peter Listerman! Link to Fishki.net
Both Epstein and Listerman were attracted to very young girls. Neither even tried to hide it
much. In fact, Epstein was quite open about his attraction to tweens.
Just three months ago, as federal prosecutors were closing in with new charges, Mr.
Epstein had a conversation with R. Couri Hay, a publicist, about continuing to improve his
reputation. Mr. Epstein asserted that what he was convicted of did not constitute pedophilia,
said Mr. Hay, who declined to represent him.
The girls he had sex with were "tweens and teens," Mr. Epstein told him. ( The New
York Times )
But what is a tween?
Preadolescent is generally defined as those ranging from age 10 to 13 years.
[4][6] While known
as preadolescent in psychology, the terms preteen, preteenager or tween are common in
everyday use. ( Wikipedia
)
Epstein was right, of course. What he was convicted of in 2007 did not constitute
pedophilia. However, that is precisely one reason why people are so outraged!
Epstein and Ghislaine did not see any problem of recruiting, grooming and having sex also
with tweens. And apparently neither did the Justice Department and the FBI led by
Robert Mueller !
But it gets even worse. As pointed out in the Epstein Pedoscandal Mossad Timeline ,
it seems that Epstein and Ghislaine were after even younger girls.
In 2003 Epstein financed Jean-Luc Brunell's(?) and Jeff Fuller's(J) new modelling agency
MC2 that seemed to have worked with Peter Listerman.
MC2 obviously refers to the famous Einstein equation E = MC2 , the energy-mass
equivalence. Equally obviously, E equals Epstein, the energy, whereas the girls equal MC2, the
mass energized by Epstein.
Despite all this – or for the very reason – Epstein invested in MC2 and became
particularly
close to its founders Brunel and Fuller.
The agency operates in New York, Miami and Tel Aviv. It's in practice half-Israeli.
Many call Israel the capital of human trafficking and organ
harvesting .
Link to
Ynet.com
MC2 concentrates on importing East European girls to Israel and America. The younger the
better.
Marina Lynchuk of MC2 Lolita Lvola from MC2 Linta Lapinda from MC2
Brunel seems to have given 12-year old triplets to Epstein as a birthday present.
'Jeffrey bragged after he met them that they were 12-year-olds and flown over from
France because they're really poor over there, and their parents needed the money or whatever
the case is and they were absolutely free to stay and flew out,' Giuffre said.
She said she saw the three girls with her own eyes and that Epstein had repeatedly
described to her how the girls had massaged him and performed oral sex on him. They were
flown back to France the next day.
Link to Daily Mail
It seems that even tweens were not young enough for Epstein.
According to court papers in 2005 Brunel called Epstein and left a message that "he is
sending him a 16-year-old Russian girl for purposes of sex". However, the written message says
something even worse.
The message, filed as an exhibit in the case, was written on an office message pad,
partly in code, and read: "He [Brunel] has a teacher for you to teach you how to speak
Russian. She is 2×8 years old not blonde. Lessons are free and you can have your 1st
today if you call." ( New
York Post )
Does it mean that two eight year olds are involved? Or does 2 x 8 mean to sex 8 year old?
(2=to, x=sex)
Why would the lessons be free and why is it relevant that the "teacher" is not a blond?
There is no denying that Epstein and Ghislaine sexualised even small children. This became
clear in 2005 when police raided Epstein's Palm Peach mansion.
In one photo that was hanging on the wall a small six or seven year old girl was bending
over in a tiny dress. Police blurred out the photo in the video taken during the raid.
NEW YORK CITY, NY – MARCH 13: Atmosphere at
Hamish Bowles, Ghislaine Maxwell and Lillian von Stauffenberg dinner for ALLEGRA HICKS at Home
of Ghislaine Maxwell on March 13, 2007 in New York City. (Photo by Patrick McMullan/Patrick
McMullan via Getty Images). Link to Getty Images.
The so called artwork seems to be full of pedophile symbols.
Link to Wikileaks.org
The quality of the photos taken at Ghislaine's home are so good that even more symbols have
been found in her artwork.
For some reason the mainstream media has not picked up on this pedophilia angle. No
mainstream media journalist has even tried to ask why would Ghislaine have such art and symbols
on her home wall.
This despite the fact that Ghislaine is most probably an Israeli superspy just like was her
father, Robert Maxwell. She probably has been trained to use sex – including pedophilia
– as a tool for blackmail and manipulation.
At the time in Israel females molesting little boys was not even considered rape.
Link to
Haaretz.com
Nor have mainstream journalists asked where was Ghislaine when Madeline McCann was
abducted.
That would not be an unreasonable question since one of the E-Fit images looks a lot like
Ghislaine.
Link to Enchanted Life Path.com
Furthermore, two of the E-Fit images (1A, 1B) look like the Podesta brothers. John Podesta was White House
Chief of Staff to Bill Clinton and the Chairman of the 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential
campaign.
Ghislaine and Epstein were close to the Clintons and the Podesta brothers have been directly
linked also to Pizzagate.
Was Ghislaine helping to run also Pizzagate and other pedophile rings for Mossad?
At least she seems to be perfectly trained to do just that. First, her own hypersexuality,
family background and possible training by Mossad made it easy for her to master mind the
pedophilia ring she run with Epstein.
Second, Ghislaine and Epstein had all the apparel to help run also other pedophile rings:
Lolita express airplanes and helicopters, Zorro Ranch in New Mexico and luxury mansions in New
York, Palm Peach and Paris.
Even more importantly they had their own island in the Virgin Islands.
In the 90s Epstein bought Little St.
James island from the Virgin islands. It had a mansion which Epstein expanded.
Soon locals started to call it the Pedophile Island.
Little St. James island. Link to
Wall Street Journal article
The island seems to have tunnels with several underground entrances.
Ghislaine has a Helicopter Pilot License and often transported quests to the island.
On the weekends in the 1990s, Maxwell would have her Rollerblades FedExed to Epstein's
island in the Caribbean, and said she got her helicopter's license so she could transport
anyone she liked without pilots knowing who they were .
Maxwell also said the island had been completely wired for video; the friend thought
that she and Epstein were videotaping everyone on the island as an insurance policy, as
blackmail.
A source close to Maxwell says she spoke glibly and confidently about getting girls to
sexually service Epstein, saying this was simply what he wanted, and describing the way she'd
drive around to spas and trailer parks in Florida to recruit them. She would claim she had a
phone job for them, "and you'll make lots of money, meet everyone, and I'll change your
life."
Maxwell had one other thing to tell this woman: "When I asked what she thought of the
underage girls, she looked at me and said, 'they're nothing, these girls. They are trash .'"
(Emphasis added. Vanity
Fair )
Ghislaine was naturally using Epstein's helicopters. Some of them shared their FAA tail
number with a US contractor, Dyncorp . That would have helped Ghislaine and
Epstein to fly drugs and children.
FAA records and Epstein's pilot's flight manifest indicate that Epstein's Bell
helicopter used the same tail number of N474AW . This was the same tail number used until
2006 by State Department contractor Dyncorp for counter-insurgency operations in Latin
America.
The congruence of Epstein's Bell N474AW and Dincorp's Bronco N474AW is noteworthy. In
2002, the year Epstein's aircraft fleet stands accused of flying underage teen girls, some
between the ages of 12 and 15 , coincided with Dyncorp's trafficking in underage females
between the ages of 12 and 15 from Kosovo and Bosnia in the Balkans.
One Dyncorp whistleblower reported to The Washington Times's Insight magazine's Kelly
O'Meara in 2002 the following on one Dyncorp employee in Bosnia:
[he] owned a girl who couldn't have been more than 14 years old. It's a sick sight
anyway to see any grown man [having sex] with a child, but to see some 45-year-old man who
weights 400 pounds with a little girl, it just makes you sick."
Tail number N474AW has been shared between Epstein's Bell helicopter like the one in
this photo. (Emphasis added.
Political Bull Pen )
DynCorp's pedophilia ring became internationally infamous with the release of the movie
Whistleblower.
Link to Wikipedia
Helicopters can always be seen. However, Ghislaine also has a license to operate
submarines!
In 2012 – three years after Epstein got out of jail – Maxwell founded The
TerraMar Project ,
[51] a nonprofit
organization that advocated protecting ocean waters.
She gave a lecture for TerraMar at the University of Texas at Dallas and a TED talk, at
TEDx Charlottesville in 2014. [52] Maxwell
accompanied Stuart
Beck (J), a 2013 TerraMar board member, to two United Nations meetings to discuss the
project. [17] ( Wikipedia )
In 2014, a
United Nations event featured Maxwell as a speaker. According to her bio in the program,
Maxwell's "web-based non-profit" aimed "to protect the Oceans by empowering a global
community of ocean citizens ." It further described Maxwell as "a private helicopter pilot
and an Emergency Medical Technician and a qualified ROV and Deepworker submarine pilot
."
A former Coast Guard officer, Borgerson was also a fellow at the Council on Foreign
Relations , which featured Borgerson and Maxwell as speakers during one 2014 talk
titled "Governing the Ocean Commons: Growing Challenges, New Approaches." Friends of Maxwell,
according to The
New York Times , said Borgerson became her boyfriend. Maxwell had allegedly described
Borgerson as a " Navy SEAL " to her pals.
Maxwell's dubious charity also roped in the Clinton Global Initiative , the now-defunct
networking platform for the Clinton Foundation. In the fall of 2013, CGI named TerraMar as
one of the "commitments to action" at their annual meeting. (Emphasis added.
Daily Beast )
Did the Pedophile Island have an underground submarine base? Was it a part of global
pedophile network?
And was the Ocean Citizens project an attempt to escape national jurisdictions and thus gain
at least a partial immunity from police investigations and prosecutions?
Link to TerraMar
Project
Interestingly, as late as 2016 Epstein bought also the nearby Great St. James Island. He
started to build on the island without permits.
There were rumors that he was building underground. For some reason the mainstream media has
had no interest in this second island.
Why is the mainstream media not interested in Ghislaine's many links to pedophilia?
Perhaps because Ghislaine has so many powerful friends. The photo of the pedophile artwork
on Ghislaine's wall was taken 13 March 2007 during a party at Ghislaine's New York townhouse.
The guest list included a curious combination of elite Jews, aristocratic Brits and American
WASPs.
The party was in Ghislaine's huge 7000-square-foot townhouse. It is located in the most
opulent and prestigious neighborhood of America, the Upper East Side , New York on East 65th
Street just off Park Avenue. Epstein's townhouse was only 10 blocks away.
Ghislaine's five
story townhouse. Link to Street Easy Ghislaine's townhouse floor plan. Link to Street Easy
Ghislaine's townhouse 2nd floor gallery. Link to Street Easy
There are reports from reliable sources that the townhouse was sold in 2000 to Ghislaine by
Lynn
Forester de Rothschild . The very same woman who had introduced Epstein and Ghislaine to
Alan Dershowits and the Clintons in the 90s.
The Manhattan property, which is close to Epstein's mansion, is owned by Lynn Forester
de Rothschild, wife of British financier Sir Evelyn de Rothschild. (See
The Times and the original article .)
According to Business Insider Forester sold the townhouse to Ghislaine for less than half the
price.
Forester sold the mansion for about $8.5 million less than its assessed market value,
which was more than $13.4 million.
Was this a pay-off to Ghislaine from the King of Jews, the Rothschilds for services
rendered?
Hillary Clinton, Evelyn de Rothschild, Bill Clinton and Lynn Forester de
Rothschild. Link to Mint Press
It probably is also relevant that at the time of the sale of the townhouse the Prime
Minister of Israel was Ehud
Barak. In the 80s he had been the head of Aman, the Israeli Military Intelligence Agency.
As the Epstein Pedoscandal Mossad Timeline revealed, both Epstein and Ghislaine worked
for the Israeli intelligence agencies already in the 80s during the Iran-Contra operation.
Note that it was around year 2000 that Epstein and Ghislaine started the pedophile operation
in earnest. In the 80s and 90s blackmail operations were a side show but now it became the main
show involving hundreds of young girls.
Sexual blackmail – especially involving little children – can be an extremely
efficient way to influence key politicians and even military officials. A successful blackmail
operation can achieve more than several army divisions. No wonder Barak was so close to Epstein
and Ghislaine.
Furthermore, in 2000 the president of Israel was Moshe Katsev who was sexually harassing and
even raping his female subordinates. Later Katsev would be convicted of rape.
It was also in 2000 when the Israeli Vice-Consul of Rio de Janeiro, Arie Scher and Hebrew
language Professor George Schteinberg were running a pedophile ring for Israeli tourists. When
the Brasilian police started to investigate the Israeli consulate Scher managed to flee back to
Israel.
Link to Rodoh.info
In Israel Scher was not prosecuted. Instead in 2005 he was promoted to Consul of Canberra,
the capital of Australia. A spokesman for the Israeli Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem, Mark Regev
explained:
He [Arie Scher] was a young and single man at the time [in Brazil]. Now he is married
and he's six years older and there is no reason why he shouldn't make an excellent diplomatic
appointment in Australia.
Australia refused to let Scher enter the country.
Link to William Bowles Info
The most shocking part of the Arie/Aryeh Scher story is that the mainstream media was not
interested. Either the stories have been scrubbed from the internet or no stories were ever
written by mainstream journalists except one short story by BBC in 2000 and one even smaller
story
by The Sydney Morning Herald in 2005. Even more surprisingly Youtube does not seem to
have any videos about the Scher case.
No wonder Barak was absolutely convinced that the Western mainstream media would never dare
to criticize Israel and its intelligence agencies. Not even when Mossad was running pedophile
rings.
It was probably the Israeli leaders Shimon Peres, Ehud Barak and Moshe Katsev together with
the ultra-Zionist
Mega Group who made sure Epstein and especially the Maxwell family had not only immunity
from prosecution but also all the blackmail apparel necessary including luxury townhouses,
airplanes, yachts, submarines, ranch and a private island. All, of course, bugged to the
hilt.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak (R) talks to Shimon Peres, Minister of Regional
Planning, after Barak's speech at the opening session of parliament in Jerusalem 30 October
2000. AFP PHOTO / SVEN NACKSTRAND (Photo credit should read SVEN NACKSTRAND/AFP/Getty Images)
Link to Getty Images
Here the pedophile artwork at Ghislaine's New York townhouse can be seen behind Lillian von
Staufenberg who in March 2007 together with Ghislaine and Hamish Bowles organized a dinner
party in honor of Allegra Hicks. This at a time when Epstein had already been charged with
abusing young girls.
Why would Ghislaine have such a suspicious artwork on her wall knowing that it would
probably be photographed during the parties?
Why would Ghislaine and her quests take such a huge risk? Or was it a sign meant to be seen?
Was Ghislaine flaunting her power?
Ghislaine and her quests seemed to be absolutely sure that the mainstream media would not
dare to ask embarrassing questions.
They were right, of course. The mainstream media knows its place.
However, occasionally some courageous mainstream journalist or editor does try to give
hints. Some have even reported on Ghislaine's hyper-sexual reputation and her orgies. It is
just that the stories have mostly been scrubbed from the internet.
Fortunately, Whitney Webb from Mintpress has
found many of the scrubbed stories. Some of them mention the Mossad connection and others
note the orgies. For example, in 2003 a British newspaper, The Evening Standardreported
a revealing rumor.
Salacious reports have crossed the Atlantic about Ghislaine hosting bizarre parties at
her house to which she invites a dozen or so young girls, then brandishes a whip and teaches
them how to improve their sexual techniques.
It seems that Ghislaine was not only a madame to Epstein but also to the ruling elite. This
would both explain her popularity and the fact that the media – and especially the
American media – dares not to criticize her too much. Not even after her boyfriend
Epstein was charged with sex trafficking minors!
Ghislaine's friends are just too powerful. After the March 2007 party the British Daily
Mail newspaper was amazed how Ghislaine could still have attracted such creme de la
creme of the highest elite. Even more amazingly, the elite was practically swooning over
her.
The night before the party, the hostess [Ghislaine] had been inundated with calls from
disgruntled socialites, irked that they hadn't received an invitation.
The hostess greeted their objections with her customary charm, but remained unmoved. As
always, her list had been carefully edited, and she intended it to stay that way.
Among the select few were Hollywood star Matthew Modine, Kennedy family member Mrs
Anthony Radziwill, Peggy Siegel, PR consultant to the stars, and Julie Janklow, heir to a
literary dynasty.
There was a Rockefeller on the list, as well as the inevitable countesses, billionaires
and New York luminaries.
Link to Daily Mail
The guests at the party included also Renee Rockefeller who is married to Mark Rockefeller , the son of ex-Vice
President Nelson Rockefeller and nephew of David Rockefeller.
David Rockefeller lived at 146 East on the same 65th Street in the Upper East Side as
Ghislaine. They were practically neighbors. Ghislaine would have to walk only two minutes to
visit David.
David liked to pose for photos in his Beetle Room next to his favorite Picasso painting
depicting a nude child "prostitute".
David Rockefeller. Link to Jeffrey Harris Desing.com
David was often visited by his close friend Jacob Rothschild, the patriarch of the
Rothschild family.
The very same family that got Ghislaine her luxury townhouse next door.
The patriarchs,
Jacob Rothschild and David Rockefeller. Link to Jeffrey Harris Design.com
As shown by the Epstein Pedoscandal Mossad Timeline both Epstein and Ghislaine
continued to move in the highest circles long after Epstein got out of jail. In fact, only last
year Ghislaine was invited to a secret writers' retreat hosted by the richest man in the world,
Jeff Bezos.
Link to The Daily Mail
Not only billionaires but also royalty kept in close contact with Ghislaine.
Prince Andrew was recently interviewed by the BBC about his relationship with Epstein,
Ghislaine and their sex slave Virginia Roberts.
Amazingly, Andrew claimed she has no recollection of Epstein's and Ghislaine's sex slave,
Virginia Roberts. This despite the fact that they were photographed together!
Prince Andrew,
Virginia Roberts and Ghislaine Maxwell. Link to Daily Mail Link to The Sun.com
Hardly anybody believes Andrew. The queen had no choice but to sack his own son.
Link to
Daily Mail
Andrew got sacked because he was caught in a lie.
Andrew claimed he could not have had sex with the 17-year old Virginia in 2001 because he
had stayed with the British consul general.
The problem is the consul general does not recall Andrew staying with him.
Link to Daily
Mail
Curiously, most of the mainstream media has forgotten that it was Ghislaine who recruited
and manipulated Virginia Roberts to become a sex slave.
Even the BBC forgot this crucial fact despite Andrew mentioning Ghislaine many times during
the interview.
Time and again, the Prince invoked his friendship with Maxwell, 57, daughter of
disgraced media tycoon Robert Maxwell, as the reason he came into paedophile Epstein's
orbit.
Asked when he last saw Maxwell, Andrew said his last contact was 'earlier this year,
funnily enough', when she 'was here doing some rally'. (
Daily Mail )
Andrew claimed to have met Ghislaine last spring. In fact, they met in June just after US
prosecutors reopened the case against Epstein.
The Duke of York held a meeting with Ghislaine Maxwell in London two weeks after US
prosecutors announced they wanted to reopen their investigation into Jeffrey Epstein.
The meeting took place on or about June 5, the day before Ms Maxwell took part in a
four-day charity motoring rally from London to Monte Carlo.
Did Ghislaine demand that Andrew help make sure that the her own parallel case would not be
reopened?
After meeting Andrew she literally disappeared from the face of the earth.
The ex-socialite has not been seen since although rumours have placed her in Brazil,
France, the American mid-West and even the UK.
'No one knows where she is,' a lawyer for one of Epstein's victims said last night.
'She's done the greatest disappearing act known to man – or woman.' (
Daily Mail )
Link to Daily Mail
Shockingly, during the BBC interview Prince Andrew mentioned Ghislaine many times and seemed
to be proud of their friendship. Despite this the interviewer did not dare to ask questions
about their relationship.
Was this a message to all: Leave Ghislaine alone.
Ghislaine is obviously protected not only by the royal family but also by the whole ruling
elite. No wonder that she has the
Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card .
Ghislaine also tries to protect other Epstein associates.
Link to Daily Mail
Prince Andrew is now afraid to go to the US.
Five women who accuse Jeffrey Epstein of abusing them say Prince Andrew witnessed how
people were given massages at the sex offender's homes.
The lawyer for the women has told BBC
Panorama he plans to serve subpoenas to force the Duke of York to testify as a witness in
all five cases.
He says the prince could have important information about sex trafficking. ( BBC )
Link to BBC story and video
The BBC has now finally zoomed in on Ghislaine.
Another Epstein victim, Sarah Ransome told Panorama Ghislaine Maxwell, one of Prince
Andrew's oldest friends, worked hand in hand with Epstein.
"Ghislaine controlled the girls. She was like the Madam," she said.
"She was like the nuts and bolts of the sex trafficking operation and she would always
visit Jeffrey on the island to make sure the girls were doing what they were supposed to be
doing.
"She knew what Jeffrey liked. She worked and helped maintain Jeffrey's standard by
intimidation, by intimidating the girls, so this was very much a joint effort."
Ms Maxwell could not be reached for comment but has previously denied any involvement
in or knowledge of Epstein's abuse. ( BBC )
But the American media is still not interested in Ghislaine.
What the American mainstream media always willfully forgets is that Ghislaine Maxwell is the
key person and mastermind behind the whole pedo sex trafficking operation.
The key role of Ghislaine is not surprising. After all, her father was an Israeli super spy,
Robert Maxwell.
But perhaps this is the very reason why the American media is not interested.
For years Ghislaine has been at the center of a vast pedophile sex trafficking network. But
still to this day the American police has never dared to even interview her.
I think the answer to the question in the title of this article is pretty damn obvious to
anyone and everyone outside of the controlled media. smdh. Call me crazy, but I wouldn't be
shocked to learn that pervert Jeffrey Epstein is still alive somewhere, not only do I not buy
the "suicide story," but I am not buying he was murdered either. Ghislane described the girls
involved in this pedophile ring/honey pot as "trash." If these girls are or were "trash" than
what in the hell does that this demonic witch named Ghislane Maxwell?
"... The creation of a think tank dedicated to "an approach to the world based on diplomacy and restraint rather than threats, sanctions, and bombing" is very welcome news. Other than the Cato Institute, there has been nothing like this in Washington, and this tank's focus will be entirely on foreign policy. ..."
"... I am quite amazed that Soros and Koch bro are involved. We will wait to see how this plays out. ..."
Stephen Kinzer
comments on the creation of a new think tank, The Quincy Institute, committed to promoting a foreign policy of restraint and
non-interventionism:
Since peaceful foreign policy was a founding principle of the United States, it's appropriate that the name of this think tank
harken back to history. It will be called the Quincy Institute, an homage to John Quincy Adams, who in a seminal speech on Independence
Day in 1821 declared that the United States "goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom
and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." The Quincy Institute will promote a foreign policy
based on that live-and-let-live principle.
The creation of a think tank dedicated to "an approach to the world based on diplomacy and restraint rather than threats,
sanctions, and bombing" is very welcome news. Other than the Cato Institute, there has been nothing like this in Washington, and
this tank's focus will be entirely on foreign policy. The lack of institutional support has put advocates of peace and restraint
at a disadvantage for a very long time, so it is encouraging to see that there is an effort underway to change that. The Quincy Institute
represents another example of how antiwar progressives and conservatives can and should work together to change U.S. foreign policy
for the better. The coalition opposed to the war on Yemen showed what Americans opposed to illegal and unnecessary war can do when
they work towards a shared goal of peace and non-intervention, and this institute promises to be an important part of such efforts
in the future. Considering how long the U.S. has been
waging war without end
, there couldn't be a better time for this.
TAC readers and especially readers of this blog will be familiar with the people involved in creating the think tank:
The institute plans to open its doors in September and hold an official inauguration later in the autumn. Its founding donors
-- Soros's Open Society Foundation and the Charles Koch Foundation -- have each contributed half a million dollars to fund its
takeoff. A handful of individual donors have joined to add another $800,000. By next year the institute hopes to have a $3.5 million
budget and a staff of policy experts who will churn out material for use in Congress and in public debates. Hiring is underway.
Among Parsi's co-founders are several well-known critics of American foreign policy, including Suzanne DiMaggio, who has spent
decades promoting negotiated alternatives to conflict with China, Iran and North Korea; the historian and essayist Stephen Wertheim;
and the anti-militarist author and retired Army colonel Andrew Bacevich.
"The Quincy Institute will invite both progressives and anti-interventionist conservatives to consider a new, less militarized
approach to policy," Bacevich said, when asked why he signed up. "We oppose endless, counterproductive war. We want to restore
the pursuit of peace to the nation's foreign policy agenda."
Trita Parsi and Andrew Bacevich are both TAC contributors and have participated in our foreign policy conferences in recent
years. Parsi and I were on the same panel last fall at our most recent conference. I have also cited and learned from arguments made
by Suzanne DiMaggio and Stephen Wertheim in my
posts here . Their involvement is a
very good sign, and it shows both the political breadth and intellectual depth of this new institution. I look forward to seeing
what they do, and I wish them luck.
Good luck. I hope you will be invited on cable shows. I am tired of seeing the beard from the Foundation of the Defense of Democracies
and his clones.
Once in a while the hosts mess up and they interview someone who doesn't give the correct answer about the M.E., or somewhere
else and I see the blank look on their face as they thank the guess as since it is obvious they cannot process the information.
I generally do not see those guests ever again.
The guidelines are, the world is divided into those who crave U.S. leadership and the evildoers who are constantly testing
our leadership. We must always be vigilant against the latter. It is inconceivable that anyone merely act in their own interest.
It is all about us.
I also am looking forward to reading their thoughts and ideas about a foreign policy that doesn't include the US invading yet
another country under the ridiculous notion that we are somehow being threatened by them. We have the largest military on earth.
It's also telling that we pick on and invade countries that can't actually hurt us. That makes us all the more the bully on the
block. It's to our shame that we even consider these shameful actions.
Exciting news. An early endeavor , if not already accomplished, should be consideration of relevant theoretical models for understanding
competition and cooperation. Since the Cold War and to the present day, variants of the Prisoners Dilemma serve this function.
Prior to that, misconceptions of survival of the fittest led to the disasters of eugenics and WW2. Maybe the new think tank will
outline or draw inspiration from a new theory.
Re: "I look forward to seeing what they do, and I wish them luck."
So do I. Very much so. However, the most prominent realist Washington Think Tank is the Cato Institute. It has well spoken
advocates of realism and restraint including Christopher Preble, Doug Bandow and Ted Galen Carpenter. Unfortunately, the thoughtful
Cato scribes get very little exposure on the MSM compared to the atrocious Heritage, AEI and Brookings nests of go along to get
along Neocon / Neoliberal lackeys. It's not clear to me how and why the Quincy Institute will generate any more leverage.
I've argued many times before that the linchpin of the busted U.S. Global Cop foreign policy model is the Pentagon. As long
as the Pentagon hacks are considered the paragons of Olympian insight and wisdom by the political class and the MSM, nothing will
change.
Related to that though, there actually was a hopeful article in the Atlantic about the newest Pentagon Big Mouth, CENTCOM Commander
General General Kenneth McKenzie:
Hopefully, that is a crack in the wall of Military Exceptionalism. The sooner others start taking a 2x4 to the sanctified occupants
of the 5-Sided Pleasure Palace, knocking them off of their pedestals, the better.
BTW, the new Acting Defense Secretary and MIC Parasite Mark Esper is no friend of the taxpayers. Expect that failed Pentagon
audit that was deep-sixed by Mad Dog Mattis to stay deep-sixed with Esper in the Big Seat.
I am quite amazed that Soros and Koch bro are involved. We will wait to see how this plays out.
Jeez, who can believe this amongst the "think" tanks: "an approach to the world based on diplomacy and restraint rather than
threats, sanctions, and bombing"
ParadoxRocks says:
November
28, 2019 at 4:25 am GMT 200 Words Just as the war on terrorism has turned the West into a
self-destructive vortex that works to regenerate the causes of the evil it claims to eradicate,
the suicidal tendencies of Western culture are, in effect, the mirror image – or
monstrous double – of the suicide bomber of radical Islamic terrorism. And so, the
"Islamic other" is not so other after all. Most of the perpetrators of the terrorist attacks
that haunt us the most lived in the West, were trained in the West, shared the same experience
of globalisation, and used the same means of media communication to gain their support. These
so-called Muslim terrorists may indeed be the closest of all possible neighbours. And as such,
we must understand ourselves in a similar struggle as our Middle Eastern sisters and brothers,
where those with no-part in the existing order of things speak truth and fight for justice as
the immediate embodiment of society as such, in its universality, against the particular power
interests of the small tribe of degenerate oligarchs that are running civilization off the edge
of a cliff. For all truly emancipatory politics is generated by the intrusion of the excluded
into the socio-political space.
"... Authored by Peter Hitchens via The Mail On Sunday blog, ..."
"... I stood outside the safe house, in a road I cannot name, in a major European city I cannot identify, not sure what I might find inside. I had no way of being sure. ..."
"... In decades of journalism I have received quite a few leaks ..."
"... But I've never seen one like this. It scared me. ..."
"... If bodies such as the OPCW cannot be trusted, then World War Three could one day be started by a falsehood. ..."
I stood outside the safe house, in a road I cannot name, in a major European city I cannot
identify, not sure what I might find inside. I had no way of being sure.
I had travelled a long distance by train to an address I had been given over an encrypted email.
I was nervous that the meeting might be some sort of trap.
Leaks from inside arms
verification organisations are very sensitive matters. Powerful people mind about them.
I wasn't sure whether to be afraid of being followed, or to be worried about who might be waiting behind
the anonymous door on a dark afternoon, far from home. I took all the amateurish precautions that I could
think of.
As it happened, it was not a trap. Now, on carefully selected neutral ground, I was to meet a person
who would confirm suspicions that had been growing in my mind over several years – that there is something
rotten in the way that chemical weapons inspections are being conducted and reported. And that the world
could be hurried into war on the basis of such inspections.
Inside the safe house, I was greeted by a serious, patient expert, a non-political scientist
whose priority had until now always been to do the hard, gritty work of verification
– travelling
to the scenes of alleged horrors, sifting and searching for hard evidence of what had really happened.
But this entirely honourable occupation had slowly turned sour.
The whiff of political interference had begun as a faint unpleasant smell in the air and grown
until it was an intolerable stench.
Formerly easy-going superiors had turned into tricky bureaucrats.
The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) had become so important that it could
no longer be allowed to do its job properly.
Too many of the big powers that sponsor and finance it were breathing down its neck, wanting certain
results, whether the facts justified them or not.
My source calmly showed me various pieces of evidence that they were who they said they were,
and knew what they claimed to know, making it clear that they worked for the OPCW and knew its inner workings.
They then revealed a document to me.
This was the email of protest, sent to senior OPCW officials, saying that a report on the alleged Syrian
poison gas attack in Douma, in April 2018, had been savagely censored so as to alter its meaning.
In decades of journalism I have received quite a few leaks
:
leaks
over luxurious, expensive lunches with Cabinet Ministers, anonymous leaks that just turned up in envelopes,
leaks from union officials and employers, diplomats and academics.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read
stories.
Please enter a valid email
Thank you for subscribing!
Something went wrong. Please refresh and try again.
But I've never seen one like this. It scared me.
If it was true, then
something hugely dishonest and dangerous was going on, in a place where absolute integrity was vital.
If bodies such as the OPCW cannot be trusted, then World War Three could one day be
started by a falsehood.
Last week I reported on the first episode in this story. Within days the OPCW had confirmed that the
email I leaked was authentic.
Nobody followed me home or threatened me. A few silly people on social media told blatant lies about
me, insinuating that I was somehow a Russian patsy or a defender of the disgusting Syrian regime that
I have been attacking in print for nearly 20 years. That was what I had expected.
But there is much more to come.
And, as it grows harder for everyone to ignore this
enormous, dangerous story,
I suspect I shall be looking over my shoulder rather more than usual.
"... Aha! There you have it. Back in February 2016, Gabbard resigned her position as vice-chair of the DNC to endorse Sanders, and the DNC, controlled by establishment centrists like the Clintons as well as Barack Obama, have never forgiven her. Recently, Hillary Clinton smeared her (as well as Jill Stein, Green Party candidate from 2016) as a Russian asset, and various mainstream networks and news shows, such as "The View" and NBC, have suggested (with no evidence) she's the favored candidate of Russia and Vladimir Putin. ..."
"... Just what we don't need: two bought-and-paid-for political parties in the service of the wealthiest and the corporations. But at least the Republicans are (mostly) honest about their priorities ..."
Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard is a
compelling choice for president in 2020. She's principled, she's against America's disastrous
regimen of regime-change wars, and she's got the guts to criticize her own party for being too
closely aligned with rich and powerful interests. She's also a military veteran who enlisted in
the Army National Guard in Hawaii after the 9/11 attacks (she currently serves as a major and
deployed overseas to Iraq during that war).
What's not to like about a female veteran who oozes intelligence and independence, a woman
who represents diversity (she's a practicing Hindu and a Samoan-American), an early supporter
of Bernie Sanders who called out the DNC for its favoritism toward Hillary Clinton
Aha! There you have it. Back in February 2016, Gabbard resigned
her position as vice-chair of the DNC to endorse Sanders, and the DNC, controlled by
establishment centrists like the Clintons as well as Barack Obama, have never forgiven her.
Recently, Hillary Clinton
smeared her (as well as Jill Stein, Green Party candidate from 2016) as a Russian asset,
and various mainstream networks and news shows, such as "The View" and NBC, have suggested
(with no evidence) she's the favored candidate of Russia and Vladimir Putin.
Think about that. Hillary Clinton and much of the mainstream media are accusing a serving
major in the U.S. military of being an asset to a foreign power. It's an accusation bordering
on a charge of treason -- a charge that is libelous and recklessly irresponsible.
A reminder: Tulsi Gabbard enlisted in the military to serve her country in the aftermath of
9/11. What did Hillary Clinton do? Can you imagine Hillary going through basic training as a
private, or serving in the military in a war zone? (Hillary did falsely claim that she came
under
sniper fire in Bosnia , but that's a story for another day.)
Tulsi Gabbard is her own person. She's willing to buck the system and has shown compassion
and commitment on the campaign trail. She may be a long shot, but she deserves a long look for
the presidency, especially when you consider the (low) quality of the enemies she's made.
Reply
Whenever I post anything remotely positive about Tulsi Gabbard on Facebook, the same few
people come out to denounce her. My response is below, though I know you can't reason with
haters:
That Tulsi has been on Fox News is an argument in her favor, i.e. her crossover appeal and
her willingness to engage with the "other side." That Tulsi met with Assad is, in my view,
reasonable; true leaders are always willing to meet with "bad" people, even ruthless
dictators, in the cause of averting war. My main point is how she's being smeared as some
kind of traitor, or at least a useful idiot. She's neither. Also, I've read the piece on
Tulsi in Jacobin, and I've heard about alleged cults. Is this really the best the media can
do? Guilt by association?
Some of our readers may have concerns about Tulsi, e.g. alleged Islamophobia, alleged
cults, etc. The main point is this: Does she deserve to be smeared as a Putin puppet? What
does this say about our media? And why are they doing this? I can tell you why. Trillions of
dollars are spent on wars and weapons, and Tulsi is calling for an end to regime-change wars
and a return to diplomacy. She also, like Bernie, is willing to call out the DNC as being
against the interests of ordinary Americans -- and she's right about this. She has a lot in
her favor. I'm a Bernie fan myself, but I'll take Tulsi over all those phony "centrists" like
Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Harris, and Biden.
I can't speak to the RSS/BJP connection; I've read about it, but I admit to ignorance on the
matter. Of course, every candidate has multiple connections, positions, donors, etc. All
politicians carry baggage. So far, from what I've read, Tulsi is more principled and more
courageous than most of her peers.
I'm still a Bernie fan -- his long record of helping the poor and vulnerable speaks for
itself. Of course, he once went to Moscow oh no! Run away! 🙂
Tulsi has now done four courageous, unusual, and very positive things while merely a
candidate:
1) Tulsi effectively took down a leading contender and DNC favorite, by demonstrating that
Senator Harris had been a corrupt prosecutor.
2) Tulsi defended democracy as she sued Google for at least $50 million, for playing
favorites in search-routing of candidates.
3) Tulsi called out Hillary Clinton for the monster she is.
4) Tulsi supported a process toward 911 truth by supporting 911-victims' families' right to
see FBI documents that have been denied to them.
Tulsi is the anti-war candidate. Tulsi Gabbard should be Commander-in-Chief. Yang should
be VP and in charge of the economy. Read his book. UBI is the way to go. Tulsi needs someone
she can trust as VP.
I consider the vicious persecution of Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning -- both
languishing in prison for having committed no crime whatsoever -- along with the exile of
Edward Snowden, among the greatest travesties of justice ever committed by the U.S. and U.K.
(dishonorable mention goes to Sweden and the latest Ecuadorian government, as well). I had
hoped for this subject to come up in the "debates," giving Tulsi yet another opportunity to
shine relative to her competitors, most of whom would soil their undergarments in panic at
the thought of "crossing" the absurdly named "intelligence community" and its entirely
co-opted corporate media outlets.
If Tulsi Gabbard had done no other principled thing than this, I would have considered her
heads and shoulders above anyone else campaigning for a position in the U.S. government
today.
I ought to dedicate this one to Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard for her principled defense of
Julian Assange and Edward Snowden (and no-doubt Chelsea Manning, as well):
Star Chamber, Incorporated
Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning
Jailed as twin examples for the proles:
"Look what happens if you publish secrets:
More totalitarian controls."
In Chinese: "Kill the Chicken scare the Monkey."
Rat-out your colleagues. Do not Power tempt.
Or otherwise the judges and grand juries
Will hold you in what lawyers call "contempt."
A strange word-choice, indeed, by Power's minions
Who spend careers perfecting rank abuse.
For them I'd have to feel respect much greater
Before that is the word that I would use.
I've nothing good to say for prosecutors.
Some say I wish to "damn them with faint praise."
But I reply: "You praise with faint damnation.
So which of us has coined the the better phrase?"
Despicable, the treatment of these heroes.
The US and UK have sunk so low.
Still, Julian and Chelsea have together
More balls than these two governments can grow.
No matter, they have passed into the ages.
Already they have earned a fair renown.
Each day they live defiant, undefeated,
They rise as jailers try to put them down.
As JFK once said of his elite class:
"The ship of state leaks mainly from the top."
But if some lowly, powerless, poor person
Tries that, they'll feel the lash. No truth. Now stop!
To scare a monkey, kill another monkey.
If not, the monkeys learn impunity.
While eating KFC they ask, obtusely:
"What has a chicken got to do with me?"
And so the Corporation-State must silence
Reports of its incompetence and crime.
If citizens knew what it did they'd order
Its dissolution. Now. And just in time.
Historically, they called it the Star Chamber
A secret court designed to thwart the king.
But power then perverted it to serve him.
Grand juries in the US, same damn thing.
They now indict ham sandwiches routinely
With no protection for the innocents.
Presumed as guilty, evidence not needed.
Conviction guaranteed. No court repents.
A judge may do whatever he determines
He can. So levy fines. Coerce. Demand
On penalty of prison, testimony
Against oneself, alone upon the stand.
"Democracy" is just a euphemism
If citizens allow this to proceed.
Orwellian: first Hate then Fear of Goldstein.
Two Minutes, daily. Really, all you need.
This is a good commentary. military experience is a good thing especially when we are dealing
with the fact that over half of the national budget is devoted to the military.
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar has a thoughtful article on playing it safe, running out the clock,
prevent defense, etc., on your opponent as it would apply to politics.
Jabbar writes: Almost every poll showed her with a respectable lead over Trump just days
before the election. So, the Clinton campaign tried to run out the clock by not campaigning
much in Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Indiana, Missouri, North Dakota, and South Dakota,
all of which turned much redder than in the previous presidential election.
The tactic of trying to pick a "safe" candidate who can beat Trump by appealing to their
ideas about Middle America sends the wrong message to all of America. No team devise a game
strategy based on fear: they emphasize their strengths and exploit their opponents'
weaknesses. The Democratic candidate shouldn't be the least objectionable, but the one who
boldly forges ahead with clear and detailed plans for Making America America Again.
Democrats can't pander to voters by denigrating Trump but then promising them Trump-lite
with a wink. Promote progressive policies and plans worthy of a party that wants to lead this
country without fear of being called "socialists" or "the radical left" or whatever else your
opposing team chants.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/oct/15/how-sports-tactics-can-help-the-democrats-beat-donald-trump-in-2020
===================================
Jabbar is correct. The Corporate Democrats among them Biden, Buttigieg and Bloomberg are
fighting desperately to preserve a perceived lead aided and abetted by the McMega-Media.
Chicago Alderman, Paddy Bauler (1890-1977) said in 1955 on the election of Daley the
Elder, "Chicago ain't ready for reform yet", or "Chicago ain't ready for a reform mayor".
Today, the pundits employed by Corporate America, along with various Democratic Party
stooges for Wall Street tell us America ain't ready for Reform.
Yes, ML, so goes American 'Exceptionalism', after WW2 Victory. Today, so goes a Great
American City in violence, all so shortsighted. I'm still confused with our never-ending wars
overseas, as our cities rot in crime & violence, my main concern. I didn't grow up
– or party! -later on in today's disaster areas of Baltimore or Philadelphia, etc.It
was GREAT!
But somethings going on I don't know about, when the WORST cities have black Congresspeople
(Maxime Waters?) living in 6.5$Mil mansions as their "districts" die.
I have NO PROBLEM with black people! Such a smear an insult. But it's worth investigating why
these characters who have ruined their cities are supporters of Dems, & Billary! Oh! They
spend & vote lavishly on more money for our wars, but nothing for their own cities!
Finally starting to figure it out: They're traitors to their own race, for their personal
benefit. They make Dems "look proud", vs "REP's!" Yes, they too re dreadful maybe that's why
I feel: TULCI GO! She's neither dreadful party!
ML: Good citation of KA-J -- - although I've seen the same-sort of criticism of the Dems
elsewhere, Kareem's sports analogy is very helpful in understanding the concept.
(I have to say that I got sick of the Dems milquetoast approach to politics. Maybe it was
an understandable response to a frustrating right-wing zeitgeist, but DAMN, did they have to
be SO passive against the Reps?? Even when they briefly held majorities in Congress under
Obama, the wouldn't introduce/push bills that weren't 'filibuster-proof'!?!? I for one might
still be voting Dem POTUS IF they had pushed those progressive bills., then let the Reps
filibuster for weeks or months, meantime the Dems & Obama could've gone in front of the
public daily and said something like "We're trying to help you by passing Bill X, but the
Reps are filibustering and stopping Congress from getting any work done!" Let the government
shut-down for a few weeks because of it and keep hammering away at the Reps for being the
BLOCKERS, etc. Call their bluff, and use it against them during elections. Instead they tried
to be overly accommodating & conciliatory BEFORE debate had even begun!)
Yes. Eddie. The Democratic Party not only gets its ass kicked for breakfast, lunch, and
dinner, but it seems to have developed something of a masochistic taste for the Republican
abuse. Hence two of my verse compositions essentially agreeing with your observations:
(1) From eight years ago. From "Hope" and "Change" to despair and the status quo. And with
a Nobel Peace Prize for Endless War, too.
Congenital Stockholm Syndrome
He started by giving up quickly,
Surrendering early his case.
He offered to kiss their asses.
Replying, they pissed in his face.
Their urine, he thought, tasted strangely;
Yet not at all bad to his taste.
He'd gotten so used to it, plainly.
Why let such a drink go to waste?
The people who voted in favor
Of him and his promise of "change"
Now see in his many betrayals
A poodle afflicted with mange.
Each time that the surly and crazy
Republicans out for his skin
Condemn him for living and breathing,
He graciously helps them to win.
He'll turn on his base in an instant
With threats and disdain and neglect
While bombing some Muslims so Cheney
Might thrill to the lives that he's wrecked.
A black man in love with apartheid
He offers his stalwart support
To Zionists and their extortion
With "More, please!" his only retort.
A masochist begging for beatings
Obama takes joy in abuse
Receiving just what he has asked for
Which makes him of no earthly use
The little brown men that he's murdered
In homes far away from our land
Bring profits obscene to his backers
Who give him the back of their hand.
Obama seeks praise from the vicious
Republicans, no matter what.
He suffers, apparently, nothing
So much as his need to kiss butt.
Michael Murry, "The Misfortune Teller," Copyright 2011
(2) From twelve years ago and on the Congressional side of the Surrender Monkey
Syndrome:
Nancy the Negotiator
Nancy the Negotiator
Gives up first; surrenders later;
Takes her cards from off the table,
Then recites her loser fable:
"We don't have the votes we need,"
Nancy says, in tones that bleed:
"Mean Republicans will whine
If we do not toe their line."
Nancy bows to George and Dick
While her skinny ass they kick;
Writes them checks both blank and rubber,
Then proceeds to lamely blubber:
"We don't like what Dubya's doing.
Still, we quite enjoy the screwing.
Masochism's what we offer,
Helping crooks to loot the coffer"
"Sure, the squandered blood and treasure
Goes to those we will not measure.
Still, we promise you'll adore us
If you mark your ballot for us."
"Choices you don't have assail you,
Leaving only us who fail you.
Nonetheless, we've gotten fatter.
Why, then, should we think you matter?"
After six years in Uncle Sam's Canoe Club (the last eighteen months of that in the
now-defunct Republic of South Vietnam) it didn't take me long to realize that the Republicans
get paid a lavish salary to do what the fabulously wealthy demand, while the Democrats get a
comparatively meager allowance to do what the Republicans tell them to do, also on behalf of
the fabulously wealthy: namely, betray their own working-class anti-war base so that the
Republicans will not have anything even remotely "leftist" to worry about. In truth, the
Democratic party crawled up its own ass and died so many years ago that I think I've lost
count.
Just what we don't need: two bought-and-paid-for political parties in the service of the
wealthiest and the corporations. But at least the Republicans are (mostly) honest about their
priorities
"And how on earth did an ex comedian and MMA commentator become one of the better
political interviewers around?"
Dereliction of duty by the gatekeeper oligarch press, and discontent by the
ever-more-discerning consumer to be served cold lies? Baby Boomers and Silent Generation
dying off more by the day? People under 40 who have never experienced an economy that doesn't
suck for the non-rich?
I've started listening to Rogan interviews since Sanders's blockbuster interview a few
months ago.
The guy is actually a surprisingly good interviewer, for reasons that are hard to
understand. For one thing, he is invariably friendly and respectful, which I think draws the
subject out. His format also allows almost unlimited and uninterrupted time, (2-3 hours is
typical), which removes time pressure and allows extended and nuanced conversation. He also
has no particular agenda, and allows the conversation to go where it will, jumping in with
"questions" only when a particular topic seems to be exhausted.
The interesting thing is that anyone, either inside the media or outside it, could be
doing a similar program; it's not technically hard. But no one is.
If I didn't miss anything, then it is not 100% clear that USA will stop invading and
bombing other countries with Gabbard. She is slippery enough to continue the bombings. She
still mentions war as a last option. It is highly subjective to judge whether you have used
up all diplomatic channels to achieve your goal or not.
The wars and invasions has been about stealing natural resources, oil mainly but now
lithium too, feed the MIC-swamp creatures in general and selling out state resources to
American interests. In no way does she tackle the causes of the wars, only the
symptoms.
When have you tried all diplomatic channels to steal Iraq's, Venezuela's, Syria's and
Libya's oil fields? What do the diplomatic tools look like? Economic strangulation? IMF on
steroids?
She needs to talk about a society getting off of oil for a starter
It is amazing on how so many arguments against progressive policies coming from the
Democratic Party all seem to boil down to "Shut up and get back to work, peasants!"
Incrementalists do not even slowly improve things most of the time, as the neoliberal
Democratic Party "incrementally" follows the Republicans rightward with every broad shift to
the right on the GOP side. Today's deregulators and supply-side economic proponents are just
as likely to be Democrats as Republicans and many Democrats are probably cheering on
Kavanaugh's attacks on environmental standards as we speak.
Our aristocracy do not even pretend to adhere to any sort of sense of noblisse oblige,
unlike the feudal lords of old.
Max is one of the greatest journalists of our time ! Thank You , but take care because
their are many that are threatened by truth and integrity ! RESPECT !
The msm is full of CIA swamp lobbyist liars. Max is just objectively reporting
substantiated data points that counter lies that are meant to sell taxpayers war.
he Democratic establishment is increasingly irritated. Representative Tulsi Gabbard,
long-shot candidate for president, is attacking her own party for promoting the "deeply
destructive" policy of "regime change wars." Gabbard has even called Hillary Clinton "the queen
of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the
Democratic Party."
Senator Chris Murphy complained: "It's a little hard to figure out what itch she's trying to
scratch in the Democratic Party right now." Some conservatives seem equally confused. The
Washington Examiner 's Eddie Scarry asked: "where is Tulsi distinguishing herself when
it really matters?"
The answer is that foreign policy "really matters." Gabbard recognizes that George W. Bush
is not the only simpleton warmonger who's plunged the nation into conflict, causing enormous
harm. In the last Democratic presidential debate, she explained that the issue was "personal to
me" since she'd "served in a medical unit where every single day, I saw the terribly high,
human costs of war." Compare her perspective to that of the ivory tower warriors of Right and
Left, ever ready to send others off to fight not so grand crusades.
The best estimate of the costs of the post-9/11 wars comes from the Watson Institute for
International and Public Affairs at Brown University. The Institute says that $6.4 trillion
will be spent through 2020. They estimate that our wars have killed 801,000 directly and
resulted in a multiple of that number dead indirectly. More than 335,000 civilians have died --
and that's an extremely conservative guess. Some 21 million people have been forced from their
homes. Yet the terrorism risk has only grown, with the U.S. military involved in
counter-terrorism in 80 nations.
Obviously, without American involvement there would still be conflicts. Some
counter-terrorism activities would be necessary even if the U.S. was not constantly swatting
geopolitical wasps' nests. Nevertheless, it was Washington that started or joined these
unnecessary wars (e.g., Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Yemen) and expanded necessary wars well beyond
their legitimate purposes (Afghanistan). As a result, American policymakers bear responsibility
for much of the carnage.
The Department of Defense is responsible for close to half of the estimated expenditures.
About $1.4 trillion goes to care for veterans. Homeland security and interest on security
expenditures take roughly $1 trillion each. And $131 million goes to the State Department and
the U.S. Agency for International Development, which have overspent on projects that have
delivered little.
More than 7,000 American military personnel and nearly 8,000 American contractors have died.
About 1,500 Western allied troops and 11,000 Syrians fighting ISIS have been killed. The Watson
Institute figures that as many as 336,000 civilians have died, but that uses the very
conservative numbers provided by the Iraq Body Count. The IBC counts 207,000 documented
civilian deaths but admits that doubling the estimate would probably yield a more accurate
figure. Two other respected surveys put the number of deaths in Iraq alone at nearly 700,000
and more than a million, though those figures have been contested.
More than a thousand aid workers and journalists have died, as well as up to 260,000
opposition fighters. Iraq is the costliest conflict overall, with as many as 308,000 dead (or
515,000 from doubling the IBC count). Syria cost 180,000 lives, Afghanistan 157,000, Yemen
90,000, and Pakistan 66,000.
Roughly 32,000 American military personnel have been wounded; some 300,000 suffer from PTSD
or significant depression and even more have endured traumatic brain injuries. There are other
human costs -- 4.5 million Iraqi refugees and millions more in other nations, as well as the
destruction of Iraq's indigenous Christian community and persecution of other religious
minorities. There has been widespread rape and other sexual violence. Civilians, including
children, suffer from PTSD.
Even stopping the wars won't end the costs. Explained Nita Crawford of Boston University and
co-director of Brown's Cost of War Project: "the total budgetary burden of the post-9/11 wars
will continue to rise as the U.S. pays the on-going costs of veterans' care and for interest no
borrowing to pay for the wars."
People would continue to die. Unexploded shells and bombs still turn up in Europe from World
Wars I and II. In Afghanistan, virtually the entire country is a battlefield, filled with
landmines, shells, bombs, and improvised explosive devices. Between 2001 and 2018, 5,442
Afghans were killed and 14,693 were wounded from unexploded ordnance. Some of these explosives
predate American involvement, but the U.S. has contributed plenty over the last 18 years.
Moreover, the number of indirect deaths often exceeds battle-related casualties. Journalist
and activist David Swanson noted an "estimate that to 480,000 direct deaths in Afghanistan,
Iraq, and Pakistan, one must add at least one million deaths in those countries indirectly
caused by the recent and ongoing wars. This is because the wars have caused illnesses,
injuries, malnutrition, homelessness, poverty, lack of social support, lack of healthcare,
trauma, depression, suicide, refugee crises, disease epidemics, the poisoning of the
environment, and the spread of small-scale violence." Consider Yemen, ravaged by famine and
cholera. Most civilian casualties have resulted not from Saudi and Emirati bombing, but from
the consequences of the bombing.
Only a naif would imagine that these wars will disappear absent a dramatic change in
national leadership. Wrote Crawford: "The mission of the post-9/11 wars, as originally defined,
was to defend the United States against future terrorist threats from al-Qaeda and affiliated
organizations. Since 2001, the wars have expanded from the fighting in Afghanistan, to wars and
smaller operations elsewhere, in more than 80 countries -- becoming a truly 'global war on
terror'."
Yet every expansion of conflict makes the American homeland more, not less, vulnerable.
Contrary to the nonsensical claim that if we don't occupy Afghanistan forever and overthrow
Syria's Bashar al-Assad, al-Qaeda and ISIS will turn Chicago and Omaha into terrorist
abattoirs, intervening in more conflicts and killing more foreigners creates additional
terrorists at home and abroad. In this regard, drone campaigns are little better than invasions
and occupations.
For instance, when questioned by the presiding judge in his trial, the failed 2010 Times
Square bomber, Faisal Shahzad, a U.S. citizen, cited the drone campaign in Pakistan. His
colloquy with the judge was striking: "I'm going to plead guilty 100 times forward because
until the hour the U.S. pulls its forces from Iraq and Afghanistan and stops the drone strikes
in Somalia and Yemen and in Pakistan and stops the occupation of Muslim lands and stops Somalia
and Yemen and in Pakistan, and stops the occupation of Muslim lands, and stops killing the
Muslims."
Ajani Marwat, with the New York City Police Department's intelligence division, outlined
Shahzad's perspective to TheGuardian : "'It's American policies in his country.'
'We don't have to do anything to attract them,' a terrorist organizer in Lahore told me. 'The
Americans and the Pakistani government do our work for us. With the drone attacks targeting the
innocents who live in Waziristan and the media broadcasting this news all the time, the
sympathies of most of the nation are always with us. Then it's simply a case of converting
these sentiments into action'."
Washington does make an effort to avoid civilian casualties, but war will never be pristine.
Combatting insurgencies inevitably harms innocents. Air and drone strikes rely on often
unreliable informants. The U.S. employs "signature" strikes based on supposedly suspicious
behavior. And America's allies, most notably the Saudis and Emiratis -- supplied, armed,
guided, and until recently refueled by Washington -- make little if any effort to avoid killing
noncombatants and destroying civilian infrastructure.
Thus will the cycle of terrorism and war continue. Yet which leading Democrats have
expressed concern? Most complain that President Donald Trump is negotiating with North Korea,
leaving Syria, and reducing force levels in Afghanistan. Congressional Democrats care about
Yemen only because it has become Trump's war; there were few complaints under President Barack
Obama.
What has Washington achieved after years of combat? Even the capitals of its client states
are unsafe. The State Department warns travelers to Iraq that kidnapping is a risk and urges
businessmen to hire private security. In Kabul, embassy officials now travel to the airport via
helicopter rather than car.
Tulsi Gabbard is talking about what really matters. The bipartisan War Party has done its
best to wreck America and plenty of other nations too. Gabbard is courageously challenging the
Democrats in this coalition, who have become complicit in Washington's criminal wars.
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former special assistant to
President Ronald Reagan. He is the author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global
Empire.
And, by the way, it's important to stress that Tulsi ain't picking at Her Majesty all of a
sudden. It was the said majesty who has recently started picking at Tulsi first out of no
reason, extrapolating that joke of Trump's "Russia's candidate" status on her as well.
Also, this:
People would continue to die. Unexploded shells and bombs still turn up in Europe from
World Wars I and II. In Afghanistan, virtually the entire country is a battlefield,
filled with
landmines, shells, bombs, and improvised explosive devices.
At least in Europe it is indeed shells and bombs, which are kind of big schmucks thus
easily noticed when approached and then disarmed by engineers. While all over the Middle
East it is first and foremost IEDs that can look like, virtually, anything starting from a
hand grenade's size.
On one hand, you're right. On the other hand, the average neocon/neolib commenter who will
come to enlighten us as to Russian agents behind the authorship of the article will be
utmostly unable to read the damn thing. For such a feller it ain't gonna be much different
from 5D21DBA0000.
Unfortunately, a lot of Americans in recent years were more concerned about gays getting
married and poor women terminating their pregnancies.
At Thanksgiving dinner today, the conversation eventually turned to politics and more
specifically, Ukraine. I asked the other diners if they knew who Victoria Nuland was and
got blank stares. Most didn't know that Crimea had been part of the Russian Empire going
back to 1783, which happens to be the year that the US was formally recognized as a
separate country under the Treaty of Paris.
How big is $6.4 trillion? Enough to cover outstanding student loans about 4 times. Or
enough to stabilize Social Security and Medicare for decades to come.
Mostly a very good article - but - what possible legitimate purpose was there invading
Afghanistan ? This was the biggest war crime of the lot and you're still there. Afghanistan
had nothing whatsoever to do with the New York plane attacks. It was a failed state and had
the misfortune to have bin Laden and co supposedly holed up in the mountains there and
unable to do much about it. Dealing with that required a specific police style action.
Instead you carpet bombed Kabul to start and unleashed a frenzy of killing across the
country. Unfortunately pretty much as a lot of us predicted around the middle of Sept 2001.
And where did you find Osama in the end ? Oh yeah, hiding in luxury in a Pakistan army
town.
In response to the plane attacks you murdered countless thousands in an immiserated land
and after another brain fart thought Iraq was a good idea because they had nothing to do
with it either.
The only civilian plane to fly out of the US on Sept 11 2001 was carrying the Saudi
Royal family back home. Almost all the plane terrorists were Saudi and Pakistan conspired
against you continually. But you didn't have the guts or brains to take either of them on
and instead picked in the weakest of the lot, Afghanistan followed by a nice flat country
you'd already half destroyed and without nukes.
I'm not sure if it was a "failed state" at that point. True, we did not like the brutal
Taliban to be in charge, but I don't think it had no effective central government. It did.
How clueless do you have to be to express antipathy towards Gabbard's stance and question
"what really matters"? What do these idiots think is more important than policies that send
our children to war?
"Senator Chris Murphy complained: "It's a little hard to figure out what itch she's
trying to scratch in the Democratic Party right now.""
Couldn't agree more, Senator Chris. Most Democrats really like these pointless, endless,
trillion dollar wars. They want to keep them going strong as long as possible, because
there's nothing Democrats like better than staggeringly expensive government programs, and
when it comes down to a choice
between being more frugal and getting Americans out of the Middle East on the one hand, or
a big, juicy budget-busting festival of spending, refugee floods, and death on the other,
there's no question where Chris Murphy and the Democratic Party stand.
As for Tulsi Gabbard, who does she think she's kidding? An anti-war Democrat? A fiscal
restraint Democrat? A "focus on America not foreign wars" Democrat? Whoever heard of such a
thing? She needs a new party, one that isn't run by billionaire elites serving corporate or
foreign interests. Call it "the American Party", to distinguish it from the corrupt garbage
offered by the globalist elites and foreign interests who run the Democrats and GOP.
I appreciate your silly tirade against the Democrats, hate to rain on your biased parade
BUT it is BOTH corrupt political parties that perpetuate this senseless crusade! Both of
these parties should be dismantled and banned!
Tulsi would make the best of all presidents but I am afraid the CIA working for the owner
Oligarchs of the evil Military Industrial War Crime Complex would do the same thing they
did to Kennedy so they could put a stooge in office to do their bidding.
All these wars weren't against terrorists and such. For a good strategist, that was the
best opportunity to get in the Central Asia and plant your bases there under the belly of
Iran, Russia, and China and start making mischief and prepare for the next phases. At that
point, with the new man at helm in Moscow and China getting lift-off, it was clear that the
planned take over of the entire world economy was not happening, so action needed to be
taken.
As for the 6.4 trillion dollars and such, what should be clear to any with two brain
cells between their ears is that the US has no intention to ever repay those loans, or any,
at least not to foreigners. And is the duty of the American cogs to shed their blood for
their betters' ever expanding profits.
I could remind readers that Hillary Clinton is not now running for president and is not
ever going to be president, but I know the TAC target demographic uses snarls about Hillary
the way the rest of us use punctuation marks, so I guess I can let the gratuitous
first-paragraph sneer slide.
Your representation of the Sen. Murphy quote is upside down, inside out, and completely
obviates the rest of the article. He is not bemused that someone is trying to sell steaks
to vegetarians. He is asking why she is trying to sell refrigerators to eskimos.
Meanwhile, her fellow Democrats appear abysmally unconcerned about the human and
financial toll.
You... couldn't be bothered to spend even 15 seconds typing in a name of one of the
Democratic frontrunners and the words "foreign policy" or "endless wars" into google?
"From endless wars that strain military families to trade policies that crush our middle
class, Washington's foreign policy today serves the wealthy and well-connected at the
expense of everyone else... A strong military should act as a deterrent so that most of the
time, we won't have to use it. We must continue to be vigilant about the threat of
terrorism, but it's time to bring our troops home... That means cutting our bloated defense
budget and ending the stranglehold of defense contractors on our military policy."
I'm well to the left of center, and I donated to Tulsi early in her campaign. So many
conservatives have praised her that she's become suspect for people on the left. She's
allowed herself to become a one issue candidate, and that's unworkable in a presidential
campaign.
Her anti gay activities in the past are problematic, and although she identifies as a
Hindu, there are claims she's or was member of a cult like group. It's very clear to me
that the Evangelicals would attack her for her religion in any event. Tulsi will never be
president, but I hope she continues her battle to end the forever war.
There is blindness across the political spectrum about the perilous state of the world.
They do not see the similarities with 1914 and 1939. The situations are not identical, no
two situations are. But the pattern is clear.
https://www.ghostsofhistory...
"... The worst of these massacres happened in Ghouta in August 2013 when 2000 civilian hostages (rebel claim) were gassed to death by rebels and their pre-White Helmets "civil defence". The OPCW was there to cover up the crime and to fabricate evidence to assign blame to Syria. ..."
Manufacturing a pretext for the U.S.
missile strike on Syria in April 2018 is nowhere near the biggest of OPCW's crimes. The
OPCW is an accessory , both before and after the fact to the crime of
mass murder.
It should now be clear to everyone that Syrian "rebels" gassed thousands of hostages in
cellars, most likely with chlorine gas, and then paraded the victims in White Helmets
snuff videos. OPCW conspired in this crime in both encouraging the terrorists to more murder
and by protecting them afterward by assigning blame to Assad and the Syrian government.
The worst of these massacres happened in Ghouta in August
2013 when 2000 civilian hostages (rebel claim) were gassed to death by rebels and their
pre-White Helmets "civil defence". The OPCW was there to cover up the crime and to fabricate
evidence to assign blame to Syria.
We have been documenting
these crimes and hoaxes at A Closer Look On Syria from December 2012. OPCW was used
from the beginning to manufacture consent for war. See for example:
Of course, the OPCW is already there! I highly suggest Caitlin Johnstone's article b
linked be read, which can be
found here .
We should expand on Petri's number of people involved in this crime to include all the
paid disinformation artists noted in Caitlin's essay at minimum. What becomes very clear in
all this is the total collusion with OPCW upper level management--those whom the
whistleblowers and their allies within OPCW petitioned--in these crimes as Petri contends.
Until they are visibly replaced, nothing issued by OPCW has any credence.
OPCW has shown to be a pure political entity, used at will by few regimes in the UN to
promote their agenda, b has done a tremendous job to humanity to bring the truth to the
public worldwide. Syrians have paid the price for UN leaders support to global terrorism for
too long. It must stop now.
"... Starting to remind me more and more of JFK. She's a natural at public speaking; I don't think I've ever seen her lost for words, and while she must have prepared herself for many of these questions. she launches immediately into her response and does not use recovery pauses like "Ummm " that break up the flow of her speech. She responds instantly and seemingly spontaneously, and delivers the whole message as a seamless package. ..."
Did she say she would not vote for impeachment? Up to recently, I thought that, while she was
the best of a bunch of fakers, clowns and idiots, her lack of experience and toughness were
fatal flaws..
However, her ongoing performances suggests to me that she is capable of being a
good president – the first in decades in my opinion.
Starting to remind me more and more of JFK. She's a natural at public speaking; I don't think
I've ever seen her lost for words, and while she must have prepared herself for many of these
questions. she launches immediately into her response and does not use recovery pauses like
"Ummm " that break up the flow of her speech. She responds instantly and seemingly
spontaneously, and delivers the whole message as a seamless package.
2:42
I find it funny that Kamala said that because if there is any candidate on that stage that
"can speak to all people" it's definitely Tulsi. Conservatives actually appreciate and
respect Tulsi Gabbard, even tho we disagree with her with just about everything, she actually
does a good job speaking to both sides. She's the only candidate that shows respect to
conservatives and isn't afraid to go on Fox News. Unlike Kamala. Conservatives do not like
her and we know she doesn't care about us.
A story has been
circulating suggesting that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo will soon be resigning because
he needs to focus on planning for his campaign to become a Senator from Kansas in 2020.
This is good news for the United States, as Senator Lindsey Graham has had no one he is able
to talk to about exporting democracy by blowing up the planet since Joe Lieberman retired and
John McCain died.
According to the US Census there are 3031 counties in the US.
If we redirected the $3.8 billion plus the 500,000,000 for missile defense that we give
Israel to US counties budgets each county would receive about
$ 1.3 million.
If we included the $1.2 billion each we give to Egypt and Jordon for signing the Carter
peace treaty with Israel that figure increases to $2.3 million for each county.
While $2.3 million may be a small figure for counties with metro cities, it would be a
large amount for the majority of counties across the nation.
Since aid to Israel alone accounts for 50% of US foreign aid who would oppose this re
direct of taxpayers money...besides the politicians...and how would the politicians explain
their opposition to the districts they supposedly represent?
Since its creation in 1948, the modern state of Israel has steadily stolen Palestinian land
and driven Palestinians from their homes, cities and villages.
Nothing has been done to halt Israel's steady march to tighten its absolute control of the
Palestinian people with the obvious goal of ethnic cleansing, an historic fact well documented
by Israeli scholar
Ilan Pappe .
Under the protection of a security-obsessed military occupation, fully supported and
underwritten by U.S. tax payers, Israel denies it has broken any laws. Israel makes its own
self-preservation laws. It listens to no higher authority.
Israel has destroyed olive tree orchards and smothered stolen farmlands and pastures with
modern malls where U.S. firms like Ace Hardware and Burger King enrich stock holders who don't
know, or don't care, that they are taking part in the ugly crime of ethnic cleansing.
(The first time I saw an Ace Hardware store in a Ma'ale Adumim mall, I started my own
personal boycott of Ace, an action unfair to employees of my local Ace outlet, but one that has
increased the receipts of my small neighborhood hardware store.)
The narrative of Israeli governments heeding no call but their own, has been with us all
along, but U.S. media readers/viewers have avoided having to think about it, or do anything
about it.
They live comfortably within their bubble of ignorance which is created and sustained for
them by their newspapers, news magazines, television outlets, radio broadcasts, government
leaders and, alas, their religious leaders.
It does not have to be this way. During the last decade, the narrative of settlements like
Ma'ale Adumim has been available on the internet in reports like this one from Electronic Intafada , which begins
:
It is only a fifteen minute bus ride from Jerusalem to the Ma'ale Adumim settlement. After
entering through guarded gates, one's first impression is of a Miami-style suburb. The town
at noon seems almost abandoned because the major part of Ma'ale Adumim residents head off to
work in Jerusalem during the day. . . .
As soon as Barack Obama demanded from Israel the simple act of "freezing" its settlement expansion , Israel trotted out Public
Relations Plan A for distribution to the media: Have a heart, settlement residents need room
for their families to grow.
Israel operates on the logic of the man found guilty of killing his parents. The guilty man
begged for mercy on the grounds that he was now an orphan.
To tell you about the Israeli settlers' plea for mercy, the Los Angeles Times (July 6) delivered its version of the
orphan story: "Israel's settlements in West Bank present a major hurdle."
The opening paragraphs of the Times story set the tone for the plea with weasel words
(Lobby talking points) used by writer Edmund Sanders:
Reporting from Ma'ale Adumim, West Bank -- This sprawling, well-manicured Israeli
settlement -- with its rows of red-tile roofs, palm trees and air-conditioned shopping mall
-- could almost pass for Orange County. Except the guards in this gated community sometimes
pack automatic weapons.
Settlements such as the city-sized Ma'ale Adumim, about four miles east of Jerusalem in
the West Bank, are viewed by much of the world as illegal because they are built on land
seized by Israel during the 1967 Middle East War. Many Israelis see Ma'ale Adumim as part of
their country.
Now let us review the weasel words.
The reference to the illegality of Ma'ale Adumim is softened by the qualifying rhetorical
device, "viewed by much of the world as illegal". The phase "viewed by" suggests that the issue
at hand is open to debate among reasonable people.
Reasonable, as, for example, as a story that might have appeared in a Birmingham, Alabama,
newspaper, circa 1939, reporting that "segregation is viewed by many in the South as as a way
to maintain harmony between the races and preserve our Southern Way of Life."
Should such an analysis have been open to debate? No, certainly not in the minds of a small
number of courageous Southern liberals, and an increasingly impatient black population.
It required two more decades of U.S. racial oppression for that "debate"–for and
against segregation–to reach a definitive conclusion with "all deliberate speed".
Now we have a 21st century debate. The Times' Monday story includes the phrase: "many
Israelis see Ma'ale Adumim as part of their country." Do they, indeed? How many Israelis?
Most polls suggest that sentiment is largely confined to the pro-settler community, while
"security-minded" government leaders continue to demand the inclusion of Ma'ale Adumimin a
future Israeli state
To other more fair-minded Israelis the phrase "many Israelis see Ma'ale Adumim as part of
their country", unpleasantly evokes the case of the parent-killer who begs for mercy because he
is an orphan.
The Time s story continues:
Now the long-simmering dispute over this and other fast-growing settlements has become a
major obstacle to restarting peace talks.
Settlement building is not a long-simmering dispute. It is part of decades of immoral and
illegal actions by Israel and is much more than a "major obstacle" to peace talks. It is an
indisputable violation of international law, which, if allowed to stand, will block any
successful peace talks.
The parent-killer should mourn his Mom and Dad from his jail cell, not while sitting in the
sun in his well-watered grass covered private backyard, shaded from the hot summer sun by a
picnic umbrella purchased from a nearby Ace Hardware.
The LA Times reserves most of its early sympathy for the illegal settlers of an
illegal city with these touching "facts":
"Why is President Obama interfering with our lives, telling us how many children we can
have and whether we can get married?" asked Benny Kashriel, longtime mayor of Ma'ale Adumim.
. . .
Talk about a possible freeze has many here worried.
"You can't freeze a city," Kashriel said. "If you freeze, you go backwards. Every month we
are not building and people are not coming, it affects the economic situation of the city. .
. . It's punishing."
A freeze, officials say, would threaten the opening of four new synagogues and seven
sorely needed schools. Class sizes are already near the legal limit of 40 students per
room.
An additional 400 units of housing in various stages of construction might also be shut
down, leaving homeowners -- many of whom have already taken out mortgages up to $300,000 --
with monthly payments and no place to live.
The Times knew American readers would identify with those folks holding mortgages of
up to $300,000 with monthly payments and no place to live. And those same readers can also
identify with parents whose children are in schools "near the legal limit of 40 students per
room".
Further down in the story, the Times reports on the Arab village of Aziriyeh, (in
biblical times, the village of Bethany), where Lazarus was called from his grave by Jesus. (Or
as the Times writes, carefully avoiding any validation of a religious belief, "where the
biblical Lazarus is said to have risen from the dead").
The comparison of Aziriyeh (Bethany) with Ma'ale Adumim is fact-filled. The comparison also
strains for a "balance" that is impossible to achieve between occupiers and the occupied.
Since 1967, the story reports, the village of Aziriyeh has had three-fourths of its land
stolen to enlarge Ma'ale Adumim. Its mayor, Issam Faroun, makes a comparison between his
citizens and those of the illegal citizens of Ma'ale Adumim. The facts are presented fairly.
The comparative use of water is an example.
Mayor Faroun said:
. . . that as Ma'ale Adumim frets about the fate of its landscaped grounds or swimming
pools, Azariyah residents receive water only once a week. The town gateway has turned into a
junkyard of trash, scrap metal and old appliances. Schools have 45 students per class and
unemployment is 50%, in part because the barrier prevents workers from reaching
Jerusalem.
With no room to expand horizontally, families are adding second and third stories to their
homes as children grow up and marry. Bassem abu Roomy, 31, still lives in his parents' house,
sharing two rooms with his pregnant wife and two children. His younger brothers are not so
lucky.
"We can't add any more stories because the foundation of the house can't support it," he
said. "So they can't get married."
When did the relationship between Palestinians and Israelis in Aziriyeh (Bethany) and Ma'ale
Adumim go wrong? When that first brick was laid in Maale Adumim soon after 1967? When Ma'ale
Adumim gobbled up three fourths of Aziriyeh's farmland for its own use? Name your own moment in
recent memory.
The LA Times wants us to look back no further than two decades when the biblical
village of Lazarus and the modern Israeli city of Ma'ale Adumim had, as the Times
describes it, their harmonious relations "strained".
A decade ago, the two communities lived somewhat harmoniously. Israelis shopped in
Azariyah [Bethany] and Palestinians worked on housing projects in the settlement. But during
the last Palestinian uprising, in 2000, two settlers were shot in the village and relations
have been strained since.
The competing needs of these two communities have become part of the international
debate.
So there you have it. Everything was fine until two Israeli settlers were shot. This is a
case study on why the Israeli Lobby and the U.S. Congress are so grateful for news stories like
this one that appeared in the Los Angeles Times.
For Sanders and the Times , the Arab village of Azariyah and the modern illegal city
of Maale Adumim are merely playing a role in an "international debate".
No wonder that parent-killer failed to get any respect with his request for mercy because he
was now an orphan. He did not have the support of his own personal lobby making a case for
orphans who have killed their parents.
The picture above is of a barrier in the Arab village of Azariyah (Bethany). The break
in the barrier has been covered by barbed wire. The wire is removed and replaced on a regular
basis by Israeli authorities, who built the barrier in the first place. This photo is from
the website of the World Council of Churches' Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and
Israel.
Progressive journalist Michael Tracey claimed Tuesday that MSNBC is has dropped all
pretenses for their "contempt" towards Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii).
The political news contributor said the left-leaning network has treated her fellow 2020
Democratic candidates, including businessman Andrew Yang , and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) unfairly, but he argued
that with Gabbard it, "crosses a certain threshold."
"Fundamentally they're beholden to whatever the market incentives are and right now it's
within their market interests to depict Tulsi as an infiltrator, as a Trojan horse in the
Democratic Party and not deal on the substance with what she's saying which is why over and
over again they tar her as a Russian plant essentially," Tracey told Hill.TV.
"There's nobody who can really offer any kind countervailing view because it's just not
economically advantageous for them at this point," he added.
MSNBC didn't immediately return Hill.TV's request for comment.
Tracey pointed to a fiery exchange between Gabbard and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) during last week's 2020
primary debate as a prime example.
During the debate, Harris accused Gabbard of being a conservative media darling and
consistently going on Fox News to bash President Obama during his tenure.
"I think that it's unfortunate that we have someone on this stage who is attempting to be
the Democratic nominee for president of the United States, who, during the Obama
administration, spent four years full-time on Fox News criticizing President Obama," Harris
said.
Gabbard dismissed the criticism, calling it "ridiculous."
The California senator also hit Gabbard over her meeting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad,
who U.S. officials have accused of being a war criminal. Harris concluded her attack by saying
that Democrats need a candidate who can take on President Trump as well as "bring the party and
the nation together."
The back-and-forth came after Gabbard criticized the Democratic Party of fashioning outdated
foreign policies "represented "by Hillary Clinton and others' foreign
policy."
"Our Democratic Party unfortunately is not the party that is of, by and for the people. It
is a party that has been and continues to be influenced by the foreign policy establishment in
Washington, represented by Hillary Clinton and others' foreign policy, by the military
industrial complex and other greedy, corporate interests," she said.
Leading up to the fifth Democratic debate, Gabbard engaged in a weeks-long feud with Clinton
after the former Democratic presidential nominee said the Hawaii lawmaker was "the favorite of
the Russians."
'thanks b.. looking at the theatre, it seems dems have backed themselves into a corner... meanwhile obama wants to ca-bosh
sanders... You know if Sanders had some character he would run as an independent with Tulsi.. but you all know that stands a snowball
chance in hell.. the problem with conformists, is they spend too much time conforming and that doesn't end up serving anyone..
and it is the reason trump got elected - he is not a conformist.. self centered narcissist, yes, but conformist - no.. too bad
about american leadership being persona non grata...
what i don't understand is why bernie doesn't run as an independent? if he is so great and would be great for the usa, why
can't he figure this basic picture out? this is why i give merit to jackrabbit sometimes - it is all political theatre and they
are all in it together raping the common people..
A story has been
circulating suggesting that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo will soon be resigning because
he needs to focus on planning for his campaign to become a Senator from Kansas in 2020.
This is good news for the United States, as Senator Lindsey Graham has had no one he is able
to talk to about exporting democracy by blowing up the planet since Joe Lieberman retired and
John McCain died.
"The difficulty here is that Trump thinks he's defending the military, when he's not"
No, this is not about Trump defending the military. What this is about is how Trump thinks war should be fought, "tough" in
his words. What he means by this is troops should be utterly ruthless. They should murder and kill civilians, as this strikes
fear into the enemy and shows them how "tough" we are. Plus of course Trump likes vengeance. No one should be surprised by this
as Trump has voiced strong support for war crimes, he wants "strong" torture, he wants the families of terrorists, women, children,
elderly murdered to punish the terrorists. Sad thing is, I've heard lots of support for this kind of warfighting among conservatives.
Trump has the mentality of an authoritarian dictator, thankfully he's not that smart.
Army Col. Keven Benson suggests Trump may have overplayed his hand, considering all the wreckage he wrought playing to his base
at the possible cost of his legitimacy among those in uniform. Benson charges, too, that the president's decision to reverse the
directives of senior Navy officers in disciplining one of their own might lose him support not only among senior officers, but
among the rank and file -- a constituency that voted overwhelmingly to put him in the White House.
"You know, these guys, these three knuckleheads -- Lorance, Golsteyn and Gallagher -- might be welcome on Fox News," Benson
says, "but they wouldn't be welcome in my platoon."
Damn.
If it is all the same to everyone, I think we shouldn't indulge in the kind of permissiveness that makes incidents like the
My Lai Massacre or the Abu Graib prisoner abuse scandal possible.
I served as a medical corpsman in Vietnam (31 May 1967 - 31 May 1968). That is to be blunt, I served as an enlisted man which
is equivalent to a working class peon in civilian life or an Indentured servant who didn't have the money to pay his passage to
the American colony but promised to serve an extended period of apprenticeship to pay it off. In American society at that time
an indentured servant was one rung above being a slave. So I am no fan of the brass. And I have never been a big fan of our Commander-in-Chief
"Bone Spurs" given what I saw during my tour of duty in Vietnam.
But on his decision to deny the brass javing their way and giving them the fickle finger of fate, i.e. the middle finger if
you don't get my drift, I support President Trump wholeheartedly. Anyone who can piss off the brass and make them whine like melting
snowflakes must be doing something right. Also does Mr. Perry remember when President Richard Nixon pardoned Lt. William Calley
after being convicted for the infamous My Lai Massacre?
The American people overwhelmingly supported Nixon's pardon.They will again support President Trump's decision. They do not
read the TAC. Nor do they read any other high-falutin' journal of political opinion. But they are still patriots in their minds.
But being populists they are not necessarily patriots when it comes to the brass who in their thinking are the equivalent of the
1% in civilian life.
It's historical class warfare that fuels populism even though these populists have probably never read Karl Marx. So the brass
can disagree vehemently with Trump, They can also resign like Richard Spencer did and join the private sector. But they may be
in for a rude awakening when they try to give an order to average civilians and are instead given fickle fingers of fate. And
besides, let's be real about this latest crisis du jour, there are plenty more brass where these whiners came from. I bet you
at the Pentagon the brass are literally bumping into each other just walking down the halls.
But they swore allegiance to our Constitution. The president gives orders to them as commander-in-chief. Not the other way
around. Mr. Perry doesn't get how our country has changed since Trump won the election. I assume reading this essay, and if I
am wrong I apologize here, he probably has never broken bread with the great unwashed given how he identifies with military authority.
Trump was elected president surfing on a wave of populism. He played his populist cards in this tempest in a teapot. He gets it.
He is playing to his base. He wants to get re-elected.
But I have one question for Mr. Perry. Why didn't the brass resign en masse against the Iraq War or all these useless Forever
Wars we have been fighting?
These same people stood by and watched our military be socially engineered and gender normed to the point of incompetence. These
are Obama sycophants pure and simple.
A "crisis" in Special Ops is good. Anything that weakens Deepstate is good. Trump didn't make his decision on this basis; he only
needed to assuage his ego; but nevertheless he accidentally did the right thing.
I don't much care about this since I consider most all US military to be war criminals. I suppose I just note the cosmic justice
which punishes many of them with PTSD, drug addiction, and suicide. Now... let's get on with privatizing the VA.
The desk jockey keyboard warrior officers in the Pentagon want to make examples even if they have to use prosecutorial misconduct
to do it and that will help morale and discipline?
Trump should get rid of all the swamp Generals and Admirals. I'm sure they
will enjoy retirement making millions at Lockheed and Raytheon. Trump supports the Troops, not the Bureaucrats.
One gets the impression that the "Rules of Engagement" seem to have been the issue in the case discussed here but they were forgotten
in the bureaucratic squabble between the military and the White House.
People like Pete Hegseth call Chief Gallagher's service exemplary and repeat that he was acquitted of 'alleged war crimes'.
He was acquitted because a medic testified that after he and Gallagher stabilized a wounded, sedated prisoner after 20 minutes,
Gallagher inexplicably stabbed him (non-fatally) below the collar bone, stormed off, and then the medic suffocated him before
Iraqi security forces could torture him. Later Gallagher posed with his corpse.
This is not the sign of a well man or one who was making a snap, life or death decision. I'm not interested in punishing Gallagher
but this hero worship of our military and failure to acknowledge that these long deployments are breaking down our military is
self-deception. But I won't be surprised if I see a trifecta of Trump, Hegseth, and Gallagher at a campaign stop.
If we are being honest, I bet the IRGC has a better reputation than us in the M.E.
Julius Caesar was able to march on Rome because the soldiers gave their fealty to him over Rome. I find Trump's pardoning of soldiers
accused of war crimes deeply disturbing.
The first and foremost principle that must be maintained is that the President has complete authority over the military. Its one
of the central constructs of our republic. The most egregious offence was for Spencer to defy Trump's order. Regardless of what
one's opinion on the state of the special forces is, we can't go down that road. To say that Trump is destroying the commanders
authorities is bass ackwards. The US military, like it or not, MUST have civilians over and above them.
Having said that, I completely agree that there is something very bad wrong with the special forces and especially the Navy
Seals. My experience with Green Berets in the Vietnam era is that they were very effective in working with indigenous populations,
to include recruiting fighters to our side, spoke their language, were highly competent, tough as nails, and very humble. Out
of uniform, one would not even know they were Green Berets. Likewise almost all Army Rangers are equally humble. Green Berets
are recruited from the Rangers.
I never had any personal experiences with Navy Seals, but over the last decade or so at least, its obvious that a large percent
of them are a bunch of braggadocios chest thumpers. There is something seriously wrong with the Navy Seal recruitment program
or training or both. They have a very bad reputation of making their missions public, making jokes out of their security clearances
and never seem to be held accountable for such violations.
The regular military has always distrusted the SOF for the very reasons cited in this article. The Pentagon forbade the beret
until JFK overruled the brass in 1963.
The Founding CO of that vaunted Tier 1 unit Seal team 6 was convicted of federal crimes and spent time in prison in the 1980s.
The Green Beret affair in 1965 resulted in the murder of a allied civilian in Vietnam. The military grew these units beyond
reasonable levels and has misused and overused them since 9/11,
One is left to wonder whether the president has really overplayed his hand or these naval officers are simply Trump-haters as
is all too often the case these days. I'd have to go with let the Navy be the Navy and handle it's own business. But one has to
question whether these officers would've objected as strongly had it been Obama giving the orders?
What a disgrace... I'm a dovish, pacifist peacenik, but even I understand maintaining organizational order, respect for authority,
chain-of-command... (and have respect for many in the military for their desire and attempts to play by international rules and
by-the-book procedures.)
Trump & Gallagher (who strikes me as a sadist) are a disgrace and Fox News is especially beyond the pale, giving Gallagher
a platform to impugn his commanding officer! in public! Where has anyone ever gotten away with that before?... unbelievable.
I guess you could hope for some silver lining that this might undermine the DoD's global empire tendencies... but I'm not sure
this is a good way to get that done (ie leaving or promoting arrogant, cruel men like Gallagher, with the stench of by-gone barbarism
clinging to him, in the services:)
If I were one of this president's advisers, I would make one thing clear.
Don't tweet instructs to any department or department member because it is neither a proper channel for official communique's
nor is it conducive to to effectively, management and more times than not creates more trouble that it solves.
After listing the reasons why "twitter" is an inappropriate forum. i would of course be fired. But I am deeply concerned that
the president is conducting official business in open forums such as twitter.
The official in question was certainly being reasonable to request the order either direct communique or in riding. Given the
nature of twitter, it was a reasonable expectation.
Laugh: I think there are plenty of issues with the military justice system. But that is another matter best left out of twitter
feeds.
Why didn't anyone mention what the effect of these democracy wars are having on our soldiers considering they aren't actually
protecting the country but helping the Muslims move over to it, not just here but to Europe as well.
Most of the terrorist fighters are coming and going from other countries and travel freely oh and besides in Syria we're really
not fighting terrorists but over-throwing a government.
To top it all off these actions are helping to bankrupt our nation. I wonder how this plays for morale of our soldiers? I'm
sure many don't care, the majority of people indluding those just coming in ro the country seem to hate the country anyway so
why would anyone want to fight for them and then maybe there is another side who sees it all and cares, cares that they are losing
their nation. What about the "fight them over there but love them and bow down to their diverstity"? What happens when you realize
that you're not the savior you thought you would be and no one is greatful to have you around, they are fighting you endlessly
and ruthlessly while you're ttying to be a gentle invader, not fighting to win but to install democracy and can't figure out why
no one wants your gift of gentrification.
I'm not so sure I could take his rank from him either, maybe just give him a break from the war on the ground and the two sides
of the war in his head.
On the other hand we increasingly see an unwillingness by the military and Deep State to be ruled over by civilian government,
and instead of a commander in chief, to make of elected Presidents mere puppets for their consensus.
I disagree with Lt.Col Milburns (Ret.) The UCMJ is military law and military law is part of federal law. The president has the
right to pardon anyone convicted under the UCMJ but his authority stops where the law is concerned. The president isn't above
the law, he can countermand the conviction but he can't force the military to withdraw the A@D given by the individual services.
That remains the prerogative of the commanders. Discipline must be maintained and the commanders are responsible and accountable
for that discipline.
CIC is a title conferred on a civilian president, he states that they are responsible for the strategic decisions used to justify
the use of our military forces, the Presidents actions with regard to anything other than the pardon does not meet the criteria
of a strategic decision.
And if water isn't involved in the mission then there really isn't need for SEALS to be there. Mission creep on the part of
the Navy to increase Spec Ops budgets.
Rank has their privilege and as far as I know, PDJT is the CiC. So either you - the un-elected bureaucrat, shut up and follow
the order or put up and resign your commission.
"... 38% of respondents want to end the war in Afghanistan now or within one year, and another 31% support negotiations with the Taliban to bring the war to an end. A broad majority of Americans wants to bring the war to a conclusion. I already mentioned the survey's finding that there is majority support for reducing the U.S. military presence in East Asia last night. Americans not only want to get out of our interminable wars overseas, but they also want to scale back U.S. involvement overall. ..."
"... The survey asked respondents how the U.S. should respond if "Iran gets back on track with its nuclear weapons program." That is a loaded and potentially misleading question, since Iran has not had anything resembling a nuclear weapons program in 16 years, so there has been nothing to get "back on track" for a long time. Framing the question this way is likely to elicit a more hawkish response. In spite of the questionable wording, the results from this year show that there is less support for coercive measures against Iran than last year and more support for negotiations and non-intervention: ..."
"... With only around 10% favoring it, there is almost no support for preventive war against Iran. Americans don't want war with Iran even if it were developing nuclear weapons ..."
"... There is substantial and growing support for bringing our current wars to an end and avoiding unnecessary conflicts in the future. This survey shows that there is a significant constituency in America that desires a more peaceful and restrained foreign policy, and right now virtually no political leaders are offering them the foreign policy that they say they want. It is long past time that Washington started listening. ..."
he Eurasia Group Foundation's new survey of public
opinion on U.S. foreign policy finds that support for greater restraint continues to rise:
Americans favor a less aggressive foreign policy. The findings are consistent across a
number of foreign policy issues, and across generations and party lines.
The 2019 survey results show that most Americans support a more restrained foreign policy,
and it also shows an increase in that support since last year. There is very little support for
continuing the war in Afghanistan indefinitely, there is virtually no appetite for war with
Iran, and there is a decline in support for a hawkish sort of American exceptionalism. There is
still very little support for unilateral U.S. intervention for ostensibly humanitarian reasons,
and support for non-intervention has increased slightly:
In 2018, 45 percent of Americans chose restraint as their first choice. In 2019, that has
increased to 47 percent. Only 19 percent opt for a U.S.-led military response and 34 percent
favor a multilateral, UN-led approach to stop humanitarian abuses overseas.
38% of respondents want to end the war in Afghanistan now or within one year, and another
31% support negotiations with the Taliban to bring the war to an end. A broad majority of
Americans wants to bring the war to a conclusion. I already mentioned the survey's finding that
there is majority support for reducing the U.S. military presence in East Asia last night.
Americans not only want to get out of our interminable wars overseas, but they also want to
scale back U.S. involvement overall.
The report's working definition of American exceptionalism is a useful one: "American
exceptionalism is the belief that the foreign policy of the United States should be
unconstrained by the parochial interests or international rules which govern other countries."
This is not the only definition one might use, but it gets at the heart of what a lot of hawks
really mean when they use this phrase. While most Americans still say they subscribe to
American exceptionalism either because of what the U.S. represents or what it has done, there
is less support for these views than before. Among the youngest respondents (age 18-29), there
is now a clear majority that rejects this idea.
The survey asked respondents how the U.S. should respond if "Iran gets back on track with
its nuclear weapons program." That is a loaded and potentially misleading question, since Iran
has not had anything resembling a nuclear weapons program in 16 years, so there has been
nothing to get "back on track" for a long time. Framing the question this way is likely to
elicit a more hawkish response. In spite of the questionable wording, the results from this
year show that there is less support for coercive measures against Iran than last year and more
support for negotiations and non-intervention:
A strong majority of both Republicans and Democrats continue to seek a diplomatic
resolution involving either sanctions or the resumption of nuclear negotiations. This year,
there was an increase in the number of respondents across party lines who would want
negotiations to resume even if Iran is a nuclear power in the short term, and a bipartisan
increase in those who believe outright that Iran has the right to develop nuclear weapons to
defend itself. So while Republicans might be more likely than Democrats to believe Iran
threatens peace in the Middle East, voters in neither party are eager to take a belligerent
stand against it.
With only around 10% favoring it, there is almost no support for preventive war against
Iran. Americans don't want war with Iran even if it were developing nuclear weapons, and it
isn't doing that. It may be that the failure of the "maximum pressure" campaign has also
weakened support for sanctions. Support for the sanctions option dropped by almost 10 points
overall and plunged by more than 20 points among Republicans. In 2018, respondents were evenly
split between war and sanctions on one side or negotiations and non-intervention on the other.
This year, support for diplomacy and non-intervention in response to this imaginary nuclear
weapons program has grown to make up almost 60% of the total. If most Americans favor diplomacy
and non-intervention in this improbable scenario, it is safe to assume that there is even more
support for those options with the real Iranian government that isn't pursuing nuclear
weapons.
There is substantial and growing support for bringing our current wars to an end and
avoiding unnecessary conflicts in the future. This survey shows that there is a significant
constituency in America that desires a more peaceful and restrained foreign policy, and right
now virtually no political leaders are offering them the foreign policy that they say they
want. It is long past time that Washington started listening.
This message is brought to you thanks to the efforts of the combined staffs of the History and Sociology Departments of Alligator
University.
This year of our Lord, the holy Flying Spaghetti Monster 2019, we have discovered a legend--a living, fire-breathing legend at
that. Not since the days of Boudica , a warrior Queen, has the
earth seen such a warrior. Not surpassed by Jean d Árc nor Katherine the Great. This warrior of the wireless age has not only exhibited
compassion on the battlefield, as befits a person of high honor, but has the uncanny ability to perform as the best of Generals (not
just Majors) throughout recorded history have done. Know wherein lies the enemy. Know your own strengths. Know your own weaknesses.
When engaging the enemy, do not hold back. Fight to win! Win as big as you can, while sparing needless damage.
Tulsi, our subject (and [bias apparent here] champion), has arisen, almost from the sea. Far to the West across the Great Water,
from islands spewed from the mouths of living volcanoes, emerged, almost as an eruption, our Warrior Princess Tulsi. She fought to
defend her tribe by joining a council of the advisers, then abandoning such sedentary life and chosing battle instead. Fighting with
distinction, Tulsi saved the lives of many fellow soldiers. Her counsel proved both wise and humane. Troops and others recognized
Tulsi's emerging greatness, coupled with compassion.
To the delight of her cadre, Tulsi sallied forth to the land known today as The Great Swamp. Chauvinistically however, I believe
my south Florida estuary is the true Great Swamp. But we shall leave that debate to a later time.
She joined a regiment called the DNC. At first it seemed to Tulsi this to be a desirable posting, surrounded by fields and rivers
with pleasing structures in which to live. Continuing her steady progress up the ranks, our Warrior Princess, as yet untested by
actual combat, joined others to high councils of War and of Foreign trysts.
But only a few years had yet to pass during her service, Tulsi sensed some problems in the command chain. Plans seemed to favor
neither Nation nor Military, but instead the commanders themselves. Upon thus learning, Tulsi resigned her position, abandoning the
ill-disposed regiment, seeking mission achievement over promotion.
A loosely knit Brigade, called the Democratic Party, united by the power of money and of power itself, was to become the default
posting of TWP. Unfortunately the chain of command was rent asunder by internal factions, an unholy tug of war resulting. This war
is still actively contested--we are in a state of war.
[Injection of unpaid political endorsement, not approved by TWP] Folks, we need this brave general to lead.
Contesting amongst others for the ultimate Brigade command was Tulsi and 21 22 (23?) others. The concept grew either
too tiresome or expensive for many contestants, who either became sick or perished from fatigue and/or loneliness. The field of battle
was becoming clarified, gaining Tulsi progressively improving evaluation and appropriate planning for future campaigns.
The First Slain Enemy, Olaf the Oaf
From the gentle hills and scattered forests of Ohionia came Olaf. Initially he was known as Olaf the Ogre; until he was slain
by sword blows from Warrior Tulsi. Description of her foe is warranted. Her foe was a giant, tall and strong. But Olaf was neither
quick of wit nor of foot. Large he was, as said. The ground would rumble beneath his foot steps. Trees were bent aside as he strode
unstoppably through the woods. Local dwellers both feared and respected Olaf, the mighty.
The battle: the setting is on a level plain under illumination of many cell phones torches soon after sunset.
Other contestants on the field have agreed that only two contestants combat each other. Female referees would enforce rules of combat.
Tulsi and Olaf faced each other. In his ponderous way, Olaf declared his desire to engage. With that, Warrior Tulsi swiftly smote
his pate with a mighty broadsword blow. Owing to the thickness of Olaf's cranium, the sound of the resultant impact was heard for
miles. Yea, more than a thousand miles some say. Rending Olaf's pulsating brain irreversibly damaged, the Oaf staggered from battleground,
only to succumbing to his wounds months later.
Not being particularly fond of Olaf, I did not check the source of the following: it is estimated that 30 people attended his
internment, including undertakers.
Yet the Campaign had only just begun. More foes to conquer.
Second Casualty: Klammer the Camel
Venturing forth from the Kingdom of Kalifornication comes (but not for very long) the former Lord High Executioner, Klammer the
Camel. Since Klammer is of mixed parentage, it is unsure whether Klammer is a Dromedary (one hump camel) or a two hump Bactrian camel.
It is recorded that an expert on Klammer's humping is retired statesman Willie Brown.
It is said said that Klammer's exhalations could kill enemies at 10 paces. Yet Klammer's best weapon was heaving heavy Criminal
Code books at her victims. Strangely, Klammer looked reasonably fit in her drab clothing. Foes who faced her in battle have noted
how white Klammer's teeth are as she gnashes at them. She had a strange reaction to cannabis. When others utilized the substance,
she raged and destroyed them, if she could reach them. Yet when she herself inhaled the aroma of such burning vegetation, she became
as if in a trance.
The battlefield: very much like the field upon which brave Tulsi slew the Oaf, at night with many candles burning held
by acolytes of various contestants. Once again, only two were allowed combat at a time. Supremely self-confident of victory, flush
with self-satisfaction after inflicting a minor wound on former vice-king JoJo the Far Gone. Klammer first engaged other contestants,
smirking from her presumed victories. Now brimming with confidence bordering on hubris, Klammer stood her ground. Then, in a well-planned
straight ahead frontal attack, delivered with swiftness and ferocity, Tulsi struck her foe. And struck her. While Klammer lay quivering
on the ground, TWP demanded an apology of her for her past sins. When none was evinced, Tulsi stuck the tip of her blade into Klammer's
seeming impenetrable armor. This wound, though not immediately fatal, nevertheless is proving fatal to the now debilitated Klammer.
Klammer attempted a counter-attack at another field before falling slack-jawed after a mere glare from Tulsi. Not yet dead, but soon.
Third Casualty: Boots the Jiggler
Wandering from a land not far from the home of Olaf, proceeds the Stolid Boots. He sets his sights on new lands to conquer. The
city he leaves is burning and being plundered by wandering Mnuchkins from the neighboring fiefdom of Illinois. Unconcerned with the
plight of the subjects of the Boots' prior management, Boots bravely strides forth, still not battle-tested. He gathers with him
followers, some of whom are loyal, while others need financial encouragement to participate in his campaign.
Boots has been gifted with the ability to speak so eloquently and at such length that those auditioners of his monologues are
both amazed and yet unable to understand the essence of Boots' message.
The battlefield: interestingly quite similar to those upon which Tulsi administered the blows dispatching the Oaf and crippling
the Camel. Once again, remaining combatants aligned to watch two of their number engage upon combat.
Boots, buoyed by the support of his entourage, summoned forth 400 of his Southern Army to aid in his battle. There Boots turned
upon Tulsi, promising to not only to vanquish her by his superior generalship but send troops across the Southern border. But, becoming
anxious of TWP, he turned to assay his retinue of 400. But lo, none remained, most not having left the barracks.
In face-to-face combat Boots met Tulsi. Mutually acknowledging their military experience, Tulsi struck blows into the Jiggler.
This assault froze Boots into place, unable to respond. The above picture of Boots was made immediately after a biting blow from
Tulsi's broadsword. He was heard to mumble something like "Et tu, Tulsi?".
. . . . .
Campaigns against larger enemies are soon to come. One looming conflict may be likened to a civil war against Brooklyn Bernie
which hopefully be short. A battle against the Hokey Okie is inevitable.
Our AU colleagues assure me that the Feared Medusa will enter the fray after more rivals have fallen. The Snake-head leads a mighty
army, most of whom are oddly cyborg-like. Bots I think they call them. Hilbots actually.
A musical coda is appropriate here. A good choice is a warning, an admonition to those contemplating with the Warrior Princess.
Equally unsustainable is the implication that Big Capital and the establishment ruling class
is not, and has not been, significantly Jewish over historical time. Žižek simplifies
and caricatures the Middle Ages as a time when "the Jew emerged as the enemy, a parasitic
intruder who disturbs the harmonious social edifice." Žižek obviously employs the
term "harmonious social edifice" with skepticism and disdain, seeing the pre-existing order
(that before the arrival of the Jews) as fraught with exploitation, tensions, and
contradictions. In Žižek's framework then, Jews may be a chaotic capitalist force
that enters Europe, but this was a Europe already experiencing chaotic capitalist forces, and
therefore it would be irrational to blame Jews for anything arising from their emergence and
expansion in Europe. What needs to be distinguished here is the distinction between what might
be termed the organic development of finance in Europe, [18]
For an excellent summary in relation to this process in feudalism, see R. Allen Brown,
Origins of English Feudalism, (New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 1973). and the
exorbitant and often extremely negative developments ushered in by the arrival of the Jews and
their subsequent special relationship with European elites and with capitalism itself.
The organic development of finance and class divisions in Europe is demonstrated in the
evolution of feudalism as a result of the adoption of heavy cavalry by the Franks in the eighth
century, with other, non-military, aspects of continental feudalism arising as the inevitable
social repercussions of this change in military organization. [19]
Ibid .
(For an excellent summary in relation to this process in feudalism, see R. Allen Brown,
Origins of English Feudalism, (New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 1973).) Since
knights needed money, horses, servants, attendants, and freedom from all other non-military
occupations, like tilling the soil, knighthood gradually became an upper-class affair.
Increasing technological sophistication then made mounted warfare more and more expensive and
caused knights to become more sharply distinguished from the ordinary peasant. It also caused
free peasants to become less and less valuable as soldiers, and they therefore declined towards
mere servitude. It was, therefore, in a sense inevitable that the new class of knights should
become a landed aristocracy, and its members were thus in a sense destined to low-level
jurisdiction of a semi-agricultural kind over their peasants. This situation really was, in a
sense, a "harmonious social edifice" to the extent that it followed a clear logic and permitted
these communities and their territories to be competitive in a rapidly changing military and
geopolitical context. The ruling classes were obliged to adopt paternalistic practices in
relation to the peasantry, and outright exploitation was rare since it could be dangerous and
counterproductive in that it could provoke a mass uprising and thus damage militarily-valuable
social cohesion. The social edifice was thus indeed "harmonious" in the sense that it was
coordinated and balanced, and was generally beneficial to the organic national community.
The arrival of Jews in Europe undoubtedly created an imbalance in these class relations, and
between the ruling class and the lower orders. Evidence of this imbalance in medieval Europe
can be obtained both from surviving documentation and artefacts, and from analogous modern
situations such as the the Great Romanian Peasant Revolt of 1907, during which Jewish intrusion
into the existing quasi-feudal social arrangement ended in widespread rebellion and societal
collapse due to the specific excesses of Jewish exploitation. The arrival of the Jews in
Western Europe as a financial and geopolitical power can be dated to their ascent under the
Carolingians in the ninth century, and possibly earlier in the Narbonne where they were noted
as an extraordinarily wealthy class. In this development, the birth of formal, symbiotic
relationships between Jews and self-interested European elites, we see a crucial fissure in
European class relations. Jewish financiers entered into the harmonious social edifice as
privileged and protected outsiders whose sole purpose was to accelerate and distort resource
transfer between European classes, rendering internal class division less about communal
efficiency than about personal gain. In this system, paternalism gave way to such situations as
the permitted Jewish trade in Christian slaves (a key reason for the agitations for Agobard of
Lyons) and widespread exploitative tax farming.
One of the great modern myths, a stroke of Jewish revisionist genius, is that Jews were
forced into such practices by restrictive laws on the ownership of land, and certain other
local contexts. This is historicist relativism at its most bankrupt and, thankfully, modern
scholarship is slowly eroding such misrepresentations and outright falsehoods. Take, for
example, the most recent edition of The Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Religion ,
which states the "remarkable" fact that Jews
whether in Narbonne in 899 or Gironne in 922, in Trier in 919 or Worms in 1090, in
Barcelona in 1053 or Toledo in 1222, or in early medieval England, were permitted to acquire
and own land if they wished. Not only were Jews legally permitted to own land, they could
acquire significant amounts (especially in Italy, southern Spain, southern and east-central
France, and Germany); possessed fields, gardens, and vineyards; and owned, transferred, and
mortgaged land holdings. They preferred to hire tenants, sharecroppers, and wage laborers to
work their lands. For themselves, they chose the most skilled and profitable occupations,
foremost money lending. [20]
R. M. McCleary (ed), The Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Religion (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2011, 68.
Essentially then, we see the immediate and deliberate entrance of the Jews into European
society at the level of knight, if not higher, but without any of the logic or benefits of the
position of knight within the organic social edifice. The Jew in this new social order existed
for no logical reason other than the personal enrichment of certain elites and the communal
enrichment of the Jews themselves. This may be regarded as the first perversion of capitalism
and the first true exploitation (excessive or unfair use of workers with no reason other than
greed) of the serving class within this system.
Again, dispensing with historicist relativism, we can demonstrate the pattern of Jewish
disruptive behaviors within capitalism with reference to analogous modern conditions. For
example, the arenda system of late nineteenth- and early twentieth century-eastern
Europe (especially Poland, Ukraine, and Romania) was remarkably similar to the feudal system of
medieval Western Europe. The arenda system can be regarded as broadly harmonious until
the mass influx of Jewish arendasi during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, which
saw the Jews increasingly operate as tax farmers, property agents, customs agents, and loan
merchants. Jewish monopoly in these roles prompted both the rapid commercialization of land and
the expansion of Big Capital, both of which were intended by Jews to exclusively benefit their
in-group. Since the existence of entire Jewish communities depended on exploitative capitalism,
Jews fiercely contended for monopolies in key areas. For example , The Va'ad
Medinat Lita (Lithuanian Jewish Council) twice passed a resolution supporting the lease of
customs and taxes by Jews, stating: "We have openly seen the great danger deriving from the
operation of customs in Gentile hands; for the customs to be in Jewish hands is a pivot on
which everything (in commerce) turns, since thereby Jews may exert control."
Crucially, high Jewish position in the social hierarchy was not accompanied by paternalism
of any kind. In fact, Jews are notable throughout history for their incredibly hostile and
exploitative behaviors towards non-elite Europeans. Philip Eidelberg, a historian of the Great
Romanian Peasant Revolt of 1907, describes how Jewish arendasi " exploited the estates
more ruthlessly than the native Rumanian arendasi ." He continues by explaining that
Jews were not interested in the long-term prosperity of estates or their workers, and often
hiked rents to breaking point "even at the risk of eventually exhausting the available land and
inventory." [21] P.
G. Eidelberg, The Great Rumanian Peasant Revolt of 1907: Origins of a Modern Jacquerie
(), 39. In Rumania, Jews enjoyed monopolies, with Eidelberg demonstrating that Jewish
bankers would decline to grant capital to any non-Jew wanting to enter this form of finance.
[22]
Ibid , 120.
(P. G. Eidelberg, The Great Rumanian Peasant Revolt of 1907: Origins of a Modern
Jacquerie (), 39.) Thus, the Jews competed for profit solely with each other,
ever-increasing the chokehold on their European peasantries. Eidelberg writes that "the result
was a bidding spiral in which the peasant was the loser. In fact, it was just such a
competition between the two greatest Jewish arendas families -- the Fischers and the
Justers -- which was to help spark the 1907 revolt." [23]
Ibid, 39.
(P. G. Eidelberg, The Great Rumanian Peasant Revolt of 1907: Origins of a Modern
Jacquerie (), 39.)
Jews, of course, continue to occupy conspicuous roles in the worst and most exploitative
aspects of capitalism. Jews have also continued to acquire land for exploitative purposes, the
most interesting example being the
Argentinian activities of the British Jewish oligarch Joe Lewis , a tax avoider
and currency speculator who made his billions alongside George Soros when both gambled on the
British pound sterling crashing out of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism in 1992. As one
commentator explains, "Soros' and Lewis' bet against the pound actually led to the pound
crashing, after Soros ordered his hedge fund to " go for the
jugular " and aggressively trade against the currency, thereby prompting its sharp
devaluation. Though Soros is often called "the man who broke the Bank of England" as a result
of the $1 billion in profits he made on that fateful day, Lewis is said to have
made an even larger profit than Soros." While these Jews made billions, the British public
suffered a rapid economic recession. Lewis didn't mind. He repeated the experiment in Mexico,
causing the Mexican
peso crisis , which "led to a massive jump in poverty, unemployment and inequality in
Mexico and left its government beholden to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) through a loan
package arranged by then-U.S. President Bill Clinton."
Growing extravagantly rich from parasitic currency speculation, Jewish oligarchs Soros and
Lewis, together with co-ethnic Big Capitalists Eduardo Elsztain and Marcelo Mindlin, started
buying massive tracts of Argentine real estate, particularly in Patagonia, where they pooled
resources to take over local banks, the regional water supply, oil and gas wealth, and the
area's largest energy supplier. Lewis then set about buying tens of thousands of hectares,
declaring his wish to create "his own state in Patagonia." Some locals were willing to sell
their land. One, Irineo Montero, had refused, and he, along with his wife María Ortiz
and their employee José Matamala, were all found dead under mysterious
circumstances. Lewis' land consolidation was then made complete, and paved the way for a
Zionist enclave that has exploited locals so thoroughly that there have been regular massive
demonstrations ("March for Sovereignty) against this new Jewish ruling class, attracting 80
percent of the local population. According to the research of former French intelligence
officer turned journalist Thierry Meyssan, Lewis is much more amenable to his fellow Jews, and
has been inviting thousands of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers to his territory annually.
In late 2017, former French intelligence officer turned journalist Thierry Meyssan alleged : "Since the
Falklands War, the Israeli army has been organizing 'holiday camps' in Patagonia for its
soldiers. Between 8,000 and 10,000 of them now come every year to spend two weeks on Joe Lewis'
land."
What we see here is just a very modern example of the millennia-old Jewish pattern of
establishing full-scale operations for extracting a nation's riches and exploiting its people.
We must earnestly ask of Slavoj Žižek: Has Big Capital and the establishment
ruling class not been, and does it not remain, significantly Jewish
Another ringer from Andrew Joyce! We are so lucky to have him. He is helping us all to
recover our collective racial memory (as Jung might call it) as White Gentiles.
In April 2019, Žižek and Jordan Peterson sold out the Sony Centre in Toronto
for their debate titled "Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism"
And who, pray tell, was invited to defend the honor of National Socialism?
In a 2009 lecture at the European Graduate School titled "Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semite and
Jew," Žižek argued that anti-Semitism places Jews in "impossible Otherness"
Judaism places Jews in "impossible Otherness." Their bizarre 'chosenness' is the
root of their collective pathology. (Notice how all their theories concerning our
supposed ethno-centrism are just so much projection!)
It is a matter of special irony that Marxists should present their own contradictions in
relation to anti-Semitism and the supposed psychosocial aspects of the anti-Semite.
Have these self-described Marxists never read Karl Marx's own scathing treatment of the
Jews in Zur
Judenfrage ? Here's a well-known passage:
"Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew – not the Sabbath Jew but the everyday
Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the
secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical
need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his
worldly God? Money. Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may
exist. Money degrades all the gods of man – and turns them into commodities . The
bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange .
The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of
money in general.[ ] The Jew has emancipated himself in a Jewish manner, not only because
he has acquired financial power, but also because, through him and also apart from him,
money has become a world power and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical
spirit of the Christian nations. The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the
Christians have become Jews. [ ] In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the
emancipation of mankind from Judaism."
Pretty frickin' harsh, eh! I guess if old Karl were still around to hear the pathetic
maunderings of post-modern Communists like Žižek, he would just shake his head and
say, 'I am not a Marxist.'
According to the research of former French intelligence officer turned journalist
Thierry Meyssan
That's interesting, Dr. Joyce. I've been following him over at Voltaire-net on and off for nearly a decade, and I had
no idea that Meyssan had been an intelligence officer. Neither Wikipedia nor Infogalatic ever
mention it. Good to know
Slavoj Zizek went "full Monty" during his recent visit to Tel Aviv at the invitation of
some sincerely dissident Israelis. They expected words of encouragement, but instead he
informed them that fighting anti-Semitism is more important than defending Palestinians. The
Slovenian philosopher spoke kindly of the swindler Bernie Madoff, who was "a scapegoat who
was easy to blame, when in fact the real problem is the system that allowed and even pushed
Madoff to commit his crimes." Indeed, it must have been 'the system' that pushed poor Mr.
Madoff into crime, just as it was 'the system' that pushed Shylock to enter into
money-lending and Jack the Ripper into the business of carving.
Some of the above are correct but there's a much more succinct and accurate description.
There's one idea that describes the Jews perfectly. It describes their parasitism, their
lying, their chameleon like behavior, their sense of superiority and belief that they are
different from everyone else. There's a simple explanation for why the Jews are hated so much
that also explains their behavior and success. The Jews are a tribe of psychopaths. Not all,
maybe not even the majority, but a large number. All of the Jews ancient writings are nothing
more than a manual for psychopaths to live by. The Talmud is nothing but one psychopathic
thought after another. The Talmud "great enlightenment" basically says that everyone not
Jewish is there to serve Jews. All their property is really the Jews. No one is really human
unless they're Jews and their lives don't matter. A psychopathic religion for a psychopathic
people.
Even if I'm wrong thousands of years of history show a bunch of Jews moving into your
territory in in no way distinguishable from a tribe of psychopaths moving into your
country
They've been thrown out of every single country that they've been to in any numbers.
Psychopaths having no empathy themselves can only go by the feedback they get from the
people they are exploiting. So they push and push to see what they can get away with. The
normal people build up resentment towards them. Thinking "surely they will reform or repent"
like a normal person who does wrong. Of course the Jews do not. They don't have the mental
process for reform. Then in a huge mass outpouring of hate for the Jews, fed up with the
refusal to reform their behavior, they attack and/or deport them. In this stage of the cycle
the Big/Rich Jews escape and the little Jews are attacked.
Start over.
Even if it's wrong if you assume the Jews are a tribe of psychopaths you will never be
surprised and Jew's behavior will make sense.
In order to predict Jews behavior read the great book on Psychopaths by Hervey Cleckley,
"The Mask of Sanity". Here's a chapter you should read. It's about the psychopath Stanley.
Who does all kinds of manic bullshit and spends all his time feeding people the most
outrageous lies. Look at the astounding array of things he's able to get away with. Maybe it
will remind you of a certain tribe. New meme. "They're pulling a Stanley". The whole book is
on the web and worth reading.
" In the course of his European Graduate School lecture, Žižek comments that
"the real mystery of anti-Semitism is why it is a constant "
This is not a mystery at all. NO ONE can stand psychopaths over the long term. They're
fucked up. You even hear Jews leaving Israel because the culture is so fucked up. Even
psychopaths don't want to live with psychopaths.
The only know recipe to living with psychopaths recommended by psychiatrist is don't live
with them at all. The sooner we realize that the Jews are a damaged, evil, twisted tribe of
psychopaths and there's no reasoning, dealing, co-opting or living with them the better we
will be. The only 100%. guaranteed, tried and true, tested with 100% satisfaction of dealing
with the Jews is to get rid of them. Peacefully if we can get it but by any means necessary
get them away from you and leave them no control of any sort over your country or any other
aspect of your and your countrymen's lives.
Žižek copying, almost verbatim, a review of MacDonald's book by Stanley
Hornbeck that appeared in the March 1999 issue of The American Renaissance.
What a damning indictment of American Renaissance!
Slavoj Zizek, the uttermost dregs of human intellectual depravity, agrees so utterly with
an Amren article he feels comfortable copying it word for word as it it were his own!
Have these self-described Marxists never read Karl Marx's own scathing treatment of the
Jews in "Zur Judenfrage"?
This "well-known (pretty frickin' harsh) passage" is permanently cited by anti-marxists to
denunciate "Karl" as "antisemite" and with the intention to subsequently ignore his analysis
of capital (for being founded in his "antisemitism").
By the way, it is not necessary to imagine "old Karl" to be "still around" or "to turn in his
grave" to enlighten us with the word "I am not a Marxist". If we can trust in the words of
Engels he said it in reality: "What is certain is that I myself am not a Marxist" (a remark
cited by Engels in his letter to Bernstein of 2-3 November 1882).
Regarding this whole "jews are both for communism and capitalism, and thus anti semites are
full of contradictory nonsense", one needs to point the obvious fact that these jewish
inventions are meant for consumption for the gentiles and not the jews.
Some will think that Ayn Rand and Karl Marx are polar opposites, but this is not true,
both preached a universal ideology, and both would not think it is problem at the same time
that jews are immune from this ideology (because Marx would no doubt support Israel if it
existed at his time).
A car-wreck of logic indeed. What absolute rubbish Zizek comes up with. JM Keynes observed
that economics exists only to give astrology a good name. Judging by today's 'philosophers'
the same could be said about them.
@israel
shamir It's the system that has allowed Slavoj Zizek to showcase his theory . System
works with usual laziness who knows who and not what .
If Maddoff were a victim may be Epstein was , then so were Hitler and Polpot
System around them allowed them to reach mass appeal and inflict severe damages .
Abusing system is not self-victimization . Prince Andrew did not hurt self .
It's the system one works to prevent undesirable products . We undermine the system .
When you side with proponents of right for Palestinian or the victims of usury banking ,
financialization or against penchant for military budget or eternal war you bring normal
perspective , you restore balance between cause and effect and you remove artificial false
intellectual reasoning g like existence of antisemitism or American responsibility or America
being the beacon to humanity or America being a mystic abstract concept of higher values
.
Allowing and worshipping these kinds of ideas
we make inroads by the parasites possible
Abstract concept is easy target for corruption distortion emotional manipulation .
Antisemitidm should be described and that description should be applied to other anti -ism
( anti black anti Arab anti Iran anti Chinese anti Vietnamese anti Russian etc )
epidemiological survey should be conducted along those detailed descriptive points not like
-the way ADL puts out questionnaires .
It is time for Slavoj Zizek. to go to a library and get hold of the books by Herzl just to
get started .
@anon
masonry is clear example of this they tricked british and french people that let jews play an
important paper in the ideological foundation ,germans understanding the danger but
recon¡gnizing that the ilustration was the way of the future adapted his own version of
masonry with greek symbols and pure european myths and of course mantaining jews out of the
inner circle of power more or less like in scandinavia .
spanish people simply banned the masonry .
its curious how italian and iberians and their colonies were able to crush any jewish
resistance and asimilate the rest of them in the new world even if they arent the smartest
europeans .
i think we need a fusion of german and latin character to face this new era
There's around 200 nations in the world and if I may be so bold–since this is going
against the Cultural Marxists agenda that race is a social construct–4 main races that
contain around 30 subgroups.
In other words, lots of stories to pick from for the MSM.
Yet, day after day after day, we usually only hear about ONE nation and ONE race, Israel
and the Jews.
It's gotten all so tiresome to have these human peacocks constantly parading around,
demanding that us Goyim worship them or else.
And if we fail–in their minds–to show them the proper adoration, we get accused
of anti-Semitism.
@HammerJack
Andrew Joyce's work would never appear in American Renaissance. Taylor and his cohorts
prevent any criticism of Jewish involvement in White dispossession.
Herzl did not like Jews , celebrated possible future conversion of his son , thought en
masse conversion to Christianity , did not think of allowing Hebrew as state language and did
not conceive Shabbat a holiday
But also thought sneak attack on local Arab , planned deceptive discussions and ploys to
make them leave Palestine without arousing immediate large scale protests , he offered the
service of new state to be a barrier between uncivilized Asia and developed Europe , he
promised Balfour of protecting British interest
He wanted no Arab in the midst and eagerly and glowingly promised his visions of equal
democratic society .
Above all he can't pull it off himself . He needed help . He needed money that he by
threat and persuasion got from rich Jew . What about other nations shedding their non Jews
blood to erect a pure Jews nation ????
His minions got there also by lying false promising misrepresenting and bribing They also
used religious hatred of Christianity to Islam and racial hatred of European to Arab and
Turkey .
Britain pod in blood and money Now its Germany and USA .
-- -- --
But there are antisemite thinking or musing that. A-gentile never be able to get rid of ,
so said the Slovenian
The paradoxes Mr Slovenian sees in antisemite argument is what litter the philosophy of
Zionism .
@Digital
Samizdat Meyssan is a leftist of North African origin. Earlier in his career, he was
involved in harassing the National Front and other parties of the right.
From 1996 to 1999, he worked as substitute coordinator of the National Committee of
Surveillance against the extreme right, which held weekly meetings with the 45 major
political parties, unions and associations belonging to the French left-wing in order to
draw up a common response to escalating intolerance
I think Dr Joyce mistakes Meyssan's involvement in the above committee with that of
performing intelligence functions. Meyssan was an enthusiastic supporter of Hate Speech laws
to be used against the Right. Except later he fell foul of them himself and no longer lives
in France.
Indeed, for an anti-segregation organization, the early NAACP was essentially divided between
the Jews who ran it, and the Blacks who went along for the ride. As Hasia Diner puts it in In
the Almost Promised Land: American Jews and Blacks, 1915–1935, many in the NAACP's
Jewish leadership "worked most intensely with other Jews."[7]"
Muslim has replaced Blacks . Muslim "leaders " seek in Israel the conduit to power or
pipeline to something ( usually end up getting less scornful hateful mutterings in Fox and
WSJ ) . In return they attend interfaith meeting to be lectured ,open up discussing Koran
with ideas of dropping some pages ,and agreeing to hate Shia ,agreeing to start propaganda
against Iran Syria and Muslim Brotherhood ,spreading the FDD orchestrated fear of Iran,
imbibing hook line and slinkier the narrative against Iran Syria Hizbullah Libya Houthi and
Taliban or Qatar . Add to that Russia and china also. And they start discussing direct flight
from Tel Aviv to Medina from where their prophet once banned the Jews after decades of
deceptive behaviors of the Jewish clan.
What does muslim get ? The same stuff the blacks got- violence drugs sex trafiiciking,
destruction of community, shuttering down of school college and enrichment of few who sing
Hosana to the Jews .
For the time it is ;limited mostly to ME S Asia and N Africa . But I won't be supposed to see
it get into a more permanent footing in USA ,Canada,Australia. For a back on the back Muslim
will hurt themselves the way Afroamerican were taken for a ride.
Nice, that the Oxford Handbook cited sells for $429 over at Amazon. I hadn't liked Joyce's
articles particularly, but this one is helpful because it shows not just history, but the
link to current events. Particularly useful the info about Joe Lewis, (never heard about him
before). Doubly so in view of the fact that South America seems very unstable now, with a
migrant expulsion towards Mexico/US that is as bad as the Syria-to-Europe a few years back.
But much more under the radar.. no "color this" or "spring that" hashtags this time.
@neutral
Capitalism and communism have materialism in common. Various schemes based on religious
principles vary from both.
Secondly, a capitalist can favor communism so long as it doesn't damage his own
interests.
1) He may be able to make money trading with a foreign communist government e.g. Kaiser,
Ford.
2) He may favor communism as a means of destroying the old Christian order, which was the
case with US capitalists who funded the Bolsheviks e.g. Schiff, Warburg, Hammer.
3) A corrupt communist regime may allow selected friendly capitalists to flourish with in
effect a state subsidy. Most regimes of any kind are corrupt.
The idea that a capitalist can't be a communist is childishly simplistic, really just a
slogan.
@israel
shamir [Slavoj Zizek went "full Monty" during his recent visit to Tel Aviv at the
invitation of some sincerely dissident Israelis. They expected words of encouragement, but
instead he informed them that fighting anti-Semitism is more important than defending
Palestinians. ]
Who were these 'sincerely dissident Israelis' who didnot' know Zizek is a zionist
charlatan?
They are not 'sincere' but they are like him zionist jews.
This fact is obvious many years now and he showed himself as a zionist racist anti
Palestinians and non Jew many years ago in Israel. Who are these dummies that they don't know
who is Zizek.
Zizek like Trump is a charlatan zionist racist. He is a fraud like Henry Bernard Levy
You should see the video when he appeared at 'charlie Rose program' – a womanizer
and racist American exceptionalism, to see how this 'communist' clown was admiring Jewish
capitalism to please another clown charlie rose.
In 2001 and in 2002 Congress passed authorizations for war. While not declarations of war,
these mandates, each titled an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) provided the
legal framework for attacks against al-Qaeda in 2001 and in 2002 for the Iraq War. Both AUMFs
are still in effect today. As Congress considers its annual authorization to fund the Pentagon
our current members of Congress, both in the House and the Senate, are in positions of
responsibility and ability to repeal these AUMFs.
The effect of the AUMFs :
Based on FBI and
journalist
investigations, al Qaeda had between 200-400 members worldwide in September of 2001. Al Qaeda
now has affiliates in every corner of the world, their
strength measures in the tens of thousands of members, and they control territory in Yemen,
Syria and parts of Africa. In Afghanistan, the Taliban now control as much as 60 percent of the
territory and, with regards to international terrorism, where there was one international
terror group in Afghanistan in 2001, the Pentagon now
reports twenty such groups .
ISIS was formerly al Qaeda in Iraq, an organization that came into existence solely due to
the invasion and occupation of Iraq by the United States. US military
,
intelligence agencies, journalists
and other
international organizations continually report that the reason people join such groups is
not out of ideology or religious devotion, but out of resistance to invasion and occupation,
and in response to the killing of family, friends and neighbors by foreign and government
forces. It is clear the AUMFs have worsened terrorism, not defeated it.
The cost of the AUMFs :
More
than 7,000 US service members have been killed and more than 50,000 wounded in the wars
since 9/11. Of the 2.5 million troops deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan as many as 20% percent are
afflicted with PTSD, while 20 percent
more may have traumatic brain injury. The Veterans Administration reports Afghan and Iraq
veterans have rates of suicide
4-10 times higher than their civilian peers. This means almost two Afghan and Iraq veterans
are die by suicide every day. Do the math and it is clear more Afghan and Iraq veterans are
dying by suicide than by combat. The cost to the people overseas to whom we have brought these
wars is hard to grasp.
Between one and four million people have been killed, directly and indirectly, by these
wars, while tens of millions more have been wounded or psychologically traumatized, and tens of
millions more made homeless – the cause of the worst refugee crisis since WWII.
Financially, the cost of these wars is immense, at least $6 trillion. Of a vast many statistics that
compose this incomprehensible figure of $6 trillion, is that nearly $1 trillion of it is simply
just interest and debt payments. For any American, Democrat, Republican or independent, these
interest and debt payments alone should cause them to reconsider these wars.
The AUMFs have allowed for wars to be waged without end by the executive branch, wars the
American people, including veterans, say
have not been worth fighting . Congress has the ability and responsibility to help bring
about an end to these wars by ensuring the repeal of the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs. Join the debate
on Facebook More articles by: Matthew Hoh
Matthew Hoh is a member of the advisory boards of Expose Facts, Veterans For Peace and
World Beyond War. In 2009 he resigned his position with the State Department in Afghanistan in
protest of the escalation of the Afghan War by the Obama Administration. He previously had been
in Iraq with a State Department team and with the U.S. Marines. He is a Senior Fellow with the
Center for International Policy.
"... America was feared by many intellectuals, both in the United States and Britain of the 1940s and 1950s, and their fears were not unwarranted. ..."
"... Big, brawny America – its power establishment – very much was inclined towards dominating the world after WWII. The whole tone of the American press and speeches of major political figures in the period was actually quite frightening. Any highly intelligent, sensitive type would be concerned by it. ..."
"... America wanted a monopoly on nuclear weapons, so that it would be in an unassailable position as it built its imperial apparatus after WWII, the time effectively it "took over" as world imperial power with so many potential competitors flattened. ..."
"... Later, the Pentagon actually planned things like an all-out first strike on the Soviets – it did that more once as well as doing so later for China – so there were indeed plenty of dark intentions in Washington. ..."
"... Spies and ex-spies often put disinformation into their books. Sometimes officials even insist they do so. ..."
The motives for so many Western spies serving the Soviet Union – and in the 1940s and
1950s the Soviets had the best "humint" on earth – were rather idealistic. This was
largely true for the Cambridge Circle in Britain. They were concerned that America was going
to "lord it over" the Russians and everyone else.
America was feared by many intellectuals, both in the United States and Britain of the
1940s and 1950s, and their fears were not unwarranted.
Big, brawny America – its power establishment – very much was inclined
towards dominating the world after WWII. The whole tone of the American press and speeches of
major political figures in the period was actually quite frightening. Any highly intelligent,
sensitive type would be concerned by it.
You certainly did not have to be a communist to feel that way, but being one assisted with
access to important Soviet contacts. They sought you out.
America wanted a monopoly on nuclear weapons, so that it would be in an unassailable
position as it built its imperial apparatus after WWII, the time effectively it "took over"
as world imperial power with so many potential competitors flattened.
It made little secret of its desire to keep such a monopoly, so brilliant people like
Oppenheimer would be well aware of something they might well regard as ominous.
Later, the Pentagon actually planned things like an all-out first strike on the
Soviets – it did that more once as well as doing so later for China – so there
were indeed plenty of dark intentions in Washington.
A hugely important general like MacArthur was unblinkingly ready in 1950 to use atomic
weapons in the Korean War to destroy North Korea's connections with China.
I read several major biographies of Oppenheimer, and there is little to nothing concerning
Soviet intelligence work. When I came across the Sudoplatov book with its straightforward
declaration of Oppenheimer's assistance, it was difficult to know how to weigh the claim.
Spies and ex-spies often put disinformation into their books. Sometimes officials even
insist they do so.
Judging by what is suggested here, if Oppenheimer did help, it was in subtle ways like
letting Klaus Fuchs, a fellow scientist and a rather distinguished one (but a Soviet spy),
look at certain papers. But the scientific community always has some considerable tendency to
share information, a tendency having nothing to do with spying.
In general, it should be understood, that Oppenheimer, despite all his brilliance, was a
rather disturbed man all his life. Quite early on, as just one example, he attempted to
poison someone he did not like. Only pure luck prevented the man's eating a lethally-laced
apple. There were other disturbing behaviors too.
Later they believed that equality of superpower status for the Soviet Union would
contribute to world peace.
How dumb were these "scientists". Everyone knows that once Soviet Union fell, peace and
freedom and democracy are flowering all over the world and United States are not waging any
wars anymore.
Alligator Ed
on Fri, 11/22/2019 - 8:53pm This message is brought to you thanks to the efforts of the
combined staffs of the History and Sociology Departments of Alligator University.
This year of our Lord, the holy Flying Spaghetti Monster 2019, we have discovered a
legend--a living, fire-breathing legend at that. Not since the days of Boudica , a warrior Queen, has the earth seen such
a warrior. Not surpassed by Jean d Árc nor Katherine the Great. This warrior of the
wireless age has not only exhibited compassion on the battlefield, as befits a person of high
honor, but has the uncanny ability to perform as the best of Generals (not just Majors)
throughout recorded history have done. Know wherein lies the enemy. Know your own strengths.
Know your own weaknesses. When engaging the enemy, do not hold back. Fight to win! Win as big
as you can, while sparing needless damage.
Tulsi, our subject (and [bias apparent here] champion), has arisen, almost from the sea. Far
to the West across the Great Water, from islands spewed from the mouths of living volcanoes,
emerged, almost as an eruption, our Warrior Princess Tulsi. She fought to defend her tribe by
joining a council of the advisers, then abandoning such sedentary life and chosing battle
instead. Fighting with distinction, Tulsi saved the lives of many fellow soldiers. Her counsel
proved both wise and humane. Troops and others recognized Tulsi's emerging greatness, coupled
with compassion.
To the delight of her cadre, Tulsi sallied forth to the land known today as The Great Swamp.
Chauvinistically however, I believe my south Florida estuary is the true Great Swamp. But we
shall leave that debate to a later time.
She joined a regiment called the DNC. At first it seemed to Tulsi this to be a desirable
posting, surrounded by fields and rivers with pleasing structures in which to live. Continuing
her steady progress up the ranks, our Warrior Princess, as yet untested by actual combat,
joined others to high councils of War and of Foreign trysts.
But only a few years had yet to pass during her service, Tulsi sensed some problems in the
command chain. Plans seemed to favor neither Nation nor Military, but instead the commanders
themselves. Upon thus learning, Tulsi resigned her position, abandoning the ill-disposed
regiment, seeking mission achievement over promotion.
A loosely knit Brigade, called the Democratic Party, united by the power of money and of
power itself, was to become the default posting of TWP. Unfortunately the chain of command was
rent asunder by internal factions, an unholy tug of war resulting. This war is still actively
contested--we are in a state of war.
[Injection of unpaid political endorsement, not approved by TWP] Folks, we need this brave
general to lead.
Contesting amongst others for the ultimate Brigade command was Tulsi and 21 22
(23?) others. The concept grew either too tiresome or expensive for many contestants, who
either became sick or perished from fatigue and/or loneliness. The field of battle was becoming
clarified, gaining Tulsi progressively improving evaluation and appropriate planning for future
campaigns.
The First Slain Enemy, Olaf the Oaf
From the gentle hills and scattered forests of Ohionia came Olaf. Initially he was known as
Olaf the Ogre; until he was slain by sword blows from Warrior Tulsi. Description of her foe is
warranted. Her foe was a giant, tall and strong. But Olaf was neither quick of wit nor of foot.
Large he was, as said. The ground would rumble beneath his foot steps. Trees were bent aside as
he strode unstoppably through the woods. Local dwellers both feared and respected Olaf, the
mighty.
The battle: the setting is on a level plain under illumination of many cell
phones torches soon after sunset. Other contestants on the field have agreed that only
two contestants combat each other. Female referees would enforce rules of combat.
Tulsi and Olaf faced each other. In his ponderous way, Olaf declared his desire to engage.
With that, Warrior Tulsi swiftly smote his pate with a mighty broadsword blow. Owing to the
thickness of Olaf's cranium, the sound of the resultant impact was heard for miles. Yea, more
than a thousand miles some say. Rending Olaf's pulsating brain irreversibly damaged, the Oaf
staggered from battleground, only to succumbing to his wounds months later.
Not being particularly fond of Olaf, I did not check the source of the following: it is
estimated that 30 people attended his internment, including undertakers.
Yet the Campaign had only just begun. More foes to conquer.
Second Casualty: Klammer
the Camel
Venturing forth from the Kingdom of Kalifornication comes (but not for very long) the former
Lord High Executioner, Klammer the Camel. Since Klammer is of mixed parentage, it is unsure
whether Klammer is a Dromedary (one hump camel) or a two hump Bactrian camel. It is recorded
that an expert on Klammer's humping is retired statesman Willie Brown.
It is said said that Klammer's exhalations could kill enemies at 10 paces. Yet Klammer's
best weapon was heaving heavy Criminal Code books at her victims. Strangely, Klammer looked
reasonably fit in her drab clothing. Foes who faced her in battle have noted how white
Klammer's teeth are as she gnashes at them. She had a strange reaction to cannabis. When others
utilized the substance, she raged and destroyed them, if she could reach them. Yet when she
herself inhaled the aroma of such burning vegetation, she became as if in a trance.
The battlefield: very much like the field upon which brave Tulsi slew the Oaf, at
night with many candles burning held by acolytes of various contestants. Once again, only two
were allowed combat at a time. Supremely self-confident of victory, flush with
self-satisfaction after inflicting a minor wound on former vice-king JoJo the Far Gone. Klammer
first engaged other contestants, smirking from her presumed victories. Now brimming with
confidence bordering on hubris, Klammer stood her ground. Then, in a well-planned straight
ahead frontal attack, delivered with swiftness and ferocity, Tulsi struck her foe. And struck
her. While Klammer lay quivering on the ground, TWP demanded an apology of her for her past
sins. When none was evinced, Tulsi stuck the tip of her blade into Klammer's seeming
impenetrable armor. This wound, though not immediately fatal, nevertheless is proving fatal to
the now debilitated Klammer. Klammer attempted a counter-attack at another field before falling
slack-jawed after a mere glare from Tulsi. Not yet dead, but soon.
Third Casualty: Boots
the Jiggler
Wandering from a land not far from the home of Olaf, proceeds the Stolid Boots. He sets his
sights on new lands to conquer. The city he leaves is burning and being plundered by wandering
Mnuchkins from the neighboring fiefdom of Illinois. Unconcerned with the plight of the subjects
of the Boots' prior management, Boots bravely strides forth, still not battle-tested. He
gathers with him followers, some of whom are loyal, while others need financial encouragement
to participate in his campaign.
Boots has been gifted with the ability to speak so eloquently and at such length that those
auditioners of his monologues are both amazed and yet unable to understand the essence of
Boots' message.
The battlefield: interestingly quite similar to those upon which Tulsi administered the
blows dispatching the Oaf and crippling the Camel. Once again, remaining combatants aligned to
watch two of their number engage upon combat.
Boots, buoyed by the support of his entourage, summoned forth 400 of his Southern Army to
aid in his battle. There Boots turned upon Tulsi, promising to not only to vanquish her by his
superior generalship but send troops across the Southern border. But, becoming anxious of TWP,
he turned to assay his retinue of 400. But lo, none remained, most not having left the
barracks.
In face-to-face combat Boots met Tulsi. Mutually acknowledging their military experience,
Tulsi struck blows into the Jiggler. This assault froze Boots into place, unable to respond.
The above picture of Boots was made immediately after a biting blow from Tulsi's broadsword. He
was heard to mumble something like "Et tu, Tulsi?".
. . . . .
Campaigns against larger enemies are soon to come. One looming conflict may be likened to a
civil war against Brooklyn Bernie which hopefully be short. A battle against the Hokey Okie is
inevitable.
Our AU colleagues assure me that the Feared Medusa will enter the fray after more rivals
have fallen. The Snake-head leads a mighty army, most of whom are oddly cyborg-like. Bots I
think they call them. Hilbots actually.
A musical coda is appropriate here. A good choice is a warning, an admonition to those
contemplating with the Warrior Princess.
"... "Yeah," Tulsi answers. "I point to two things. One is you have the foreign policy establishment and the military-industrial complex in Washington that carries such a huge amount of influence over both parties." ..."
"... She continues, "There are campaign contributions, the influence that these contractors have in this pay-to-play culture , this corrupt culture in Washington, but you also just have people who don't understand foreign policy and who lack the experience to make these critical decisions that impact our lives and the safety and security of the American people. This is so serious about what's at stake here." ..."
"... Democratic presidential primary debate, Wednesday, Nov. 20, 2019, in Atlanta, via the AP. ..."
In a rare moment with MSNBC's Chris Matthews, Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi
Gabbard explained why the leading figures in her party are war hawks. Far from days of the
Democrats feigning to have any semblance of an 'anti-war' platform (only convenient for Liberal
activism during the Bush years, but fizzling out under Obama), today's party attempts to
out-hawk Republicans at every turn.
"I'm looking at the Democratic establishment figures," Matthews introduced, "people I
normally like. John Kerry, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton. You go down the list. They all supported
the war in Iraq. Why were they hawks? " (Though we might ask, what do you mean, "
were ?"). "Why so many Democrats with a party that's not hawkish, why are so many of
their leaders hawks?" Matthews reiterated.
In the segment, Matthews heaps rare praise on Tulsi for being "out there all alone tonight
fighting against the neocons."
"Yeah," Tulsi answers. "I point to two things. One is you have the foreign policy
establishment and the military-industrial complex in Washington that carries such a huge amount
of influence over both parties."
She continues, "There are campaign contributions, the influence that these contractors
have in this pay-to-play culture , this corrupt culture in Washington, but you also just have
people who don't understand foreign policy and who lack the experience to make these critical
decisions that impact our lives and the safety and security of the American people. This is so
serious about what's at stake here."
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Please
enter a valid email Thank you for subscribing!Something went wrong. Please refresh
and try again.
The interview happened immediately after this week's fifth Democratic debate Wednesday night
in Atlanta, and after pundits have continued to complain that Gabbard is a 'single issue
candidate'.
However, is there any candidate in her party or in the GOP saying these things?
We find ourselves in a rare moment of agreement with MSNBC's Matthews: she is "out there all
alone tonight fighting against the neocons." Tags Politics
And again, if we do win despite all the structural injustices in the system the Rs inherited and seek to expand, well, those
injustices don't really absolutely need to be corrected, because we will still have gotten the right result from the system
as is.
This is a pretty apt description of the mindset of Corporate Democrats. Thank you !
May I recommend you to listen to Chris Hedge 2011 talk
On Death of the Liberal Class At least to the first
part of it.
Corporate Dems definitely lack courage, and as such are probably doomed in 2020.
Of course, the impeachment process will weight on Trump, but the Senate hold all trump cards, and might reverse those effects
very quickly and destroy, or at lease greatly diminish, any chances for Corporate Demorats even complete on equal footing in 2020
elections. IMHO Pelosi gambit is a really dangerous gambit, a desperate move, a kind of "Heil Mary" pass.
Despair is a very powerful factor in the resurgence of far right forces. And that's what happening right now and that's why
I suspect that far right populism probably will be the decisive factor in 2020 elections.
IMHO Chris explains what the most probable result on 2020 elections with be with amazing clarity.
Hopefully Kamala Harris never sniffs the White House, we'd all die in a nuclear war. Her
pathetic and stupid swipes at the courageous and brilliant Tulsi Gabbard last night in the
debates were something to cringe at.
"It Was A Coup. Period": Tulsi Gabbard Slams US 'Interference' In Bolivia
Democratic Presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard has come out swinging on Bolivia, following an initial period of being silent
and reflection on the issue after leftist President Evo Morales was forced to step down on November 10 over growing anger at election
irregularities, whereupon he was given political asylum in Mexico.
"What happened in Bolivia is a coup. Period," Gabbard wrote on Twitter in the early hours of Friday while warning against any
US interference.
"The United States and other countries should not be interfering in the Bolivian people's pursuit of self-determination and right
to choose their own government, " she argued.
Washington had been quick to endorse and recognize opposition senator Jeanine Anez as 'interim president' after she controversially
declared herself such without a senatorial quorum or public vote, and as Morales' Movement for Socialism was said to be barred from
the senate building when it happened.
Gabbard's statement, which again sets her far apart from a large field of establishment and centrist candidates on foreign policy
issues , comes a few days after Bernie Sanders was the first to condemn the events which led to Evo's ouster as a military coup.
"When the military intervened and asked President Evo Morales to leave, in my view, that's called a coup," Sanders tweeted Monday,
while linking to a video showing Bolivian security forces dispersing an indigenous pro-Morales protest using a volley of tear gas
canisters.
Meanwhile, in a new interview with Russian media this week, Evo Morales said the right-leaning Organization of American States
(OAS), which had initially cited "clear manipulations" in the voting surrounding his controversial re-election to a fourth term,
played a prime role in deposing him, and that ultimately Bolivia's huge reserves of lithium were being eyed by the United States
and its right-wing Latin American allies .
"The OAS made a decision and its report is not based on a technical report, but on a political decision,"
Evo told RT in the interview from Mexico.
Addressing his country's most valued natural resource, he said, "In Bolivia we could define the price of lithium for the world...Now
I have realized that some industrialized countries do not want competition" -- while implying Washington had helped engineer his
downfall.
Most estimates put the impoverished country's Lithium supply at about 60% of the world's known reserves .
The White House in the days after Evo's ouster
had called it a "significant moment for democracy in the Western Hemisphere"; however, the now exiled former president described
it as "the sneakiest, most nefarious coup in history."
* * *
Watch key moments of the translated RT interview below:
"... Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News, ..."
"... My favorite paragraph from the NYT article depicting Tulsi as a fringe, divisive cult leader because she wears white pants suits - by the same author and paper who heaped praise on how Hillary's white pants suit shows she's ready to carry the nuclear codes. ..."
My favorite paragraph from the NYT article depicting Tulsi as a fringe, divisive cult
leader because she wears white pants suits - by the same author and paper who heaped praise
on how Hillary's white pants suit shows she's ready to carry the nuclear codes.
Her white suits are not the white suits of Ms. Clinton, nor even the white of Ms.
Williamson, whose early appearances in the shadeoften seemed tied to her wellness gospel
and ideas of renewal and rebirth. Rather, they are the white of avenging angels and flaming
swords, of somewhat combative righteousness (also cult leaders').
And that kind of association, though it can be weirdly compelling, is also not really
community building. It sets someone apart, rather than joining others together. It has
connotations of the fringe, rather than the center.
A New York Times writer who praised Hillary Clinton for wearing a white pantsuit called
Tulsi Gabbard a "cult leader" for wearing exactly the same thing.
Taken together, those twin hasbara refrains evoke a notion of divine punishment. JFK and
RFK were punished for the sins of their Jew-hating, Nazi-loving father. Mind you, it was
Yahweh who took vengeance, not Israel!
Brilliant article by Guyenot. Thoroughly well written & informative.
A Congresswoman, Tulsi Gabbard, is being viciously slandered in article after article in
the Mainstream (Zionist) Media. Read the diatribe carefully, and learn some of how the People
are misdirected-brainwashed.
Ms. Gabbard is, apparently, leading in the Polls, and the Zionist controller Power Elite
are Panicky. They will do to Ms. Gabbard what they did to Ron Paul, and his campaign.
It is a sense of frustration that We-I are not able to Revenge the murder of our last
Constitutional President, John F. Kennedy, the Destruction of our Republic, the millions of
murders from November 22, 1963, to the present, or to effectively defend & protect this
noble lady (Ms. Gabbard).
If we protect her, we protect ourselves and our Country. Freedom is not free. We must
Pay for i t!
"... JFK's assassination made possible the acquisition of nuclear arsenal by Israel and the unhindered growth of the most important foreign lobby such as AIPAC. On the cui bono question Israel is a perfect match. Israel gained everything form the JFK's death ..."
"... Was Johnson having an affair with Israeli agent Mathilde Krim? Did LBJ have reason to fear he was liable to be dumped from the Democratic ticket in 1964 because of the Bobby Baker and Billy Sol Estes scandals? Why did Richard Nixon lie about his own presence in Dallas when Kennedy was killed? Why was George HW Bush for a long time unable to remember his whereabouts on Nov. 22? ..."
"... All available evidence points to the CIA and the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, with the cooperation of the Secret Service, as the murderers of President Kennedy. ..."
"... It is well documented that JFK wanted to break down the power of the Central Intelligence Agency. Could this have had dire consequences and let to his untimely death? Let's have a look! ..."
"... This "Israel did it" theory doesn't quite answer the question of how physical evidence was destroyed and eyewitnesses intimidated by agents of the US government. This I base on an assertion in Douglass's book JFK and the Unspeakable that men with Secret Service and FBI credentials immediately began the cover up operation. ..."
"... Fullbright who publicly denounced Israel and their control of the US Congress on National TV and the fact that Kennedy wanted him as Secretary of State must have also riled the Jews. Fullbright was also against the Vietnam War. ..."
"... Of course, I know the speculation it was Israelis who were behind it (Dimona), but I don't find it persuasive. There are other means to avoid US inspection, and Kennedy was not adamant about it at all. These are things politicians toy with all the time, and while not a "friend" of Israel, Kennedy was not an enemy -- one could consider Eisenhower, if we judge him by his actions during Suez canal crisis- to be an "enemy" of Israel (of course this too is simplistic, politics is a rough business). ..."
"... The Warren Commission hogwash was almost as ridiculous as the official 911 nonsense, and Mark Lane's 1966 book "Rush to Judgment" helped fuel broad public disbelief in the official story. ..."
"... Talk about quid pro quo to the nth degree, as that hideous snake LBJ gave the MIC and its financiers their wars, etc., in exchange for the Presidency and for keeping his sorry ass out of jail for the Billy Sol Estes and Bobby Baker scandals. Sure, the Israelis benefitted, and were likely a cog in the conspiratorial wheel, but the CIA, Secret Service, and various military agents were the movers and shakers, with LBJ their guarantor. ..."
"... Like any good gumshoe worth his salt, the first question he asks himself after arriving at the crime scene is Cui bono, who benefits? In the case of the JFK assassination, there was clearly one very large beneficiary that stood out above the rest, Israel. By Nov 1963, JFK had two big strikes against him ..."
"... "Mr. Trump has been prevented from releasing the rest of the "top secret" files, in spite of his promise to do so." IIRC, it was Trump doing all of the preventing. ..."
"... This "Israel did it" theory doesn't quite answer the question of how physical evidence was destroyed and eyewitnesses intimidated by agents of the US government. ..."
"... The Mossad and the CIA were part of the same "team"–the CIA handled and continues to handle the ongoing domestic coverup operations as needed (including Mockingbird mass media activities). ..."
"... Connelly is a _very_ interesting figure, and his background prior to the day of the assassination is not very well understood. I was stunned to read that he was a key actor in the Korean War "setup" ..."
"... Remember, Kennedy had just buggered up the CIA's Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba and was threatening to pull out of the CIA's war in Vietnam. With a nod from LBJ the CIA could kill Kennedy and be sure of top-down cover from the moment Kennedy's heart stopped beating, cover which, according to the doctors who attended on Kennedy at Parklands Hospital, was promptly given. ..."
"... Then there's the deathbed confession of CIA agent E. Howard Hunt, which provides a tenuous connection with Richard Nixon, who hired Hunt and Frank Sturgis (both believed to have been among the tramps arrested in Dealey Plaza in the immediate aftermath of the assassination) to. among other things, burglarize the Democratic Party headquarters at the Watergate Building in Washington, DC. ..."
"... I think Oswald the CIA agent who agreed to go to Russia on a fake defector mission for the agency with no way of knowing what would happen to him, would have been an insanely extreme patriot. Such an Oswald might be willing to do anything he was ordered to I suppose. The trouble is Oswald seems to have been anti establishment right back into his teens. He was an immature 17 year old when he joined the Marines, and though he toughened up considerably they evidence of him ever being an anti communist fanatic is just lacking. ..."
"... Be sure and dive into all of the data supporting link's located at the bottom of this web page. November 23, 2019 JFK, MLK, RFK, 50 Years of Suppressed History: New Evidence on Assassination of John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy. Failures to Confront the Unspeakable, and The Way Ahead. Part I
"... It is a documented fact that during all past official visits, President Kennedy's motorcade comprised a open-top lorry, driving ahead of the Presidents' limousine, and carrying journalists sat backward on graded tiers, who would film the President and the crowd cheering on him. ..."
"... At Dallas, the journalists' truck got cancelled, and the way paved for the sole Abraham Zapruder to document the circumstances of the JFK assassination. Just another complete coincidence, obviously. ..."
In my view, summarized
here
, John Kennedy was assassinated by Israel for three major reasons:
Dimona:
President
Kennedy, who had made nuclear disarmament his grand mission on the international level, and was on the way
to achieve it with Khrushchev (as shown by James Douglass in
JFK and the Unspeakable
), was determined to stop Israel developing its own nuclear bomb.
According to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's
interpretation
, it was to plunge into the Israeli deep state and supervise Kennedy's assassination that
Ben-Gurion resigned in July 1963 before receiving Kennedy's ultimatum letter demanding inspections of
Dimona.
American Zionist Council:
John Kennedy and his Attorney General Bobby Kennedy had infuriated Zionist leaders by supporting an
investigation led by Senator William Fulbright (whom Kennedy had been prevented to name as Secretary of
State) aimed at registering the American Zionist Council as a "foreign agent" subject to the obligations
defined by the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, which would have rendered its lobbying division, the
AIPAC, near powerless. On October 11, 1963, the AZC received a formal demand from RFK's office to register
within 72 hours (details
here
).
To these reasons for assassinating
Kennedy, we must add the opposite reasons for putting Johnson instead in the Oval Office, for Johnson buried
both the Dimona and the AZC proceedings, and cut U.S. support for Nasser's in order to boost support to
Israel. In 1967, he would commit high treason against his own country by allowing and covering-up Israel's
failed false-flag attack on the USS Liberty. No wonder Israel loved Johnson as much as they hated Kennedy.
Zionists had reasons to fear that
Joseph Kennedy did "inject some poisonous drops of anti-Semitism in the minds of his children, including his
son John's" (as printed in September 1960 by the
Herut,
Menachem Begin's political party).
[6]
Alan
Hart,
Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews
, vol. 2:
David Becomes Goliath,
Clarity Press, 2013,
p. 252.
In 1940, John had published a book titled
Why England Slept,
adapted from his
Harvard thesis which was, as the title alluded, a response to Churchill's 1938 book
While England Slept,
and a veiled support for his father's pro-appeasement views. In his Pulitzer prize-winning book
Profiles in Courage
(1956), Kennedy had declared his admiration for Senator Robert Taft, who by calling
the Nuremberg trials a shameful parody of justice had sacrificed his political career, including his chances
for the presidency, rather than build it on hypocrisy. Although Zionists probably didn't know it until
recently, in 1945, JFK had written the following in his diary, as quoted
here
by Abigail Abrams:
The Kennedys were a family of strong
traditions and strong convictions. They had to be destroyed, politically as had Charles Lindbergh
(1902-1974), and if necessary physically, before they extirpate America from Zionists' clutches.
Dallas was an Israeli coup, ordered from
Tel Aviv with Johnson's support, and supervised by the local B'nai B'rith under the cover of the Dallas
Citizens Council, who was sponsoring Kennedy's visit, and of whom Abraham Zapruder himself was a member
(watch his satisfaction when interviewed two hours after JFK's assassination in the History Channel
documentary
JFK – 3 Shots That Changed America
, at 43:34).
When trying to make sense of Dallas'
Umbrella Man, we are faced with a dilemma: should we believe Witt's explanation of his strange behavior (as
does Josiah Thompson), or should we consider him an accomplice to the assassination (as does Russ Baker)?
Only in the framework of the Israeli theory pioneered by Michael Collins Piper is it possible to surmount
the dilemma.
Let's recap what we know for certain.
Fact number 1: on the sunny day of November 22, 1963, one man was standing on the President's motorcade
route with an open umbrella, at the precise moment and place when JFK was shot. To assume that the Umbrella
Man's strange behavior and JFK's assassination are unrelated is unreasonable. The coincidence is just too
improbable.
Fact number 2: In 1978, Louie Steven
Witt claimed in front of the HSCA that he was the Umbrella Man and explained that he wanted to heckle JFK
about his father's policy of appeasement of Hitler in 1938.
Although Thompson and Baker disagree
about everything else, they agree that there can be no connection between John Kennedy's assassination and
Joseph Kennedy's appeasement policy. That is where they are both wrong.
Was Louie Steven Witt a Zionist agent, a
sayan
? Not necessarily. Operations like the JFK assassination are planned on a strict need-to-know
basis: no one knows more than he needs to know. Witt
declared to the HSCA
that he belonged to no organization whatsoever. He summarized his motivation for
his "bad joke" in these words:
"In a coffee break conversation
someone had mentioned that the umbrella was a sore spot with the Kennedy family. Being a
conservative-type fellow, I sort of placed him in the liberal camp and I was just going to kind of do a
little heckling."
What would be interesting to know is:
who inspired Witt during his coffee break? Did the coffee break take place in the office of Witt's Jewish
boss, director of the Rio Grande National Life insurance Co. in Dallas? Did Witt have insurmountable debts,
like Jacob Rubenstein, aka Jack Ruby? Russ Baker mentions that the company wrote a lot of insurance for the
military and was located in the same building that housed the local office of the highly negligent Secret
Service.
Mr Witt, would you kindly come forward
again and answer a few questions?
I looked at 43:34 of the documentary posted with Zupruder being interviewed shortly after the assassination;
and what I see is a man aghast and at a loss for words, not "satisfied" as you supposed.
There is no better theory of JFK assassination than outlined by the author. JFK's assassination made
possible the acquisition of nuclear arsenal by Israel and the unhindered growth of the most important
foreign lobby such as AIPAC. On the
cui bono
question Israel is a perfect match. Israel gained
everything form the JFK's death
I am absolutely certain that the murder of JFK was the work of a group of conspirators rather than an
individual. The umbrella man is not new to me. I never gave him much thought though I have read work by
others who factor him as a key role in the assassination. The interview of Josiah Thompson was most thought
provoking in that it showed how someone on the periphery of a big event can be implicated theoretically yet
really it appeared to be nothing more than happenstance.
The takeaway from this is that we should never
take for granted the basic tenet of our justice system that presumes innocence. The burden of proof of guilt
lies with those making the accusation. Was the umbrella man a participant in that homicide? I don't know and
there is really no evidence proving otherwise.
Let's keep our eye on the ball. Sadly no one will ever be held to account for that murder. That is not to
say that the truth will never be known. One day we will know exactly what happened and who was responsible.
The lesson here is to not get immersed in that which can not be proven but can also detract from those who
were really responsible.
I'm quite happy to believe that Jews killed JFK, but things like this are a very thin reed to hang anything
on;
Dallas was an Israeli coup, ordered from Tel Aviv with Johnson's support, and supervised by the local
B'nai B'rith under the cover of the Dallas Citizens Council, who was sponsoring Kennedy's visit, and of
whom Abraham Zapruder himself was a member (watch his satisfaction when interviewed two hours after JFK's
assassination in the History Channel documentary JFK – 3 Shots That Changed America , at 43:34).
Zapruder's expression is totally equivocal. His strange momentary smile could be the natural reaction of
someone who is suddenly embarrassed to be on the point of tears. You can't make history out of 'testimony'
this weak.
Dimona: President Kennedy, who had made nuclear disarmament his grand mission on the international
level, and was on the way to achieve it with Khrushchev (as shown by James Douglass in JFK and the
Unspeakable), was determined to stop Israel developing its own nuclear bomb.
This is the same James Douglass who was incapable of spotting the obvious difference between Oswald's
wide head and Billy Nolan Lovelady's narrow head, thereby establishing himself as someone who is unreliable
with
any
evidence.
@Germanicus
Exactly what I thought when I realized the webpage of
Jewish Life
that I screenshot was taken away,
like the one from the
5 Towns Jewish Times
saying "Our First Jewish President Lyndon Johnson?" (of
which I didn't get a screenshot). So I've just save the screenshot of the page of the Jewish Telegraphic
Agency that you mention, titled: "Lyndon Johnson: no better friend"
the article says:
"Johnson was the most emotionally committed to Israel of any American president -- a fact that is not
popularly known but is clear from his background," Dennis Ross, a veteran Middle East negotiator in
Republican and Democratic administrations, said last year at a symposium of the Washington Institute for
Near East Policy, where he is counselor.
Johnson was the first president to invite an Israeli prime minister, Levi Eshkol, on a state visit. They
got along so well -- both men were farmers -- that Johnson paid Eshkol the rare compliment of inviting him
to his ranch.
LBJ soon abandoned pressure on Israel to come clean about the Dimona reactor. He increased arms sales to
Israel and in 1968, after Israel's primary supplier, France, imposed an embargo as a means of cultivating
ties in the Arab world, the United States became Israel's main supplier of weapons, notably launching the
talks that would lead to the sale of Phantom fighter jets to Israel.
Johnson wanted to commit more forcefully to Israel's cause in the lead-up to the 1967 Six-Day War, but he
felt constrained from a dramatic show of military might because of the failures of the war in Vietnam
then dogging his presidency. Nonetheless, during the war, he ordered warships to within 50 miles of
Syria's coast as a warning to the Soviets not to interfere.
In a speech in the war's immediate aftermath, Johnson effectively nipped in the bud any speculation that
the United States would pressure Israel to unilaterally give up the lands it had captured. He laid down
not only the "land for peace" formula that would inform subsequent U.N. Security Council resolutions, but
made it clear that any formula had to ensure Jewish access to Jerusalem's Old City.
@Daniel Rich
They donated half that money to a police charity on behalf of officers killed/wounded that day to be fair.
And by Kennedy wanting Israel nuke free is more than enough to prompt his assassination even though he was
hated by the entire military industrial complex.
If this was straight
assasination why go to so much trouble. The CIA had at the time developed weapons that could assasinate by
giving heart attacks or cancer and were discussed in the church committee investigation into the CIA. It
would have been very easy for someone to assasinte kennedy for instance when he was viting Marilyn Monroe or
his many mistresses. An affair is a good excuse for a heart attack.
No the murder of kennedy was not just about getting rid of him. It was a highly symbolic , even ritualistic
act.
It showed ultimately the power of the conspirators. It showed the impotence of the public. Its about
immobilizing effective resistance to the elite. Conspiracy theories become part of the psychological control
that they hold over the mass mind. The umbrella man is part of that symbolic control
"No wonder Israel loved Johnson as much as they hated Kennedy."
Y
ou should have written:
No wonder Johnson hated Kennedy as much as he loved Israel.
Was Johnson having an affair with Israeli agent Mathilde Krim? Did LBJ have reason to fear he was liable
to be dumped from the Democratic ticket in 1964 because of the Bobby Baker and Billy Sol Estes scandals? Why
did Richard Nixon lie about his own presence in Dallas when Kennedy was killed? Why was George HW Bush for a
long time unable to remember his whereabouts on Nov. 22?
With previous assassination plots in Chicago and Tampa, and the JBS handing out these posters in Dallas,
it was dereliction of duty for the Secret Service to have failed to clear high rise buildings in Dallas on
the motorcade route. Indeed, it was against their own regulations for Kennedy's limousine to have made those
sharp, slow-speed turns that took it through Dealey Plaza, and it was nothing short of being an accomplice
to murder for Secret Service driver William Greer to have allowed JFK's limousine to slow to a stop in the
killing zone when shots rang out.
With all that, I see umbrella man as nothing but a big red herring.
OK, but that was just on the side: I'm not building anything on that. This whole article is just an
anecdotic appendix to my main Kennedy article.
This is the same James Douglass who was incapable of
Yes, I am aware of the many shortcomings of Douglass, including his many blind spots (never heard of
Dimona, believes Johnson was such a good guy that, having failed to prevent the assassination of his beloved
president, he at least prevented the invasion of Cuba that it was meant to trigger, etc.). Nevertheless, his
book opened my eyes to Kennedy's determination to disarm the world and end the Cold War.
@PeterMX
It is also amazing that, 56 years after the terrible event that ruined America, Mr. Trump has been prevented
from releasing the rest of the "top secret" files, in spite of his promise to do so.
"Just days before he was
assassinated, JFK confided to his secretary that he wanted to replace his vp when he ran for reelection – he
didn't think LBJ was fit for president."
Later in the piece: Looking straight ahead and without hesitating he replied, "At this time I am thinking
about Gov. Terry Sanford of NC. But it will not be Lyndon."
Jack didn't want LBJ as his vp in the first place, but thought that the only way he could win was to put
that evil SOB on the ticket. He probably was right, as LBJ delivered Texas. Given the decades long national
trauma, from which the country has never recovered, it would have been far better if Nixon had won.
Oliver Stone's JFK blames the CIA, the military, and LBJ, makes no mention of Israel, and treats Ruby and
Zapruder sympathetically. No doubt explained by the fact that the movie was funded and produced by Israeli
superagent Arnon Milchan.
The movie is a limited hangout made to ensure that those who cannot swallow the
obvious lies of the Warren Commission will direct their anger otherwise than at Israel.
It showed ultimately the power of the conspirators. It showed the impotence of the public. Its about
immobilizing effective resistance to the elite. Conspiracy theories become part of the psychological
control that they hold over the mass mind. The umbrella man is part of that symbolic control
You nailed it. Also note this was an "Event", where hit men from all over the world (many of whom worked
as contractors for various intelligence agencies) converged in one place to honor their craft. A select few
participated in the actual execution, the rest were there to confuse any future investigators with false
leads.
This was a modern ritual sacrifice–think of it as alchemy in action.
September 24, 2019 The Coverup of President John F. Kennedy's Assassination Is Wearing Thin. All available
evidence points to the CIA and the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, with the cooperation of the Secret Service, as
the murderers of President Kennedy.
It is well documented that JFK wanted to break down the power of the Central Intelligence Agency. Could
this have had dire consequences and let to his untimely death? Let's have a look!
Jan 21, 2019 Celebs and relatives of Martin Luther King Jr. call for new probe into his death ahead of
his public holiday as they claim his assassination and JFK, RFK and Malcolm X's killing were conspiracies
covered up by the government
A group of at least 60 US citizens including journalists, lawyers and historians are calling for new
investigations into four history-making assassinations
Nov 23, 2016 53 YEARS AFTER JFK ASSASSINATION CIA ADMITS THIS CONSPIRACY THEORY IS ACTUALLY FACT
Shortly
after noon on November 22, 1963, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated as he rode in a motorcade
through Dealey Plaza in downtown Dallas, Texas. It's been 53 years since the assassination. Since that
fateful November day, conspiracy theories have abounded. However, when we sift through the disinformation
and look at only verifiable facts, we find no need for theories -- as the conspiracy was a fact.
Israeli PM David Ben-Gurion ordered the murder of JFK, because Kennedy had stood up to that maniac regarding
Israel getting nukes.
Mossad And The JFK Assassination
Their motive? Israel's much touted Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, who ruled that country from its
inception in 1948 until he resigned on June 16, 1963, was so enraged at John F. Kennedy for not allowing
Israel to become a nuclear power that, Collins asserts, in his final days in office he commanded the
Mossad to become involved in a plot to kill America's president.
Ben-Gurion was so convinced that Israel's very survival was in dire jeopardy that in one of his final
letters to JFK he said,
"Mr. President, my people have the right to exist, and this existence is in
danger."
In the days leading up to Ben-Gurion's resignation from office, he and JFK had been involved in an
unpublicized, contentious debate over the possibility of Israel getting nuclear capabilities. Their
disagreement eventually escalated into a full-fledged war of words that was virtually ignored in the
press. Ethan Bronner wrote about this secret battle between JFK and Ben-Gurion years later in a New York
Times article on October 31, 1998, calling it a "fiercely hidden subject." In fact, the
Kennedy/Ben-Gurion conversations are still classified by the United States Government. Maybe this is the
case because Ben-Gurion's rage and frustration became so intense – and his power so great within Israel –
that Piper contends it was at the center of the conspiracy to kill John Kennedy. This stance is supported
by New York banker Abe Feinberg, who describes the situation as such:
"Ben-Gurion could be vicious,
and he had such a hatred of the old man [Joe Kennedy, Sr., JFK's father]."
Ben-Gurion despised Joe
Kennedy because he felt that not only was he an anti-Semite, but that he had also sided with Hitler
during the 1930's and 40's. [We will touch upon this aspect of the story in an upcoming article entitled
The CIA and Organized Crime: Two Sides of the Same Coin].
Anyway, Ben-Gurion was convinced that Israel needed nuclear weapons to insure its survival, while
Kennedy was dead-set against it.
This inability to reach an agreement caused obvious problems.
One
of them revolved around Kennedy's decision that he would make America his top priority in regard to
foreign policy, and not Israel!
Kennedy planned to honor the 1950 Tripartite Declaration which said
that the United States would retaliate against any nation in the Middle East that attacked any other
country. Ben-Gurion, on the other hand, wanted the Kennedy Administration to sell them offensive weapons,
particularly Hawk missiles.
.Gerald Posner, in his 1993 book Case Closed, posited that the errant first shot was fired at Z 160,
which put the entire shooting sequence at 8.4 seconds. (8) In the 13 years since Posner's book, several
highly respected students of the assassination have weighed in with reputable analyses of the first
shot's timing. Their estimates lead to total elapsed times of around 8.8, 8.4, and 8.6 seconds .
@ThreeCranes
Dr.Charles Crenshaw was one of the surgeons who treated JFK when he was brought into Parkland Hospital
stated that he " considered the throat wound to be an entrance wound and the large head wound (at the right
rear of JFK's head ) to be an exit wound Along with many of my Parkland colleagues I believed at the time
that the President had been hit twice from the front ."
"Every doctor who was in the trauma room had his own reasons for not refuting the official line .whatever
was happening was larger than any of us anyone who went as far to eliminate the President of the United
States would surely not hesitate to kill a doctor ."
Charles Crenshaw , " JFK Conspiracy of Silence " 1992
Fyi, in David Lifton's important & scientific book, "Best Evidence," he turned to a
fundamental example as to why JFK's head projected backward & a brain matter fell upon the limo's trunk.
Based upon physics,
Mr.
Lifton offered the kiddie example at a town carnival, & the act of shooting at plastic ducks. He emphasized
that wounded plastic duckies fall backward, not forward.
P.S.: David Lifton concluded unequivocally that a Secret Service role was critical to allow JFK's murder
& subsequent cover-up.
@LondonBob
Maybe so. Perhaps Baker is right: the Umbrella Man was a signal man, and Witt is not the Umbrella Man. But
then, fact number 2 become even more significant: why would someone come forward to make a declaration to
the HSCA that had the effect of connecting in the public psyche JFK's public assassination to the Kennedys'
anti-Semitism, and therefore, implicitly, to Jewish vengeance?
(I should have included that paragraph).
This "Israel did it" theory doesn't quite answer the question of how physical evidence was destroyed and
eyewitnesses intimidated by agents of the US government. This I base on an assertion in Douglass's book JFK
and the Unspeakable that men with Secret Service and FBI credentials immediately began the cover up
operation.
Douglass pointed to this as proof that a group of CIA insiders, no doubt loyal to Dulles, were
the orchestrators. How else to get real credentials for fake agents? That still makes sense to me though M.
Guyenot's writings make it clear that the Israelis would have been happy to lend an assist.
JFK's public assassination to the Kennedys' anti-Semitism,
Laurent Guyenot, I have already posted – my agreement with your well written analysis.
However, (please pay attention),
John F. Kennedy was not an 'anti-Semite,' he liked Arabs.
Semites are Peoples from the Middle East. The overwhelming majority of Jews are NOT Semites. They hail
from Europe, or from America-by route of Europe.
I would recommend
Arthur Koestler's Thirteenth Tribe
, as the first read – of many to understand &
correctly use the term "Semite."
The term Semite is cynically used as a misdirection tool.
The Jewish Oligarch claim to be Semites,
is a deceitful way of laying claim to land in the Middle East. The worst anti-Semites are Jews, who are busy
Ethnically Cleansing Palestinian Arabs, stealing their lands & wealth, and, additionally, attempting to
conquer all of the Middle East, and Remove, or Exterminate the indigenous Semites.
Orwell
exposed the manipulation of Language, in his
1984
, as the key tool of oppressors to
reduce their subjects to slavery.
A couple of years ago I finally fulfilled a promise I made to my self back in November 22nd 1963 as I sat in
Edinburgh Scotland on that fateful Friday night,that I would one day visit Dealey plaza Dallas and see for
my self.
As I drove into the plaza up W Commerce street what struck me immediately was how small it all felt and as I
walked around the compact size of Dealey plaza was reinforced. I had been viewing the unfolding events all
these years through the lens of a narrow angle press camera and Zapruders home movie wide angle lens, which
to me made the place look far more expansive than it is when you are there in person. I have been unable for
some time to come up or read anyone else's theory which explained satisfactorily the shallow back wound in
Kennedy the throat wound with just a tiny knick in the tie , the wounding of Connelly, the Teague face hit,
the damage to the windscreen and the chrome strip of the car and the shot which hit the grass.
who claimed that umbrella man had fired a poison paralysing dart at Kennedy at about z189. I took this
with a pinch of salt when I first read it. The plaza looked to big for this to have been likely and the
distance from the kerb side to the car would be to large to have a realistic chance of success from an
umbrella, but having visited the plaza and seeing how close he actually was, far fetched though it seems,
it's a good theory that fits what you see happening in the Z film.
So I think Richard E. Sprague is pretty much right , first Umbrella man opens his umbrella the coloured
man stands in front of him with his hand in the air and umbrella man fires his flechette hitting Kennedy in
the throat. Then Kennedy's hands go to his throat and he is quickly parallalized. The radio man passes the
message to start shooting. The first shot comes in , it misses but hits the street lamp standard or the tree
and fragments, one of the fragment hits Kennedy in the back and one fragment hits Teague in the face along
with bits hitting the car chrome strip and windscreen. A second shot comes in and hits Connelly in the chest
and Connelly starts screaming "they are going to kill us all". The third shot hits Kennedy in the head as
Z313 as he sits stiff and ridged slightly angled but upright in the car. There may have been a 4th shot from
the grassy knoll which was a head shot also and a possible 5th shot , the one hit the grass in Dealey Plaza.
With a sixth and possible second shot hit on Connelly. Since we now have multiple shooters and Umbrella man
the timing of shots is no longer a factor not if they are coming in close together can we determine exactly
how many.
Ok but here is my justification's for his theory. First you need to read Richard E. Sprague and his
appendages .
We have confirmation that such a weapon existed from Col Prouty.
We have the appearance at the congressional hearing of the Umbrella man Mr Witt in 1978 himself showing the
alleged umbrella he carried that day , which would be rather odd if he had turned up with the real umbrella
and said this is the weapon, so he is an unreliable witness with no evidence chain to this or any umbrella,
so to me he is CIA disinformation.
e said he was putting the umbrella up and down as a protest against Joe Kennedy and Jack Kennedy as
appeasers with some comment about Neville Chamberlain and his appeasement policies in WW2. Sorry Mr Umbrella
man , Mr Chamberlain had died of cancer before America entered WW2 replaced by Churchill in May 1940.
Secondly Mr Chamberlin was an alleged appeaser of Germany not the Soviet Union who were our supposed allies,
while Jack was being accused of Soviet-Cuban appeasement over the Bay of Pigs I assume. It's also safe to
say that in the 30's most middle class people in London wore a bowler hat carried an umbrella and a brief
case.
The lack of reaction from Mr Kennedy as his hands fall to his side when Connelly is crying out and being
pulled into his wife's arms as Jack is frozen in inaction and falling slightly to the side.
The inability of any theory other than the preposterous "magic bullet theory" to explain the lack of
penetration observed with the back wound bullet and the small size of the throat wound would , making it
difficult to be an entrance wound and impossible to be an exit wound favours the explanation of the dart
theory and a bullet fragment causing the back wound. The inexperienced, doctors under great external
pressure would have been looking for a wound with the associated damage that would have been caused by a
whole bullet and none would have heard of the Flechette weapon .
The back wound bullet travelling downwards if it did suddenly deflect and exit the throat so cleanly ,
without significantly damaging the tie is unlikely to hit Connelly also, from its upwards trajectory.
As Mr Holmes would say when you have eliminated the impossible , the magic bullet is one impossible, there
was only 3 bullets is the second impossible, another solution to the small non exiting back wound , and the
small throat wound is another impossible, that Kennedy would have not thrown himself to the floor of the car
after the being hit in the back is another impossible, that Kennedy made not a sound on that day is another
impossible, when Connelly is yelling blue murder.
Did the Jews and the CIA do it , we will never know but it surely was not Oswald.
More on Oliver Stone, taken from the excellent "Final Judgment" by Michael Collins Piper.
THE MOSSAD CONNECTION
David Ben-Gurion – Prime Minister of Israel; resigned his post in disgust with JFK's stance toward
Israel. in April of 1963; Said JFK's position threatened Israel's very survival.
Yitzhak Shamir – A long-time Mossad officer (based largely at the Mossad's chief European office in
Paris), Shamir headed the Mossad's assassination squad at the time of the JFK assassination. A former
French intelligence officer has charged that Shamir himself arranged the hiring of JFK's actual assassins
through a close ally in French intelligence.
Menachem Begin – In 1963, Begin (later prime minister of Israel) was a roving Israeli diplomat; prior to
JFK's assassination he was overheard conspiring with Meyer Lansky's California henchman, Mickey Cohen, in
a conversation that suggested hostile intentions by Israel against the American president.
Luis Kutner – Although known largely as a "mob lawyer," (who was long and closely associated with Jack
Ruby, a sometime-client) Kutner also doubled as an international intelligence operative and functioned as
an advisor to an ad hoc pro-Israel lobby group in the United States.
A. L. Botnick – Head of the New Orleans office of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B'nai B'rith, an
intelligence and propaganda arm for Israel's Mossad; a close associate of New Orleans-based CIA contract
operative Guy Banister who helped create Lee Harvey Oswald's preassassination profile as a "pro-Castro"
agitator. Evidence suggests that Banister's manipulation of Oswald may have been carried out under the
guise of an ADL "fact-finding" operation.
Arnon Milchan – Israel's biggest arms dealer, Milchan was "executive producer" (i.e. chief financial
angel) of Oliver Stone's Hollywood fantasy
about the JFK assassination-a fact which may explain
Stone's aversion to exploring the Israeli connection to the affair.
Maurice Tempeisman – The international diamond merchant and Mossad operative who became the lover of
Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis and used his connections to double-perhaps triple-her substantial fortune,
thereby co-opting the Kennedy family forever.
It makes sense to me that an order was given to the various independent snipers that Kennedy was to be
shot at the precise moment when the presidential limousine drew level with the man holding an open
umbrella.
W
hy not just use the Stemmons freeway sign, or some other physical landmarks in Dealey Plaza to
delineate the kill zone, rather than some doofus with an umbrella who might draw the attention of the
authorities, and be hauled in for questioning?
Why would the snipers need a signal to begin shooting anyway, when they themselves could see their target
entering the predetermined kill zone? Does the hunter need a signal that this the buck, or a matador a
signal that this is the bull? Killing JFK within that kill zone ensured that the patsy could be framed, so
there was no need for any signal for the assassins to know when to begin firing. If a signal was really
needed, the first shot would have done it.
@Laurent Guyenot
I also heard of the supposed invitation of Lindbergh but didn't believe it because I thought it was
nonsense. Wow! Former ex military that I have known were also partial to the idea that Israel and the Jewish
lobby played a role in his assassination.
Supposedly, Kennedy basically insulted someone from one of the
Jewish Groups and they didn't take kindly to it because he was adamant that these groups would register as
foreign agents. Fullbright who publicly denounced Israel and their control of the US Congress on National TV
and the fact that Kennedy wanted him as Secretary of State must have also riled the Jews. Fullbright was
also against the Vietnam War.
If you look at what's happening to Trump right now with this Ukraine
nonsense all the witnesses are Jews. From Epstein to Trump and so forth this shows that Israel and the Jews
will do anything for control of the world and makes their possible input into the Kennedy's death more
plausible.
@follyofwar
"Given the decades long national trauma, from which the country has never recovered, it would have been far
better if Nixon had won."
There is more than anecdotal evidence to suggest that Nixon SHOULD have won.
C.f., "Chicago", "Mayor Daley" etc. If Nixon had won then maybe there wouldn't have been a Watergate. Who
knows? And, no, this country never recovered. Indeed, 11/22/1963 was the beginning of the slow, steady
unraveling of American society which continues apace.
The Abraham Zapruder heirs did not need an umbrella, when in 1999, the US government rained down $16 million
for the film.
Fyi, according to Dishonest Abe's granddaughter's book, instead of forking over the film to either Dallas
cops or FBI, he made a copy and gave the Secret Service custody of the original.
Well, I'll admit I've never looked into this "Umbrella Man" issue, nor have more than glanced over this long
comment-thread. But frankly, I'm pretty skeptical of this particular "conspiracy analysis."
It's important
to remember the public issues of the early 1960s, especially with regard to JFK. A very large one was that
rightwingers widely regarded JFK as "soft on Communism," especially after the failed Bay of Pigs invasion.
Put another way, they accused him of "appeasing the Communists" much like Neville Chamberlain and Joseph
Kennedy had been vilified by the MSM for "appeasing Hitler."
So it seems perfectly plausible to me that some Texas rightwinger who felt that way might have gone to
the scene displaying an umbrella as a symbol of Munich-style appeasement, though this time towards
Communism. Maybe a little eccentric, but that seems vastly more plausible than e.g. the Umbrella guy being a
shot-signaler for the JFK snipers. Why would professional snipers need a signaler? And for him to have been
working with the assassins in providing some mystical/symbolic attack on JFK seems totally ridiculous.
And for those interested in my own analysis of the JFK Assassination itself, here are the links to a
couple of articles I published last year:
There might not be a better introduction to the Kennedy Assassination than this documentary, "The Men Who
Killed Kennedy'. I would estimate it's accuracy at around 90%.
Joseph Kennedy was right. The "Jews" did win the war, but they did so along with the US and UK Masonic
establishments. It likely all came down to their power through money and influence. Kennedy was a Catholic
and after the success of the communist revolution in Russia and the spread throughout the 1920's, the RC
Church and nations like Germany were besieged by the movement everywhere. It was mostly spawned by the Anglo
Masonic and Zionist cabal which went on to "win" WWII.
Fascism in Italy, Spain and Germany was a direct reaction to the threat of communism. Mussolini in the
1920's nipped it in the bud, but it continued to spread and the source was the same. By the time of the 1932
election in Germany, a number of Germany cities had voted in communist governments. The threat to freedom of
religion was very real based on what had happened in Russia. Whether the communist ideology was based on
Marx, Lenin or Stalin in that nation, Christians in particular were severely persecuted. When the Christian
Democrats in Germany in that election failed to win a majority, coming in third behind the communists and
the Nazis, then in many places in the following 1933 election, the churches threw their weight behind Hitler
in order to keep the communists from taking over. Like in the US today, it was a matter of the lesser of
evils.
When the war ended with Germany, the USSR which had been supplied and supported by the US throughout the
war, continued to occupy the eastern European nations with the consent of the US and the UK. These were
nations with relatively large Catholic and Protestant populations and the people of those religions were
severely persecuted by the communists regimes. (You can read about what they did to Jewish convert and
Lutheran pastor, Richard Wurmbrand, in order to get an idea of the severity.) When the US army took
possession of Rome in June 1944, in effect it was huge victory over the RC Church for the Masons. At least
since 1958 the ame cabal has been extremely influential in determining Church polices, and controlling
Church finances, and it is from then on that the Vatican has been used to push the so-called "new world
order". From my observations over the years, based on of the various deconstruction polices at work in the
Church, it is clear that the Vatican is essentially a Masonic/Zionist instrument. The same forces are
presently working to deconstruct out nations for their new order.
The deep state in the US is made up of a number of factions, which are always at each other's throats.
Oligarchic families have largely made their initial fortunes outside of the law, or if not then in any case
they all believe they are above the law. The "made" Italian, Irish, and Jewish crime families and dons, all
throughout North America are controlled by establishment oligarchs and government agencies. Vices are
legalised mainly for profit and to give more legitimacy to the money flows. Huge power struggles go on
behind the scenes where despite the information on the independent internet we know little about. The entire
system is rotten to the core.
a declaration [..] that had the effect of connecting in the public psyche JFK's public assassination
[..] to Jewish vengeance?
Thanks for yet another first-class article, and thanks even more for bringing up President Kennedy's
memory on the day anniversary of his cruel and untimely passing.
It is very credible that the Chamberlain symbol story was retrospectively deliberately devised to taunt
and threaten the Kennedy family and their supporters, and remind them of Jewish vengeance.
But "Umbrella Man" cannot be dissociated from another suspicious character, "Signal Man", also called
"Dark Complected Man", who was standing close to him at all times and was filmed raising his arm while the
presidential limousine was approaching.
In Frame 226 of the Zapruder Film, the arm of Dark Complected Man can be seen up with its fist closed, which
in military hand signs means "hold" or "stop".
There were many testimonies that JFK's limousine came to a total halt for many seconds for the final,
murderous headshots; his driver was part of the conspiracy.
What is even more unbelievable and strikingly odd is "Umbrella Man" and "Dark Complected Man" sat next to
each other, on the curb, seconds after the shooting, while everybody else is taking shelter from the shooter
at the Grassy Knoll.
Of course, these were not gay lovers comforting each other, but two perpetrators probably sharing the same
walkie-talkie. A walkie-talkie whose shape could be guessed in the right hand of "Dark Complected Man":
@Jefferson Temple
To the question why US government agents would facilitate the cover up, you find the straight answer in
Michael Collins Pipers book. They had themselves organized their own action, likely a fake assassination
attempt to be blamed on Cuba (that would have been Oswalds part), and they had seriously let down the
defenses of the president when the assassination went real.
Many people had to be afraid of being held to account, so the necessary officials to order the cover up
were easily persuaded. Also note, that Johnson was certainly in on the plot. He would order any serious
investigation to be derailed.
Why not just use the Stemmons freeway sign, or some other physical landmarks in Dealey Plaza to
delineate the kill zone, rather than some doofus with an umbrella who might draw the attention of the
authorities, and be hauled in for questioning?
A marksman doesn't operate alone. He's assisted by a spotter and [when needed, in combat situations. fe]
a 3rd man for general protection. So, we have at least two, 2-men teams [at a minimum]. 1 team [of 2 men]
was spotted on the Grassy Knoll, behind a picket fence, and at the spot the bullet had to be fired from, to
make JFK's head slam back and to the left.
Then triangulate the target and fire.
Am not saying umbrella man did give a signal, but logically, the opening of fire had to be synchronized
to have maximum effect.
The driver not hitting the pedal to the metal when the first shot/s rang out remains a mystery to me,
because the man actually slows down the limo and then JFK's brain is blown to smithereens.
@Sparkon
Good questions. I would suggest that there were multiple shooters in multiple locations and all were
completely unaware of each other.
Why not just use the Stemmons freeway sign, or some other physical landmarks in Dealey Plaza to
delineate the kill zone, rather than some doofus with an umbrella who might draw the attention of the
authorities, and be hauled in for questioning?
Using the freeway sign or any other fixed and inanimate object would mean that each shooter would have to
be contacted separately should the hit need to be called off for any reason. That person would thus know far
too much and pose a high risk of exposing the plotters if caught. The stakes were high indeed!
The umbrella man would know nothing more than where to stand and when to open his umbrella so that him
being called in for questioning would reveal nothing.
Killing JFK within that kill zone ensured that the patsy could be framed, so there was no need for any
signal for the assassins to know when to begin firing.
As I stated, the justification for attempting to synchronise the shots is so that they can all be blamed
on just one "crazed" patsy later.
If a signal was really needed, the first shot would have done it.
Snipers need plenty of time and the exact range to take the kill shot.
It makes sense to me that an order was given to the various independent snipers that Kennedy was to be
shot at the precise moment when the presidential limousine drew level with the man holding an open
umbrella,
Completely agree, dear Nosey, with just a quibble.
The men who shot President Kennedy were hired guns, hit men from the Chicago mob. Their job was, always
is, to
shoot the "target" in the head.
There was at least 3 of them in action, positioned to create a triangulated crossfire.
However, the intention was from the onset to blame it on the patsy Oswald, so it was very important that
the headshot to JFK was taken from behind. The best shooter was positioned behind the limousine, in the
Dal-Tex building, and was in charge with taking the head shot.
When he failed to hit President Kennedy at the head, Plan B was put in action and a headshot taken from
the Grassy Knoll.
So the presence of Umbrella Man and Dark Complected Man next to the limit where a successful headshot
from behind becomes unlikely is very easy to understand:
– Umbrella Man is close from the limousine. He sees that the President's head is intact and opens his
umbrella to tell the Grassy Knoll sniper to shoot.
– His accomplice , Dark Complected Man, raises his arm with a closed fist, a military sign telling JFK/s
driver to stop the limousine to facilitate the execution. This stop of many seconds was recounted by the
witnesses present.
It is so simple and logical. People just don't want to accept the idea because it implies that there was
a vast conspiracy with a large number of people involved.
The movie is a limited hangout made to ensure that those who cannot swallow the obvious lies of the
Warren Commission will direct their anger otherwise than at Israel.
That observation is just as valid for the largest part of the yearly anniversary articles on the Kennedy
assasination: Take the time and scan the articles on your favorite sites, how many of them only just mention
Voldemort country in that context. If only just to refute the idea or to proclaim that only sickos believe
it. It cannot have past by the numerous authors over the years that that theory at least exists.
Instead, you are treated to a steady stream of philosophizing on the deep state, Vietnam, the CIA and the
like. Take note and evaluate your reading matter.
@Ron Unz
I remember my father made a comment long after JFK's asssassination in which he felt JFK was soft on
communism. He also felt Khruschev was a tougher and smarter negotiator. It was only a few sentences, but not
everyone loved JFK. But being German, I think he might have had a soft spot for JFK, if we knew then what we
know now, with his diaries published. Of course, today's Germans no longer think like that. I do not recall
any discussion of JFK's father's views on WW II. That was kept quiet and the media did not make it a public
issue. Those were pre "Holocaust Industry" days in which according to Norman Finkelstein, Jews became bolder
and [even] more outspoken with Israel being perceived as a valuable ally after winning the 1967 war. This,
according to Finkelstein.
I recall JFK being very popular, well liked and people thought "Jackie" was beautiful and thought they
had a beautiful family. I think they were also perceived as having "class", probably because that is what
the media said. I think it was after his assassination that the knowledge of his extramarital affairs (and
Bobby's too) became public and then Jackie married the Greek multi-millionaire Onassis. For my mother, that
took all the class out of Jackie that the media always had said she had. I think they were very popular with
the media. By contrast, JFK's opponent in the 1960 election was Richard Nixon, not as good looking as JFK,
remembered for his tough stance on communism and that probably made him more popular with the right and less
popular with the media and the left.
It would be interesting how this would play out if JFK was still alive and his diaries became public
while he was alive. I have a feeling he may have been tougher than people like my father perceived him to be
and maybe he just held the views he had, but maybe not out of any weakness.
The Kennedys were knocked off with major input from Zionists. I think that almost certainly includes John Jr
(if that were an accident and had been avoided, and John John had failed to get 100% behind both Liberal and
Neocon Jews, then they would have killed him). But true Blue WASPs on both sides if the Atlantic also wanted
the Kennedys destroyed. And the WASP hatred of Irish Catholics has been what has been most used, and used
most effectively, in leading non-Catholic white Middle Americans away from recognizing the Kennedys as the
most important murder victims in the march of the Deep State to make serfs of us all.
It all goes back to
the Judaizing heresy Anglo-Saxon Puritanism, most specifically to archetypal WASP Oliver Cromwell's direct
deal with Jews, opening England to be directed, and eventually owned, by Jewish bankers. There has been a
Brit WASP Deep State since at least the Restoration of the monarchy, and it revealed its total power no
later than the 'Glorious Revolution.' And the Brit WASP Deep State then was tied inextricably to Jewish
bankers.
It is almost as if you either
must
play nice and fair, respectfully and equally, with Celts and
white Catholics or else get made a serf by a Jewish-owned WASP Deep State.
Of course, I know the speculation it was Israelis who were behind it (Dimona), but I don't
find it persuasive. There are other means to avoid US inspection, and Kennedy was not adamant about it at
all. These are things politicians toy with all the time, and while not a "friend" of Israel, Kennedy was not
an enemy -- one could consider Eisenhower, if we judge him by his actions during Suez canal crisis- to be an
"enemy" of Israel (of course this too is simplistic, politics is a rough business).
To illustrate the "rough" side of politics, let's see the following. Let's see Henry Kissinger, with his
publicly suppressed answer to Nixon re Soviet Jews:
Just- they deleted Kissinger's original statement, which can be seen in this leftist guy's clip
(comedienne Sarah Silverman reads Kissinger's words, at 2:06):
"The emigration of Jews from the Soviet Union is not an objective of American foreign policy. And if they
put Jews into gas chambers in the Soviet Union, it is not an American concern. Maybe a humanitarian
concern."
Maybe..maaaybe maaaybe.
..
This remark can be read only in the papers, because "it was taken out of context.
Taken "out of context"? I say:
So, it can be read only in 2-3 places, and not seen in a video
Nothing, I just wanted to point that media manipulations have no limits; that American Jews are not
nearly as monolithic; that one should be aware that talk or statements are not something too reliable; that
one can construct from scratches a huge conspiracy.
Who says that Witt was actually the "umbrella man"? Why was he identified only 15 years after the event?
And even if he was that man- what kind of silly gesture would it be, because who in his right mind would
think that JFK would have noticed anyone in this situation & mentally process this like: umbrella >
Chamberlain > my dad > huh, I'm guilty .
JFK had, I think, a Jewish mistress whom he intended to marry (prior to his marriage) & was dissuaded by
his family; he was not anti-Jewish; Israel, as virtually all American Jews, was horrified by his
assassination, which can be seen from Golda Meir's behavior (she seems to have thought that JFK
assassination was a right-wing coup):
@Iris
"People just don't want to accept the idea because it implies that there was a vast conspiracy with a large
number of people involved."
The primary reason for that is for such a large conspiracy to be tried, much
of the WASP establishment had to have been on board, and most of the rest had to have been known to being
the type easily coerced afterwards to remain silent.
It took WASPs and Zionists to plan it and execute and cover it up, and then spread endless propaganda,
including playing hard on WASP hatreds of Irish Catholics to keep culturally conservative and/or
anti-imperialist Protestant Middle Americans from looking at the evidence of cover up.
@Fred Baggins
I suspect that it was Jewish influence which made the capitalists and communists alllies. They played a
leading role in the USSR, Great Britain and the USA, and they are the only ones that could see the benefit
of these otherwise ideological enemies being allies. Except for the USA (separated from the fighting by two
oceans), no one else benefitted from WW II. If Winston Churchill had been more concerned about his beloved
empire than his own reputation and had not accepted bribes from wealthy Jews when he was in financial need,
Europe and Great Britain would still be great. They would still lead the world. And Jews would have a
fraction of the power they have today. Yes, Jews won that war and were its major beneficiaries, despite
being told the direct opposite. They made it into a world war and they brought the suffering to all Europe,
but particularly to their German enemy, and themselves.
@Emblematic
Robert David Steele's Blog review of " Tavistock Institute : Social Engineering the masses " by Daniel
Estulin – "The deep state playbook " :
"Although I have read and heard over the years of CIA and KGB Freemasons collaborating in betrayal of their
countries and organizations by order of the Freemasons we have to deal with the fact that the President
and everyone of consequence in Congress , Justice and the FBI is a high ranking Freemason . "
"Sir Knight
Earl Warren " By Sir Knight Dr. Ivan M. Tribe (Knightstemplar.org ):
"In 1938 he( Earl Warren ) served as Master of Rose Croix and in 1945 presiding office of the Lodge of
Perfection . By that time he had already been coroneted with the 33rd degree "
Gerald McKnight " Breach of Trust : How the Warren Commission failed the Nation and Why " :
"The records of the Commission disclose that the commission's pre-structured task was to support the FBI's
conclusions : Oswald was the assassin and that he acted alone ."
@PeterMX
" and then Jackie married the Greek multi-millionaire Onassis " – The then was after RFK's assassination:
"If they're killing Kennedys, then my children are targets I want to get out of this country"
So the deal was to offer some safety but you are correct that her marriage to Onassiss "took all the
class out of Jackie that the media always had said she had." But this was the price which the forces that
pushed her in this direction wanted her to pay to diminish and tarnish the legend of JFK. The safety was not
coming form the wealth of Onassis but from the tarnished image and marginalization by marrying the rich
Greek creep.
The primary reason for that is for such a large conspiracy to be tried, much of the WASP establishment
had to have been on board
It was much simpler than that: JFK's assassination was a criminal Zionist conspiracy within a more benign
WASP conspiracy.
A secret mission was organised by the loyal Security apparatus to abort an assassination attempt against
President Kennedy at Dallas.
The abort mission would have resulted in unmasking and arresting criminal elements within the
establishment. Oswald the patsy was part of the abort mission, as was Agent Bouck, the head of the WH Secret
Service. And Robert Kennedy was involved too.
But more powerful parties within the Zionist Deep State were at play: they took control of the situation
and turned it into a real assassination, killing two birds with one stone:
– They executed the independent and principled President who stood up to them.
– They compromised the WASP establishment, including RFK, with the murky and failed abort mission that was
turned into a real assassination, making their responsibility undistinguishable.
Finally, Kennedy had enough, and in a personal letter dated May 18, 1963, the president warned that
unless American inspectors were allowed into Dimona (meaning the end of any military activities), Israel
would find itself totally isolated. Rather than answering, Ben-Gurion abruptly resigned.
Ben-Gurion's successor, Levi Eshkol received Kennedy's next letter, which upped the pressure, warning
that the American commitment and support of Israel "could be seriously jeopardized."
And then there was RFK as Attorney General demanding Israel lobbyist to be registered as foreign lobbyist
and how it was undone after RFK was forced to resign by LBJ year or so later after JFK assassination.
http://www.israellobby.org/azcdoj/
"Judge Rifkind then made a plea for no registration, stating it was the opinion of most of the persons
affiliated with the Council that such registration would be so publicized by the American Council on
Judaism that it would eventually destroy the Zionist movement he did not believe his clients would file
any papers or sign any papers indicating that the organization was an agent of a foreign principal. I
told him that any such information or material that is supplied on that basis would be made part of the
Department's public files available for inspection by the public "
In DOJ internal memo on 4/30/1964 before replacing RFK as AG with Nicholas Katzenbach the following was
stated: "This is the most blatant stall we have encountered. Do you mind suggesting what we do next because
all of us here would call their records before a grand jury." RFK resigns as AG in September 1964. When
Katzenbach became acting AG and then AG exchanges between Jewish lobby and DOJ continued but no action was
taken by DOJ. Eventually on n 11/27/1967, four years and five days after JFK's death AIPAC applies for a
federal tax exemption. The lobby has won.
The Warren Commission hogwash was almost as ridiculous as the official 911 nonsense, and Mark Lane's 1966
book "Rush to Judgment" helped fuel broad public disbelief in the official story.
Talk about quid pro quo
to the nth degree, as that hideous snake LBJ gave the MIC and its financiers their wars, etc., in exchange
for the Presidency and for keeping his sorry ass out of jail for the Billy Sol Estes and Bobby Baker
scandals. Sure, the Israelis benefitted, and were likely a cog in the conspiratorial wheel, but the CIA,
Secret Service, and various military agents were the movers and shakers, with LBJ their guarantor.
Much of the conspiratorial framework is exposed in David Lifton's absolutely must-read book "Best
Evidence" which clearly shows that the body was altered before autopsy in an attempt to make the physical
evidence conform to the Oswald-as-shooter narrative. The conspirators left a wide trail of evidence that
only the highest-level actors could suppress, as in the 911 crimes.
There were many testimonies that JFK's limousine came to a total halt for many seconds for the final,
murderous headshots
There is another film of the assasination, taken from the distance across the Plaza (maybe, someone can
link it? It must have been in the comment section of some earlier article). That film clearly shows, how the
police motorcycles continue while the limosine falls back and nearly comes to a hold. If the driver had done
his job he would have speeded of at the first second of realizing something was going on. These people are
trained for nothing else but exactly such situations. The driver and several other people around the
president must have been in on the plot to varying degrees.
Comparing that film with the Zapruder film also shows that the Zapruder film was severly tempered with
before release – anyone believes that Oliver Stone and his team as Hollywood professionals who based their
plot on that film didn't realize that?
In Robert Caro's biography of Lyndon Johnson, he mentions that when LBJ was running against Kennedy for the
Democrat nomination in 1960 he attacked Kennedy for his father's appeasement, saying "I was never a
Chamberlain umbrella man."
Weakness, Johnson had seen in three decades in Washington, was never rewarded. When he said of
Vietnam, "We're not going to have any men with any umbrellas," a pointed reference to the hapless
Chamberlain, the message was clear: America would stand up to Ho Chi Minh and the Vietcong in a way that
Chamberlain had not stood up to Hitler and the Nazi regime.
So it seems perfectly plausible to me that some Texas rightwinger who felt that way might have gone to
the scene displaying an umbrella as a symbol of Munich-style appeasement, though this time towards
Communism.
The whole appeasement thing is bunk.
Chamberlain surely didn't give a damn about appeasing Hitler, except as a manipulative stratagem.
But for Britain, in the late thirties, going to war with Germany would have been insane. Britain had at
most four, and possibly only two, deployable army divisions versus Germany's 40 plus. The threat posed by a
rapidly rearming and aggressive Germany was thus best dealt with by bringing Germany into confrontation with
Russia.
By sacrificing Czechoslovakia to Germany, Chamberlain greatly added to Hitler's military resources, which
were then far smaller than Russia's.
Encouraging Polish obduracy in the matter of Danzig, brought German forces directly to the Russian
frontier. Then it was a matter of waiting for these old adversaries to clash in accordance with the plan von
Ribbentrop had shown Winston Churchill during a visit to England in 1937. (Asked by Ribbentrop what he
thought of the plan for German Eastward expansion, Churchill is said to have replied "We don't like the
Russians, but we don't hate them that much.")
Meantime, the British economy had been placed on a war footing, and was turning out more military
aircraft than Germany.
Once the struggle between Germany and Russia had begun, Britain's only major concerns were to protect her
overseas possession, particularly the ME oil fields, which she did successfully, and to prepare a backstop
with massive American participation (Operation Overlord), on the Western front for the time when a greatly
weakened victor of the Russso-German conflict was in a position to turn West with a view to crushing Britain
and achieving a trans-European empire.
This is the original version. It' s actually 9 plus hours. This is cut to 4hours 33 minutes. Sometime during
the past two years this doc has been cut and revised – and loaded back onto YT with unoriginal content.
I find it hard to explain that this is the same Josiah Thompson who published in 1967 a book titled
Six Seconds in Dallas: a micro-study of the Kennedy assassination proving that three gunmen murdered the
President, for which he studied the Zapruder film and interviewed eyewitnesses in order to come up with a
plausible line of fire, and the conclusion of a conspiracy and government cover-up. What happened to
Josiah in between?
This is a great remark within an already so rich article; it introduces the concept of "Controlled
Conspiracy Theory".
At the time (1967) Josiah Thompson published his book, much courageous research on the JFK cover-up had
been produced, of which the most perilous for the perpetrators was the legal crusade undertaken by
New-Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison.
Thompson's book concluded that the hit men were at the Texas School Book Depository, Dallas County Record
and Grassy Knoll.
Of all possible places, he managed to exonerate the DalTex Building, a building entirely owned and run by
the Dallas Zionist community, in which Zapruder had his offices.
The DalTex Building had the best, shortest and most direct line of fire to JFK's limousine; it was the
principal "sniper nest" of the conspiracy.
The concept of "Controlled Conspiracy Theory" nicely applies to Mr Josiah Thompson.
@refl
The driver of JFK's limousine was William Greer, a Protestant from Ulster who in his youth in Northern
Ireland had been a member of the Orange Order. One of the other two drivers in the presidential detail had
died of an untimely heart attack shortly before Dallas.
Israel, as virtually all American Jews, was horrified by his assassination, which can be seen from Golda
Meir's behavior
Why shouldn't they? I am sure that a significant section of American and Israeli Jews are horrified by the
every day action of the IDF. They were horrified by the assassination of Yitzak Rabin.
It must be horrifying to be tied to maniacal leadership, who will sacrifice you any time in the name of the
fulfillment of their sick plan. So if you are a good Christian or Muslim, Buddhist, Pastafari or whatever,
pray for these poor fellows.
Like any good gumshoe worth his salt, the first question he asks himself after arriving at the crime scene is
Cui bono, who benefits?
In the case of the JFK assassination, there was clearly one very large beneficiary
that stood out above the rest, Israel.
By Nov 1963, JFK had two big strikes against him:
1. In 1963 President Kennedy demanded that Ben-Gurion end Israel's nuclear deterrent program. Kennedy warned
in a letter dated May 18, 1963, that unless American inspectors were allowed into Israel's Dimona facility,
Israel would find itself totally isolated. "We are concerned with the disturbing effects on world stability
which would accompany the development of a nuclear weapons capability by Israel It is because of our
preoccupation with this problem that my Government has sought to arrange with you for periodic visits to Dimona."
As it turned out, his following reassurance fell on deaf ears "As I made clear in my press conference of May 8,
we have a deep commitment to the security of Israel."
2. In 1963 President Kennedy demanded that the American Zionist Council register under FARA as a foreign
agent. In a letter dated October 17, 1963 (one month before JFK's assassination), Judge Rifkind (a
representative of the AZC), responded to the Kennedy Administration's demand: " it was the opinion of most of
the persons affiliated with the Council that
such registration
would be so publicized by the American
Council on Judaism that it
would eventually destroy the Zionist movement.
"
Along with the quote by AZC Representative Judge Rifkind, here is the infamous quote by Jack Ruby's (born
Jacob Rubinstein) rabbi, Hillel Silverman:
"I was shocked," said Silverman. "I visited him the next day in jail, and I said, 'Why, Jack, why?' He
said, 'I did it for the American people.'"
I interrupted Silverman, pointing out that other reports had Ruby saying he did it "to show that Jews had
guts." The rabbi sighed.
"Yes, he mentioned that," Silverman said. "But I don't like to mention it. I think he said, 'I did it
for the Jewish people.' But I've tried to wipe that statement from my mind."
@CanSpeccy
"If Israel assassinated JFK, who assassinated RFK and John, Jr.?"
– That Israel did them would be a very
conservative conclusion, don't you think?
Picking Sirhan Sirhan as a Palestinian patsy who was upset with RFK's alleged love for Israel was a master
stroke. JFK Jr. who can't stop himself from beating around the bush of the topics of assassinations like
picking Woody Harrelson (*) for the December 1996 cover of his magazine or then digging into Yitzach Rabin
conspiracy and then rumors that he will run for Senate
Joseph Chagra later testified during Harrelson's trial that Harrelson claimed to have shot Kennedy and drew
maps to show where he was hiding during the assassination. Chagra said that he did not believe Harrelson's
claim, and the AP reported that the FBI "apparently discounted any involvement by Harrelson in the Kennedy
assassination."[25] According to Jim Marrs in 1989's Crossfire, Harrelson is believed to be the youngest and
tallest of the "three tramps" by many conspiracy theorists.[22] Marrs stated that Harrelson was involved "with
criminals connected to intelligence agencies and the military" and suggested that he was connected to Jack Ruby
through Russell Douglas Matthews, a third party with links to organized crime who was known to both Harrelson
and Ruby.[23] Lois Gibson, a well-known forensic artist, matched photographs of Harrelson to the photographs of
the youngest-looking of the three "tramps".
"Mr. Trump has been prevented from releasing the rest of the "top secret" files, in spite of his promise to do
so."
IIRC, it was Trump doing all of the preventing.
This "Israel did it" theory doesn't quite answer the question of how physical evidence was destroyed and
eyewitnesses intimidated by agents of the US government.
This has been discussed in depth here in this case and the 911 case.
The Mossad and the CIA were part of the same "team"–the CIA handled and continues to handle the ongoing
domestic coverup operations as needed (including Mockingbird mass media activities).
Connelly is a _very_ interesting figure, and his background prior to the day of the assassination is not very
well understood.
I was stunned to read that he was a key actor in the Korean War "setup":
Isn't it significant that the patsy set up to take the blame for the RFK assassination was a Palestinian?
If the CIA did it, they would naturally have arranged to put the blame elsewhere. Is that not why Sirhan
Sirhan remains incarcerated to this day. Given freedom, the fall guy might give the CIA a headache.
Remember, Kennedy had just buggered up the CIA's Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba and was threatening to pull
out of the CIA's war in Vietnam. With
a nod from LBJ
the CIA could kill Kennedy and be sure of top-down cover from the moment Kennedy's heart
stopped beating, cover which, according to the doctors who attended on Kennedy at Parklands Hospital, was
promptly given.
Then there's the deathbed confession of CIA agent E. Howard Hunt, which provides a tenuous connection with
Richard Nixon, who hired Hunt and Frank Sturgis (both believed to have been among the tramps arrested in Dealey
Plaza in the immediate aftermath of the assassination) to. among other things, burglarize the Democratic Party
headquarters at the Watergate Building in Washington, DC.
That's Mary Pinchot Meyer.
Wife of Cord Meyer, of the CIA.
Sister-in-law of Ben Bradlee.
Lover of JFK, to whom he confided his vision for major peaceful change in the US of A and the world.
Kissinger made himself quit clear more than once about Jewish influence in US policy.
Kissinger was more German than Jew he had the typical 'Germanic manner ' .
German Jews in general were more assimilated than the less educated and more tribal Jews of Poland, Hungary,
etc.. If you look up the origins of the Fifth Column Jews in the Us most of them came thru Poland , where
militant Zionism had a stronghold way before WWII.
Kissinger .
""If it were not for the accident of my birth, I would be anti-Semitic," he once quipped, and "any people
who has been persecuted for two thousand years must be doing something wrong."
Another time, he told a friend, "I was born Jewish, but the truth is that has no significance for me. America
has given me everything."
On Israel .
"On the other hand, we can not make our policy hostage to the Israelis, because our interests, while
parallel in respect to that I have outlined, are not identical in overall terms. From an Israeli point of view,
it is no disaster to have the whole Arab world radicalized and anti-American, because this guarantees our
continued support. From an American point of view this is a disaster."
Jewish disloyalty
Kissinger also went as far as
accusing American Jews of behaving traitorously
for supporting the
Jackson-Vanik Amendment that ruined his and Nixon's effort on a détente agreement with Russia.
@Skeptikal
Yes, Skeptical, and 'thanks" for the reiteration as to who and what was the murdered Mary Pinchot Meyer.
I trust Laurent Guyenot knows about Mary's intense love affair with President JFK,
and after his barbaric & election overturning murder, how she knew about CIA's Counterintelligence & Israel
friendly, James Jesus Angleton's, passion
for
Jack's last nightmatish ride on Elm Street.
P.S.: Mary's remains rest in her great-grandfather, Gifford Pinchot's, Milford, Pa-based estate, which I
have visited. Fyi, it's a tourist spot now where her historical relationship with President JFK is unspoken.
What if it were raining and there were numerous people with umbrellas?
P
recisely.
Despite all the special pleading going on here by people who've read too many men's adventure novels, or
watched too many episodes of "Charlie's Angels," this Rube Goldbergian umbrella signalling scheme would never
get off the ground. It is a unnecessary complication with built-in failure modes.
The go-ahead for the operation was likely given the night before. The die was cast. There was no turning
back, and why would they?
If it had kept raining in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963, would it have changed history? Several books and
articles have pondered this question. President John F Kennedy greeted a crowd on a misty morning rain in
Fort Worth at 8:45 a.m. central standard time. The weather in Dallas had been rainy, but the sun came out
before the president's plane had landed.
@Pheasant
The donation could have been sincere, or it could have been a gesture to make them seem concerned patriots, or
it could have been money laundering a payoff to certain members of the Dallas PD for their silence in the
operation. Who knows? I never take any Jewish action at face value.
@Stonehands
Right. I only bought the official story at the time and for a few years after, as a very young kid, but the
idea of Oswald as nothing but a patsy never appealed to me.
@Duke84
I try to avoid the self-certainty that seems to be a bias in the reasoning behind the LHO didn't do it because
he couldn't crowd. On paper the odds against him succeeding increased with every miss and chance for the agents
and cops to fire at him and/or the limo driver to swerve and accelerate. An important point is the chance for
him to get away would decline precipitously too. By my way of thinking the most important factor would have
been single mindedness. He would have had to have been committed to succeed irrespective of the consequences.
We don't know Oswald had no help of encouragement, he may have been talking to Cubans and Soviets about his
intentions and they maybe just listened which he may have interpreted them as having approved. The fact he was
talking to the Cubans and KGB was considered worth keeping secret for several decades, and there is supposed to
be more along the same lines that has still not been declassified.
Even with a miss or two, hitting a moving head from 265 feet would have been workmanlike marksmanship. In
the circumstances that he might have been spotted and shot at any second it was nicely done, but it might have
been a fluke. On the other hand the limo was following a straight track, the driver seems to have brought it to
a near halt before the head shot, and Kennedy was quite exposed. It would depend on the determination of the
shooter not just his skill, but the circumstances and enormity of killing a president are so unique, plus
getting out the area would be so uncertain that it would require someone of formidable resolution.
My feeling is a professional would not even try, and he would understand he'd know too much afterwards
anyway. A loner would not have that problem. Oswald fits the profile better than any CIA agent I think. For the
shooting, you cannot exclude that he may have just got lucky. Whoever did it, they were risking a lot so it
would have to be tremendously meaningful to them.
Oswald seemed such a insignificant person to kill the great man that contingency was ruled out. I think
Oswald the CIA agent who agreed to go to Russia on a fake defector mission for the agency with no way of
knowing what would happen to him, would have been an insanely extreme patriot. Such an Oswald might be willing
to do anything he was ordered to I suppose. The trouble is Oswald seems to have been anti establishment right
back into his teens. He was an immature 17 year old when he joined the Marines, and though he toughened up
considerably they evidence of him ever being an anti communist fanatic is just lacking.
Here is a 60 year old man at 230 yards with a .45 pistol.
@Ted Heath
Once again, let's try to put the "Kennedy wanted to end the FED" myth to bed.
President Kennedy was not assassinated for being anti-Fed. I don't know how much more clearly that can be
said. His death on November 22nd, 1963 was a sad tragedy, but it had nothing to do with any stupid and
baseless Executive Order silver certificate conspiracy.
The claim is not borne out by the facts. First, E.O. 11110 had nothing to do with United States Notes,
and did not affect any section of law referring to them. Second, E.O. 11110 did not anywhere mention any
quantity of money; wherever the $4 billion-plus figure came from, it was not E.O. 11110. Third, The
President had no authority to issue such an edict. Even utilizing the provisions of the Agricultural
Adjustment Act of 1933, the most the President could issue without statutory authorization was $3 billion.
What E.O. 11110 did was to modify previous Executive Order 10289, delegating to the Secretary of the
Treasury various powers of the President. To these delegated powers, E.O. 11110 added the power to alter the
supply of Silver Certificates in circulation. Executive Order 11110, therefore, did not create any new
authority for the Treasury to issue notes; it only affected who could give the order, the Secretary or the
President.
Be sure and dive into all of the data supporting link's located at the bottom of this web page.
November 23,
2019 JFK, MLK, RFK, 50 Years of Suppressed History: New Evidence on Assassination of John F. Kennedy, Martin
Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy. Failures to Confront the Unspeakable, and The Way Ahead. Part I
Today November 22, 2019, we commemorate the passing of JFK. November 22, 1963, the assassination of JFK in
Dallas, Texas. Fifty-six years ago. January 21, 2019. Martin Luther King Day
What is even more unbelievable and strikingly odd is "Umbrella Man" and "Dark Complected Man" sat next to
each other, on the curb, seconds after the shooting, while everybody else is taking shelter from the shooter
at the Grassy Knoll.
Questions concerning 3rd photo from the top: Why are the two camera men in this photo filming the couple on
the ground, who themselves are looking directly at the camera men? Why is no one ducking and running for cover,
for as many as 8 shots were supposedly just fired? Why is Abraham Zapruder missing from his lofty post, which
he was said to be filming from at that precise moment?
JFK "signed" his death warrant as soon as he selected LBJ as his running mate . LBJ was ruthless and likely
murdered his way to his leadership role in Congress . Johnson was determined to become President and it is
reported that his fixer , Bobby Baker , at Kennedy's inauguration turned to an associate and stated that
Kennedy would never complete his term of office .
LBJ was determined to have Earl Warren (33rd degree Freemason )lead the commission to investigate Kennedy's
assassination .
Warren refused LBJ 's requests several times and finally agreed to do so . LBJ recounted to his mentor Senator
Richard Russell how he summoned Warren to the Oval Office and informed him of " what Hoover had told him about
a little incident in Mexico City " whereupon Warren began to cry and told LBJ " I won't turn you down , I'll
just do whatever you say ." Excerpted from History Matters Archive -LBJ-Russell .
@Germanicus
You are making my point. Taking away the presumption of innocence has resulted in the holocaust narrative and
many other crimes against individuals and civilized societies.
If you read Laurent's book "Yahweh to Zion" you'll see he's under no illusions about whether he's real or
not. It's likely the most thorough dissection of the sect you'll ever come across.
Indeed. Laurent Guyenot is an outstanding intellectual. It is a immense privilege to read his works, and the UR is doing an equally great favour to its readers by
publishing him. Thanks to all, including the commentators, for the fascinating discussion.
JFK died mysteriously after being hit by four bullets, one in rear cranium, rear shoulder, front throat and
fragmentary bullet to right front temple. Connelly was hit by a zigzag magic bullet, three bystanders were hit
by Elm Street curb bullet splatter and the limousine front windshield were all hit by a lone gunman. LHO, MLK &
RFK were also killed by lone gunmen, and if you do not believe that you will be persecuted.
I thought it had been rather well established that a sharpshooter had been brought in from the
French/Corsican mob.
Lucien Sarti's involvement is possible, but is a red herring. He might have been approached and brought to Dallas to add to the confusion, as the Kennedy assassination
was a sophisticated "smoke and mirrors" operation, with many deliberate false leads.
The people who shot President Kenned were hired guns, members of the Chicago mob: Charles "Chuck" Nicoletti,
Marshall Caifano, Johnny Roselli and James Sutton Files.
President Kennedy was shot at the head twice, almost instantaneously, first by Charles Nicoletti firing from
the Dal-Tex Building, then by James Files taking a shot from the Grassy Knoll.
James Files used a very powerful round, a frangible bullet.
This is why, on the Z film, the President's head is shown first slightly projected forward, then very
powerfully projected backwards and to the left, when the more powerful bullet hit his right temple.
Thanks for the link to the remarkable History Channel JFK documentary.
For the so called 'progressive'
Anglosphere establishment, in both it's 'right' and 'left' manifestations, the 'Chamberlain umbrella' is most
certainly a hated symbol of weakness, appeasement, and ultimate failure. Whether it's prominent presence at
Dealey Plaza that day was a deliberately placed symbolic 'pièce de résistance' to top off a carefully
choreographed assassination or just a quirk of history is something we may never know.
As for Abraham Zapruder, his family, and their profiting from the famous film he took, there are aspects of
it that are remindful of Larry Silverstein and his profiting from 911 and the destruction of the Twin
Towers/Building 7.
In addition to Zapruder's making about a million dollars in today's money by selling rights to it in the
days following the assassination to Life magazine (the head of which, Charles Douglas Jackson, had extensive
experience in psy-ops work for the US government), the Zapruder family in 1999 would win 16 million dollars in
arbitration with the United States over it's ownership, the government having seized ownership of the film from
them. Time Life had sold the film back to the Zapruders years before for $1.
Arbitration had been decided upon to determine the value of the Zapruder film with the film being compared
to Leonardo da Vinci's Codex.
One of the three arbitrators was Kenneth Feinberg, who besides being US senator Ted Kennedy's chief of staff
for five years, was also the Chairman of the Board of Directors for the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation.
In addition Feinberg headed up the 7 billion dollar 911 victims compensation fund.
Ironically, July 16, 1999, the day the arbitration panel made it's decision that the US government pay 16
million to the Zapruder family for the JFK assassination film, would also be the very day John F Kennedy Jr
would die in a plane crash:
Zapruder Film Nets $16 Million
The other expert compared the six-foot strip of film, climaxed by the horrific head shot that killed the
president, to the Codex of Leonardo da Vinci, for which billionaire Bill Gates recently paid $30 million.
Adams and Feinberg said that "25 years ago, few if any, could predict the value of the Zapruder film as a
unique historical item of unprecedented worth." They also noted that "items associated with President Kennedy
and his family have been increasing in value."..
..The arbitration panel actually made its decision on July 16, the same day John F. Kennedy Jr. died in a
plane crash, but delayed the announcement in the wake of the tragedy.
@Ron Unz
That's a possibility, of course. In my mind, it is a matter of probabilities. And I find it very improbable
that this guy just happened to do his little protest at this precise spot and seconds. But alos, reading his
testimony to the HSCA, he doesn't mention Kennedy being soft on communism at all. Excerp:
Mr. GENZMAN. Could you elaborate further as to the type of symbol you thought you were applying?
Mr. WITT. I just knew it was a sore spot with the Kennedys; I just knew the vague generalities of it. It had
something to do with something that happened years ago with the senior Joe Kennedy when he was Ambassador to
England.
In fact, when asked if his gesture had anything to do with the Kennedys being soft on communism, he denied:
Mr. Fauntroy. I wonder if you would care to tell us a little more about your understanding of the
significance of the umbrella, and why you felt that it would heckle the president to raise the umbrella?
Mr. WITT. I know the generalities of the thing. It had something to do with the–when the senior Mr. Kennedy
was Ambassador or England, and the Prime Minister, some activity they had had in appeasing Hitler. The
umbrella that the Prime Minister of England came back with got to be a symbol in some manner with the
British people. by association, it got transferred to the Kennedy family, and, as I understood, it was a
sore spot with the Kennedy family, like I said, in coffee break conversations someone had mentioned, I think
it is one of the towns in Arizona, it is Tucson or Phoenix, that someone had been out at the airport or some
place where some members of the Kennedy family came through and they were rather irritated by the fact that
they were brandishing the umbrellas. This is how the idea sort of got stuck in my mind.
Mr. FAUNTROY. Is it true that what you felt was that Mr. Kennedy would be sensitive because of the
appeasement image of the umbrella as related to his father?
Mr. WITT. Not the appeasement thing. It was just–excuse me–I just understood that it was sort of a sore
spot, with them and this was just one thing. I personally never thought too much of liberal politics in
general. In this case the Kennedy family just happened to be in office.
Mr. FAUNTROY. I see. And it had no relationship in your own thinking between Mr. Kennedy's posture with;
say, the Russians?
@Laurent Guyenot
Yes, Laurent, and I can confess to busting your balls," * and indeed, Mary Pinchot Meyer's is "a really moving
story. I once called her JFK's Mary Madgalene."
Nonetheless, for the rather affectionate part of Mary
Magdalene's legacy, she got stoned by crazy & self righteous Jews.
In contrast, the bright & adulterous peacenik, Mary Pinchot Meyer, got murdered on a Georgetown canal trail,
and to date, her's is an Unsolved Case Mystery,
which never appeared on the popular American TV series.
* A lyric from Pink Floyd's song, "Mother."
Thanks for another terrific learning experience, Laurent, and fyi, am saddened how Ron Unz rained acid upon
the fascinating "Umbrella Man."
This author blames the CIA for
obstruction suppression and distortion of the facts findings and accuses it of misrepresentation with powerful
people on board like supreme court justice . Also mentions the suspicions of conspiracy raised by LBG ( out of
all people !) de Gaulle , Robert Kennedy and Fidel Castro.
All of them are dead So is Soviet and most of Cuban dissidents are possibly dead as well
So what is preventing the investigation at the manner the previous investigation was carried out with open
visible fatal flaws and biases .
@Truth3
I believe that the presidential motorcade's route was changed at the last minute, ostensibly to bypass the huge
crowds lined up to see JFK, and hurry him off to the Dallas Trade Mart for his speech. This meant bypassing the
TV cameras, so none would be able to film the assassination in live time (just a cohenincidence, I am sure),
but if this is so, it begs the question of why Zapruder and the Babushka Lady were there with their home movie
cameras to capture what the TV networks would miss.
Lover of JFK, to whom he confided his vision for major peaceful change in the US of A and the world.
I really think the vast JFK hagiography that occupies the minds of many JFK conspiracy people, including
some of the most respectable ones, hardly enhances their credibility. Lots of them seem to believe that JFK was
about to establish world peace and was killed by the CIA for that reason. Frankly, I find the whole framework
totally ludicrous.
For example, Seymour Hersh's book on JFK certainly provides lots of very negative details of his activities.
But JFK conspiracy people always discount Hersh, claiming that he's a JFK hater.
Okay, but what about Michael Collins Piper, whose JFK assassination book has certainly been one of the most
important. He provides some reasonable evidence that JFK had been planning to launch an unprovoked "sneak
attack" against China just before he died:
Offhand, it seems to be that an early 1960s American attack against China would have probably had far worse
and more significant long-term geopolitical consequences than e.g. Bush's attack against Iraq or a possible
Trump attack against Iran.
`Ironically, July 16, 1999, the day the arbitration panel made it's decision that the US government pay
16 million to the Zapruder family for the JFK assassination film, would also be the very day John F Kennedy
Jr would die in a plane crash.
Thanks, very interesting comment.
Just a quibble: JFK Jr did not die in a plane crash; he most probably got killed when his plane was shot
down (by a missile?).
At the time of his death, JFK Jr had acquired a piece of hard evidence that would have allowed him to
re-open the investigation into his father's assassination.
This piece of evidence was a Cartier wristwatch that the President was wearing when he was shot. It got
covered in brain matter and mercury from the frangible bullet that hit JFK.
It was kept for a while by RFK, and finally ended up in John John's possession, accompanied with sworn
affidavits proving its chain of possession.
Indeed, the fact that he voluntarily came forward 15 years later and revealed his identity would
certainly seem to suggest the contrary. Why would he do that if he had been part of the conspiracy?
I think that you misunderstand the nature and purpose of the successive official reviews of JFK
assassination records (ARRB, etc..).
These official reviews were not meant at finding the truth, but at finding the evidence that could lead to
the truth and then destroy it to perpetuate the cover-up.
Many honest researchers involved in these reviews have quit in disgust; the fact is well documented and
should be a conscience call. Best.
In politics, one must not play around. John F. Kennedy understood that 1960 was his time. He had to win
then, or lose forever. As a loser, he would have had much less of a chance to become President in 1964, or
1968.
I highly recommend a reading of his "Profiles in Courage" – a great series of essays, with a message for all
Americans.
Kennedy, a brilliant scholar, and Man of action, had on his agenda important things that had to be done, (or
at least begun), in 1960.
JFK as President:
1. 1st President to insist on Legal Equality of all Americans. (Who was his Atty Gen?)?
2. Unravel French & British Empires (arrange independence for 40 African Nations- including South Africa).
3. De Nuclearize the Zionist Land Thieves.
4. Maintain the Sovereignty of the USA.
5. Ensure Prosperity – Employment, stop Inflation, for American workers.
6. Prevent outbreak of Nuclear Conflict with USSR.
7. You continue this list.
Kennedy could not wait, and, therefore, had to choose L B Johnson as his Vice Presidential running mate
(even though he was well warned of the risks involved – including the danger to his life, as it would place a
Zionist Mafioso only a heartbeat from the Presidency).
Kennedy was on a Mission to save the Republic (our American Republic), which had been weakened and was in
great danger. His brother Robert, was with JFK, all the way. They were idealists, and wanted to save the world.
*Yes, Ron Unz, not one of your other writers have made these points. I am available to flesh these points
out – no charge.
We Americans lost everything on November 22, 1963. We have not yet begun to fight back!
@bluedog
Humility means one does not have to choose this truth or that. Anything is possible. There were once very many
people who thought a conspiracy likely. In the last 50 years, there has been a shift away from thinking a
conspiracy was behind the assassination. While this is only the balance of opinion, it should still carry some
weight against 'who benefits' arguments .
This meant bypassing the TV cameras, so none would be able to film the assassination in live time (just a
coincidence, I am sure).
It is very interesting that you bring this topic.
It is a documented fact that during all past official visits, President Kennedy's motorcade comprised a
open-top lorry, driving ahead of the Presidents' limousine, and carrying journalists sat backward on graded
tiers, who would film the President and the crowd cheering on him.
At Dallas, the journalists' truck got cancelled, and the way paved for the sole Abraham Zapruder to document
the circumstances of the JFK assassination. Just another complete coincidence, obviously.
"... Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News, ..."
"... My favorite paragraph from the NYT article depicting Tulsi as a fringe, divisive cult leader because she wears white pants suits - by the same author and paper who heaped praise on how Hillary's white pants suit shows she's ready to carry the nuclear codes. ..."
My favorite paragraph from the NYT article depicting Tulsi as a fringe, divisive cult
leader because she wears white pants suits - by the same author and paper who heaped praise
on how Hillary's white pants suit shows she's ready to carry the nuclear codes.
Her white suits are not the white suits of Ms. Clinton, nor even the white of Ms.
Williamson, whose early appearances in the shadeoften seemed tied to her wellness gospel
and ideas of renewal and rebirth. Rather, they are the white of avenging angels and flaming
swords, of somewhat combative righteousness (also cult leaders').
And that kind of association, though it can be weirdly compelling, is also not really
community building. It sets someone apart, rather than joining others together. It has
connotations of the fringe, rather than the center.
A New York Times writer who praised Hillary Clinton for wearing a white pantsuit called
Tulsi Gabbard a "cult leader" for wearing exactly the same thing.
"... Is it not possible to have an article on Ukraine without all the N@ZI references? Might have been a non-biased article, but many of us will never know... ..."
"... They certainly aren't National Socialists, and arguably not nationalists. Nationalists are open to what is best for "the nation" regardless of where it lies on the political spectrum. Since they don't consider the people in Donbas to be part of "the nation", that means, if anything, they are useful idiots of Zionism. ..."
In my July 25th article " Zelenskii's dilemma " I pointed
out the fundamental asymmetry of the Ukrainian power configuration following Zelenskii's crushing victory over Poroshenko: while
a vast majority of the Ukrainian people clearly voted to stop the war and restore some kind of peace to the Ukraine, the real levers
of power in the post-Maidan Banderastan are all held by all sorts of very powerful, if also small, minority groups including:
The various "oligarchs" (Kolomoiskii, Akhmetov, etc.) and/or mobsters Arsen Avakov's internal security forces including some "legalized"
Nazi death squads The various non-official Nazi deathsquads (Parubii) The various western intelligence agencies who run various groups
inside the Ukraine The various western financial/political sponsors who run various groups inside the Ukraine The so-called "Sorosites"
(соросята) i.e. Soros and Soros-like sponsored political figures The many folks who want to milk the Ukraine down to the last drop
of Ukrainian blood and then run
These various groups all acted in unison, at least originally, during and after the Euromaidan. This has now dramatically changed
and these groups are now all fighting each other. This is what always happens when things begin to turn south and the remaining loot
shrinks with every passing day,
Whether Zelenskii ever had a chance to use the strong mandate he received from the people to take the real power back from these
groups or not is now a moot point: It did not happen and the first weeks of Zelenskii's presidency clearly showed that Zelenskii
was, indeed, in " free fall ": instead of becoming
a "Ukrainian Putin" Zelenskii became a "Ukrainian Trump" – a weak and, frankly, clueless leader, completely outside his normal element,
whose only "policy" towards all the various extremist minorities was to try to appease them, then appease them some more, and then
even more than that. As a result, a lot of Ukrainians are already speaking about "Ze" being little more than a "Poroshenko 2.0".
More importantly, pretty much everybody is frustrated and even angry at Zelenskii whose popularity is steadily declining.
... ... ...
Another major problem for Zelenskii are two competing narratives: the Ukronazi one and, shall we say, the "Russian" one. I have
outlined the Ukronazi one just above and now I will mention the competing Russian one which goes something like this:
The Euromaidan was a completely illegal violent coup against the democratically elected President of the Ukraine, whose legitimacy
nobody contested, least of all the countries which served as mediators between Poroshenko and the rioters and who betrayed their
word in less than 24 hours (a kind of a record for western politicians and promises of support!).
... ... ...
Some of the threats made by these Ukronazis are dead serious and the only person who, as of now, kinda can keep the Ukrainian
version of the Rwandan " Interahamwe " under control would probably be Arsen Avakov, but since he himself is a hardcore
Nazi nutcase, his attitude is ambiguous and unpredictable. He probably has more firepower than anybody else, but he was a pure "
Porokhobot " (Poroshenko-robot) who, in many ways, controlled Poroshenko more than Poroshenko controlled him. The best move
for Zelenskii would be to arrest the whole lot of them overnight (Poroshenko himself, but also Avakov, Parubii, Iarosh, Farion, Liashko,
Tiagnibok, etc.) and place a man he totally trusts as Minister of the Interior. Next, Zelenskii should either travel to Donetsk or,
at least, meet with the leaders of the LDNR and work with them to implement the Minsk Agreements. That would alienate the Ukronazis
for sure, but it would give Zelenskii a lot of popular support.
Needless to say, that is not going to happen. While Zelenskii's puppet master Kolomoiskii would love to stick this entire gang
in jail and replace them with his own men, it is an open secret that powerful interest groups in the US have told Zelenskii "don't
you dare touch them". Which is fine, except that this also means "don't you dare change their political course either".
...are going through the famous Kübler-Ross stages of griefs: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance: currently,
most of them are zig-zagging between bargaining and depression; acceptance is still far beyond their – very near – horizon. Except
that Zelenskii has nothing left to bargain with.
Thank you for a rational article about Ukraine. The sad thing is that it might take years to reach the "acceptance" phase.
It would take someone like Hitler to clean out the stables. Arrest is not a viable option as they will bribe their way out.
These people need to be put down like rabid dogs. That is the only way to put an end to their mischief and it would be a deterrent
to their replacements.
Personally, I suspect that the Ukraine is being deliberately depopulated to make way for waves of "refugees" from Israel. Another
country that is still in the "denial" phase. Its military and political leaders know full-well that their strategic aims have
all failed. The boot is now firmly on the other foot.
I suspect that Crimea was their preferred destination and hence the massive non-stop propaganda against Russia on that score.
To give you an idea of how ridiculous it has all become, the UK no longer accepts medical degrees awarded by universities in Crimea.
Is it not possible to have an article on Ukraine without all the N@ZI references? Might have been a non-biased article, but
many of us will never know...
I suspect that the Ukraine is being deliberately depopulated to make way for waves of "refugees" from Israel.
You got that right – what it's all about is building a New Khazaria. But they're neither giving up on their Greater Israel
project between the two rivers, and hence more wars, conflict and chaos to drive out the native Arabs from the Middle East.
I suspect that Crimea was their preferred destination and hence the massive non-stop propaganda against Russia on that score.
@AWMThey certainly aren't National Socialists, and arguably not nationalists. Nationalists are open to what is best for
"the nation" regardless of where it lies on the political spectrum. Since they don't consider the people in Donbas to be part
of "the nation", that means, if anything, they are useful idiots of Zionism.
@bob sykes Kolomoiskii is the real hidden owner/controller of the company that bribed the Bidens. He has a finger in lots
of pies. His pretense to leaning towards Russia is his way to try to get the Americans to stop attempts to get at the many millions
that he stole from his own Ukrainians bank – fake loans to his companies.
Of course, the Russians understand all of that. This theater is aimed at the Americans – not at the Russians.
For the Ukrainian state to break up, there need to be some forces interested in a break-up. You won't find such forces inside
the Ukraine.
What is Ukrainian South-East? In pure political terms, "South-East" is a bunch of oligarchs, who are all integrated into Ukrainian
system, and have no reason to seek independence from Kiev, especially if it means getting slapped with Western sanctions.
Even the Kremlin doesn't show much interest in breaking up the Ukraine, so why the hell would it break up?
It's worth pointing out that the so-called "Novorossia movement" started out as Akhmetov's project to win concessions from
new Kiev regime. It was then quickly hijacked by Strelkov, a man who actually wanted to break up the Ukraine, and it is because
of Strelkov, that Donetsk and Lugansk are now de-facto independent. Without similar figures to lead secessionist movements elsewhere
in the Ukraine, this break-up that Saker keeps talking about will never happen.
His ratings must be sky-high, because otherwise I cannot imagine why Fox would allow him to continue to use their network as
a medium to broadcast common sense.
Of course the Dems are making it so easy.
Schiff, Kent, Taylor, Yanovitch -- what a pathetic, nauseating crew.
You're correct.
The Republicrats in the swamp - when push comes to shove - have each other's backs.
One set of laws for them, another for the masses they rule and make no mistake - we are not
governed, we are ruled.
Seems everyone here is down. The Slime mold's job is to kill all virtuous passion in the
populace, and they do a damn good job.
"The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."
Truer words...
If we don't arise like lions, a seriously dystopian future awaits. Which is an exceedingly
melancholy reality, considering we are on the cusp of a golden age driven by a Fusion Energy
new economic platform, a quantum upshift of productivity and energy-intensive industrial
applications. Ending global poverty. Ending the very reason for war.
"The Slime mold's job is to kill all virtuous passion in the populace, and they do a damn
good job."
Today this podcast appeared in my Inbox.
No Irony Alert was appended; apparently the discussants are serious in maintaining that the
will of the people expressed "through digital media " and by the electorate "threaten
democracy" and "fuel deadly conflict."
So there ARE armed militias under the control of "populists" and they have the financial
wherewithal to form an army and wage war?
"Populism attaches itself to whatever issue provokes fear and outrage [and] hate speech
leads to hate crime".
"Populist parties have risen up across Europe and beyond, galvanising electorates and
threatening the multilateral institutions needed to address transnational challenges like
globalisation, deadly conflict, digital transformations and the climate emergency.
". . .[X] and [Y] . . . discuss how populism works, why its appeal has grown in recent
years, and the threat it poses to European democracy. From its ideological
adaptability and the role of digital media in amplifying its message to its role in
fuelling deadly conflict, they examine what can be done to address the grievances that
these parties feed off.
It could be the trial of the century, no doubt. ...
Would the jury in such a case, in a Democratic Stronghold, as Washington DC, have to be
carefully selected according to some superimposed rule beyond the general jury selection
rules reigning access to classified knowledge?
Strictly there is by now enough expertise on jury selection, even specialists. In
Washington D.C., as suggested, maybe the ultimate challenge. Thus I am sure a lot of experts
would queue up.
Not that the result would satisfy everyone, but if you carefully select people that prove
they grasp the "national interest" or are able to carry its burdons. Why not?
The fact that even the disgraced former DDFBI Andy McCabe, who's four documented, acts of
Perjury, two of which were Recorded. Statements which involve a press leak, irrelevant to any
issue of the Russia-Trump collusion myth. Has still not been Indicted, should give us all
cause for alarm...
We appear to be on the Slippery slope toward Mob Rule over law and order...
This quote from Thursday's article in Politico, says it best.
"This is not a hard case," U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton said. "I was a good
prosecutor for a long time. Deciding whether or not you're going to charge someone with false
statements or perjury is not that hard, factually or legally -- maybe politically, but not
factually or legally."
Sundance suggests that FBI Inspector General Horowitz's report is really being delayed so
that the Deep State can push through FISC Court reauthorization -- before we have an
opportunity to learn how the current law has been so horribly abused with a multitude of 4th
Amendment violations and so on.
Unfortunately, much as Republicans regret Fisc abuses by Democrats, this illegitimate
maneuver is so cheap and tempting that even they don't really want to let it die. In short,
the DUOPOLY will ensure continuance.
"And what there is to conquer
By strength and submission, has already been discovered
Once or twice, or several times, by men whom one cannot hope
To emulate -- but there is no competition --
There is only the fight to recover what has been lost
And found and lost again and again: and now, under conditions
That seem unpropitious."
Can the Constitution be refreshed without patriots' & tyrants' blood? Can the eye of
Mordor stop popular resistance?
Eliot was, of course, writing in England, at the outset of WWII.
"Can the Constitution be refreshed without patriots' & tyrants' blood? Can the eye of
Mordor stop popular resistance?"
You question here makes me shiver.
To me the "tyrant" is the oh-so-cool choom smoking Obama, whose minions have kept our
country in turmoil after he left office. I remember the Roman columns in my city after his
election. He had won with strong support from Soros' capital (the eye of Modor) and took
orders, it seemed to me, from the Bilderberg group of high rollers wanting power over the
world without concern for countries and their governments and their laws that might give
voice to lowly people.
I hope the MAGA hat wearing crowds (our form of Hibbits) grow and grow in number as the
election approaches so that the Democrats see that they will seem like spoiled toddlers who
only want what they want, no matter how absurd their wishes are. (That is unlikely, though,
because toddlers have little ability to see beyond their immediate desires--no
self-reflection.)
Have I interpreted your question correctly?
Who can be the elves and the dwarfs and the men who join the Hobbits? Does Trump have it
in him to be Gandalf?
Two weeks ago I thought I head a different tune. Why the change?
As I said then and say now: Bob Barr did not come to bury the Deep State, but to save
it.
The imperial republic is tottering, and the liberal dispensation of the past three hundred
years that informed it is collapsing, a victim of internal subversion and pathological
egalitarianism.
What will replace it? No one knows.
But the future will probably be like the past: tribal, ethnic, sectarian and vicious.
There is no going back. And the only way out is through.
So attack in two directions.
Shatter left-neoliberalism by provoking the worst ant-white and anti-Semitic tendencies
present in the emerging nonwhite left.
Liquidate its controlled opposition (AKA American conservatism) by attacking its fronts
men as the corporate golems and Zio-shills that they are.
The goal is to eliminate the middle ground and force the gutless middle to choose between
the globalists and us, and to make the price of an unwise choice steep, public, and
permanent.
I read the RCP article by Aaron Mate referenced above and while it was compelling, it
practically made the infamous Peter Strzok, in its brief mention of him, seem like an
innocent bystander. It focused on the CIA as though the FBI wasn't its eager and willing
partner, and yet it was the FBI that paid Christopher Steele, the FBI that obtained FISA
warrants to spy, the FBI that took out Gen. Flynn, the FBI that lied to the new POTUS, the
FBI that led to the appointment of SC Mueller, etc., etc.
Is the FBI playing dumb now as a defense, pretending it was duped by the CIA to engage in
so much nefarious activity?
sorry I am an outsider on this. ... Willmann may help, maybe? basic rules? ... I hardly
grasp my own countries juridical responsiblities, nevermind some venue curiosities. ...
last time I heard the argument concerning the US it didn't seem to be necessary based on
the outcome, at least in hindsight ...
You'll win the bet, but even if you lose, the indicted will be instantly catapulted into bona
fide "Hero of the Republic(R)" status as a result.
Just as the people who took the falls for the Clintons were, except 10x.
The chattering class really really detest Trump, and nothing else matters. They will happy
accept aid from perjurers, torturers and entrapment artists, as long as that gets them
Trump.
I detest Trump as well, but he won the election fair and square, and just because I detest
the man doesn't mean that I need to sink to the level of crackpot conspiracy theory if that
justifies his removal.
Where is the scorecard on Trump's Oct 2016 pre-election speech. Did he call it or what- time
for an accounting - three years later. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2qIXXafxCQ
I personally will settle for two new Supreme Court Justices, 150 new federal court
justices and breaking up the liberal deadlock of the 9th Circuit. However, Trump's Oct 2016
shot across the bow against the deep state remains a work in progress. However, Trump did not
back off - it is clash of civilizations still going on, as we speak.
Retrospective is often the best perspective for current events.
I think it is important to note that the Real Clear Investigations piece which the Colonel
quotes from was written by Aaron Mate. Aaron Mate is part of the new breed of independent
lefty journalists that are taking on the establishment news media. He has an excellent show
on a youtube channel called The Grayzone.
His cohorts Max Blumenthal, Ben Norton, Dan Cohen, and Anya Parampil have done excellent
reporting on Syria and Venezuela. They are part of a burgeoning new media ecosystem which
includes the other youtube channels 'The Hill' and 'The Jimmy Dore Show'.
Max Blumenthal has savaged the estimable Alison Weir, author of Against Our Better Judgment
and her years long campaign of speaking out against Israel's maltreatment of Palestinians.
Grayzone may go a bit further than establishment media, and perhaps a bit farther on
issues involving Palestine than, say, Phil Weiss at Mondoweiss, but there are still lines
that are not to be crossed by the reporters at Grayzone.
I don't think that Grayzone goes "a bit further" than establishment media. They go a lot
further.
This Grazyone video from a few days ago (Aaron Mate interviews Ali Abunimah of The
Electronic Intifada) is titled "Israel's relentless violence on Gaza met by global
silence": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o16CV4BTuU0
Or from the back cover of Blumenthal's book Goliath:
'As Blumenthal reveals, Israel has become a country where right-wing leaders like Avigdor
Lieberman and Bibi Netanyahu are sacrificing democracy on the altar of their power politics;
where the loyal opposition largely and passively stands aside and watches the organized
assault on civil liberties; where state-funded Orthodox rabbis publish books that provide
instructions on how and when to kill Gentiles; where half of Jewish youth declare their
refusal to sit in a classroom with an Arab; and where mob violence targets Palestinians and
African asylum seekers scapegoated by leading government officials as "demographic
threats."'
So Blumenthal is an anti-zionist, Alison Weir is a critic of Israeli government policy, and
Blumenthal is critical of Weir. Big deal.
The Colonel is critical of Bernie and I like Bernie - that doesn't mean that I have to
stop respecting the Colonel just because I disagree with him on some issues. One of the
lamentable shortcomings of some of those on the left is that they want to fight with each
other about relatively trivial disagreements. This only benefits the Borg.
And if I was thoroughly paranoid I would think that this whole Blumenthal vs Weir thing is
being amplified by an IO operation designed to sow discord among critics of Israel.
What is the point of indictments when the CIA/NSA/FBI can and will be perceived to be able to
blackmail each juror? The "chilling effect" is real and it will prevent successful
prosecution of any but sacrificial deep state actors.
After what has been done to Trump associates, he is politically radioactive. No one will
want to be part of his team and subject themselves to the tender ministrations of the
FBI.
The reward of the good life, is the good life itself all the sudden makes even more sense.
Picturing now J Edgar Hoover and LBJ laughing over secret files on every member of Congress
at the time. You do not exaggerate, walrus.
But how can we prevent this being only one-way Democrat street? Their manipulation of
language, repetition of talking points, media exclusives and ginned-up events have stunned me
of late. Luckily there in fact is more media transparency only because of the open internet.
Which is also closing in.
I have long wondered why MSM wanted to go to bed with the Democrats so eagerly - most
likely because the one-way street of inside gossip only flows from loose Democrat lips. .
Recent media interview with Jordan, who lambasted the ABC reporter who tried to box him
into a corner over a "secret hearing" transcript that had not been made public -and the
hearing was less than 24 hours prior. Democrat loose lips gave someone a free scoop for some
reason and luckily Jordan swatted this breach right back at her.
Quite honestly female reporters need gynocological swab testing before they go live with
any breaking news stories from now on. What did they do to get that story first.
What was done to Justice Gorsuch was politics by the left meant to keep him off the
supreme court, warn the republicans not to support others like him, and warn the rest of us
to stfu and do what we are told. Brennan and company are worse and may also include Obama and
a number of his backers in and out of his administration. And Epstein didn't kill
himself.
From RedState - DECEMBER 11 - MARK YOUR CALENDAR: The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a
hearing on Dec. 11 to examine the findings from a Justice Department inspector general's
investigation into the FBI's alleged abuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
during the Trump investigation, the committee said Monday.
Huber apparently has been assigned to investigate the Clinton Foundation- a report due
shortly too (which is badly bleeding red ink several years in a row after Clinton lost).
No wonder Clinton is hinting she will run again - anything to goose up re-newed donations
for her influence peddling scheme. No wonder she is in fact this time pimping out her
daughter in her latest book tour - the money will be safe with us, folks. Even if I get sent
to the slammer, Chelsea knows enough to carry on the family traditions.
Factotum mentioned Crowdstrike. Many are under the impression that the crowdstrike "server"
Trump mentioned in his typical fragmentary, herky-jerky style in the Zelensky call, must mean
the DNC email server. But I've heard it suggested he was actually referring to a different
Ukrainian server, also managed by Crowdstrike, related to another hokey Russian
hacking claim: a Ukrainian army missile system that was allegedly hacked by the Russians. See
"Fancy Bear" artillery hack. Not sure if that really was what Trump was talking about but
others out there might know.
No, colonel, not a'tall. Don't have a lazy bone in my body. BUT - I do have Extreme
challenges of the body, but less of the mind, (much, much slower organizing thoughts etc.)
but NO challenge regarding Spirit... it's not the dog in the fight, but the fight in the
dog.
No, I'm not a DAV, but I do consider myself a 'DAP' (disabled American Patriot - without
pay - but Cost aplenty) Quite like (but not There Yet) the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier... so
to speak.
I have sixty five years of Active Service... starting a the age of ten in Bristol, PA ...
and [it] will NOT end before I'm dead, down in the woods of central MS.
Alison Weir says "If Americans only Knew"... doesn't know the half of [it].
Don't drink the cool-aid and fo sho DON'T Breathe the Fort Detrick Bio-cocktail.
Thomas Paine could have put out several pamphlets in the time it took me to reply.
Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Semyon Vindman (né Aleksandr Semyonovich Vindman) and his
identical twin brother, Yevgeny, were born to a Jewish family in the Ukrainian Soviet
Socialist Republic, Soviet Union. After the death of their mother, the three-year-old twins
and their older brother, Leonid, were brought to New York in December 1979 by their father,
Semyon (Simon). They grew up in Brooklyn's 'Little-Odessa' neighborhood. The twins appear
briefly with their maternal grandmother in the Ken Burns documentary The Statue of Liberty.
Vindman speaks fluent Russian, Ukrainian (& probably Hebrew).
I will posit that Vindman holds citizenship in: Ukraine, USA, & Israel. Dual-Citizens
violate US Law, to wit the 1940s Nationality Act. I will NOT delve into the tangled
loyalties, ambitions and/or 'greatness' expectations of Colonel Vindman in this post.
Beginning in 2008, Vindman became a Foreign Area Officer specializing in Eurasia. In this
capacity he served in the U.S. embassies in Kiev, Ukraine, and Moscow, Russia. Returning to
Washington, D.C. he was then a politico-military affairs officer focused on Russia for the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Vindman served on the Joint Staff at the Pentagon from
September 2015 to July 2018.
The Honorable Gordon David Sondland, United States Ambassador to the European Union, is
probably ending his stint, today.
Ambassador Sondland was born to a Jewish family in Seattle, Washington, the son of Frieda
(Piepsch) and Gunther Sondland. His mother fled Europe before the Second World War to
Uruguay, where after the war she reunited with his father, who had served in the French
Foreign Legion. In 1953, the Sondlands relocated to Seattle where they opened a dry-cleaning
business. Sondland has a sister 18 years his senior. He attended the University of Washington
but dropped out and became a commercial real estate salesman.
Does Ambassador Sondland hold dual-citizenship? Dual citizenship violates the 1940
Nationalities Act.
@Arioch Germans will likely be fleeing Germany in fairly large numbers as the Islamic /
African takeover picks up steam. Same for Swedes from Sweden (soonest), French from France,
English from England.
Ukraine is emptying out and has cheap land and space for new housing to be built, or old
houses to be replaced or thoroughly renovated. The Western Europeans need somewhere safer and
more civilized to run now that they have invited hostile invaders into their countries. It
could be a match made in heaven.
Ukraine could offer only permanent residency, not citizenship, and it could require that
white euro refugees pay in advance for a year or two years of good private medical and dental
insurance so that they don't burden the already-broke Ukrainian treasury.
Let the Germans and other euro reinvigorate the Ukrainian economy -- possibly for a steady
two decades or more -- by buying supplies and hiring workers and machinery to build or
renovate several million houses. They have savings and pensions and can afford a lot in
Ukraine. The Ukrainian treasury would take in massive receipts in VAT and other taxes paid by
the euro permanent residents and by newly employed Ukrainians working on the refugees' new
homes.
Ukrainian hospitals and dental offices could upgrade their equipment, staff, training, and
capabilities enormously with the ongoing infusion of western euro refugee funds.
The euro refugees needn't change the demographic and cultural composition of Ukraine much
longer-term, because they will, at least at first, mostly be people age 55-60 and up who can
afford to retire and give up their careers in their home countries to flee East. They'll be
beyond their childbearing/raising years. And, if the Ukrainians are wise, the western euros
will never be eligible for citizenship (I.e. they will never be able to vote the same suicide
for Ukraine as many of them allowed in their home countries).
Far, far better for Ukrainians to (1) have their own children and (2) stop antagonizing
russia and work out favorable energy and other trade deals. But since neither of those is
happening or seems likely in the near future, Ukraine should seek a steady infusion of
peaceful, reasonably intelligent, culturally compatible white Europeans to help occupy the
territory (instead of hostile aliens, the alternative) and spend billions of Euros from
Ukrainian businesses and shops.
Odious debt, also known as illegitimate debt, is when a country's government
misappropriates money it has borrowed from another country. A nation's debt is considered
odious debt when government leaders use borrowed funds in ways that do not benefit its
citizens, and to the contrary, often oppress them. Many believe individuals or countries
doing the lending must have known, or should have known, of the oppressive conditions upon
offering the credit.
@RadicalCenter Putin would be too old in ten years. What Russia needs is a decent
successor, as intelligent and far-sighted as Putin, who would be interested in the country
more than in his pocket, like Putin. While traitorous scum like Gorby or Yeltsin has no
chance, the greatest danger is that someone nationalistic but not particularly smart rises to
the top.
Putin understands the key thing: Russia does not need to do anything about the Empire or
its EU vassals, they are their own worst enemy. As the saying goes, when you see your enemy
committing suicide, do not interfere.
As far as Baltic vaudeville states are concerned, to the best of my knowledge (which might
be faulty: I only visited Russia three times in the last 28 years, spending less than two
months total there), most Russian residents are not interested in the Baltics.
Now that the port at Ust-Luga works at almost full capacity, Baltics aren't even useful
economically: Russian exports mostly bypass them. Besides, placing NATO troops into these
"countries" creates a significant financial and military burden on NATO, which is in the best
Russian interests.
So, from Russian perspective, the same rule applies to Baltics and Ukraine (whatever
remains of it in 5-10 years): "you broke it – you own it". So, the West would have to
do something about those territories. Considering current policies of the EU, they will be
populated by Muslims and Africans. Russian attitudes changed a lot in the last decades
regarding Baltics and in the last five years regarding Ukraine: a lot of Russians believe
that even Muslims and Africans are smarter than aborigines of those wannabe countries, so
would make more sensible neighbors.
@Malacaay "Ukrainian Republic" in 1914 ??? With presidents, parliaments, elections, sure,
sure.
And having western borders in 1914 exactly by the line draw by Georgian dictator
Jugashvili-Stalin 25 years later?
With Lwow being in 1914 city not of Poland (independent Poland in 1914 is yet another gem)
but of the said Ukrainian Republic? And Transcarpatian Ruthenia too?
Wow, so in 1939 Jugashvili-Stalin just restored well known internationally borderlines of
the glorious 1914 Ukrainian Republic, right?
@Arioch You consider Ukraine to be irrelevant, so why spend so much time on it??? Odd
isn't it. Methinks you protesteth too much. You haven't proven Ukrainians can't do science,
that they don't have a technical culture, and you haven't shown that grain production is
irrelevant. You're just insulting farmers, and basic industry. Insult your own stomach. Don't
eat bread. Food is power. All industrial economies are based on agriculture. You dismissing
it is just sour grapes.
Pretend the Ukraine is dead. That's your business. Ukraine hasn't lost the ability to do
science, engineering, etc. What do you think they do in universities there? Is there no
higher education there? I'm not going to believe that. You're just spinning. Spin away. It's
obvious you're just dismissing real activity there.
The finality with which you dismiss the logistics possibilities of the Ukraine is odd. It
is a valuable resource. The country can take up the logistics possibilities in the future.
They haven't disappeared. And that is what your argument is based on. Pretending that
something can never ever be operational again ever, for any reason, even when the
possibilities are obviously still there. Germany bounced back after the war. Russia bounced
back after the 90s. But Ukraine? According to you, Ukrainians can't ever have any future
possibilities. You dismiss the real activity that is there, and you dismiss future
possibilities. So you can read the future? Do you also pretend to have super human ability to
know the future? You don't like facts, just theatrics. Lots of arm waving and shouting and
gesticulating. No proofs. If it is dead in your books, why are you wasting so much effort to
prove it, without actually giving any proof? You really do protest too much.
@Mr. Hack Why would I be disappointed in seeing your puppet master Kolomoisky, the
'Zhidobandera', and his puppet playing the presidents, Zelenski admitting (grudgingly) that
"They're stronger anyway. We have to improve our relations"?
K: "People want peace, a good life, they don't want to be at war. And you [the U.S.] are
forcing us to be at war, and not even giving us the money for it."
And begging for money from Russia?
@Anon First, participation or results of International Mathematical Olympiad that both of
your links deal with do not necessarily reflect the state of science in the country. First,
math is only one of the real sciences (others include physics, chemistry, biology, etc.).
Second, the results of kids reflect the potential of young people, not the state of
scientific research in the country. Remaining scientists in Ukraine (there aren't many of
them left, unless you count bullshitters like Vyatrovich as scientists) bitterly complain
that the government does not fund science at the level that can help it survive.
BTW, many branches of Russian science (e.g., biochemistry and cell biology that I know
best) do not perform at the level that would put them on the map. There are very few
world-class biochemical or cell biological labs in Russia today, even fewer than in Soviet
times. In Ukraine today there are none, zero, zilch, nada. There used to be some decent labs
in Ukraine before 1991, but they either died out or the quality of their research went way
down. Those who awarded PhD to the girl I mentioned above are not scientists, at least not
the honest ones. They are qualified to sweep floors in college, at best.
@AnonFromTN More protesteth too much. More slurs, insults, hearsay, flailing away with no
data of any kind.
Those kids have real capabilities. Not simply 'potential of young people'. dismissing them
won't make them go away. 'Out damn'd spot'. Too bad the facts won't go away. To have kids
with strong math ability means you have to have institutions and teachers with strong
education capability. They don't learn to cut it in math by playing in the streets. Obviously
they will have no difficulty doing engineering calculations, and doing computer science and
physical sciences.
Making comparisons to the former SU is not valid for me. Comparison to other similar sized
economies makes more sense. Ukraine population is similar to Colombia, Spain, Argentina,
Uganda, Algeria, Sudan, Iraq. Looking at those countries, the capabilities of Ukraine don't
look too bad. Certainly not looking like Ukraine is dead.
Why would any one think that Ukraine must be compared to much larger economies??? The
other guy was doing that too. saker is way off to make such comparisons.
Comparing Ukraine to US, China, Russia, or prior SU or UkrainianSSR for me is not a valid
comparison. The economics are too different.
It's obvious what is going on is simply a political, prejudicial smear and dismissal of the
Ukraine and Ukrainians rather than any kind of balanced assessment of capabilities and
reality
@Anon Yes, those kids certainly had good teachers. It is quite likely that their math
teachers were educated in the Ukrainian SSR. I hear from a lot of people in Russia that the
quality of the teachers who graduated in Soviet times tends to be better than of those who
graduated later. I got my school education in Ukrainian SSR and can't complain about it.
Today Lugansk, where I went to school, is in Lugansk People's Republic, and judging by recent
polling of the population, its chances or returning to Ukraine are about as great as my
chances of living 500 years. Ukrainian bomb hit the school I went to, and Ukrainian shell hit
the library where I used to borrow books when I went to school. Luckily, a few years ago
Ukrainian troops were pushed by freedom fighters far enough from Lugansk, so they can't shell
it any more.
Comparing Ukraine to US, China, Russia, or prior SU or UkrainianSSR for me is not a
valid comparison.
Sorry, but Ukraine started by Ukrainian SSR becoming independent. It had what it had, and
lost what it lost, including a big chunk of the population and economy.
You are welcome to believe anything you want. People have a long history of believing the
most preposterous things. However, even fervent beliefs don't change the reality. That's why
all societies have lunatic asylums.
We in Ukraine?
Historically and even today, Russia has much in common with Ukraine -- the United States, almost nothing.
Stephen F. Cohen
November 14, 2019
500 Words
51 Comments
Reply
Listen
॥
■
►
RSS
http://www.unz.com/scohen/why-are-we-in-ukraine/
Email This Page to Someone
Remember My
Information
=>
List of Bookmarks
◄
►
◄
►
▲
▼
Add to Library
Remove
from Library
B
Show
Comment
Next New Comment
Next
New Reply
Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More...
This Commenter
This Thread
Hide Thread
Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They
are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My
Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Email Comment
Ignore
Commenter
Follow Commenter
Bookmark
Toggle
All
ToC
▲
▼
Search Text
Case
Sensitive
Exact Words
Include Comments
Search
Clear
Cancel
For centuries and still today, Russia and
large parts of Ukraine have had much in common -- a long territorial border; a shared history; ethnic,
linguistic, and other cultural affinities; intimate personal relations; substantial economic trade; and
more. Even after the years of escalating conflict between Kiev and Moscow since 2014, many Russians and
Ukrainians still think of themselves in familial ways. The United States has almost none of these
commonalities with Ukraine.
Which is also to say that Ukraine is not
"a vital US national interest," as most leaders of both parties, Republican and Democrat alike, and much of
the US media now declare. On the other hand, Ukraine is a vital Russian interest by any geopolitical or
simply human reckoning.
Why, then, is Washington so deeply
involved in Ukraine? (The proposed nearly $400 million in US military aid to Kiev would mean, of course,
even more intrusive involvement.) And why is Ukraine so deeply involved in Washington, in a different way,
that it has become a pretext for attempts to impeach President Donald Trump?
The short but essential answer is
Washington's decision, taken by President Bill Clinton in the 1990s, to expand NATO eastward from Germany
and eventually to Ukraine itself. Ever since, both Democrats and Republicans have insisted that Ukraine is a
"vital US national interest." Those of us who opposed that folly warned it would lead to dangerous conflicts
with Moscow, conceivably even war. Imagine Washington's reaction, we pointed out, if Russian military bases
began to appear on Canada's or Mexico's borders with America. We were not wrong: An estimated 13,000 souls
have already died in the Ukrainian-Russian war in the Donbass and some 2 million people have been displaced.
Things are likely to get worse.
Democrats are sharply criticizing Trump for withholding large-scale military aid to Kiev (even though
President Obama, despite strong pressure, wisely did so). Ukraine's recently elected President Volodymyr
Zelensky, having been drawn into the Washington scandal, is no longer as free to negotiate peace with
Russian leader Vladimir Putin as he hoped and promised during his campaign. And candidates for the 2020 US
Democratic presidential nomination, with the exception of Tulsi Gabbard, are likely to compete for the role
of Kiev's biggest military booster. Here, as generally in US-Russian relations, Democrats are becoming a war
party.
Meanwhile, as I have reported before,
Russian leader Vladimir Putin continues to be accused by hard-liners in Moscow of passivity in the face of
"American aggression in Ukraine." Is it irony or tragedy that the often-maligned Trump and Putin may stand
between us and something much worse -- between a fragile Cold War peace and the war parties in their respective
countries?
The short but essential answer is Washington's decision, taken by President Bill Clinton in the 1990s,
to expand NATO eastward from Germany and eventually to Ukraine itself.
The problem, however, is with the fact that the United States has neither resources nor status anymore to
do either:
Kissinger: If we treat Russia seriously as a great power, we need at an early stage to determine
whether their concerns can be reconciled with our necessities. We should explore the possibilities of a
status of nonmilitary grouping on the territory between Russia and the existing frontiers of NATO.
That's the danger, remove last remaining military and intelligence professionals and you have ignorant,
grossly incompetent American political class which thinks that it is 1995.
The fact that both Trump and Putin have managed to keep the peace is laudable and somewhat surprising,
particularly on our side given the comparative pressure the Israel lobby can exert on Trump politically and
personally vs. Putin.
Thanks to Ron & the many anti-US-Russia-Ukraine war writers here at Unz over the years including Pat
Buchanan, Paul Craig Roberts, Ron Paul, Phil Giraldi, Caitlyn Johnstone, C.J. Hopkins and The Saker, among
others.
Russia is the only nation on Earth with the undisputable power to permanently cripple the United States
with nuclear weapons. A nuclear exchange between these nations would do serious damage to the world
ecosphere for decades if not centuries.
Short of defending against a full-scale invasion of United States territory the United States has no
justified interest in provoking or engaging in such an exchange.
The entire Ukraine is not worth the bones of one American infantryman.
The people in Washington and Tel Aviv who are playing these games with potentially millions of American &
Russian lives are psychopaths who in a sane world would be tried for war crimes for the acts they have
already committed, much less those they contemplate or risk setting in motion.
The problem, however, is with the fact that the United States has neither resources nor status anymore
to do either:
I would add that if Russia were broken up, then very likely China and not the United States would capture
the mineral wealth of Siberia. This would be a geopolitical blunder of biblical proportions, comparable to
Germany's decision to sponsor Lenin's sealed train voyage.
[Digression: Andrei, I read your blog and I agree about Russian Math and Physics cirriculum. I followed a
similar cirriculum in Poland and I got into MIT easily. Я согласен]
Guessing it's because that dastardly Putin wanted Russia's share of tax receipts from the looting oligarchs
and their western backers during the pillaging 90s. Bankers and financiers lives matter more then the common
good. So does the Clinton slush fund So Hillary got her vengeance on Vlad by doing an Ukrainian coup, and
sending her best like Brett Kimberlin, Victoria Nuland, and Jonathan Winer. Unfortunately the sneaky Putin
kept Crimea and its port on the Black Sea.
The gall of it all. With all the Hong Kong real estate woes, HSBC needs Russian money laundering moolah.
More are becoming aware of Bill Browder's Magnitsky Act con. Plus Hillary's appetite for payoffs is
insatiable. Basically no clue why we're in the Ukraine other than the Clintons. Trump really should have at
least one of them up. Instead he's facing a bogus impeachment. Good news is we might be geting rid of Joe
Biden, and the nuke weapon makers are getting richer. Wonder where that missing 1998 4.8 billion
dollarFederal Reserve/ IMF loan to Russia ever got too?
comparable to Germany's decision to sponsor Lenin's sealed train voyage.
While I disagree with this assessment–it was just an episode against the background of a complete
collapse of Russia, even none other than Solzhenitsyn admits that Bolsheviks merely picked the power up from
the street where it was laying because nobody realistically wanted it, I have to say that in terms of
consequences of Russia breaking up, you are absolutely spot on. In such a scenario the main beneficiary will
be China and it will be easy for it.
Andrei, I read your blog and I agree about Russian Math and Physics cirriculum. I followed a similar
cirriculum in Poland
In general what is known as Socialist Camp–STEM education was extremely good, I know Germans, Poles and
Czechs, among others, who also were the "products" of this education and yes, they had no problems
navigating US higher-ed.
Pitting the Christian (Protestant) U.S. against Christian
(Orthodox) Russia serves the needs of
Dhimmi
Globalism. Both sides are limited in their ability to
resist Muslim efforts at replacing Christians if they cannot unify against the IslamoGlobalist invaders.
The Biden family, Kerry family, and
Dhimmi
Soros family all have business investments in Ukraine
that will only make money if they are able to keep responsible Christians out of office. If Trump can clear
the
Dhimmi
Deep State hurdles, investigations and impeachment, hopefully this flow of money to
suppress Ukrainian Christians will be shut off.
Not really, just out of focus. NATO is Israel's bitch/attack dog. Israel is owned by the Rothschilds, The
Rothschilds got tossed from the USSR. They regained Russia through Yeltsin. Putin pushed back against the
Rothschild front oligarchs, and now they want it back.
Guys, guys what's going on?! You are, recently, slipping hard here. C'mon we aren't THAT dumb.
So far you've done sterling work in the real world; keeping "normies" in check on the Internet too.
But the crew here is ..slipping.
Two options:
1. You really take us here for dumb fucks. While there is some merit there, still I mean, Soros as
dhimmi?!?
2. The team here has kept the same handles but the real people behind them are different guys. Temps hired
for peanuts. So, if that, where have the real guys gone? And, more importantly, why?
If I can venture an opinion I guess on focusing the effort on normies in the runup to the election.
Anyway, please, tone that idiocy down. It's bad form, really.
It looks as if at least one Ukrainian "player" has taken a look at the smoking ruins of the Middle East and
concluded that "friendly ouvertures" by US are just the on-ramp to a scenario where there will be much
pissing on your robbed grave in a decade or so. A trial balloon to start a de-escalation vis-à-vis of Russia
may have been launched.
In general what is known as Socialist Camp–STEM education was extremely good, I know Germans, Poles
and Czechs, among others, who also were the "products" of this education and yes, they had no problems
navigating US higher-ed.
And then they all flee to the U.S. to design and build computers, airplanes, missiles, etc., while their
native lands try to remain barely 2nd world in STEM.
Another important piece of the puzzle is NATO's Strategic Concept, approved at the 1999 Washington Summit.
It included for the first time "possibility of conducting non-Article 5 crisis response operations." Since
Article 5 refers to a response to a military attack against a member country, this single phrase changed
NATO from a defensive alliance to an offensive one.
This created a loophole. First, sponsor a separatist
insurgency in a country you don't like. When the government responds, claim that civilians are suffering.
Mobilize the public opinion using photos of crying women (less than ten is enough, just show them
frequently.) Follow up with accusations of "humanitarian crisis." Claim that "genocide is unfolding" (this
quote and the bogus claim of 100,000 dead Albanians was used in 1999). Frequently use the phrase
"International Community". Invade.
This scenario was implemented against Yugoslavia and Libya. Had Al Gore won in 2000, Richard Holbroooke
would become Secretary of State and he would use Chechnya as a pretext for intervention in Russia. It almost
happened – Madeleine Albright asked Russia to permit presence of "observers" in Chechnya. Putin wisely
refused, perhaps because he knew that "observers" in Kosovo were used to provide a pretext for war against
Yugoslavia.
Albright's request happened soon after Nato permitted "non-Article 5 crisis response operations."
Few people realize how close we were to a repeat of Yugoslavia-style scenario being used to break up Russia.
@Curmudgeon
You believe it's "The Rothschilds".
I believe it's a
BIT
more complicated than that.
I suggest we skip
that
debate here.
At the moment the pressure is in three spots: Syria, Ukraine and Balkans.
Or, why are "we" in Syria and Balkans, for example? Dumb question, of course.
As why "we" are in Iraq, Afghanistan. Or Bulgaria. Or Japan. Or Italy. Or whatever.
Boring, in fact.
Changing that fact, somehow, could be an interesting conversation. Granted, wouldn't attract much traffic
around here. One day, perhaps.
The question should be : Is there any little speck of land on the entire planet that isn't of "strategic
importance" to the fools that control the USG??
@Exile
Exactly! The fact is that the Democratic establishment have lost any credibility with the Russia Scam so
they are now working on the Ukraine angle an angle that is fraught with danger for them if it all comes out
in the wash.
@peterAUS
The IslamoSoros is an ex-Jew, now totally dedicated to Islam and Jew extermination. That is why he is so
dedicated to the genocidal BDS movement: (1)
Israel released a list of 20 BDS-supporting organizations whose members will be banned from entering
Israel due to their BDS activism, prominently featuring six American groups. At least four of the six
BDS-promoting U.S. groups receive funding tied to Soros. Scores of other U.S. organizations that support
the BDS movement are financed by Soros.
The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) is a central proponent of anti-Israel BDS activism on
college campuses and in churches
Globalism is against the Judeo-Christian God and his values. Which is why the IslamoSoros and Globalism
go together so well.
@Undocumented Shopper
"This would be a geopolitical blunder of biblical proportions, comparable to Germany's decision to sponsor
Lenin's sealed train voyage."
Exactly. The reason they did that was because they feared Russia would open
up a second front. A short sighted objective in the end because the Zionists managed to sucker America into
fighting on the side of the Allies for the promise of their "promised land" in Palestine.
Same with America embracing Ukraine since Putin isn't going to follow the conventional rules of
engagement since he doesn't have to thanks to the US abrogating the treaty on Medium range nukes. If NATO
makes its advance through Ukraine he'll launch a nuclear counterstrike using tactical nukes.
The people in Washington and Tel Aviv who are playing these games
Don't you mean to say Jaffa? Or Jerusalem? Then again it's actually neither, so may as well.
Russia is the only nation on Earth with the undisputable power to permanently cripple the United
States with nuclear weapons.
Say it ain't so. It's almost as if Israel is not the only one with a Samson(ov) Option? But I'm sure
you'll find a way to blame it on people in the wrong (((Capital))) Anyway.
Israel's nukes are a reason to take them away?
Russia's nukes are a reason to grab your ankles and hope for the best?
I am not in Ukraine. Imperial Washington is in Ukraine as part of it's project to rule the world by force of
arms. I am in Texas minding my own business.
@Gall
I see what you mean. But perhaps the Dems, or the powers behind them, are just concerned with getting rid of
Trump and don't mind if the scandal envelops Joe Biden too.
They'd just be getting rid of the old
"moderate" white guy and giving the nomination instead to a woman.
They would have Warren or whoever's baggage, and she's not young either -- but they wouldn't have to
suffer Creepy Joe's more advanced age and apparent mental decline, his open touching of young girls, and his
constant gaffes and lies/exaggerations.
@Exile
'The fact that both Trump and Putin have managed to keep the peace is laudable and somewhat surprising,
particularly on our side given the comparative pressure the Israel lobby can exert on Trump politically and
personally vs. Putin '
Get the feeling that maybe you're solving this puzzle?
What happens to the interest of US politicians in the Ukraine if Russia agrees to dump Syria?
Yes, but the long answer is that a majority of Jews (with exception to the author perhaps and some others)
now have a dog in this fight (or rather, many). It's hard to believe, but 80 years after playing the leading
role in having millions of Ukrainians murdered in the 1930's, after founding the Soviet Union, Jews now
dominate Ukraine, not just with oligarchs but with politicians elected to the highest office(s) in the land.
They now have their second Jewsh president in a row, the first being part Jewish. The top positions of the
gov't are dominated by Jews and I believe they control most of the media, just as they do in the US. By
contrast, Russia has an ethnic Russian that leads the country and by some counts is undergoing a big return
to Christanisty. Ths is like a horror movie to Jews who never stop indoctrinating Amercans with talk of the
"pogroms" from 120 years ago or longer.
I can sum up the differences based on a personal experience. In
2002 I visted Saint Petersburg and met a young woman there. Durng the time we spent together the subject of
the Jews came up and she said "Russians and Jews don't get along well". I don't recall the exact words of
her sentence, but that is precisely the sentiment she related. It was rather refreshing. She wasn't
criticnzing either side, just stating a fact. And she wasn't apologizing. She appeared to be a proud
Russian. By contrast, when I was in Lviv last year, what had been the heart of Ukrainian nationalism, I met
a young woman completely beholden to the Jews. She had visited Israel several times, she spoke of Jewish
briliance, she made a comment about the bad Palestinians, she called me an anti-semite for telling her Jews
dominated the USSR and were in charge when millions of Ukrainians were killed. She hated Germans, and hated
me. She told me how brilliant Einsten was and how awful Germans were. No doubt, she would be a very loyal
American.
That is what is at stake for the Jews. They now have one more country they dominate, and maybe this one
more than any other. And this is the same country they blasted for many decades as "anti-semitc", portraying
Ukrainians as evil "anti-semites" in movies and deporting Ukrainains from the USA so they could be tried on
trumped up charges in Israel (John Demjanjuk).
Anyone that doesn't think Adam Schiff, Jerrold Nadler and the Jewish dominated mainstream medis are not
acting in their own interest (Jewish interests) are just dumb.
@Andrei Martyanov
"The problem, however, is with the fact that the United States has neither resources nor status anymore to
do either:"
Yes -- but
The US would hope it can pull another Indonesia, Ukraine, Hondurous, & now Bolivia etc, etc,
etc on Russia. Another colour revolution, by those humanitarians in the NED.
@A123
"Globalism is against the Judeo-Christian God and his values. Which is why the IslamoSoros and Globalism go
together so well."
I can't believe your claims never mind your logic.
So called "globalists" give not a damn about any religion, any race, any culture, & (probably) any ideology.
They care about Power & Money -- that-is-it.
@A123
What religion does Soros profess? Is he a member of an established racial and/or religious group? Just
wondering. Ann Coulter says he's a "pompous American billionaire." But I felt that description was somehow
incomplete.
And where does it mention that Jews compose 90% of the current government of Ukraine? And of the previous
governments ever since the Putsch?
And that in a country almost devoid of Jews.
Most of the oligarchs were created by the Americans using the World Bank and International Finance
Organization and a string of private banks. These oligarchs are again almost all Jewish.
Any article or video about Ukraine that leaves the role of International Jewery out is a work of fiction.
Why, then, is Washington so deeply involved in Ukraine?
Because once you secure the old border by making an ally of the country on it, their border becomes the
new insecure border and so you have to bring yet another country on the far side of the new ally within your
alliance. There is no end to it.
I think it is as simple as it looks. Ukraine is "vital to American interests" inasmuch as those interests
are:
1- Keeping a heel on Russia to serve whatever existing financial interests there are in that status
quo, or simply to remain dominant geopolitically, power being an end in itself
2- The venality of American politicians in using Ukraine as a financial playground, very much as
Ukrainian and Russian politicians have done.
There's no real mystery in a small "border" nation that exists as a conduit for a vital commodity being
the pawn of bigger powers, is there?
@Anonymous
I find it odd how Eastern Europeans boast that they're much more intelligent and capable than Westerners,
yet it seems to me that those of them with any intelligence and capability move to Western countries as soon
as possible.
If they're so wonderful shouldn't it be the other way round? Of course, they always blame it
on "Communism" but that seems to be rather like the "Colonialism" excuse for why India and Africa is third
world, how long is that excuse credible?
@Anonymous
"And then they all flee to the U.S. to design and build computers, airplanes, missiles, etc., while their
native lands try to remain barely 2nd world in STEM".
Computers like the fundamentally insecure Intel
processor chips? Besides, most "American" computers are manufactured in Asia. The American "executives" just
skim off the profits. Any time now the people who actually make the microprocessors, RAM, hard drives, SSDs,
network chips, etc. will realise that all they have to do is initiate a "buyout" and it will all be theirs.
Airplanes yeah, like the F-35? No honest comparison of the F-35 with any of the recent MiGs or Sukhois
could come to any conclusion but that the Russian planes are vastly superior. And, of course, vastly cheaper
– not only to buy, but to maintain and upgrade. Besides, the price of a Russian jet fighter includes the
engines (unlike some F-35 quotations I have seen).
Missiles you really have got to be joking even to bring missiles into it. Turkey, India and many other
nations are well aware that the Russian anti-aircraft missiles are far, far better than any US products. Not
only that – they are also much cheaper! If you are talking about offensive missiles, the picture becomes
even more one-sided.
To correct your wording, the people you speak of "flee to the US" not to design and build anything
useful, but mainly to scoop up all the gold with which the streets are lined, and drink all the milk and
honey that flows there.
They quickly find out that it's not gold that lines the sidewalks, but something much nastier and
smellier.
@RadicalCenter
"A map is useful for ascertaining which countries border Russia. Yes, there are many".
Whereas the USA has
borders with two (very weak) nations: Canada and Mexico. As Jules Jusserand, French Ambassador to the US,
remarked in 1910:
"The United States was blessed among nations. On the north, she had a weak neighbour; on the south,
another weak neighbour; on the east, fish; and on the west, fish".
Nothing has changed since then.
So the USA, with only two relatively weak and unthreatening neighbours, should need very minimal armed
forces and should spend very little on armaments; while Russia, with many neighbours (including some very
powerful ones) is justified in spending far more on its armed forces.
Precisely the opposite of what we see; in reality, the USA spends ten times as much on armaments as
Russia does.
Of course, the convenient Wikipedia article is heavily biased toward the neocon view that Ukraine is no
part of Russia and has always been independent.
Kievan Rus was roughly contemporary with King Alfred's Wessex – the nation that rapidly expanded to
become England. And Kiev was the capital of the very first Russian state, just as Winchester was the capital
of King Alfred's Wessex. (All of this happened over 800 years before the American Revolution).
If someone were to tell me today that Hampshire (the county in which Winchester is situated) is not part
of England, but belongs to some weird country called "Borderland" – the literal meaning of "Ukraine" – I
would laugh out loud. Russians would be quite as justified in claiming that Kiev has always been a Russian
city, and still is today.
However the Russians are peaceable, tolerant people and prefer to let their "erring sisters" go their own
way unhindered. (Unlike Abraham Lincoln's USA, which reacted to the perfectly justified secession of the
Confederate States by launching a war that killed nearly a million people).
" .I've often quoted Randolph Bourne as saying, "War is the
health of the state." He was quite correct. The larger the nation, the greater the need political leaders
have for warfare. ..Since the end of World War II, the US military-industrial complex has been
displeased with the fact that peacetime means diminished revenue for them. Increasingly, they've contributed
heavily to election campaigns for both major parties in every election.
The repayment for those contributions has always been the same – the political class must find excuses to
create a new conflict as soon as another one ends, ensuring the continued revenue of the complex.
This has resulted in the US becoming the first and only country that's in a consciously created state of
perpetual warfare. The cost of this, in 2018, was roughly $600 billion – 54% of all federal discretionary
spending ":
"Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft [taxes], and counterfeiting
[via central bank monopolies], all governments are essentially, at their very cores, 100% corrupt criminal
scams which cannot be "reformed","improved", simply because of their innate, unchangeble criminal nature."
onebornfree
"Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no way to
differentiate the activities of its founders, administrators and beneficiaries from those of a
professional-criminal class." Albert J. Nock
– Without the unequivocally Russian parts (to include Dniepropetrowsk and Odessa oblasts) Ukraine is a
landlocked sunflower field chemically pure of strategic value (thanks to Nord Stream 2).
It was a private venture of the Tribe to provide a safe space more conveniently located than London or
Cyprus.
– The Banderists are a wild card it took a special kind of idiocy to wake up that particular dog; they are
not forever going to believe it was the Big Bad Russians who massacred their brothers.
From the other side
of the grand chessboard (always assuming there still is such a thing as an independent US geostrategy) the
situation is simple – there are two Archimedean points, the loss either of which will mean the end of the
empire:
– Germany: NATO´s eastward expansion is not so much aimed at Mother Russia as on preempting
Tauroggen/Rapallo 3.0 . Brexit doesn´t help either.
– the Gulf: there is a reason it is called "Persian" and not "Lake Monroe"; contrary to popular belief
the US do not need the oil, but without the ability to deny it to others the $$$ would collapse, rendering
untenable the worldwide strategic posture (and prolly unleashing a groid uprising back home).
Classic empire in overstretch – the only question is how much damage they will do on the way down.
@Kolya Krassotkin
Yes.
The Neocon foreign policy has been swallowed up by most of the Dumbo-crats because of TDS (Trump Derangement
Syndrome). Thank God for Tulsi. The Republi-tards are even more rabidly Neocoonish than the Demokratz. Thank
The Lord for Rand Paul. So 'they', The Cabal, the Neocons, whatever you want to call them, basically run our
foreign policy.
Now 'they' have a special hatred for Putin because he reestablished Christian Orthodoxy into Mother Russia.
You have to admire Trump's intestinal fortitude to push back against Christian Zionists, Neocons, derranged
Democrats and stupid politicians in general and that's just in his own family!
@Anonymous
You probably live under some stone. If you were following Russia military developments you would clearly
understand that STEM so far at least math physics part is doing ok and considerably better than in USA.
@Andrei Martyanov
At least Germans once in a while did something good for Russia, while doing really long term disservice to
themselves as history shown.
Basically ukraine and belorussia is Russia safe few parts. The whole madness of this situation that
basically russian people were led to believe that they are not russians . Sooner or later this anomaly will
have to be addressed and I disagree with those who consider ukraine a lost cause. Everything in due time. In
this regard chinese are behaving rightfully not allowing no piece of china go. Once one start retreating in
this regard there is no knowing how much can be lost. For now I think russia is doing right thing. But
eventually both Ukraine and belorussia will have to be reintegrated. On their own they are not viable
anyway.
Sputnik is reporting that the US has spent $6.4 Trillion fighting wars that have killed
800,000 since Sept 11/01, that number is unbelievable, at least 1,500,000 dead in Iraq,
250,000 in Afghanistan, 750,000 in Syria.
The US military budget alone has averaged about 650 billion since then, plus the wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan were funded separately (around 200 million a year), plus CIA/ blackbook
projects - 7 or 8 trillion is a more likely number.
When things get blown up, no one really knows what was actually bought and existed and
what was just a phantom piece of equipment War has always been the ideal cover for
corruption
"DNC Announces 10 Candidates in Atlanta Democratic Debate" [
Bloomberg ]. Joe Biden, Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg, Tulsi Gabbard, Kamala Harris, Amy
Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders, Tom Steyer, Elizabeth Warren and Andrew Yang. And not Julian Castro,
sadly. "The forum will be co-hosted by the Washington Post and MSNBC. Candidates will be
questioned by four female moderators: Rachel Maddow, Andrea Mitchell and Kristen Welker from
the network, and Ashley Parker from the Post. The two-hour event had a higher bar to qualify
than previous debates. Candidates must have contributions from 165,000 donors, up from 135,000.
And the donors must be geographically dispersed, with a minimum of 600 per state in at least 20
states. In addition, participants must either show 3% support in four qualifying national or
single-state polls, or have at least 5% support in two qualifying single-state polls released
between Sept. 13 and Nov. 13 in the early nominating states of Iowa, New Hampshire, South
Carolina or Nevada."
China Communist Party to the extent it is a theocratic state generates its special flavor of corruption typical for theocratic states
where high priests of the cult enjoy virtual impunity. It is the same type of corruption that doomed the USSR. So it is institutional
Notable quotes:
"... In China, there is an additional emphasis of the moral aspect and it is less constrained by laws. An immoral action, even if it is legal, may still be considered a corruption by the Chinese society. For example, if a relative of Xi would to give a speech, and then received an exorbitant fee, it probably would be considered a corruption in China. However, in US, this is perfectly legal (and a reason many ex-politicians and ex-government employees become very rich) and it won't be considered a corruption. ..."
"... In case you hadn't noticed from prior postings, "Godfree Roberts" is a fake name for a CCP propaganda writer who scours the Internet for things to promote official views for, such as this absurd piece. ..."
"... The CCP knows corruption/graft, etc. is poison to their authoritarian one party state dictatorship. It is endemic in all such states. So periodically there are huge purges, trials, executions, etc. and a new set of stooges are risen up. Some get the message, most just bow humbly and wait for the storm to pass. It is as old as China. Of course government corruption is hardly unique to China. But in places where party leaders can be voted out (not merely a few shot for effect) it can be cleaned out periodically. Chinese are wisely quiet and cynical about this. ..."
"... What mechanisms are in place to keep this from going too far? That is, accusing someone for personal reasons, for example, to further one's own career. ..."
"... I have viewed Xi Jinping with more suspicion because his family has a lot of wealth and he sent his daughter to Harvard. He also did not agitate for rehabilitating the cultural revolution when it would have been more politically risky for him to have done so, like Bo Xilai did. ..."
"... I wonder if the Government would have something to say if he spoke out against the party and against Xi? Considering that people have received jail sentences (of years) for calling Xi a steamed bun, and that Winnie the Pooh is banned because poor Xi can't handle light hearted criticism I think we all know the answers here ..."
"... This is the ultimate corruption that a society faces – the inability to communicate freely and to criticise those accountable. Every Chinese citizen is under the CCP Yoke regardless of how this CCP shill wants to spin it. ..."
"... Corruption exists everywhere. It's just that it depends on what level it occurs. Heck, in the West, it's legal! Lobbying, they call it You can't bribe a cop to forgive a ticket, but goddamn you can bribe a politician to drive the country into the ground. ..."
"... If you want accurate information about China, stilted prose is inevitable. Real writers, professionals, are paid to lie about China. Anyone who tries to tell the truth is shunned, not only by our mainstream media, but by the PRC, which prefers to let its accomplishments speak for themselves. ..."
"... Udo Ulfkotte[3], Editor of Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, says that no significant European journalist, including himself, was free of CIA influence. Singapore's Lee Kwan Yew[4] outlined the consequences: ..."
"... The first is to do what Confucian states are always supposed to do: recruit your brightest sparks, promote the most honest, competent of them until the topmost are the very best you've got. As its track record demonstrates, the current dynasty has earned everyone's trust by doing that consistently. ..."
"... At this stage, any one who still believes in the western propaganda about China is simply too brain-washed and not too smart for any cure. Excuse me, I should say "too dumb for any cure". ..."
"... For example, Nathan Rich's recent video shows how media biased reporting of Hong Kong compare with Ukraine riots. The contrast can't be anymore stark: ..."
"... People view the world through narratives, and the value of a narrative lies only in how closely it follows and "explains" the widest possible array of empirical facts. ..."
"... Corrupt Chinese have practically taken over the US West Coast and Northeast. There isn't anywhere you could go in LA, Bay Area or Seattle without encountering mandarin speaking people. 99.9% Chinese nationals in the US are corrupt. With a nominal per capita GDP of $8,600, the only people who could afford to emigrate or send their children abroad for education are the rich, and China is so corrupt, no one can get rich without being corrupt, either by taking bribes or giving them. These are the corrupt factory owners who leave behind polluted rivers and air for their countrymen to die from while they escape to greener pastures with their family, and the government officials they bribed to pollute at will. ..."
"... This country is destroyed by (((lawyers))). As Niall Ferguson said, we no longer have the rule of law, we have the rule of (((lawyers))). ..."
The men of Qi presented the government of Lu with a troupe of singing girls. Ji Huanzi accepted them and for three days
failed to appear at court. Confucius left the state . Analects
Everywhere, since ancient times, peole have feared government corruption for, unlike war or fraud, corrupt policies cripple nations
for centuries. No society has suffered more grievously from–nor waged more protracted war against–official corruption than the Chinese.
Today however, though the story not over, it is nearing a goal that could make them the envy of the world and, like most Chinese
stories, theirs is a long one.
Corruption–nepotistic, pecuniary, blatant, discreet, major and minor–has been subverting governments since governments were invented.
Roman politicians were scandalously corrupt, Christianity failed to improve them, and their legacy of official impunity, bribery,
influence peddling, patronage, nepotism and cronyism, electoral fraud, embezzlement, kickbacks, unholy alliances, and involvement
with organized crime afflicts us today and we have become numb to it.
Had I thoroughly eradicated corrupt officials in addition to those already imprisoned I would have been dealing with two thousand
men from just two prefectures, men with no useful occupation who used my prestige to oppress people. No-one outside government
knew how wicked they were, so everyone said my punishments were harsh, for they saw only the severity of the law and didn't know
that these villains had used the government's good name to engage in evil practices. In the morning I punished a few and, by evening,
others had committed the same crimes. I punished those in the evening and next morning there were more violations! Although the
corpses of the first had not been removed others were already lined up to follow in their path, day and night! The harsher the
punishment, the more violations. I didn't know what to do, but I couldn't rest. If I was lenient the law became ineffectual, order
deteriorated, people thought me weak and engaged in still more evil practices. If I punished them, others regarded me as a tyrant.
How could anyone lead a peaceful life in such circumstances? Really, my situation was dreadful.
Confucians fought corruption more effectively than the Romans, partly because of public participation. The people retained the
right to withdraw the Mandate of Heaven–and, according to the constitution, still do–and many governments met grisly ends when they
failed to honor the Four Principles–propriety, justice, honesty, and honor–or their officials lacked the Eight Virtues–loyalty, filial
piety, benevolence, love, integrity, righteousness, harmony and peace.
From the earliest days, officials transferred to provinces were forbidden to bring their parents lest their needs conflict with
the Emperor's. They were rotated every three years and, after each rotation, their successors were encouraged to report discrepancies
for fear that they be blamed for them. Palace officials were regularly moved between departments and the seriously corrupt were strangled
and their families sold into slavery.
Every Chinese, from humble farmers to eminent politicians, knows this history and understands that promoting honest men to leadership
is the way to prevent corruption. Many still living saw how a century of chaos devastated public morality, as Mao observed during
a 1950 anti-corruption drive, "Today, you can buy a branch secretary for a few packs of cigarettes, not to mention marrying a daughter
to him." Mao's slogan, "The masses have sharp eyes," encouraged people to report wrongdoing and corruption fell dramatically. His
insistence on merely shaming corrupt officials worked because, says Sydney Rittenberg
[3] An old friend of the party assesses China's
new leaders. Rob Schmitz. Marketplace. November 19, 2012 . "Nobody locked their doors. The banks–there was a local bank branch
on many, many corners–the door was wide open, the currency was stacked up on the table in plain sight of the door, there were no
guards and they never had a bank robbery, ever."
As its accomplishments demonstrate, postwar China was free of corruption at the policy-making level but, especially during the
forty year Reform and Opening, lower level corruption flourished. Anticipating this in 1980, planners redesigned officials' incentives
so that bribers would effectively be rewarding them for expediting the plan, says Yukon Huang
[4] Yukon Huang was the World Bank's Director
for China. The Diplomat , "The system countered the growth‐inhibiting aspects of corruption by setting investment and production
targets that gave local officials incentives to promote expansion. It fostered a unity of purpose so that, even when corruption flourished,
the collaborators still made growth the guiding principle of their actions. This was reinforced by competition between localities
to meet targets and support productivity‐enhancing economic reforms. The competitive element helped curb waste and ensured a modicum
of efficiency despite the high degree of state intervention in commercial activities." Sometimes though, as throughout Chinese history,
things got out of hand.
Acting on a tipoff about smuggling, Beijing secretly sent detectives to Xiamen Port in 1999 but the smugglers, tipped off, set
fire to the investigators' hotel and killed them as they slept. On national television the next day, Premier Zhu Rongji declared
war and ordered a hundred coffins, "Ninety-nine for the crooks and one for me." Detectives from across the country converged on the
city and what they found staggered them: four million tons of imported diesel fuel had bypassed customs in just two years. They tracked
hundreds of suspects, locked escapees in a local hotel with armed guards on each floor, and spent three years unravelling a case
so complex that the customs files alone would be higher than a ten-story building. The gang had bribed the vice-minister of Public
Security, Li Jizhou, through his wife and daughter, and Li and thirteen others were sentenced to death, his wife to thirty months
in prison and three hundred officials were tried for aiding or abetting the criminals. The ringleader, farmer-turned-smuggler Lai
Changxing, fled to Canada, was extradited, and jailed for life in 2009.
In 1985 Bo Xilai, son of a Revolutionary Immortal and Xi Jinping's schoolmate, had ignored his father's pleas to stay out of politics,
"You know nothing of the sufferings of ordinary people and just want to capitalize on my name." Xilai cultivated a charismatic image,
was named one of Time's Most Influential People, rose rapidly to provincial governor and publicly campaigned for a cabinet position.
But, as conservative scholar Cheng Li said at the time, "Nobody really trusts him. A lot of people are scared of him, including several
princelings who are supposed to be his power base." Michael Wines wrote that, though he possessed prodigious charisma and deep intelligence,
"He possessed a studied indifference to the wrecked lives that littered his path to power Mr. Bo's ruthlessness stood out." With
the help of Justice Minister Zhou Yongkang, Bo had even wiretapped President Hu.
Despite considerable internal resistance, Vice Premier Wu Yi, the nation's highest woman official, demanded an open investigation
and a 2012 trial revealed that Bo owned expensive properties around the world and that his wife had murdered a British agent. They
were jailed for life and joined a long line of disgraced elites like the grandson of China's Head of State and founder of the Red
Army, Zhu De, who was executed for rape, and Yan Jianhong, wife of Guizhou's powerful Party Secretary, who was executed for corruption.
With prosperity assured, and elite corruption confronted, Congress anointed Xi Jinping, the most honest, competent official of
his generation, to succeed President Hu. In its first year, Xi's anti-corruption campaign saw ten thousand officials passed over
for promotion for concealing information and one-hundred thirty-thousand demoted or disciplined for making false declarations. By
2016, prosecutors had charged sixty-three senior officials and ministers with corruption, released confessions from fifty-seven thousand
Party members who made restitution and accepted demotions and seen Yunnan's corrupt Party Secretary, Bai Enpei, sentenced to death.
By 2018, anti-corruption squads had investigated 1.3 million bureaucrats, filed a million court cases, issued one hundred thousand
indictments, captured thousands of overseas fugitives and jailed or executed one-hundred twenty high-ranking officials–including
five national leaders, twelve generals, a dozen CEOs and Sun Zhengcai, former Chongqing Party chief, who was sentenced to life in
prison for taking huge bribes. After a 2019 industrial explosion in Tianjin killed one-hundred sixty-five people, the magistrate
found that petty bribery had led to weak code enforcement, sentenced the responsible official to death, and jailed forty-nine of
his colleagues.
Graft investigators unannounced inspections now resemble elite athletes' doping tests. An Anhui inspection team telephoned an
official four times between 7:31-7:35 one evening about his poverty alleviation efforts. He was showering and, when he failed to
answer, they reported him for obstruction and moved to dismiss him. Happily, through social media, the public came to his defense
and he was exonerated.
Knowing that that ten percent of their statements will be audited, even deputy county officials now report their marital status,
overseas travel, criminal record, wages, other earnings, family properties, stocks, funds, insurance and investments. If they refuse
to answer questions, or collude with, or protect accomplices, they are detained immediately.
Bureaucrats–especially those with leadership ambitions–endure increasing scrutiny as they advance, says Zhao Bing Bing
[6] Daniel Bell and Zhao Bing Bing, The China
Model. , "The selection criteria are: a person must have 'both ability and moral integrity and the latter should be prioritized
[7] The same wording as the Chief Censor used
in the Tang Dynasty. .'" Midlevel officials must report their own assets and those of their parents, wives, children, children's
spouses and cousins, children from previous marriages, children born out of wedlock and foster children. They must report their income,
savings, real estate, stock portfolios, insurance policies, unit trusts, bonds, assets in overseas accounts and, "Income shall include
salary and various bonuses, allowances, subsidies, and payment you receive from lectures, writing, consultation, reviewing, painting
and calligraphy." Says a scion of a prominent family:
I am a Party Member in China and all my family are Party members. What I think of Xi is that the life is really changing after
he came to power. A relative of mine works for the government as a vital governor in my city Chengdu (which is a big city like
BeiJing or ShangHai), then all my family people are like in the hierarchy of privilege. We pay nothing when go out for dinner,
the Party pays. We pay nothing for filling in oil, the Party pays. It seems like we don't need to pay for anything with our salaries,
cause either the Party pays, or someone will pay for us (who wants to flatter us). I smoke the best, I drink the best, sometimes
I even drive without license when drunk, because I fear no one.
In past times, yes we did have privilege everywhere, I felt so arrogant to be superior to others that's also true. But the
problem is, there is a tradeoff. We drank quite a lot of alcohol to show respect to others, we had to accept bribes even we know
it's risky, cause we have to consider about our clan (like the interest of my boss). We had to do some many things we don't want
to do, that's the rule of living in Party, care about the interest of Clan more than your own. That's how we united. We have to
fear a lot of threats from ordinary people, colleagues, and bosses. We cannot keep our own passports, Party keeps it in case of
we flee.
But life changed after Xi came to power, he did real things on anti-corruption. No one dare to present gifts to governors and
the abuse of public funds is strictly monitored. The Party took back the public cars from my family and even we have to pay for
the parking fee now! But..my family and I are actually happy with this, we are thankful to President Xi. Cause he seems like dragging
China to a healthier future. My relatives don't need to go out for dinner with other governors as social intercourse daily, they
don't need to drink so much on the table. And they start to learn to pay for the bill by turns, cause the Party will no longer
do this for them. They start to learn how to take bus or metro. That's good, actually. People start to think about what kind of
lifestyle is called 'healthy,' they are more like human now, no longer some conceited stupid with expanding power. That's how
our life changed after Xi came.
Senior ministers' lives have become excruciatingly transparent. Their private activities are scrutinized and their children must
adopt assumed names to avoid influence-seekers. Their meetings must have third-party observers as one-on-one appointments are taken
as evidence of impropriety. A record of excessive, or poor quality, government debts is treated as prima facie evidence of corruption
and automatically investigated. Senior officials are audited annually after retirement, remain responsible for the consequences of
all their decisions until the day they die and, even then, clawback provisions apply.
Xi invited amateur corruption fighters to join the campaign and Beijing publishes a monthly scoresheet. Citizens text tips and
complaints to the Rules and Discipline Committee (founded in the Tang Dynasty) at #12388 and often post accusations and photographs
of evidence on social media and request additional witnesses. Social media have made the masses' eyes sharper. Netizens scrutinizing
a news photograph noticed the work safety boss of Shaanxi province grinning broadly as he assessed the twisted wreckage of a bus
and a methanol tanker following an accident that left 36 people dead. They spotted his expensive timepiece and their tipoff and subsequent
investigation sent Yang Dacai, Brother Watch, to jail for fourteen years for taking a million dollars in bribes.
Today visitors burn incense at the shrines of great corruption fighters, the battle with official corruption still accounts for
half of all Chinese dramas, and millions watch TV dramas about 'Justice Bao' Zheng, the incorruptible Prefect of the Capital in 1000
AD. A popular TV series, 'In the Name of People,' depicts current-day intra-Party power struggles in the fictional city of Jingzhou.
There a prosecutor and a handful of honest local officials help laid-off workers protest a corrupt land deal, foil corrupt bureaucrats
sabotaging an arrest warrant, and stop fake police bulldozing honest citizens' homes. The show's writers say they have no shortage
of material.
Until 2018, anti-corruption work was shared by the National Bureau of Corruption Prevention, which recommended anti-corruption
policies and handled international anti-corruption coordination. The Supreme People's Procuratorate investigated various kinds of
malfeasance. The Central Commission for Discipline Inspection enforced party loyalty, anti-graft, ethical and Party lifestyle requirements
among civil servants and leading officials who are Party members, but turned criminal evidence over to the state for prosecution.
The Ministry of Supervision, MOS, supervised civil servants who were non-Party members, investigated graft, misappropriation of public
funds and other duty-related violations.
The Commission subsumes their functions into an independent, fourth arm of government that ranks with the Supreme Court and the
Department of Justice. As the most powerful such agency on earth, it employs legislation, digital technology (including face recognition
and AI), the sharp eyes of the people, and great investigative powers. With the goal of making corruption impossible, it centralizes
all anti-corruption processes and exercises authority over all civil servants within and outside the Party, the government, the People's
Congresses, the local supervisory commissions, the people's courts and procuracy, the People's Congresses, the eight democratic parties,
federations of industry and commerce, and everyone who works in, or consults for, organizations managing public affairs. With extensive
powers to interrogate, search, wiretap, detain suspects and freeze their assets, its writ extends to managers of state owned enterprises,
state educational, scientific, research, cultural, health care, sports, and similar agencies, think tanks, village and urban residents
committees, and 'all other personnel who perform public duties' and oversees provincial, city, and county level anti-corruption agencies.
Congress appoints the Commission's senior staff and Yang Xiaodu, its first director was, like Xi, a sent-down youth who performed
manual labour in Anhui province during the Cultural Revolution. Staff need not be Party members but they can never work in another
arm of government for the rest of their lives. The Commission is a political, not administrative body, and is exempt from the extensive
procedural and substantive constraints on administrative organs like the police. Though the law requires staff to pay compensation
'in accordance with law' for infringing people's lawful rights and interests, it does not provide a right of further recourse through
the courts, but does permit targets to appeal to higher-level organs for re-examination of the Commission's decisions and to challenge
unlawful conduct like prolonged detention.
If the Commission comes even close to its goal of making corruption impossible, grateful citizens will credit Confucius and the
First Emperor for limiting political power to a single lifetime and confining it to those who demonstrate both honesty and intelligence.
They will credit the present dynasty for testing officials in the wilderness and imposing extraordinary transparency, themselves
for their unwillingness to tolerate corruption, and Xi Jinping for creating the most powerful corruption-fighting agency in history.
Looking back only ten years, it is difficult to believe that corruption in China is on track to rival Singapore's by 2021.
* Corruption in Eighteenth-Century China. Nancy E. Park. The Journal of Asian Studies, vol. 56, no. 4, 1997.
Notes
[1] Qu Yuan, 340-278 BC, was a Chu
kingdom official and government minister who wrote some of the greatest poetry in Chinese history.
[2] From Huáng-Míng Zǔxùn (Instructions
of the Ancestor of the August Ming), admonitions left to his descendants by the Hongwu Emperor Zhu Yuanzhang, founder of the Ming
dynasty (1368 to 1644).
[3] An old friend of the party assesses
China's new leaders. Rob Schmitz. Marketplace. November 19, 2012
[4] Yukon Huang was the World Bank's
Director for China. The Diplomat
[5] China's Meritocratic Examinations
and the Ideal of Virtuous Talents. Xiao, H., & Li, C. (2013). In D. Bell & C. Li (Eds.), The East Asian Challenge for Democracy:
Political Meritocracy in Comparative Perspective: Cambridge University Press.
[6] Daniel Bell and Zhao Bing Bing,
The China Model.
[7] The same wording as the Chief
Censor used in the Tang Dynasty.
[8] The National Supervision Commission was
formed at the first session of the 13th National People's Congress in 2018 and absorbed the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection
of the Communist Party of China.
One salient difference between the Chinese and the Western concept of corruption is the role of laws. For people in the west,
the definition of corruption is strongly tied to, and in fact mostly defined through laws. To put it very crudely: anything legal
is not corruption, and vice versa (i.e. all corruption is illegal).
In China, there is an additional emphasis of the moral aspect and it is less constrained by laws. An immoral action, even
if it is legal, may still be considered a corruption by the Chinese society. For example, if a relative of Xi would to give a
speech, and then received an exorbitant fee, it probably would be considered a corruption in China. However, in US, this is perfectly
legal (and a reason many ex-politicians and ex-government employees become very rich) and it won't be considered a corruption.
There is really no right or wrong in either approaches. Both contains their pros and cons. The Western way has the advantage
of transparency that make it easier to follow. But it favors the rich and powerful people who can find loopholes and workarounds
to the laws. It also has the disadvantage of difficulty in keeping abreast with advances and changes of society and technologies
. The Chinese way has the advantage of flexibility to meeting the moral standard and demands from the people, but may become confusing
and uncertain for many people like businessmen or foreigners.
In case you hadn't noticed from prior postings, "Godfree Roberts" is a fake name for a CCP propaganda writer who scours the
Internet for things to promote official views for, such as this absurd piece.
The stilted prose and logic is evident. His stuff is full of charts and graphs which magically appear on his computer, unlike
yours or mine. Much of that might be "true" in the sense of basic historical writings, but selectively edited. Current Chinese
leader Xi here is extolled as chasing "corruption" away. Ha!
The CCP knows corruption/graft, etc. is poison to their authoritarian one party state dictatorship. It is endemic in all
such states. So periodically there are huge purges, trials, executions, etc. and a new set of stooges are risen up. Some get the
message, most just bow humbly and wait for the storm to pass. It is as old as China. Of course government corruption is hardly
unique to China. But in places where party leaders can be voted out (not merely a few shot for effect) it can be cleaned out periodically.
Chinese are wisely quiet and cynical about this.
Meanwhile Mr. "Roberts" probably earns a very nice salary doing this work. Maybe even teaches English and propaganda messaging
part time. Billions are spent censoring the Internet there and creating rosy statistics. Some gullible foreigners buy into that.
Fair enough. Every State has its hired liars and propaganda artists. But China has really set the mark for its effort.
Just avoid going there and saying anything negative. Their prisons are not like ours.
What mechanisms are in place to keep this from going too far? That is, accusing someone for personal reasons, for example,
to further one's own career.
I thought Bo Xilai was a maoist and so was Zhou Yongkang, both also had countryside experiences similar to Xi Jinping, and Bo
Xilai as mayor of Chongqing was very much aligned with Maoists and worked on rehabilitating the memory of the cultural revolution.
I have viewed Xi Jinping with more suspicion because his family has a lot of wealth and he sent his daughter to Harvard.
He also did not agitate for rehabilitating the cultural revolution when it would have been more politically risky for him to have
done so, like Bo Xilai did.
Xi Jinping isn't anywhere near the leftist Bo Xilai was.
Godfree did you communicate with Chinese who lived in Chongqing under Bo Xilai's mayorship, what did they say then? I recall
the corrupt wealthy hating him and the poor loving him. let's not forget Bo Xilai also had anti-corruption anti-gang campaigns.
I am a Party Member in China and all my family are Party members. What I think of Xi is that the life is really changing
after he came to power
I wonder if the Government would have something to say if he spoke out against the party and against Xi? Considering that
people have received jail sentences (of years) for calling Xi a steamed bun, and that Winnie the Pooh is banned because poor Xi
can't handle light hearted criticism I think we all know the answers here.
This is the ultimate corruption that a society faces – the inability to communicate freely and to criticise those accountable.
Every Chinese citizen is under the CCP Yoke regardless of how this CCP shill wants to spin it.
Corruption exists everywhere. It's just that it depends on what level it occurs. Heck, in the West, it's legal! Lobbying,
they call it You can't bribe a cop to forgive a ticket, but goddamn you can bribe a politician to drive the country into the ground.
@Muggles I am a US expat, and happen
to live in the China Mainland, and my impression is that most Chinese believe Xi Jinping is doing a great job. What do you care
really? Do you have any dogs in this race?
Talk about propaganda. Tell me then whom are the following:
Falun Gong
Shen Yun
Epoch Times
New Tang Dynasty
China Uncensored
There is no doubt in my mind China is a threat to the hegemony of the West. I definitely prefer Western civilization. But if
forced to choose between Chung Kuo and Babel 2.0, I'll take the former every time.
@Muggles It's not often someone
gets so many things wrong in such a tight space. Congratulations.
I've published at least six books, none about China, my bio is all over the place, and I run a business in under my own name.
If you want accurate information about China, stilted prose is inevitable. Real writers, professionals, are paid to lie
about China. Anyone who tries to tell the truth is shunned, not only by our mainstream media, but by the PRC, which prefers to
let its accomplishments speak for themselves.
I estimate that, since 1950, we taxpayers have spent $100 billion creating and disseminating lies about China–$1.5 billion
annually. Money well spent, if you're in the top 1%, because it convinces the masses that, in Margaret Thatcher's words, there
is no alternative to our failing system.
CIA Director William Casey[1] confirmed this when he told President Reagan in 1981, "We'll know our disinformation campaign
has worked when everything the American public believes is false." Carl Bernstein[2], of Watergate fame, revealed that four hundred
journalists had 'secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency.' All major US media outlets cooperated,
he said, including ABC, NBC, AP, UPI, Reuters, Newsweek, Hearst, the Miami Herald, and the New York Herald‑Tribune.
Udo Ulfkotte[3], Editor of Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, says that no significant European journalist, including himself,
was free of CIA influence. Singapore's Lee Kwan Yew[4] outlined the consequences:
The Philippines press enjoys all the freedoms of the US system but fails the people: a wildly partisan press helped Philippines
politicians flood the marketplace of ideas with junk and confuse and befuddle the people so that they could not see what their
vital interests were in a developing country. And, because vital issues like economic growth and equitable distribution were
seldom discussed, they were never tackled and the democratic system malfunctioned. Look at Taiwan and South Korea: their free
press runs rampant and corruption runs riot. The critic itself is corrupt yet the theory is, if you have a free press, corruption
disappears. Now I'm telling you, that's not true. Freedom of the press, freedom of news critics, must be subordinated to the
overriding needs of the integrity of Singapore and to the primacy of purpose of an elected government.
Says Ann Lee[5], "
A reporter and friend of Michael Massing[6] who worked at the Beijing office of The Wall Street Journal told him that the
editors in Washington regularly changed material information and opinions in his articles. Given the twelve-hour time difference,
by the time his stories went to press in the West, the editors had replaced all the Chinese interviews with statements from
American talking heads who work at think tanks promoting anti-China perspectives."
The weird result of this enormous, expensive effort is that, while we were busy lying to ourselves about China, the Chinese
were busy eating our lunch, and now it's too late. By 2021 every Chinese will have a home, a job, plenty of food, education, safe
streets, health- and old age care. 300,000,000 urban Chinese will have more net worth and disposable income than the average American,
their mothers and infants will be less likely to die in childbirth, their children will graduate from high school three years
ahead of American kids and live longer, healthier lives and there will be more drug addicts, suicides and executions, more homeless,
poor, hungry and imprisoned people in America than in China.
What's more, they'll be ahead of us in science and technology–they're already ahead in math, chemistry, engineering and computer
science–because they have 10x more geniuses and spend 3x more on R&D than we do.
They pulled it off because rubes like you believed the bs you read in our media and insulted anyone who tried to tell you the
truth. Congratulations.
____________________________________________________________
[1] A direct quote, provided and authenticated by Barbara Honegger, White House Policy Analyst and Special Assistant to the Assistant
to the President for Domestic Policy in the first Reagan Administration, 1981–83, who was present at the briefing and confirmed
it with other witnesses.
[2] "The CIA and the Media: How America's Most Powerful News Media Worked Hand in Glove with the Central Intelligence Agency and
Why the Church Committee Covered It Up." Carl Bernstein. Rolling Stone, 1977.
[3] Gekaufte Journalisten (Bought Journalists), Udo Ulfkotte. Kopp Verlag. 2014. The English language edition, Journalists For
Hire: How The CIA Buys The News, has been suppressed.
[4] A Third World Perspective on the Press. RH Lee Kwan Yew, Prime Minister of Singapore. C-SPAN, APRIL 14, 1988
[5] What the U.S. Can Learn from China: An Open-Minded Guide to Treating Our Greatest Competitor as Our Greatest Teacher, by Ann
Lee, 2012
[6] Editor of The Columbia Journalism Review.
The first is to do what Confucian states are always supposed to do: recruit your brightest sparks, promote the most honest,
competent of them until the topmost are the very best you've got. As its track record demonstrates, the current dynasty has earned
everyone's trust by doing that consistently.
The next step is making the process transparent: publish the rules, put an accountable person in charge of the process–someone
with a great deal to lose if they're perceived as being unfair or dishonest (interestingly, Rome's Chief Censor was also such
a person) and China's current censor is one of the most admired people in the country.
Then, have a transparent appeals process so that everyone can watch issues being thrashed out.
It's a human and therefore, imperfect, process but people don't expect perfection of their leaders, just best efforts–and that's
what the PRC delivers.
@Anonymous Bo was very popular in
Chongqing and people still point to the trees he planted and to the rapid progress they made under his administration.
But that is a sine qua non in Chinese government. Even someone as high born as Bo can only hope for advancement if they
show dramatic, tangible progress in their area of responsibility.
I suspect from his profile that Bo was a high functioning sociopath whose birth allowed him to bypass many of the filters in
the system.
He is often spoken of as a 'rival' of Xi Jinping, but that is simply a Western projection. China's elite knew about Bo's liabilities
for decades and one of the reasons Xi got the nod was that he ranked as high as Bo socially. Do you remember how Xi 'disappeared'
for ten days following his promotion to the Peacock Throne? He was meeting with his and Bo's peers–their age cohort–to get their
blessing on the cleanup he had planned.
@Tusk Nobody has suffered from calling
Xi a steamed bun.
However, Chinese don't call their leaders names because their relationship to officials is entirely different from our (Roman)
relationship. Martin Jacques explains it well:
The Chinese state enjoys much greater legitimacy than any Western state. The Chinese treat the state with a reverence and
respect that is more or less unknown in the West; and the reason clearly has nothing to do with democracy. In other words,
a state's legitimacy cannot be reduced to the existence or otherwise of democracy: on the contrary, democracy is not necessarily
the most important factor in a state's legitimacy and may, as in the case of China, be relatively unimportant. The underlying
reason for the legitimacy of the Chinese state is that, as discussed earlier, it is seen by the people as the embodiment and
guardian of Chinese civilization, enjoying, as a consequence, something akin to a spiritual significance. It follows that what
would undermine the legitimacy of a government, the present one included, is a threat to the country's unity. The attitude
of the Chinese towards the state, thus, is very different to that of Westerners. For the latter, the state is an outsider,
a stranger, even an interloper, whose presence should, as far as possible, be limited and confined. This is most obviously
the case in the United States, with those who identify with the Tea Party, for example, regarding the state as an alien body,
but even in Europe it is viewed with varying degrees of suspicion. In China, in contrast, the state and society are seen as
on the same side and part of the same endeavour: the state enjoys the status of an intimate and is treated like a member of
the family, not just any member but the head of the family – the patriarch himself. We can only understand the immense authority
of the Chinese state in these terms, an authority which has been reinforced by the fact that, unlike in the West, it has had
no serious rivals for over a millennium.
"The weird result of this enormous, expensive effort is that, while we were busy lying to ourselves about China "
At this stage, any one who still believes in the western propaganda about China is simply too brain-washed and not too
smart for any cure. Excuse me, I should say "too dumb for any cure".
For example, Nathan Rich's recent video shows how media biased reporting of Hong Kong compare with Ukraine riots. The contrast
can't be anymore stark:
@Godfree Roberts Here is a good
analysis of how the main stream media (MSM) gang up to give propaganda, and how I wish they have objective comments about China
or any country they do not like.
All these so-called anti communist slant against countries, I suspect, have its origins in the Vatican. People seem to forget
that they should bear false witness
Are you sharing the 10′ of 1″ pipe through which you view the world with Muggles? Are you aware that Muggles did nothing but
add a few more feet to it?
People view the world through narratives, and the value of a narrative lies only in how closely it follows and "explains"
the widest possible array of empirical facts. Muggles' ignores the vast majority – perhaps even all – of the facts.
Ergo, it renders neither yourself nor your readers any value to champion it. Why make the effort to propagate such an obvious
failure? Have you never wondered why you lack the dignity and common sense to desist from promoting something whereof you would
more usefully remain silent? Are you even aware of the shortfall?
Corrupt Chinese have practically taken over the US West Coast and Northeast. There isn't anywhere you could go in LA, Bay
Area or Seattle without encountering mandarin speaking people. 99.9% Chinese nationals in the US are corrupt. With a nominal per
capita GDP of $8,600, the only people who could afford to emigrate or send their children abroad for education are the rich, and
China is so corrupt, no one can get rich without being corrupt, either by taking bribes or giving them. These are the corrupt
factory owners who leave behind polluted rivers and air for their countrymen to die from while they escape to greener pastures
with their family, and the government officials they bribed to pollute at will.
They are bribing the US congress to end the per country cap on EB5 visas, where 80% of applicants are corrupt Chinese. The
House passed the HR 1044 bill a few months ago scrapping the H1b cap for India and EB5 cap for China. Now Senator Mike Lee (R-UT)
is trying to get the same bill passed in the Senate. Chuck Grassley and Diane Feinstein tried to kill off the EB5 a few times,
but Trump and SIL wouldn't let them. The Kushner family relies on EB5 money for their real estate development.
EB5 is the #1 get out of jail on the cheap card for corrupt Chinese. Many are now buying homes in the US and letting their
high school and college age children live in those houses, sometimes 16 year olds who could barely speak English living in million
dollar homes by themselves, attending our local high schools for free.
I know of a woman from China in my area who works for JP Morgan, who handles all rich clients from China. It wouldn't surprise
me one bit if the FBI shows up at her house one day and walks her out in handcuffs, for helping rich Chinese launder their money
in the US. The US needs to deport every single last one of these disgusting corrupt pigs to let them go back to China and face
trial.
Curious to see the author responding 6 times now (in only 20 posts) to commentors. Aren't the new site rules against this? It's
a little off-putting to see an article author respond at all, not to mention that it buttresses Muggles's assertions.
I have no reason to doubt Roberts.
Years ago I read a news report on the execution of a Chinese manufacturing official who was bribed into buying some cheaper ingredient,
I think it was, that turned out to sicken or poison people.
Maybe Roberts remembers that.
Some executions or long prison terms for the corrupt in the US would be a good thing.
@d dan You are right the US is also
very corrupt. The book Tailspin – The People and Forces Behind America's Fifty Year Fall by Steven Brill is a great read.
America is destroyed by its effed up laws, mostly crafted by Jewish lawyers, who basically built corruption into laws sanctioned
by the Supreme Court through cases like Citizens United and Super PAC.
This country is destroyed by (((lawyers))). As Niall Ferguson said, we no longer have the rule of law, we have the rule
of (((lawyers))).
Germany and the Scandinavian countries would consider our campaign financing and lobbying industry as corruption on a mass
scale. Hitler lost the battle of WWII but won the war for Germany by ridding them of the Jews, until Merkel the idiot came along
but that's another story.
United Front Work Department of the Chinese Communist Party, that is.
As
.The United Front, which is supported by considerable resources and a vast bureaucratic operation, was called one of his
"magical weapons" by Chinese President Xi Jinping in September 2014. One of the objectives is to co-opt ethnic Chinese individuals
and organizations in foreign countries
and
.Xi has delivered multiple speeches and made it formal policy to demand loyalty and commitment from diasporas who the Party
refers to as the "sons and daughters" of China. The United Front is the apparatus of choice.
and
.In Australia, the majority of Chinese-language press are owned by entities with at least partial links to Beijing.
Now, that line of thought could go even further in this pub . but, let's skip that, for the moment.
I had a roommate in college who was from China. He pretty much said that if you know people in the government or have money you
could get away with a lot. One of his parents was a customs official, and so he would talk about different things he planned on
smuggling to China when he returned with no worries. This was in the late 90's, though.
At this stage, any one who still believes in the western propaganda about China is simply too brain-washed and not too smart
for any cure. Excuse me, I should say "too dumb for any cure".
Exactly right.
And speaking of media bias, Gordon Chang is one of the worst US anti-China propagandist there is he is never right.
The naivete displayed in this article concerning the unavoidable, true, core, fundamental nature of all governments everywhere,[past
present, or future], is, sadly, very, very common in both East, West and all points between.
Reality fact: All governments are 100% corrupt, all the time.
Its impossible for them to be anything else, given the sources of their entirely unearned income.[see first quote below].
To make an exception in the case of modern China succeeds only in highlighting the extreme naivete and gullibility of the articles
author. Either that [naivete/gullibility], or the author is just another communist party hack who has no idea [or doesn't care]
about the extreme danger to all humanity that the communist "ideology" represents, and in particular, has zero idea about how
centralized, top down economic systems all inevitably must "work", and what inevitably must/will happen to majority of the population
in a country that enforces the idiotic, anti- free market, top-down economic policies of any of the various brands of collectivism,
be those policies be labelled "communism", "fascism" ,"nationalism", "democratic socialism", or whatever. Hint: it's called "extreme
poverty and enslavement".
Even the historical record of the 20th century vis a vis all forms of collectivism, [including that of Chinas' "great leap
forward", is consistently ignored/ covered up.[ "That was then, this is now"!]
In "defense" of this author, I'll just remind myself that the very same false assumptions concerning the true nature of all
governments are at the core of almost every Unz.com article I've read here in the last 6 months since I started reading this site.
Indeed, the exact same false assumptions concerning the true nature of all governments are consistently evident in the articles
by the sites owner, Ron Unz. Recently, I even experienced the pleasure of being banned by one author here [A. Karlin], for pointing
out that his own revered "nationalism" was just another brand of socialism.
And so it goes .. :
"Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft [taxes], and counterfeiting [via central bank
monopolies], all governments are essentially, at their very cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams which cannot be "reformed","improved",
nor "limited" in scope, simply because of their innate criminal nature." onebornfree
"Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no way to differentiate the activities
of its founders, administrators and beneficiaries from those of a professional-criminal class." Albert J. Nock
"Why should any self-respecting citizen endorse an institution grounded on thievery? For that is what one does when one votes.
If it be argued that we must let bygones be bygones, see what can be done toward cleaning up the institution of the State so that
it might be useful in the maintenance of orderly existence, the answer is that it cannot be done; you cannot clean up a brothel
and yet leave the business intact. We have been voting for one "good government" after another, and what have we got?" Frank
Chodorov, Out of Step (1962)
"Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure." Robert LeFevre
@d dan " ..media biased Hong Kong
reporting ."
How would American cops react to punks tossing Molotov Cocktails at them? Arson is a felony but there would be no need for a trial
just a coroner.
@Godfree Robertson, What do you think the Chinese diaspora especially in Canada, U.S., and Australia do? The ones that hold foreign
passports I mean. And my experience with Chinese people is they largely dislike the government, but have an extreme aggressive
nationalism for their country which only manifests when a 外国人 says something. Because as far as I can tell Chinese rush to get
out of China and you yourself don't seem to live there either. I personally don't doubt your claims that China will be better
off than America, but why is there still a lot of emigration? Another question are you aware of any attempts or plans to fix the
massive pollution problem? look forward from hearing back from you.
My former employer had no use for corruption, even a paperclip was accounted for due to the office spy. We had only 20 employees
and nobody dared badmouth the boss. My job was terminated when the office spy reported me taking home paper cups from the water
fountain. My boss received his jobs from the local government by bribing a few politicians. But he demanded honesty from his staff.
@onebornfree Reality fact: All you
(((LoLbertarians))) are 100% pedo, all the time.
"In short, we must face the fact that the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children ." -Murray
Rothbard (1926-1995) was the dean of the Austrian School of economics, a founder of lolbertarianism
@Tusk If propaganda is information,
especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view ,
then the PRC doesn't put much out. 80% of Chinese trust it, compared to the 30% of us who trust our media.
And remember, the Chinese are smarter, better educated and more widely traveled than us.
@FatPanda "What do you care really?
Do you have any dogs in this race?"
He is offering thoughts on an article posted on an American website. Perhaps as an expat living in China you've become too
accustomed to only viewing "approved" opinions.
Another drawn out piece from the guy who could not get rich in the capitalist usa and lives the good life in bang-cock thailand
on social. But, whatever, china is for the Chinese and not for the anglo saxons; he is not allowed in but worships from afar.
My 77 years as a participant observer tell me that corruption and criminality are endemic to any large human society so, therefore,
utopianism is a pipe dream.
If AMLO were to invite the Americans into Mexico, he would be lynched. Few Americans are
aware of how much the United States is hated in Latin America, and for that matter in most of
the world. They don't know of the long series of military interventions, brutal dictators
imposed and supported, and economic rapine. Somoza, Pinochet, the Mexican-American War,
detachment of Panama from Colombia, bombardment of Veracruz, Patton's incursion–the list
could go on for pages. The Mexican public would look upon American troops not as saviors but as
invaders. Which they would be.
The incursion would not defeat the cartels, for several reasons that trump would do well to
ponder. To begin with, America starts its wars by overestimating its own powers,
underestimating the enemy, and misunderstanding the kind of war on which it is embarking. The
is exactly what Trump seems to be doing.
He probably thinks of Mexicans as just gardeners and rapists and we have all these beautiful
advanced weapons and beautiful drones and things with blinking lights. A pack of rapists armed
with garden trowels couldn't possibly be difficult to defeat by the US. I mean, get serious:
Dope dealers against the Marines? A cakewalk.
You know, like Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. That sort of cakewalk.
Let's think what an expedition against the narcos would entail, what it would face.
To begin with, Mexico is a huge country of 127 million souls with the narcos spread unevenly
across it. You can't police a nation that size with a small force, or even with a large force.
A (preposterous) million soldiers would be well under one percent of the population. Success
would be impossible even if that population helped you. Which it wouldn't.
Trump's biggest weakness is that he appears incapable of friendships with other adult males
because he trusts no one. This is probably partially the result of his dealing in the
absolutely cut throat New York real estate industry along with his own relentless and long
time need for publicity no matter how outrageous this publicity is? (Remember Trump's forays
into professional wrestling?)
Trump decided to hang out with the dogs and, no surprise, ended up getting fleas.
His continual purging of his cabinet members and his bad mouthing of them afterwards has
probably made his White House staff paranoid about challenging anything that comes out of his
mouth no matter how outrageous it is.
Along with all this self promotion has come an increasing inability to accept any sort of
criticism whatsoever. To claim he is slightly "prickly" is a gross understatement.
Where is Trump's James Baker, or better yet, his Sergey Lavrov. to moderate and control
his goofier instincts
@steinbergfeldwitzcohen
If Trump is smart enough and wants History to write his name with Golden Letters, he has to
order a new and true investigation on 9/11 in his second term.
If anything good can come from the Democrat's incessant efforts to impeach Donald Trump it will be the outgrowth, from the nurturing
'mother of necessity,' of a more inclusive political system that acknowledges more than just a compromised duopoly as the voice of
the American people.
With complete disregard for the consequences of their actions, the Democrat House Intelligence Committee under Adam Schiff has
abandoned all pretense of democratic procedure in their effort to remove the 45th President of the United States from office.
Indeed, the Democrats have provided the Republicans with a Machiavellian crash course on the subtle art of decadent behavior for
getting what you want , which of course is ultimate political power, and to hell in a proverbial hand basket with the consequences.
The Republicans have been snoozing through a game of 2D checkers, holding out hope that Sheriff Billy Barr and his deputy John Durham
will
round
up the real criminals, while the Democrats have been playing mortal combat.
The dark prince in this Gothic tale of diabolical, dare I say biblical, proportions is none other than Adam 'Shifty' Schiff, who,
like Dracula in his castle dungeon, has contorted every House rule to fit the square peg of a Trump telephone call into the bolt
hole of a full-blown impeachment proceeding. Niccolò Machiavelli would have been proud of his modern-day protégé.
As if to mock the very notion of Democratic due process, whatever that means, Schiff and his torch-carrying lynch mob took their
deliberations down into the dank basement, yes, the basement, of the US Capital where they have been holding secretive depositions
in an effort to get some new twist on the now famous phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky back in June. But
why all the cloak and dagger theatrics when the transcript has long been available for public consumption?
At one point, the frazzled Republicans bared a little backbone against this bunker mentality when they
crashed the basement meetings for some really outstanding optics. Schiff, betraying a lack of foresight, could not defenestrate
the well-dressed hooligans since the meetings, as mentioned, are being held inside of a windowless dungeon. The Republican troublemakers
were ushered back up the stairs instead.
Considering what Prince Schiff has managed to pull off over the course of this not-made for television impeachment process is
astounding, and could not have happened without the drooling complicity of the lapdog media corporations. Schiff got the ball bouncing
when he performed a Saturday Night Live skit of the Trump-Zelensky phone call on the hallowed floor of Congress. The imaginary voices
in Schiff's head made the president sound like a mafia boss speaking to one of his lackeys.
Not only did Schiff survive that stunt, it was revealed that he blatantly lied, not once but several times, about his affiliation
with the White House insider, reportedly a CIA officer, who, without ever hearing the Trump-Zelensky phone call firsthand, blew the
whistle anyways. The Democrats claim Trump was looking for some 'quid pro quo' with Kiev, which would dig up the dirt on Joe Biden
and his son Hunter in exchange for the release of $400 million in military aid. The transcript, however, points to no such coercion,
while Zelensky himself denies that he was pressured by Trump.
Meanwhile, Schiff has taken great efforts to keep the identity of the whistleblower a 'secret' out of "safety concerns." The Republicans
in the House said they will subpoena the whistleblower for the public impeachment that starts next week, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio)
told reporters. Yet Schiff has awarded himself the power to reject any witnesses the Republicans may wish to grill.
"We'll see if he gives us any of our witnesses," Jordan said.
A person need not feel any particular fondness for Donald Trump to find these circumstances surrounding the impeachment show trial
as disgraceful, dishonorable and beneath the dignity of the American people. And whether they want it or not, the fallout from Schiff's
shenanigans will have repercussions long into the future of the US political system, which is groaning under the weight of corruption
and deceit.
It is doubtful the Republicans will soon forgive and forget what the Democrats have put them through ever since Trump entered
office in 2016. From Russiagate to Ukrainegate, the Trump White House has been held hostage by a non-stop, media-endorsed hate campaign
to oust a democratically elected POTUS. Although it would be difficult for the Republicans, who lack the support of the media, an
overwhelmingly left-leaning propaganda machine, to exact an equal amount of revenge on the Democrats when the latter have one of
their own in the White House, they will certainly try. This will lead the Republic into an inescapable vortex of infighting where
the sole function of the political system will be based on that of vengeance and 'pay backs' and more waste of time and money as
the parties investigate the crimes of the other side.
The public, which is slowly awakening to the problem, will ultimately demand new leadership to break the current two-party internecine
struggle. Thus, talk of a civil war in the United States, while possible, is being overplayed. The truth will be much simpler and
far less violent.
Out of the dust and ashes of the defunct duopoly that is now at war with itself, the American people will soon demand fresh political
blood in Washington and this will bring to the forefront capable political forces that are committed to the primary purpose of politics:
representing the needs of the people, once again. Tags Politics
As it turns out the once apathetic and flustered American woke up pissed off, in large numbers I might add. They sensed that
someone was starting to mess with their happy blind relationship to the materialistic free market American dream. In other words,
they are broke for the most part or are working like a beast to stay even. I get it.
"Apathy does not make us stupid. On the contrary, a great deal of energy is used to offset the world and hibernate in an
apathetic state of existence. Apathy requires an acute awareness of the obvious. It is what drives some to having a broken "give
a damn". Many can only cope with the influence of the pressure of reality by excusing themselves from it and gathering in flocks
for comfort. They yearn for a sheep dog."
And now they are awake, angry and wanting revenge against whomever shattered their illusion of American integrity. In most
respects some have herded together and really are angry political mobs.
So why hasn't Graham started a senate investigation into this whole Ukrainian affair? Why hasn't he called all of Adam Schiff's
witnesses into one of his own investigations of this thing and gotten the truth out of them under penalty of perjury should they
not come clean?
Republicans are as usual cowering in the corner hoping this will all pass by without harming their re-election chances. There
are precious few that really care and the bug eyed liar has them shut down totally. If they were playing chess, the Dems would
have the Republicans in a constant state of Check (thanks to the unwavering support of their media lap dogs). The Republicans
would be sitting at the table hoping time would run out while wetting their pants in fear that they would be discovered to be
the weak kneed mamas boys in suits who just had their lunch money stolen AGAIN by the big bad Dem boys & girls.
The Democratic Socialists will absorb the butthurt left, and Pelosi, Waters, Schiff and the rest will die naturally soon enough.
This is a result of Democrats' identity politics, and radicalizing of the left.
The Republicans will likely move farther right. Both parties will continue to spend too much - just on different causes. But
when the DS get rolling, probably with someone like AOC at the helm, it will be Kristallnacht all over again.
Except this time it will be Christians and conservatives.
I would say that a 3rd and 4th party are not only inevitable but the next organic evolution of party. This will help explain
why --> The Altered States
of America.
If there is one thing that truly illustrates the psychotic break with reality the Democrats, DC Deep State Establishment, and
their *useless* idiots in the MSM have suffered, it has to be the bizarre situation with the identity of the *whistleblower* that
EVERYONE on the planet knows but that somehow THEY think they have kept *secret*.
Cue the Twilight Zone music, America, because THAT takes a special kind of crazy! Lol! 25th Amendment for every Democrat in
the House??
On top of THAT craziness, Sen. Lindsay Graham has made it clear to Dems that if ERIC C*a*Amella (You literally cannot post
comments with his name! Hysterical! lol) does not publicly testify, their show trial is DOA in the Senate. So I hope they have
fun with their impeachment coup to nowhere as ERIC C*A*a*ell* sits like some bloated political elephant in the room for the next
two weeks!
On the upside, it will be loads of fun watching a bunch of crazy people have their mental breakdown on national T.V. so, by
all means, Dems, PLEASE carry on!
The political system is dead. You cannot run this freak show before people in the age of Internet. Most of deplorables are
more online savvy than their ruling political class.
Schiff has connections to sex trafficking and pedophilia. He has a lot to do with well know activities in the Standard Hotel
(west Pedowood) involving minors and powerful people in that filthy city which include politicians and business people. You easily
start with Ed Buck which the media has buried quickly.
This is an excellent example of Orwellian cognitive dissonance.
Everyone knows that almost all, if not all, politicians are bought off to the highest bidder.
Everyone knows that the people who control the money system have the most money.
But very few will logically assemble those two data points and conclude what exists in reality - that the Money Power Monopolists
CONTROL BOTH PARTIES!
Schitt and his cult of DemonRats represents the darkest elements of society. So without writing a long list you already know,
here's what you should prepare yourself for.
Buy guns, ammo, cameras and survival supplies to last a few months.
Civil War 2.0 is coming.
We didn't start this war, but we sure as hell will finish it.
The time has come to take this country back from an elite permanent political class who doesn't give a damn about you, your
family, your future.
Lock and load, the San Fransicko **** has already hit the fan.
The public is in a mood to vote out RINO Republicans and most Democrats, and vote in MAGA Republicans. The Democrats will all
but disappear from sight for awhile. After they reorganize and dump their radicals and after their corrupt ones go to jail, and
after the MSM completely falls apart -- they will then come back, but probably not till 2024 or 2026
The two party political system was never much of a democratic system at all. It's been with us since 1854, and has polarized
the country more than once, the first time being the Civil War. In 2003, the MIT professor Noam Chomsky said, "In the US, there
is basically one party - the business party. It has two factions, called Democrats and Republicans, which are somewhat different
but carry out variations on the same policies".
The two party system should be ended, and the Voter Access laws be repealed, and Gerrymandering districts be prohibited. Even
your own vote means nothing, since it is only designed to ratify a selection someone else made for you. The only selection you
can make is choosing personalities, but never on issues or money. You are never allowed to be a participant in the American political
system, but rather, just a "consumer". Why? Because the American society is ruled by an Oligarchy! Why would they want to allow
you to share power with them? None of this is what is practiced in a true democracy. The entire system needs to undergo some major
changes.
Trump will leave power, but these self-aggrandizing intelligence agencies will
remain.
Something the stupid voters never seem to realize – the permanent government doesn't
give a rats ass about democracy, freedom, human rights, security, your dog, your property,
and most of all – your integrity. "Fuck you stupid voters – now go elect another moron – we've got governments
to overthrow"
" The Democratic establishment is deeply and widely imbued with rancid Russophobic
attitudes."
As are the Republican establishment and even such faux dissidents as Andrew Napolitano and
Patrick Buchanan in columns easily found here on The Unz Review.
Exceptionalia needs enemies to keep the sheep herded when the Red v Blue politics and
increasingly absurd culture skirmishes aren't sufficiently distracting.
Excellent summation of the current predicament involving Trump and his ruthless foes. The
greatest and most ridiculous 'conspiracy theory' of all is Russiagate itself–yet this
politicized hoax is not being allowed to die a natural death; thus the Demorat impeachment
inquiry.
So now we have entered Stage Two of this toxic and unnecessary melodrama. We can thank the
partisan, biased and subversive 'mainstream' media for this downward step.
Ironically, the media's rank dishonesty is turning Trump into a heroic figure. This is
poetic justice.
Haven't our media overlords heard?–the Soviet Union is dead.
In its place is Christian Russia. So why the enmity?
Might these lingering tensions have more than a little to do with Putin's stubborn
alliance with Syria and Iran? It sure looks that way.
It must be noted that Israel remains deeply disturbed over the Russia-Iran-Syria
federation. But that's Israel's problem. America is not burdened by those historic
antagonisms, regional rivalries, or security concerns. Americans should therefore be
relieved. Only we're not allowed to be.
The Zionist state has deviously entwined its security interests with America's. Israel and
Zio-America have been artificially conjoined at the political hip. Didn't you hear?
This political union is good for the Jews. The Americans?–less so. Far less.
Unless we can extricate ourselves, this unnatural 'partnership' may end in a cataclysm
Something the stupid voters never seem to realize – the permanent government
doesn't give a rats ass about democracy, freedom, human rights, security, your dog, your
property, and most of all – your integrity.
The Deep State doesn't care about the unimportant internecine squabbles of the 'two
parties' as long as their important issues are maintained. As a matter of fact it strengthens
the false perception that there is a choice when voting.
Trump and the Deep State do not care what the American people want. They know that most
American people are inane fools and will believe anything. Most Americans would rather watch
America's Got Talent or Dancing With The Stars than be informed about important issues.
I think if President Trump was faced with a Cuban Missile Crisis situation the outcome could
be very different to the first time. On that occasion the two superpowers, despite coming
close to open war, were able to contain and de-escalate. The conditions are very different
today. As Professor Cohen says," The current state of US-Russian relations is unprecedentedly
dangerous, not only due to reasons cited here -- a new Cold War fraught with the possibility
of hot war." In this context it is essential the president is "fully empowered to cope with
the multiple possibilities of a US-Russian military confrontation."
One problem is that the original Cold War was the peace, a post-world war environment: today
we are in pre-world war environment. There is a dangerous misconception that a Cold War
sequel will have the same peaceful ending. The world has experienced periods of peace (or
relative peace) throughout history. The Thirty Years Peace between the two Peloponnesian
Wars, Pax Romana, Europe in the 19th century after the Congress of Vienna, to name a few. The
Congress System finally collapsed in 1914 with the start of World War One. That conflict was
followed by the League of Nations. It did not stop World War Two. That was followed by the
United Nations and other post-war institutions. But all the indications are they will not
prevent a third world war. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
"The New York Times seem eager to delegitimize the investigation by Attorney General William
Barr and his appointed special investigator John Durham."
Ya know, the investigation would be a lot harder to delegitimize if it the guys doing it
didn't whitewash Iran/Contra, like Barr, or systematic and widespread CIA torture, like
Durham. You put lifelong CIA whores hot on the trail of illegal CIA domestic operations
against political enemies? Come on. Nobody with a 3-digit IQ can keep a straight face.
You want this shit to stop? Then do to Langley what the Germans did to their Stasi. CIA
investigation of CIA crimes do not pass the laff test anymore.
Trump's problem was described in simple terms by John Connelly when talking with Henry
Kissinger. "Henry", he said, "In Washington you are judged by the men you've destroyed".
Trump has not destroyed anyone, not Comey, not Brennan, not Clapper. So he is viewed as weak,
an easy target. So they just keep piling on. Attacking Trump is viewed as a "penalty-free
activity
Russia's new "hyper-sonic" missiles, which can elude US missile-defense systems, make
new nuclear arms negotiations with Moscow imperative and urgent. If only for the sake of
his legacy, Trump is likely to want to do so
This makes little sense. Russia and the U.S. are not enemies, and are potentially allies.
Why would a U.S.-Russia treaty be desirable? The U.S. wants to help Russia defend its South
western border against dangerous nations, such as Turkey & Iran.
A U.S.-China treaty would be helpful, but China is unlikely to accept anything that might
interfere with their colonial ambitions.
____
Also, the author is likely overestimating Russia's technical prowess. Does anyone remember
the recent incident the Russians had with their nuclear powered "Skyfall" cruise missile?
(1)
The mysterious explosion on August 8 at the Russian navy's range in Nyonoksa killed
seven and spurred fears that Russia was testing its nuclear-powered Burevestnik missile,
also known by the NATO codename 'Skyfall.' But U.S. intelligence indicates the fatal
explosion occurred as Russia attempted to salvage a downed Skyfall missile from the ocean
floor,
Russia has reportedly conducted five unsuccessful tests of Skyfall since November 2017,
all resulting in loss of control and crashes. The longest test lasted for two minutes with
the missile flying 22 miles, and the shortest lasted four seconds and five miles.
@Giuseppe I'm a huge fan
of Stephen Cohen's, but, with bi-partisanship dead, his calling for a new Church commission
is pie-in-the-sky. Nothing good can happen until this impeachment farce is over.
In fact, I'd say that Barr and Durham better hurry up and indict someone. There is less
than a year left before the next election, which only leaves a few weeks this year, and the
first few months in 2020. Once there's like 3-4 months to go before the election it will be
too late. And, BTW, where is the long-awaited IG Horowitz's report? Tick Tock guys.
We've been hearing that for a long time, but one thing to remember is: Islam is a
foreign(ers')-identity in Russia. It won't be taking over the political center in Russia
anytime soon, nor getting any European-Russian converts.
@Dan
Hayes Russia hadn't seized anything. The Black Sea Fleet had always been stationed there.
After the Ukrainian government proposed outlawing the Russian language and ethnic Ukrainians
attacked the Crimean parliament, Crimeans, the vast majority of whom are ethnic Russians,
moved to hold a referendum.
As I have also argued repeatedly, a new Church Committee is urgently needed. It's time
for honorable members of the Senate of both parties to do their duty.
The CIA activities restricted by the Church Committee never stopped. They continued "off
the books", financed by drug trafficking, illegal arms sales, and (especially) by kickbacks
from legitimate but overpriced arms contracts with Saudi Arabia. The close relationship with
the Saudi royal family raises awkward questions about who this part of the CIA is really
working for.
A new Church Committee would only be able to investigate the parts of the CIA that it can
see. It is probably impossible for the US government to control the "off-books" parts of the
CIA.
Here too there is an inconvenient truth: To the extent that Democrats any longer
seriously discuss national security in the context of US-Russian relations, it mostly
involves vilifying both Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin. (Recall also that previous
presidents were free to negotiate with Russia's Soviet communist leaders, even encouraged
to do so, whereas the demonized Putin is an anti-communist, post-Soviet leader.)
Maybe, the fallacy is to think that Democrats were ever opposed to communism. As one can
learn around here, WWII was the joint venture to destroy european national cultures and force
them under globalist domination. The Roosevelt administration did about everything to
strengthen communism. The current Russian leadership is as sanely nationalist as it gets.
Possibly, that is the problem?
What struck me first, before I woke up, was that the ultimate accusation against Russia
– before the Ukraine affair started – was that they were said to be homophopbic.
While this can be a fault in the eyes of a dedicated liberal, to anyone who has lived through
the Cold War, that accusation was outlandishly irrelevant.
The problem that liberal globalists have with Russia is exactly their sanity. Saying this, I
do not want to insinuate that Republicans are sane, just for the record. They are the other
side of the coin in the big charade.
The Bolsheviks in Russia told everyone that they were a Political Party – just like the
Communists Party etc. The Democrats and Republicans say the same thing , but they are more
Bolshevik than any American wants to admit. The Wars, the Police state, the original
European, African, Native American societies being destroyed is not the best example –
if you are pushing for a NWO. It has failed but they are taking down as many as they can
– along with their evil Order. This should one of the highest priority, of most writers
today. Thanks Unz Rev.
@Dan
Hayes From which entity? The country – existing as a unity upon the foundation of a
constitution, known as Ukraine – stopped being that entity when a bunch of people
toppled a constitutionally mandated government with an unconstitutional coup.
You demand peoples and regions of the former Ukraine remain united? Under what unifying
law? The constitution? But the Maidan people tore it apart to get into power. Why would those
that take the other side of the debate agree to be governed by law they know their opposition
has already, and will again, trod on?
Practically speaking, Ukraine after Maidan is not the same entity as Ukraine before, as
there is no social contract left that everyone is willing to be bound by.
Crimea being autonomous, had more freedom than the rest to jump ship, and so they did. But
any region can now go, because anyone saying 'but the Constitution bans secession', forget
that the people who speak this within Ukraine are those exact same people who tore the
Constitution apart.
But don't think it'a just political entities such as Crimea that migrated to Russia of
their own wills (as the UN Charter demands), millions of labourers have left for Russia from
the remaining entity too, and there was no Putin there at each of their houses, giving
personal pep talks over tea about how Russia is better, and how they should migrate accross
the border. People chose with their own feet.
Here's a question – if tomorrow a bunch of gunmen threw out congress, the judiciary,
and the executive from Washington DC, and replaced them with their own – would you
consider that the individual states were then still bound to the federal government through
the Constitution? Would you demand honour from one side, knowing fullwell that the other side
is dishonourable?
Most telling was (and remains) a core "Russiagate" allegation that "Russia attacked
American democracy during the 2016 presidential election" on Trump's behalf -- an "attack"
so nefarious it has often been equated with Pearl Harbor.
What's seemingly bizarre is that these modern day Dems with their 'Russiagate' obsession
are the very same people who not so many years back would eat up a 1966 movie like 'The
Russians Are Coming, the Russians are Coming', with it's message that the Soviet Union along
with its Communism was perfectly innocuous (just a laugh really), and the Cold War itself was
all a big joke, and pay to see it multiple times.
It's not so bizarre, though, as there is an underlining continuity in all this, then and
now.
They hate the organic Russian people and their culture, then and now. That hasn't
changed.
A USSR of the past with the Russian people safely subjugated/crushed under Soviet
Communism, they like and are okay with.
A Russian Federation where the Russian people appear to have moved away from Communism
they don't like. That's dangerous.
Russians shouldn't necessarily feel too bad though about this as they are not the only
people so hated. These sorts hate most peoples which attempt to express their physical and
cultural identity, often even their own at times.
There's a hatred for most all of humanity there which stems from an underlying self hatred
with these types.
Trump will leave power, but these self-aggrandizing intelligence agencies will
remain.
Something the stupid voters never seem to realize – the permanent government doesn't
give a rats ass about democracy, freedom, human rights, security, your dog, your property,
and most of all – your integrity. "Fuck you stupid voters – now go elect another moron – we've got governments
to overthrow"
" The Democratic establishment is deeply and widely imbued with rancid Russophobic
attitudes."
As are the Republican establishment and even such faux dissidents as Andrew Napolitano and
Patrick Buchanan in columns easily found here on The Unz Review.
Exceptionalia needs enemies to keep the sheep herded when the Red v Blue politics and
increasingly absurd culture skirmishes aren't sufficiently distracting.
Excellent summation of the current predicament involving Trump and his ruthless foes. The
greatest and most ridiculous 'conspiracy theory' of all is Russiagate itself–yet this
politicized hoax is not being allowed to die a natural death; thus the Demorat impeachment
inquiry.
So now we have entered Stage Two of this toxic and unnecessary melodrama. We can thank the
partisan, biased and subversive 'mainstream' media for this downward step.
Ironically, the media's rank dishonesty is turning Trump into a heroic figure. This is
poetic justice.
Haven't our media overlords heard?–the Soviet Union is dead.
In its place is Christian Russia. So why the enmity?
Might these lingering tensions have more than a little to do with Putin's stubborn
alliance with Syria and Iran? It sure looks that way.
It must be noted that Israel remains deeply disturbed over the Russia-Iran-Syria
federation. But that's Israel's problem. America is not burdened by those historic
antagonisms, regional rivalries, or security concerns. Americans should therefore be
relieved. Only we're not allowed to be.
The Zionist state has deviously entwined its security interests with America's. Israel and
Zio-America have been artificially conjoined at the political hip. Didn't you hear?
This political union is good for the Jews. The Americans?–less so. Far less.
Unless we can extricate ourselves, this unnatural 'partnership' may end in a cataclysm
Something the stupid voters never seem to realize – the permanent government
doesn't give a rats ass about democracy, freedom, human rights, security, your dog, your
property, and most of all – your integrity.
The Deep State doesn't care about the unimportant internecine squabbles of the 'two
parties' as long as their important issues are maintained. As a matter of fact it strengthens
the false perception that there is a choice when voting.
Trump and the Deep State do not care what the American people want. They know that most
American people are inane fools and will believe anything. Most Americans would rather watch
America's Got Talent or Dancing With The Stars than be informed about important issues.
I think if President Trump was faced with a Cuban Missile Crisis situation the outcome could
be very different to the first time. On that occasion the two superpowers, despite coming
close to open war, were able to contain and de-escalate. The conditions are very different
today. As Professor Cohen says," The current state of US-Russian relations is unprecedentedly
dangerous, not only due to reasons cited here -- a new Cold War fraught with the possibility
of hot war." In this context it is essential the president is "fully empowered to cope with
the multiple possibilities of a US-Russian military confrontation."
One problem is that the original Cold War was the peace, a post-world war environment: today
we are in pre-world war environment. There is a dangerous misconception that a Cold War
sequel will have the same peaceful ending. The world has experienced periods of peace (or
relative peace) throughout history. The Thirty Years Peace between the two Peloponnesian
Wars, Pax Romana, Europe in the 19th century after the Congress of Vienna, to name a few. The
Congress System finally collapsed in 1914 with the start of World War One. That conflict was
followed by the League of Nations. It did not stop World War Two. That was followed by the
United Nations and other post-war institutions. But all the indications are they will not
prevent a third world war. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
"The New York Times seem eager to delegitimize the investigation by Attorney General William
Barr and his appointed special investigator John Durham."
Ya know, the investigation would be a lot harder to delegitimize if it the guys doing it
didn't whitewash Iran/Contra, like Barr, or systematic and widespread CIA torture, like
Durham. You put lifelong CIA whores hot on the trail of illegal CIA domestic operations
against political enemies? Come on. Nobody with a 3-digit IQ can keep a straight face.
You want this shit to stop? Then do to Langley what the Germans did to their Stasi. CIA
investigation of CIA crimes do not pass the laff test anymore.
Trump's problem was described in simple terms by John Connelly when talking with Henry
Kissinger. "Henry", he said, "In Washington you are judged by the men you've destroyed".
Trump has not destroyed anyone, not Comey, not Brennan, not Clapper. So he is viewed as weak,
an easy target. So they just keep piling on. Attacking Trump is viewed as a "penalty-free
activity
Russia's new "hyper-sonic" missiles, which can elude US missile-defense systems, make
new nuclear arms negotiations with Moscow imperative and urgent. If only for the sake of
his legacy, Trump is likely to want to do so
This makes little sense. Russia and the U.S. are not enemies, and are potentially allies.
Why would a U.S.-Russia treaty be desirable? The U.S. wants to help Russia defend its South
western border against dangerous nations, such as Turkey & Iran.
A U.S.-China treaty would be helpful, but China is unlikely to accept anything that might
interfere with their colonial ambitions.
____
Also, the author is likely overestimating Russia's technical prowess. Does anyone remember
the recent incident the Russians had with their nuclear powered "Skyfall" cruise missile?
(1)
The mysterious explosion on August 8 at the Russian navy's range in Nyonoksa killed
seven and spurred fears that Russia was testing its nuclear-powered Burevestnik missile,
also known by the NATO codename 'Skyfall.' But U.S. intelligence indicates the fatal
explosion occurred as Russia attempted to salvage a downed Skyfall missile from the ocean
floor,
Russia has reportedly conducted five unsuccessful tests of Skyfall since November 2017,
all resulting in loss of control and crashes. The longest test lasted for two minutes with
the missile flying 22 miles, and the shortest lasted four seconds and five miles.
@Giuseppe I'm a huge fan
of Stephen Cohen's, but, with bi-partisanship dead, his calling for a new Church commission
is pie-in-the-sky. Nothing good can happen until this impeachment farce is over.
In fact, I'd say that Barr and Durham better hurry up and indict someone. There is less
than a year left before the next election, which only leaves a few weeks this year, and the
first few months in 2020. Once there's like 3-4 months to go before the election it will be
too late. And, BTW, where is the long-awaited IG Horowitz's report? Tick Tock guys.
We've been hearing that for a long time, but one thing to remember is: Islam is a
foreign(ers')-identity in Russia. It won't be taking over the political center in Russia
anytime soon, nor getting any European-Russian converts.
@Dan
Hayes Russia hadn't seized anything. The Black Sea Fleet had always been stationed there.
After the Ukrainian government proposed outlawing the Russian language and ethnic Ukrainians
attacked the Crimean parliament, Crimeans, the vast majority of whom are ethnic Russians,
moved to hold a referendum.
As I have also argued repeatedly, a new Church Committee is urgently needed. It's time
for honorable members of the Senate of both parties to do their duty.
The CIA activities restricted by the Church Committee never stopped. They continued "off
the books", financed by drug trafficking, illegal arms sales, and (especially) by kickbacks
from legitimate but overpriced arms contracts with Saudi Arabia. The close relationship with
the Saudi royal family raises awkward questions about who this part of the CIA is really
working for.
A new Church Committee would only be able to investigate the parts of the CIA that it can
see. It is probably impossible for the US government to control the "off-books" parts of the
CIA.
Here too there is an inconvenient truth: To the extent that Democrats any longer
seriously discuss national security in the context of US-Russian relations, it mostly
involves vilifying both Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin. (Recall also that previous
presidents were free to negotiate with Russia's Soviet communist leaders, even encouraged
to do so, whereas the demonized Putin is an anti-communist, post-Soviet leader.)
Maybe, the fallacy is to think that Democrats were ever opposed to communism. As one can
learn around here, WWII was the joint venture to destroy european national cultures and force
them under globalist domination. The Roosevelt administration did about everything to
strengthen communism. The current Russian leadership is as sanely nationalist as it gets.
Possibly, that is the problem?
What struck me first, before I woke up, was that the ultimate accusation against Russia
– before the Ukraine affair started – was that they were said to be homophopbic.
While this can be a fault in the eyes of a dedicated liberal, to anyone who has lived through
the Cold War, that accusation was outlandishly irrelevant.
The problem that liberal globalists have with Russia is exactly their sanity. Saying this, I
do not want to insinuate that Republicans are sane, just for the record. They are the other
side of the coin in the big charade.
The Bolsheviks in Russia told everyone that they were a Political Party – just like the
Communists Party etc. The Democrats and Republicans say the same thing , but they are more
Bolshevik than any American wants to admit. The Wars, the Police state, the original
European, African, Native American societies being destroyed is not the best example –
if you are pushing for a NWO. It has failed but they are taking down as many as they can
– along with their evil Order. This should one of the highest priority, of most writers
today. Thanks Unz Rev.
@Dan
Hayes From which entity? The country – existing as a unity upon the foundation of a
constitution, known as Ukraine – stopped being that entity when a bunch of people
toppled a constitutionally mandated government with an unconstitutional coup.
You demand peoples and regions of the former Ukraine remain united? Under what unifying
law? The constitution? But the Maidan people tore it apart to get into power. Why would those
that take the other side of the debate agree to be governed by law they know their opposition
has already, and will again, trod on?
Practically speaking, Ukraine after Maidan is not the same entity as Ukraine before, as
there is no social contract left that everyone is willing to be bound by.
Crimea being autonomous, had more freedom than the rest to jump ship, and so they did. But
any region can now go, because anyone saying 'but the Constitution bans secession', forget
that the people who speak this within Ukraine are those exact same people who tore the
Constitution apart.
But don't think it'a just political entities such as Crimea that migrated to Russia of
their own wills (as the UN Charter demands), millions of labourers have left for Russia from
the remaining entity too, and there was no Putin there at each of their houses, giving
personal pep talks over tea about how Russia is better, and how they should migrate accross
the border. People chose with their own feet.
Here's a question – if tomorrow a bunch of gunmen threw out congress, the judiciary,
and the executive from Washington DC, and replaced them with their own – would you
consider that the individual states were then still bound to the federal government through
the Constitution? Would you demand honour from one side, knowing fullwell that the other side
is dishonourable?
Most telling was (and remains) a core "Russiagate" allegation that "Russia attacked
American democracy during the 2016 presidential election" on Trump's behalf -- an "attack"
so nefarious it has often been equated with Pearl Harbor.
What's seemingly bizarre is that these modern day Dems with their 'Russiagate' obsession
are the very same people who not so many years back would eat up a 1966 movie like 'The
Russians Are Coming, the Russians are Coming', with it's message that the Soviet Union along
with its Communism was perfectly innocuous (just a laugh really), and the Cold War itself was
all a big joke, and pay to see it multiple times.
It's not so bizarre, though, as there is an underlining continuity in all this, then and
now.
They hate the organic Russian people and their culture, then and now. That hasn't
changed.
A USSR of the past with the Russian people safely subjugated/crushed under Soviet
Communism, they like and are okay with.
A Russian Federation where the Russian people appear to have moved away from Communism
they don't like. That's dangerous.
Russians shouldn't necessarily feel too bad though about this as they are not the only
people so hated. These sorts hate most peoples which attempt to express their physical and
cultural identity, often even their own at times.
There's a hatred for most all of humanity there which stems from an underlying self hatred
with these types.
"... Trump's surprising victory forced a pivot, with Clapper, Brennan and Comey adjusting the narrative to make it appear that Trump the traitor may have captured the White House due to help from the Kremlin, making him a latter-day Manchurian Candidate. The lesser allegations of Russian meddling were quickly elevated to devastating assertions that the Republican had only won with Putin's assistance. ..."
"... The national security team acted to protect their candidate Hillary Clinton, who represented America's Deep State. In spite of considerable naysaying, the Deep State is real, not just a wild conspiracy theory. Many Americans nevertheless do not believe that the Deep State exists, that it is a politically driven media creation much like Russiagate itself was, but if one changes the wording a bit and describes the Deep State as the Establishment, with its political power focused in Washington and its financial center in New York City, the argument that there exists a cohesive group of power brokers who really run the country becomes much more plausible. ..."
"... It is now known that President Barack Obama's CIA Director John Brennan created a Trump Task Force in early 2016. Rather than working against genuine foreign threats, this Task Force played a critical role in creating and feeding the meme that Donald Trump was a tool of the Russians and a puppet of President Vladimir Putin, a claim that still surfaces regularly to this day. Working with James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, Brennan fabricated the narrative that "Russia had interfered in the 2016 election." Brennan and Clapper promoted that tale even though they knew very well that Russia and the United States have carried out a broad array of covert actions against each other, including information operations, for the past seventy years, but they pretended that what happened in 2016 was qualitatively and substantively different even though the "evidence" produced to support that claim was and still is weak to nonexistent. ..."
"... With the help of the Establishment media, Clapper and Brennan were able to pretend that the ICA had been approved by "all 17 intelligence agencies" (as first claimed by Hillary Clinton). After several months, however Clapper revealed that the preparers of the ICA were "handpicked analysts" from only the FBI, CIA, and NSA. He explained rather unconvincingly during an interview on May 28, 2017, that "the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique," adding later that "It's in their DNA." ..."
"... And this was not a CIA-only operation. Personnel from the FBI also were assigned to the Task Force with the approval of then Director James Comey. Former MI-6 agent Christopher Steele's FBI handler, Michael Gaeta, may have been one of those detailed to the Trump Task Force. Steele, of course, prepared the notorious dossier that was surfaced shortly before Donald Trump took office. It included considerable material intended to tie Trump to Russia, information that was in many cases fabricated or unsourced. ..."
"... The case officers would work with foreign intelligence services such as MI-6, the Italians, the Ukrainians and the Australians on identifying intelligence collection priorities that would implicate Trump and his associates in illegal activity. And there is evidence that John Brennan himself would contact his counterparts in allied intelligence services to obtain their discreet cooperation, something they would be inclined to do in collegial fashion, ignoring whatever reservations they might have about spying on a possible American presidential candidate. ..."
"... e Task Force also could carry out other covert actions, sometimes using press or social media placements to disseminate fabrications about Trump and his associates. Information operations is a benign-sounding euphemism for propaganda fed through the Agency's friends in the media, and computer network operations can be used to create false linkages and misdirect inquiries. There has been some informed speculation that Guccifer 2.0 may have been a creation of this Task Force. ..."
"... In light of what has been learned about the alleged CIA whistleblower there should be a serious investigation to determine if he was a part of this Task Force or, at minimum, reporting to them secretly after he was seconded to the National Security Council. All the CIA and FBI officers involved in the Task Force had sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, but nevertheless were involved in a conspiracy to first denigrate and then possibly bring down a legally elected president. That effort continues with repeated assertions regarding Moscow's malevolent intentions for the 2020 national elections. Some might reasonably regard the whole Brennan affair, to include its spear carriers among the current and retired national security state leadership, as a case of institutionalized treason, and it inevitably leads to the question "What did Obama know?" ..."
"... Obama orchestrated the destruction of a political rival and he will get away scott free .because he's an oppressed and downtrodden dindu. ..."
"... But in fact Obama too is CIA nomenklatura, with the same depth of dynastic ties as GW Bush, albeit not at the same lofty level. ..."
"... This past election was CIA office politics, nothing more. Russigate is simply CIA eminence Hillary, the Queen of Mena, ratfucking a bumptious queue-jumper. She outranks Trump, who was merely a junior money-launderer for the CIA agents who looted the Soviet Union. It was her turn to take the figurehead head-of-state sinecure. She and Bill earned it with their lucrative Clinton Foundation covert-ops slush fund. ..."
"... And has been since the early 1950s when the Allen Dulles-Frank Wisner-James Jesus Angleton crew got rolling. They managed to thoroughly penetrate federal and state bureaucracies, the court systems, major corporations, the financial sector, and the mockingbird media. ..."
"... Clapper revealed that the preparers of the ICA were "handpicked analysts" from only the FBI, CIA, and NSA. He explained rather unconvincingly during an interview on May 28, 2017, that "the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique," adding later that "It's in their DNA." ..."
There is considerable evidence that the American system of government may have been
victimized by an illegal covert operation organized and executed by the U.S. intelligence and
national security community. Former Director of National Intelligence Jim Clapper, former CIA
Director John Brennan and former FBI Director Jim Comey appear to have played critical
leadership roles in carrying out this conspiracy and they may not have operated on their own.
Almost certainly what they may have done would have been explicitly authorized by the former
President of the United States, Barack Obama, and his national security team.
It must have seemed a simple operation for the experienced CIA covert action operatives. To
prevent the unreliable and unpredictable political upstart Donald Trump from being nominated as
the GOP presidential candidate or even elected it would be necessary to create suspicion that
he was the tool of a resurgent Russia, acting under direct orders from Vladimir Putin to
empower Trump and damage the campaign of Hillary Clinton. Even though none of the alleged
Kremlin plotters would have expected Trump to actually beat Hillary, it was plausible to
maintain that they would have hoped that a weakened Clinton would be less able to implement the
anti-Russian agenda that she had been promoting. Many observers in both Russia and the U.S.
believed that if she had been elected armed conflict with Moscow would have been inevitable,
particularly if she moved to follow her husband's example and push to have both Georgia and
Ukraine join NATO, which Russia would have regarded as an existential threat.
Trump's surprising victory forced a pivot, with Clapper, Brennan and Comey adjusting the
narrative to make it appear that Trump the traitor may have captured the White House due to
help from the Kremlin, making him a latter-day Manchurian Candidate. The lesser allegations of
Russian meddling were quickly elevated to devastating assertions that the Republican had only
won with Putin's assistance.
No substantive evidence for the claim of serious Russian meddling has ever been produced in
spite of years of investigation, but the real objective was to plant the story that would
plausibly convince a majority of Americans that the election of Donald Trump was somehow
illegitimate.
The national security team acted to protect their candidate Hillary Clinton, who represented
America's Deep State. In spite of considerable naysaying, the Deep State is real, not just a
wild conspiracy theory. Many Americans nevertheless do not believe that the Deep State exists,
that it is a politically driven media creation much like Russiagate itself was, but if one
changes the wording a bit and describes the Deep State as the Establishment, with its political
power focused in Washington and its financial center in New York City, the argument that there
exists a cohesive group of power brokers who really run the country becomes much more
plausible.
The danger posed by the Deep State, or, if you choose, the Establishment, is that it wields
immense power but is unelected and unaccountable. It also operates through relationships that
are not transparent and as the media is part of it, there is little chance that its activity
will be exposed.
Nevertheless, some might even argue that having a Deep State is a healthy part of American
democracy, that it serves as a check or corrective element on a political system that has
largely been corrupted and which no longer serves national interests. But that assessment
surely might have been made before it became clear that many of the leaders of the nation's
intelligence and security agencies are no longer the people's honorable servants they pretend
to be. They have been heavily politicized since at least the time of Ronald Reagan and have
frequently succumbed to the lure of wealth and power while identifying with and promoting the
interests of the Deep State.
Indeed, a number of former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Directors have implicitly or
even directly admitted to the existence of a Deep State that has as one of its roles keeping
presidents like Donald Trump in check. Most recently, John McLaughlin, responding to a question
about Donald Trump's concern over Deep State involvement in the ongoing impeachment process,
said unambiguously "Well, you know, thank God for the 'deep state' With all of the people who
knew what was going on here, it took an intelligence officer to step forward and say something
about it, which was the trigger that then unleashed everything else. This is the institution
within the U.S. government is institutionally committed to objectivity and telling the truth.
It is one of the few institutions in Washington that is not in a chain of command that makes or
implements policy. Its whole job is to speak the truth -- it's engraved in marble in the
lobby."
Well, John's dedication to truth is exemplary but how does he explain his own role in
support of the lies being promoted by his boss George "slam dunk" Tenet that led to the war
against Iraq, the greatest foreign policy disaster ever experienced by the United States? Or
Tenet's sitting in the U.N. directly behind Secretary of State Colin Powell in the debate over
Iraq, providing cover and credibility for what everyone inside the system knew to be a bundle
of lies? Or his close friend and colleague Michael Morell's description of Trump
as a Russian agent , a claim that was supported by zero evidence and which was given
credibility only by Morell's boast that "I ran the CIA."
Beyond that, more details have been revealed demonstrating exactly how Deep State associates
have attempted, with considerable success, to subvert the actual functioning of American
democracy. Words are one thing, but acting to interfere in an electoral process or to undermine
a serving president is a rather more serious matter.
It is
now known that President Barack Obama's CIA Director John Brennan created a Trump Task
Force in early 2016. Rather than working against genuine foreign threats, this Task Force
played a critical role in creating and feeding the meme that Donald Trump was a tool of the
Russians and a puppet of President Vladimir Putin, a claim that still surfaces regularly to
this day. Working with James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, Brennan fabricated
the narrative that "Russia had interfered in the 2016 election." Brennan and Clapper promoted
that tale even though they knew very well that Russia and the United States have carried out a
broad array of covert actions against each other, including information operations, for the
past seventy years, but they pretended that what happened in 2016 was qualitatively and
substantively different even though the "evidence" produced to support that claim was and still
is weak to nonexistent.
The Russian "election interference" narrative went on steroids on January 6, 2017, shortly
before Trump was inaugurated, when an "Intelligence Community Assessment" (ICA) orchestrated by
Clapper and Brennan was published. The banner headline atop The New York Times, itself an
integral part of the Deep State, on the following day set the tone for what was to follow:
"Putin Led Scheme to Aid Trump, Report Says."
With the help of the Establishment media, Clapper and Brennan were able to pretend that the
ICA had been approved by "all 17 intelligence agencies" (as first claimed by Hillary Clinton).
After several months, however Clapper revealed that the preparers of the ICA were "handpicked
analysts" from only the FBI, CIA, and NSA. He explained rather
unconvincingly during an interview on May 28, 2017, that "the historical practices of the
Russians, who typically, are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor,
whatever, which is a typical Russian technique," adding later that "It's in their DNA."
Task Force Trump was kept secret within the Agency itself because the CIA is not supposed to
spy on Americans. Its staff was pulled together by invitation-only. Specific case officers
(i.e., men and women who recruit and handle spies overseas), analysts and administrative
personnel were recruited, presumably based on their political reliability. Not everyone invited
accepted the offer. But many did because it came with promises of promotion and other
rewards.
And this was not a CIA-only operation. Personnel from the FBI also were assigned to the Task
Force with the approval of then Director James Comey. Former MI-6 agent Christopher Steele's
FBI handler, Michael Gaeta, may have been one of those detailed to the Trump Task Force.
Steele, of course, prepared the notorious dossier that was surfaced shortly before Donald Trump
took office. It included considerable material intended to tie Trump to Russia, information
that was in many cases fabricated or unsourced.
So, what kind of things would this Task Force do? The case officers would work with foreign
intelligence services such as MI-6, the Italians, the Ukrainians and the Australians on
identifying intelligence collection priorities that would implicate Trump and his associates in
illegal activity. And there is evidence that John Brennan himself would contact his
counterparts in allied intelligence services to obtain their discreet cooperation, something
they would be inclined to do in collegial fashion, ignoring whatever reservations they might
have about spying on a possible American presidential candidate.
Trump Task Force members could have also tasked the National Security Agency (NSA) to do
targeted collection. They also would have the ability to engage in complicated covert actions
that would further set up and entrap Trump and his staff in questionable activity, such as the
targeting of associate George Papadopoulos. If he is ever properly interviewed, Maltese
citizen Joseph Mifsud may be able to shed light on the CIA officers who met with him, briefed
him on operational objectives regarding Papadopoulos and helped arrange monitored meetings. It
is highly likely that Azra Turk, the woman who met with George Papadopoulos, was part of the
CIA Trump Task Force.
The Task Force also could carry out other covert actions, sometimes using press or social
media placements to disseminate fabrications about Trump and his associates. Information
operations is a benign-sounding euphemism for propaganda fed through the Agency's friends in
the media, and computer network operations can be used to create false linkages and misdirect
inquiries. There has been some informed speculation that Guccifer 2.0 may have been a creation
of this Task Force.
In light of what has been learned about the alleged CIA whistleblower there should be a
serious investigation to determine if he was a part of this Task Force or, at minimum,
reporting to them secretly after he was seconded to the National Security Council. All the CIA
and FBI officers involved in the Task Force had sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution of the
United States, but nevertheless were involved in a conspiracy to first denigrate and then
possibly bring down a legally elected president. That effort continues with repeated assertions
regarding Moscow's malevolent intentions for the 2020 national elections. Some might reasonably
regard the whole Brennan affair, to include its spear carriers among the current and retired
national security state leadership, as a case of institutionalized treason, and it inevitably
leads to the question "What did Obama know?"
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest,
a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a
more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its
email is[email protected] .
The entire FISA court process has been exposed as an insane sham.
"The Secret Team" just took the absurdity of the process and raised it to the next
level–injecting it into a political campaign.
It would be wonderful if they could fill a jail with every empty suit who touched those
warrants–but I would be stunned if even one of them gets paraded around in the orange
jump-suit they so richly deserve. Read More Replies:
@Moi
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
Looking on at this affair from outside the USA, it is clear that the power and influence of
the USA is waning a lot faster than most people expected.
The replacement of the US military by mercenaries who are called other names was a first
step. The sanctioning and punishing of allies for stepping out of line is the second step.
BTW, it is notable how Japan and Australia are very keen to stay in line but the Europeans
less so.
I suspect the third step will be to encourage a collapse of the Euro – so as to make
wealthy Europeans shift their money to the USA in a panic.
It seems to me that the US public will be the last to learn of what is really happening.
Even on this website there are sometimes letters or articles that mention 9/11 as a
"terrorist" or "Saudi" act. How can one take anything such a person writes seriously?
The control of media and the internet seems to be the last part of the collapse. They will
hang on to that to the very last moment.
John Brennan's CIA Trump Task Force
Could it become Obamagate?
Perhaps, but what is the point? All this bullshit is engineered to make dumbass Americans
think justice is being served. Nothing will come of it no one will go to prison.
As if Trump weren't part and parcel of the Deep State.
His actions in Syria, Bolivia, Hong Kong, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, etc. all prove
incontrovertibly that he is (and has always been) a member in fine standing of the Deep
State. If he is a Manchurian Candidate, he is the true puppet of the Deep State, not the
people or of Russia.
Exactly. I voted for Trump, but, as long ago as mid April 2017, I determined that he was a
Deep Stater his actions are just too obvious to ignore.
The Magic Negro cannot be touched and that is why nothing will be done about the biggest crime in the history of our nation
Obama orchestrated the destruction of a political rival and he will get away scott free .because he's an oppressed and downtrodden dindu.
There is considerable evidence that the American system of government may have been
victimized by an illegal covert operation organized and executed by the U.S.
Which one are you referring to, Iran 1953, Kennedy assassination 1963, Gulf of Tonkin 1964
or the other dozens of examples?
"And this was not a CIA-only operation. Personnel from the FBI also were assigned to the
Task Force "
This just in: both the CIA and FBI are unconstitutional, agencies.Get rid of them -and all
of the other unconstitutional alphabet-soup agencies[FDA,EPA,SEC etc.etc.etc.]. No
downsizing-trash them all- NOW!
This also just in: "Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect
theft [taxes], and counterfeiting [via central bank monopolies], all governments are
essentially, at their very cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams which cannot be
"reformed","improved", simply because of their innate, unchangeble criminal nature."
onebornfree
"Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no way
to differentiate the activities of its founders, administrators and beneficiaries from those
of a professional-criminal class." Albert J. Nock
@Alfred
Your point about 9/11 can't be made forcefully enough. We're going straight to hell unless
Israel and its American confederates are brought to justice, these wars ended, and order
restored. Clapper, Comey, Brennan, Mueller, Chertoff and the whole traitorous bunch are
probably guilty as principals but almost certainly they're at least complicit as accessories
before and after the fact. So naturally all we hear about is Russiagate.
The evidence overwhelmingly implicates Israel and not Saudi Arabia as you point out. That
Building 7 was brought down by explosives has been proved beyond doubt by Architects &
Engineers for 911 Truth, and as Dr. Alan Sobrosky put it, if Building 7 was brought down by
explosives, so too were the Twin Towers. The official NIST reports and all related government
narratives are preposterous. They're fairytales for fools inasmuch as the official mechanisms
rely on a suspension of the laws of physics more fanciful than Jack and the Beanstalk. The
story of the nineteen Arabs who couldn't handle Cessna 150s magically flying jetliners into
precise targets is more absurd than fairytale tropes about flying carpets.
Yet for Conservatism Inc and Fox News, which both claim to oppose the Deep State and its
narratives, there's no standard of evidence so low or preposterous that these cucks won't
cling to it to cover up what they must now know is Israel's guilt. We can assume it's
precisely because they're aware of Israel's guilt that they rule out the overwhelmingly
conclusive circumstantial evidence pointing to Israel on the grounds such evidence is
"anti-Semitic" and consequently false on apriori grounds. Moreover, any expert investigator
qualified in the relevant field who uncovers and presents evidence implicating Israel is cast
as the actual terrorist. It should go without saying they've reversed a millennium in the
development of Western thought regarding the connection between evidence and conclusion, and
they've done so for the basest of reasons. At least Conservatism Inc is being daily exposed
for the controlled opposition and worthless club of preppy snots it's always been.
Brilliant Article.
The question is when deep state will finally admit that Globalism after all that sacrifice
and evildoing are just sour grapes. As fox said in Ezops tale.
"the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, are almost genetically driven
to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique," adding
later that "It's in their DNA."
Right, along with drinking vodka and eating borscht.
The one nation that did interfere in the 2016 election, and has inserted themselves
into other elections to get their candidate elected, Israel remains untouched by this (((Deep
State))).
There's plenty of evidence for the Zionists and Israeli-Firsters corrupting the election
process for their fav nation, Israel, but the Operation Mockingbird asshats in the MSM won't
go near that, not if they want to keep their cushy job, 5th Avenue penthouse and that
chauffeured limo.
Anytime AIPAC comes to town, Congress gets into a fight with each other, trying to be the
one that shows the most slavish loyalty to the nation that has attacked the USA numerous
times, spies constantly on us, stealing our military, business and industrial secrets, had a
hand in both murdering JFK, RFK and masterminded the 9/11 FF, and has an overwheling presence
on the FED, yet most Americans don't know that, because the MSM keeps reporting lies,
distortions and half-truths, and always presenting a boogeyman to hate, sometimes Russia,
most times Muslims.
But fear not, that will soon come to an end, for when those TBTF Wall Street
banks–in collusion with the FED–again crash the stock market and drag the economy
down with their greed, that coming crash will make the one of 1929 seem like a picnic.
When that happens, what's left won't be of any interest to Israel to steal or manipulate.
The Deep State murdered Kennedy.
He planned on destroying the Fed and the CIA.
The Deep State required a president that COLLABORATED, like LBJ.
Then they figured, "why not put our guy in?'
Thus Bush 1.
Then Clinton (Bush 1 was his 'mentor') a pervert stooge.
Then Bush 2, a gaymail stooge.
Then Obomber, the gay Kenyan C_A stooge.
Then America says 'Enough', rejects the Witch and elects Trump.
Now the Deep State wants to kill America.
I think it's time for America to kill its' Deep State.
It is, after all, self-defense. Besides, hasn't this gone on long enough?
The alternative is to end up as the modern parallel of Rome.
Clapper, Brennan and Comey " may not have operated on their own." Duh!
You just remember, a donkey won't carry a heavy burden unless it's fed regularly. Find out
who owns the beast and you will have the culprit!
Phil, you should offer your services to the Trump defense/attack team*. Just stay away from
Giuliani (grin). Good article and salvo against Brennan and the rest who deserve all the pain
thay can get.
*Hey money is good especially around Christmas time. (Grin)
This certainly explains the incessant attacks on Trump by the deep state.
You have no concept of a charade being perpetrated on the American people. You don't find
it a little strange that Trump keeps hiring the Deep State denizens he purports to be
fighting? You are incapable of detecting the friend/foe, psychological tactic used to
deceive?
@Anonymous
That's it. Your hearsay trumps thousands of eyewitnesses and conversations of the victims on
flight 93 and in the pentagon.. You must be a first responder too. Talk about easily
influenced–you are why the old media gets away with their corruption. Some anonymous
source writes, says it on TV, and the lemmings follow.
@Biff
As we write, Obama probably is banging away some groupie in a DC mansion basement while the
gorrila is frying chicken upstairs for Oprah.
And Bubba, most likely, is watching porn in the garage in Westchester and the wicked witch
is massaging mrs. Wiener.
But it's Dubya worth looking into because he is out in the cowshed, buck naked save the
cowboy boots and the ten-gallon hat, whipping himself silly for the "mission
accomplished!"
Or, Obama and the police agencies investigated a known organized crime stooge when it became
apparent the GOP could offer no other candidate. Ironically, this was the original intent of
the creation of the FBI.
Don't play into the "victim trump" brand, he needs no help with it.
Thanks much for the most comprehensive précis yet of this bungled CIA putsch. The
articles in sequence teasingly open Gina's kimono, giving us horripilating glimpses of her
bushy penetralia. The question of Obama's involvement is the next step. CIA bots have been
pushing a partisan perspective for some time. Those darn Democrats!
But in fact Obama too is CIA nomenklatura, with the same depth of dynastic ties as GW
Bush, albeit not at the same lofty level. Just look at the oppo research, the best of which
comes from sanitized glimpses of the errands candidates run for CIA. Obama's other passport
is not Kenyan but Indonesian. It facilitated the youngster's schooling during Mom's year of
living dangerously in Indonesia. Obama's dad and stepdad were CIA skins on the wall. Grandma
was not in fact a drunk – she laundered the money for forcible overthrow and genocide
in Indonesia at her bank job in Hawaii. Grandpa was a "furniture salesman," like Bibi,
travelling around Asia under the hoariest old chestnut of NOC cover.
Young Barack was groomed as carefully as Bush minor. His only real job was BIC, a sheepish
front perennially stuffed to bursting with NOCs. While he was still wet behind the ears he
sported at falconry with a future head of state of Pakistan, for chrissakes, at a time when
nobody could get in there. And he got out without getting his head sawed off. How? The
youthful promise of this sullen stoner was somewhat obscure at that time. His GF was the
Aussie daughter of Mike Barry's opposite number. And the Mockingbird unison of ecstatic
acclaim when he rose to public prominence out of nowhere is the proof. His empty suit belings
to CIA.
This past election was CIA office politics, nothing more. Russigate is simply CIA eminence
Hillary, the Queen of Mena, ratfucking a bumptious queue-jumper. She outranks Trump, who was
merely a junior money-launderer for the CIA agents who looted the Soviet Union. It was her
turn to take the figurehead head-of-state sinecure. She and Bill earned it with their
lucrative Clinton Foundation covert-ops slush fund.
@Rabbi
Zaius They sense the rumblings of White solidarity among "the forgotten men and women" of
Trump's base and they do not cotton to this one little bit. Solidarity is forbidden to
Whites. It is only for the coalition of the fringes, all of those groups whose alienation can
be stoked to weaponize them against the descendants of those who founded and built the United
States.
@Dave
Sullivan The FISA warrants had nothing to do with organized crime.
On second thought, that is not correct.
They _were_ organized crime.
(It is not necessary to defend Trump to understand this. FISA warrants based on known fake
"evidence" are a stunning abuse of power–even within the slime-pit of DC.)
Anyone at all familiar with Brennan knows that he was and remains the driver of the
conspiracy to destroy first candidate, then President -Elect, and then POTUS Trump.
The same cannot be said of Comey and Clapper (especially).
It literally makes me sick to my stomach whenever I think about what it says about this
great republic that seditious filth like him rose to such a powerful position. It's rather
obvious he was willing to do anything including, I would submit, gift Russia and God Knows
Who Else anything they wanted in return for helping him destroy our constitutional
republic.
As I'm sure most here know, long before his 2016 election malefactions he had brazenly
engaged in spying on Congress and, most despicably, had debased President Obama and the
Office of the President through NYT revelations that every week Obama picked from his list of
drone assassination targets.
. . . and it inevitably leads to the question "What did Obama know?"
Yes, though more important than that was what Obama was told (by Brennan) and what real
options did he have as president given that Brennan had him by the short hairs.
I've long considered anyone's efforts to prematurely direct liability to President Obama
as a bald attempt to protect Brennan. That worked for the purposes of a general, earlier on,
cover up. It won't at this stage because it isn't even a close call when it comes to
Democrats, elected and rank and file, choosing between the first black president and Brennan,
the American Beria.
And has been since the early 1950s when the Allen Dulles-Frank Wisner-James Jesus Angleton
crew got rolling. They managed to thoroughly penetrate federal and state bureaucracies, the
court systems, major corporations, the financial sector, and the mockingbird media.
So Phil, was there any cooperation/communication between the Trump Task Force and the DNC
dirt-diggers in Ukraine (Ali Chalupa et al), or were they completely independent actions?
it was plausible to maintain that [the Russians] would have hoped that a weakened
Clinton would be less able to implement the anti-Russian agenda that she had been
promoting.
Not sure I follow this line of reasoning. If the Russians had tried unsuccessfully to
throw the election to Trump and Hellary won anyway, how exactly would that leave her
"weakened"? And wouldn't she have that much more reason to go after Russia?
My theory is that Hellary and her deep-swamp creatures only messed with Trump because they
were certain he was going lose. And if they could then plausibly claim after the
election that the Russians had interfered (albeit unsuccessfull) in the election, Hell-bitch
could've used that as a pretext for well, I don't know. War? More sanctions? Inducting
Ukraine into NATO? Invading Syria?
Clapper revealed that the preparers of the ICA were "handpicked analysts" from only the
FBI, CIA, and NSA. He explained rather unconvincingly during an interview on May 28, 2017,
that "the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, are almost genetically
driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique,"
adding later that "It's in their DNA."
I had no idea Clapper was into HBD. Damn, he's biased!
@NPleeze
There is a theater play going on, unending series, each episode catching some other
superficial drift. A-l-l actors in the public view, their dialogues and declamations are
scripted. Trump´s also. He is not the major character, just a single, temporary one.
All media opinion pieces, what is news, are prompt readings. Rectal extraction is close.
Why is this possible? The public is beyond understanding. The ones who do, at least part
of what is going on, being closer to some sectors of society where a whiff of the smell of
power is perceived at clouded times, are interested. The middle classes are scraping and
grabbing and bickering for the scraps of the table of the powerful. It takes them most of
their career to even get to under the table. They are happy dogs, and scraps comparing to
scraps makes them a diverse world of nothings.
It is hard work to come up with alternative policies, not rail into historical models
proven wrong as to long term interests and goals of society. A path not to venture into,
against instinct.
That makes for a fine world, while it lasts, and is upended by another cycle. The empty
drum feeling in the head of most is stuffed with images and sound-bites that makes for a life
behind a velvet curtain(Apple´s i-phone).
There is very little cognitive difference between the individuals at the top and the
glorious bottom undesirables, they both like the sniff of the glue.
Donald Trump's election (which was not supposed to be allowed to happen) forced into public
view, the existence of a Deep State that's been in existence for more than 75 years. Although
not widely recognized as such, JFK'S election accomplished the same thing, but to an even
greater extent. Leaving me puzzled as to why Trump has been allowed to remain in office as
long as he has without the Deep State subjecting him to a similar fate.
With one logical
explanation being that, at this point in time, it would become obvious, even to the brain
dead, who's actually in control of the US government.
"... Obama orchestrated the destruction of a political rival and he will get away scott free .because he's an oppressed and downtrodden dindu. ..."
"... But in fact Obama too is CIA nomenklatura, with the same depth of dynastic ties as GW Bush, albeit not at the same lofty level. ..."
"... This past election was CIA office politics, nothing more. Russigate is simply CIA eminence Hillary, the Queen of Mena, ratfucking a bumptious queue-jumper. She outranks Trump, who was merely a junior money-launderer for the CIA agents who looted the Soviet Union. It was her turn to take the figurehead head-of-state sinecure. She and Bill earned it with their lucrative Clinton Foundation covert-ops slush fund. ..."
"... And has been since the early 1950s when the Allen Dulles-Frank Wisner-James Jesus Angleton crew got rolling. They managed to thoroughly penetrate federal and state bureaucracies, the court systems, major corporations, the financial sector, and the mockingbird media. ..."
"... Clapper revealed that the preparers of the ICA were "handpicked analysts" from only the FBI, CIA, and NSA. He explained rather unconvincingly during an interview on May 28, 2017, that "the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique," adding later that "It's in their DNA." ..."
The entire FISA court process has been exposed as an insane sham.
"The Secret Team" just took the absurdity of the process and raised it to the next
level–injecting it into a political campaign.
It would be wonderful if they could fill a jail with every empty suit who touched those
warrants–but I would be stunned if even one of them gets paraded around in the orange
jump-suit they so richly deserve. Read More Replies:
@Moi
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
Looking on at this affair from outside the USA, it is clear that the power and influence of
the USA is waning a lot faster than most people expected.
The replacement of the US military by mercenaries who are called other names was a first
step. The sanctioning and punishing of allies for stepping out of line is the second step.
BTW, it is notable how Japan and Australia are very keen to stay in line but the Europeans
less so.
I suspect the third step will be to encourage a collapse of the Euro – so as to make
wealthy Europeans shift their money to the USA in a panic.
It seems to me that the US public will be the last to learn of what is really happening.
Even on this website there are sometimes letters or articles that mention 9/11 as a
"terrorist" or "Saudi" act. How can one take anything such a person writes seriously?
The control of media and the internet seems to be the last part of the collapse. They will
hang on to that to the very last moment.
John Brennan's CIA Trump Task Force
Could it become Obamagate?
Perhaps, but what is the point? All this bullshit is engineered to make dumbass Americans
think justice is being served. Nothing will come of it no one will go to prison.
As if Trump weren't part and parcel of the Deep State.
His actions in Syria, Bolivia, Hong Kong, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, etc. all prove
incontrovertibly that he is (and has always been) a member in fine standing of the Deep
State. If he is a Manchurian Candidate, he is the true puppet of the Deep State, not the
people or of Russia.
Exactly. I voted for Trump, but, as long ago as mid April 2017, I determined that he was a
Deep Stater his actions are just too obvious to ignore.
The Magic Negro cannot be touched and that is why nothing will be done about the biggest crime in the history of our nation
Obama orchestrated the destruction of a political rival and he will get away scott free .because he's an oppressed and downtrodden dindu.
There is considerable evidence that the American system of government may have been
victimized by an illegal covert operation organized and executed by the U.S.
Which one are you referring to, Iran 1953, Kennedy assassination 1963, Gulf of Tonkin 1964
or the other dozens of examples?
"And this was not a CIA-only operation. Personnel from the FBI also were assigned to the
Task Force "
This just in: both the CIA and FBI are unconstitutional, agencies.Get rid of them -and all
of the other unconstitutional alphabet-soup agencies[FDA,EPA,SEC etc.etc.etc.]. No
downsizing-trash them all- NOW!
This also just in: "Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect
theft [taxes], and counterfeiting [via central bank monopolies], all governments are
essentially, at their very cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams which cannot be
"reformed","improved", simply because of their innate, unchangeble criminal nature."
onebornfree
"Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no way
to differentiate the activities of its founders, administrators and beneficiaries from those
of a professional-criminal class." Albert J. Nock
@Alfred
Your point about 9/11 can't be made forcefully enough. We're going straight to hell unless
Israel and its American confederates are brought to justice, these wars ended, and order
restored. Clapper, Comey, Brennan, Mueller, Chertoff and the whole traitorous bunch are
probably guilty as principals but almost certainly they're at least complicit as accessories
before and after the fact. So naturally all we hear about is Russiagate.
The evidence overwhelmingly implicates Israel and not Saudi Arabia as you point out. That
Building 7 was brought down by explosives has been proved beyond doubt by Architects &
Engineers for 911 Truth, and as Dr. Alan Sobrosky put it, if Building 7 was brought down by
explosives, so too were the Twin Towers. The official NIST reports and all related government
narratives are preposterous. They're fairytales for fools inasmuch as the official mechanisms
rely on a suspension of the laws of physics more fanciful than Jack and the Beanstalk. The
story of the nineteen Arabs who couldn't handle Cessna 150s magically flying jetliners into
precise targets is more absurd than fairytale tropes about flying carpets.
Yet for Conservatism Inc and Fox News, which both claim to oppose the Deep State and its
narratives, there's no standard of evidence so low or preposterous that these cucks won't
cling to it to cover up what they must now know is Israel's guilt. We can assume it's
precisely because they're aware of Israel's guilt that they rule out the overwhelmingly
conclusive circumstantial evidence pointing to Israel on the grounds such evidence is
"anti-Semitic" and consequently false on apriori grounds. Moreover, any expert investigator
qualified in the relevant field who uncovers and presents evidence implicating Israel is cast
as the actual terrorist. It should go without saying they've reversed a millennium in the
development of Western thought regarding the connection between evidence and conclusion, and
they've done so for the basest of reasons. At least Conservatism Inc is being daily exposed
for the controlled opposition and worthless club of preppy snots it's always been.
Brilliant Article.
The question is when deep state will finally admit that Globalism after all that sacrifice
and evildoing are just sour grapes. As fox said in Ezops tale.
"the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, are almost genetically driven
to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique," adding
later that "It's in their DNA."
Right, along with drinking vodka and eating borscht.
The one nation that did interfere in the 2016 election, and has inserted themselves
into other elections to get their candidate elected, Israel remains untouched by this (((Deep
State))).
There's plenty of evidence for the Zionists and Israeli-Firsters corrupting the election
process for their fav nation, Israel, but the Operation Mockingbird asshats in the MSM won't
go near that, not if they want to keep their cushy job, 5th Avenue penthouse and that
chauffeured limo.
Anytime AIPAC comes to town, Congress gets into a fight with each other, trying to be the
one that shows the most slavish loyalty to the nation that has attacked the USA numerous
times, spies constantly on us, stealing our military, business and industrial secrets, had a
hand in both murdering JFK, RFK and masterminded the 9/11 FF, and has an overwheling presence
on the FED, yet most Americans don't know that, because the MSM keeps reporting lies,
distortions and half-truths, and always presenting a boogeyman to hate, sometimes Russia,
most times Muslims.
But fear not, that will soon come to an end, for when those TBTF Wall Street
banks–in collusion with the FED–again crash the stock market and drag the economy
down with their greed, that coming crash will make the one of 1929 seem like a picnic.
When that happens, what's left won't be of any interest to Israel to steal or manipulate.
The Deep State murdered Kennedy.
He planned on destroying the Fed and the CIA.
The Deep State required a president that COLLABORATED, like LBJ.
Then they figured, "why not put our guy in?'
Thus Bush 1.
Then Clinton (Bush 1 was his 'mentor') a pervert stooge.
Then Bush 2, a gaymail stooge.
Then Obomber, the gay Kenyan C_A stooge.
Then America says 'Enough', rejects the Witch and elects Trump.
Now the Deep State wants to kill America.
I think it's time for America to kill its' Deep State.
It is, after all, self-defense. Besides, hasn't this gone on long enough?
The alternative is to end up as the modern parallel of Rome.
Clapper, Brennan and Comey " may not have operated on their own." Duh!
You just remember, a donkey won't carry a heavy burden unless it's fed regularly. Find out
who owns the beast and you will have the culprit!
Phil, you should offer your services to the Trump defense/attack team*. Just stay away from
Giuliani (grin). Good article and salvo against Brennan and the rest who deserve all the pain
thay can get.
*Hey money is good especially around Christmas time. (Grin)
This certainly explains the incessant attacks on Trump by the deep state.
You have no concept of a charade being perpetrated on the American people. You don't find
it a little strange that Trump keeps hiring the Deep State denizens he purports to be
fighting? You are incapable of detecting the friend/foe, psychological tactic used to
deceive?
@Anonymous
That's it. Your hearsay trumps thousands of eyewitnesses and conversations of the victims on
flight 93 and in the pentagon.. You must be a first responder too. Talk about easily
influenced–you are why the old media gets away with their corruption. Some anonymous
source writes, says it on TV, and the lemmings follow.
@Biff
As we write, Obama probably is banging away some groupie in a DC mansion basement while the
gorrila is frying chicken upstairs for Oprah.
And Bubba, most likely, is watching porn in the garage in Westchester and the wicked witch
is massaging mrs. Wiener.
But it's Dubya worth looking into because he is out in the cowshed, buck naked save the
cowboy boots and the ten-gallon hat, whipping himself silly for the "mission
accomplished!"
Or, Obama and the police agencies investigated a known organized crime stooge when it became
apparent the GOP could offer no other candidate. Ironically, this was the original intent of
the creation of the FBI.
Don't play into the "victim trump" brand, he needs no help with it.
Thanks much for the most comprehensive précis yet of this bungled CIA putsch. The
articles in sequence teasingly open Gina's kimono, giving us horripilating glimpses of her
bushy penetralia. The question of Obama's involvement is the next step. CIA bots have been
pushing a partisan perspective for some time. Those darn Democrats!
But in fact Obama too is CIA nomenklatura, with the same depth of dynastic ties as GW
Bush, albeit not at the same lofty level. Just look at the oppo research, the best of which
comes from sanitized glimpses of the errands candidates run for CIA. Obama's other passport
is not Kenyan but Indonesian. It facilitated the youngster's schooling during Mom's year of
living dangerously in Indonesia. Obama's dad and stepdad were CIA skins on the wall. Grandma
was not in fact a drunk – she laundered the money for forcible overthrow and genocide
in Indonesia at her bank job in Hawaii. Grandpa was a "furniture salesman," like Bibi,
travelling around Asia under the hoariest old chestnut of NOC cover.
Young Barack was groomed as carefully as Bush minor. His only real job was BIC, a sheepish
front perennially stuffed to bursting with NOCs. While he was still wet behind the ears he
sported at falconry with a future head of state of Pakistan, for chrissakes, at a time when
nobody could get in there. And he got out without getting his head sawed off. How? The
youthful promise of this sullen stoner was somewhat obscure at that time. His GF was the
Aussie daughter of Mike Barry's opposite number. And the Mockingbird unison of ecstatic
acclaim when he rose to public prominence out of nowhere is the proof. His empty suit belings
to CIA.
This past election was CIA office politics, nothing more. Russigate is simply CIA eminence
Hillary, the Queen of Mena, ratfucking a bumptious queue-jumper. She outranks Trump, who was
merely a junior money-launderer for the CIA agents who looted the Soviet Union. It was her
turn to take the figurehead head-of-state sinecure. She and Bill earned it with their
lucrative Clinton Foundation covert-ops slush fund.
@Rabbi
Zaius They sense the rumblings of White solidarity among "the forgotten men and women" of
Trump's base and they do not cotton to this one little bit. Solidarity is forbidden to
Whites. It is only for the coalition of the fringes, all of those groups whose alienation can
be stoked to weaponize them against the descendants of those who founded and built the United
States.
@Dave
Sullivan The FISA warrants had nothing to do with organized crime.
On second thought, that is not correct.
They _were_ organized crime.
(It is not necessary to defend Trump to understand this. FISA warrants based on known fake
"evidence" are a stunning abuse of power–even within the slime-pit of DC.)
Anyone at all familiar with Brennan knows that he was and remains the driver of the
conspiracy to destroy first candidate, then President -Elect, and then POTUS Trump.
The same cannot be said of Comey and Clapper (especially).
It literally makes me sick to my stomach whenever I think about what it says about this
great republic that seditious filth like him rose to such a powerful position. It's rather
obvious he was willing to do anything including, I would submit, gift Russia and God Knows
Who Else anything they wanted in return for helping him destroy our constitutional
republic.
As I'm sure most here know, long before his 2016 election malefactions he had brazenly
engaged in spying on Congress and, most despicably, had debased President Obama and the
Office of the President through NYT revelations that every week Obama picked from his list of
drone assassination targets.
. . . and it inevitably leads to the question "What did Obama know?"
Yes, though more important than that was what Obama was told (by Brennan) and what real
options did he have as president given that Brennan had him by the short hairs.
I've long considered anyone's efforts to prematurely direct liability to President Obama
as a bald attempt to protect Brennan. That worked for the purposes of a general, earlier on,
cover up. It won't at this stage because it isn't even a close call when it comes to
Democrats, elected and rank and file, choosing between the first black president and Brennan,
the American Beria.
And has been since the early 1950s when the Allen Dulles-Frank Wisner-James Jesus Angleton
crew got rolling. They managed to thoroughly penetrate federal and state bureaucracies, the
court systems, major corporations, the financial sector, and the mockingbird media.
So Phil, was there any cooperation/communication between the Trump Task Force and the DNC
dirt-diggers in Ukraine (Ali Chalupa et al), or were they completely independent actions?
it was plausible to maintain that [the Russians] would have hoped that a weakened
Clinton would be less able to implement the anti-Russian agenda that she had been
promoting.
Not sure I follow this line of reasoning. If the Russians had tried unsuccessfully to
throw the election to Trump and Hellary won anyway, how exactly would that leave her
"weakened"? And wouldn't she have that much more reason to go after Russia?
My theory is that Hellary and her deep-swamp creatures only messed with Trump because they
were certain he was going lose. And if they could then plausibly claim after the
election that the Russians had interfered (albeit unsuccessfull) in the election, Hell-bitch
could've used that as a pretext for well, I don't know. War? More sanctions? Inducting
Ukraine into NATO? Invading Syria?
Clapper revealed that the preparers of the ICA were "handpicked analysts" from only the
FBI, CIA, and NSA. He explained rather unconvincingly during an interview on May 28, 2017,
that "the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, are almost genetically
driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique,"
adding later that "It's in their DNA."
I had no idea Clapper was into HBD. Damn, he's biased!
@NPleeze
There is a theater play going on, unending series, each episode catching some other
superficial drift. A-l-l actors in the public view, their dialogues and declamations are
scripted. Trump´s also. He is not the major character, just a single, temporary one.
All media opinion pieces, what is news, are prompt readings. Rectal extraction is close.
Why is this possible? The public is beyond understanding. The ones who do, at least part
of what is going on, being closer to some sectors of society where a whiff of the smell of
power is perceived at clouded times, are interested. The middle classes are scraping and
grabbing and bickering for the scraps of the table of the powerful. It takes them most of
their career to even get to under the table. They are happy dogs, and scraps comparing to
scraps makes them a diverse world of nothings.
It is hard work to come up with alternative policies, not rail into historical models
proven wrong as to long term interests and goals of society. A path not to venture into,
against instinct.
That makes for a fine world, while it lasts, and is upended by another cycle. The empty
drum feeling in the head of most is stuffed with images and sound-bites that makes for a life
behind a velvet curtain(Apple´s i-phone).
There is very little cognitive difference between the individuals at the top and the
glorious bottom undesirables, they both like the sniff of the glue.
Donald Trump's election (which was not supposed to be allowed to happen) forced into public
view, the existence of a Deep State that's been in existence for more than 75 years. Although
not widely recognized as such, JFK'S election accomplished the same thing, but to an even
greater extent. Leaving me puzzled as to why Trump has been allowed to remain in office as
long as he has without the Deep State subjecting him to a similar fate.
With one logical
explanation being that, at this point in time, it would become obvious, even to the brain
dead, who's actually in control of the US government.
"... The truth is that for the Clintonite-Bushite elite almost all Americans are 'deplorable'. What is fun for them is to play geopolitics – the elite version of corporate travel perks – just look at how shocked they are that Trump is not playing along. ..."
Recent class history of US is quite simple: the elite class first tried to shift the burden
of supporting the lower classes on the middle class with taxation. But as the lower class
became demographically distinct, partially via mass immigration, the elites decided to ally
with the ' underpriviledged ' via identity posturing and squeeze no longer needed
middle class out of existence.
What's left are government employees, a few corporate sinecures, NGO parasitic sector, and
old people. The rest will be melded into a few mutually antagonistic tribal groups providing
ever cheaper service labor. With an occasional lottery winner to showcase mobility. Actually
very similar to what happened in Latin America in the past few centuries.
The truth is that for the Clintonite-Bushite elite almost all Americans are
'deplorable'. What is fun for them is to play geopolitics – the elite version of
corporate travel perks – just look at how shocked they are that Trump is not playing
along.
Unlike the USA (under Neocon stewardship) China has not squandered twenty trillion dollars
of its national solvency bombing countries which never attacked it post 9-11.
China's leaders (unlike our own) never LIED its people into launching obscenely expensive,
illegal wars of aggression across the middle east. (WMD's, Mushroom clouds, Yellow Cake,
etc.)
China has used its wealth and resources to build up its infrastructure, build out its
capital markets, and turbo charge its high tech sectors. As a consequence, it has lifted
nearly half a billion people out of poverty. There has been an explosion in the growth of the
"middle class" in China. Hundreds of millions of Chinese are now living comfortable "upwardly
mobile" lives.
The USA, on the other hand, having been defrauded by its "ruling elites" into launching
and fighting endless illegal wars, is now 23 trillion dollars in catastrophic debt.
NOT ONE PENNY of this heinous "overspending" has been dedicated to building up OUR
infrastructure, or BUILDING OUT our middle class.
It has all gone into BLOWING UP countries which never (even) attacked us on 9-11.
As a consequence , the USA is fast becoming a failed nation, a nation where all its wealth
is being siphoned into the hands of its one percent "war pilfer-teers".
It is so sad to have grown up in such an amazing country , with such immense resources and
possibilities, and having to bear witness to it going down the tubes.
To watch all our sovereign wealth being vaporized by our "lie us into endless illegal war"
ruling elites is truly heartbreaking.
The white middle class is the only group that might effectively resist Globohomo's designs on
total power.
Blacks? Too dumb. Will be disposed of once Globohomo is finished the job.
Hispanics? Used to corrupt one party systems. Give them cerveza and Netflix and they're
good.
East Asians? Perfectly fine with living like bug people.
South Asians? Cowardly; will go with the flow.
The middle class is almost completely unique to white people.
Racial aliens cannot wrap their minds around being middle class. They think I'm crazy for
appreciating my 2009 Honda Accord. They literally cannot understand why somebody would want
to live a frugal and mundane life. They are desperate to be like Drake but most end up broke.
It will be very easy for GloboHomo to control a bucket of poor brown slop.
There IS a black middle class, but a big chunk of that works for governments of all
shapes and sizes.
Strictly speaking, there is no more "middle class" in the sense of the classical
economists: a person with just enough capital to live off the income if he works the capital
himself or herself. By this definition professionals (lawyers, dentists, physicians, small
store owners, even spinsters [1] and hand loom operators in a sense) were middle class. Upper
class had enough property to turn it over to managers, lower class had little or no property
and worked for others (servants and farm workers, for example). Paupers didn't earn enough
income per year to feed themselves and didn't live all that long, usually.
What we have is "middle income" people, almost all of whom work as an employee of some
organization -- people who would be considered "lower class" by the classical economists
because they don't have freedom of action and make no independent decisions about how the
capital of their organizations is spent. Today they are considered "intelligentsia", educated
government workers, or, by analogy, educated corporate workers. IMHO, intelligentsia is a
suicide job, and is responsible for the depressed fertility rate, but that's just me.
Back in the AD 1800s and pre-AD 1930 there were many black middle class people. usually
concentrating on selling to black clientele. Now there are effectively none outside of
criminal activities, usually petty criminal. And so it goes.
Of course, back then there were many white middle class people also, usually concentrating
on selling to white clientele. Now there are effectively none, except in some rural areas.
And so it goes.
Counterinsurgency
1] Cottagers who made their living spinning wool skeins into wool threads.
@unit472 A
lot of the middle class are Democrats but not particularly liberal. Many of them vote
Democrat only when they personally benefit. For example, my parents were suburban public
school teachers. They voted for Democrats at the state level because the Democrats supported
better pay and benefits for teachers but voted for Republicans like Goldwater and Reagan at
the national level because Republicans would keep their federal taxes lower. They had no
political philosophy. It was all about what left them financially better off. My parents also
got on well with their suburban neighbors. Suburbanites generally like their local school
system and its teachers and the suburban school systems are usually careful not to engage in
teaching anything controversial. A lot of the government employed white middle class would be
like my parents. Except in situations where specific Republicans talk about major cuts to
their pay and pensions they are perfectly willing to consider voting Republican. They are
generally social moderates, like the status quo, are fairly traditionalist and don't want any
radical changes. Since the Democrats seem be trending in a radical direction, this would put
off a lot of them. Trump would be more appealing as the status quo candidate. When running
the last time, he carefully avoided talking about any major cuts in government spending and
he's governed that way too. At the same time, his talk of cutting immigration, his lack of
enthusiasm for nonwhite affirmative action, and his more traditional views on social issues
is appealing to the white middle class.
The term middle class is used in the U.S. to mean middle income. It has nothing to do with
class. Why not just say what you mean? Most of the middle class that we say is disappearing
is really that rarest of phenomenons. A prosperous working class. The prosperous American
working class is no longer prosperous due to the Neoliberal agenda. Free trade, open borders
and the financialization of everything.
Americans know nothing of class dynamics. Not even the so called socialists. They don't
even see the economy. All they see is people with infinite need and government with infinite
wealth. In their world all of Central America can come to the U.S. and the government (if it
only wants to) can give them all homes, health care and education.
Lets stop saying class when we mean income. Not using the word class would be better than
abusing it.
Anyway. Yes. Middle Class denotes white people. The coalition of the fringes is neither
working, middle nor ruling class. They are black or brown. They are perverts or feminists. If
the workers among them identified as working class they would find common ground with the
Deplorables. We can't have that now can we.
Are we to the point where we've collectively resigned ourselves to the death of the
middle class?
In the neoliberal worldview, the middle class is illegitimate, existing only as a
consequence of artificial trade and immigration barriers. Anytime Americans are spied out
making a good living, there is a "shortage" that must be addressed with more visas. Or else
there is an "inefficiency" where other countries could provide said service or produce said
product for less because they have a "comparative advantage."
Anyway. Yes. Middle Class denotes white people. The coalition of the fringes is neither
working, middle nor ruling class. They are black or brown. They are perverts or feminists.
If the workers among them identified as working class they would find common ground with
the Deplorables. We can't have that now can we.
I don't know about that anymore. Increasingly, "middle class" means Asian, with Whiteness
being associated with the lower middle class (or perhaps "working class"). Sometimes the
media uses the term " noncollege Whites," which I think is actually very apt. They are the
ones who identify with Whiteness the most.
First the percentages of Americans who believe Russia interfered in the 2016 US presidential
election and then the percentages of Americans who think the US has ever interfered with
an election in any other country (
! ).
"... Until now, Iran has restrained itself despite constant aggression from Israel, but this could easily change. "The result could be a counterstrike by Iran, using cruise missiles that penetrate Israel's air defenses and smash into targets like the Kiryah, Tel Aviv's equivalent of the Pentagon. Israel would retaliate massively against Hezbollah's headquarters in Beirut as well as dozens of its emplacements along the Lebanese border. And then, after a day of large-scale exchanges, the real war would begin " ..."
In my 2011 book,
The Wandering Who
, I elaborated on the possible disastrous scenario in which Israel is the nucleus of a
global escalation over Iran's emerging nuclear capabilities. I concluded that Israel's PRE Traumatic Stress
Syndrome (PRE-TSS) would be central to such a development. "The Jewish state and the Jewish discourse in
general are completely foreign to the notion of temporality. Israel is blinded to the consequences of its
actions, it only thinks of its actions in terms of short-term pragmatism. Instead of temporality, Israel
thinks in terms of an extended present."
In 2011 Israel was still confident in
its military might, certain that with the help of America or at least its support, it could deliver a mortal
military blow to Iran. But this confidence has diminished, replaced by an existential anxiety that might
well be warranted. For the last few months, Israeli military analysts have had to come to terms with Iran's
spectacular strategic and technological abilities. The recent attack on a Saudi oil facility delivered a
clear message to the world, and in particular to Israel, that Iran is far ahead of Israel and the West. The
sanctions were counter effective: Iran independently developed its own technology.
Former Israeli ambassador to the US, and
prolific historian, Michael Oren, repeated my 2011 predictions this week in the
Atlantic
and described a horrific scenario for the next, and likely last, Israeli conflict.
Oren understands that a minor Israeli
miscalculation could lead to total war, one in which missiles and drones of all types would rain down on
Israel, overwhelm its defences and leave Israeli cities, its economy and its security in ruins.
Oren gives a detailed account of how a
conflict between Israel and Iran could rapidly descend into a massive "conflagration" that would devastate
Israel as well as its neighbours.
In Israel, the term
"The War Between the Wars
," refers to the targeted covert inter-war campaign waged by the Jewish State
with the purpose of postponing, while still preparing for, the next confrontation, presumably with Iran. In
the last few years Israel has carried out hundreds of 'war between the wars' strikes against Iran-linked
targets in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. Oren speculates that a single miscalculation could easily lead to
retaliation by Iran. "Israel is girding for the worst and acting on the assumption that fighting could break
out at any time. And it's not hard to imagine how it might arrive. The conflagration, like so many in the
Middle East, could be ignited by a single spark."
Until now, Iran has restrained itself
despite constant aggression from Israel, but this could easily change. "The result could be a counterstrike
by Iran, using cruise missiles that penetrate Israel's air defenses and smash into targets like the Kiryah,
Tel Aviv's equivalent of the Pentagon. Israel would retaliate massively against Hezbollah's headquarters in
Beirut as well as dozens of its emplacements along the Lebanese border. And then, after a day of large-scale
exchanges, the real war would begin "
Oren predicts that rockets would "rain on
Israel" at a rate as high as 4,000 a day. The Iron Dome system would be overwhelmed by the vast simultaneous
attacks against civilian and military targets throughout the country. And, as if this weren't devastating
enough, Israel is totally unprepared to deal with precision-guided missiles that can accurately hit targets
all across Israel from 1000 miles away.
Ben Gurion International Airport would be
shut down and air traffic over Israel closed. The same could happen to Israel's ports. Israelis that would
seek refuge in far away lands would have to swim to safety
.
In this scenario, Palestinians and
Lebanese militias might join the conflagration and attack Jewish border communities on the ground while
long-range missiles from Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Iran land. Before long, Israel's economy would cease to
function, electrical grids severed and damaged factories and refineries would spew toxic chemicals into the
air.
In the Shoah scenario Oren describes,
"Millions of Israelis would huddle in bomb shelters. Hundreds of thousands would be evacuated from the
border areas as terrorists attempt to infiltrate them. Restaurants and hotels would empty, along with the
offices of the high-tech companies of the start-up nation. The hospitals, many of them resorting to
underground facilities, would quickly be overwhelmed, even before the skies darken with the toxic fumes of
blazing chemical factories and oil refineries."
Oren predicts that Israel's harsh
response to attack, including a violent put down of likely West Bank and Gaza protests, would result in
large scale civilian casualties and draw charges of war crimes.
As Oren states, he did not invent this
prediction, it is one of the similar scenarios anticipated by Israeli military and government officials.
If such events occur, the US will be
vital to the survival of the Jewish State by providing munitions, diplomatic, political, and legal support,
and after the war, in negotiating truces, withdrawals, prisoner exchanges and presumably 'peace agreements.'
However, the US under the Trump administration is somewhat unpredictable, especially in light of the current
impeachment proceedings against Trump.
In 1973 the US helped save Israel by
providing its military with the necessary munitions. Will the US do so again? Do the Americans have the
weapons capability to counter Iran's ballistics, precision missiles and drones? More crucially, what kind of
support could America provide that would lift the spirits of humiliated and exhausted Israelis after they
emerge from underground shelters having enduring four weeks without electricity or food and see their cities
completely shattered?
This leads us to the essential issue.
Zionism vowed to emancipate the Jews from their destiny by liberating the Jews from themselves. It vowed to
bring an end to Jewish self-destruction by creating a Jewish safe haven. How is it that just seven decades
after the founding of the Jewish state, the people who have suffered throughout their history have once
again managed to create the potential for their own disaster?
ORDER IT NOW
In The Wandering Who I provide a
possible answer: "Grasping the notion of temporality is the ability to accept that the past is shaped and
revised in the light of a search for meaning. History, and historical thinking, are the capacity to rethink
the past and the future." Accordingly,
revisionism
is the true essence of historical thinking. It
turns the past into a moral message, it turns the moral into an ethical act. Sadly this is exactly where the
Jewish State is severely lacking. Despite the Zionist promise to introduce introspection, morality and
universal thinking to the emerging Hebrew culture, the Jewish State has failed to break away from the Jewish
past because it doesn't really grasp the notion of the 'past' as a dynamic elastic ethical substance.
Everyone understands that a minor Iranian miscalculation could lead to total war. One in which nuclear bombs
would rain down on Iran leaving its cities, economy, and security in ruins.
The sociopath, Ayatollah
Khameni is detached from reality and may be willing to take such risks. However, there is no reason to
believe that The Iranian military or civilian population will embrace certain suicide. It is quite likely
that the IRGC would decide that it is time for another revolution and end the theocracy, rather than die
following the dubious commands of a deranged Ayatollah.
____
The whole theory about a prolonged conflict falls apart once accurate facts are applied to the situation.
Iranian al'Hezbollah has large numbers of Katyusha pattern rockets, but very few precision weapons. And to
provide human shields for these weapons, almost all of them are in a limited number of urban centers.
The facts are clear, even if Gilad chooses to ignore them in favor of his personal fantasies. Iranian
al'Hezbollah would lose badly in a total forces engagement. The nuclear incineration of their rear echelons
would leave forward forces totally defenseless against overwhelming Israeli air superiority.
-- Would there be Israeli civilian casulities? Certainly.
-- Would Lebanon become uninhabitable? Yes.
-- Would Ayatollah Khameni perish when Israeli nukes Tehran? Absolutely.
______
There is no possible scenario where Iran "wins" if they launch a substantial first strike. And, the
Iranian military understands this as fact.
@A123
It is really fun when Gilad gets off Epstein and rape stuff and ventures into wars and Israeli security. The
generals have kept Gilad up to date on the latest and the greatest.
He is so out to lunch in his desire to see Israel panic and loose the next war facing horrible casualties
because it makes his point about how the Jews are doomed unless they cease being Jews.
He really believes
that he can solve the problem and change our destiny if we all read "Wondering
Who"
In The Wandering Who I provide a possible answer: "Grasping the notion of temporality is the ability
to accept that the past is shaped and revised in the light of a search for meaning. History, and
historical thinking, are the capacity to rethink the past and the future." Accordingly, revisionism is
the true essence of historical thinking. It turns the past into a moral message, it turns the moral into
an ethical act. Sadly this is exactly where the Jewish State is severely lacking. Despite the Zionist
promise to introduce introspection, morality and universal thinking to the emerging Hebrew culture, the
Jewish State has failed to break away from the Jewish past because it doesn't really grasp the notion of
the 'past' as a dynamic elastic ethical substance.
I wonder what it is like to wish death and destruction on a people and a country to prove your point and
call yourself an unemotional Athenian.
@A123
As you may have noticed, in the Israeli apocalyptic scenarios the Jewish state doesn't put into play the
Samson option.. it is slightly less genocidal than yourself .. you may want to ask yourself why
Israel is making a terrible mistake. The oft touted "Sampson Option" is a bogus option as Bibi, Benny Gatz
and/or any other Israeli leader knows it will be suicide if they use this option. Because even if they
emerge from the bunkers days later after using nuclear bombs against Iran, Syria, Lebanon and other European
capitals (
Samson option targets Europe
) they will be greeted with hostility and will have no
sanctuary.
Three times in world history the Jews were rescued by the Persians.
Believe it or not.
However, the US under the Trump administration is somewhat unpredictable, especially in light of the
current impeachment proceedings against Trump.
Not at all unpredictable with regards to Israel. Trump and Congress would use the last cent of US
taxpayer's money and the last drop of Anglo blood to save the place. Trump is Israel's US Viceroy and
Congress is its Colonial Parliament.
Israel's real nightmare starts when US nationalists toss out the colonialists, and Israel has to find a
way live on its own resources.
I have to think that considering the failure of military intelligence agencies in the past that no one has
any real idea how close Iran is to getting the bomb. But even if they get numbers of them and have a means
to deliver them on target it simply would mean that Iran and Israel are in a standoff. I can understand how
Israel would not want Iran to have the bomb but in reality how much difference would it make? It would only
be relevant if the two countries had already blundered into war and things were entering a final disastrous
stage. Then it would simply mean both countries would be destroyed instead of just one.
Also, not being a military man am I naive in thinking Iran might be able to buy nuclear weapons on the black
market? From North Korea, perhaps? I have got to suspect Israel will be faced with two options. Either fight
Iran sooner, before they get nukes. Or they will simply have to accept that Iran is going to be a nuclear
power. It's pretty obvious that Israel has been trying to get America to fight their war for them. But Trump
has been reluctant to do so. No wonder the Jews are chomping at the bit to find some way to get rid of him.
2020 should prove to be an interesting year.
This analysis leaves out two very significant historic military facts:
1) The 2006 Israeli invasion of Lebanon aka the "33 Day War" where in:
"Hezbollah inflicted more Israeli casualties per Arab fighter in 2006 than did any of Israel's state
opponents in the 1956, 1967, 1973, or 1982 Arab-Israeli interstate wars, and is generally acknowledge that
Israel flat out lost that war and de facto sued for a cease fire.
(see: "U.S. Department of Defense. The 2006 Lebanon Campaign and the Future of Warfare: Implications for
Army and Defense Policy." Kindle Edition.)
2) The Syrian army is currently the only army in the world that has multi-front, contiguous multi-year
'combined arms' (i.e. army, armor, artillery and air force) combat experience .
Further, the leader of Hezbollah Hassan Nasrallah in a recent interview pointed out that Hezbollah
fighting along side of the Syrian Army these past five years, now has experience in offensive warfare. In
2006 they fought strictly defensively.
In short, if an Israeli war comes again, given the experience of the Syrian and Hezbollah armies and
Syria acquiring state of the art air defense system (S 300, etc), Iranian missiles may very well be the
least of Israel's worries.
Indeed, before Iran launches missiles, Hezbollah and Syria may move to take back Shebaa Farms and Golan
Heights.
To my mind: Israel and American militaries are "paper Tigers". Israel has never fought a combined arms
war for a sustained period of time against an equally matched military. And the US not since Korea. Their
victories have always been overwhelming an inferior force.
@AaronB
For me the fact that the Jewish state indulges itself in apocalyptic and genocidal fantasies is really a
glimpse into to tribal mind.. as far as I can tell this pre traumatic stress points at severe form of
projection .. Israeli politicians and commentators attribute their own symptoms to their neighbours ..
@Rev. Spooner
' Three times in world history the Jews were rescued by the Persians.
Believe it or not.'
The Persians more or less created 'the Jews.' At any rate, a religion recognizable
as Judaism first appeared in the wake of the Persian conquests.
However, when did the Persians 'rescue' the Jews?
They allowed the creation of an autonomous Jewish state in Palestine when they overran that place around
the beginning of the seventh century AD -- but that only lasted for about twenty years anyway.
@A123
If I may: I don't know for sure what G Atzmon meant by the Samson Option; but, I have come across this
express before and I took it to mean that Israel will go to nuclear war even if means the destruction of the
Jewish State. That is, like Samson who destroyed his enemies by killing himself; Israel nuec's Iran and Iran
nuce's Israel (kills enemies and itself).
This should not be taken lightly. While it would be totally irrational for most states to take the Samson
Option, it is to my mind a plausible option for Israel. For even if the Jewish State is destroyed, the
Jewish Nation i.e. the Jewish people around the world will survive and continue on as they have these
thousands of years. But, they will be free of what they perceive as their arch enemy i.e. Iran and other
Moslems. They survived the metaphoric Holocaust and they will survive a literal one. The Jewish State may be
destroyed but not the Jewish People.
This is something not enough people comment on. Israel's military is not a mini US military, it has serious
problems and takes losses and casualties in contexts that would be shocking for another Western country that
spends as much per capita for it's military.
This is why Israel having nuclear weapons irks me so much, the more it can't rely on it's conventional
military, the more they'll lean into their nuclear deterrent, increasing the probability of it's use. (Not
dissimilar to the situation with Pakistan vis-a-vis India, though in that case, India has nukes too)
@Tom Verso
The Samson Option
The Samson Option.jpg
Author Seymour Hersh
Country United States
Language English
Genre Non-fiction
Publisher Random House
Publication date
1991
Media type Print (Hardback)
Pages 362 pp
ISBN 0-394-57006-5
OCLC 24609770
Dewey Decimal
355.8/25119/095694 20
LC Class UA853.I8 H47 1991
The Samson Option: Israel's Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy is a 1991 book by Seymour Hersh. It
details the history of Israel's nuclear weapons program and its effects on Israel-American relations. The
"Samson Option" of the book's title refers to the nuclear strategy whereby Israel would launch a massive
nuclear retaliatory strike if the state itself was being overrun, just as the Biblical figure Samson is said
to have pushed apart the pillars of a Philistine temple, bringing down the roof and killing himself and
thousands of Philistines who had gathered to see him humiliated.
According to The New York Times, Hersh
relied on Ari Ben-Menashe, a former Israeli government employee who says he worked for Israeli intelligence,
for much of his information on the state of the Israeli nuclear program. However, Hersh confirmed all of
this information with at least one other source.[1] Hersh did not travel to Israel to conduct interviews for
the book, believing that he might have been subject to the Israeli Military Censor. Nevertheless, he did
interview Israelis in the United States and Europe during his three years of research.[1]
@Fran Taubman
' If you study it, can be pretty scary. It is not just Israel. Also who wants another North Korea
blackmail game?'
You mean something like the Samson option?
Anyway, the whole discussion is silly.
No nation
-- and that included Imperial Japan in 1945, when
the chips were down -- chooses self-immolation. They always give way. Iran isn't a threat to Israel because
Iran's not going to commit national suicide, and 'the Samson Option' is bullshit as well, because six
million Jews aren't going to commit national suicide either.
Zionists such as yourself only choose to think otherwise about Iran -- in spite of the absence of any
historical evidence at all -- because it justifies your own pathological aggression towards a nation that is
(a) a thousand miles away, and (b) poses no serious threat to Israel whatsoever.
Try not attacking literally everyone you can think of. That might help. I mean, fuck -- Israel is the only
state in modern history that has attacked literally
every single one
of her neighbors, and several
more besides. Since 1948, she's attacked Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Tunisia, and even the
United States. What's up?
Despite the Zionist promise to introduce introspection, morality and universal thinking to the
emerging Hebrew culture, the Jewish State has failed to break away from the Jewish past because it
doesn't really grasp the notion of the 'past' as a dynamic elastic ethical substance.
The Jews are always long-term losers because they teach their children that they have always been and
will forever be victims of humanity. Jew children are traumatized at an immature young age – they are
mentally damaged by the thought that humanity wants to kill them and do them harm. This notion is inculcated
deep in the Jew child's psyche. These poor children can never escape what has been implanted. (For three
thousand years, generation after generation, Jew culture has been abusing their children with dreadful
thoughts.)
Nine out of ten adult Jews are triggered into thoughts of doom by any criticism of Israel – their
reactions are visceral, and a pure reflex coming out of their brainstem.
Jews cannot be introspective because of what elder Jews have implanted in them in their youth. Their
rational emotional systems have been short-circuited.
I have seen intelligent Jews on this forum flirt with empathy for Palestinians – only to fall back into
mindless reflexive support of whatever Israel does.
Jews Are Feeling Guilty: They Should Be. Their Influence Has Been Cancerous to America
Gilad Atzmon Wed, Nov 6, 2019
It has become an institutional Jewish habit to examine how much Jews are hated by their host nations
and how fearful Jews are of their neighbours. Jewish press outlets reported yesterday that "9 out of 10
US Jews worry about anti-Semitism."
. . .
As Haartez writer Ari Shavit wrote back in 2003: "The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative
intellectuals, most of them Jewish " Maybe some Jews now understand that the Zionist shift from a
'promised land' to the Neocon 'promised planet' doesn't reflect well on the Jews as a group.
Any separation of one group from another is a tribe. Any identity whatsoever is a tribe – because
identity sets you apart. The moment you define yourself you are tribal, because definitions distinguish
one thing from another.
The issue is that some people are not particularly tribal (i.e. Westerners) and they are open to
multiculturalism – i.e. proposition nations. However, proposition nations are very much non-tribalist places
and need non-tribalism to survive.
If tribalists talk multiculturalism and proposition nations (i.e. use deception) while practicing
tribalism, they quickly overwhelm these societies – which is where the US is today with regards to Jewish
tribalists.
What does a Jewish tribalist elite do next? And what does a (subjected) majority do next?
Michael Oren, repeated my 2011 predictions this week in the Atlantic and described a horrific scenario
for the next, and likely last, Israeli conflict.
The purpose of Oren's Atlantic article was to create alarm in the DC political corridors .."warning' that
if the US doesnt 'soon help Israel' with its Iran enemy there will be chaos and dead bodies galore .
Its propaganda but 'true' propaganda 'if' Israel were to attack Iran on their own but they wont .they aren't
capable of it alone.
They are running this same propaganda articles/warnings in Europe, saying Europe needs to 'do something'
about Iran Now!
Its basically a blackmail and scare ploy because they don't think Trump will do it for them .and of course
if Israel starts a war it will be because Trump/US deserted them like he/we did the Kurds and they were
'forced' to try and defend the world against Iran 'all alone' and Israel isn't to blame for the mess lol.
What Israel will do is try to start a war on Hezbollah 'first, as Hezbollah would be their most immediate
and dangerous threat , severely crippling Israel right at the onset of any war with Iran.
They will claim that Iran directed attacks on Israel and so the US should step in because its an attack by
Iran.
If we had anyone in DC that wasn't bought off by Jewish 'benjamin's ' they would be laughing their asses
off at this typical Jewish tactic.
Everyone understands that a minor Iranian miscalculation could lead to total war. One in which nuclear
bombs would rain down on Iran leaving its cities, economy, and security in ruins.
The sociopath, Ayatollah Khameni is detached from reality and may be willing to take such risks.
However, there is no reason to believe that The Iranian military or civilian population will embrace
certain suicide. It is quite likely that the IRGC would decide that it is time for another revolution and
end the theocracy, rather than die following the dubious commands of a deranged Ayatollah.
Kristol, you're drunk. Turn off the computer and go to bed, you shmuck.
That was the goal.
Remember the Zios in Rumsfeld's pentagon stressing how the US must dump 'old Europe"?
Even a non genius like me could figure that out .old Europe might be too much of a 'restraining ' influence
on the US.
The Jews hate Europe anyway ..just like they hate Russia.
Some interesting things popped up this week .Vindman , main testifier against Trump on Ukraine is a
Ukraine Jew, Solderman,Trump's main man on Ukraine is a Jew, also has now testified against Trump, their
attorney is also a Jew ..they all have issued statements about how the plucky "little Ukraine is fighting
against Russia for the US and world" and needs our aid and so on. Exactly the same wording and bullshit spin
the Jews use about Israel "fighting Iran to protect the US and world interest".
Plain to me the Uber Jews are trying to set up the Ukraine as a Israel satellite and weight on Russia's
flank.
I read Vindman's testimony to congress ..something is very off about the guy. he sounded numerous times
like he lost his script. He's, in his own words, a fanatical supporter of Ukraine . I don't like Trump but I
think the Ukraine deal to impeach him is a set up ..and its not coming mainly from the CIA ,its coming from
the Nat Sec Council that Vindman works for.
It is terrifying to think that in the event Israel be run by psychopaths, they might sacrifice another "6
million", while securing themselves a new Zion.
On the other hand, a peaceful transfer of the occupation of Palestine to Patagonia (and elsewhere),
without the trigger of war, would be a possible path to peace in the Middle East (not so ideal for Patagonia
though).
What would it take for either outcome to pass? I fear the former is far more likely than the latter.
I don't like Trump but I think the Ukraine deal to impeach him is a set up ..and its not coming mainly
from the CIA ,its coming from the Nat Sec Council .
Wilberweld says: November 7, 2019
at 2:11 pm GMT 100 Words Trump's problem was described in simple terms by John Connelly
when talking with Henry Kissinger. "Henry", he said, "In Washington you are judged by the men
you've destroyed". Trump has not destroyed anyone, not Comey, not Brennan, not Klapper. So he
is viewed as weak, an easy target. So they just keep piling on. Attacking Trump is viewed as a
"penalty-free activity
If AMLO were to invite the Americans into Mexico, he would be lynched. Few Americans are
aware of how much the United States is hated in Latin America, and for that matter in most of
the world. They don't know of the long series of military interventions, brutal dictators
imposed and supported, and economic rapine. Somoza, Pinochet, the Mexican-American War,
detachment of Panama from Colombia, bombardment of Veracruz, Patton's incursion–the list
could go on for pages. The Mexican public would look upon American troops not as saviors but as
invaders. Which they would be.
The incursion would not defeat the cartels, for several reasons that trump would do well to
ponder. To begin with, America starts its wars by overestimating its own powers,
underestimating the enemy, and misunderstanding the kind of war on which it is embarking. The
is exactly what Trump seems to be doing.
He probably thinks of Mexicans as just gardeners and rapists and we have all these beautiful
advanced weapons and beautiful drones and things with blinking lights. A pack of rapists armed
with garden trowels couldn't possibly be difficult to defeat by the US. I mean, get serious:
Dope dealers against the Marines? A cakewalk.
You know, like Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. That sort of cakewalk.
Let's think what an expedition against the narcos would entail, what it would face.
To begin with, Mexico is a huge country of 127 million souls with the narcos spread unevenly
across it. You can't police a nation that size with a small force, or even with a large force.
A (preposterous) million soldiers would be well under one percent of the population. Success
would be impossible even if that population helped you. Which it wouldn't.
Other problems exist. Many, many of them.
Let's consider terrain. Terrain is what militaries fight in. Start with the Sierra Madre,
which I suspect Trump doesn't know from Madre Teresa. This is the brutally inhospitable
mountain range in the northwest of Mexico, from which a great many of the narcos come.(Sinaloa
is next door.) Forestation is dense, slopes steep, communication only by narrow trails that the
natives know as well as you know how to find your bathroom. Nobody else knows them. American
infantry would be helpless here. The Narcos would be found only when they chose to be found,
which would not be at opportune moments.
The Sierra Madre Occidental, home of many of the drug traffickers. I have walked in these
mountains, or tried to. It is impossible for infantry, worse for armor, and airplanes can't see
through the trees.
The Tarahumara Indians live in the Sierra Madre. They frequent the trails, sometimes in
groups, and carry things not identifiable from the air. In frustration American forces would do
what they always do: start bombing, or launching Hellfires from drones, at what they think are,
or think may be, or hope might be, narcos. Frequently they would kill innocents having nothing
to do with drugs. This wouldn't bother the military, certainly not remote drone operators in
Colorado or somewhere. They get paid anyway. The Indians who just had their families turned
into science projects couldn't do anything about it.
Well, nothing but join the narcos, who might call this a "force multiplier."
Some other northern Mexican terrain. The Duarte Bridge between Sinaloa and Durango. A
company commander, looking at it, would would have PTSD in advance, just to get a start on
things.
Of the rest of Mexico, much consists of jungle, presenting the same problems as the Sierra
Madre, and of cities and villages. Here we encounter the problem that has proved disastrous for
US forces in war after war: there is no way to tell who is a narco and who isn't.
In cities and towns, narcos are indistinguishable from the general population.
How–precisely how, I want to know–would American troops, kitted out in body armor
and goggles and looking like idiots, fight the narcos in villages with which they were
unfamiliar? The narcos, well armed, would pick off GIs from windows, whereupon the Americans
would respond by firing at random, calling in air strikes, and otherwise killing locals. These
would now hate Americans. The narcos know this. They would use it.
Culiacan, Sinaloa, Chapo's home city. It has a high concentration of narcos. Suppose that
you are an infantry officer, sent to "fight the cartels." You have, say, twenty troops with
you, all with hi-tech equipment and things dangling. How do you propose to fight the cartels
here? Which of the people in the photo, if any, are narcos? You could ask them. That would
work.
Don't expect help from the locals. Most would much rather see you killed than the narcos.
And if they collaborated they and their families would be killed. This would discourage them.
Bright ideas?
Now a point that Schwarzehairdye in the White House has likely not grasped. The narcos are
Mexicans. So is the population. You know, brown, speak Spanish, that kind of thing. The
invaders would not be Mexicans. This matters. Villagers usually do not hate the narcos. These
provide jobs, buy their marijuana crops, often do Robin Hood things to help the locals. Pablo
Escobar did this, Al Capone, Chapo Guzman. There is a whole genre of popular music,
narcocorridos, celebrating the doings of the drug trade. (Corridos Prohibidos ,
by LosTigres del Norte, for example). Amazon has the CD.
Which means that they would side with the narcos instead of the already-hated soldiers,
putos gringos cabrones, que se chinguen sus putas madres.
Further, much of Mexico doesn't much like its government.
And of course the narcos will have the option of fading into the population and waiting for
the gringos to go home. This means that the invasion would become an occupation. The
invading forces would thus need bases, which would become permanent. Bases where? All over the
country, which is where the narcos are?
Getting the American military into one's country is much easier than getting it out. The
world knows this. Mexicans assuredly do. They know that America has wrecked country after
country in the Mideast, always to do something good about democracy and human rights. They know
that America is squeezing Venezuela to get control of its oil, squeezing Iran for the same
reason, attacked Iraq for the same reason, has troops in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait for the same
reason, and has just confiscated Syria's oil . Mexico has oil. So when Trump wants to send the
military to "help" fight drugs, what do you suppose the Mexicans suspect?
Another point: Roughly a million American expats live happily in Mexico. These would be
hostages, and they–we–are soft targets. The drones kill five narcos, and the narcos
kill five expats. Or ten, or fifty. What does Washington do now?
Finally, consider what happens when you bomb a country, make life dangerous, kill its
children, destroy the economy and impoverish its people? Answer: They go somewhere else. With
Mexico being made unlivable, Mexicans would have two choices of somewhere else, Guatemala and
.See whether you can fill in the blank. Maybe four or five million of them.
Nuff said. May God protect Mexico from Yanquis who would do it good, from advisers, and then
adviser creep, and then occupation, and then from badly led militaries who have no idea where
they are.
"... Journalist Glenn Greenwald summarized the testy exchange as Gabbard "responding with righteous rage but also great dignity to the disgusting smears of Democrats about her patriotism and loyalty." ..."
"... What a woman! Get Trump out and give the POTUS to Tulsi. Wonderful. I will definitely contribute to her campaign. ..."
"... What's funny about the whole thing is that the 'regular viewers' of the view are some of the most programmable 'useless' idiots that this (excuse for a country) has ever seen.... ..."
"... The View -- owned by Disney. Openly misandrist show -- in the shows more than 2 decades, having gone through dozens of hosts, the show has never had a male host. How's that for "inclusivity"? ..."
Democratic presidential candidate and Hawaii congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard faced the
increasingly nasty smears branding her a Russian asset and "traitor" head on during The View on
Wednesday, following the recent spat with Hillary Clinton who suggested the
Kremlin was "grooming" Gabbard to be a third-party candidate .
"Some of you have accused me of being a traitor to my country, a Russian asset, a Trojan
horse, or a useful idiot I think was the term that you used," Gabbard told the panel, after in
prior episodes Joy Behar especially had agreed with and aggressively amplified Hillary's
baseless claims. The panel had also previously called her a Trojan horse. Gabbard came out
swinging in her remarks: "It's offensive to me as a soldier, as an American, as a member of
Congress, as a veteran, and frankly as a woman, to be so demeaned in such a way."
"Well, useful," Behar said, referencing her previously labeling the Iraq war veteran
Moscow's 'useful idiot'. "But that's a Russian term, they use that," she added. "Are You
Calling Me Stupid?" Gabbard at one point angrily shoots back. And demonstrating just how low
and idiotic, and without substantive argument the "controversy" around Gabbard has become,
Behar at one point even offers as 'evidence' of the presidential candidate's supposed Russian
ties that she's appeared on FOX's Tucker Carlson Tonight on multiple occasions.
"I am a strong and intelligent woman of color, who has dedicated almost all of my adult life
to protecting the safety, security & liberty of Americans," Gabbard fired back.
She also schooled the panel on her distinguished military career and slammed Behar's
likening her to Putin's "useful idiot" -- explaining also that she joined the Army after the
9/11 attacks but that her country lied to her in invading Iraq.
"You are implying that I am too stupid, and too naive, and lack the intelligence to know
what I am doing," she further counter-attacked Behar with.
The full segment from Wednesday's The View appearance is below, with the fight over Behar's
"useful idiot" remarks beginning at the 1-min mark:
One astounding moment came when Gabbard reiterated her position that Hillary Clinton is a
"warmonger," at which point Behar actually asked, "What's your evidence of that?"
A perplexed Gabbard immediately shot back, "Are you serious?"
Journalist Glenn Greenwald summarized the testy exchange as Gabbard "responding with
righteous rage but also great dignity to the disgusting smears of Democrats about her
patriotism and loyalty."
What's funny about the whole thing is that the 'regular viewers' of the view are some of
the most programmable 'useless' idiots that this (excuse for a country) has ever seen....
The View -- owned by Disney. Openly misandrist show -- in the shows more than 2 decades, having gone through dozens of
hosts, the show has never had a male host. How's that for "inclusivity"?
Next time you take the kids to the movies or to a themepark, think twice about patronizing
Disney.
I am fearful the Republic for which We Stand, is falling, right before our eyes. I guess
we disengaged at some point, sad. We are all Americans, what happened to the common ground?
It is disappearing...
Joy Behar is a so fugly. She's a loudmouth ******, who is even uglier than the fat negress
with the stupid looking blonde dregs. ****, what a hideous show. Anyone who watches that POS
show is a ******* low IQ moron .
it took Eastern Europe a decade (1990-2000) to undo 45 years of communism, and regain
functional normality by local terms.
And it will only take slightly longer for neoliberalism, open borders ideology and
globo-decadence to utterly destroy Eastern Europe. At which time they'll be wishing they
still had the communists in power.
Kirk ludicrously believes that, the Israeli attempt to sink the USS Liberty, is a conspiracy
theory. He's a privileged brat, and he needs a spanking. Now all we have to do is find his
his father. But to give him any sort of acknowledgement is plain stupid. No offense intended.
@bevin | Nov 8 2019 18:29 utc | 12
Exactly, and thanks.
Question: Could Bloomberg change the equation, the equation being that neither Sanders nor
Warren not Biden have what it takes to defeat Trump?
And thank you Tulsi Gabbard for speaking out against the war machine and the penal gulag.
With all the vitriol being leveled against Tulsi to paint her as a Russian plant or useful
idiot or whatever, whether from Hillary or the worthless females on the view, a daytime
television show aimed at influencing the political opinion of stay-at-home middlebrow moms
and retirees (Including low energy males), I think my earlier thought that without the Djt
phenomenon, there would be no Tulsi, is proven more and more correct with each passing day.
And for those suffering from such a quickening case of tds, unable to point out that
before the current potus, the tpp was a thing, fake news was as of yet unexposed, Syria was a
powderkeg with the potential of a Russophobic true believer ready to command and chief, and
where immigration as a national question had not been brought to bear on a people that had
been for decades suffering the effect of the evil of cheap, exploitative labor, your case
against the man is extremely misguided and, dare I say, you are the useful idiot here.
Perhaps
one reason Gabbard's political career will continue to be successful:
"I go on Tucker Carlson, I go on Bret Baier, I go on Sean Hannity, I go on MSNBC, I go on
CNN -- I am here to speak to every single American in this country about the unifying
leadership that I want to bring as president, not just speak to those who agree with me."
IIRC, Sanders is the only other candidate who consistently says we need to do this (Change
America) together. IMO, there's only one way Gabbard and Sanders will be nominated next year
in Milwaukee: That's because We the People hijack the Convention, driving out the
Clintonistas, DNC pukes, and their Super Delegates and nominate them via proclamation. All
that's lacking to attain such an outcome is the effort, the will, the realization that
nothing good's going to happen for We the People unless We do it Ourselves.
Ordinary people accept uncritically and uncomplainingly the laws of nature and the
fundamental and insurmountable limitations they set to the human condition. For liberals, who
have agreed with Francis Bacon since the 17th century that nature is an enemy to be subjugated,
exploited, and ultimately transcended, the program of mobilized rationalism this ambition
requires is reasonable and acceptable. But it is irrational and intolerable to non-liberals,
especially as they are the same people whom liberals, obsessed with psychology and
psychological health, view as anti-social individuals in need of therapeutic treatment and
reeducation to convert them to liberalism. One of the most famous liberals of the 20th century,
John Maynard Keynes, was in this respect a distinguished exception. "[The] pseudo-rational view
of human nature [before 1914]," he believed, "led to a thinness, a superficiality not only of
judgment but of feeling .The attribution of rationality to human nature, instead of enriching
it, now seems to me to have impoverished it."
Keynes identified this grave intellectual error as having been a major cause of the Great
War when he likened his generation to "water-spiders, gracefully skimming, as light and
reasonable as air, the surface of a stream without any contact at all with the eddies and
currents below." John Gray, writing recently in The New Statesman , compared this
sublime naivete in the years immediately preceding the war to the utter inability of
contemporary British elites to comprehend the meaning of the results of the national referendum
three years ago on whether the United Kingdom should remain within the European Union or
withdraw from it. Liberals today, he asserted, cannot grasp the fact that the post-Cold War era
is over and done. "If a majority in Sunderland continues to support Brexit despite the threat
it poses to Nissan [which operates a plant in the vicinity] the reason can only be [in the eyes
of liberals] that they are irrational and stupid. The possibility that they and millions of
others value some things more than economic gain is not considered." Gray added, "Persistently
denying respect to Leave voters in this way can only bring to Britain the dangerous populism
that is steadily marching across the European continent [and that Remainers insist on ignoring,
seeing the EU as a noble dream of mankind]."
Since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, liberals have been insisting that liberalism is
the future of democracy. Francis Fukuyama even famously argued that liberal-democratic
capitalism represents the end of history. Alain de Benoist, the French political philosopher,
says the opposite. Liberalism and democracy, he thinks, in fact are incompatible, as the first
endows the second with an agenda that commits democracy to a mission having nothing to do with
the restricted practical task it was designed for. Modern liberalism is not a creation of
political philosophy. It is a religion that has developed a body of religious law that elevates
administration over politics, an inversion that another French scholar, Pierre Manent, has also
noted. Since democratic politics is a matter of popular involvement, while administration is
the business of trained specialists, it is unsurprising that the end, or eclipse, of politics
should be a major contributing cause of "populist" rebellion. This movement away from politics
does not end there. As political activity diminishes and the administrative sphere expands ,
the rule of law -- of lawyers and judges -- takes its place. Lawyers and judges are human
beings. The most successful of them, in liberal societies, are liberals as well. And because so
much of law has become discretionary, in liberal societies the law is chiefly liberal law. In
point of fact it isn't really law at all but, as Joseph Sobran remarked decades ago, only bad
philosophy by which judges discover "penumbras" of meaning in legal documents and the
inalienable right of individuals to determine their own reality for themselves -- and afterward
impose it on society at large through the courts.
So politics is replaced by administration; administration reinforced or displaced by law;
and law succeeded by bad law based on personal whim. The result is that an increasingly narrow
space remains in public life for ordinary citizens, often aggrieved ones -- the "populists" --
to play a part in the res publica. Their absence, of course, is conspicuously
unregretted by "egalitarian" liberals. Significantly, the single demand liberals never make on
behalf of "inclusiveness" is that uneducated people be represented proportionately at the
higher levels of society with educated ones, the stupid along with the clever. Yet competency
in politics has never been dependent on technical expertise. Many highly effective, brilliant,
even great politicians have been uneducated people or persons of mediocre intelligence for
which they compensated by talent and innate shrewdness.
Benoist, a brilliant writer insufficiently known in the English-speaking world, attributes
the prevalence of "expertocracy" in part to the idea that many "negative phenomena" are also
inevitable ones. Among these are undesirable and destructive advances in technology, which (it
is argued) answers only to a logic of its own, and global migration, considered by Western
technocrats and political "experts" to be unstoppable and irresistible. These things, Benoist
says, "have been decreed inevitable because we have lost the habit of asking ourselves about
goals, and because we are accustomed to the idea that it is no longer possible to defend a
decision (which is effectively more and more the case)." Whence comes this negativity, this
defeatism?
The answer seems clear enough. The "elites," as the upper directing (and owning) strata of
the Western world are known, have not lost their will. That is confirmed by their insistent
unflagging pursuit of their globalist-technocratic project and by their relentless
determination to impose it on all and sundry who disagree with it. What they have lost
is faith in themselves; not of course as the ruthless omnicompetent titans of their imagination
but as descendants of the greatest civilization known to history, of the tradition that
nourished this civilization and allowed it to develop, and of the religion that formed the
basis of that tradition. They have lost their faith in the God Who is left no place in their
system, as the decision made by the European Union to exclude any reference in its founding
documents to Europe's Christian origins and traditions makes agonizingly plain. Nevertheless
human nature is naturally conservative; and while a large proportion of the comfortable Western
peoples have doubtless grown lazy, fat, materialistic, careless, conformist, and cowardly, the
fact remains that in order truly to disbelieve one needs to deny belief explicitly and
affirmatively, and this the majority of Christians in the West have not done. They are lapsed,
not apostatized, from their faith. Similarly, polls that claim to show that such-and-such a
percentage of the population have no religion, no church, and no belief in God cannot determine
the number of those who "feel" in some vague and indeterminate way, even if they do not
"believe." Nor can they assess in what proportion the popular classes have retained their
acceptance of the world as God made it, and of the natural law that men may deny and defy, but
not alter. What the common people lack in the way of formal knowledge they make up for by
common sense, aided by unreflective experience. Unlike Bishop Berkeley, but exactly like Dr.
Johnson, they test and affirm reality by kicking the rock in their path. Unlike Christoper
Hitchens too, but just like T.S. Eliot, they have become conscious of the stony rubbish, the
dead trees, and the dry stones that comprise the environment of the barren world -- a world in
its unmaking -- that surrounds them. They may not be able to express this consciousness in
poetry but they feel it much as the poets do, though perhaps less keenly than a developed
intellect allows for.
Populism is not, as a contemporary French lumiere has opined, the victory "of ill-educated
people over the well-educated," nor, in the estimation of another representative of the Second
Age of Enlightenment, "a denial of progress itself." It is something just as simple, but
infinitely more basic and healthy. It is the unlettered but true apprehension that the old
familiar world is being turned upside down, roundabout, and inside-out by the people who have
seized control of it and are beavering away at their task of destruction; a process that in
their minds is rather one of reimagination to be succeeded by the glorious recreation of the
original inferior thing.
Chilton Williamson Jr. is the former editor of Chronicles: A Magazine of American
Culture and the author of many books, including fiction and nonfiction. His latest
novel, The Last Westerner, is due soon from Perkunas Press .
If you think this is some kind of 'gotcha' question you don't know the good folks at Unz.
Speaking only for myself, I don't want non-Europeans here in any significant numbers, 100
years ago we got all the diversity we could eat from Europe alone, diversity that could and
did assimilate, unlike today when assimilation is actually fought against.
Whites were the first to build habitable buildings more than four storeys high, the first to
construct bridges to carry the weight of steam trains, which we also invented, and the safe and
secure mines that produced the coal that smelted the metal that formed the engines that powered
the trains with the coal we mined.
We are -- in a word -- astonishing. In invention and innovation we are elves and everyone
else are orcs, and the orcs despise us for it all whilst coveting the things we have
created.
Technology is our culture, and art and music and beautiful soaring cathedrals, penicillin
and botany, flushing toilets and refrigeration and general anesthesia and Shakespeare.
Congratulations to James Kirkpatrick for an excellent article.
Such nonsense is irrelevant to the lived experience of young (and mostly white) campus
conservatives, who are confronted with radical anti-white politics, corporate censorship,
and the ruinous cost of family formation.
Yes, Patriotism, the Nationalist desire to rescue America, and Restore our Democratic
Republic, rests in the hearts of all true Citizens. The so-called 'Right & Left' politics
is making way for a politics defined by Patriotism, Nationalism, Economic control &
policies that benefit all our citizens, not just the rich.
The truth of this observation lies in Kirkpatricks fine essay, complete with
numerous visual supports.
Congrats to Prison Planet for not completely burying the story (as the rest of the
Mainstream Media has done).
Why are they (the Zionist owned & controlled Mainstream media), not asking -the
whereabouts of Ms. Maxwell? Is she with Epstein? In the Entity, Monte Carlo, Switzerland, the
Baleares, Caribbean, on one of the Rothschild's Estates?
Upcoming announcement: Hollywood's Oligarch owners & controllers are producing
a Film about the lives of Epstein/Maxwell. The Film will not mention MOSSAD, but might
misdirect by including reference to "bad elements within the CIA." Film will also have a
brief flash of Casino Trump with Epstein, but no mention of Bill Clinton (in a blue dress),
or former Entity Prime minister, Ehud Barak. Instead of Ethnic Cleansing the Palestinian
People, Hollywood's Traitor Moguls will continue their Brain Cleansing/Washing of the
American People.
Title of the Film will be: The Chosen Ones – Their Private Encounters with little
Girls, Boys, and Owned Americans.
Dave Reilly, who asked Charlie Kirk "how does anal sex help us win the culture war" at a
TPUSA event, joins Henrik and Lana for a segment during Flashback Friday November 1, 2019. We
discuss the rift inside the conservative movement. Is is going to be America First or Israel
First? Additionally, how are values not traditionally associated with conservative activists
going to help win over more people to their cause.
Mainstream Conservatives have no answer to moral questions on sodomy, fornication,
adultery, et cetera, as it pertains to the culture war, and this opens up opportunities for
interlopers. Dave will not have much competition on that topic. I admire the bravery.
Thanks for the post, good interview. Dave Reilly seems like decent fellow, but his "out of
the closet" Roman Catholic material will only work on religious cable shows. It's hard to
take, talking freedom with a back drop of massacres, indulgences, crusades, inquisitions, and
a millennium of Pedophile cover ups.
Gays try to contribute their lifestyle to everyone else. They can contribute but don't
push something I don't agree with on me. I am 100% for equality for everyone
@DanFromCT Well then, thank god for Tucker Carlson for going against the grain. He is
against all the Middle East wars, and wants to bring the troops home and put them on our
Southern Border. His is the only show that I watch anymore, and he pushes back from Fox's
Israel-first orthodoxy as much as he can and still keep his job, which he wouldn't have if
not for his high ratings. Tucker destroyed ultra hawk neocon John Bolton shortly before Trump
stupidly appointed him as his NSA.
BTW, Hannity is a war pig, who happens to be right on one issue – supporting Trump
against the democrat coup. And Buck is also right, Epstein did not kill himself.
@Patricus You are a victim of finance capitalism propaganda. Communism is Marxism, not
socialism. Socialists do not outright reject private ownership, the goal was co-ops to
displace finance capital. Co-ops are corporations where every member has only one share. The
majority decides, not one shareholder with 50.1% of the shares. The state is not the worker.
Real socialists are opposed to private central banks. I haven't heard any of the allegedly
"far left" Democratic Presidential candidates suggest nationalizing the Fed. Ron Paul was
more of a socialist than they are on that one.
Also part of the brainwashing is the absolute failure of the vast majority of Americans,
who fail to understand that immigration is the reserve army of capital, used to attack the
people of the nation. It lowers wages and working conditions; produces more pollution;
increases living costs; lowers standards of living; and most importantly, increases
profits
Any real nationalism, out of necessity, will have socialist aspects, because doing what is
right for the nation, in the truest sense of the word, means that the best solution can come
from anywhere on the political spectrum. Governments "own" armies. Is that communism, or
should it be a government asset that should be privatized just as the US government
privatized the control of its currency.
As long as people dwell in the land of "left" and "right" the owners will continue to
divide. One solution would be to ban political parties and require all candidates running for
office to be funded equally, out of the public purse. That would make candidates have to face
their electorate more directly, and make them more responsive to the electorate, rather than
the party. In Congress, the political parties would not get to choose committee chairs,
individuals would have to earn the respect of their peers for that.
@follyofwar Tucker Carlson is the only news show I can watch, too. The rest is pretty
obviously intended to neutralize the rise of native leadership with the relentless
insinuation that all we can do is whine like Lou Dobbs and his guests, vote Republican, and
show what we're made of by blowing hot air out our asses like Hannity with his mawkish
imbecilities about America still being great because he gets great deals at Costco. Sean wuvs
America and the gal who follows him turns to American-hating Alan Dershowitz to update us
about the espionage of his long-term client Jeffrey Epstein. Check.
Just yesterday the kosher msm was mendaciously portraying our Army's combat vets as baby
killers, while today no one says a word when Fox' toadeaters tout that "muh brothers, muh
mission" fake and phony honor among "warriors" -- now all heroes of course, just for putting
on the uniform for Eretz Israel and the Yinon Plan. More importantly, Fox News' elaborate
efforts concealing Israel's culpability for 9/11 constitutes, as a matter of law, powerful
circumstantial evidence of their guilt in the greatest act of treason against this country in
its history.
Fox News' basecamp commando and armchair warrior types were outed by Homer's Achilles in
the ninth century BC, in the Iliad. As Pope's translation has it,
O monster! Mixed of insolence and fear,
Thou dog in forehead, but in heart a deer!
When wert thou known in ambush'd fights to dare,
Or nobly face the horrid front of war?
'Tis ours, the chance of fighting fields to try;
Thine to look on, and bid the valiant die.
How dare Fox News demand we honor the soldiers who foolishly believed Fox News that they
were fighting for their country. They still go in droves to their possible deaths, mistaking
the costumed bureaucrats in the Pentagon who serve Israel first in all things for warrior
patriots like themselves. I do not believe a military whose leadership's chief trait is
servility toward a foreign nation and betrayal of its own can survive no matter how much
money is counterfeited by the Treasury out of thin air to pay its bills.
I started out thinking this article might actually be helpful. The only real issue is that it
doesn't make any clear distinctions between what the author references as "conservative inc."
and conservatism. And the reference material doesn't do much to clarify the matter. I am not
obtuse the difficulties of identifying or defining what a conservative is at present. given
the massacre of its principles in practice as well as abandoning the same for political
purposes.
But if in fact, you want to recognize that there is a damaging vent of so conservatives
that is actually anything but or damaging so deep it needs confronting then you have to
tackle the difficult but instrumental aspect of defining in some manner what is meant by
conservatism verses "conservative inc."
From a communicative perspective using the term conservative inc. is problematic because
it suggests strongly that "conservatism" as an ethos is under false -- by definition –
use of the word anchored by "incorporation".
I am unclear how inc. makes it distinct.
Clearly what the article refers to are "beltway" political or left and far left
conservatives, even it's possible to be far or left and still be a conservative. Those labels
would make matters more clear, even if one did not define them the distinctions they would
provide some manner recognizable distinction -- broadly speaking conservative relativity or
relative conservatives. Those who use conservative merely as a tool for political, social or
economic advantage.
And there are several issues that are outstanding to conservative ethos and practice
1. a divine authority
2. integrity of objective realities
3. the purpose of order and prudence not as an end but to the means best for all concerned
to just society -- fair playing fields.
4. a respect and support for the mechanisms (institutions) that enable justice and
fairness
5. limited government – not merely understood as "small" but least intrusive in the
lives of citizens
6. change and improvement are part of any social order -- however, the means chosen is
predicated on effectively doing so minus the damaging effects of abrupt and disorderly
attend.
7. understands the pillars of successful societies and supports them: family, local
community, regional, state and national mechanisms – each with attendant
responsibilities . . .
The frame work for US citizens is embodied in the historical documents of the Declaration
of Independence and the Constitution of the US neither of which are universal documents but
unique as written and intended to the formulation of the US of America and her alone.
Cuckold - Wikipedia A cuckold is the husband of an
adulterous wife. In evolutionary biology, the term is also applied
to males who are unwittingly investing parental effort
in offspring that are not genetically their own. [1]
One definition of "cuckservative" is a conservative who sells out, In a 2015 interview with
Breitbart News, Ben Harrison said he did not
support any presidential candidate in
the 2016 election, but said he admires Trump for "shaking up the
neocon-controlled
Republican Party
Notable quotes:
"... If you're asking how many people might agree with the underlying argument -- that the conservative movement has accommodated the cultural left for too long -- the answer might be millions. ..."
"... As many as 45 percent of self-identified "conservative Republicans" oppose any legal status for undocumented immigrants -- i.e., they oppose the establishment Republican position, as represented by Jeb Bush and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. ..."
Late last week, a neologism was born. Twitter was the incubator. "Cuckservative," a portmanteau of "conservative" and "cuckold"
(i.e. a man whose wife has cheated on him)
burned up Twitter as fans of Donald Trump's politicking warred with the movement conservatives who opposed it.
... ... ...
Who are the "cuckservatives?"
You might be one! The hashtag's targets are conservatives who seem to have made peace with elements alien to traditional white
Americanism. That could mean the transgender movement; it could mean non-white immigrants. Certainly, criticizing Trump's visit to
the border, saying he will alienate certain voters, is a trial run for cuckservative status.
"Just look at them!" said Spencer. "Glenn Beck, Erik [sic] Erickson, Mike Huckabee. They're mediocrities, or sub-mediocrities.
They're grinning, obese doofuses. No person with a deep soul -- no person who wants to take part in a moment that's idealistic,
that's going to change the world -- would want to be a part of 'conservatism.' In a way, the current 'cucks' are the residue of
the Bush era. They were the 'conservative' and 'Religious Right' allies of the neoconservatives. They're still around, for no
apparent reason."
What's the opposite of a "cuckservative," and how many of those people are there? There's no catch-all term, and the answer depends
on how you limit results. If it's just the people using the new term, then it's a limited number of activists online. The white nationalism
represented by Spencer has struggled to find footing. Youth for Western Civilization, a student group that attempted to bring millennials
on campus into the "traditionalist" cause, burned brightly for a few years, then went inactive.
If you're asking how many people might agree with the underlying argument -- that the conservative movement has accommodated
the cultural left for too long -- the answer might be millions.
As many as 45 percent of self-identified "conservative Republicans"
oppose any legal status for undocumented immigrants -- i.e., they oppose the establishment Republican position, as represented
by Jeb Bush and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
it took Eastern Europe a decade (1990-2000) to undo 45 years of communism, and regain
functional normality by local terms.
And it will only take slightly longer for neoliberalism, open borders ideology and
globo-decadence to utterly destroy Eastern Europe. At which time they'll be wishing they
still had the communists in power.
"... The Democratic establishment is deeply and widely imbued with rancid Russophobic attitudes. Most telling was (and remains) a core "Russiagate" allegation that "Russia attacked American democracy during the 2016 presidential election" on Trump's behalf -- an "attack" so nefarious it has often been equated with Pearl Harbor. ..."
"... We have also learned that the heads of America's intelligence agencies under President Obama, especially John Brennan of the CIA and James Clapper, director of National Intelligence, felt themselves entitled to try to undermine an American presidential candidacy and subsequent presidency, that of Donald Trump. ..."
"... We also learned that, contrary to Democratic dogma, the mainstream "free press" cannot be fully trusted to readily expose such abuses of power. ..."
"... Opponents of Barr's investigation into the origins of Russiagate say it is impermissible or unprecedented to "investigate the investigators." But the bipartisan Church Committee, based in the US Senate, did so in the mid-1970s. It exposed many abuses by US intelligence agencies, particularly by the CIA, and adopted remedies that it believed would be permanent. Clearly, they have not been. ..."
"... However well-intentioned Barr may be, he is Trump's attorney general and therefore not fully credible. As I have also argued repeatedly, a new Church Committee is urgently needed. It's time for honorable members of the Senate of both parties to do their duty. ..."
Almost daily for three years, Democrats and their media have told us very bad things about
Donald Trump's life, character, and presidency. Some of them are true. But in the process, we
have also learned some lamentable, even alarming, things about the Democratic Party
establishment, including self-professed liberals. Consider the following:
The Democratic establishment is deeply and widely imbued with rancid Russophobic
attitudes. Most telling was (and remains) a core "Russiagate" allegation that "Russia
attacked American democracy during the 2016 presidential election" on Trump's behalf -- an
"attack" so nefarious it has often been equated with Pearl Harbor. But there was no
"attack" in 2016, only, as I have
previously explained , ritualistic "meddling" of the kind that both Russia and America
have undertaken in the other's elections for decades. Little can be more phobic than the
allegation or belief that one has been "attacked by a hostile" entity. And yet this myth and
its false narrative persist in the Democratic Party's discourse, campaigning, and
fund-raising. We have also learned that the heads of America's intelligence agencies
under President Obama, especially John Brennan of the CIA and James Clapper, director of
National Intelligence, felt themselves entitled to try to undermine an American presidential
candidacy and subsequent presidency, that of Donald Trump. Early on, I termed this
operation " Intelgate ," and it has
since been well documented by other writers, including
Lee Smith in his new book . Intel officials did so in tacit alliance with certain
leading, and equally Russophobic, members of the Democratic Party, which had once opposed
such transgressions. This may be the most alarming revelation of the Trump years: Trump will
leave power, but these self-aggrandizing intelligence agencies will remain. We also
learned that, contrary to Democratic dogma, the mainstream "free press" cannot be fully
trusted to readily expose such abuses of power. Indeed, what the mainstream media --
leading national newspapers and two cable news networks, in particular -- chose to cover and
report, and chose not to cover and report, made the abuses and consequences of Russiagate
allegations possible. Even now, exceedingly influential publications such as The New York
Times seem
eager to delegitimize the investigation by Attorney General William Barr and
his appointed special investigator John Durham into the origins of Russiagate. Barr's
critics accuse him of fabricating a "conspiracy theory" on behalf of Trump. But the real, or
grandest, conspiracy theory was the Russiagate allegation of "collusion" between Trump and
the Kremlin, an accusation that was -- or should have been -- discredited by the Robert
Mueller report. And we have learned, or should have learned, that for all the talk by
Democrats about Trump as a danger to US national security, it is their Russiagate allegations
that truly endanger it. Consider two examples. Russia's new "hyper-sonic" missiles, which can
elude US missile-defense systems, make new nuclear arms negotiations with Moscow imperative
and urgent. If only for the sake of his legacy, Trump is likely to want to do so. But even if
he is able to, will Trump be entrusted enough to conduct negotiations as successfully as did
his predecessors in the White House, given the "Putin puppet" and "Kremlin stooge"
accusations still being directed at him? Similarly, as I have asked repeatedly, if confronted
with a US-Russian Cuban missile–like crisis -- anywhere Washington and Moscow are
currently eyeball-to-eyeball militarily, from the Baltic region and Ukraine to Syria -- will
Trump be as free politically as was President John F. Kennedy to resolve it without war? Here
too there is an inconvenient truth: To the extent that Democrats any longer seriously discuss
national security in the context of US-Russian relations, it mostly involves vilifying both
Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin. (Recall also that previous presidents were free to
negotiate with Russia's Soviet communist leaders, even encouraged to do so, whereas the
demonized Putin is an anti-communist, post-Soviet leader.)
The current state of US-Russian relations is unprecedentedly dangerous, not only due to
reasons cited here -- a new Cold War fraught with the possibility of hot war. Whether President
Trump serves one or two terms, he must be fully empowered to cope with the multiple
possibilities of a US-Russian military confrontation. That requires ridding him and our nation
of Russiagate allegations -- and that in turn requires learning how such allegations
originated.
Opponents of Barr's investigation into the origins of Russiagate say it is impermissible
or unprecedented to "investigate the investigators." But the bipartisan Church Committee, based
in the US Senate, did so in the mid-1970s. It exposed many abuses by US intelligence agencies,
particularly by the CIA, and adopted remedies that it believed would be permanent. Clearly,
they have not been.
However well-intentioned Barr may be, he is Trump's attorney general and therefore not
fully credible. As I have also argued repeatedly, a new Church Committee is urgently needed.
It's time for honorable members of the Senate of both parties to do their duty.
"... The Clinton camp was hardly absent from social media during the 2016 race. The barely-legal activities of Clintonite David Brock were previously reported by this author to have included $2 million in funding for the creation of an online " troll army " under the name Shareblue. The LA Times described the project as meant to "to appear to be coming organically from people and their social media networks in a groundswell of activism, when in fact it is highly paid and highly tactical." In other words, the effort attempted to create a false sense of consensus in support for the Clinton campaign. ..."
"... In terms of interference in the actual election process, the New York City Board of Elections was shown to have purged over one hundred thousand Democratic voters in Brooklyn from the rolls before the 2016 primary, a move that the Department of Justice found broke federal law . Despite this, no prosecution for the breach was ever attempted. ..."
"... In 2017, the Observer reported that the DNC's defense counsel argued against claims that the party defrauded Sanders' supporters by favoring Clinton, reasoning that Sanders' supporters knew the process was rigged. Again: instead of arguing that the primary was neutral and unbiased in accordance with its charter, the DNC's lawyers argued that it was the party's right to select candidates. ..."
"... The DNC defense counsel's argument throughout the course of the DNC fraud lawsuit doubled down repeatedly in defense of the party's right to favor one candidate over another, at one point actually claiming that such favoritism was protected by the First Amendment . ..."
"... The DNC's shameless defense of its own rigging disemboweled the most fundamental organs of the U.S. body politic. This no indication that the DNC will not resort to the same tactics in the 2020 primary race, ..."
"... f Debbie Wasserman Schultz's role as disgraced chairwoman of the DNC and her forced 2016 resignation wasn't enough, serious interference was also alleged in the wake of two contests between Wasserman Schultz and professor Tim Canova in Florida's 23rd congressional district. Canova and Wasserman Schultz first faced off in a 2016 Democratic primary race, followed by a 2018 general congressional election in which Canova ran as an independent. ..."
"... Debacles followed both contests, including improper vote counts, illegal ballot destruction , improper transportation of ballots, and generally shameless displays of cronyism. After the controversial results of the initial primary race against Wasserman Schultz, Canova sought to have ballots checked for irregularities, as the Sun-Sentinel reported at the time: ..."
"... Ultimately, Canova was granted a summary judgment against Snipes, finding that she had committed what amounted to multiple felonies. Nonetheless, Snipes was not prosecuted and remained elections supervisor through to the 2018 midterms. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton's recent comments to the effect that Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard is being "groomed" by Russia, and that the former Green Party Presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein is a "Russian asset", were soon echoed by DNC-friendly pundits. These sentiments externalize what Gabbard called the "rot" in the Democratic party outward onto domestic critics and a nation across the planet. ..."
"... Newsweek provided a particularly glaring example of this phenomenon in a recent op-ed penned by columnist Naveed Jamali, a former FBI double agent whose book capitalizes on Russiagate. In an op-ed titled: " Hillary Clinton Is Right. Tulsi Gabbard Is A Perfect Russian Asset – And Would Be A Perfect Republican Agent," ..."
Establishment Democrats and those who amplify them continue to project
blame for the public's doubt in the U.S. election process onto outside influence, despite the clear history of the party's subversion
of election integrity. The total inability of the Democratic Party establishment's willingness to address even one of these critical
failures does not give reason to hope that the nomination process in 2020 will be any less pre-ordained.
The Democratic Party's bias against Sen. Bernie Sanders during the 2016 presidential nomination, followed by the DNC defense counsel
doubling down on its right to rig the race during the
fraud lawsuit brought
against the DNC , as well as the irregularities in the races between former DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Tim Canova,
indicate a fatal breakdown of the U.S. democratic process spearheaded by the Democratic Party establishment. Influences transcending
the DNC add to concerns regarding the integrity of the democratic process that have nothing to do with Russia, but which will also
likely impact outcomes in 2020.
The content of the DNC and
Podesta emails published by WikiLeaks demonstrated that the DNC
acted in favor of Hillary Clinton in the lead up to the 2016 Democratic primary. The emails also revealed corporate media reporters
acting as surrogates of the DNC and its pro-Clinton agenda, going so far as
to promote Donald Trump during the GOP primary process as a preferred " pied-piper
candidate ." One cannot assume that similar evidence will be presented to the public in 2020, making it more important than ever
to take stock of the unique lessons handed down to us by the 2016 race.
Social Media Meddling
Election meddling via social media did take place in 2016, though in a different guise and for a different cause from that which
are best remembered. Twitter would eventually admit to actively suppressing
hashtags referencing the DNC and Podesta emails in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election. Additional
reports indicated that tech giant Google also showed measurable "pro-Hillary
Clinton bias" in search results during 2016, resulting in the alleged swaying of between 2 and 10 millions voters in favor of Clinton.
On the Republican side, a recent episode of CNLive! featured discussion
of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, in which undecided voters were micro-targeted with tailored advertising narrowed with the combined
use of big data and artificial intelligence known collectively as "dark strategy." CNLive! Executive Producer Cathy Vogan noted that
SCL, Cambridge Analytica's parent company, provides data, analytics and strategy to governments and military organizations "worldwide,"
specializing in behavior modification. Though Cambridge Analytica shut down in 2018, related companies remain.
The Clinton camp was hardly absent from social media during the 2016 race. The
barely-legal activities of Clintonite David Brock
were previously reported by this author to have included $2 million in funding
for the creation of an online " troll army " under the name Shareblue. The
LA Times described the project as meant to "to appear
to be coming organically from people and their social media networks in a groundswell of activism, when in fact it is highly paid
and highly tactical." In other words, the effort attempted to create a false sense of consensus in support for the Clinton campaign.
In terms of interference in the actual election process, the New York City Board of Elections was shown to have
purged over one hundred thousand Democratic voters in Brooklyn from the rolls
before the 2016 primary, a move that the Department of Justice found
broke federal law . Despite this, no prosecution
for the breach was ever attempted.
Though the purge was not explicitly found to have benefitted Clinton, the admission falls in line with allegations across the
country that the Democratic primary was interfered with to the benefit of the former secretary of state. These claims were further
bolstered by reports indicating that voting results from the 2016 Democratic
primary showed evidence of fraud.
DNC Fraud Lawsuit
The proceedings of the DNC fraud lawsuit provide the most damning evidence of the failure of the U.S. election process, especially
within the Democratic Party. DNC defense lawyers argued in open court for the party's
right to appoint candidates at its own discretion, while simultaneously denying
any "fiduciary duty" to represent the voters who donated to the Democratic Party under the impression that the DNC would act impartially
towards the candidates involved.
In 2017, the Observer reported that the DNC's defense counsel argued
against claims that the party defrauded Sanders' supporters by favoring Clinton, reasoning that Sanders' supporters knew the process
was rigged. Again: instead of arguing that the primary was neutral and unbiased in accordance with its charter, the DNC's lawyers
argued that it was the party's right to select candidates.
The Observer noted the sentiments of Jared Beck, the attorney representing the plaintiffs of the lawsuit:
"People paid money in reliance on the understanding that the primary elections for the Democratic nominee -- nominating process
in 2016 were fair and impartial, and that's not just a bedrock assumption that we would assume just by virtue of the fact that
we live in a democracy, and we assume that our elections are run in a fair and impartial manner. But that's what the Democratic
National Committee's own charter says. It says it in black and white."
The DNC defense counsel's argument throughout the course of the DNC fraud lawsuit doubled down repeatedly in defense of the party's
right to favor one candidate over another, at one point actually claiming that such favoritism was
protected by the First Amendment . The DNC's lawyers wrote:
"To recognize any of the causes of action that Plaintiffs allege would run directly contrary to long-standing Supreme Court
precedent recognizing the central and critical First Amendment rights enjoyed by political parties, especially when it comes to
selecting the party's nominee for public office ." [Emphasis added]
The DNC's shameless defense of its own rigging disemboweled the most fundamental organs of the U.S. body politic. This no indication
that the DNC will not resort to the same tactics in the 2020 primary race,
Tim Canova's Allegations
If Debbie Wasserman Schultz's role as disgraced chairwoman of the DNC and her forced 2016 resignation wasn't enough, serious interference
was also alleged in the wake of two contests between Wasserman Schultz and professor Tim Canova in Florida's 23rd congressional district.
Canova and Wasserman Schultz first faced off in a 2016 Democratic primary race, followed by a 2018 general congressional election
in which Canova ran as an independent.
Debacles followed both contests, including improper vote counts, illegal
ballot destruction , improper
transportation of ballots, and generally
shameless displays of cronyism. After the controversial
results of the initial primary race against Wasserman Schultz, Canova sought to have ballots checked for irregularities, as the
Sun-Sentinel reported at the time:
"[Canova] sought to look at the paper ballots in March 2017 and took Elections Supervisor Brenda Snipes to court three months
later when her office hadn't fulfilled his request. Snipes approved the destruction of the ballots in September, signing a certification
that said no court cases involving the ballots were pending."
Ultimately, Canova was granted a summary judgment against Snipes, finding that she had committed what amounted to multiple felonies.
Nonetheless, Snipes was not prosecuted and remained elections supervisor through to the 2018 midterms.
Republicans appear no more motivated to protect voting integrity than the Democrats, with
The Nation reporting that the GOP-controlled Senate
blocked a bill this week that would have "mandated paper-ballot backups in case of election machine malfunctions."
Study of Corporate Power
A 2014
study published by Princeton University found that corporate power had usurped the voting rights of the public: "Economic elites
and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average
citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence."
In reviewing this sordid history, we see that the Democratic Party establishment has done everything in its power to disrespect
voters and outright overrule them in the democratic primary process, defending their right to do so in the DNC fraud lawsuit. We've
noted that interests transcending the DNC also represent escalating threats to election integrity as demonstrated in 2016.
Despite this, establishment Democrats and those who echo their views in the legacy press continue to deflect from their own wrongdoing
and real threats to the election process by suggesting that mere discussion of it represents a campaign by Russia to attempt to malign
the perception of the legitimacy of the U.S. democratic process.
Hillary Clinton's recent comments to the effect that Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard is being "groomed" by Russia, and that the former
Green Party Presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein is a "Russian asset", were soon echoed by DNC-friendly pundits. These sentiments
externalize what Gabbard called the "rot"
in the Democratic party outward onto domestic critics and a nation across the planet.
Newsweek provided a particularly glaring example of this phenomenon in a
recent op-ed penned by columnist Naveed Jamali, a former FBI double agent whose book capitalizes on Russiagate. In an op-ed titled:
" Hillary Clinton Is Right. Tulsi Gabbard Is A Perfect Russian Asset – And Would Be A Perfect Republican Agent," Jamali
argued :
"Moscow will use its skillful propaganda machine to prop up Gabbard and use her as a tool to delegitimize the democratic process.
" [Emphasis added]
Jamali surmises that Russia intends to "attack" our democracy by undermining the domestic perception of its legitimacy. This thesis
is repeated later in the piece when Jamali opines : "They want to see a retreat
of American influence. What better way to accomplish that than to attack our democracy by casting doubt on the legitimacy of our
elections." [Emphasis added]
The only thing worth protecting, according to Jamali and those who amplify his work (including former Clinton aide and establishment
Democrat Neera Tanden), is the perception of the democratic process, not the actual functioning vitality of it. Such deflective tactics
ensure that Russia will continue to be used as a convenient international pretext for
silencing domestic dissent as we move into 2020.
Given all this, how can one expect the outcome of a 2020 Democratic Primary -- or even the general election – to be any fairer
or transparent than 2016?
* * *
Elizabeth Vos is a freelance reporter, co-host of CN Live! and regular contributor to Consortium News. If you value this
original article, please consider
making
a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this one.
@DanFromCT Well then, thank god for Tucker Carlson for going against the grain. He is
against all the Middle East wars, and wants to bring the troops home and put them on our
Southern Border. His is the only show that I watch anymore, and he pushes back from Fox's
Israel-first orthodoxy as much as he can and still keep his job, which he wouldn't have if
not for his high ratings. Tucker destroyed ultra hawk neocon John Bolton shortly before Trump
stupidly appointed him as his NSA.
BTW, Hannity is a war pig, who happens to be right on one issue – supporting Trump
against the democrat coup. And Buck is also right, Epstein did not kill himself.
"... "Manufacturing Consent," Taibbi writes, "explains that the debate you're watching is choreographed. The range of argument has been artificially narrowed long before you get to hear it" (p. 11). ..."
"... Americans were held captive by the boob tube affords us not only a useful historical image but also suggests the possibility of their having been able to view the television as an antagonist, and therefore of their having been able, at least some of them, to rebel against its dictates. Three decades later, on the other hand, the television has been replaced by iPhones and portable tablets, the workings of which are so precisely intertwined with even the most intimate minute-to-minute aspects of our lives that our relationship to them could hardly ever become antagonistic. ..."
"... The massive political revolution was, going all the way back to 1989, the collapse of the Berlin Wall, and then of the Soviet Union itself -- and thus of the usefulness of anti-communism as a kind of coercive secular religion (pp. 14-15). ..."
"... our corporate media have devised -- at least for the time being -- highly-profitable marketing processes that manufacture fake dissent in order to smother real dissent (p. 21). ..."
"... And the smothering of real dissent is close enough to public consentto get the goddam job done: The Herman/Chomsky model is, after all these years, still valid. ..."
"... For Maddow, he notes, is "a depressingly exact mirror of Hannity . The two characters do exactly the same work. They make their money using exactly the same commercial formula. And though they emphasize different political ideas, the effect they have on audiences is much the same" (pp. 259-260). ..."
Matt Taibbi's Hate Inc . is the most insightful and revelatory book about American
politics to appear since the publication of Thomas Frank's Listen, Liberal almost four
full years ago, near the beginning of the last presidential election cycle.
While Frank's topic was the abysmal failure of the Democratic Party to be democratic and
Taibbi's is the abysmal failure of our mainstream news corporations to report news, the
prominent villains in both books are drawn from the same, or at least overlapping, elite social
circles: from, that is, our virulently anti-populist liberal class, from our
intellectually mediocre creative class, from our bubble-dwelling thinking class.
In fact, I would strongly recommend that the reader spend some time with Frank's What's the
Matter with Kansas? (2004) and Listen, Liberal! (2016) as he or she takes up
Taibbi's book.
And to really do the book the justice it deserves, I would even more vehemently recommend
that the reader immerse him- or herself in Taibbi's favorite book and vade-mecum ,
Manufacturing Consent (which I found to be a grueling experience: a relentless
cataloging of the official lies that hide the brutality of American foreign policy) and, in
order to properly appreciate the brilliance of Taibbi's chapter 7, "How the Media Stole from
Pro Wrestling," visit some locale in Flyover Country and see some pro wrestling in person
(which I found to be unexpectedly uplifting -- more on this soon enough).
Taibbi tells us that he had originally intended for Hate, Inc . to be an updating of
Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent (1988), which he first read
thirty years ago, when he was nineteen. "It blew my mind," Taibbi writes. "[It] taught me that
some level of deception was baked into almost everything I'd ever been taught about modern
American life .
Once the authors in the first chapter laid out their famed propaganda model [italics
mine], they cut through the deceptions of the American state like a buzz saw" (p. 10). For what
seemed to be vigorous democratic debate, Taibbi realized, was instead a soul-crushing
simulation of debate. The choices voters were given were distinctions without valid
differences, and just as hyped, just as trivial, as the choices between a Whopper and a Big
Mac, between Froot Loops and Frosted Mini-Wheats, between Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi, between
Marlboro Lites and Camel Filters. It was all profit-making poisonous junk.
"Manufacturing Consent," Taibbi writes, "explains that the debate you're watching is
choreographed. The range of argument has been artificially narrowed long before you get to hear
it" (p. 11). And there's an indisputable logic at work here, because the reality of
hideous American war crimes is and always has been, from the point of view of the big media
corporations, a "narrative-ruining" buzz-kill. "The uglier truth [brought to light in
Manufacturing Consent ], that we committed genocide of a fairly massive scale across
Indochina -- ultimately killing at least a million innocent civilians by air in three countries
-- is pre-excluded from the history of the period" (p. 13).
So what has changed in the last thirty years? A lot! As a starting point let's consider the
very useful metaphor found in the title of another great media book of 1988: Mark Crispin
Miller's Boxed In: The Culture of TV . To say that Americans were held captive by
the boob tube affords us not only a useful historical image but also suggests the possibility
of their having been able to view the television as an antagonist, and therefore of their
having been able, at least some of them, to rebel against its dictates. Three decades later, on
the other hand, the television has been replaced by iPhones and portable tablets, the workings
of which are so precisely intertwined with even the most intimate minute-to-minute aspects of
our lives that our relationship to them could hardly ever become antagonistic.
Taibbi summarizes the history of these three decades in terms of three "massive revolutions"
in the media plus one actual massive political revolution, all of which, we should note, he
discussed with his hero Chomsky (who is now ninety! -- Edward Herman passed away in 2017) even
as he wrote his book. And so: the media revolutions which Taibbi describes were, first, the
coming of FoxNews along with Rush Limbaugh-style talk radio; second, the coming of CNN, i.e.,
the Cable News Network, along with twenty-four hour infinite-loop news cycles; third, the
coming of the Internet along with the mighty social media giants Facebook and Twitter.
The massive political revolution was, going all the way back to 1989, the collapse of
the Berlin Wall, and then of the Soviet Union itself -- and thus of the usefulness of
anti-communism as a kind of coercive secular religion (pp. 14-15).
For all that, however, the most salient difference between the news media of 1989 and the
news media of 2019 is the disappearance of the single type of calm and decorous and slightly
boring cis-het white anchorman (who somehow successfully appealed to a nationwide audience) and
his replacement by a seemingly wide variety of demographically-engineered news personæ
who all rage and scream combatively in each other's direction. "In the old days," Taibbi
writes, "the news was a mix of this toothless trivia and cheery dispatches from the frontlines
of Pax Americana . The news [was] once designed to be consumed by the whole house . But once we
started to be organized into demographic silos [italics mine], the networks found
another way to seduce these audiences: they sold intramural conflict" (p. 18).
And in this new media environment of constant conflict, how, Taibbi wondered, could public
consent , which would seem to be at the opposite end of the spectrum from conflict,
still be manufactured ?? "That wasn't easy for me to see in my first decades in the
business," Taibbi writes. "For a long time, I thought it was a flaw in the Chomsky/Herman
model" (p. 19).
But what Taibbi was at length able to understand, and what he is now able to describe for us
with both wit and controlled outrage, is that our corporate media have devised -- at least
for the time being -- highly-profitable marketing processes that manufacture fake dissent in
order to smother real dissent (p. 21).
And the smothering of real dissent is close enough to public consentto get the goddam
job done: The Herman/Chomsky model is, after all these years, still valid.
Or pretty much so. Taibbi is more historically precise. Because of the tweaking of the
Herman/Chomsky propaganda model necessitated by the disappearance of the USSR in 1991 ("The
Russians escaped while we weren't watching them, / As Russians do ," Jackson Browne presciently
prophesied on MTV way back in 1983), one might now want to speak of a Propaganda Model 2.0.
For, as Taibbi notes, " the biggest change to Chomsky's model is the discovery of a far
superior 'common enemy' in modern media: each other. So long as we remain a bitterly-divided
two-party state, we'll never want for TV villains" (pp. 207-208).
To rub his great insight right into our uncomprehending faces, Taibbi has almost
sadistically chosen to have dark, shadowy images of a yelling Sean Hannity (in lurid FoxNews
Red!) and a screaming Rachel Maddow (in glaring MSNBC Blue!) juxtaposed on the cover of his
book. For Maddow, he notes, is "a depressingly exact mirror of Hannity . The two characters
do exactly the same work. They make their money using exactly the same commercial formula. And
though they emphasize different political ideas, the effect they have on audiences is much the
same" (pp. 259-260).
And that effect is hate. Impotent hate. For while Rachel's fan demographic is all wrapped up
in hating Far-Right Fascists Like Sean, and while Sean's is all wrapped up in despising Libtard
Lunatics Like Rachel, the bipartisan consensus in Washington for ever-increasing military
budgets, for everlasting wars, for ever-expanding surveillance, for ever-growing bailouts of
and tax breaks for and and handouts to the most powerful corporations goes forever
unchallenged.
Oh my. And it only gets worse and worse, because the media, in order to make sure that their
various siloed demographics stay superglued to their Internet devices, must keep
ratcheting up levels of hate: the Fascists Like Sean and the Libtards Like Rachel must be
continually presented as more and more deranged, and ultimately as demonic. "There is us and
them," Taibbi writes, "and they are Hitler" (p. 64). A vile reductio ad absurdum has
come into play: "If all Trump supporters are Hitler, and all liberals are also Hitler," Taibbi
writes, " [t]he America vs. America show is now Hitler vs. Hitler! Think of the
ratings! " The reader begins to grasp Taibbi's argument that our mainstream corporate media are
as bad as -- are worse than -- pro wrestling. It's an ineluctable downward spiral.
Taibbi continues: "The problem is, there's no natural floor to this behavior. Just as cable
TV will eventually become seven hundred separate twenty-four-hour porn channels, news and
commentary will eventually escalate to boxing-style, expletive-laden, pre-fight tirades, and
the open incitement to violence [italics mine]. If the other side is literally Hitler,
[w]hat began as America vs. America will eventually move to Traitor vs. Traitor ,
and the show does not work if those contestants are not eventually offended to the point of
wanting to kill one another" (pp. 65-69).
As I read this book, I often wondered about how difficult it was emotionally for
Taibbi to write it. I'm just really glad to see that the guy didn't commit suicide along the
way. He does describe the "self-loathing" he experienced as he realized his own complicity in
the marketing processes which he exposes (p. 2). He also apologizes to the reader for his not
being able to follow through on his original aim of writing a continuation of Herman and
Chomsky's classic: "[W]hen I sat down to write what I'd hoped would be something with the
intellectual gravitas of Manufacturing Consent ," Taibbi confesses, "I found decades of
more mundane frustrations pouring out onto the page, obliterating a clinical examination" (p.
2).
I, however, am profoundly grateful to Taibbi for all of his brilliantly observed anecdotes.
The subject matter is nauseating enough even in Taibbi's sparkling and darkly tragicomic prose.
A more academic treatment of the subject would likely be too depressing to read. So let me
conclude with an anecdote of my own -- and an oddly uplifting one at that -- about reading
Taibbi's chapter 7, "How the News Media Stole from Pro Wrestling."
On the same day I read this chapter I saw that, on the bulletin board in my gym, a poster
had appeared, as if by magic, promoting an upcoming Primal Conflict (!) professional
wrestling event. I studied the photos of the wrestlers on the poster carefully, and, as an
astute reader of Taibbi, I prided myself on being able to identify which of them seemed be
playing the roles of heels , and which of them the roles of babyfaces .
For Taibbi explains that one of the fundamental dynamics of wrestling involves the invention
of crowd-pleasing narratives out of the many permutations and combinations of pitting
heels against faces . Donald Trump, a natural heel , brings the goofy
dynamics of pro wrestling to American politics with real-life professional expertise. (Taibbi
points out that in 2007 Trump actually performed before a huge cheering crowd in a
Wrestlemania event billed as the "battle of the billionaires." Watch it on YouTube!
https://youtu.be/5NsrwH9I9vE --
unbelievable!!)
The mainstream corporate media, on the other hand, their eyes fixed on ever bigger and
bigger profits, have drifted into the metaphorical pro wrestling ring in ignorance, and so,
when they face off against Trump, they often end up in the role of inept prudish
pearl-clutching faces .
Taibbi condemns the mainstream media's failure to understand such a massively popular form
of American entertainment as "malpractice" (p. 125), so I felt more than obligated to buy a
ticket and see the advertised event in person. To properly educate myself, that is.
I have stopped watching broadcast "news" other than occasional sessions of NPR in the car.
I get most of my news from sources such as this and from overseas sources (The Guardian,
Reuters, etc.). I used to subscribe to newspapers but have given them up in disgust, even
though I was looking forward to leisurely enjoying a morning paper after I retired.
I was brought up in the positive 1950's and, boy, did this turn out poorly.
Matt Taibbi is an American treasure, and I love his writing very much, but we also need to
ask, Why hasn't another Chomsky (or another Hudson), an analyst with a truly deep and
wide-ranging, synthetic mind, appeared on the left to take apart our contemporary media and
show us its inner workings? Have all the truly great minds gone to work for Wall Street? I
don't have an answer, but to me the pro wrestling metaphor, while intriguing, misses
something about the Fourth Estate in America, if it indeed still exists. And that is, except
for radio, there is a distinct imbalance between the two sides of the MSM lineup. On the
corporate liberal side of the national MSM team you have five wrestlers, but on the
conservative/reactionary side you have only the Fox entry. Because of this imbalance, the
corruption, laziness, self-indulgence, and generally declining interest in journalistic
standards seems greater among the corporate liberal media team, including the NYT and WaPo,
than the Fox team.
I'm not a fan of either Maddow (in her current incarnation) or Hannity, but Hannity,
perhaps because he thinks he's like David, often hustles to refute the discourse of the
corporate liberal Goliath team. Hannity obviously does more research on some topics than
Maddow, and, perhaps because he began in radio, he puts more emphasis on semi-rationally
structured rants than Maddow, who depends more on primal emotion, body language, and
Hollywood-esque fear-inducing atmospherics.
I'd wager that in a single five-minute segment there will often be twice as many rational
distinctions made in a Hannity rant than in a Maddow performance. In addition, for the last
three years Hannity has simply been demonstrably right about the fake Russiagate propaganda
blitz while Maddow has been as demonstrably wrong from the very beginning as propaganda
industry trend-setter Adam Schiff. So for at least these last three years, the Maddow-Hannity
primal match has been a somewhat misleading metaphor. The Blob and the security state have
been decisively supporting (and directing?) the corporate liberal global interventionist
media, at least regarding Russia and the permanent war establishment, and because the
imbalance between the interventionist and the non-interventionist MSM, Russia and Ukraine are
being used as a wedge to steadily break down the firewalls between the Dem party, the intel
community, and the interventionist MSM. If we had real public debates with both sides at
approximately equal strength as we did during the Vietnam War, then even pro wrestling-type
matches would be superior to what we have now, which is truthy truth and thoughtsy thought
coming to us from the military industrial complex and monopolistic holding companies. If
fascism is defined as the fusion of the state and corporations, then the greatest threat of
fascism in America may well be coming from the apparent gradual fusion of the corporate
liberal MSM, the Dem party elite, and the intel community. Instead of an MSM wrestling match,
we may soon be faced with a Japanese-style 'hitori-zumo' match in which a sumo wrestler
wrestles with only himself. Once these sumo wrestlers were believed to be wrestling with
invisible spirits, but those days are gone . http://kikuko-nagoya.com/html/hitori-zumo.htm
Today's Noam Chomksy? Chomsky was part of the machine who broke ranks with it. His MIT
research was generously funded by the Military Industrial Complex. Thankfully, enough of his
latent humanity and Trotskyite upbringing shone through so he exposed what he was part of. So
I guess today that's Chris Hedges, though he's a preacher at heart and not a semiotician.
> In addition, for the last three years Hannity has simply been demonstrably right
about the fake Russiagate propaganda blitz while Maddow has been as demonstrably wrong
Eh. Read whats-his-name's (Frankfurter?) book On Bullshit . You are giving
Hannity credit for something he doesn't really care about.
I don't believe the media environment as a whole leans corporate Dem/neoliberal.
T.V. maybe, but radio is much more right wing than left (yes there is NPR and Pacifica,
the latter with probably only a scattering of listerners but ) and it's still out there and a
big influence, radio hasn't gone away. So doesn't the right wing tilt of radio kind of
balance out television? (not necessarily in a good way but). And then there is the internet
and I have no idea what the overall lean of that is (I mean I prefer left wing sites, but
that's purely my own bubble and actually there are much fewer left analysis out there than
I'd like)
The whole review is good, but this extract should be quoted extensively:
While Frank's topic was the abysmal failure of the Democratic Party to be democratic and
Taibbi's is the abysmal failure of our mainstream news corporations to report news, the
prominent villains in both books are drawn from the same, or at least overlapping, elite
social circles: from, that is, our virulently anti-populist liberal class, from our
intellectually mediocre creative class, from our bubble-dwelling thinking class.
In short, stagnation and self-dealing at the top. What could possibly go wrong?
Are you serious? Maddow called Trump a traitor and accused him of betrayal in Russiagate,
and was caught out when that fell apart. This was pointed out all over the MSM .
Three decades later, on the other hand, the television has been replaced by iPhones and
portable tablets
and then goes on to spend most of the article talking about television. I'd say television
is still the main propaganda instrument even if many webheads like yours truly ignore it
(I've never seen Hannity's show or Maddow's–just hear the rumors). Arguably even
newspapers like the NYT have been dumbed down because the reporters long to be on TV and join
the shouting. And it's surely no coincidence that our president himself is a TV (and WWE)
star. Mass media have always been feeders of hysteria but television gave them faces and
voices. Watching TV is also a far more passive experience than surfing the web. They are
selling us "narratives," bedtime stories, and we like sleepy children merely listen.
This rave review has inspired me to add this to my to-read non-fiction queue. Currently
reading William Dalrymple's The Anarchy, on the rise of the East India Company. Next up: Matt
Stoller's Goliath. And then I'll get to Taibbi. Probably worth digging up my original copy of
Manufacturing Consent as well, which I read many moons ago; time for a re-read.
May I suggest Stephen Cohen's "War with Russia?" if it's not already on your list? In
focusing on the danger emerging from the new cold war, seeded by the Democrats, propagated by
corporate media (which he thinks is more dangerous than the first), Cohen clarifies the
importance of diplomacy especially with one's nuclear rivals.
Us rubes knew decades ago about pro wrestling. There was a regional circuit and the hero
in one town would become the villain in another town. The ones to be surprised were like John
Stossel, who got a perforated eardrum from a slap upside the head for his efforts at
in-your-face journalism with a wrestler who just wouldn't play along with his grandstanding.
Somewhere, kids cheered and life went on.
Ah, Ancient Athens, here we come – running back to repeat your mistakes! Our MSM
media has decided that when we are not at our neighbor's throats, we should be at each
other's throats!
I was watching old clips of the 'Fred Friendly Seminars' on YouTube. IMHO any channel that
produced a format such as this would be a ratings bonanza. Imagine a round table with various
media figures (corporate) left, (corporate) right, and independent being refereed by a
host-moderator discussing topics in 'Hate, Inc.'. In wrestling it's called a Battle Royale.
The Fourth Estate in a cage match!
And the smothering of real dissent is close enough to public consentto get the goddam
job done: The Herman/Chomsky model is, after all these years, still valid.
This is important, if people don't want to be naive about what democracy buys. Democracy
in the end is a ritual system to determine which members of an elite would win a war without
actually having to hold the war. Like how court functions to replace personal revenge by
determining (often) who would win in a fight if there were one, and the feudal system
replaced the genocidal wars of the axial age with the gentler warfare of the middle ages
which were often ritual wars of the elite that avoided the full risk of the earlier wars.
That, I think, is important -- under a democracy, the winner should be normally the winner
of the avoided violent conflict to be sustainable. Thus, it's enough to get most people to
consent to the solution, using the traditional meaning of consent being "won't put up a fight
to avoid it". If the choices on the table are reduced enough, you can get by with most people
simply dropping out of the questions.
Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit
It shouldn't be a surprise that we've moved to "faking dissent" -- it's the natural
evolution of a system where a lot of the effective power is in the hands of tech, and not
just as in the early 20th century, how many workers you have and how many soldiers you can
raise.
If you don't like it, change the technology we use to fight one another. We went from
tribes to lords when we switch from sticks to advanced forged weapons, and we went from
feudalism to democracy when we had factories dropping guns that any 15 year old could use
(oversimplifying a bit). Now that the stuff requires expertise, you'd expect a corresponding
shift in how we ritualize our conflict avoidance, and thus the organization of how we control
communication and how we organize our rituals of power.
Aka, it's the scientists and the engineers who end up determining how everything is
organized, and people never seem to bother with that argument, which is especially surprising
that even hard-core Marxists waste their time on short-term politics rather than the tech
we're building.
I'd be curious whether Taibbi thought about the issue of the nature of the technology and
whether there are technological options on the horizon which drive the conflict in other
directions. If we had only kept the laws on copyright and patent weaker, so that the
implementation of communicative infrastructure would have stayed decentralized
Tabby's "manufacturing fake consent" was really the whole punchline – the joke's on
us. Hunter S. Thompson, another of Taibbi's heroes, is, along with Chomsky, speaking to us
through MT. Our media is distracting us from social coherence. Another thing it is doing
(just my opinion) is it is overwhelming us to the point of disgust. Nobody likes it. And we
protect ourselves by tuning it out. Turning it off. Once the screaming lunatics marginalize
themselves by making the whole narrative hysterical, we just act like it's another family
fight and we're gonna go do something else. When everyone is screaming, no one is
screaming.
I have tried to read Hate Inc. and Taibbi's Griftopia but one of my main issues with
Taibbi's writing is his lack of notes, references, or bibliography, etc. in his books. In
skimming Hate Inc. it seems like a book I would enjoy reading, however my personal value
system is that any book without footnotes, endnotes, citations, or at minimum a bibliography
is just an opinion or a story. At least Thomas Frank's Listen Liberal has a section for End
Notes/References at the end of the book. Again just my personal values.
I am from Greater Boston, far, far from flyover country (which I imagine begins in Yonkers
NY), but I sure grew up with pro wrestling as part of the schoolyard discourse. I certainly
knew it was as much of a family affair as Disney on Ice and have trouble believing he thought
otherwise though I will not impugn his honesty. I am very grateful to the author for taking
the time to write this, but is it possible for a male who grew up in the US to be as deeply
embedded in the MSNBC demo as he claims to be?
Seriously, how is it possible for a male raised in the US to not at least have some
working familiarity with pro wrestling? My family along with my community was very close to
the national median income–do higher income boys really not learn about WWF and
WWE?
Seriously, rich kids, what was childhood like? I know you had music lessons and sports
camps, what else? Was it really that different?
Sorry, my blue collar, lifetime union member brother says your view is horseshit. All the
knows about WWE and WWF is that they are big-budget fakery and that's why they are of no
interest.
aye. in my blue to white collar( and back to blue to no collar) upbringing, wrestling was
never a thing. it was for the morons who couldn't read. seen as patently absurd by just about
everyone i knew. and this in klanridden east texas exurbia
wife's mexican extended familia oth luche libre is a big thing that all and sundry talked
about at thanksgiving. less so these days possibly due to the hyperindiviualisation of media
intake mentioned
(and,btw, in my little world , horseshit is a good thing)
Even allowing for my lefty-liberal bias, I do not see how it is possible to equate Fox
Noise and MSNBC, or Hannity and Maddow, as "both-sides" extremists. Fox violates basic
professional canons of fairness and equity on a daily basis. MSNBC occasionally does, but is
quick to correct errors of fact. Hannity is a thuggish outer-borough New York schmuck without
much education or knowledge of the world. Maddow is an Oxford Ph.D. and Rhodes Scholar. It is
one of the evil successes of the right-wing news cauldron to have successfully equated these
two figures and organizations.
Huh? MSNBC regularly makes errors of omission and commission with respect to Sanders. They
are still pushing the Russiagate narrative. That's a massive, two-year, virtually all the
time error they have refused to recant.
The blind spots of people on the soi-disant left are truly astonishing.
'Hannity is a thuggish outer-borough New York schmuck without much education or knowledge
of the world. Maddow is an Oxford Ph.D. and Rhodes Scholar '
oh, well, then – end of conversation! i mean, god knows, it'd be a cold day in hell
before a rhodes scholar, or even someone married to one, would ever lead us astray down the
rosy neoliberal path to hell, while, at the same time, under the spell of trump derangement
syndrome, actually attempt to revive the mccarthy era, eh?
Actual drugs are being used to hinder debate as well as emotional drugs like hate.
They can't trust agency to be removed by words and images alone – the stakes are too
high.
Now all of you go take a feel good pill and stop complaining!
I've been impressed with Taibbi's work, what I've read of it, but ironically this very
article contains a quote from him which exemplifies the problem: his casual assertion that
the US committed "genocide" in Indochina. Even the most fervent critics of US policy didn't
say this at the time, for the very good reason that there was no evidence that the US tried
to destroy a racial, religious, ethnic or nationalist group (the full definition is a lot
more complex and demanding than that). He clearly means that the US was responsible for lots
of deaths, which is incontestable. But the process of endless escalation of rhetoric, which
this book seems to be partly about, means that everything now has to be described in the most
extreme, absurd or apocalyptic tones, and at the top of your voice, otherwise nobody takes
any notice. So any self-respecting war now has to be qualified as "genocide" or nobody will
take any notice.
So it's probably good that "Grayfell" and his pals discovered me and are feverishly
"correcting" my article, and God knows how many other articles that don't conform to Wikipedia
"policy," or Philip Cross' political preferences, or Antifa's theory of "
preemptive self-defense ," or whatever other non-ideological, totally objective editorial
standards the "volunteer editors" at the Ministry of Wiki-Truth (who have nothing to do with
the Intelligence Community, or Antifa, or any other entities like that) consensually decide to
robotically adhere to.
How else are they going to keep their content "neutral," "unbiased," and "reliably sourced,"
so that people can pull up Wikipedia on their phones and verify historical events (which really
happened, exactly as they say they did), or scientific "facts" (which are indisputable) or
whether Oceania is at War with EastAsia, or Eurasia, or the Terrorists, or Russia?
Oh, and please don't worry about my Wikipedia article. König Ubu assures me he has done
all he could to restore it some semblance of accuracy, and that the Ministers have moved on to
bigger fish. Of course, who knows what additional "edits" might suddenly become a top priority
once "Grayfell" or Antifa gets wind of this piece.
Wikipedia is a perfect platform for manufacturing reality, disseminating
pro-establishment propaganda, and damaging people's reputations, which is a rather popular
tactic these days.
The simple fact is, when you google anything, Wikipedia is usually the first link that
comes up. Most people assume that what they read on the platform is basically factual and
at least trying to be "objective" which a lot of it is, but a lot of it isn't.
Excellent characterization.
Many speak of the liberating features of the Internet, how the old MSM stranglehold has
been whipped. The way the Internet is being used, that is just not true today. It was true
for early adopters (1990s?) and early-mid adopters (late 1990s and early 2000s?).
The 2010s has given us a pendulum swing back in the other direction. By circa 2020,
information is, effectively, funneled through a few chokepoints -- Wikipedia, Youtube,
Twitter, Facebook, the Google quasi-Monopoly And the limits of acceptable discourse are
policed using various tactics. This is a great example.
In this sense, Unz Review is a throwback to an earlier era of the Internet, in the best
way.
In the anti-establishment circles I move in, Wikipedia is notorious for this kind of
stuff, which is unsurprising when you think about it. It's a perfect platform for
manufacturing reality, disseminating pro-establishment propaganda, and damaging people's
reputations, which is a rather popular tactic these days.
Of course, the Ministry of Wiki-Truth keeps its content "neutral," "unbiased," and "reliably
sourced," such as Brian Stelter's sudser "Reliable Sources" at CNN. Except for the scientific
articles, all the rest are ideological Soviet-style trash. The more fool you, using this
phony "Encyclopedia," which has been hijacked by the thought policy long ago.
As the White House seems to turn its back on the Neocons' immoral interventionism, some Jews
may be discomfited by the fact that the Neocon war mongering doctrine has been largely a Jewish
project. As Haartez writer Ari
Shavit wrote back in 2003: "The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative
intellectuals, most of them Jewish " Maybe some Jews now understand that the Zionist shift from
a 'promised land' to the Neocon 'promised planet' doesn't reflect well on the Jews as a
group.
I am trying to point out the possibility that the overwhelming fear of 'anti-Semitism,'
documented however poorly by the AJC, might well be the expression of guilt. American Jews may
feel communal guilt over the disastrous politics and culture of some sections of their
corrupted elite. They might even feel guilty as Americans about the brutal sacrifice of one of
America's prime values, that of freedom of speech as guaranteed by the 1st Amendment, on the
altar of
'antisemitsm.' .
Obviously, I would welcome AJC's further investigation of this. It would be interesting to
learn about the correlation between the Jewish fear of anti Semitsm and Jewish guilt. It would
also be fascinating to find out how Jewish anxiety translates into self-reflection. In that
regard, I suggest that instead of blaming the American people, Jews try introspection. US Jews
may want to follow the early Zionists, such as Theodor Herzl, who turned guilt into
self-examination. Herzl was deeply disturbed by anti Semitism but this didn't stop him from
digging into its causes. "The wealthy Jews control the world, in their hands lies the fate
of governments and nations,"Herzl wrote. He continued, "
They set governments one against the other. When the wealthy Jews play, the nations and the
rulers dance. One way or the other, they get rich." Herzl, like other early Zionists,
believed that Jews could be emancipated from their conditions and even be loved globally by
means of a cultural, ideological and spiritual metamorphosis with the aspiration of
'homecoming.' Herzl and his fellow early Zionists were clearly wrong in their proposed remedy
for the Jewish question, but were absolutely spot on in their adherence to self-reflection and
harsh self-criticism.
American Jews have much to learn from Herzl and other early Zionists. They should ask
themselves how their American 'Golden Medina' their Jewish land of opportunities, has
turned into a 'threatening' realm. What happened, what has changed in the last few years? Was
it the constant cries over anti-Semitism and the desperate and institutional attempts to
silence critics that turned their Golden Medina into a daunting space?
Anti-Semitism is a subset of class warfare, and thus perfectly natural in any society with
high inequality and large numbers of Jews. Because Jews always ally themselves with the
rulers and higher classes, as a survival strategy, and also because their talents naturally
place them in the higher classes.
The intelligent anti-Semitism of people like Chesterton and Belloc are of this type. These
people are perfectly capable of having honorable respect for Jews and deep appreciation for
Jewish culture while believing Jews may not be a good fit for their host society. Its nothing
personal. Just realism.
Unlike Gilad Atzmon, who sees no problem with other groups who compete and pursue self
interest but finds Jews doing so uniquely unacceptable and a cause for "guilt", they are
generally self-aware and honest enough to not blame Jews for competing on the world stage
– for being human – and realize Europeans were far harsher towards those foreign
peoples they competed against.
There is another kind of anti-Semitism that just reflects mankind's propensity to hate
anyone who is different, and comes from the same place as the vicious cruelties against all
manner of heretics and dissenters, including genocides, that was such a pronounced
characteristic of Christian Europe, and the racism of European society.
This generally has to do with pent up frustrations and resentments, which because of
special aspects of European culture, were uniquely intense in that part of the world (
Europeans were/are uniquely frustrated and unhappy with existence). Most anti-Semites on Unz
are of this kind, like commenters Colin Wright and utu, for instance, and authors Linh Dinh
and Kevin Barrett, Andrew Joyce, and Guyenot, and others.
These kinds of anti-Semites despise Jewish culture and anything Jewish, and often feel
compelled to invent elaborate grotesque mythologies using selective sources and distorted
interpretations to "prove" that Jewish culture and religion is unlike any other and uniquely
evil. Completely un-selfaware and lacking in introspection or historical perspective, they
are are not honest enough and emotionally stable enough to see group competition as the
historic norm, and their own group as no angels in this regard.
In their reading of history, no group competes except Jews, and the whole world would be a
paradise of harmony if not for these devilishly evil Jews.
Needless to say, this kind of infantile anti-Semitism is more of an emotional cri de ceour
of personal anguish, from an unbalanced mind, than anything to be taken seriously. And these
people today are effectively marginalized.
The Jewish "problem" in Europe is simply that of normal group competition among a host
population that by world standards, has always been uniquely intolerant of other ways of life
and thought, and uniquely imperialistic about its own values and standards, and uniquely
addicted to trying to control its environment (which ended up in science and technology).
Jews in China, India, and to some extent the Muslim world, hardly posed a comparable
"problem".
Zionism has obviously been an almost complete success in shifting Jewish group competition
away from within societies more towards the more normal pattern of national competition, as
Gilad Atzmon prefers as "healthy".
Jewish influence today outside of Israel is primarily directed to the current Imperial
center, America. Empires, by nature, always have foreign factions vying for favor and
influence. Rome was of course the same way. This is quite natural for empires. So Jewish
attempts to influence America – the self-designated policeman of the world – is
quite naturally a part of any imperial system, as the world policeman, one naturally needs to
have him on your side, of course.
So the Jewish "problem" has largely been solved through Zionism – but of course, as
more Jews move to Israel, the situation will get even better. And if imperial power shifts
away from America, the new imperial center will, obviously, become the site for various
foreign factions to vie for influence.
@AaronB no one
has a problem with Jews being gifted or being part of the elite,, but ppl do have problems
with Madoffs, Binary options, Weinstein, Epstein, Aipac, ADL interfering with elementary
freedoms do you really need me to explain all of that? for the record, by the time the Jewish
problem was solved by Zionism, Zionism was defeated by Jewishness and Israel became the
Jewish State ,,, my next book is all about that
' So the Jewish "problem" has largely been solved through Zionism – but of course,
as more Jews move to Israel, the situation will get even better. And if imperial power shifts
away from America, the new imperial center will, obviously, become the site for various
foreign factions to vie for influence.'
but as power shifts away from America, she becomes less able to nurture Israel and shield
her from the consequences of her actions, and then what?
You talk about moving back there. Would you do that if your standard of living there would
be, say, a quarter of what it is now, and if, to please the world, you had to accept that the
judge you were going to appear before might well be Muslim?
I doubt it. As US power declines, Israel will be abandoned. So we won't have gotten
anywhere at all.
Antisemitism is useful component of the rabbinate to generate internal group cohesion. It
forms a separation barrier, like an eruv, between goyim and Jew.
@Gilad Atzmon
imo your essay misses the point of why Jews should feel guilt, therefore AaronB's
comment also fails to address a critical issue.
I can't cite chapter and verse, but it has to be the case in the course of human events
that plenty of individuals and even groups have engaged in behavior as objectionable as
Madoff, Weinstein, Epstein, and the the numerous swindles Israel engages in.
I don't think those offenses are exclusive to Jews. Atzmon's essay here may amount to a
limited hangout.
AaronB's comment is braggadocio; Although I agree w/ AaronB that the power-center will shift
from USA to the East, and that if Jews follow the pattern of their ancient myths and last 120
years of history, they will destroy USA on their way out; nevertheless Jews will have to
share power with Russia and China, Arabs/Muslims will have a say, and Iran should not be
counted out -- they've dealt with Jews longer than any other people and know well their
treachery. It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings , AaronB, and there's a whole cast of divas just
warming up.
I do believe that the creation of zionist Israel may be unique in the known history of the
world: Jews not only dispossessed a native people in Palestine -- USAians did pretty much the
same -- Jews got other nation-states to do their killing for them.
But even more significantly, Jews killed -- genocided, really -- non-Jews in the countries
that had hosted them -- American colonists did not genocide the British in British homeland
-- once again, Jews arranged for the killing to be carried out by another state, in the case
of the genocide of Germany, American and British Christians became Jewish weapons to kill
their own fellow-Christians.
At the same time, Jews needed to cull their own herd: the elite that Atzmon and AaronB
gloat over -- the "remnant," is a relatively recent phenomenon; it may be that the vaunted 6
million were dead wood; impoverished, filthy, inbred: Jabotinsky found them disgusting and
Nordau called them "Degenerate." Worse: they were a drag on the mean. Russia and Poland were
crawling with Jews of "unsuitable human material" for the "new Jew" that was to populate the
zionist utopia. They had to be got rid of; just as Moses delegated Levites to kill fellow
Jews at Mt. Sinai, so Louis Brandeis, Frankfurter etc. fell upon Hitler, Churchill, Stalin
and FDR to kill surplus, degenerate Jews. Saddam & el Baghdadi are minor replicas of a
similar mold employed to kill inconvenient challengers or competitors to zionist Jews.
Jews killed -- or arranged for the killing -- of their own undesireables. In addition,
Jews killed or arranged for the killing of "the best gentiles;" and then, the master stroke:
Jews proclaimed themselves the victims and psychologically manipulated those shattered
peoples -- Germans and other Western Europeans– to the extent that those populations
paid and continue to pay Jews for "Jewish suffering," while also punishing themselves out of
existence with their own Jewish-induced, psychologically-manipulated guilt.
This systemic program -- patterned on the mythic flight from Egypt, and conquest of Canaan
but worked out in real time, is, I believe, unique in all the world.
Jewish holocaustism is why Jews are hated.
Maybe some Jews realize what they have done.
Jews are correct to feel "guilty" and fearful of a "rise in antisemitism."
No statistics or polls to cite, just hazarding a guess: "antisemitism" will rise in
lockstep with realization among non-Jews that the holocaust is a hoax.
I am not sure the possibility exists for Jews to be forgiven for what they have done.
Even with activist groups trying to spook Jews and cajole them into making aliyah ,
fuck-all of them do – and an almost-offsetting number leave.
The net migration rate (all religions) for Occupied Palestine is 0.2%/yr – a
rounding error – and inwards-migration is overwhelmingly 'economic refugee' in
character (almost half of annual Jewish in-migration is from former Soviet countries).
As guys like Sassoon, Shlomo Sand, and others have noted: Western European Jews have every
opportunity to go live in Palestine, but have always exhibited fuck-all interest in doing so.
In this they echo Maimonides: after the Almohad conquest of Cordoba and the abolition of
dhimmi status for non-Muslims, the Rambam spent almost all of his life in Egypt and
Morocco – he had every opportunity to settle in Palestine but chose to live and work
elsewhere.
And so it is to this day: affluent, educated Western Jews would rather eat their own dicks
that move to Palestine. And that's even true of arch-Zionists like Adelson and Dershowitz
– neither of whom are 'Western' in any real sense (they're pretty obvious of Lithuanian
or other- Osteuropäische ). descent.
Given the Exodus (LOL) of secular Jews, and the pattern of in-migration and reproduction,
it's pretty clear that Palestine will become a third-world nation in a couple of generations:
having emerged from the hovels of Eastern Europe, the Ashkenazim are remaking Palestine in
its image.
There are good signs though: the huge-and-rising proportion of datlashim among the
children of "box-heads" (Ultra-Orthodox), for a start. Even when everyone around them is
trying to fill their heads with primitive supremacist tribal drivel, almost a third of
children of box-heads are secular by the time they finish high school.
There is a well-understood (outside the US) bifurcation of Jewish communities into "
People Like Us " and Eastern Europeans.
In Australia the dividing line can be drawn at around 1920: "People Like Us" are
integrated, and for the most part they politely and quietly ignore the rabbit-eaters –
those are the ones howling all the time about how at-risk they are, but who somehow can't
find a way to get to the Jewish 'safe space' in Palestine unless there is a warrant out for
their arrest, in which case it's " Tomorrow Morning in Jerusalem! ".
@Gilad Atzmon
But that's ridiculous. Every group has its criminals and the more ambitious and talented, the
worse. You can't have the talented Jews who contribute to science, technology, culture, and
philanthropy without some of that energy getting corrupted.
It's like that will all groups. When Europe was very energetic and vital it produced
tremendous sinners and corruption while also people of tremendous benefit to society and the
world.
Saints go along with sinners. Its because when you have a certain quantum of energy, you
cannot control where all of it goes. Some of it had to get corrupted. Only way to avoid this
is to neuter people.
So again .what does this have to do with Jewishness specifically? How this is different
from the Robber Barons of the 19th century, the rapacious and deceptive imperialists, the
current day Chinese oligarchs, etc? Umm, European and world history is littered with bad
actors a million times worse than, wet, Bernie Madoff and the ADL, lol
That Jews also produce bad actors proves that there is something uniquely wrong with
Jewishness per se? Are you nuts? This is what I mean by complete lack of self awarness and
historical literacy
Pick up a history book. You are so self absorbed in your fantasy world its as if no other
people produces bad actors or have ever, and we must search for the utterly mysterious fact
that some Jews act in the unique characteristics of Jewishness
@Colin Wright US
support has always acted as much as a restraint as a benefit. Israel's most contested wars
were won without US support, and in fact the US only became heavily involved with Israel only
after it firmly established itself and demonstrated its capacity for self reliance, and it
thought it could use it as an ally in the Cold War.
While certainly appreciated, US support is hardly crucial to Israel's survival lol. Your
historical illiteracy and wishful thinking causes you to completely misunderstand it and
vastly overrate it.
@Colin Wright
Bullshit –accept your own stupidity if you like but dont deign to speak for anyone else
!! Take any large city bedevilled by organised crime -- are the ORGANISED criminals
successful at least temporarily –yes ! Are they smarter than anyone else –NO !!
If the Jews are so smart why do they eventually always eff up??
They are organised with rat like cunning no doubt but seem to create misery wherever they
go and are so effin smart they are astounded that they are hated !! What could have caused it
–we are so smart why cant we figure it out !!
@Colin Wright
What are you talking about. I just said there is a perfectly reasonable type of anti-Semitism
that is a natural response to group competition – the actions of Jews themselves.
Obviously no ones hands are clean when it comes to group competition. This is an
"innocent" phenomenon of history that characterizes all groups without exception.
What Jews object to is not normal criticism, which we engage in ourselves in a very
spirited manner, but the singling out of Jewish competitive behavior in the struggle for life
as somehow uniquely evil and bad. I won't even go into the horrific crimes Europeans and
Asians have committed in this struggle and compare them to, err, Bernie Maddow, but accept
for the sake of argument all groups are equally guilty.
So a sane criticism of Jews that places it in the normal context of group competition,
which is always horrific, is perfectly ok. But the kind of singling out for special stigma
and opprobrium the Jewish part in the universal human struggle for survival – when if
anything it is milder than that of other groups which are truly horrific – is indeed
sinister and justifies terms like anti-Semitism.
Now because so many people single out Jews for special criticism, as if they alone are not
allowed to compete to live, some Jews have become hypersensitive and see in even innocent and
justified criticism the seeds of the kind of sinister anti-Semitism that so often rears its
ugly head. Thats perfectly understandable, although I condemn it.
I, for one, can't think of another people who invest so much energy in measuring their
unpopularity.
This is perfectly logical. No other group sees their hosts as dangerous cattle which has
to be exploited and undermined at every opportunity. Feeling the pulse of the herd –
before these actions create another blowback – is just part of the chosenite's job.
I don't see much guilt among the Jews. It's mostly (justified) fear that certain elements
of the Tribe are moving too aggressively and spoiling it for the rest.
@SolontoCroesus
This is what you have wrought Gilad. A philosophy of yours about Judaism and Jews and this is
where it ends up. With guys like this writing about.
But even more significantly, Jews killed -- genocided, really -- non-Jews in the
countries that had hosted them -- American colonists did not genocide the British in
British homeland -- once again, Jews arranged for the killing to be carried out by another
state, in the case of the genocide of Germany, American and British Christians became
Jewish weapons to kill their own fellow-Christians.
@AaronB If you
knew your history you would know about Operation Nickel Grass: 22,325 tons of tanks,
artillery, ammunition per Wikipedia. This was US aid during one of Israel's most contested
wars (Yom Kippur) and unsurprisingly, we don't get any appreciation for it. I bet I could
find an article criticizing the US for not doing it fast enough.
@Colin Wright I
have no doubt you're smarter than me, Colin. Your'e a pretty smart dude. I don't know about
Fran Taubman, though.
Statistically, there are far more smart whites than Jews by a huge margin. And I am not
even sure Jews are smarter than whites – I think the advantage in Jewish ways of
thinking are cultural. We don't buy into simple binary thinking like whites do, so remain
more intellectually supple and dextrous.
Anyways, one of the great things about Israel is that we can be more physical and don't
have to be so smart anymore. Oh sure, Israeli Jews are smart. They make good technology and
produce lots of great army officers and tactics and techniques, great conpanies, etc. But the
kind of cunning needed by diaspora Jews isn't so necessary anymore, and I've always been
struck by how maladroit and clumsy Israelis seemed on tv presenting defending Israel and the
like.
Hopefully, when I move to Israel ill lose another 10 IQ points or so, if I'm lucky.
Bliss.
@cyrusthevirus'What are you talking about. I just said there is a perfectly reasonable type of
anti-Semitism that is a natural response to group competition – the actions of Jews
themselves '
virtually all of said actions being perfectly reasonable -- according to you. Just group
competition.
Oh wait, you mentioned Bernie Madoff. How about, say, those actions that drove the
previously rather amiable Lithuanian peasantry into a murderous frenzy in the summer of
1941?
@AaronB'
It's like that will all groups. When Europe was very energetic and vital it produced
tremendous sinners and corruption while also people of tremendous benefit to society and the
world '
This is your typical glib generalization -- upon inspection, it seems to have absolutely
no basis in fact.
Several small communities have managed to produce people who notably helped mankind
without any concomitant output of villains. Norway comes to mind; how about Switzerland.
Conversely, other groups notoriously produce bad actors in abundance without ever offering
much of anything good at all in compensation -- Gypsies, for example.
So it's the purest nonsense to assert that Jewish villains are the necessary flip side to
Jewish saints. There's no rational reason to accept this statement.
That's one of the things that irritates me about you. You simply dream up and write
whatever sounds good -- without any apparent concern as to whether it's actually so or not.
It's like you could announce that in Israel, Jews grow to be an average of seven feet tall.
If it sounded good to you, you'd say it. It would never occur to you to check.
http://www.unz.com/mhudson/the-saker-interviews-michael-hudson/
Email This Page to Someone
Remember My
Information
=>
List of Bookmarks
◄
►
◄
►
▲
▼
Remove from Library
B
Show
Comment
Next New Comment
Next
New Reply
Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More...
This Commenter
This Thread
Hide Thread
Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They
are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My
Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Email Comment
Ignore
Commenter
Follow Commenter
Bookmark
Toggle
All
ToC
▲
▼
Add
to Library
Search Text
Case
Sensitive
Exact Words
Include Comments
Search
Clear
Cancel
Introduction: I recently spoke to a
relative of mine who, due to her constant and voluntary exposure to the legacy AngloZionist media, sincerely
believed that the three Baltic states and Poland had undergone some kind of wonderful and quasi-miraculous
economic and cultural renaissance thanks to their resolute break with the putatively horrible Soviet past
and their total submission to the Empire since. Listening to her, I figured that this kind of delusion was
probably common amongst those who still pay attention and even believe the official propaganda. So I asked
Michael Hudson, whom I consider to be the best US economists and who studied the Baltics in great detail, to
reply to a few very basic questions, which he very kindly did in spite of being very pressed on time. Once
again, I want to sincerely thank him for his kind time, support and expertise.
* * *
The Saker:
The US
propaganda often claims that the three Baltic states are a true success, just like Poland is also supposed
to be. Does this notion have a factual basis? Initially it did appear that these states were experiencing
growth, but was that not mostly/entirely due to EU/IMF/US subsidies? Looking specifically at the three
Baltic states, and especially Latvia, these were the "showcase" Soviet republics, with a high standard of
living (at least compared to the other Soviet republics) and a lot of high-tech industries (including
defense contracts). Could you please outline for us what truly happened to these economies following
independence? How did they "reform" their economies going from an ex-Soviet one to the modern "liberal" one?
Michael Hudson:
This is
a trick question, because it all depends on what you mean by "success."
The post-Soviet neoliberalism has been a
great success for kleptocrats at the top. They gave themselves the public domain, from key industries to
prime real estate. But the Balts largely let their Soviet industries collapse, making no effort to salvage
or reorganize them.
Much of the problem, of course, was that all the linkages to Soviet-era
industry were torn apart as the Soviet Union was disbanded. With their supplier and final markets closed
down from Russia to Central Asia, the Baltic economies had to start afresh – with a very right-wing tax
policy and no government help whatsoever, as the government itself had become privatized in the hands of
former officials and grabitizers.
Lithuania was marginally better in having some industrial policy. EU and
NATO accession in 2004, along with easy credit, kicked off property bubbles in the Baltics, largely inflated
by Swedish banks that made a bonanza off these countries that lacked their own banks or public credit
creation. The resulting 2008 crashes were the largest in the world as a percent of GDP, with Latvia
suffering the world's biggest contraction.
The neoliberal western advisors who took
control of these economies – as if this was the only alternative to Soviet bureaucracy – imposed crushing
austerity programs to restore macroeconomic "stability" meaning security of their land and infrastructure
grabs. This was applauded by Europe's bankers, who thought the Balts had discovered a workable recipe
allowing austerity governments to retain power in a seeming democracy. These policies would have collapsed
governments anywhere else, but the ability to emigrate, plus ethnic divisions against Russian speakers,
allowed these governments to survive.
It's a historically specific situation,
but Europe's bankers promote it as a generalized model. George Soros's INET and his associated front
institutions have been leaders in subsidizing this financialization-cum-grabitization. The result has been a
massive exodus of prime working age people from Lithuania and Latvia. (Estonians simply commute to Finland.)
Meanwhile, their economies are buoyed by foreign bank lending, which sends profits back to home countries
and can be reversed at any time.
Politically, the neoliberal revolution also has been a success for U.S.
Cold Warriors, who sent over native Balts from Georgetown and other universities to impose "free market"
doctrine – that is, a market "free" of domestic regulation against theft of the public domain, against
monopolies, against land taxes and other income taxes. The Baltic states, like most of the rest of the
former Soviet Union, became the Wild East.
What was left to the Baltic countries
was land and real estate. Their forests are being cut down to sell wood abroad. I describe all this in my
book
Killing the Host
.
The Saker:
After
independence, the Baltic states had tried to cut as many ties with Russia as possible. This included
building (rather silly looking) fences, to forcing the Russians to develop their ports on the Baltic, to
shutting down large (or selling to foreign interests which then shut them down) and profitable factories
(including a large nuclear plant I believe), etc. What has been the impact of this policy of "economic
de-Sovietization" on the local economies?
Michael Hudson:
Dissolution of the Soviet Union meant
that Baltic countries lost their traditional markets, and had to shift their focus to Western Europe and, to
some extent, Asia.
Latvia and Estonia had been assigned computer and information technology,
and they have found this to be much in demand. When I was in Japan, for instance, CEOs told me that they
were looking to Latvia above all to outsource computer work.
Banking also was a surviving sector.
Gregory Lautchansky, former vice-rector at the University of Riga had been a major player already in the
1980s for moving out Russian oil and KGB money. (His company, Nordex, was sold to Mark Rich.) Many banks
continued to shepherd Russian flight capital via offshore banking centers into the United States, Britain
and other countries. Cyprus of course was another big player in this.
The Saker:
Russians are still considered "non-citizens"
in the Baltic republics; what has been the economic impact of this policy, if any, of anti-Russian
discrimination in the Baltic states?
ORDER IT NOW
Michael Hudson:
Russian-speakers, who do not acquire citizenship (which requires passing local language and history tests),
are blocked from political office and administrative work. While most Russian speakers below retirement age
have now acquired that citizenship, the means by which citizenship must be acquired has caused divisions.
Early on in independence, many Russians
were blocked from government, and they went into business, which was avoided by many native Balts during the
Soviet era because it was not as remunerative as going into government and profiting from corruption. For
instance, real estate was a burden to administer. Russian-speakers, especially Jewish ones, have wisely
focused on real estate.
The largest political party is Harmony
Center, whose members and leadership are mainly Russian-speaking. But the various neoliberal and nationalist
parties have jointed to block its ability to influence law in Parliament.
Since Russian speakers are only able to
"vote with their feet," many have joined in the vast outflow of emigration, either back to Russia or to
other EU countries. Moreover, the poor quality of social benefits has led to few children being born.
The Saker:
I often hear that a huge number of locals
(including non-Russians) have emigrated from the Baltic states. What has caused this and what has been the
impact of this emigration for the Baltic states?
Michael Hudson:
The Baltic states, especially Latvia,
have lost about 30 percent of their population since the 1990s, especially those of working age. In Latvia,
about 10 percent of the loss were Russians who exited shortly after independence. The other 20 percent have
subsequently emigrated.
The European Commission forecasts that Latvia's working-age population
will decline by 1.6% annually for the next 20 years, while the birth rate remains as stagnant as it was in
the late 1980s. The retired population (over age 65) will rise to half a million people by 2030, more than a
quarter of today's population, and perhaps about a third of what remains. This is not a domestic market that
will attract foreign or local investment.
And in any case, the European Union has
viewed the post-Soviet economies simply as markets for their own industrial and agricultural exports, not as
economies to be built up by public subsidy as the European countries themselves, the U.S. and Chinee
economies have done. The European motto is, "Give a man a fish, and he will be fed all day with your surplus
fish and consumer goods – but give him a fishing rod and we will lose a customer."
Readers who are interested might want to
look at the following books and articles. I think the leading work has been done by Jeffrey Sommers and
Charles Woolfson.
The Contradictions of Austerity: The Socio-Economic Costs of the Baltic Model
(London:
Routledge Press, 2014). Editors, J. Sommers & C. Woolfson. Foreword, J. Galbraith. ISBN:
978-0-415-82003-5.
Jeffrey Sommers, "No People, Big Problem': Democracy And Its Discontents In Latvia's National
Elections,"
Social Europe,
October 17, 2018.
Jeffrey Sommers, "Decline of the Demos: Latvia, the Face of New Europe and Austerity's Return," in F.
Jaitner, T. Olteanu and T. Spöri, eds.,
Crises in the Post-Soviet Space: From the dissolution of the
Soviet Union to the conflict in Ukraine
(Routledge Press, 2018) pp. 195-209. ISBN 9780815377245.
Jeffrey Sommers,
"
Austerity as a global prescription and lessons from the neoliberal
Baltic experiment."
Economic & Labour Relations Review.
Keynote article, 25:3 (fall 2014) pp.
1-20. DOI 10.1177/1035304614544091. Co-authored with C. Woolfson and A. Juskaa.
The Saker:
Finally,
what do you believe is the most likely future for these states? Will the succeed in becoming a "tiny
anti-Russia" on Russia's doorstep? The Russians appear to have been very successful in their
import-substitution program, at least when trying to replace the Baltic states: does that mean that the
economic ties between Russia and these states is now gone forever? Is it now too late, or are there still
measures these countries could take to reverse the current trends?
Michael Hudson:
Trump's
trade sanctions against Russia hurt the Baltic countries especially. One of their strong sectors was
agriculture. Lithuania, for instance, was known for its cheese, even in Latvia. The sanctions led Russian
dairy farming to develop their own cheese-making, and agriculture has become one of Russia's strongest
performing sectors.
This is a market that looks like it will
be permanently lost to the Baltic states. In effect, Trump is helping Russia follow precisely the policy
that made American agriculture rich: agricultural isolation has forced domestic replacement for hitherto
foreign food. I expect that this will lead to consumer goods and other products as well.
I am in Tallinn, Estonia right now. Just how good an economy is performing is often hard to determine by
talking to people, because like economists, many people have different perceptions. I was just talking to a
Russian-Estonian who was telling me how much better Lithuanians and Latvians are then Estonians at doing
things and how much cheaper things are there. It is true that things are much cheaper in the other Baltic
countries because Estonia (a tiny country of just over 1 million people) has taken off. Since the 2008
econmic collapse housing prices have shot up and in Tallinn there is building going on all over the city.
But, my acquaintance is wrong about other things. Estonians do things very well and Tallinn is a very nice
city, with beautiful cafes, clean and well kept streets and crime is very low. It is a very good city,
except it is now very expensive, especially considering how much people make here. The weather is not nice,
except for in the summer and there are friendly Estonians but they don't have a reputation for being
particularly friendly, even among themselves. I have not been back to Latvia yet, but when I was in Riga
years ago, it was a gorgeous city, bigger than Tallinn too. I think they do things very well there too. The
Russians I speak to here are often friendly and based on what I have been told, relations between Russians
and Estonians are much better than when I was here in the early 2000's.
No offense is intended to
Russians, but the Baltic countries had large German populations that played a key role in the development of
the cultures and peoples of these countries. There were also many Jews here prior to WW II. By the time WW
II had begun the German populations were much smaller than they had been and at the end of the war the
Jewish populations were much smaller. Jews were targeted in Latvia and Lithuania and many Latvians,
Lithuanians and Estonians were shipped off to far off places in the USSR during the war. I believe the Jews
were largely pro communist and welcomed the Soviet takeover of these countries in 1940, while the Latvian
and Estonian peoples were pro German, thus explaining the hard feelings between Balts and Jews.. They wanted
independence and formed legions to fight alongside the German army during WW II.
These countries were very advanced before WW II, having engineering industries and the Russian Empire's
first auto company was formed in Riga before WW I. While engineering may have been restarted after WW II,
these countries populations were decimated and they never returned to their former heights. Perhaps they
still can.
I'm assuming that these 3 East European countries are being bombarded with the same propaganda as the Ukies
are, so Russian speakers and those intelligent enough to see the game being played will be belittled and
isolated. But the Russian folks living in Russia have a birds eye view of what is going on in the west and
their puppet countries. Russia TV and debate programs, just have to show the delinquencies that are daily
happenings in the States, and Europe, in order to make the Ru people say – No Thanks to that way of life. As
far as the new Russian cheeses that are now in the markets -lol – they make a lightly smoked gouda that is
really good and is about 120-140 roubles a kilo. And, they are making more cheddar that is a white medium
taste as well. No scarcity of good natural food in Russia and No POlice state. Spacibo Unz Rev.
The trade volume between Russia and the Baltic states has actually risen, despite the sanctions. The Baltics
send food products and booze to Russia (and another 150 countries, food exports to Russia actually grew in
2016-2018). As well as chemical products and pharmaceuticals. Meldonium, btw, is made in Latvia and is still
being sent to Russia (as well as 20 other countries), not for athletes, but for regular folks. Work is being
carried out on a new generation Meldonium pill (the biggest market will be Russia).
Growth in the Baltic states has been 3-4% in the last few years. GDP per capita, as well as HDI, is
higher than in Russia. Foreign investment, including from Russia, has been growing (Russia was the second
largest investor in Latvia in 2018). Savings rates are growing, too. After a relative quiet period after
2010, the number of Russian (and other tourists) has grown again.
Estonia's population stopped shrinking in 2016 and is now growing in fact. They've seen immigration from
Finland, Ukraine, Belarus and Russia, as well as returning Estonians.
Emigration is a problem, of course, but this is partly because the Baltic states are the only former USSR
republics whose citizens were even given work permits in the West, imagine what would happen if these
permits were given to Russians from the regions.
Neo-liberal policies are of course bad and certain types of investment should be controlled, but to say
that there are no social services in the Baltic states is complete nonsense. Due to generous parental
payments, birthrates have risen significantly since the 1990s – in fact, birthrates in the Baltics are now
slightly higher than the EU average. Life expectancy is also growing. Latvia covers IVF treatments in full.
There are free school lunches.
Yes, it is true that some of the Soviet era factories should've been salvaged but the problem was they
were not competitive globally at that time (and there was no capital to remodel them). The Soviet market was
a closed one. However, some businesses were salvaged. There is local manufacturing (electronics,
pharmaceuticals, etc).
Not everything is ideal, but it is also not the kind of gloom and doom as you paint.
Saker says:
"Initially it did appear that these states were experiencing growth, but was that not
mostly/entirely due to EU/IMF/US subsidies?"
"Foreign Aid Makes Corrupt Countries More Corrupt":
"Any time a government hands out money, not just foreign aid, it breeds corruption And there are few
better examples than Ukraine – just don't tell the House impeachment hearings. Counting on foreign aid to
reduce corruption is like expecting whiskey to cure alcoholism .If U.S. aid was effective, Ukraine would
have become a rule of law paradise long ago . The surest way to reduce foreign corruption is to end
foreign aid."
@onebornfree
The EU gives every year about 2,500 million euros to the 3 Baltic countries ( 6 million people the three of
them ) , and 9000 million euros to Poland ( 38 million people ) , plus more billions to other eastern
members .
Older members of the EU , spetially the UK which is going out , Greece witch was tortured ( again )
economically by Germany , and south Europe in general are not very happy about admitting so many ex-soviets
countries en the EU and subsidizing them .
Recovery and self-sufficiency since Yeltsin show the brilliance of the Russian people
It's not so much brilliance as sheer necessity to survive under sanctions. But some results were better
than anyone expected. Say, food before sanctions used to be so-so in the provinces and downright bad in
Moscow because of abundance of imported crap. Now the food is exclusively domestic, fresh and tasty. Russia
never had traditions of making fancy cheeses. Now, to bypass sanctions, quite a few Italian and French
cheese-makers started production in Russia, so in the last 2-3 years domestically made excellent fancy
cheeses appeared in supermarkets. Arguably, Russian agriculture benefited by sanctions more than any other
sector, but there are success stories virtually in every industry. Sanctions and Ukrainian stupidity served
as a timely wake up call for Russian elites, who earlier wanted to sell oil and natural gas and buy
everything else. Replacing imports after the sanctions were imposed had a significant cost in the short run,
but in the long run it made Russia much stronger, economically and militarily. Speak of unintended
consequences.
My mom is from Lithuania and I've been there several times. We have second cousins our age.
Her father was
a surveyor for the Republic in the 20s and 30s, charged with breaking up the manors and estates and the
state distributing the land to the peasantry. It was near-feudalism. There was very little
industrialization; that which existed were in a few urban centers. One interesting comment from her was that
the "Jews were communists". From what I've read they were the urban working class, but perhaps part of the
socialist/Jewish Bund?
There is no doubt that the Soviet period unleashed considerable industrialization and modernization.
Lithuania had some of the best infrastructure in the USSR. Its traditional culture was really celebrated.
When I first visited, not long after the fall of the USSR, there were enormous, vacant industrial plants.
The collective farms were in the process of being sold off the western European agribusiness firms. One
relative through marriage was from the Ukraine, with a PhD in Physics and had been employed in the military
industries -- she was cleaning houses thereafter.
Any usable industrial enterprises were quickly sold off. The utilities are all foreign owned. Part of EU
mandates are "open" electricity "markets", which resulting in DC interconnections costing hundreds of
millions with the west to import very high priced electricity. The EU has paid for "Via Baltica", a highway
running from Poland to Estonia; it is choked with trucks carrying imports and there are huge distribution
and fulfillment centers along the highway. Such progress, huh?
There had been good public transport in the earlier years of independence, but that has been replaced
with personal automobiles -- usually western European used cars that pollute a lot. Trakai is a commuter town
to Vilnius with a medieval castle (restored in Soviet times). First time I went it was very pleasant. Second
time in 2018 the place was choked with cars and not very nice at all.
The impact of emigration cannot be over-stated. College educated young people leave by the hundreds of
thousands. Those that remain are paid very low wages (e.g., 1000 euros for a veterinarian or dentist), but
pay west European prices for many essentials. Housing is cheaper than the west.
Last time in Kazlu Ruda there were huge NATO exercises in progress and even bigger ones planned for 2020.
German units were billeted at an airbase nearby, rumored to have been a CIA black site. How fitting, as the
Germans with the Lithuanian Riflemens Union exterminated a quarter of a million Jews in a matter of months
(see Jager Report on Wikipedia). There is a Red Army graveyard in the town that has the remains of perhaps
350 soldiers killed in the area driving out the Nazis. I was frankly surprised it was still there.
Lithuania hasn't been independent since the days of the Pagans and Vytautas. It surely isn't independent
today.
Anecdotal -- yes. But based on personal observation.
The 'they are manipulating Trump' angle is valid I'm sure but it tends to diminish those
other aspects of Trump's 'intuition'. It is stated in the article though. Trump is antiwar in
the sense that he is against useless wars. Give him a clear goal and he doesn't mind war at
all. Looting and pillage is fine. Attacking defenseless enemies is fine. Convince him that
endless wars are actually good business and he'll support those as well. He doesn't require
manipulating for that. The antiwar elements in his thinking are easily used to paper over his
other characteristics as 'being manipulated'.
Another subject is that of Trump's dishonesty. In fact it is more about out of sync
dishonesty: 'normal people' (policy level) use shared schemas for when to lie and when not to
lie. Trump uses a different one. He will lie when others consider it a bad idea and will
speak the truth when others consider it a bad idea.
The Washington Post actually ran a very favorable article
on Gabbard's campaign in Iowa a couple of days ago. Most unusual for them. Only explanation I can
think of is that they realize she has a good chance of winning the Iowa caucuses and don't want
to be caught flatfooted by continuing their noncoverage of her campaign.
The explanation is more likely the opposite, I'm afraid. The Iowa caucuses are now close
enough, and Gabbard polling low enough, that the WashPost feel they can tidy up their record
by publishing something about her, even something favorable. If she were really threatening
the front-runners, minimal and/or hostile coverage would be de rigueur.
Thanks for your reply! IMO, Gabbard was correct to vote Yea for the inquiry as it doesn't
specify the crime(s). On her Twitter , Gabbard
called out Trump for his continuing criminal actions in Syria which constitute a High Crime
and impeachable offense. Furthermore, the orders given were all illegal orders as they're
against international and US Law and should've been refused by every soldier issued them as
it's their duty to do so . Unfortunately, Gabbard didn't make that very important
point.
The whole impeachment show the Democrats launched is a major political mistake.
Right on b, a MAJOR blunder. But they stampeded themselves into that blunder because of
their hysteria over Trump gunning for Biden and all the other carpetbaggers in Ukraine. This
Demoncrat gang of shysters have as much wisdom as a flat rock. They have now lost Biden, must
choose frootloop Warren as they can never have Sanders.
That looks a lot like keeping USA safe for Trump to me.
It is so pathetically obvious and these Demoncrats can't even assemble a package of
legislation with their majority to benefit USA citizens even one small bit. The Demoncrats
'leadership' are owned in their entirety by the oligarchs of MIC, big pharma and big
insurance. The Greens are incapable of breaking through their glass ceiling. What a total
shambles in just about every USA allied country.
I just posted poll results two days ago from New Hampshire showing Gabbard at 5% while
Harris had dropped to 3%. And given the size of the field, 5% is respectable and was clearly
a boost provided by Clinton's outburst. Gabbard was just given space for an op/ed in
The
Wall Street Journal which prompted the WaPost item. Can't read the WSJ item since
it's behind a paywall, but The Washington Times
ran its own piece about her op/ed that provides some insight as to its content, but that
site won't allow copy/paste so I can't provide MoA with the blurb it published.
Here's a WaPost item about Gabbard's Iowa campaign, which as I discovered when using
google is one of many by the WaPost. Despite all the ads, I liked it, but it won't get me to
subscribe.
Just got another fundraiser email from Tulsi's campaign. It ends with:
Tulsi is taking this fight directly to the people -- with a packed schedule of townhalls and
meet and greets, with big ad spends in the early states, with signs and boots on the ground.
The best thing you can do right now to help Tulsi rise above the smear campaigns is to help
her keep speaking truth to power. . . .
From what I read at ZeroHedge, it sounds like it will be "Make my day" time in the Senate,
with GOP senators able to subpoena anyone they want.
Yes, but if the GOP senators stick with their usual grandstanding posing then they can
subpoena whoever they like and it'll be pointless. Actually, it'll be a complete and utter
waste of fucking time because GOP senators have little or no experience of forensic
cross-examination and will spend their time dicking around and asking stupid questions in a
vain vain attempt to look good.. If they really want to stick it to the Democrats they need a
Senate impeachment resolution that allows them to use really experienced outside criminal
lawyers to plan and carry out the questioning. Since most experienced U.S. criminal lawyers
are experts at making deals with prosecutors for their clients rather than going to trial, I
would suggest they should bring in a couple of top-flight British QCs (barristers)with their
teams of juniors.
With Russia and now Ukrainegate, I'm reminded on the Fed dropping interest rates every time
the market has a down week. Yet eventually this shot of adrenaline will not work and the
market falls through the floor.
So now that Ukrainegate has a huge hole in its chest, do the dems have a plan c, or is this
the Big One?
I make this point because there are very many never Trumpers out there, clinging to this
spiel, but eventually even they will wake up and where do they go? Do they finally accept the
whole system really is rigged?
Eventually the ground under the powers that be will turn to quicksand and this really is a
notable earthquake.
"Well, you know, thank God for the 'deep state'," McLaughlin responded, provoking
laughter and applause.
The former intelligence official was speaking at an event hosted by George Mason
University, joined by former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe and former CIA Director John
Brennan -- both of whom have been critical of the president.
"With all of the people who knew what was going on here, it took an intelligence officer
to step forward and say something about it, which was the trigger that then unleashed
everything else," McLaughlin said.
He went on to praise the intelligence community. "This is the institution within the
U.S. government -- that with all of its flaws, and it makes mistakes -- is institutionally
committed to objectivity and telling the truth," he said.
"It is one of the few institutions in Washington that is not in a chain of command that
makes or implements policy. Its whole job is to speak the truth -- it's engraved in marble
in the lobby."
As b stated in a previous post, it is
the Borg who should dictate US foreign policy. It certainly is not one of the three
branches of government (the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary) of the trias
politica model. The Intelligence Community if the Fourth Estate (Vierte Gewalt)
that rules supreme over the three other branches of government.
Since the UN Charter has the same legal status as Acts of Congress under U.S. law, the AUMF
can certainly violate the UN Charter, under U.S. law. The AUMF may violate international law,
but that is another matter.
A friend of mine attended a government meeting under President G.H.W. Bush. I believe the
subject was the kidnapping of General Noriega from Panama. In any case, I was told that at
the meeting William Barr said, "F!!! international law!" And it is well known that (according
to Richard Clark) George W. Bush said in the White House the evening of 9/11, "I don't care
what the international lawyers say, we're going to kick some ass!"
lysias 98 US when it comes to international law has been lawless since 1986.
"The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America (1986) ICJ 1 is a public
international law case decided by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The ICJ ruled in
favor of Nicaragua and against the United States and awarded reparations to Nicaragua. The
ICJ held that the U.S. had violated international law by supporting the Contras in their
rebellion against the Nicaraguan government and by mining Nicaragua's harbors. The United
States refused to participate in the proceedings after the Court rejected its argument that
the ICJ lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. The U.S. also blocked enforcement of the
judgment by the United Nations Security Council and thereby prevented Nicaragua from
obtaining any compensation.[2]"
In the last decades, US has used things like R2P and coalitions and so forth, but under
Trump, US is dropping most pretenses.
Pompeo at times is as honest as Trump when it comes to US and what it is.
I linked a video in an earlier comment to Pompeo, but then I realised there was a bit more to
"We lied, we cheated, we stole." The piece that was cut off in the earlier video I linked "
It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment"
The Bushes were a CIA family. William Barr's first jobs after college were with the CIA, and
his father was OSS. This has been the CIA's attitude towards law from the start. They've
largely been running the country since the JFK assassination, and now they're out in the open
trying to topple an elected president.
lysias , Nov 2 2019 2:31 utc |
104Peter AU1 , Nov 2 2019 2:33 utc |
105
The non Trump section of the swamp is not going down without a fight..
That effort was carried out at the request of at least one Ukrainian official, prosecutors
said. Trump ordered the ambassador, Marie Yovanovitch, removed in May."
b said;" The whole impeachment show the Democrats launched is a major political mistake."
Exactly b, and most Dems know it. That's the whole point, find a way to pretend they
want
DJT gone, when in reality, they love what this Admin. is doing. Devolving the Gov. so their
corporate masters can rake in more $ thru deregulation.
Big $ has finally achieved it's goal of of complete and total hegemony in the U$A.
Pelosi & Schumer are sycophants for the uber-wealthy, along with the majority of both
parties.
Known cost of Intel: $80 Billion for 17 Agencies.
Results? No known benefits.
Unknown cost: The damage they do.
Posted by: Don Bacon | Nov 2 2019 3:17 utc | 106
Since the activity is secret, so are the benefits! Actually, as a place for work,
"agencies" offer a number of benefits, especially post-employment opportunities.
On the topic of scholarship and the benefits of war, here's a reminder of what passes for
elite leadership. Tulsi Gabbard wants to end endless wars and the knives are now out for her.
Somebody takes Morris's thesis seriously. The world will be better off with the US the
permanent military leader of the world.
This is blowing up all over Twitter, with Gabbard slapping back, and the HRC loyalists
calling Gabbard an Assad apologist and worse.
According to HRC logic, American third party candidates are necessarily Russian stooges
placed to help the Kremlin's candidate win. The logic is "inescapable" according to HRC. BUT
OF COURSE!!!! Now it ALL MAKES SENSE! 1992 Perot-Clinton, 2000 Nader-Bush, 2016 Jill
Stein-Trump, and, 2020 Gabbard-Trump!!!!
It's all so clear now! The KGB wanted to keep HW Bush out of office as the former Soviet
Union collapsed! That's how she and Bill entered the WH in 1992! Perot was a KGB stooge, and
Bill and Hillary have been lifelong assets of the KGB. Of course!!! That's why Hillary sold
all that uranium to the Russians! Lest, anyone believe the charge of dual-loyalty leveled
against Gabbard is a fiction, check for yourselves.
The above is an actual argument just made by the 2016 candidate for POTUS. Russia controls
US elections by promoting third-party candidates. The best part is that HRC, beneficiary of
"obvious" Russian interference may yet end up running in 2020. Something to look forward to!
Imagine if HRC had won in 2016. Conspiracy theories out the wazoo!
Kind of puts the Morris "scholarship" in perspective, doesn't it? my mother and sister
have. Dipper, probably not)
Hi John, do whatever you want with this interview with Tulsi. It looks like it's on –
big time. Clinton versus Gabbard for the nomination and the chance to run against orange man
bad. On the basis of what I've seen I'd say Tulsi is the only Dem with a message to take
Donald down, and she's not scared to reach out to everyone for support.
I wonder about the Morris book, really. Histories aimed at the popular market are rarely
written in a vacuum. As you know, post-9/11 we saw a bumper crop of mostly crap histories of
the class of civilizations variety. I won't be buying or reading Morris, simply because I
find wide, encompassing arguments generally useless and dull. Anyway, from the sounds of it,
I do think Morris has a constituency among the FP elites.
by John Quiggin on October 13, 2019 On Facebook, my frined
Timothy Scriven pointed to an opinion piece by classics professor Ian Morris headlined
In the long run, wars make us safer and richer It's pushing a book with the clickbaity
title War! What is it Good For? Conflict and the Progress of Civilization from Primates to
Robots .". Timothy correctly guessed that I wouldn't like it.
Based on the headline, I was expecting a claim along the lines "wars stimulate technological
progress" which I refuted (to my own satisfaction at any rate) in Economics in Two
Lessons" . But the argument is much stranger than this. The claim is that war, despite its
brutality created big states, like the Roman empire, which then delivered peace and
prosperity.
For the classical world at 100 CE or so, the era on which Morris is an expert, that argument
seemed pretty convincing. As the famous Life of Brian sketch suggests, Roman rule delivered a
lot of benefits to its conquered provinces.
The next 1900 years or so present a bit of a problem, though. There have been countless wars
in that time, and no trend towards bigger states. On the contrary two or three dozen states
(depending on how you count them) now occupy the territory of the former Roman Empire.
You could cut the number down a bit by treating the European Union as a new empire, but then
you have an even bigger problem. The EU was not formed through war, but through a determination
to avoid it. Whatever you think about the EU in other respects, this goal has been
achieved.
Morris avoids the problem by a "no true Scotsman" argument. He admits in passing that the
1000 years of war following the high point of Rome had the effect of breaking down larger,
safer societies into smaller, more dangerous ones, but returns with relief to the era of true
wars, in which big states always win. That story works, roughly, until 1914, when the empires
he admires destroyed themselves, killing millions in the process.
After that, the argument descends into Pinker-style nonsense. While repeating the usual
stats about the decline in violent deaths, Morris mentions in passing that a nuclear war could
cause billions of deaths. He doesn't consider the obvious anthropic fallacy problem – if
such a war had happened, there would not be any op-eds in the Washington Post discussing the
implications for life expectancy.
I haven't read the book, and don't intend to. If someone can't present a 700 word summary of
their argument without looking silly, they shouldn't write opinion pieces. But, for what its
worth, FB friends who have read it agree that it's not very good.
William Meyer 10.13.19 at 12:31 pm (no link)
I have not read the book in question, so I don't know if the author made this point: "Since
violence or implicit violence is how we overcome essentially all collective action problems
as humans, war probably does belong in the human toolkit." Obviously it would be better if we
could find more and better alternatives to war, and remove the obvious glitches in the
alternatives (e.g., representative democracy, single-party states, etc.) we have tried in the
past. So I find it odd as I get old that so little energy/research/academic effort is devoted
by the human race to finding better means of collective decision making. Clearly our current
abilities in this field are completely inadequate. I ponder if this is because we are
incapable of doing better by some inherent flaw in our makeup or if it is because, as in some
many areas of life, the wicked work tirelessly to maintain the systems that enrich and
empower them. I suspect I'll never find out.
Omega Centauri 10.13.19 at 4:33 pm (no link)
There might be a case to be made for empire building conquest advancing human society. I
think it was primarily by forcing the mixing of cultures which otherwise would have been
relatively isolated from each other. Also empires tended to create safe internal trade
routes, the Silk Road was made possible by the Mongol empire.
At least the authors of books about such empires like to state that over a timespan of
centuries that empire creation was a net positive.
Orange Watch 10.13.19 at 7:07 pm (no link)
Tim Worstall and Dipper's suggestion that the EU is borne of war is mostly just a failure to
take Morris's claim on its unsophisticated face and instead assume it contains subtle
complexity that is obviously missing if you read the article itself:
This happened because about 10,000 years ago, the winners of wars began incorporating
the losers into larger societies. The victors found that the only way to make these larger
societies work was by developing stronger governments; and one of the first things these
governments had to do, if they wanted to stay in power, was suppress violence among their
subjects.
For the EU to have been a result of war in the sense that Morris means, it would have to
have been forcibly formed in 1945 by the US/UK/Russia forcibly incorporating Europe into it.
When Morris states "wars make us stronger and richer" he very simply means wars of conquest
are long-term net positives. He doesn't mean something subtle about nations banding together
to forestall further war; he bluntly means conquerors gluing together their conquests into
empires and then liberally applying boot leather to necks.
Mark Brady 10.13.19 at 7:56 pm (no link)
John Quiggin is, of course, well aware of this quotation, but some of you may not.
"Though some of them would disdain to say that there are net benefits in small acts of
destruction, they see almost endless benefits in enormous acts of destruction. They tell us
how much better off economically we all are in war than in peace. They see "miracles of
production" which it requires a war to achieve. And they see a postwar world made certainly
prosperous by an enormous "accumulated" or "backed up" demand. In Europe they joyously count
the houses, the whole cities that have been leveled to the ground and that "will have to be
replaced." In America they count the houses that could not be built during the war, the nylon
stockings that could not be supplied, the worn-out automobiles and tires, the obsolescent
radios and refrigerators. They bring together formidable totals.
"It is merely our old friend, the broken-window fallacy, in new clothing, and grown fat
beyond recognition. This time it is supported by a whole bundle of related fallacies. It
confuses need with demand."
Henry Hazlitt, Economics in One Lesson, Chapter 3, "The Blessings of Destruction."
Alex SL 10.13.19 at 8:37 pm (no link)
On one side, AFAIK the last few centuries of war in Europe have indeed seen a reduction of
the number of states. Yes, the trend was partly reversed since 1914, but never to the degree
of splintering that existed in the middle ages.
On the other side, even the widely accepted cases of supposedly 'beneficial' empires such
as the Romans bringing the Pax Romana and the Mongols allowing far-reaching trade and travel
need to be seen against the devastation they caused to make their victories possible. The
Romans, for example, committed genocide in Gaul and Carthage, and they enslaved millions.
Best case argument in my eyes is that a very successful war is beneficial because it stops
continuous smaller wars, which is still not exactly the same as a general "war is
beneficial". Why not just create institutional arrangements that avoid wars between small
nations in the first place?
fran6 10.13.19 at 9:26 pm (no link)
Here's another personality who's also unfazed by the evils of war (although, she does wish
more folks were "kind" to each other):
Stephen @11 Say what? Are you suggesting that the Soviet bloc was part of the EU? As both
your comment and Tim Worstall's unwittingly illustrate, the fact that the EU has been
entirely peaceful since its creation (by contrast with non-EU Europe) is not because
Europeans suddenly became pacifists.
Sorry if I have a hard time getting Morris' argument, but: towards the end, be seems to be
saying the world requires a "Globocop" like the US to ensure its prosperity. But how does
that relate to his wider point about the benefits of war? Does Morris believe the hegemon
owes it to itself, and to the rest of the world, to wage permanent war?
Morris sold out. This was evident in his book comparing the progress of China and Europe,
though that book made excellent points in between the fluff and is well worth reading. But he
is well versed enough in Chinese history to be aware of the ultimate example of armies
conquering and bringing peace to a large area, which happens repeatedly in Chinese history.
Actually, Chinese history itself shows that the opposite argument has more support, that
instead of war being valuable because one powerful country will conquer a large area and
bring peace to it, its valuable because competition between states who are worried about
other states getting a jump on them turns out to be valuable to progress. Large continental
empires, including the Roman one as well, tended to stagnate in terms of culture and
technology and become correct.
MFB 10.15.19 at 7:18 am (no link)
Well, the opinion-piece was published on Jeff Bezos' blog. Oligarchs are naturally in favour
of centralised power and therefore of empires (so long as they are at the apex thereof, which
they usually are). The best way to build an empire is through war.
Of course, the author has to say "despite Hitler, Stalin and Mao", for ideological
reasons. Actually, Hitler built his empire largely through the threat of war rather than
through war itself; once he had actually started the war, he antagonised three more powerful
empires than his own and his empire was then crushed. As for Stalin, he actually did various
double-back-somersaults to avoid getting into wars, and the "empire" which he built in
Eastern Europe as a result of winning a war he didn't want did not sustain itself. And of
course Mao didn't start any wars at all -- his name just had to be thrown in for reactionary
reasons.
It is true that the Spanish, Portuguese, French and British empires were built upon war.
But where are they now? The United States fought a lot of wars against its indigenous people,
but frankly it would still have been a global superpower if it had simply sidestepped most of
them, at least from about 1865 onward.
An interesting question: can it be that a professor of Classics doesn't actually have to
understand the concept of evidence-based argument in any case, because everything has already
been said on the subject and all you have to do is cherry-pick other people's statements?
Because that seems to be how that silly article reads.
And yes, the whole thing reeks of the better angels propaganda. Let's not forget, by the
way, that various members of the EU -- Britain, France, Italy et al -- have launched brutally
murderous wars elsewhere, and the fact that they don't fight among themselves doesn't make
them peaceful or moral entities.
@TheSophist #25: that was mentioned as a joke rather than self-publicity, but if you're
really interested: The Roman Empire: roots of imperialism (Pluto Press, 2020). Obviously
books about the Roman Empire are ten a penny; my main claim for this one, besides its being
less apologetic and/or gung-ho than most, is that I try to integrate the historical reality
with its reception, i.e. how people have subsequently deployed Rome as an example or model.
Maybe the Roman Empire delivered on peace, but prosperity is a bit more complicated. Some
years ago David Hays wrote a book on the history of technology. One of the things he did was
make a back-of-the-envelope estimate of material welfare at different levels of development.
He concluded that, while civilization has always been a good deal for the elite, it's been
rather iffy for peasants and workers. It's only during the Industrial Evolution that the
standard of living at the lower end of society rose above that of hunter-gatherers. So, the
prosperity delivered by the Roman Empire went mostly to the elite, not the peasantry.
Peter Erwin@43 wanted the Nazis to roll right up to the eastern border of Poland, etc. etc.
So did Hitler. And although I'm quite reluctant to read minds, especially dead one, I will
nevertheless guarantee the move into the Baltics was seen as a blow to his plans, even if
accepted for temporary advantage. You must always see who hates Stalin for beating Hitler,
and those rare few who object to his real crimes.
And, Erwin thinks Chinese troops being in Korea with permission is an aggression, while US
troops closing on Chinese borders is not. The US still isn't out of Korea, but China is, but
he can't figure out who the aggressor is.
Really, Peter Erwin really says it all. The maddest ant-Communist propaganda is now
official.
MFB 10.17.19 at 9:02 am (no link)
I don't want to unnecessarily dump on Peter Erwin, because I don't believe in kicking
disadvantaged children, but if he reads the original post he will notice that it was talking
about international wars, not civil wars. I'll admit the invasion of Finland (and of the
Baltic states and Poland) but those were fairly obviously ways of strengthening the USSR's
position in order to discourage a German invasion, and all took place within the boundaries
of the former Russian Empire which Stalin undoubtedly saw as the default position.
As to Mao, he didn't start the Korean war (as Erwin unwillingly admits) and all the other
wars except for the invasion of Vietnam were civil wars since they entailed moving into
Chinese-controlled territory which had broken away during the main civil war. I'll admit that
Vietnam was a problem, but then, since Mao had been dead for some time by then, it's would be
hard for Erwin to blame him except for the fact that Erwin clearly lives on Planet
Bizarro.
@John Quiggin The claim is that war, despite its brutality created big states, like the
Roman empire, which then delivered peace and prosperity
I don't think this is an intellectually generous summary of the arguments, as presented in
the article.
The author himself summarizes it as "war made states, and states made peace", and if it is
indeed true that the author often speaks of "larger, more organized societies" there is a
strong implication that for a society to be "large" in the sense discussed in the article, it
is not really necessary that it be territorially very wide (the most clear cut indication of
that is that the author refers to the European states of the 1600s as "big, settled states"
while they all were geographically tiny at the time). So the point of the author, if
interpreted with intellectual honesty, seems to me to be twofold: 1) that war has been a
crucial factor in the formation of complex, organized states and societies and 2) that these
complex, organized states and societies brought with them so many positive things that the
wars required to form them were worth it.
The second point is pure Pinker. I consider it logically meaningless, myself (it
ultimately relies on the concept that History proceeds like an individual who is choosing a
pair of shoes) and morally repugnant (it is not hard to see who will be pleased to have a
rhetorical tool that can justify any atrocity by the long term gains it will provide humanity
– indeed, it is instructive in that respect to read SS internal papers on when and why
children should be executed with their parents, and how to select people for that task:
contrary to what could be guessed, the manual recommends the soldiers who appear to have a
strong sense of empathy and morality, with the idea that they will those who will most
strongly endorse the "by doing this abominable act, we are sacrificing ourselves on behalf of
future generations" thesis).
The first point, however, appears to me to be broadly correct descriptively. Extracting an
interesting thesis out of it requires much more work than is indicated by the article,
however (I consider Ertman's Birth of the Levianthan an example of that kind of extra
work done successfully).
@John Quiggin Lots of people predicted, along the lines of your post, that with the
external threat of the USSR gone, and the US pulling back, the old warlike Europe would
reassert itself.
I think what we may call the "wide military context thesis" runs rather like this: because
of the experience of WWII and the Cold War, modern industrial states have amassed enormous
military power while at the same time knowing that they can experience total destruction if
they enter into a military conflict with a state of comparable military might. As a
consequence, peace dominates between them. So France is not at war with the United Kingdom or
Germany, certainly in part because they are all (for now) members of the EU but also in part
for the same reason Japan is not at war with South Korea and Russia not at war with
China.
Personally, I think it would be absurd to claim that the EU has played no role in the
pacification of Western Europe in the second half of the twentieth century, but I think it
would be equally absurd to deny the role of other factors that plainly play a major role in
the equally remarkable pacification of other regional areas in the absence of an economical
and political unification process (rise in prosperity, rise in education, aging populations,
increased military power ).
@7, Omega
Not really wanting to get into the "do empires benefit civilization by promoting trade"
argument, but having just read Lost Enlightenment, nothing in that lengthy tome suggests the
Silk Road city states gain any special advantage from the Mongol invasion. In fact, quite the
opposite. After the Mongols (in part for reasons preceeding the conquest), Central Asia never
regained its pre-eminence (it had actually not just been a facilitator of trade but also a
center of manufacture, culture, scientific progress). Maybe the trade routes hobbled along as
trade routes but the civilization that was both built by and facilitated trade did not
rebound. Most empires seem to get that there is wealth to be had from involvement in trade,
they don't always know how to keep the gold goose alive.
LFC 10.20.19 at 9:10 pm (no link)
"War made states and states made peace" is a riff on Charles Tilly's line "war made the state
and the state made war."
Arguably some of the most significant events since the eight-year long war's start have played out in Syria with rapid pace over
just the last month alone, including Turkey's military incursion in the north, the US pullback from the border and into Syria's oil
fields, the Kurdish-led SDF&# deal making with Damascus, and the death of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. All of this is why a
televised interview with Presiden39;st Bashar Assad was highly anticipated at the end of this week.
Assad's commentary on the latest White House policy to "secure the oil" in Syria, for which US troops have already been redeployed
to some of the largest oil fields in the Deir Ezzor region, was the biggest pressing question. The Syrian president's response was
unexpected and is now driving headlines, given what he said directly about Trump, calling him the "best American president" ever
– because he's the "most transparent."
"When it comes to Trump you may ask me a question and I'll give you an answer which might seem strange. I tell you he's the best
American president," Assad said, according to a
translation provided by NBC.
"Why? Not because his policies are good, but because he is the most transparent president," Assad continued.
"All American presidents commit crimes and end up taking the Nobel Prize and appear as a defender of human rights and the 'unique'
and 'brilliant' American or Western principles. But all they are is a group of criminals who only represent the interests of the
American lobbies of large corporations in weapons, oil and others," he added.
"Trump speaks with the transparency to say 'We want the oil'." Assad's unique approach to an 'enemy' head of state which has just
ordered the seizure of Syrian national resources also comes after in prior years the US president called Assad "our enemy" and an
"animal."
Trump tweeted in April 2018 after
a new chemical attack allegation had surfaced: "If President Obama had crossed his stated Red Line In The Sand, the Syrian disaster
would have ended long ago! Animal Assad would have been history!"
A number of mainstream outlets commenting on Assad's interview falsely presented it as "praise" of Trump or that Assad thinks
"highly" of him; however,
it appears the Syrian leader was merely presenting Trump's policy statements from a 'realist' perspective , contrasting them from
the misleading 'humanitarian' motives typical of Washington's rhetoric about itself.
That is, Damascus sees US actions in the Middle East as motivated fundamentally by naked imperial ambition, a constant prior theme
of Assad's speeches , across administrations, whether US leadership dresses it up as 'democracy promotion' or in humanitarian terms
characteristic of liberal interventionism. As Assad described, Trump seems to skip dressing up his rhetoric in moralistic idealism
altogether, content to just unapologetically admit the ugly reality of US foreign policy.
I see Americans keep calling Assad and Putin a ''dictator'' Hey, jackasses, they were ELECTED in elections far less corrupt than what you have in the USSA
Assad is a very eloquent speaker. Witty, sharp and always calm when speaking with decadent press. Of course the MSM understood
what he DID mean, but they cannot help themselves, but parse anything to try hurting Trump.
If true. It means the Vatican (the oldest most important money there is) like Saudi Arabia and the UAE sure do seem to care
about stuff like purchasing power in their "portfolios" and a "store of value"?...
I see lots of EU participants taking their money to Moscow as well with that Arctic bonanza that says "come hither" if you
want your money to be worth something!!!
It's always been about oil. Spreading Freedumb, Dumbocracy and Western values, is PR spiel. The reality is, the West are scammers,
plunderers and outright thieves. Forget the billions Shell Oil, is holding for the Biafran people/region in Nigeria, which it
won't give to either the Bianfran states in the east, nor the Nigerian government, dating back to the secessionist state of Biafra/Nigerian civil war 1967-70. The west are nothing more than gang-bangers, but on the world stage.
Yet the department for trade and industry is scratching its head, wondering why their are so few takers for a post-Brexit trade
deal with the UK, where the honest UK courts have the final say? lol
Too bad it is political suicide for an American president to try to establish communication with Assad. He seems like a pretty
practical guy and who knows, it might be possible to work out a peaceful settlement with him.
economic warfare on the syrian civlian population through illegal confiscation of vital civilian economic assets, and as conducted
in venezeula, is called ________________
Assad is saying where before the UKK was a masked thief, with Trompas and his egotism alias exceptionalism, has not bothered
withthe mask. He is still a murderer and thief.
Now Assad has some idea why Trump is so popular with his base, they love him for not being politically correct, for "telling
it like it is". He's like the wolf looking at the sheep and telling them he's going to eat them and the sheep cheering because
he's not being a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Unfortunately in the case of Trump's sheeple, they don't even have a clue they're going to be eaten, the Trumptards all think
he's going to eat someone else like the "deep state" or the "dumbocrats". Meanwhile he's chewing away at their health care, their
export markets, piling up record deficits, handing the tax gold to the rich and corporations while they get the shaft, taking
away program after program that aided students, the poor, and the elderly, appointing lobbyists to dismantle or corrupt departments
they used to lobby against, and in general destroying the international good will that it's taken decades to build.
"... Believing herself untouchable and immune from any genuine criticism or objective analysis after having successfully evaded prosecution from the nation's top law enforcement agencies, HRC went off the deep end dragging the Democratic party further into the ditch. ..."
"... She is a favorite of the Russians. That's assuming that Jill Stein will give it up which she might not because she is also a Russian asset." ..."
"... Gabbard's message is relatively simple -that is: Instead of the US destroying countries it should be spending the Military Budget on rebuilding the US. Yes that sounds like an America First type of stance but it has a decent logic about it. ..."
"... The US needs an enemy to justify its massive defence bill and 800 bases worldwide. ..."
"... Stoltenberg would happily stop all social services in order to buy more missiles and gain a few brownie points from Trump. Stoltenberg along with the US Neocons are are sick SOB's. ..."
"... Both Trump and Jabbard are opponents of the CIA – Wall street complex. Nationalists vs Globalists, but some people still believe the former are more dangerous than the latter. ..."
"... The Dems morphed into neocons when her willy-waving husband sold out and destroyed the Democratic Party of LBJ's Great Society. ..."
"... Tulsi has shown a lot of class, truth to the darkest Power, and long may she have this platform.. ..."
As you may have figured out by now, Hillary Clinton, warped by her own self aggrandizement of entitlement, did Tulsi Gabbard and
her Presidential campaign against interventionist wars a huge incidental favor.
While the Democrats continue to splinter and spiral out of control on the eve of what promises to be a transformative national
election, the Grand Inquisitor seized an opportunity to allege that Gabbard (and Jill Stein) are " Russian assets " and " Putin puppets
".
Since Tulsi is a Major in the US Army Reserves and holds the highest security clearance available, the term 'asset,' which is
associated with being an agent of a foreign power, carries a level of national security significance.
Believing herself untouchable and immune from any genuine criticism or objective analysis after having successfully
evaded
prosecution from the nation's top law enforcement agencies, HRC went
off the deep end dragging the Democratic party
further into the
ditch.
She is a favorite of the Russians. That's assuming that Jill Stein will give it up which she might not because she is also
a Russian asset."
Clinton's
historic pronouncement came in the mistaken belief that publicly humiliating Gabbard would intimidate the Aloha Girl to silence
and seek refuge on her surfboard – but that is not how it has played out.
An unexpected bonus proved once again that political strategy has never been Clinton's strong suit as her malicious comments have
brought the anti-war alt left with the libertarian alt-right together in Gabbard's defense. With HRC's injudicious taunts, the glimmer
of an emerging political realignment , one that has
been at odds with both the Dem and Republican establishments, has surfaced – probably not exactly what HRC intended.
In response to having received a burst of unprecedented support, Gabbard is about to assure her place on the November debate stage
and continues to solidify her credibility as a critic of a corrupt bipartisan political establishment and its endless wars.
If they falsely portray me as a traitor, they can do it to anyone. Don't be afraid. Join me in speaking truth to power to take
back the Democrat Party and country from the corrupt elite."
It is noteworthy that HRCs accusation was to the only candidate who stands in direct opposition to the Queen Bee's history for
the war machine and all of its bells and whistles. As if to call attention to the contradiction, the entire fiasco has acknowledged
what was never meant to be acknowledged: that one little known Congresswoman from Hawaii would dare to publicly confront the omnipotent
HRC with her own demons and malfeasance; thereby elevating the one candidacy that represents a threat to the military industrial
complex and its globalist order.
It is no coincidence that the corporate media operates in lockstep as an offensive October 12th
NY Times article was immediately
followed by a CNN
commentary as well as other media sycophants, all tagging Gabbard as a Russian asset.
Contrary to Journalism 101 on how professional media should conduct themselves, there has been no evidence, no facts, no supporting
documentation as they characteristically rely on innuendo and disinformation.
At the last Dem debate and during the kerfuffle with Clinton, Tulsi has stepped up and
showed herself
to be a candidate the country has been waiting for. With a powerful inner grit, she did not hesitate to take the
Times and CNN
publicly to task and then
in response
called HRC out as a warmonger and
dared her to enter the 2020 fray.
There lies a deep truth within
Gabbard's response especially identifying Clinton as the " personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party.
"
During Clinton's term as Secretary of State which is little more than a Glorified Global Hustler for the US military industrial
complex, the Democratic Party lost its soul, morphing as nefarious neocons in pursuit of raw political and economic power that emanates
from a policy of unfettered regime change and interventionist wars.
As Democrats embraced the neocons with no objection to the unrestrained violence, increased military budgets, indiscriminate selling
of weapons to bomb a civilian population, then why should the party's grassroots object to the Tuesday morning assassination list
or drone attacks on civilians or creating war in four countries living in peace in 2008?
As the party faithful allow themselves to dismiss all the suffering, the death and destruction wrought by US-made weapons as if
Amazon and Google toys were an acceptable trade, they lost their conscience and their connection to the basic essence of humanity's
need for peace, love and compassion.
The latest example of the Party's devotion to war is their opposition to the withdrawal of US troops from Syria as they created
the phony debate that the Kurds were worth more American blood or resources. The Dems have always been more pro-war than they have
been given credit for with WWI, WWII, the Korean War and Vietnam all initiated and/or expanded under Democrat Presidents.
With no substantiation from the mindless meanderings of a seriously disoriented woman, it is now clear that Clinton's derangement
syndrome of unresolved guilt and denial led the Democratic party to its irrational embrace of Russiagate as the justification for
her 2016 loss.
In other words, it was Russiagate that protected HRC's fragile self-esteem from the necessary introspection as Americans were
pitted against one another, dividing the nation in a deliberate disruption of civil society in a more acrimonious manner than any
time since the 1860's. The country has paid a bitter, unnecessary price for a divisive strategy due to Clinton's refusal to personally
accept responsibility for her own failings.
HRC's most egregious war crimes as Secretary of State include assigning Victoria Nuland to conduct the
overthrow of a democratically elected
President in Ukraine in 2014 and the ensuing violence and civil war in the Donbass as well as her
joyous rapture cackling at the death of Libyan President Qaddafi in 2011. The now infamous video " We came, we saw, he died "
showed her to be more than just your average war criminal but a Monster who experiences an aberrant thrill at death and destruction.
Since June, TPTB have done their darnedest to deny Tulsi a spot on the debate stage rigging the qualifying requirements as best
they could. Making it near impossible for the polling firms, which rely on campaign season and their economic connection with the
DNC to call the shots in a fair and equitable manner.
As the early primary states loom ahead, the last thing TPTB need is a powerful pro-peace voice resonating with the American public.
The message seems clear: talk of peace is verboten and equates with being a Russia asset and anyone with pacifist tendencies will
be publicly chastised and condemned for being a tool of the Kremlin.
None of that has stopped Tulsi Gabbard.
Renee Parsons has been a member of the ACLU's Florida State Board of Directors and president of the ACLU Treasure Coast
Chapter. She has been an elected public official in Colorado, an environmental lobbyist with Friends of the Earth and staff member
of the US House of Representatives in Washington DC. She can be found on Twitter @reneedove31
Ken Kenn
I am very impressed by Tulsi Gabbard. She's a bit too patriotic for me – but I'm a Brit so for a serving American it's understandable.
It isn't the person that is dangerous- it is the insertion of the idea that Regime Change wars are counterproductive.
Gabbard's message is relatively simple -that is: Instead of the US destroying countries it should be spending the Military
Budget on rebuilding the US. Yes that sounds like an America First type of stance but it has a decent logic about it.
Wasteful wars and the idea that the US should install its version of Democracy across the Middle East has always been a doomed
project and co-operation and an attempt at rebuilding these nations in order to attempt some kind of democracy and future prosperity
is required – not bombing and bullying.
You could be outraged by Clinton's nasty rhetoric but let's face it. Clinton lost to someone she considered to be a Clown.
In actuality the DNC almost promoted Trump as person they could beat hands down.
It bit them on the arse as did the Brexit result in the UK.
Clinton has never got over losing to a chump and she is just covering her backside as to why she lost.
Hell hath no fury like a self appointed Candidate scorned. Like Johnson in the UK Clinton thought she had the right to rule.
She didn't and doesn't. To quote some US Senator; " The people have spoken. The bastards!"
Igor
The objective is not to install American "democracy". Which does not exist anywhere, USA is officially a republic. Unofficially,
it is an oligarchy. Elite super wealthy families and their corporations run the USA. All 45 Presidents have been related to those
families. The President is actually elected by the Electoral College, not the popular vote. This was designed into the Constitution
of USA, Inc.
The aim of regime change is to create chaos in MENA, by which a small ME state can profit without doing any visible dirty work.
The Democrats(oxymoron for il Partito Fascista Americano) are doing this for the simple reason knowing full well that most traditional
old school democrats identify with Bernie Sanders. The whole notion of the WASP notion of left right paradigm is oxymoron in itself.
Any political science follower or student would have to agree. What is the political left mean in the west????????? Has anyone
ever read Marx and Engles ???????????? Social democrat WTF does that mean. Historical revisionist get labelled Nazi sympathisers.
The constant lies and obfuscation with real facts. Like population stats death births . The Classic method being used at the moment
is they no longer due c0up d'etats the good old fascistic way. The popular vote gets discredited by the judicial system. IE the
recent elections of Argentina and Bolivia does not suit the IMF( the International Mafia Fund) henc e the European Union Funded
election monitoring organisations are all openly stating that both elections were not KOSHER.
Look at the people in Venezuela and Bolivia that are demonstrating against the popular elected and voted for Governments. White
upper middle class figli di putane. Plain and simple the western paradigm of fake democrazia and fake economy is dying the plutocratic
and oligarchical class are just creating storms and fires just do deviate from good old fashion bread and butter issues.
Conclusion:
The pax-americana Democrats(RATS) know full well that Bernie will not lead the party Gabbard will not lead the party so here
is there strategy and good old Chuckie Schuemer the anglo-zionist par excellance laid it out in 2015. They are hoping that old
fashion conservative Republicans that are disgusted with the Orange one will vote for them and further reduce the number of voters.
Just think of this. In this day and age with the largest wealth gap exceeding the Gilded age which individual would take a day
off to line up to vote on a bitter grey November day. So these remarkable establishment shills in their great wisdom are running
as Eisenhower Republican and hoping to steal votes from the Republicans and not win any votes from the new ever growing lower
so called middle class.
POST SCRIPTUM: The irony and the complete paradox more war will give us peace and the rich getting richer will give us the
sheeple wealth. Black is white and grey does not exist and left vs right. What a sad state of affairs.
Docius in fundem: The sad reality in our dying western paradigm of pax-americana is never in the history of the modern and
post modern era we have more people graduating from tertiary education but we have created the most ignorant and pliant class
of individuals ever.
Jon
She came, we saw, she lied.
Hugh O'Neill
Russian asset and Putin puppet, Jesus of Nazareth reportedly said: "Blessed are the Peace Makers". As we know, Trump receives
maximum MSM contempt for anything approaching diplomacy and peace, and highest MSM approval when advocating war and destruction.
Likewise, when a Presidential candidate dare breathe the word "Peace" then she is either ignored, ridiculed or accused of treachery
– and that greatest of all crimes, being pro-Russian (ergo anti-American). It is timely perhaps to re-read President Kennedy's
(largely unreported) Commencement Address to American University, 10th June 1963:
" What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons
of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes
life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children–not
merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women–not merely peace in our time but peace for all time".
"I speak of peace because of the new face of war. Total war makes no sense in an age when great powers can maintain large and
relatively invulnerable nuclear forces and refuse to surrender without resort to those forces. It makes no sense in an age when
a single nuclear weapon contains almost ten times the explosive force delivered by all the allied air forces in the Second World
War. It makes no sense in an age when the deadly poisons produced by a nuclear exchange would be carried by wind and water and
soil and seed to the far corners of the globe and to generations yet unborn."
Lest we forget: Lee Harvey Oswald was sheep-dipped as a Russian-loving commie precisely so as to blame Russia for killing that
commie/socialist/pacifist/drug-addled/free-lovin' Jack Kennedy. Somehow, their script didn't really make any sense. Script-writer
Allen Dulles had written a turkey, but the show must go on, and on .
Igor
It won't be allowed. The People have no say in the matter. Politics is pure spectacle, to distract and entertain the masses, and
to make them think that they have a voice. All 45 US Presidents have been interrelated through 200+ super wealth elite intertwined
families. If Tulsi Gabbard is not related, then she is not getting into the White House. If she is related, she will get in and
do nothing different from what the previous actors have always done.
#Resist45 and Trump, Mr. #45, work for the same people. Keeping the nation dazed and confused, since January 2017. Congress
does nothing useful, by design, concentrating on impeachment. The Media has plenty of Trump social media coverage to prevent ever
having space to report on actual events (as if they would).
Chinese Asset?
Please don't make the Republicans look better than they are. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Ms. Hua Chunying said at a press briefing
that
Pence's speech made Thursday revealed his "sheer arrogance and hypocrisy, and was packed with political prejudice and lies"
So refreshing to hear it from a high level official! Ms Hua also accused Pence of using China as a prop to distract from
the United States' failings. Now we know, the 'Russian asset' accusation is used to distract from the continuous and
never-ending murderous operation of the US regime.
Seamus Padraig
Since Tulsi is a Major in the US Army Reserves and holds the highest security clearance available, the term 'asset,' which
is associated with being an agent of a foreign power, carries a level of national security significance.
Alt-journalist
Caity Johnstone has recently remarked upon how the Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) have started to give the
word 'asset' their own little proprietary meaning:
"Russian 'assets' are not formal relationships in the USIC [US Intelligence Community] sense of the word," CNN analyst and
former FBI agent Asha Rangappa explained via Twitter. "If you are parroting Russian talking points and furthering their interests,
you're a source who is too dumb to know you're being played to ask for money."
"It's important to point out here that a Russian 'asset' is not the same thing as a Russian 'agent'," tweeted virulent establishment
narrative manager Caroline Orr. "An asset can be witting or unwitting; it's any person or org who can be used to advance Russia's
interests. It's pretty clear that Tulsi satisfies that criteria."
"One doesn't have to be on the Kremlin's payroll to be a Russian asset. One doesn't even have to know they are a Russian
asset to be a Russian asset. Have you not heard the term 'useful idiot' before?" tweeted writer Kara Calavera.
At this rate, pretty soon, we'll all have to check with RT first before we open our mouths in public, just to make sure we're
not accidentally agreeing with the Russians!
The Dems have always been more pro-war than they have been given credit for with WWI, WWII, the Korean War and Vietnam all
initiated and/or expanded under Democrat Presidents.
Ha, ha! That takes me back–all the way to 1976, to be exact–to when Bob Dole (then a candidate for Vice-President) described
all the wars of the 20th century as " Democrat wars
".
Igor
"CNN analyst and former FBI agent Asha Rangappa explained via Twitter. "
Says the CNN paid asset.
Hugh O'Neill
Thanks once again to Renee for championing Tulsi. Yesterday my local paper here in NZ (The Otago Daily Times) in its "This Day
in History" column, briefly referred to JFK and the peaceful resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis. I wrote to the editor my
appreciation:
"Although I am old enough to remember both the 1960 election and the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy, I was
blissfully unaware of the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962 (when I was almost 7 years old). My thanks to the ODT for marking
this date which is the day in History when the world stepped back from the abyss of nuclear war and ended all life on Earth. Sadly,
too many today live in blissful ignorance of the most dangerous moment in the History of Mankind.
As the old saying goes, those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. Next time around, there may no longer be the politicians
with the courage and intelligence of Kennedy and Khrushchev: both men had to out-manoeuvre their own military hawks, and each
man knew the personal risks he faced in doing so. Khrushchev was replaced within a year and died in ignominy.
JFK's lived another year before his own untimely end. Though we may lament the execution of John F. Kennedy, he had not lived
and died in vain, because we are still here despite the military. I cannot recommend highly enough two books: firstly, Bobby Kennedy's
"13 Days> A Memoir of the Cuban Missile Crisis" and James Doulglass "JFK & The Unspeakable. Why he died & Why it Matters".
Tulsi has been the only candidate in a very long time to speak the unspeakable truth. Do not condemn her for whatever flaws
some commenters below perceive. No-one is absolutely perfect in every way – not even Mary Poppins. But Tulsi is a breath of fresh
air and has immense courage, eloquence, passion, integrity and charisma to bring out the best in people. The real enemy is within
– in every sense.
Thanks, Gwyn. I knew this story already but it is worth rereading. The fact that some dimwitted USN ship started dropping depth
charges without top authority shows that JFKs grip on his own military was tenuous. He had recently read Barbara Tuchman's "The
guns of August" which showed how stupid acts by subordinates could have massive consequences. Once again, this demonstrates the
treachery of the military. Recently, some British General stated publicly that if Corbyn were elected, there would be a coup.
The military mind cannot cope with the concept of Democracy.
Stoltenberg would happily stop all social services in order to buy more missiles and gain a few brownie points from Trump.
Stoltenberg along with the US Neocons are are sick SOB's.
Antonym
Trump doesn't want US taxpayers to fund US mil in Europe, not unreasonable. Both Trump and Jabbard are opponents of the CIA
– Wall street complex. Nationalists vs Globalists, but some people still believe the former are more dangerous than the latter.
Amazon, Google or Apple have more power than North Korea, Iran or Xyz. China cannot be the CIA-Wall street bogey now as they make
too much profit of it: Russia is much smaller fish margin wise (the Clinton's only managed a few dozen million$) so that makes
the perfect fake enemy. On top Russia actually competes with oil and gas, which China can't.
Wilmers31
Someone with more knowledge to the timeline needs to correlate the punishments for Russia (sanctions) to the oil price. I think
they started sanctions when Russian oil and gas deliveries were getting cheaper but US needed 75$+ for the frackers. It was just
eliminating a competitor, especially after they could not purchase the monopoly on Russian gas and oil through the monopoly company
Yukos.
Gary Weglarz
This is something I've been thinking a lot about lately, and this seems like a good post to share it on.
Watching trolls emerge to discredit and attack the lone U.S. candidate who publicly and vocally opposes America's regime change
wars and even dares tell the American people that "we are supporting the terrorists – not fighting them" – is bad enough in MSM,
but a sad and interesting comment on how completely engaged the State has become with attempting to "control" and "shape" discourse
on progressive sites such as this.
My favorite of course is when one State troll debates another State troll in completely "fake" discourse, attempting to amplify
their troll message. The other technique that is endlessly amusing is when a single troll posts something a well informed person
with progressive values can quite agree with one day, followed the next by complete gibberish posing as "sophistication," followed
the next day by talking points right out of the CIA & Pentagon, and then follows all that up with posting something sensible again.
Just a bit "crazy-making" no?
It pays to remember ("The 4 D's: Deny / Disrupt / Degrade / Deceive") that come right out of the trolling manual. It should
be a red-flag if these descriptors characterize someone's posts.
The saying that if it ("looks like a duck, walks like a duck and talks like a duck, well, it just might be a duck") – is one
that is worth applying to our comment's sections discourse. Because if it "posts like a troll"- in the end it doesn't really matter
if it "is" a troll (something we will never know), or is simply an uniformed but opinionated idiot – as that person is "doing
the work of" the State sponsored trolls in either case.
I find it is always worth periodically reviewing what we know about these operations (thank you Edward Snowden) – as it helps
us to better understand and prepares us to better deal with the State sponsored troll operations we now see routinely in all of
our truly progressive comments sections on alternative media sites. What we now deal with here at OffG and elsewhere are daily
routine attempts to take over, shape and control otherwise rational informed sincere discussion by readers. Sadly this is how
some people make their living – existing in a continual state of existential "bad faith."
Anyone who stands for a perception managed 'business as usual' candidacy is authentic: anyone who tries to expose the vicious
hypocrisy is an 'asset' or a 'troll'? Welcome to the postmodern anti-debate.
I'm trying to think of where I have come across a more cynical attempt to distort the truth and apologetically cover ethnic
cleansing and cultural anti-Muslim genocide? And I cannot think of a better example. Anyone who attempts to expose Gabbard for
her cultural links to actual Hindutva supremacism and real live fascism must be a paid state troll? What can I say: I am a peace
troll exposing the Politics of Lies you appear to support. Tulsi Gabbard is a traitor to humanity.
What I laid out below is not trolling: it exposes just how much you have to invert the true values of liberation and freedom
to get a 'peace candidate' from a Zionist fascist supporter. In brief synopsis: Modi tore up the Indian constitution; flooded
Jammu and Kashmir with troops; invoked the 'Riot Act' to eject all journalists and TV crews; in order that his ethnic cleansing
of the valley goes unseen. This is a crime against humanity: which also carries no small risk of nuclear war. Making this apparent
is trolling?
In the perversion of the narrative script you propose: this is called "vocally opposing America's regime change wars". How;
by apologising for not being able to attend the 'Howdy, Modi' because she was pre-commited to be lying somewhere else?
In contrast: Arundhati Roy stands accused as a traitor and having her rights and citizenship stripped for bringing attention
to Modi's war crimes. What does Gabbard do? Pass the caviar and offer more lucrative trade deals for Modi's murderers? That is
the difference between a real world candidate and a fake. Will Gabbard call out Modi; el-Sisi; Netanyahu or Adelson for that matter?
You know the scene that Milosevic likes to post: of Netanyahu being feted by Congress – which looks exactly like the Nuremberg
Rallies Gabbard was there to listen to the ally and friend of the United States – that is the only democracy in the Middle East
– denounce Iran. Afterward, she went on Fox News and glibly agreed Greta Van Susteren that the deal was akin to the infamous Munich
Pact. Blithely nodding her head before engaging in some fantasy talking points about North Korean nukes hitting Hawaii: and the
three month acquisition of the Iranian bomb which comes straight off of one of Nuttyyahoo's empty CD-roms. So can we drop the
pretense please?
Adelson's 'Champion of Freedom' nails her real colours to the mast?
Then you invoke Sartre: did you know he was a communist? Who staid loyal to Stalin's Soviet Union for much longer than he really
should have? What do you think he would have made of a candidate who dines with Hindutva fascist racist supremacists and offers
them more trade on a pro rata basis of carrying out war crimes and crimes against humanity? Bad faith and authenticity: where
do yo think they lie? Gabbard is an authentic candidate only in such a highly perception managed world as we have. Which is why
we have such a highly perception managed world – because we highly perception manage it ourselves. No paid state trolls required:
except in the imagination perhaps? Perhaps only those not suffering the illusion can see who she really is?
The only way to make this real is by censoring the right to criticism the illegitimate candidacy of those who are silent on
Modi's open fascism and very probable silent, unseen ethnic cleansing. If it is silent and unseen then it is not happening. Then
we have our perfect 'peace candidate'. Do you see how it works?
Let us shut down any chance of any open debate on that. Well done Gary. You and all the fawning sycophants on this page have
the perfect peace candidate you deserve. By ignoring valid and authentic critical consciousness and suppressing the voice of freedom.
Gabbard needs to be exposed as a modified war candidate: and friend of the Gods of Money and their pet dictators. It is a cynical
ploy to try and close down such real world exposure as 'trolling'. Trolling for peace maybe? Peace we may never now know.
Gary Weglarz
My comments were not intended to be a defense of Gabbard. Though she is the only candidate I can remember in many years that is
speaking some truth, any truth, about the amoral U.S. war machine, she of course has no chance whatsoever of winning and no one
in their right mind would suggest otherwise. Yet I and others who are quite aware of this obvious reality find the undeniable
fact she is "publicly speaking some truth" about that war machine a rather important addition to the theatre of the absurd political
debate here in the U.S. So strange that support and recognition of this simple fact is so controversial to some.
No, my comments were not some defense of Gabbard as an impure savior, but rather about the trolls and those who perhaps in
their boundless narcissism simply do the work of the government trolls because they routinely "post like trolls." You know, ("The
4 D's: Deny / Disrupt / Degrade / Deceive"). Perhaps you missed that somehow?
I tire of so much smug narcissistic idiocy, and predictable attacks on any who might disagree, posing as – "commentary" or
"discourse." Of course neither you nor Big B have commented a word on that topic- the actual topic of my post. Instead simply
strawman attacks related to Tulsi. How strange. But then again: "You've obviously got it all sewn up :(" – eh Frank?
I really don't give a shit about what the totally corrupt US political system is doing.
They are all scum and vermin, who, in a sane world, would all be swept down the gutter.
In the Middle East we are on the verge of WW3. The Russians and the Chinese are not going to put up with the American Frankenstein
any more. Do Americans realise what this will mean?
I doubt it, because many Americans don't have a brain cell between them (Clue: America will be totally destroyed in a WW3).
nonameforsure
8 elements appeared on a website recently which the author suggested could be used to identify fake, false, or self agenda propaganda..
learn them.. apply them.
Develop an international way to report in some standard way on the elements that appear in articles. Maybe date, time, place presented,
element identified, together with a comment that fits each expression. In my opinion it is important to build the case that the
same false narrative appears in your favorite fake media as well as everyone else's favorite fake media.
You will be able to detect how these 8 elements develop fact that identify processes and activities of those in charge and
how these elements will allow those seeking the truth to build a collaborative means to debunk fake. Example refer to paragraph
7 in a subject article by indicating "place" on "date" @ "time" "time" "title" and element number and then make a comment to explain
why you marked the expression with a element number.
This kind of reference system allows to detect and compare both intra article fake news with inter publication fake news..
so maybe it will be discovered the news outlets and publishers and authors that hawk the same false or misleading propaganda in
time to inform the public, moreover, if you can get the public to understand and to apply the element method of debunking propaganda;
article by article, paragraph by paragraph, just the act of doing it, might wake them up.
1) EN establish the narrative :fake always try to establish the tuth
2) WR They wrong, we right : inconvenient facts are transformed to support the narrative
3) PF Cherry Pick the Facts : only report the facts that support the narrative
4) IS Ignore stuff : never include something that is contrary to the narrative
5) VB Blame the Victim : keep the victim on the defensive
6) MU Make up Stuff: false or non fact claims can be made up to fit the narrative
7) AC Attack and deny any form to all challengers: Persons who ask ?s are conspiracy terrorist.
8) RL Repeat the lies, repeat the lies, repeat the lies. People need help to remember the lie
Capricornia Man
Your eight methods for creating fake news aptly describe the way the 'systemic anti-Semitism in the UK Labour Party' myth was
promoted. Particularly methods 3,4 and 8.
When I complained to a broadcaster about its incompetent and biased 'coverage' of this non-issue, one of its chief defences
was: 'that's what all the other news outlets are saying'.
The MSM wonder why they are regarded as mendacious and contemptible by thinking people who take the trouble to separate the
facts from the spin.
mark
A Brief Summary Of The War In Syria.
2011. The Neocons activate a long standing plan that has been around for 20 years to destroy Syria. Syria is to be destroyed,
like Iraq and Libya before it. Assad will be toppled within a few months and Syria smashed into a thousand pieces.
The Axis of Evil, the US and its NATO satraps, Shady Wahabia, Kosherstan and Sultan Erdogan, flood Syria with the necessary
cannon fodder, hundreds of thousands of head choppers and throat slitters from a hundred countries, with a licence to murder,
burn, rape, loot, steal and enslave to their hearts content. An alphabet soup of takfiri groups is created out of thin air, armed,
trained, paid, transported and orchestrated with tens of billions of western taxpayers money. ISIS is just one of many.
The Syrian state, armed forces and people resist with unexpected courage and determination, and fight the proxy head choppers
to a standstill. But they are under extreme pressure and have to concentrate their forces in the main battles in the west of the
country. This leaves a vacuum that is filled by the phantom ISIS caliphate. This suits the Axis of Evil just fine. There is no
problem with ISIS black flags flying over Damascus provided Syria is destroyed.
By 2015, the outcome is in the balance. Clinton and Sultan Erdogan have agreed to impose a no fly zone to turn the tide in
favor of the head choppers. A series of Gas Attack Hoaxes and false flag atrocity claims are staged over a protracted period of
time to justify Libya style intervention.
All bets are off as Putin overrides his advisors and dispatches Russian forces to intervene and prevent the destruction of
the Syrian state. With the support of Iran and Hezbollah, the situation is transformed. Though the worst of the fighting is yet
to come, the Neocon plot to destroy Syria is a busted flush. Syria is steadily liberated from terrorist occupation.
The main terrorist sponsors try to salvage something from this failure. Sultan Erdogan switches sides and takes the opportunity
to attack the Kurds. Trump seizes the opportunity to scale back US involvement, generating much hysteria from all the Zionist
shills in Washington. The Kurds seek some kind of accommodation with Damascus.
The war is now winding down. It will take some time before all the terrorist areas are liberated and occupying US and Turkish
forces have to withdraw. But the outcome is now inevitable.
Funny you mentioned Arundhati Roy as I almost bought her book today: Capitalism A Ghost Story, in a Left bookshop here, however
ended up getting Culture & Imperialism by Edward Said and a second hand copy of Pedadogy Of The Oppressed which I've, um, never
read. Time to broaden the mind, as have hardly read any books for years except articles on the Internet. Will pick up Arundhati's
book next time. Have a good day
eddie
The Dems morphed into neocons when her willy-waving husband sold out and destroyed the Democratic Party of LBJ's Great Society.
Tulsi being a member of the establishment which she lambasts is quite a paradox, but can be seen from one's own moral perspective.
During the VietNam war era, '63-75, many who opposed the fiasco took a stronger stance: prison as a conscientious objector, moving
to Canada, undesirable discharges, very vocal public protests & arrests. Many lives and futures ruined, my own included, to actively
stop the illegal & profit driven Invasion ..
Tulsi has shown a lot of class, truth to the darkest Power, and long may she have this platform..
Rhys Jaggar
Next they will try saying that because she is not a mother she has no place being President. If I had a vote in the US, I would
vote for any man, woman, black/white/Hisoanic/Asian/any other ethnicity, straight/gay/indeterminate who:
1. Pledged to cut the US military budget in half, sign up to existing OPCW conventions on chemical+biological weapons and demanded
that Israel did likewise.
2. Removed the right for dual citizen US-Israeli zionists to hold public US office (tell em to decide whether they are primarily
aligned to Israel or not) and neutered the election-rigging AIPAC monstrosity at source.
3. Called out the global warming hoax as the biggest scam of the 21st century.
4. Enforced the concept that polluters pay to clean up their polluting, particularly in extractive industries, agriculture, mining
and packaging.
5. Promoted the restoration of mutually owned local finance, particularly in providing mortgages.
6. Confronted the self-serving victim gravy train, in particular making the terms 'man' and 'woman' beyond the rights of anyone
to take legal action.
7. vowed to shut down 25% of US overseas military bases in a first term and a further tranche in a second term.
Very interesting but I have a small note. Not that it matters politically how they entered
France, but World War 2 was Blitzkrieg.
"In desperation, Churchill therefore ordered a series of large-scale bombing raids against the German capital of Berlin, doing
considerable damage, and after numerous severe warnings, Hitler finally began to retaliate with similar attacks against British
cities." (RU)
This makes me wonder when this happened and how the bombing of Rotterdam (may 14 1940) by the Nazis fits into the story chronologically.
I have read most of the revisionist literature (regarding the holocaust) on your website and found most of it either beyond my
ken or else rather poorly sourced. There is something though that I know for 100% sure and it mitigates against the revisionists:
starting even before the war and then continuing the German government started to exterminate all Germans they considered not
worthy of further sustenance. That is severly physically or mentally handicapped children and the insane. At least a 100 000 children
and adults were killed. Usually by injection but some also by being gassed. Although it was a government secret as this happened
in Germany and to ethnic Germans the news inadvertedly spread and the practise was (officially but not entirely) abandoned after
the Catholic Archbishop of Münster had publicly protested against it. So if gas was used in Germany to exterminate Germans it
seems rather logical that it would be also used against Jews.
Having said that I do agree that there are things that are rather spurious regarding the Holocaust. Specifically the numbers
don´t seem to add up.
One book in your archive stood out: The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry by
WALTER N. SANNING: a book revising downward the number of Jews killed in Poland. A meticilously researched piece of scholarship
about the demographics of Eastern European Jewry.
Everything else I find rather doubtful. I have personally talked to several people who have survived the Holocaust and there
is no doubt in my mind that to be a Jew in German dominated Europe amounted to a death sentence. That is not to say that the numbers
haven´t been exaggerated. Just as the numbers of German vistims after the war have been downplayed. Alas, that has been the way
since antiquity: the victor writes what is later regarded as "history" .
Simply magnificent. Simply infuriating.
It's bone chilling to read this. It must be an enormous burden for Mr Unz to possess this knowledge. It feels demoralising to simply be the recipient of it – knowing full well the price of telling the truth, even now, even today.
Typical Unzian goulash. It is good that he exposed Churchill's lunacy & Eisenhower's culpability (although I'm not sure for how
many victims Eisenhower is to blame).
Though, I'm not convinced at all that Japanese soldiers would have surrendered en masse from 41. to 45. The situation with
Soviets is simply not derivable from their previous behavior. As for Hitler- no, he was much more ambitious & ruthless:
Ron Unz seems to write in the following manner: Nazi empire was not 100% guilty for the outbreak of WW 2 (true)- therefore
Nazis were almost blameless (false); Churchill & his cronies have much to be blamed for (true) -therefore, they're almost completely
guilty (false); Jews have magnified numbers of their WW 2 victims & some influential American Jewish figures like Morgenthau are
repulsive & perhaps war criminals (true) – therefore, Jews suck & are to be blamed for many, if not most of Germany's miseries
during 1940s (false).
Readers & followers of this site think, I guess, that Jews are collectively guilty of __ (type in your favorite obsession).
This is the inversion of another lunatic idea: Germans are collectively guilty for WW 2 in Europe.
Of course, both claims are nonsensical. Collective guilt does not exist.
Here's the scoop on ww2. that pos, fdr (he set up Pearl Harbor attack) got us into it even though he knew the vast majority of
Americans were against going to war in Europe. We lost every encounter we had with the German infantry without our overwhelming
air and arty support (Africa, Sicily, Italy, Normandy, Holland, Bulge, Hurtgen Forest, etc. Then we did unspeakable things to
the German people and their leadership all for the jews. There you have it – simple.
WRONG, and it is an insult to the courageous and diligent efforts of people like David Irving, Ernst Zundel, A J P Taylor,
Harry Elmer Barnes, Ron Unz to keep repeating that Bernaysian drivel.
What the victors wrote re the 20th century world wars is not history, it is a continuation of propaganda.
Historian Thomas Fleming (RIP) has argued that at least 50 years must pass before cool, objective history can be written; before
that, recountings of the events are emotion-laden and agenda-driven.
It is intellectually lazy and extremely dangerous to "sum up" by miming the victor's 2 minutes of hate: you do their work for
them.
"Atrocity propaganda is how we won the war. And we're only really beginning with it now! We will continue this atrocity propaganda,
we will escalate it until nobody will accept even a good word from the Germans, until all the sympathy they may still have abroad
will have been destroyed and they themselves will be so confused that they will no longer know what they are doing. Once that
has been achieved, once they begin to run down their own country and their own people, not reluctantly but with eagerness to please
the victors, only then will our victory be complete. It will never be final. Re-education needs careful tending, like an English
lawn. Even one moment of negligence, and the weeds crop up again – those indestructible weeds of historical truth."
-- Sefton Delmer, 1904-1979, former British Chief of Black propaganda, said after the German surrender, in 1945, in a conversation
with the German professor of international law, Dr. Friedrich Grimm
@Bardon Kaldian
Yes, this reversed black-and-white thinking irks me too. I have said before that WWII was not a war of "good guys against bad
guys", even if we reverse the roles. All parties (including the Jews) were guilty in this conflict. All lied and all committed
atrocities.
As for "collective guilt", I think to a certain degree it does exist. Groups of course are led by their leaders, and "collective
crimes" are instigated by their leaders, but still it is the groups that choose or tolerate their leaders, and thus share a responsibility
in their criminal conduct.
@Antares Chronologically,
I am not sure.
Some use Rotterdam and Warsaw as examples of terror bombing being used by the Germans before the British ever but they also leave
out why those cities were bombed. Firstly they were not declared "open cities" as Paris was, secondly Dutch and Polish troops
had occupied their respective cities before any formal cease fire/peace treaty had been formalized. Also in the case of Warsaw
the mayor, or whatever the equivalent, had refused multiple German demands for surrender.
@Brabantian
Czechoslovakia was being torn apart by all its neighbors, Austria, Hungary and Poland. Not just Germany. There was also ethnic
tensions among the Czechs and Slovaks. The prime minister of Czechoslovakia met Hitler in Germany a few days before the countries
complete annexation REQUESTING Germany occupy the entire country before an ethnic civil war or perhaps the Hungarians or Poles
decided they wanted more.
For instance, most Germans did not vote for Hitler. And even if he was elected by 90% margin- what would it mean? He did many
great things to heal German post-WW 1 humiliation & succeeded in spectacular economic recovery. When Europe (and world) descended
into WW 2 – how could an average German, or any group of Germans, do anything to change the course of history?
They were indoctrinated, but even if most of them had not been – no individual nor collective can change the inertia of events.
Things just keep on happening. For instance, Waffen SS were denounced as a "criminal organization" & its members deprived of military
honors (ca. 900,000 men, 500,000 out of them Germans). I call it baloney. You don't have 900,000 "war criminals". This is simply
a nonsense.
I am not saying that collectives do not share peculiar characteristics (for instance, you can't have anything seriously done
with Gypsies), but any political-social-historical movement is too complex to be reduced to moralistic sermonizing.
@Brabantian
Yes, all wars are bankers war. That being said, once the first spark is struck, events rapidly spiral out of control. What I find
with these older and even newer versions of revisionist history is Stalin and Soviet Russia very rarely ever assigned any blame
in the starting of the whole mess which I find absurd. A great example of this is story of Rudolf Hess and how he was betrayed
by everyone.
[Hide MORE]
Was Hess aware at the time of the existence of a Secret Protocol, attached to the Hitler-Stalin "Non-Aggression" Pact of
Aug. 23, 1939 and signed by Nazi Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop and Soviet Foreign Minister Vyascheslav Molotov, which
stated "in event of any war," Russia would be assigned"spheres of influence" in eastern Poland (40% of the country); .the Baltic
states of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia; a freehand in Finland; and that portion of Romania abutting Soviet territory. Soviet
actions after Hitler's invasion of Poland on Sept. 1, 1939, showed how precisely the Soviets adhered to the Protocol's terms.
On Sept. 17, Russia invaded Poland from the east; on Sept. 18 Russian and German troops shook hands in Poland. Then, Moscow
invaded Finland. Next, it took the Baltic states.
"Stalin was able, in conference with Britain and the United States (when they became his allies against Hitler), to present
these actions as "defensive" against the Nazi threat. But the
Secret Protocol would prove that, to the contrary, Russia had used the deal with Hitler to advance her ancient imperial designs
on Europe."
"Obviously, if Stalin were shown to be guilty of plotting with Hitler-to wage aggressive war, then the question arose: What
were the Soviets doing as judges with the French,
British, and Americans on the Nuremberg tribunal? The tribunal would have to be reconstituted. Would not Molotov and Stalin
have to be tried? They had stood at a map table with Ribbentrop in Moscow, while Ribbentrop consulted with Hitler on the phone
from Germany, and the four of them had redrawn the map of Eastern Europe. Stalin and Molotov could be accused of having conspired
with Hitler to wage war; shouldn't they take their
places in the Nuremberg dock?"
As for Hitler- no, he was much more ambitious & ruthless:
That video is pretty questionable imo, because as far as I know the Generalplan Ost plans of the SS don't exist anymore,
at least not in detail. What does exist, is a memorandum drawn up by Dr Wetzel from Rosenberg's Ostministerium , whose
text can be read here: https://www.ifz-muenchen.de/heftarchiv/1958_3_5_heiber.pdf
The proposals in that document are undoubtedly extremely racist and would have amounted to massive ethnic cleansing programmes,
at least against Poles and Czechs. They don't quite amount to genocide though, in fact the author explicitly states that one can't
physically exterminate Poles like Jews (whose physical destruction is quite openly affirmed in the text), because Germany would
then be generally hated by all neighbouring peoples instead Poles who can't be Germanized should emigrate to Siberia, or possibly
to Brazil. Proposal for Russia is basically to split up the country in various republics and foster regional identities, with
Siberia maybe becoming a pan-European economic zone.
Much attention is devoted to "racially valuable" Slavs who should be sent to the Reich for Germanization (Dr Wetzel is concerned
about foreign workers from Italy and the Balkans who could bring Near Eastern and negroid ancestry to Germany; he'd prefer to
replace them with "Nordic" types from Belarus). Even the view of Russians isn't entirely negative while Wetzel regards most of
them as a "dull primitive mass", he thinks there still are Nordic types in the Russian peasantry and attributes Russia's industrialization
to people of such a background (which makes Russia especially dangerous). So this isn't exactly the same view as of Jews.
Of course even the ethnic cleansing schemes proposed in that document could easily have shaded into genocide (in 1940 even top
Nazis still thought of just sending the Jews away to Madagascar, not killing them all, so there was a precedent for such radicalisation).
And presumably the plans of the SS were more extreme than what Rosenberg's Ostministerium proposed.
Still, in any case a German victory in WW2 would certainly have been pretty bad for many of the peoples of Eastern Europe. As
for revisionism of the kind demonstrated once again on Ron Unz's article, imo it's not worth bothering with, since it's so far
removed from reality.
I know many people have a great deal of difficulty comprehending just how many wars are started for no other purpose than to
force private central banks onto nations, so let me share a few examples, so that you understand why the US Government is mired
in so many wars against so many foreign nations. There is ample precedent for this.
In the beginning of World War I, Woodrow Wilson had adopted initially a policy of neutrality. But the Morgan Bank, which was
the most powerful bank at the time, and which wound up funding over 75 percent of the financing for the allied forces during World
War I pushed Wilson out of neutrality sooner than he might have done, because of their desire to be involved on one side of the
war.
@Alta And what
would be excuse for bombing Frampol? Because for Wieluń Germans had at least excuse that before war there was cavalry unit stationed
nearby, though indiscriminate bombing still was bad.
Not to mention that Polish witnesses remember that all Red Cross flags soon had to be taken off the hospitals and other objects,
because they became favourite target of Luftwaffe.
@Alta Because
you said so. And, of course, Poles from Zamojszczyzna left their homes voluntarily, and thousands or testimonies about Zamojszczyzna
children being separated from families (and most of them never returned) are all propaganda, while you should believe without
question all German stories.
Japanese soldiers on the Pacific islands had habits. One of those was sometimes setting off a grenade after 'surrendering'.
This lead to a lot fewer surrenders being accepted.
American soldiers on the Pacific islands also had habits. One of those was routinely torturing and murdering Japanese servicemen
who tried to surrender, and mutilating and defiling their corpses.
This lead to a lot fewer Japanese surrendering, and to some of them setting off a grenade after "surrendering".
In case I have to point it out, I'm not saying this to be anti-American. I think that's more or less what you can expect to
happen when you send these scared young men, forcefed for years on propaganda about the Japanese being subhuman monsters, out
to fight them life or death in hellish climates thousands of miles from home. I blame the crooked politicians and the lying media
more than the soldiers. But it's astonishing how, even today, the propaganda narratives about noble Yanks and evil Japs still
persist. Even among people who ought to know better.
If anyone else feels inclined to nod and agree with knee-jerk posts like the one I'm responding to here, please make the effort
to at least read the book about the Pacific War our host Mr. Unz is recommending. (I've read it. It's good, and it's not
just mindless America-bashing like some people will no doubt want to think. Dower looks at how both the Americans and the
Japanese dehumanized the enemy.) It's one more tiny but important step along the difficult road toward the vitally necessary goal
of attaining a more balanced view of our modern history.
@German_reader
I am not saying that everything would go as if planned in some document. Those totalitarian regimes possess their own internal
dynamic which is hard to stop when they're set into motion.
For instance, all atrocities which devoured perhaps 30+ million people (including those who perished in Russian civil war)
were contained, in nuce , in Lenin's works, ideas & positions (I am not talking about good things that came to pass as
the result of his actions). Lenin did not write about extermination of whole classes, forced famine, new & more efficient Inquisition
etc. But they were somehow logical result of his (and not only his) vision of the future society.
Hitler's (mostly) intra-white racism could also have predictable results. His world-view had, basically, two pillars: eastern
expansion to somewhere along Urals- Caucasus axis & getting rid of Jews. Of course Jews get much rap because they suffered, percentage-wise,
more than others (Gypsies excluded), but the real deal would be annihilation of Balto-Slavophone central & eastern European peoples
(Czechs, Poles, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Russians & most Baltic peoples).
He would, I guess, have chosen "racially" desirable children for assimilation & off with others. First, they would have worked
as slaves; then, they would be simultaneously killed & deported (probably similar to Stalin's deportation of Chechens & other
potentially disloyal peoples. Out of 900,000 of them, perhaps 400,000-500,000 died in the process of deportation). If one tries
to annihilate a people- and these are numerous peoples by European standards – you don't have to shoot or gas them. Just relocate
them somewhere in the east of Urals, most of them (you can't keep so many of them within your sphere of authority because they
will rebel, sooner or later). So, I guess tens of millions individuals, from Czechs to Russians, were slated to death from famine,
disease & overwork.
Generalplan Ost is more important as the document of the state of mind than as a master plan with all the details & nuances.
And that state of mind would have resulted in tens of millions of unnatural deaths & Poles, Ukrainians, .. would be now just a
footnote in history, similar to Indians in what is now Manhattan.
They say nothing about exterminating half of Russia; on the contrary, they expected the population to grow through natural
increase under the German occupation once it was no longer oppressed by Communism.
Gee whizz, Hitler had the bright future for Russians somewhere in his heart. Just..he somehow failed to communicate his hidden
sympathies to them.
@Bardon Kaldian
No. He wanted Russia to be a subordinate, essentially colonial dependency for Germany to use as a captive market for its industries,
so he would be able to compete with global American capitalism capitalism in economies of scale. He realized that you need a domestic
market of hundreds of millions of people (like US, Russia, China) to be an economic superpower.
Hitler personally used the figure of India a lot in his "Table Talk" conversations: Just like India was the market for Britain's
textile industries in the 19th century, Russia would be the market for Germany's modern industries in the 20th. (In those, if
you check them, he incidentally also used a lot of hyperbole about wanting the Russian rank and file to be illiterate, though
in the official policy documents he wanted a compulsory elementary school for them. Which, of course, makes infinitely better
economic sense.)
Hitler did want meritocracy within his empire: Russians who were of good character and "good race" were to be given German
work permits and citizenship if they applied for it, just like Dutchmen, poles and anyone else who was Aryan (that is, "White").
So kind of a H1B option, more like India is for America in the 21st century than it was for Britain in the 19th. I guess you could
say he wanted a "bright future" for them. But the big mass of Russians he wanted to stay in Russia, and to be banned from moving
to Germany (which he wanted to remain ethnically German, with only a relatively small leavening of bright foreigners).
However, in order to be good consumers of German exports, the Russians in Russia still had to have their living standards raised
over the squalor of Bolshevism. Hitler thought that was absolutely necessary. So in the end, they would benefit, even if they
remained subordinate and disprivileged compared to the Germans.
Of course, these were long-term plans, spanning over decades. Hitler and his planning staff still anticipated that many Russians
would die in the war (which of course happened in real life, even though they won it), and weren't extremely sad about that. But
it wasn't a specific aim of German policy to cause those deaths. In more modern lingo that wasn't yet used at the time, they were
collateral damage from destroying the Communist superstate and establishing a German economic and political sphere of influence.
Of course, this makes the Nazis sound well, not exactly nice, but far less evil than Stalin was comfortable with, given potential
comparisons to his own record. Which is why he had his propaganda commissars bruit the nonsense that the Nazis wanted to murder
all Russians (and/or all "Slavs" for good measure). And incidentally, such a demonic image also fit very well with how certain
other powerful vested interests, these ones operating in the "Western" world's media, academia and assorted institutions, wanted
to portray a regime they hated for their own reasons. Though Stalin is long gone, these other ones are still going strong, and
still keeping up his good work.
I again recommend that you read the Madajczyk book I referred to, if you read German. It will add considerably to your understanding
of World War II. If you don't read German, there is another good book by one Dr. Rainer Zitelmann that has been translated and
is called "Hitler: The Policies of Seduction" in English. That one is more about Hitler's general ideology and policy, but touches
on these issues also.
History isn't binary. You don't have to think Hitler and the Germans were angels from Heaven, any more than you have to buy
that they were demons from Hell. But in this day and age, with so much material available fairly easily (and often even free on
the Internet), there are few excuses left for believing the recycled Soviet propaganda your video was promoting.
gjohnsit on Wed,
10/30/2019 - 3:11pm The Clinton Dead-Enders aren't very clever or original, but they can
stick to a script.
First Bernie defends Tulsi from baseless smears.
Tulsi Gabbard has put her life on the line to defend this country. People can disagree on
issues, but it is outrageous for anyone to suggest that Tulsi is a foreign asset.
@Biff
"According to Cohen, Barr is going to investigate the CIA. America's top cop is going to
investigate America's top criminal organization. This should get really interesting. I wonder
who's gonna win?"
Few seem to remember the results of the big CIA investigation of the 70's, the rub then
was the CIA got caught operating domestically against it's charter. Well, Bush Sr. was
appointed to head the investigation when he was actually the HEAD of the domestic branch of
the CIA at the time. Looking at Barr's background I can only conclude we are about to be fed
another similar magic act. I have no doubt who will win the deck is stacked.
Cohen observes in his latest conversation with John Batchelor that the so-called Impeachment
inquiry, whether formal or informal, will make the new Cold War even worse and more dangerous
than it already is, noting that an inflection point has been reached, because at the core of
these allegations -- most of which are undocumented and a substantial number of which are
untrue -- revolving around Russiagate and now Ukrainegate is an underlying demonization of
Russia. Relations between America and Russia will continue to deteriorate either due to the
fact that the entire political spectrum is engaging in a frenzy of Russophobia or that
President Trump, who ran and won on a platform of improving relations with Russia, is now
completely shackled, thus it is inevitable that the new Cold War will continue to become more
dangerous.
Regarding Attorney General Barr's investigation into the origins of Russiagate, as Cohen
noted previously, Barr has made it clear that he's investigating not the FBI but the
intelligence agencies, and Cohen is uncertain that even the Attorney General of the United
States can be successful in that line of inquiry. For example, the young and politically
inconsequential George Papadopolous, a young aid to the Trump campaign, got four or five
visitors, every one of them tied to foreign intelligence, American or European, which makes it
self-evident that the Intelligence Agencies were running an operation against the Trump
campaign. Cohen says that even if Barr is a resolute man and says he wants to get to the bottom
of this, Cohen is not confident that he will be able to do so.
Cohen notes that the Russian press, which follows American politics closely, has resulted in
a consensus that all of this -- Russiagate, Ukrainegate -- was created to stop Trump from
having better relations with Russia. Thus, it is important that Putin had been told the reason
Trump cannot engage in détente is because of Trump being shackled.
Discussing the recent American mission against Abu Baker al-Baghdadi in Syria, Cohen stated
Nancy Pelosi utterly disgraced herself when she complained Trump informed the Russians about
the success of the mission and its initiation, considering the fact that this wing of Congress
is so against Trump he had no guarantee that one of them would not have leaked the mission
before it began. Russian intelligence in that part of the world is probably better than other
nation's, so Cohen assumes Russia knew about the mission and that they helped by providing
information to America.
In addition, Cohen has noted Putin discussed a partnership with America against domestic
terrorism starting with his approach to Obama and noted that even considering the September 11
terror attack, Russia has suffered more victims of domestic terrorism than America has. Obama
thought about the proposal, hesitated, and it never happened. These recent events are a
reminder that the United States and Russia are uniquely positioned to partner against
international terrorism, but this may be slightly beyond the grasp of President Trump at the
present time.
Cohen noted that expert opinion in Russia -- which informs the Kremlin leadership, including
Putin -- has soured on the United States; the older generation of Russian America specialists
who like America, who visit regularly and appreciate American culture, have become utterly
disillusioned and cannot promote a Russian-American partnership given what has happened to
Trump.
Regarding Ukraine, Cohen notes it shares a very large border with Russia, tens of millions
of intermarriages, language, culture and history, and although the United States shares none of
this with Ukraine, the United States has declared Ukraine is a strategic ally, and this would
be equivalent to Russia stating that Mexico is its strategic ally, which is preposterous; the
term "strategic" clearly has military implications.
Expanding on the topic of Ukraine, despite its size and natural resources, it is the poorest
country in Europe. The new president, a comedian who starred in a TV show portraying the
Ukranian president and thus life imitates art, ran as a peace candidate; that and his promise
to fight corruption resulted in his victory. Part of his pledge was to meet with Putin to try
to solve the conflicts; but he promised to end the hot war with Russia. American politics got
in the way and people are still dying: at last count, there were approximately thirteen
thousand dead, including women and children. And the peace candidate has been dragged into
American politics and the commentary on Ukraine has a colonial tone. America speaking of
Ukraine as a "strategic ally" is foolishness and warfare thinking. What should be the American
policy is to encourage Zelensky to pursue these peace policies with Russia so the war doesn't
spread and the killing stops and that Ukraine, which is a potentially rich country, can
recover. While Obama egged on the war policy, Trump seemed to have no policy, other than to
encourage Zelensky in his peace initiative. What isn't known in the conversation Trump had with
Zelensky was whether he encouraged him in his peace initiative; the transcript is a fragment,
redacted and edited so that it doesn't mention the war but certainly it was discussed. The
issue is whether the United States should give Ukraine's government $400 million dollars in
military equipment. Obama, who Cohen observes was not a good foreign policy president refused
to do so but Cohen concludes that was a wise decision. All that providing weapons to Ukraine
would accomplish is to incite the pro-war forces in Kiev against the anti-war forces led by
Zelensky; the military advantage in any event lies with Russia.
Despite the fact Zelensky is an actor, he did run on a program of peace and Cohen believes
that he is sincere; Cohen notes the problem is not Russia, but the armed Nationalists who are
opposed to peace -- approximately 30,000 -- who have publicly threatened Zelensky. Cohen notes
Putin wants to end the war with Ukraine and he has made efforts to help Zelensky, such as the
recent prisoner release, although he included people Russians consider terrorists. Thus,
Zelensky doesn't have a lot of political power. While there are bad nationalist actors -- the
Azov battalion, which threatened Zelensky with either removal or death -- nevertheless Cohen
has asked where the regular army stands: will it back him, will it be loyal? That answer now is
unknown.
Cohen concluded to most Ukrainians Zelensky represented hope, hope in the war against
corruption and hope against the war. The Kremlin wants to end the war; Zelensky has a chance,
he's supported by Germany and France, Putin is helping, but the United States is not a party of
the Minsk Agreement peace acccord. Trump has intruded in his own unusual way but can be a
factor for good. If Cohen were advising President Trump, he'd tell him if he favored the
negotiations for Russian and Ukrainian peace, this would favor his historical reputation.
@Biff
"According to Cohen, Barr is going to investigate the CIA. America's top cop is going to
investigate America's top criminal organization. This should get really interesting. I wonder
who's gonna win?"
Few seem to remember the results of the big CIA investigation of the 70's, the rub then
was the CIA got caught operating domestically against it's charter. Well, Bush Sr. was
appointed to head the investigation when he was actually the HEAD of the domestic branch of
the CIA at the time. Looking at Barr's background I can only conclude we are about to be fed
another similar magic act. I have no doubt who will win the deck is stacked.
Next they will try saying that because she is not a mother she has no place being President.
If I had a vote in the US, I would vote for any man, woman, black/white/Hisoanic/Asian/any
other ethnicity, straight/gay/indeterminate who:
1. Pledged to cut the US military budget in half, sign up to existing OPCW conventions on
chemical+biological weapons and demanded that Israel did likewise.
2. Removed the right for dual citizen US-Israeli zionists to hold public US office (tell em
to decide whether they are primarily aligned to Israel or not) and neutered the
election-rigging AIPAC monstrosity at source.
3. Called out the global warming hoax as the biggest scam of the 21st century.
4. Enforced the concept that polluters pay to clean up their polluting, particularly in
extractive industries, agriculture, mining and packaging.
5. Promoted the restoration of mutually owned local finance, particularly in providing
mortgages.
6. Confronted the self-serving victim gravy train, in particular making the terms 'man' and
'woman' beyond the rights of anyone to take legal action.
7. vowed to shut down 25% of US overseas military bases in a first term and a further tranche
in a second term.
This is something I've been thinking a lot about lately, and this seems like a good post to
share it on.
Watching trolls emerge to discredit and attack the lone U.S. candidate who publicly and
vocally opposes America's regime change wars and even dares tell the American people that "we
are supporting the terrorists – not fighting them" – is bad enough in MSM, but a
sad and interesting comment on how completely engaged the State has become with attempting to
"control" and "shape" discourse on progressive sites such as this.
My favorite of course is when one State troll debates another State troll in completely
"fake" discourse, attempting to amplify their troll message. The other technique that is
endlessly amusing is when a single troll posts something a well informed person with
progressive values can quite agree with one day, followed the next by complete gibberish
posing as "sophistication," followed the next day by talking points right out of the CIA
& Pentagon, and then follows all that up with posting something sensible again. Just a
bit "crazy-making" no?
It pays to remember ("The 4 D's: Deny / Disrupt / Degrade / Deceive") that come right
out of the trolling manual. It should be a red-flag if these descriptors characterize
someone's posts.
The saying that if it ("looks like a duck, walks like a duck and talks like a duck, well,
it just might be a duck") – is one that is worth applying to our comment's sections
discourse. Because if it "posts like a troll"- in the end it doesn't really matter if it "is"
a troll (something we will never know), or is simply an uniformed but opinionated idiot
– as that person is "doing the work of" the State sponsored trolls in either case.
I find it is always worth periodically reviewing what we know about these operations
(thank you Edward Snowden) – as it helps us to better understand and prepares us to
better deal with the State sponsored troll operations we now see routinely in all of our
truly progressive comments sections on alternative media sites. What we now deal with here at
OffG and elsewhere are daily routine attempts to take over, shape and control otherwise
rational informed sincere discussion by readers. Sadly this is how some people make their
living – existing in a continual state of existential "bad faith."
Truth Jihad / Kevin
Barrett October 27, 2019
7 Comments Reply Dr. Cynthia McKinney
got elected to Congress six times -- and soon found herself under attack by the Israel lobby
when she refused to sign the "pledge of allegiance to Israel" demanded of all
representatives!
The Lobby was able to eject Rep. McKinney from Congress twice, once in 2002 and again in
2006, by fabricating a primary opponent backed by the vast fortunes of the Zionist oligarchs
and the tireless energy of the 500,000-footsoldier "Zionist Power Configuration" or ZPC. (For
information about the ZPC, read Dr. James Petras's The Power of Israel
in the United States alongside Walt and Mearsheimer
, and then check out the documentary film
The Lobby .)
So are we allowed to discuss what "Jewish state" means? Can we explore the historical,
psychological, and cultural factors that led to the Zionist colonization of Palestine? The
Zionist Power Configuration says "no way!"
According to the ZPC and its attack-dog ADL, anyone who talks about such things is an
"anti-Semite" and should muzzled, deplatformed, and persecuted.
In this interview Dr. McKinney bravely goes where few if any former Congressional
representatives have gone before, speaking frankly about Israel's control of the US Congress
and other centers of power, and raising the taboo issue of the so-called
"Jewish question."
Just prior to the R-Party Nominating Convention at Cleveland in July 2016, Pepe
wrote :
"Some powerful, well-connected business interests supporting Trump from New York to the
Midwest have outlined their reasons to me, off the record. The fact that their reasons run
completely opposite to the Beltway consensus speaks volumes."
Yes, I remember this article quite well as should other barflies. As I wrote at the time,
those Pepe cited had their own perverted twist on history and thus incorrect reasons as to
the why of America's decline as this paragraph details:
"Why Russia? ' Because Russia does not rig their currency against us to destroy our
industries, and is therefore a natural ally rather then Germany and Japan, who still rig
their currencies against the United States and have destroyed much of our industrial
power .'" [Italics Original]
The bolded text above is what the businessmen were wrong about, and in a big way. But
Trump's isn't the first time policy was based on misconceptions and incorrect history. Pepe
provides further citations that I'll omit here, although they are important, and just provide
his summation followed by one a bit too important to omit here:
"For these business interests, illegal immigration, rigged currencies, and the
'unnecessary war' against Russia are the biggest issues of the presidential campaign....
"This business crowd is distinctly anti-war: ' When Mr. Trump talks about war having to
have rational profit and loss expectation, he is sounding as a logical businessman .'
They also stress that, ' the war against Russia is also destroying our oil industry
as the US ordered the Gulf States to dump their shut-in oil production capacity on the oil
market to bankrupt Russia .'" [Bolded text my emphasis]
But 3 years later, oil price has yet to really recover to the point where Frackers can
make a profit and their Ponzi Scheme seems about to go bust, which is why we're seeing
something that looks like a shift in Trump's initial plan regarding Syria. And there's still
more that can be gleaned from the article that goes against what was then current policy and
its direction. I think it's now fairly easy to see the reasoning behind Trump's UNGA tirade
aimed at the Globalists while contradicting himself about patriots as he's fighting against
one of the most noted--and demonized--of the planet's patriots--Bashar Hafez al-Assad.
From Wikipedia "Alexander Vindman and his twin brother Yevgeny were born to a Jewish family in the Ukrainian SSR , Soviet Union . [3] After the
death of their mother, the three-year-old twins and their older brother Leonid were brought to
New York in December 1979 by their father, Semyon (Simon). They grew up in Brooklyn's "
Little Odessa "
neighborhood" ... Beginning in 2008, Vindman became a Foreign Area Officer specializing in
Eurasia. In this capacity he served in the U.S. embassies in Kyiv , Ukraine , and Moscow , Russia . Returning to Washington, D.C. he was then a
politico-military affairs officer focused on Russia for the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff . Vindman served on the Joint Staff at the Pentagon from September 2015 to
July 2018. [8] In July 2018, Vindman
accepted an assignment with the National Security Council. [9] In his role on the
NSC, Vindman became part of the U.S. delegation at the inauguration of the Ukraine's newly
elected President, Volodymyr Zelensky . The five member
delegation, led by Rick
Perry , United States Secretary of
Energy , also included Kurt Volker , then U.S. Special Representative
for Ukraine Negotiations, Gordon Sondland , United States
Ambassador to the European Union , and Joseph Pennington, then acting chargé d'affaires .
[10][11]
Here is the whistleblower on Trump's Ukraine call . Why is it that no matter what rock you
turn over there is a Jew underneath?
Who Is Alexander Vindman? A Ukrainian Refugee Turned White House Official Testifies in
the Impeachment Inquiry
He fled Ukraine at age 3 and became a soldier, scholar and official at the White House.
That's where, he told impeachment investigators, he witnessed alarming behavior by President
Trump.
By Sheryl Gay Stolberg
Oct. 29, 2019Updated 12:55 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON -- Alexander S. Vindman and his twin brother, Yevgeny, were 3 years old when
they fled Ukraine with their father and grandmother, Jewish refugees with only their
suitcases and $750, hoping for a better life in the United States
To give Trump his due, his original announcement that he was removing ALL U.S. troops from
Syria made powerful new enemies in the Israel Lobby, which has been backing the president
because of his many favors to Tel Aviv but which has never really liked or trusted him. Israel
has long, and even openly, promoted the breaking up of Syria into its component tribal and
religious parts to enable the acquisition of even more land in the Golan Heights and to reduce
dramatically the threat coming from any unified government in Damascus. It has also seen the
Syrian civil war as a proxy conflict fought by the its poodle the United States against Iran.
Israel and its friends in Congress and the media will, to say the least, be disappointed if the
war is now truly ended and the U.S. military is withdrawn.
Trump also must continue to deal with the fallout from his Democratic Party opponents,
having given them a cudgel to beat him over the head with as Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and
Adam Schiff all wax emotional over how they really love those "freedom fighting" Kurds. The
Democrats, having denounced Trump with one voice, were joined by Republicans like Mitch
McConnell, Marco Rubio, Mitt Romney and the ever-versatile Lindsay Graham, all dedicated to the
continuation of an interventionist foreign policy, though they would never quite call it that.
It is not likely that any of them are really pleased with a deal to end the Syrian
fighting.
So the opposition, coming from multiple directions against a Donald Trump also on the
impeachment block for Ukraine, will continue and as of this writing it is by no means clear
what will happen vis-à-vis the Pentagon announcing that some troops, augmented by armor
units, would remain in Syria to
protect the oil fields . Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper
explained to reporters that the remaining U.S. troops would seek "to deny access,
specifically revenue to ISIS and any other groups that may want to seek that revenue to enable
their own malign activities." The president
has also suggested , in true Trumpean fashion, that "We want to keep the oil, and we'll
work something out with the Kurds. Maybe we'll have one of our big oil companies to go in and
do it properly," a step that even the feckless Obama Administration had hesitated to take on
legal grounds as the oil unquestionably belongs to Syria. Trump's amigo Senator Lindsey
Graham
elaborated on the plan , saying bluntly that "We can use some of the revenues from future
Syrian oil sales to pay our military commitment in Syria."
And there will be additional fallout from Syria in the damaged relationships in the region.
Demonstrating that it could actually screw up two things simultaneously, the White House had
unleashed Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who warned last Tuesday that the United States was
ready to go to war against Turkey if it proved necessary.
He said "We prefer peace to war But in the event that kinetic action or military action is
needed, you should know that President Trump is fully prepared to undertake that action."
Pompeo's comment comes on top of Trump warnings that he would "obliterate" or "destroy" the
Turkish economy, statements that did not sit well in Ankara and will predictably only create
new problems with a NATO member that has the largest army and economy in the Middle East.
And in another maladroit move, the White House has just announced that it will be giving
$4.5 million to the so-called White Helmets, the major propaganda arm of the Syrian
"resistance." Falsely claiming to be a humanitarian rescue and relief organization, the White
Helmets produced carefully edited films of "heroism under fire" that have been released
worldwide. The films conceal the White Helmets' relationship with the al-Qaeda affiliated group
Jabhat al-Nusra and its participation in the torture and execution of "rebel" opponents.
Indeed, the White Helmets only operated in rebel held territory, which enabled them to shape
the narrative both regarding who they were and what was occurring on the ground.
The White Helmets travelled to bombing sites with their film crews trailing behind them.
Once at the sites, with no independent observers, they are able to arrange or even stage what
was filmed to conform to their selected narrative. Perhaps the most serious charge against the
White Helmets consists of the evidence that they
actively participated in the atrocities , to include torture and murder, carried out by
their al-Nusra hosts. There have been numerous photos of the White
Helmets operating directly with armed terrorists and also celebrating over the bodies of
execution victims and murdered Iraqi soldiers. The group's jihadi associates regard the White
Helmets as fellow "mujahideen" and "soldiers of the revolution."
Trump using our troops to occupy Syrian oil fields -- part of our regime change war to
topple the Syrian government by crippling their economy -- is a modern-day siege that will
hurt the Syrian people the most.
Lindsey Graham elaborated on the plan, saying bluntly that "We can use some of the
revenues from future Syrian oil sales to pay our military commitment in Syria."
And Trump's statement that Saudi would pay for our troops in Saudi.
So now the US is whoring out our military . They are all insane .all of them.
Our politicians are whores for Israel and then middle men pimps who whore out Americans and
our troops.
The best thing that could or can be said of Orange Donald is that Hillary would've been
worse. Every time I see and hear him speak I can only imagine the intense embarrassment that
thinking Americans must feel. Yes, Obama was worse, as was Bill, but Trumpenstein is a sick
joke of a president by any measure. Sad indeed. It's Halloween every day in America these
days it seems.
excerpts
.
"An ally's value is not just a function of interests and capabilities, however; it may also
depend on how it treats its partners. A good ally doesn't interfere too much in one's own
domestic politics and doesn't overtly favor one political faction over another. A good ally
is (mostly) truthful and doesn't lie to you or deliberately feed faulty information to your
intelligence agencies. All nations spy on one another to some extent, but a good ally doesn't
do so with abandon. Needless to say, a good ally doesn't cut deals with your biggest rivals
and isn't constantly hunting for a better deal from some other patron.
Allies that violate one or more of these strictures are more problematic partners. That
does not necessarily mean that the alliance should be terminated, but the net value of an
otherwise useful ally will decline if it becomes unstable, repeatedly gets into trouble and
has to be bailed out, becomes weaker with time and requires more and more protection , makes
promises and doesn't keep them, and repeatedly flirts with one's rivals. The more that such
behaviors become commonplace, the more the alliance's value should be questioned.
With respect to the Middle East, therefore, the United States should adopt a more
conditional and businesslike approach to its current partners and its present adversaries.
None of its current allies are so valuable or virtuous to deserve unconditional U.S. support,
and confining U.S. policy toward Iran to the imposition of even-stricter sanctions just
limits U.S. leverage even more. Why should any of its current allies do its bidding when they
know it'll back them no matter what? And if the Saudis, Israelis, Egyptians, and others knew
the United States was also talking to Iran (something China and Russia do routinely), they
might be inclined to do more to keep Washington happy.
The obvious solution to this dilemma is to be more selective in extending commitments in the
first place. This is the essence of foreign-policy restraint: The United States should define
its interests somewhat more narrowly and then defend those interests more consistently and
vigorously. In alliance terms, it means extending commitments only when vital U.S. interests
are at stake. Carefully considered commitments will be highly credible, because both allies
and adversaries can see for themselves why it is in the U.S. interest to fulfill them. (Pro
tip: When it is hard to convince some other country that you really will fight for them,
maybe that's telling you something important about their strategic value.)
Everyone with brains saw this coming. This is so typically Donald Trump. He doesn't have a
clue at all. The most righteous thing that the US can do is to fail in Syria. But this will
also doom the empire itself. Hopefully it will also spell the end for Israel.
But this game is far from over yet. Hezbollah is denounced as a terrorist organisation as
another step in the war against the region. US and Israel will continue until the very last
end. They will never quit because their empires are at stake.
" White House ..will be giving $4.5 million to the ..White Helmets, the major propaganda
arm of the Syrian "resistance.". the "major propaganda arm of the Syrian resistance"?
I just don't see how investing in propaganda in Syria can make a profit for the
white house ?
What American interest in Syria would support challenging the world to take on the USA
military?
Seems kind of risky to me.. if someone accepts, or false flags, the challenge, the result
might initiate WW III.
I am pretty tough on the president. However, on this issue, I would have grant him credit for
being prudent, even if his frustration in that mode is to grant interventionists some of what
they want.
I don't like ironing his suits every other day -- however, if anything can be drawn from
all of the hysteria, it is that the president is slowly making some headway. And had he not,
no daylight would be visible on this issue. it took all of about a day before the
interventionists demonstrated just how entrenched this policy is.
The real damage is what this policy has done to US credibility on the whole. I am aware
that lost of very smart people consider "credibility" a nonissue. But I disagree. Anyone
wanting to check Russian influence would not have invaded Iraq or Afghanistan and had they
done so, they would have done so by exercising full force and owning the countries in
full.
Attempting to hold Afghanistahn to development -- could never have been piecemeal work and
it was folly. Not to mention wholly unnecessary to the purpose. Even the invasion to capture
twenty wanted suspects of 9/11 -- uh conspiracy aside -- was ineffectual.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
Before the waxing on about Israel starts. Clearly, we must take responsibility for our
foreign policy.
Decision-makers in Western capitals had long viewed the Assad regime as a grim model of
Middle Eastern stability, but in 2011, they suddenly thought that "people power" would
bring down Assad as it had other Arab despots. The Assad regime, however, had something the
others didn't. "Popular resistance" strategies work well against authoritarian systems
whose leadership come from the country's ethnic and sectarian majority , such as Egypt.
Soldiers ordered to turn their guns on protestors are faced with a choice: Shoot their
brethren among the protestors, or help get rid of those ordering them to do so. This causes
a split in the army and security services, which can lead to a toppling of the
government.
Assad's by contrast is a minority government with a kind of fortress of sectarian
interests around it. Minority Alawites serve at the core, followed by concentric rings of
other minorities (Christians, Shia, etc.), and finally by coopted Sunnis who represent the
majority in Syria. Minority army and security officers are therefore farther removed
from the majority Sunni population, making them more likely to order fire against
protestors than to topple their brethren in power.
Trump has told us at least twenty times how ISIS has been defeated so if that is truly the
case then the oil fields aren't in need of protection by the U.S. military. The last remnants
of ISIS and their bloodthirsty leader, Al-Baghdadi, were supposedly just killed in the
weekend raid, so while ISIS may live on in the hearts of some Muslims it has lost almost all
of its leadership and military potential to threaten the oil fields.
Trump says he wants to end "these stupid wars" but by his rhetoric and schizophrenic
policy seems possibly on the verge of starting new ones.
Russia is correct in saying that the continued U.S. presence in Syria preventing Assad
from assuming control over his own oil constitutes "international state banditry". On that
point I say the U.S. has learned the craft of banditry well from its Israeli handlers and
masters.
Not sure the US empire have allies.
There are vassals, the occupied and conquered, the colonies, euphemistically called "allies",
and there is an enemy parasite euphemistically called "ally", Israel.
Then there is maybe sort of "junior" ally in crime, the Brits, who are more or less
vassals too.
US Admiral Inman called Israel an enemy, who is aggressively spying.
as of this writing it is by no means clear what will happen vis-à-vis the
Pentagon announcing that some troops, augmented by armor units, would remain in Syria to
protect the oil fields.
Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper explained to reporters that the remaining U.S. troops
would seek "to deny access, specifically revenue to ISIS and any other groups that may want
to seek that revenue to enable their own malign activities." The president has also
suggested, in true Trumpean fashion, that "We want to keep the oil, and we'll work
something out with the Kurds. Maybe we'll have one of our big oil companies to go in and do
it properly,"
Embarrassing.
" We want to keep the oil ." That's the oil in Syria? A foreign country and
sovereign state.
This is something like a bad caricature, a comedy sketch.
Trump says he is a nationalist. He is a one-step-forward-two-steps-back nationalist.
@renfro The
US military is nothing but a make work program for middle America. But keeping them engaged
in countless overseas "conflicts" the power that be hope to keep them from noticing that the
jobs they used to do either don't exist or are being done by illegals all while funneling tax
dollars into the military industrial complex. The bonus is that in the process you kill or
maim a disproportionate number of traditional Americans while the folks at home encourage the
whole thing
It's funny the Isreal lobby has gotten more out of Trump than the American public, and they
are still complaining and don't trust him. Why would anyone work with these ghastly wretches
after seeing this kind of temperament. The Isreal lobby in America enjoys more privileges and
benefits that any other individual group, yet it's never enough. Notice how Obama wanted
regime change in Syria, and then it's neocons who are urging the fight to continue today.
What did this tiny ethnic minority ever do to earn the absolute devotion of the entire US
government.
Now as to the challenge of governing effectively, Trump must be allowed two "excuses" for
his less-than-ideal governance. One, the major one, is that he is being obstructed --
attacked actually -- by the entire entrenched Establishment which has been looting the
country forever, in good times and bad, and wishes to preserve that status quo. The other is
the personal limitations inherent in every human being. We all have our strengths and
weaknesses. Trump is a bright guy, and a very strong personality, but clearly not omniscient.
On his own, he will not be able to get it right every time. So, subject to these two factors,
Trump will have -- has had -- diminished effectiveness. That said, he's incredibly nimble,
and can "flip-flop" -- ie turn on a dime, to change direction -- when something isn't
working. That's in stark contrast to the "foolish consistency [that] is the hobgoblin of
[the] little minds" -- ie rigidity -- of the professional political class. In any event, the
game will take a while, and Trump will stick with it and he knows how to win.
The Trump-haters won't acknowledge this, of course, and his supporters may be unable to
properly assess the obstacles he has to deal with so as to be able to accept a certain level
of disappointment. But unless Tulsi can break out, Trump will have five+ more years -- that's
four more plus the fourteen months remaining of this, his first term -- to work on fixing the
US.
Personally, I don't give a damn -- I'm safe and prosperous and outside the nuclear blast
zone -- and as a Trump supporter who wants to see him burn Washington to the ground, I'm
enjoying -- thoroughly enjoying -- the spectacle. I'm particularly excited by the prospect of
the coming take-down of the Deep State coup plotters. Brennan, Clapper, and Comey:
perp-walked, in the dock, orange jump-suits, etc. Bring it!
I look at actions and their results, not the noise of rhetorical "perception
management"/mind-rape.
He has half the nation, 95+ percent of Washington, DC, 95+ of NYC elites, 95+ percent of
the media, 100% of the Democrats, half the Republicans, 95+ percent of the world's people,
including their leaders
who hate his guts with a netherworld insanity, and would like to see him and the
Deplorables castrated and then burned alive. In that order.
So is it any surprise that his rhetoric is disjointed and contradictory?
Is it Donald Trump who's torturing Julian Assange, or the Deepstate scum who also hate
Donald Trump?
I've said all along, that the day he starts a war with Iran, (or anyone else, for that
matter), is the day I damn his soul. (insofar as a mortal can do so ; ).
But he hasn't started a war with Iran. All screeching- from every orifice of the
media and Deepstate and Zion and zio-Christians and MIC and CIA; ad infinitum.-
notwithstanding.
As you so colorfully put it, "I wouldn't give a damn if Trump wore a tutu and farted and
belched.." his Tweets, so long as we get no war with Iran, and the troops ebb their way out
of the Eternal Wars.
That's how I see it all. The guy is swimming in a septic tank full of Chuck Schumer's
turds and Nancy Pelosi's acid piss. The pure hatred of the media, and a very significant
percentage of Mitts and Marcos and other assorted human excrement. He's hated by most of the
world for simply being an unapologetic white guy, as opposed to the leaders of Germany and
France and Canada and England, where sniveling, abased self-loathing is de rigueur.
I certainly don't approve of everything he does, but considering that the alternative
would have meant the end of even the pretense of human freedom in my lifetime, at least in
the (dying) Western world- what he's done is given us a precious few more years. That's
critical time to plan an escape rout, and get thee to Uruguay. If for no other reason, I'm
grateful to Trump for that.
Improvement of this sorry state would take lots of painstaking capacity building to offset
CIA's ongoing capacity demolition. Everybody at State is a CIA focal point or an actual
official-cover fake dip, a professional ratfucker ratfucking Assad or Assange or everybody
else A-Z. They could not negotiate their way out of a paper bag. They have no inkling what
authorities govern their official functions.
I looked at the foreign service exam once and thought, who would waste their precious
moments on this shit? Grade-school civics, Microsoft office tips & tricks, just crap
insulting your intelligence. They're churning out statesmooks who don't know what the UN
Charter says. They know nothing about diplomatic history. They spy on foreign diplomats
instead of just like asking them what they think.
Your whole fucking country is a joke, a laughingstock, cause CIA knuckle-draggers wrecked
it. And it's extra funny now that Russia can make Langley, the Farm, Camp Swampy, No Man's
Island and all your fusion centers into big sinkholes of molten basalt and there ain't nothin
you can do about it, so you just got to watch the whole world laugh in your face and blow you
off.
The long nightmare in Syria might finally be coming to an end, but not thanks to the United
States and the administration of President Donald Trump.
Trump's boast that "this was an outcome created by us, the United States, and nobody else"
was as empty as all the other rhetoric coming out of the White House over the past two and a
half years. Nevertheless, it now appears that the U.S. military just might finally be bidding
farewell to an exercise that began under President Barack Obama as a prime bit of liberal
interventionism, with American forces illegally entering into a conflict that the White House
barely understood and subsequently meddling and prolonging the fighting.
The fundamental reason why the U.S. was so ineffective was that the Obama Administration's
principal objective from the beginning was to remove Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, yet
another attempt at "humanitarian" regime change similar to that which produced such a wonderful
result in Libya. Al-Assad was never in serious danger as he had significant popular support,
including from the country's Christian minority, and American piecemeal attempts to negotiate
some kind of exit strategy were doomed as they eschewed any dealing with the legitimate
government that was in place. The Syrian civil war supported and even enabled by Washington
caused more than 500,000 deaths, created some 9 million internal and external refugees, and
destroyed the Syrian economy and infrastructure while also almost starting a war between the
U.S. and Turkey.
The Russians understood the American mistake and consequently were able to arrange a
settlement which now appears to be viable. They were able to deal with the Syrian government,
Turkey, and the Kurds who had been set adrift by Washington. The arrangement arrived at has a
number of significant features. First, it guarantees Syria's territory integrity, which
presumably means the U.S. will eventually have to evacuate its remaining positions in the oil
region. Second, it satisfies Turkish legitimate security demands for a disarmed safe zone,
which means that Kurdish militias will have to disarm and/or move twenty miles away from the
border. The safe zone will be patrolled by the Syrian Army and the Russians with Turkish
observers. Third, all separatist groups (terrorists) will be hunted down and eliminated and
further attempts by them to reestablish in Syria will be opposed by all parties to the
agreement. Fourth, steps will be taken to make possible the orderly return of refugees to
Syria.
It is undeniably true that throughout the Syrian farrago, President Trump's admittedly
inherited policy could not possibly have been more incoherent, occasionally bizarre,
predictably inconsistent, and actually dangerous to genuine American interests in the region.
It is to everyone's benefit that the game is finally over, but one can expect the
neoconservatives in the United States to do their best to bring about yet another reversal by
Trump.
It must be conceded that along the way, President Trump was not exactly acting with a free
hand. He has been beleaguered by a Deep State conspiracy against him that began even before he
was nominated, though he didn't have to help his enemies by shooting himself in the head at
every opportunity through tweets and demeaning language. The apparent commitment to withdraw
all U.S. forces from Syria was long overdue as Washington's involvement in the fighting was
wrong by every measure right from the beginning and remaining has only served to make more
complicated the country's recovery from eight years of conflict. It also was contrary to its
publicly stated objective of destroying ISIS. A strong Syrian government was and is best placed
to do just that and Washington, in a panic to recruit, train and arm mercenaries to fight
Damascus often wound up arming terrorists.
But doing what is right does not go far in today's United States of America and the fact
that Trump is now taking credit for a ceasefire and by extension a settlement of the conflict
means little as he has predictably folded already once on plans to withdraw. The argument that
the Kurds have been betrayed has a certain cogency, but the reality is that the Kurdish leaders
entered into a relationship with the U.S. military based on their own interests with no
expectation that Washington would be backing them up forever. They are now well placed to cut
their own deals with both Damascus and Ankara, with Russia in the middle working to sustain the
agreement to end the fighting and restore the Syrian state's status ante bellum.
To give Trump his due, his original announcement that he was removing ALL U.S. troops from
Syria made powerful new enemies in the Israel Lobby, which has been backing the president
because of his many favors to Tel Aviv but which has never really liked or trusted him. Israel
has long, and even openly, promoted the breaking up of Syria into its component tribal and
religious parts to enable the acquisition of even more land in the Golan Heights and to reduce
dramatically the threat coming from any unified government in Damascus. It has also seen the
Syrian civil war as a proxy conflict fought by the its poodle the United States against Iran.
Israel and its friends in Congress and the media will, to say the least, be disappointed if the
war is now truly ended and the U.S. military is withdrawn.
Trump also must continue to deal with the fallout from his Democratic Party opponents,
having given them a cudgel to beat him over the head with as Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and
Adam Schiff all wax emotional over how they really love those "freedom fighting" Kurds. The
Democrats, having denounced Trump with one voice, were joined by Republicans like Mitch
McConnell, Marco Rubio, Mitt Romney and the ever-versatile Lindsay Graham, all dedicated to the
continuation of an interventionist foreign policy, though they would never quite call it that.
It is not likely that any of them are really pleased with a deal to end the Syrian
fighting.
So the opposition, coming from multiple directions against a Donald Trump also on the
impeachment block for Ukraine, will continue and as of this writing it is by no means clear
what will happen vis-à-vis the Pentagon announcing that some troops, augmented by armor
units, would remain in Syria to
protect the oil fields . Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper
explained to reporters that the remaining U.S. troops would seek "to deny access,
specifically revenue to ISIS and any other groups that may want to seek that revenue to enable
their own malign activities." The president
has also suggested , in true Trumpean fashion, that "We want to keep the oil, and we'll
work something out with the Kurds. Maybe we'll have one of our big oil companies to go in and
do it properly," a step that even the feckless Obama Administration had hesitated to take on
legal grounds as the oil unquestionably belongs to Syria. Trump's amigo Senator Lindsey
Graham
elaborated on the plan , saying bluntly that "We can use some of the revenues from future
Syrian oil sales to pay our military commitment in Syria."
And there will be additional fallout from Syria in the damaged relationships in the region.
Demonstrating that it could actually screw up two things simultaneously, the White House had
unleashed Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who warned last Tuesday that the United States was
ready to go to war against Turkey if it proved necessary.
He said "We prefer peace to war But in the event that kinetic action or military action is
needed, you should know that President Trump is fully prepared to undertake that action."
Pompeo's comment comes on top of Trump warnings that he would "obliterate" or "destroy" the
Turkish economy, statements that did not sit well in Ankara and will predictably only create
new problems with a NATO member that has the largest army and economy in the Middle East.
And in another maladroit move, the White House has just announced that it will be giving
$4.5 million to the so-called White Helmets, the major propaganda arm of the Syrian
"resistance." Falsely claiming to be a humanitarian rescue and relief organization, the White
Helmets produced carefully edited films of "heroism under fire" that have been released
worldwide. The films conceal the White Helmets' relationship with the al-Qaeda affiliated group
Jabhat al-Nusra and its participation in the torture and execution of "rebel" opponents.
Indeed, the White Helmets only operated in rebel held territory, which enabled them to shape
the narrative both regarding who they were and what was occurring on the ground.
Some White Helmets continue to operate in Syria's terrorist-controlled Idlib province,
raising the question whether the United States is prepared to give more taxpayer derived money
directly to terrorists. Several months ago, as the Syrian Army closed in on some of the other
pockets where the White Helmets operated, the U.S. and Israel mounted an operation to evacuate
many of them. Some of them and their families were moved to Israel and Jordan and many of them
have wound up in Canada. If the White House again does a flip-flop and pulls the plug on the
money earmarked for them it would truly be a welcome sign that the U.S. has realized that the
game is over and its direct involvement in Syria should be ended.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest,
a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a
more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its
email is[email protected] .
Trump using our troops to occupy Syrian oil fields -- part of our regime change war to
topple the Syrian government by crippling their economy -- is a modern-day siege that will
hurt the Syrian people the most.
You know what they say about karma being a (word that rhymes with "witch"), right?
At the second Democratic presidential primary debate back in July, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (HI)
absolutely torched Sen. Kamala Harris' (CA) criminal justice
reform record during her time as California's attorney general. It was the political shot
heard round the world.
Understandably, Harris was none too pleased about it and let it be known in a post-debate
interview in what Brandon Morse
described at the time as a "childish and elitist"
response :
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN: Did you expect that from Tulsi Gabbard? Had you had interaction
about that in the past? And how do you think it went?
SEN. KAMALA HARRIS: Well, I mean, listen, I -- this is going to sound immodest, but I'm
obviously a top-tier candidate, and so I did expect that I would be on the stage and take
hits tonight because there are a lot of people that are trying to make the stage for the next
debate.
COOPER: For a lot of them it's do or die.
HARRIS: Especially when some people are at zero or 1%, whatever she might be at. So I did
expect that I might take hits tonight.
It was a particularly cheap shot from someone who'd had such a disastrously poor debate
performance. She actually stooped even lower during the same interview with Cooper, calling
Gabbard an "apologist" for Syrian president Bashar al-Assad.
Well, here we are three months later, and the tables have dramatically turned. Not only has
Kamala Harris'
campaign cratered , but in some national and state polls Gabbard is now ahead of her, in
spite of
vicious attacks on the Hawaii congresswoman earlier this month from failed 2016 Democratic
presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.
First up, the CNN/UH state poll out of New Hampshire:
... ... ...
Here's how things have trended in that poll since July:
... ... ...
Next, a national poll from Suffolk University and USA Today:
... ... ...
The trend on that one looks like this:
... ... ...
To be fair, there
are other polls taken recently that show Harris ahead of Gabbard by a few percentage
points, but it's still gotta sting Harris to know that the woman whose numbers she made fun of
back in July is polling ahead of her in select polls now.
Daily Caller's James Hasson calls it for what it is:
... ... ...
To make matters worse for Harris, Gabbard is just one
poll away from qualifying for the November Democratic debate (which is scheduled for
Nov. 20th in Georgia ).
Assuming Gabbard ends up qualifying, one has to wonder if she'll be prepared to use a
rhetorical finishing maneuver on her political foe this time around (assuming the mods
don't run interference ).
-- Based in North Carolina, Sister
Toldjah is a former liberal and a 16+ year veteran of blogging with an emphasis on media
bias, social issues, and the culture wars. Read her Red State archives here . Connect with her on Twitter . –
Democrats haven't been too kind to Hawaii Rep. Tusli Gabbard. Ever since she took down
California's Sen. Kamala Harris, she's had a target on her back, with wild accusations being
thrown her way such as being a "Russian asset."
Recently, as my colleague
Thomas LaDuke covered , Gabbard announced that she won't be seeking reelection for her seat
in congress, and instead, putting all her efforts into running for President.
It's pretty clear, however, that Gabbard isn't going to win the 2020 nomination from the
Democrats, but some Democrats fear that in light of this obvious fact, Gabbard may continue her
campaign under a different banner, and go for a third party run. Despite Gabbard not being
anywhere near the front of the pack, she is somewhat popular, and Democrats fear that her
third-party run would subtract from the total number of Democrat voters.
According to The Hill ,
strategists are expressing their worries:
Some party strategists and operatives fear that a third-party bid by the Hawaii
congresswoman could fracture parts of the electorate and stir chaos in the 2020 contest,
ultimately setting the stage for President Trump 's reelection.
The criticisms are particularly pointed from people in former Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton 's
orbit.
"She has absolutely zero path to becoming the Democratic nominee, so what is she doing?"
said Adam Parkhomenko, a Democratic strategist and former aide to Clinton, the party's 2016
presidential nominee. "To say that she's going to take her campaign all the way to the
convention just suggests that she's trying to create chaos."
Other Democrats have expressed their worries as well according to The Hill:
"I think the possibility of [Gabbard] running as a third party is very, very real and it
should concern all of us," one DNC member said. "Look what Jill Stein did to Hillary Clinton.
She was the difference in three states."
Despite Gabbard's insistence that she has ruled out a third-party campaign, some Democrats
remain skeptical. Sellers said there was still plenty of time for the congresswoman to change
her mind.
"I don't trust anything she says in that regard," Sellers said. "I think we've seen that
before, but I think many of the concerns that Hillary Clinton and myself had about
congresswoman Gabbard are proving to be true and I think that's unfortunate."
This is an echo of things Clinton herself has said previously. The failed 2016 candidate
once indirectly made the wild accusation that Gabbard was being groomed for a third party run.
A spokesperson later confirmed that Clinton was speaking about Gabbard.
"I'm not making any predictions, but I think they've got their eye on somebody who's
currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate," said
Clinton to the Campaign HQ podcast.
Despite their fears, Gabbard herself has made it very clear that she has no intention of
seeking a third-party run, but in the event that she did, Democrats would definitely have a
problem on their hands.
As of right now, Gabbard is polling with an approval average of 12.5 according to
Real Clear Politics . Miniscule in terms of the big picture, but between Gabbard, the Green
Party's Jill Stein, and possibly others who may jump into the race, such as
Dick's Sporting Goods CEO Ed Stack , leftist figures could nickel and dime the Democrats
into another election loss.
As of right now, it's already not looking good for Democrats as is. One more pebble in their
shoe would spell doom, and Gabbard has proven to be a pretty big pebble.
Following a short artillery and air engagement with Syria over raids by exiled Palestinian
guerillas, Egypt mobilized against her nemesis in 1967. President Nasser sent six divisions to
the Sinai, removed the UN peacekeeping force, and closed the Straits of Tiran south of Israel.
Israel struck first, fearing annihilation.
As Israeli historian Martin Van Creveld states in
The Transformation of War , "for six glorious days war was Israel and Israel was war."
The result was a smashing victory for the Israelis
, who lost around 800 soldiers, as opposed to 20,000 for Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. The Sinai
peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights were added to
Israel's territory.
Compare this short war with another conflict that played out in 2006. For 34 days, Israel
battled Hezbollah in southern Lebanon in response to the Shia terrorist group's killing and
capturing of several Israeli soldiers in cross-border raids. Israel launched a massive air and
artillery campaign, followed by a ground invasion in late July. When the ceasefire was signed
on August 14, both sides claimed victory, but as John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt noted in
The Israel Lobbyand U.S. Foreign
Policy , "it was clear to most independent experts" that "Hezbollah had come out ahead
in the fight." The IDF chief of staff resigned, and an Israeli government investigation rebuked
the planning and handling of the campaign, stating that the military had "pursued goals that
were not clear and could not be achieved."
Worse still, the air, artillery, and naval campaign killed an estimated 1,183 Lebanese (a
third of them children) and devastated the country's infrastructure. These actions drew strong
condemnation from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch for causing "destruction on a
catastrophic scale." During the last three days of the war, the IDF fired over one million
cluster bombs into southern Lebanon, "saturating the area." The leader of an IDF rocket unit called these actions
"insane and monstrous."
War can still be won by being nasty and short, as shown in the first Gulf War, but time is
not on the side of the powerful. Escalation by a powerful state against a poorly equipped
adversary almost always works to the advantage of the weaker side. Van Creveld compares this
situation to an adult who "administers a prolonged, violent beating to a child in a public
place." Observers will sympathize with the child and intervene, regardless of its prior
behavior.
With the Palestinians, the position of weakness is even more extreme. Israel dominates the
lives of 3.8 million Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, controlling air, land, and sea
access, in a situation that's been compared to "living in a cage" by Swedish foreign minister
Jan Eliasson. Despite numerous American attempts to secure Palestinian statehood and resolve
the conflict, the present situation seems worse than ever.
The Trump administration, on the other hand, has made it clear that Israel will be supported
through thick and thin. And the world has slowly but surely begun to take notice. The
BDS movement (Boycott, Divest, Sanction), initially confined to college campuses and
Palestine, spilled into the national news when Democratic lawmakers Ilhan Omar and Rashida
Talib spearheaded a movement opposing bills aimed at criminalizing support of BDS. Some
Republicans, namely Senator Rand Paul, have opposed those bills, too, on
free speech grounds.
Recently, after the congresswomen were denied entry to Israel because of their support of
BDS, liberal Jewish journalist Peter Beinart defended their stance. Speaking on a CNN panel , he openly
sympathized with the plight of the Palestinians, claiming their treatment by Israel constitutes
an "indefensible denial of basic human rights." Fellow panelists attempted to tie support for
Palestine to terrorism, a common tactic. But terrorism in that part of the world is nothing
new. Israel's defenders tend to forget or are ignorant of the fact that beginning in 1937, the
militant Zionist group Irgun
was responsible for placing bombs in buses and large crowds. One of its leaders during Israel's
war for independence, future prime minister Menachem Begin, was referred to by Prime Minister
Levi Eshkol simply as "the terrorist."
Modern Israel is no longer a weak state in danger of annihilation. The IDF is highly
motivated, trained, and funded. Emboldened by the financial and moral backing of the United
States and powerful lobbying groups, its treatment of Palestinians and other enemies has become
steadily more severe.
With recent
elections still contested , it remains to be seen whether these policies will continue. But
militarily, Israel's position is not tenable. You can win at the tactical level and rack up a
higher body count, but still lose the war. As frequent TAC contributor and military historian
William S. Lind notes, "in the 3,000 years that the story of David and Goliath has been told,
how many listeners have identified with Goliath?"
Israel will last as long as Wash. extorts money from our wages and supports it. Without the
US taxpayer, Israel wouldn't exist, both from its beginning to right now.
I think the lack of sympathy for Israel is not that it s the "Goliath" of this story but
that it is allowing settlers to live in the Occupied Territories.
So TAC is standing with the Palestinians now I see. Will it stand with those other Davids,
the intersectional allies of the BDS crowd too? namely Black Lives Matter, illegal Latino
migrants, the LGBTQ+ community, and other assorted SJW types?
We are now in the end times; when it comes to Israel, all is in the hands of the Lord. As
the nations of the earth seek to attack and destroy Israel, they fall into ruin: look at
the entire Muslim world; look at what's happening to Europe. Most of all, look at the
astonishing rise and continued power of Donald Trump, the man who recognized Jerusalem as
the capital of Israel. Pick your side and accept your fate accordingly.
"Escalation by a powerful state against a poorly equipped adversary almost always
works to the advantage of the weaker side."
I don't always buy this. For me this only works if the powerful state is in the wrong.
And sadly, in this situation, Israel is deeply in the wrong.
But what does happen is over time, the weak becomes slowly stronger. Because they are
always studying their enemies. They are learning their tactics and how to defeat them. This
may take decades, but eventually the weak become the strong.
This is why it is always best to quickly offer a hand of friendship to a vanquished
enemy. If you don't, you'll eventually trade places.
You know what they say about karma being a (word that rhymes with "witch"), right?
At the second Democratic presidential primary debate back in July, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (HI)
absolutely torched Sen. Kamala Harris' (CA) criminal justice
reform record during her time as California's attorney general. It was the political shot
heard round the world.
Understandably, Harris was none too pleased about it and let it be known in a post-debate
interview in what Brandon Morse
described at the time as a "childish and elitist"
response :
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN: Did you expect that from Tulsi Gabbard? Had you had interaction
about that in the past? And how do you think it went?
SEN. KAMALA HARRIS: Well, I mean, listen, I -- this is going to sound immodest, but I'm
obviously a top-tier candidate, and so I did expect that I would be on the stage and take
hits tonight because there are a lot of people that are trying to make the stage for the next
debate.
COOPER: For a lot of them it's do or die.
HARRIS: Especially when some people are at zero or 1%, whatever she might be at. So I did
expect that I might take hits tonight.
It was a particularly cheap shot from someone who'd had such a disastrously poor debate
performance. She actually stooped even lower during the same interview with Cooper, calling
Gabbard an "apologist" for Syrian president Bashar al-Assad.
Well, here we are three months later, and the tables have dramatically turned. Not only has
Kamala Harris'
campaign cratered , but in some national and state polls Gabbard is now ahead of her, in
spite of
vicious attacks on the Hawaii congresswoman earlier this month from failed 2016 Democratic
presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.
First up, the CNN/UH state poll out of New Hampshire:
... ... ...
Here's how things have trended in that poll since July:
... ... ...
Next, a national poll from Suffolk University and USA Today:
... ... ...
The trend on that one looks like this:
... ... ...
To be fair, there
are other polls taken recently that show Harris ahead of Gabbard by a few percentage
points, but it's still gotta sting Harris to know that the woman whose numbers she made fun of
back in July is polling ahead of her in select polls now.
Daily Caller's James Hasson calls it for what it is:
... ... ...
To make matters worse for Harris, Gabbard is just one
poll away from qualifying for the November Democratic debate (which is scheduled for
Nov. 20th in Georgia ).
Assuming Gabbard ends up qualifying, one has to wonder if she'll be prepared to use a
rhetorical finishing maneuver on her political foe this time around (assuming the mods
don't run interference ).
-- Based in North Carolina, Sister
Toldjah is a former liberal and a 16+ year veteran of blogging with an emphasis on media
bias, social issues, and the culture wars. Read her Red State archives here . Connect with her on Twitter . –
"Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard appeared on Fox News' "Hannity" Thursday
evening to criticize the House's impeachment investigation into President Donald Trump.
"I don't know what's going on in those closed doors," Gabbard said. "We as members of
Congress do not have access to the information that's being shared. I think the American
people deserve to know exactly what the facts are, what the evidence is being presented as
this inquiry goes on."
Imagine that! Republicans as the anti-war party. Could happen ... and Democrats have only
themselves to blame for stiffing the large percentage of the population that opposes fighting
pointless and futile wars forever. But hey, if 'defense' contractors got big bucks, you can
bet Democrats will be sniffing up their crotches...
The author seems to be writing an interesting fiction, reminds one of a Hollywood movie
about a Russian oligarch at the behest of a senior Russian government official, attempting
to engineer wall street crash.
Taking out a newspaper advertisement with proper representation to state one's case can't
be compared with the US funded National Endowment for Democracy's funding of Hong Kong's
increasingly violent rioting.
This is like apple and orange, not comparable. China did not interfere in
NBA's affairs, just reacting to her citizens uproar against the infamous now
deleted tweet. Thus many Chinese Chinese sponsors pulled out. This is no
different to sponsors pulling out of US athletes endorsements from time to
time when there are scandals.
Whereas NED is US intelligence cover for interference in targeted countries
like Ukraine, Venezuela, Iran and many Islamic countries around the world, to
advance US political agenda.
And in breaking news. 39 Britons have been found dead in a container
trying to be smuggled fromt eh failed UK state to the successful state
run by the CCP.
Did I get that the right-way round ?
This is a paper or news site about asia. It is written in English? What does this tell
you? The audience ostensibly consists of westerners (or educated people from asia or
elsewhere) who want to read an alternative to the drivel and rubbish that's propagated in
copious quantities by the scat factories of the west and their zionist-oligarch dominated
news conglomerates...
Who is interfering in elections? Does china name some loser guaido as president of
venezuela or support terrorists in syria? Is china sanctioning (with financial warfare)the
whole world including their own allies? You must have no modicum of shame to come up with
this absolute smorgasbord of rancid festering bollocks that you think is befitting of
"reporting." You are bettet off taking a sabbatical and never coming back... i would tell
you all of this to your face with the utmost respect that i could muster before i
vomited...
Presidents come and go... the empire, deep state bureaucrats, and their slavish
dual-state minions such as yourself will march on no matter what until your rotten seed
perpetuate the corruption and degeneracy passed down through your genes. That xyz is
president makes zero difference in deterring the momentum of evil that lurks within the
diseased sociopaths such as yourself.
You are an unmitigated disgrace to true journalism and do a grave disservice to this
site's reputation.
CIA uses fake identities for the propaganda articles. If a nation is building close
ties with China, automatically an author with a name from that nation appears. They
also have groups posting propaganda under a single fake name. There are only a few
genuine Asian CIA hacks making a living off the CIA.
USA is heading for multiple
recessions possibly a depression unless they change their current anti China
policies.
In fact, in military, fake identities for information warfare are assigned to
one person, so that it multiplies the effect. To keep track of these
"personas" per each real person, and their postings -- a "persona" data bases
are needed to keep track of their activities. And unfortunately , there are
always some technicians who are more then happy to talk about it.
It would not surprise me if he worked for the CIA... this organization is, by
its mission, embedded into all public spheres...
What is worrisome is that
the cia has no accountability to anyone. It is one great example of deep state
operator. Also, cia is heavily infiltrated by mossad. In other words, cia is a
parallel drug traffickers organization that dabbles in news, democracy
promotion, torture, coups, blackmail, assasibation, rendition...
It is accountable to no one ... their actions are conducted in secrecy and
cannot be scrutinized... the president can't control them... these
organizations are a manifest example of why this article is a huge fallacy
dressed up in cured excrement.
These people are outrageously shameless in their assertion that they can openly interfere
in the internal affairs of other countries, like the recent bills passed by the US House
of Representatives in support of the Blackshirts of HK, but they would not brook any
interference from China in their election, not that it's true at all.
This is a good example of how the US apply its Orwellian ideology of "American
Exceptionalism" - "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" -
George Orwell's "Animal Farm."
Another guy cashing in on the evil China fad, pathetic. It is the US who conducts
financial warfare by imposing illegal sanctions and restrictions on other countries using
the dominance of the dollar in international trade.
If it is so easy to have a country's financial system snd stock markets manipulated -- how
do know that our own financial sharks are not already manipulating market to enrich them
selves , while making it appear that everything is fine? Or that they are not crashing
markets in order to profit?
There is something not right about a country with financial and market systems living off
the fumes of news cycle?
Look at how many times West attacked Russian financial systems
and markets, blocking whole companies and financial institutions -- yet nothing crashed.
Currency lost some value helping exports, while those earning in dollars simply had more
money to spend domestically. And by placing sanctions kn European food products -- they
shot up to the first place globally in wheat production.
I am wondering if the difference is Russia's large currency and gold reserves. As
opposed US economy that sits atop a large debt bubble? Than anything can spook it.
Bill Gertz is running out of stuff to bad mouth China. He is eager to make some money now
that he's been fired by Washington Free Beacon for having some shady deals with the
Chinese billionaire fugitive Guo who is the subject covered in his reporting.
Maybe Gertz can tell us who China wants to be elected by staging these financial influence
campaign? Gertz is sounding utterly ridiculous now.
american are losers, foreign influence here and there, well thanks to your own foreign
policies bombing here and there and regime change everywhere, you sow what you get. if you
don't want foreign influence. just build a great wall and extend it to these. not only no
5G, ditch all comunications including mail
This is a nonsense article. Lots of hypotheticals with no proof presented of China's
intention or cases of actually trying to influence any American election.
This is more
how Western countries behave with their Machivellian modus operandi overthrowing
governments in Eastern Europe, Latin America, etc. This author and American officials are
merely voicing what the USA is already capable of doing rather than what China has in
place.
In fact there is a debate among Chinese officials and think tanks that they might want
Trump to have a second term because as the USA p@sses off many countries including those
allied with the USA that might help China down the line.
Wait a minute -- Russia wants Trump to be reelected, and China wants him to lose?
With US creating legislation for the whole world -- our sanctions whose enforcement is
imposed in others -- means that other people must have the right to elect the president?
How can the world accept such financial burden on others with no right to vote.
Remember
America next time you vote for sanctions, tariffs etc. -- no taxation without
representation.
Global presidents must be elected globally!
There's no need for the Chinese to rely on 'covert' operation to influence the election's
outcome. For instance, if China just cancels the buying of the agricultural goods from the
US that it has dealt with Trump in what is being called the partial deal from the trade
war, it would be already enough to influence in the election. Lol!
MOSCOW, October 26, 2019 – RIA Novosti – The Russian Ministry of Defense has
published satellite intelligence images , showing American oil smuggling from Syria.
Image 1: Situation in the Syrian Arab Republic as of October 26, 2019.
According to the ministry, the photos confirm that "Syrian oil, both before and after the
routing defeat of the Islamic State terrorists in land beyond the Euphrates river , under the
reliable protection by US military servicemen, oil was actively being extracted and then the
fuel trucks were massively being sent for processing outside of Syria."
Image 2: Daman oil gathering station, Syria, Deir ez-Zor province, 42 km east of Deir
ez-Zor, August 23, 2019.
Here, in a picture of the Daman oil gathering station (42 kilometers east of the Deir-ez-Zor
province), taken on August 23, a large amount of trucks were spotted. "There were 90 automotive
vehicles, including 23 fuel trucks," the caption to the image said.
In addition, on September 5, there were 25 vehicles in the Al-Hasakah province, including 22
fuel trucks. Three days later, on September 8, in the vicinity of Der Ez-Zor, 36 more vehicles
were recorded (32 of them were fuel trucks). On the same day, 41 vehicles, including 34 fuel
trucks, were in the Mayadin onshore area.
Image 3: Gathering of vehicles in Syria, Al-Hasakah province, 8 km west of Al-Shaddadi,
September 5, 2019.
As the official representative of the Defense Ministry Igor Konashenkov noted, the Americans
are extracting oil in Syria with the help of equipment, bypassing their own sanctions.
Igor Konashenkov:
"Under the protection of American military servicemen and employees of American PMCs, fuel
trucks from the oil fields of Eastern Syria are smuggling to other states. In the event of
any attack on such a caravan, special operations forces and US military aircraft are
immediately called in to protect it," he said.
According to Konashenkov, the US-controlled company Sadcab , established under the so-called
Autonomous Administration of Eastern Syria , is engaged in the export of oil, and the income of
smuggling goes to the personal accounts of US PMCs and special forces.
The Major General added that as of right now, a barrel of smuggled Syrian oil is valued at
$38, therefore the monthly revenue of US governmental agencies exceeds $30 million.
Image 4: Gathering of vehicles in Syria, Deir ez-Zor province, 10 km east of Mayadin,
September 8, 2019.
"For such a continuous financial flow, free from control and taxes of the American
government, the leadership of the Pentagon and Langley will be ready to guard and defend oil
fields in Syria from the mythical 'hidden IS cells' endlessly," he said.
According to Konashenkov, Washington, by holding oil fields in eastern Syria, is engaged in
international state banditry.
Image 5: Gathering of vehicles in Syria, Deir ez-Zor province, 14 km east of Mayadin,
September 8, 2019.
The reason for this activity, he believes, "lies far from the ideals of freedom proclaimed
by Washington and their slogans on the fight against terrorism."
Igor Konashenkov:
"Neither in international law, nor in American legislation itself – there is not and
cannot be a single legal task for the American troops to protect and defend the hydrocarbon
deposits of Syria from Syria itself and its own people, " the representative of the Defense
Ministry concluded.
A day earlier, the Pentagon's head, Mark Esper declared that the United States is studying
the situation in the Deir ez-Zor region and intends to strengthen its positions there in the
near future "to ensure the safety of oil fields."
The Ruskies are mad - Trump is stopping them from taking the oil, it belongs to the Kurds
for their revenue and if US wants to help them have it so what....US is staying to secure
those oilfields against ISIS taking it again!
If everyone listened to the President when he talks there wouldn't be any spin that anyone
could get away with.
The oil is on Kurdish land. This part of Syria is just a small sector of Kurdish territory
that has been stolen from them by dividing it between four "countries", each of which has
oil. This is why the territory was stolen and why the Kurds have become the world's best
fighters.
Putin brokered a deal to stop Turkey wiping the Kurds by having their fighting force
assimilate with the Syrian military and required Russian observers access to ensure the Turks
keep their word and not invade to wipe all the Kurd civilians in order to also take their
Syrian oil.
So the corrupt US generals get caught in the act. Their senators and reps on the payroll
are going to need some more of that fairy tale PR for POTUS to read to us at bedtime.
If we are to believe that this is to protect the oil fields then the oil revenue should be
going to Syria, even though the Kurds are on the land. Follow the money to find the truth
because there is no one you can trust on this stage.
MSM are simply not covering this story. Or the other story about the supposed gas attack
at Douma where evidence was adulterated and/or ignored completely under US pressure.
Expect the same from MH17.
WTF is going on with our leaders and corporate MSM....can no one in a leadership position
distinguish between lies and the truth? Or fantasy and reality? Where are the 'journalists'
who will stand up and tell the truth in MSM? They no longer exist.
18 wheel fuel trucks around here hold 10K gal. 50 truck loads 500K of un processed oil if
it's true? I though they just got there. but no telling who might steal under those
conditions.
That was August. this is now. The Russians must have really wanted that oil to finance
their occupation. Trump is preventing ISIS from using the oil as their piggy bank.
Wasn't Erdogan doing the same not too long ago? Shortly after Erdogan became close friends
with Putin. Does this mean Trump and Putin will become close friends as well? Or is this
simply a common practice between two people who undeservingly place relatives in government
positions? First Turkey hands over Al Baghdadi (he received medical treatment in Southern
Turkey in a private clinic owned by Erdogan's daughter guarded by MIT agents) so that they
can continue to commit genocide against Kurds in Turkey and Syria... and now the US is
stealing Syrian oil like how the Turks initially were doing. What a mess and a
disappointment. Hopefully Erdogan visits DC and unleashes his security guards beating any
person freely walking the streets while Trump smiles and describes him as a great leader.
Watch in coming weeks as the tanker convoys are proven to be rogue operations from an out
of control CIA / Cabal network. Trump removed the troops, and now Russia is shining a light
on it.
No coincidence another article on ZH brung attention to the Ukrainian wareehouse arsos..12
in 2 yrs..2017-2018 where stored munition were carted away...not to fight rebels n Donbass
but sold to Islamic groups in Syria..it was one of Bidens pals..one keeps the wars going
while the others steal siphon of resources..whatever isn't nailed down..I've never seen
anything like this..Democrats are truly CRIME INC
w/o that oil..Syria can never reconstruct itself..Usually in a War or ,after that is, the
victors help rebuild..what we see is pillaging and salting the earth and walk away.. as the
Romans did to enemies like Carthage..it will resemble Libya ...a shambles
So the smuggling is protected by air cover and special forces? Light up the fields using
some scud missiles. I'm sure Iran or Iraq have a few they could lend Syria. Can't sell it if
its burning.
Brits and Americans have pillaged, as any other empire, wherever they conquered.
After WW1 the 'Allies' robbed Germany of all foreign currency and its entire gold. This
triggering hyperinflation and mega crisis.
During WW2 central bank gold was pillaged from countries that were 'liberated' across
Europe.
In more recent history, the gold of Iraq, Ukraine and Libya was flown to Fort Knox.
All well documented.
This is common practice by empires. Just please stop pretending you were the good
guys , spreading freedom and democracy, because that's really a mockery and the
disgusting part of your invasions.
During WW2 central bank gold was pillaged from countries that were 'liberated'.
Exactly, that's where the US got its 8,000 tons of gold. Before WWII, the US had 2000 tons
of gold, after WWII it had 8,000 tons. Even today the US always steals the gold of the
countries it "liberates"
Help me understand why the USA would want to smuggle oil from Syria. When the USA has more
oil than all of the middleast.
Now I can see why Russia would blame the USA if smuggling Oil from Syria. Russia needs
that oil really bad. So to get the USA away from the Syrian oil fields they would of course
create a reason for the rest of the world that the USA is Dishonerable and must not be
trusted with Syrian oil. It is just too obvious to me, what Russia is trying to
accomplish.
Huh? The US is stealing the oil to deprive the Syrian people energy they need to rebuild
the country we destroyed. This is collective punishment of Syrians because they won't
overthrow Assad.
Collective punishment is a crime against humanity according to international law. There's
your impeachable offense. But don't worry, that kind of crime is ok with Shifty Schiff and
the rest of the Israel ***-kissers in Congress.
The US is NOT stealing the oil - the American Military have become PIRATES - no different
than Somali Red Sea Pirates or looters in Newark stealing diapers and TV's
This is nothing new. We've been stealing oil from dozens of countries for the past 75
years since WWII. The only difference is that Trump is being blatant about it which in a way
is weirdly refreshing.
"... The below analysis is provided by " Ehsani " -- a Middle East expert, Syrian-American banker and financial analyst who visits the region frequently and writes for the influential geopolitical analysis blog, Syria Comment . ..."
"... An M1 Abrams tank at the Udairi Range Complex in Kuwait, via Army National Guard/Military Times. ..."
Here's
Why Trump's "Secure Syria's Oil" Plan Will Prove Practically Impossible
by
Tyler Durden
Sat, 10/26/2019 - 23:30
0
SHARES
The below analysis is provided by "
Ehsani
" -- a Middle
East expert, Syrian-American banker and financial analyst who visits the region frequently and writes
for the influential geopolitical analysis blog,
Syria Comment
.
Much has been debated since President Trump tweeted that
"The U.S has secured the oil"
in Syria. Is this feasible? Does it make any sense? The below will
explain how and why
the answer is a resounding
NO
.
Al-Omar and Conoco fields are already secured by Kurdish-led SDF and U.S forces. Some of the oil
from these fields was being sold through third parties to Syria's government by giving it in crude
form and taking back half the quantity as refined product
(the government owns the
refineries).
Syria's government now has access to oil fields inside the 32km zone
(established
by the Turkish military incursion and subsequent withdrawal of Kurdish forces). Such fields can produce
up to 100K barrels a day and will already go a long way in terms of meeting the country's immediate
demand.
So the importance of accessing oil in SDF/U.S hands is not as pressing any longer.
SDF/U.S forces can of course decide to sell the oil to Iraq's Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG)
but Syria's government now has control over the border area connecting Syria to KRG territory through
both Yaaroubia and Al-Mallkiya.
The Syrian government also now has control over supply of electricity. This was made possible by
taking control of the Tishreen and Furat dams.
Operating those fields needs electric power
supply and the state is now the provider.
Securing and operating these fields also entails paying salaries to those operating the fields.
International companies would be very reluctant to get involved without legal backing to operate
the fields.
"Securing the oil" therefore
can only mean preventing the Syrian state from accessing al-Omar/Conoco
only (not oil in the north)
. It's unlikely anything can be sold or transported.
And let's not forget "securing" this oil would need
ready air cover, and all for what?
SDF composition included Arab fighters and tribes who accepted Kurds in leadership since they had
American support and key cities in north. Many of those Arabs are already switching and joining the
Syrian Army.
"Securing" oil for benefit of the Kurds is likely to antagonize the Arab fighters
and tribes in the region.
Preventing rise of ISIS is likely to entail securing support of the region's Arabs and tribes more
than that of the Kurds. This Kurd/Arab issue is yet another reason why President Trump's idea of
"securing" the oil for the benefit of the Kurds just doesn't make sense nearly on every level
.
The psychopaths destroyed the last secular country in the ME. Same
with Lybia. Now all we get are extremists on all sides. Mossad doing
what it knows best, bringing chaos for the psychopaths.
By withdrawing from Northern Kurdistan and by making an exception
for the oil fields, Genius President Trump just told the world a number
of things:
To trust the U.S.A. as an ally is sheer stupidity
The "alternative media" theory that it is all about oil (and
possible gas) has been proven true
The U.S.A. is being ruled by a hobbyist who has no strategic
plans, replacing them with a "random walk" concept
Of course, the European allies (except Turkey) are still refusing
to learn from this experience. "Duck and cover until November 2020"
is their current tactics. Not sure if this is a good idea.
Turkey has learned to go their own ways, but I don't think it is
a good idea to create ever more enemies at one's borders. Greece,
Armenia, the Kurdish regions, Syria, Cyprus, not sure how their stance
is towards Iran. Reminds me of Germany before both World Wars. Won't
end well.
"America/The US", a label, is
actually just a location on a map and is not a reference to the actual
identities of those who start wars for profit.
Also it is hilarious to use that label as if an area of the planet
is or has attacked another area. Land can not attack itself, ever,
just as guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Trump is not claiming posession of oil in syria by leaving some
troops behind. Just as he did not declare war, nor start any EVER.
Every conflct on earth has it's roots with very specific individuals,
none of whom are even related to Trump.
Syria was a conflicting mess before he took office and he is dutifully
attempting to pull US soldiers out of a powder keg of nonsense he
wants no part of. Nor does any sane American want more conflict in
battles we can't afford, in countries we'll never even visit.
Like I said before, Trump can't just abruptly yank all our troops.
It's simply not that simple. And for those pretending he is doing
syria a disservice, I dare any one of you to go there yourselves and
see if you bunch of complete dipshits can do better. Who knows, maybe
you'll find the love of your life, ******* idiots.
First, the US invades Syria in violation of the Geneva Convention
on War making it an international criminal. Then it funds and equips
the most vile terrorists on the planet which leads to the killing
of thousands of innocent Syrians. And now it has decided to stay and
steal oil from Syria. The US is now the Evil American Empire owned
and run by crooks, gangsters and mass murderers. The Republic is dead
along with morality, justice and freedom.
Let's limit the culprits to: The Obama regime... and
not all the US. This is why these devils need to be brought
to trial and their wealth clawed out of their hiding places to
pay reparations to some of the victims.
The US has been an Evil American Empire for a long time, since
at least the Wilson administration, and Republican or Democrat...it
make little difference. World wars, the Fed, IRS, New Deal,
Korea, Vietnam, War OF Terror, assassinations, coups, sanctions,
Big Pharma, Seeds of Death and Big Agri...and the list goes
on and on. Please understand that America is not great and one
day all Americans will have to account for what their country
did in their name. If you believe in the Divine, then know that
their will be a reckoning.
The Obama regime was merely a continuation of the Chimpy Bush
regime, which was merely a continuation of the Clinton regime,
which was merely a continuation of the Pappy Bush regime, which
was merely a continuation... etc.
More chinks in the petrodollar armor will be the outcome of this. The credibility of murica is withering
away as every day passes. Iraqi pressure upon foreign troops there
to leave and/or drawdown further will also make this venture even
more difficult to manage.
The Kurds
may not be the smartest with regards to picking allies, but even they
may by now have learned that sticking to murica any longer will destroy
any semblance of hope for any autonomy status whatsoever once the
occupants have left. Likewise, the Sunni tribes around this area don't
want to become another Pariah group once things revert to normal.
Assad will eventually retake all his territory and
this is speeding up the process of eventual reconciliation in Syria.
They've spent far more on these wars than they've made back by stealing
other countries' resources. Trillions wasted in exchange for mere
billions in profit, to say nothing of the massive loss of life and
destruction incurred.
'The below analysis is provided by "
Ehsani
"
-- a Middle East expert, Syrian-American banker and financial analyst
who visits the region frequently and writes for the influential geopolitical
analysis blog,
Syria Comment
.'
this quote was my first red flag.
so POTUS outsmarts Erdongan, takes out ISIS leader BAGHDADI along
with Erdongan MIT agents meeting with him. sorry, Ehsani, i think
your full of sh*t.
CIA & MOSSAD LLC
friends ISIS is just the excuse the american
an israeli terrorists used and use in order to keep trying to remove
Assad from the Government.
They just can't accept defeat and absolute failure. What's worse
than an american/israeli terrorist destroyed ego?!
All info needs verification. US sources are not trustworthy including
anyone where money originates from the usual fake info instigators/
players.
POTUS is so misled by the deep state MIC /CIA/ FBI et al and their
willing fake media cohorts that he agreed to give the White Helmets
more public money for more fake movies, as has been properly proven
and widely reported.
Either they have taken control of his mind with a chip insert or
they have got his balls to the knife.
The false flags have been discredited systematically and only a
very brainwashed or a very frightened person would believe anything
from the same source until after a thorough scourge is proven successfully
undertaken.
It is evident that even the last hope department has been got at
by the money-power.
If they can do 9/11 and get away with it, as they have, then they
will stop at nothing to remain entrenched.
90% of oil is traded in U.S. dollars if that stops living standards
will drop in the U.S.. We dropped from 97% look how bad its now
with 7% imagine going down to 50% life would be unlivable
here.
...meanwhile, both according to
russia today
as well as the
(otherwise lying rag of a newspaper)
guardian
, the russian
government seems to take a different position to the views expressed
here by "a middle east expert".
russian state media is reporting that US troops are in the process
of taking control of syrian oil fields in the deir el-zour region
and have described such actions as "banditry". the crux of the matter
is this: if the US were not actually illegally taking control of Syrian
oil, then Russia would not be reporting this. Contrary to western
mainstream media, Russian sources have repeatedly shown themselves
to be factual.
Shame the "withdrawl" from Syria is tainted with "securing the oil".
US doesnt need that oil at all. So Orwellian! Unless the Kurds somehow
get rights to it.
Preventing rise of ISIS is likely to entail securing support of the region's Arabs and tribes more than that of the Kurds. This Kurd/Arab issue is yet another reason why President Trump's idea of
"securing" the oil for the benefit of the Kurds just doesn't make sense nearly on every level
.
Trump
is
securing
the
oil
not
for
the
Kurds
or
anything
in
the
middle
east-
his
doing
it
as
a response
to
the
media
backlash
he
received
when
he
announced
he's
abandoning
the
Kurds.
this is nonsense. thinking of the kurds and their interests is the absolutely last thing on trump`s mind: what counts for trump is how he is viewed by his voter base, no more, no less.
No
wonder Democratic Party bosses and mainstream media are trying to bury presidential contender Tulsi
Gabbard.
She is the only candidate, perhaps the only politician in the US, who is telling
the American public exactly what they need to know about what their government and military are
really up to: fighting illegal regime-change wars, and to boot, sponsoring terrorists for that
purpose.
It didn't come much clearer nor more explicit than when Gabbard fired up the Democratic TV
debate this week. It was billed as the biggest televised presidential debate ever, and the Hawaii
Representative
told
some prime-time
home-truths to the nation:
"Donald Trump has blood of the Kurds on his hands, but so do many of the politicians in our
country from both parties who have supported this ongoing regime-change war in Syria that
started in 2011 along with many in the mainstream media who have been championing and
cheer-leading this regime-change war."
The 38-year-old military veteran went on to denounce how the US has sponsored Al Qaeda
terrorists for its objective of overthrowing the government in Damascus.
It was a remarkably damning assessment of US policy in Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East.
And it was by no means the first time that Gabbard has leveled with the American people on the
brutality and criminality of Washington's so-called "interventions".
The other 11 Democratic candidates on the stage during the TV debate looked agog after Gabbard's
devastating and calmly delivered statement. All the others have proffered the false narrative that
US forces are in Syria to "fight terrorism". They deplore Trump's announcement last week to pull
back US troops from northeast Syria because, they say, it will undermine the fight against Islamic
State (IS or ISIS) and other Al Qaeda affiliates. They also condemn Trump for "betraying Kurdish
allies" by his partial troop withdrawal.
President Donald Trump talks about "ending endless wars" and "bringing our troops home".
But he still premises his views on a credulous belief that the US under his watch "defeated ISIS
100 per cent". In that way, he essentially shares the same corny view as the Democrats and media
that America is a force for good, that it is the "good guys wearing white hats riding into the
sunset".
On the other hand, Gabbard stands alone in telling the American people the plain and awful
truth. US policy is the fundamental problem. Ending its regime-change war in Syria and elsewhere
and ending its diabolical collusion with terror groups is the way to bring peace to the Middle East
and to spare ordinary Americans from the economic disaster of spiraling war debts.
American
citizens need to know the truth about the horror their government, military, media and politicians
have inflicted not just on countries in the Middle East, but also from the horrendous boomerang
consequences of this criminal policy on the lives and livelihoods of ordinary Americans,
including millions of veterans destroyed by injuries, trauma, suicide, and drug abuse.
Following the TV debate this week, it seems that Gabbard won the popular vote with her
truth-telling. A major
online poll
by the Drudge Report
found that she stole a march on all the other candidates, winning approval from nearly 40 per cent
of voters. Top ticket candidates Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden were trailing
behind with 7 per cent or less.
Gabbard has clearly struck a deep chord with the US public in her honest depiction of
American wars.
Despite her shattering exposé and seeming appreciation by the public, most mainstream media
tried to bury her after the TV debate. Outlets like Vox and CNN
declared
that
Warren was the winner of the debate, whose talking points were mainly about domestic policy issues.
Like the other candidates, Warren plies the propaganda narrative of US forces "fighting terrorism".
Vox even slated Gabbard as "a loser" in the debate and claimed she had made "blatantly false"
statements about the US' role in Syria.
Other mainstream news outlets chose to ignore reporting on Gabbard's demolishing of the official
propaganda about American wars. Earlier this week, CNN and the New York Times
smeared
her
as a "Russian asset" and an "apologist for Assad", referencing a visit she made to Syria in 2017
when she held talks with President Assad.
The Democratic National Committee is
claiming
that
Gabbard does not have sufficient support in polls it deems worthy for her to qualify for appearing
in the next TV debate in November.
International events, however, are proving the Hawaii Representative right. US troops, as with
other NATO forces, have been occupying Syrian territory illegally. They have no mandate from the
United Nations Security Council. The pullback of US troops by Trump has created a vacuum in
northeast Syria into which the Syrian Arab Army is quickly moving to reclaim the territory which
US-backed Kurdish fighters had de facto annexed for the past five years. Several
reports
show
the local people are joyfully welcoming the arrival of the Syrian army. The scenes are reminiscent
of when Syrian and Russian forces liberated Aleppo and other cities previously besieged by terror
groups.
America's war machine must get out of Syria for the sake of restoring peace to that
war-torn country.
Not because "they have defeated ISIS 100 per cent", as Trump would
conceitedly claim, nor because "we are betraying Kurds in the fight against terrorism", as most
Democrats and US media preposterously claim.
Peace will come to Syria and the Middle East when Washington finally ends its criminal
regime-change wars and its support for terrorist proxies. Tulsi Gabbard seems to be the
only politician with the intelligence and integrity to tell Americans the truth.
Unlike Trump she's against the patriot act and foreign
intervention. Trump hired Bolton, attempted a coup in Venezuela,
has been dropping more bombs on Syria than Obama did, is
escalating a new war with Iran, has sent more troops to Saudi
Arabia and Yeman. He's also for red flag laws to take away guns.
I cannot see her have a shot as DNC candidate. Either she
will end up like a young and liberal version of Ron Paul; get
angry and become a RossPerot-like spoiler type or (least likely)
become another Bernie sellout for a beachhouse.
The way she is being demonized by the Democrat party,
it is clear that she cannot win this battle.
Oct 25, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Curiously, this reticence doesn’t extend to voting on resolutions that seek to
preserve America’s military presence in the Middle East. Legislators are more interested in stopping troop withdrawals from
unauthorized conflicts than authorizing those conflicts in the first place.
Ask Congress to engage in an honest, open, and
transparent national conversation before launching the first cruise missile and they run for the hills like villagers from a
flash flood.
But ask them to spend an hour on the floor blasting the president for losing his “resolve” or upending American “leadership”
(those favorite Beltway buzzwords), and they arrive with speeches in hand. It would all be hilarious if it wasn’t so depressing.
It's way too late to be saying "the longer this continues". Undeclared wars have been
standard practice from the start. WW1 and WW2 were extremely unusual exceptions to the
normal rule.
It also begs the question who exactly is war supposed to be declared on here? Syria,
Turkey, Iran or Russia, and for what reason are they going to declare this war for?
Sorry, but the only one who's moaning here is you. While the article tells hard facts by
saying that there would be nothing to hold Trump to account for regarding foreign policy,
since he wouldn't have inherited any war, had the parliament done its job and denied Bush
II and Obama the authorization of the said wars. Now, it doesn't mean that those wars
wouldn't have happened, since the MIC, oil companies, pharmaceutical industry et al. could
have easily staged a coup to get rid of such an inconvenient parliament, but in such a case
the said (former) parliament could, at least, speak from a morally high ground. While now
their complaints sound like laments about a streak of assassinations from those who
prepared sniper nests for hitmen every single time.
The mistake the president made was to extend an olive branch to his opponents by hiring
them in the first place.
Whatever one thinks of Mr Bannon. He came out with a clear understanding . . . whatever
agenda or intent was had to reduce our use of force to regime change --
"fo ged aboud it . . . "
And while, I think he may have overstated the matter. It's clear that agenda was not
aided by those appointments to is cabinate.
Goodwill to policy goodbye.
It is farcical and painful to watch.
Note:
one aspect of my opposition to the conflict was the strategy chosen. And it that
strategy unfortunately did not include "pulling out all the stops."
BTW. the author states: "Most lawmakers accepted the administration's arguments with barely
a blink, which enabled one of the gravest U.S. foreign policy blunders (the second Iraq
War) in modern history."
Most of the Democrats were opposed, but remembering how they were raked over the coals
for opposing the first Iraq War, voted in favor of a war to cover their butts.
It doesn't matter why Team D voted the way they did - it's not like a whole hearted vote
in favor of aggressive war counts double, or the kids on the other end of the drone don't
really die if you feel sad when you push the "yes" button.
For that matter, it's not as if Team D are engaged in a wholesale mea culpa after
they claimed to have been rooked.
If our military members refuse to uphold their oath to constitution it's time to disband
the standing army as it has become nothing more than the tool of foreign occupiers who have
purchased our government. Revoke all their benifit packages, no more free college, no more
subsidized loans for housing. If these people are nothing but mercenaries then stop paying
them for violating the contract.
The globalist criminal elites will not be held responsible for any of these crimes. They're
bound together by ties of blackmail forged by guys like Epstein, mutually assured
incrimination in serial swindles which cross Left and Right political boundaries and literal
murder in the case of guys like Seth Rich.
The cozy proximity of recently-murdered Epstein himself to crypto-converso AG Barr's
family only makes me more certain that they will get away with this heist like they've done
with dozens of other billion-dollar swindles.
If they were only stealing money it would be bad enough, but the fact that these same
grifters are our "diplomats" and warmakers is positively Orwellian. Watching these petty
hoodlums play nuclear chicken with Russia so they can squeeze more shekels from the supine
Ukraine would be laughable if I could get the first-strike nightmares of my Cold War
childhood out of my head long enough to laugh.
Conservative government watchdog Judicial Watch have published formerly classified
documents from the U.S. Department of Defence which reveals the agencies earlier views on
ISIS, namely that they were a desirable presence in Eastern Syria in 2012 and that they
should be "supported" in order to isolate the Syrian regime.
Levantreport.com reports:
Astoundingly, the newly declassified report states that for "THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND
TURKEY [WHO] SUPPORT THE [SYRIAN] OPPOSITION THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A
DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS
IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN
REGIME ".
The DIA report, formerly classified "SECRET//NOFORN" and dated August 12, 2012, was
circulated widely among various government agencies, including CENTCOM, the CIA, FBI, DHS,
NGA, State Dept., and many others.
The document shows that as early as 2012, U.S. intelligence predicted the rise of the
Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS), but instead of clearly delineating the
group as an enemy, the report envisions the terror group as a U.S. strategic asset.
Government watchdog Judicial Watch published more than 100 pages of formerly classified
documents from the U.S. Department of Defense and the State Department.
The documents obtained through a federal lawsuit, revealed the agencies earlier views on
ISIS, namely that they were a desirable presence in Eastern Syria in 2012 and that they
should be "supported" in order to isolate the Syrian regime.
The U.S. intelligence documents not only confirms suspicions that the United States and
some of its coalition allies had actually facilitated the rise of the ISIS in Syria –
as a counterweight to the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad- but also that ISIS
members were initially trained by members and contractors of the Central Intelligence Agency
at facilities in Jordan in 2012.
[MORE]
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Since publication, this story has been corrected to clarify that the fighters
trained in Jordan became members of the ISIS after their training.]
JERUSALEM – Syrian rebels who would later join the Islamic State of Iraq and the
Levant, or ISIS, were trained in 2012 by U.S. instructors working at a secret base in Jordan,
according to informed Jordanian officials.
The officials said dozens of future ISIS members were trained at the time as part of
covert aid to the insurgents targeting the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in
Syria. The officials said the training was not meant to be used for any future campaign in
Iraq.
The Jordanian officials said all ISIS members who received U.S. training to fight in Syria
were first vetted for any links to extremist groups like al-Qaida.
In February 2012, WND was first to report the U.S., Turkey and Jordan were running a
training base for the Syrian rebels in the Jordanian town of Safawi in the country's northern
desert region.
That report has since been corroborated by numerous other media accounts.
Last March, the German weekly Der Spiegel reported Americans were training Syrian rebels in
Jordan.
Quoting what it said were training participants and organizers, Der Spiegel reported it
was not clear whether the Americans worked for private firms or were with the U.S. Army, but
the magazine said some organizers wore uniforms. The training in Jordan reportedly focused on
use of anti-tank weaponry.
The German magazine reported some 200 men received the training over the previous three
months amid U.S. plans to train a total of 1,200 members of the Free Syrian Army in two camps
in the south and the east of Jordan.
Britain's Guardian newspaper also reported last March that U.S. trainers were aiding
Syrian rebels in Jordan along with British and French instructors.
Reuters reported a spokesman for the U.S. Defense Department declined immediate comment on
the German magazine's report. The French foreign ministry and Britain's foreign and defense
ministries also would not comment to Reuters.
"... Islamic State, or Isis, didn't emerge out of nowhere. It was entirely a creation of two decades of US interference in the Middle East. ..."
"... No, I'm talking about the fact that in destroying three key Arab states – Iraq, Libya and Syria – that refused to submit to the joint regional hegemony of Saudi Arabia and Israel, Washington's local client states, the US created a giant void of governance at the heart of the Middle East. They knew that that void would be filled soon enough by religious extremists like Islamic State – and they didn't care. ..."
"... The barely veiled aim of the attacks on Iraq, Libya and Syria was to destroy the institutions and structures that held these societies together, however imperfectly. Though no one likes to mention it nowadays, these states – deeply authoritarian though they were – were also secular, and had well-developed welfare states that ensured high rates of literacy and some of the region's finest public health services. ..."
"... After Rove and Cheney had had their fill playing around with reality, nature got on with honouring the maxim that it always abhors a vacuum. Islamic State filled the vacuum Washington's policy had engineered. ..."
"... The clue, after all, was in the name. With the US and Gulf states using oil money to wage a proxy war against Assad, Isis saw its chance to establish a state inspired by a variety of Saudi Arabia's Wahhabist dogma. Isis needed territory for their planned state, and the Saudis and US obliged by destroying Syria. ..."
"... This barbarian army, one that murdered other religious groups as infidels and killed fellow Sunnis who refused to bow before their absolute rule, became the west's chief allies in Syria. Directly and covertly, we gave them money and weapons to begin building their state on parts of Syria. ..."
"... We cannot, of course, forget an assistance this witch had from very GOPiish Senators such as late American hero John McCain and his buddy Lindsey Graham. They played a key role in supporting all kinds of jihadist elements. ..."
"... Let's be accurate: It was US Democrats AND REPUBLICANS who helped cultivate the barbarism of Isis. The mess was started with Bush/Cheney/Powell. McCain was probably the biggest ISIS guy ever. Graham, Romney and friends are the same, and at best marginally better than Hitlery Clinton. ..."
"... The population of Syria increased exponentially right up through 2010, with a doubling time of about 18 years, at which point food ran out and population started trending downwards (not so much due to outright famine, as to poverty, lack of medical care, warfare, and people fleeing the country.). ..."
"... Check out the section in wikipedia on Syria's aquifers and groundwater – the water table had been dropping drastically as far back as 1985. Long before the post-2010 dry spell, Syria's rapid population growth had been consuming more water than fell as rain – EVEN DURING WET YEARS. The low rainfall post-2010 was an early trigger, but the collapse would have come regardless. ..."
"... Tulsi may not win the democratic nomination, but I see her determination to educate the majority of Americans of what our government/deep state/military industrial complex/and later senators who become lobbyists are doing. ..."
"... Worse, I suspect that many weren't too disturbed by this prospect. After all, ISIS and its incredibly vicious terrorist attacks in the West did a great deal to fuel Islamophobia -- and Islamophobia has its uses. ISIS was probably the best thing to happen to Israel since 9/11. ..."
"... I think it is worse than that : ISIS was a creation by the Israel-US- Saudi Arabia-Gulf States-axis. Significantly ISIS never attacked Israeli interests ..."
"... It doesn't matter how many Arabs, Turks, Etruscans or Kurds are killed, as long as Israel's interests are taken care of, the results are "worth it". Its a very deeply cynical, and evil policy that the US has pursued all these years in the Mid-East. ..."
"... Gangster business and slavery are OK so long as our central bank gets our cut. ..."
"... They've re-started the Cold War. Keeps all the warmongers in business. Surely they're not stupid enough to want a hot one are they? ..."
"... It goes without comment that the first act of the US following Nudelman's (Why do these fuckers keep changing their names?) Ukraine coup was to steal its gold. ..."
"... "Pelosi and most of the Democratic leadership don't care about Syria, or its population's welfare. They don't care about Assad, or Isis. They care only about the maintenance and expansion of their own Democratic Party power – for the personal wealth and influence it continues to bestow on them." ..."
There is something profoundly deceitful in the way the Democratic Party and the corporate media are framing Donald Trump's decision
to pull troops out of Syria.
One does not need to defend Trump's actions or ignore the dangers posed to the Kurds, at least in the short term, by the departure
of US forces from northern Syria to understand that the coverage is being crafted in such a way as to entirely overlook the bigger
picture.
The problem is neatly illustrated in this line from a report by the Guardian newspaper of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's meeting
this week with Trump, who is described as having had a "meltdown". Explaining why she and other senior Democrats stormed out, the
paper writes
that "it became clear the president had no plan to deal with a potential revival of Isis in the Middle East".
Hang on a minute! Let's pull back a little, and not pretend – as the media and Democratic party leadership wish us to – that the
last 20 years did not actually happen. Many of us lived through those events. Our memories are not so short.
Islamic State, or Isis, didn't emerge out of nowhere. It was entirely a creation of two decades of US interference in the
Middle East. And I'm not even referring to the mountains
of evidence that US officials backed their Saudi allies in directly funding and arming Isis – just as their predecessors in Washington,
in their enthusiasm to oust the Soviets from the region, assisted the jihadists who went on to become al-Qaeda.
No, I'm talking about the fact that in destroying three key Arab states – Iraq, Libya and Syria – that refused to submit to
the joint regional hegemony of Saudi Arabia and Israel, Washington's local client states, the US created a giant void of governance
at the heart of the Middle East. They knew that that void would be filled soon enough by religious extremists like Islamic State
– and they didn't care.
Overthrow, not regime change
You don't have to be a Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi or Bashar Assad apologist to accept this point. You don't even have to
be concerned that these so-called "humanitarian" wars violated each state's integrity and sovereignty, and are therefore defined
in international law as "the supreme war crime".
The bigger picture – the one no one appears to want us thinking about – is that the US intentionally sought to destroy these states
with no obvious plan for the day after. As I explained in my book
Israel and the Clash of Civilisations
, these haven't so much been regime-change wars as nation-state dismantling operations – what I have termed overthrow wars.
The logic was a horrifying hybrid of two schools of thought that meshed neatly in the psychopathic foreign policy goals embodied
in the ideology of neoconservatism – the so-called "Washington consensus" since 9/11.
The first was Israel's long-standing approach to the Palestinians. By constantly devastating any emerging Palestinian institution
or social structures, Israel produced a divide-and-rule model on steriods, creating a leaderless, ravaged, enfeebled society that
sucked out all the local population's energy. That strategy proved very appealing to the neoconservatives, who saw it as one they
could export to non-compliant states in the region.
The second was the Chicago school's Shock Doctrine, as explained in Naomi Klein's book of that name. The chaotic campaign of destruction,
the psychological trauma and the sense of dislocation created by these overthrow wars were supposed to engender a far more malleable
population that would be ripe for a US-controlled "colour revolution".
The recalcitrant states would be made an example of, broken apart, asset-stripped of their resources and eventually remade as
new dependent markets for US goods. That was what George W Bush, Dick Cheney and Halliburton really meant when they talked about
building a New Middle East and exporting democracy.
Even judged by the vile aims of its proponents, the Shock Doctrine has been a half-century story of
dismal economic failure everywhere it has been attempted
– from Pinochet's Chile to Yeltsin's Russia. But let us not credit the architects of this policy with any kind of acumen for learning
from past errors. As Bush's senior adviser Karl Rove explained to a journalist whom he rebuked for being part of the "reality-based
community": "We're an empire now and, when we act, we create our own reality."
The birth of Islamic State
The barely veiled aim of the attacks on Iraq, Libya and Syria was to destroy the institutions and structures that held these
societies together, however imperfectly. Though no one likes to mention it nowadays, these states – deeply authoritarian though they
were – were also secular, and had well-developed welfare states that ensured high rates of literacy and some of the region's finest
public health services.
Given how closed a society Syria was and is, and how difficult it therefore is to weigh the evidence in ways that are likely to
prove convincing to those not already persuaded, let us set that issue aside too. Anyway, it is irrelevant to the bigger picture
I want to address.
The indisputable fact is that Washington and its Gulf allies wished to exploit this initial unrest as an opportunity to create
a void in Syria – just as they had earlier done in Iraq, where there were no uprisings, nor even the WMDs the US promised would be
found and that served as the pretext for Bush's campaign of Shock and Awe.
The limited uprisings in Syria quickly turned into a much larger and far more vicious war because the Gulf states, with US backing,
flooded the country with proxy fighters and arms in an effort to overthrow Assad and thereby weaken Iranian and Shia influence in
the region. The events in Syria and earlier in Iraq gradually transformed the Sunni religious extremists of al-Qaeda into the even
more barbaric, more nihilistic extremists of Islamic State.
A dark US vanity project
After Rove and Cheney had had their fill playing around with reality, nature got on with honouring the maxim that it always
abhors a vacuum. Islamic State filled the vacuum Washington's policy had engineered.
The clue, after all, was in the name. With the US and Gulf states using oil money to wage a proxy war against Assad, Isis
saw its chance to establish a state inspired by a variety of Saudi Arabia's Wahhabist dogma. Isis needed territory for their planned
state, and the Saudis and US obliged by destroying Syria.
This barbarian army, one that murdered other religious groups as infidels and killed fellow Sunnis who refused to bow before
their absolute rule, became the west's chief allies in Syria. Directly and covertly, we gave them money and weapons to begin building
their state on parts of Syria.
Again, let us ignore the fact that the US, in helping to destroy a sovereign nation, committed the supreme war crime, one that
in a rightly ordered world would ensure every senior Washington official faces their own Nuremberg Trial. Let us ignore too for the
moment that the US, consciously through its actions, brought to life a monster that sowed death and destruction everywhere it went.
The fact is that at the moment Assad called in Russia to help him survive, the battle the US and the Gulf states were waging through
Islamic State and other proxies was lost. It was only a matter of time before Assad would reassert his rule.
From that point onwards, every single person who was killed and every single Syrian made homeless – and there were hundreds of
thousands of them – suffered their terrible fate for no possible gain in US policy goals. A vastly destructive overthrow war became
instead something darker still: a neoconservative vanity project that ravaged countless Syrian lives.
A giant red herring
Trump now appears to be ending part of that policy. He may be doing so for the wrong reasons. But very belatedly – and possibly
only temporarily – he is seeking to close a small chapter in a horrifying story of western-sponsored barbarism in the Middle East,
one intimately tied to Islamic State.
What of the supposed concerns of Pelosi and the Democratic Party under whose watch the barbarism in Syria took place. They should
have no credibility on the matter to begin with.
But their claims that Trump has "no plan to deal with a potential revival of Isis in the Middle East" is a giant red herring they
are viciously slapping us in the face with in the hope the spray of seawater blinds us.
First, Washington sowed the seeds of Islamic State by engineering a vacuum in Syria that Isis – or something very like it – was
inevitably going to fill. Then, it allowed those seeds to flourish by assisting its Gulf allies in showering fighters in Syria with
money and arms that came with only one string attached – a commitment to Sunni jihadist ideology inspired by Saudi Wahhabism.
Isis was made in Washington as much as it was in Riyadh. For that reason, the only certain strategy for preventing the revival
of Islamic State is preventing the US and the Gulf states from interfering in Syria again.
With the Syrian army in charge of Syrian territory, there will be no vacuum for Isis to fill. The jihadists' state-building project
is now unrealisable, at least in Syria. Islamic State will continue to wither, as it would have done years before if the US and its
Gulf allies had not fuelled it in a proxy war they knew could not be won.
Doomed Great Game
The same lesson can be drawn by looking at the experience of the Syrian Kurds. The Rojava fiefdom they managed to carve out in
northern Syria during the war survived till now only because of continuing US military support. With a US departure, and the Kurds
too weak to maintain their improvised statelet, a vacuum was again created that this time has risked sucking in the Turkish army,
which fears a base for Kurdish nationalism on its doorstep.
The Syrian Kurds' predicament is simple: face a takeover by Turkey or seek Assad's protection to foil Turkish ambitions. The best
hope for the Kurds looks to be the Syrian army's return, filling the vacuum and regaining a chance of long-term stability.
That could have been the case for all of Syria many tens of thousands of deaths ago. Whatever the corporate media suggest, those
deaths were lost not in a failed heroic battle for freedom, which, even if it was an early aspiration for some fighters, quickly
became a goal that was impossible for them to realise. No, those deaths were entirely pointless. They were sacrificed by a western
military-industrial complex in a US-Saudi Great Game that dragged on for many years after everyone knew it was doomed.
Nancy Pelosi's purported worries about Isis reviving because of Trump's Syria withdrawal are simply crocodile fears. If she is
really so worried about Islamic State, then why did she and other senior Democrats stand silently by as the US under Barack Obama
spent years spawning, cultivating and financing Isis to destroy Syria, a state that was best placed to serve as a bulwark against
the head-chopping extremists?
Pelosi and the Democratic leadership's bad faith – and that of the corporate media – are revealed in their ongoing efforts to
silence and smear Tulsi Gabbard, the party's only candidate for the presidential nomination who has pointed out the harsh political
realities in Syria, and tried to expose their years of lies.
Pelosi and most of the Democratic leadership don't care about Syria, or its population's welfare. They don't care about Assad,
or Isis. They care only about the maintenance and expansion of American power – and the personal wealth and influence it continues
to bestow on them.
Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include "Israel and the Clash of Civilisations:
Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East" (Pluto Press) and "Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair"
(Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net .
The problem largely traces back to simple mistakes by prior Saudi administrations.
The Wahhabi were a threat to the royal family. So, the royal family funded them to go elsewhere. Given the craziness of Wahhabism
that made sense at the time. Crazy usually dies out. However, in this case the Crazy came with enough money in hand to establish
credibility. The extremist Muslim Brotherhood is a direct result of these exported extremism.
ISIS is the result of a schism inside the extremist Muslim Brotherhood. A "direct action" group wanted an even more extreme
and immediate solution and broke away.
-- Did the U.S. or Israel attempt to deploy ISIS? This is far-fetched beyond the bounds of reasonability. Violent, ultra-extreme
ISIS fanatics would not follow the commands of infidel heretics. The Saudi royal family by this point realized that the Muslim
Brotherhood was a threat to them just like the original Wahhabi, but they had no good way to undo their prior mistake.
-- Did Turkey attempt to use ISIS to weaken Syria and Iraq? This is far more probable. Turkey's AK party is also a schismatic
offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. So, there is a great deal of opportunity for the two troops to find common cause. The New
Ottoman Empire needs to absorb Syrian and Iraqi land, so undermining those governments would be step #1.
One does not need outside actors to explain how the hole was dug. Unfortunately, that means there is no good solution. If the
problem was driven by outside forces, those forces could stop it. However, the reality is that there are no outside forces driving
the Craziness. There is no "plug to pull".
The wild savage dogs of ISIS are the Khmer Rouge of Islamic fundamentalism and their rise and violence should be attributed to
the liberal interventionism that has proven to be a disaster not only for the region but those who carried out the intervention.
"One does not need outside actors to explain how the hole was dug. Unfortunately, that means there is no good solution.
If the problem was driven by outside forces, those forces could stop it. However, the reality is that there are no outside
forces driving the Craziness. There is no 'plug to pull'".
Absolute nonsense. And what do you mean by "outside forces." The US and Israel count as outside forces but Turkey does not?
Forces outside of what?
ISIS emerged out of ISI, Zarqawi's Islamic State in Iraq, an affiliate, for a while, of AQ. The US invasion of Iraq created
the political and military space in Iraq for transnational terror groups.
Meanwhile, the US, at Israel's instigation, had been working to weaken Assad in Syria. After the rebellion against him in 2011,
the US, along with Turkey, Saudi, Qatar, Israel and others, began to support various jihadi groups inside Syria with the goal
of eliminating the Assad government, each for his own reasons. Syria began lost control of its border with Iraq and much of eastern
Syria and the Euphrates valley as well. This process allowed ISIS to emerge from an ISI under stress during the so-called "surge"
in 2007-10 and establish itself in Syria. In 2014, ISIS, now a powerful well-armed group went back into Iraq to defeat the incompetent
and unmotivated Iraq Security Forces that the US had established.
While the US moved against ISIS in Iraq after 2014, it left ISIS in Syria alone since it was depriving Assad of control over
most of Syria's oil and much of its arable land.
And yes, of course the US, instigated by Israel, didn't "deploy" ISIS in the sense of directing its operations. But they left
ISIS largely unimpeded to play a role in the overthrow of Assad which was always the primary goal. ISIS, it was thought, could
be dealt with later after Assad was gone.
That plan would probably have worked eventually, but the Russians entered the picture in the second half of 2015 and changed
the situation.
The US had been nominally supporting the usual "freedom fighters" but in effect supplying the more competent and vicious jihadis
who could take the TOW missiles and other weapons the US was providing to the approved sad-sacks and make more effective use of
them. Finally, with Russia and Iran facilitating the roll-back of all the jihadis, and the US threatened with being relegated
to the sidelines, Obama jumped on the SDF (Kurdish) bandwagon and actually started doing what the US had not done previously:
Taking serious action against ISIS so that a Russian/Iranian-backed Syrian reconquest of eastern Syria could be pre-empted.
And of course, the biggest supporter of the Kurds has consistently been Israel, who sees the possibility of creating pro-Israel
statelets or at least enclaves in the midst of a Turkish, Iranian and Arab region that detests the Judenreich.
So in order to eliminate another of Israel's enemies, reduce a unified Syrian state to a handful of even more impotent emirates
and ensure that Bibi would not be pestered with legal questions over the seizure and retention of the Golan, Syria was laid waste
under the guise of "promoting democracy" and then further devastated under the guise of combatting ISIS.
We have done more than enough damage at the behest of Israel and its fifth column in the US. ISIS might well have emerged regardless
of US actions, but it was the Jew-induced insanity of US regime-change/COIN policies that created the geographical, political
and military space in Iraq and Syria for the jihadists and the ensuing physical destruction of so much of those countries.
The best solution would be to facilitate the re-establishment of Syrian sovereignty over all of Syria. But instead of doing
that, Trump has instead facilitated the entry of Turkish forces and allied jihadis in an attempt to mend fences with a thoroughly
alienated Erdogan. We'll see if Putin can mitigate the brutal incompetence of Israel-infected US policy.
@A123 For fuck's sake. Is there any way to stop Hasbara agents from effectively using software to get consistent first posts
on this site?
Their mere presence is annoying. Whatever they have to say, on any topic and no matter what it is, no one here wants to read
it because they are not beginning with any credibility whatsoever. As they are are religiously-avowed enemies of the West (who
they hold to be the continuation of Rome) and the demonstrated fervent enemies of non-Jewish Whites.
Given the craziness of Wahhabism
There is nothing in Sunni Islam that does not have its root in Judaism. To state otherwise is to be a typical Semitic liar.
A very real but completely unadvertised reality of these regime changes was that the publicly owned central bank of the country
– Iraq and Libya – was eliminated and changed to a private central bank. Iraq and Libya both succumbed and Ron Paul related that
the smoke had barely cleared in Libya before the private central bank charter was drafted and implemented. Syria and Iran are
the last two countries that do not have a private central banks. Hence the drive by the neo-cons to destroy those countries and
fully implement the New World (banking) Order.
Not widely discussed but (I think) vitally important to understanding foreign policy.
What of the supposed concerns of Pelosi and the Democratic Party under whose watch the barbarism in Syria took place. They should
have no credibility on the matter to begin with.
But their claims that Trump has "no plan to deal with a potential revival of Isis in the Middle East" is a giant red herring
they are viciously slapping us in the face with in the hope the spray of seawater blinds us.
I love the second para. Getting slapped with a red herring with hope that the salt water blinds us .
My only gripe with Jonathan Cook is that this and all mid-eastern conflicts are engineered by the dual citizens and Israel
isn't called out by him as the chief instigator. The saudis are slave of the west and amount to nothing.
@A123 " Did the U.S. or Israel attempt to deploy ISIS? This is far-fetched beyond the bounds of reasonability"
Perhaps. Except that it did happen in plain daylight, before our eyes, but we should, of course, trust your "reasonability" --
instead of our own lying eyes.
@A123 US President Donald Trump said Monday that a small number of US troops remain in Syria at the request of Israel and
Jordan, with some positioned near the borders with Jordan and Israel and others deployed to secure oil fields.
"The other region where we've been asked by Israel and Jordan to leave a small number of troops is a totally different section
of Syria, near Jordan, and close to Israel," Trump said when asked whether he would leave soldiers in Syria. "So we have a small
group there, and we secured the oil. Other than that, there's no reason for it, in our opinion."
Times of Israel
and J Post 21st oct
It 's all about Israel and for its "royal patsy when not for royal patsy it's for the cannon fodder/ foot solder of Israel.
This mayhem from 2003 hasn't seen the full effects of the blow-back yet .Just starting . Tulsi Gabbard and Trump have knowingly
and sometime unknowingly have told the master that the king never had any clothes even when the king was talking about the decency
of having clothes on .
"The first was Israel's long-standing approach to the Palestinians. By constantly devastating any emerging Palestinian institution
or social structures, Israel produced a divide-and-rule model on steriods, creating a leaderless, ravaged, enfeebled society that
sucked out all the local population's energy. That strategy proved very appealing to the neoconservatives, who saw it as one they
could export to non-compliant states in the region."-
This sums up everything one want to know about certain human clones and the impact of the clones on the humanity.
Who will ever blame the victims for creating a future Hitler among them ?
We cannot, of course, forget an assistance this witch had from very GOPiish Senators such as late American hero John McCain
and his buddy Lindsey Graham. They played a key role in supporting all kinds of jihadist elements.
Let's be accurate: It was US Democrats AND REPUBLICANS who helped cultivate the barbarism of Isis. The mess was started with
Bush/Cheney/Powell. McCain was probably the biggest ISIS guy ever. Graham, Romney and friends are the same, and at best marginally
better than Hitlery Clinton.
Lock them all up, regardless of party affiliation.
Many interesting points here, and I agree with a lot of them. But:
[MORE]
"Or was it driven by something else: as a largely economic protest by an under-class suffering from food shortages as climate
change led to repeated crop failures?"
Syria did run out of water, and it's hard not to see that as a major driver of the chaos that unfolded. But Syria didn't run
out of water because of "climate change," that's false.
The explanation is that the Syrian government deliberately engineered a massive population explosion. Seriously, they made
the sale and possession of contraceptives a crime! (See "Demographic Developments and Population: Policies in Ba'thist Syria (Demographic
Developments and Socioeconomics)", by Onn Winkler).
The population of Syria increased exponentially right up through 2010, with a doubling time of about 18 years, at which
point food ran out and population started trending downwards (not so much due to outright famine, as to poverty, lack of medical
care, warfare, and people fleeing the country.).
Now as far as weather goes, there were a couple of dry years before the collapse, but weather is always like that. Last year
there were record rainfalls. If Syria's population had been stable at 5 or even 10 million, they could have coasted on water stored
in the aquifers until the rains came back. But when the population increases so much that you drain the aquifers even when there
is plenty of rain, then when a temporary drought hits you have no reserve and it all falls apart.
Check out the section in wikipedia on Syria's aquifers and groundwater – the water table had been dropping drastically
as far back as 1985. Long before the post-2010 dry spell, Syria's rapid population growth had been consuming more water than fell
as rain – EVEN DURING WET YEARS. The low rainfall post-2010 was an early trigger, but the collapse would have come regardless.
simple and straightforward journalism that cuts through the "corporate veil." Tulsi may not win the democratic nomination,
but I see her determination to educate the majority of Americans of what our government/deep state/military industrial complex/and
later senators who become lobbyists are doing.
I also feel for our veterans who are indoctrinated to protect freedom, but in the end, when they come home injured and disabled,
or even dead, it was all for naught.
I find some of the rhetoric in this piece irritating and repetitive -- but the analysis is essentially correct.
We created a power vacuum that was almost certain to give rise to something like ISIS.
Worse, I suspect that many weren't too disturbed by this prospect. After all, ISIS and its incredibly vicious terrorist
attacks in the West did a great deal to fuel Islamophobia -- and Islamophobia has its uses. ISIS was probably the best thing to
happen to Israel since 9/11.
"The problem is neatly illustrated in this line from a report by the Guardian newspaper of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's meeting
this week with Trump, who is described as having had a "meltdown". "
That's a poorly written statement. It reads as though Trump was the one having a meltdown. How about: "House Speaker Pelosi's
meltdown during a meeting with Trump." ?
@MarathonMan That is a fact that should be kept foremost in the discussions of "why regime change is necessary". It is the
most basic and obvious reason for all this war in the ME.
"First, Washington sowed the seeds of Islamic State by engineering a vacuum in Syria that Isis – or something very like
it – was inevitably going to fill."
Not quite accurate. The US Government "sowed the seeds of" ISIS by giving them material support before the vacuum was created.
IS is mainly a creature of empire, including the US and older remnants of empire in the UK and Europe which survives mainly in
the existence of (international) banks.
@Christian truth Project "Tulsi is/was a member of the CFR". Aren't all Congressmen members? Doesn't that come with signing
the AIPAC form, getting the secret decoder ring from Adam Schiff, and the free trip to Israel? (maybe Ilhan Omar and Rashida Talib
"don't measure up?")
I believe CFR was the organization Biden was regaling with his story of holding up $one billion in Ukrainian
aid unless the Ukrainians fired the investigator of his son Hunter "who did nothing wrong". Can you imagine if Biden had been
President rather than VP? This would have been a scandal!
@A123 One does not need outside actors, but then there would be a lot of 'dark matter' in the history of the ME over the last
100 years. Personally it's plain state terrorism to me, and the Brits have a good definition!
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/part/I
Pelosi and most of the Democratic leadership don't care about Syria, or its population's welfare. They don't care about
Assad, or Isis. They care only about the maintenance and expansion of American power
Correction: They only care about the maintenance and expansion of Israeli power.
I think it is worse than that : ISIS was a creation by the Israel-US- Saudi Arabia-Gulf States-axis.
Significantly ISIS never attacked Israeli interests, and when it once did so by accident, it apologized to Israel. The destruction
of Syria is part of Israel's notorious Oded Yinon plan, according to which all states in Israel's neighborhood need to be fragmentized.
In Iraq and Libya that was a success, in Syria, thanks to Iran, Hizbollah and Russia, it failed. The US is simply a puppet for
Israel's foreign policy, but nobody in the US, not even Tulsi Gabbard, dares to say so.
@A123 Sorry Bibi, but your beloved Israel played a BIG part in establishing ISIS, then supporting it with shekels, medical
care for their wounded, training and weapons.
WikiLeaks: US, Israel, And Saudi Arabia Planned Overthrow Of Syrian Govt. In 2006
Cables reveal that before the beginning of the Syrian revolt and civil war, the United States hoped to overthrow Assad and
create strife between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.
Let's not forget that when the term ISIS first came out, the Tel Aviv war mongers realized it stood for Israeli Secret Intelligence
Services and changed that to ISIL, which their adoring MSM gladly obliged by parroting that change.
From the Israeli masterminded 9/11 False Flag to the destruction of Syria, there's one common factor, Israel and her American
Jew sayanim who keep pushing America into forever wars so Israel can finish off the Palestinians and steal more land.
Based on the whistleblower's extensive presentation, including internal emails, text exchanges and suppressed draft reports,
we are unanimous in expressing our alarm over unacceptable practices in the investigation of the alleged chemical attack in
Douma, near the Syrian capital of Damascus on 7 April 2018. We became convinced by the testimony that key information about
chemical analyses, toxicology consultations, ballistics studies, and witness testimonies was suppressed, ostensibly to favor
a preordained conclusion.
We have learned of disquieting efforts to exclude some inspectors from the investigation whilst thwarting their attempts
to raise legitimate concerns, highlight irregular practices or even to express their differing observations and assessments
-- a right explicitly conferred on inspectors in the Chemical Weapons Convention, evidently with the intention of ensuring
the independence and authoritativeness of inspection reports.
Fixed "report" of OPCW was necessary to maintain anti-Assad narrative which is now unchallenged even by Gabbard (not to mention
the weak sheep-dog Sanders).
The US does not have to directly support the jihadists. It just has to manage the chaos, for whatever be
the action on the ground and whoever is killed or not killed, as long as there is chaos within their chosen sandbox, the chaos
masters in Israel wins and that is all that counts with all too many Americans. It doesn't matter how many Arabs, Turks, Etruscans
or Kurds are killed, as long as Israel's interests are taken care of, the results are "worth it". Its a very deeply cynical, and
evil policy that the US has pursued all these years in the Mid-East.
But fortunately the Russians have turned things around.
Gangster business and slavery are OK so long as our central bank gets our cut. ME is also about "fragmenting"
neighboring countries so Israel can expand. Yinon Plan.
Oct 18, 2019 Tulsi Gabbard responds to Hillary Clinton: Clinton "knows she can't control me"
Hillary Clinton implied Russians are "grooming" Tulsi Gabbard to run as a third-party candidate to disrupt the election, a
charge which Gabbard denies. In a live interview with CBSN, Gabbard responds to Clinton's claims and says she will not run as
a third-party candidate.
@TG Excellent post. You bring up 2 very important but rarely discussed issues.
Demographics: Population is one of the most easily predictable developments within a country, and you'd think it might be one
of the most publically-discussed, and therefore, best-managed. Au contraire. Assad wasn't the only one who stood on the tracks
watching the headlights approach:
1. The EU is having problems with an aging native population because it earlier encouraged low birth rates, and is now promoting
mass immigration of rapidly-breeding immigrants who threaten to at least overwhelm if not overrun European society. Yet, as Douglas
Murray points out in his book The Strange Death of Europe, openly talking about this problem has been, and still is, verboten.
2. China is now wondering to do with its preponderance of young men, caused very predictably by the Communist Party's one-child
policy.
Climate:
If the rains had been good every single year – which is impossible – it would only have pushed the point of collapse back
a few years, at most.
The Syrian case you cite shows how even relatively minor climate changes can carry events past a tipping point. I do agree
with you that effects of APGW on climactic conditions are greatly exaggerated, yet changes in climate, for good or ill, have often
triggered much larger historical events. The cooling that caused a famine and that preceded the Justinian Plague weakened European
and Sassanian civilizations. These misfortunes paved the way for the Islamic takeover that followed. Contrariwise, Norse exploration
and the Renaissance, to give 2 examples of increasing activity, both occurred during the Medieval Warming Period.
It goes without comment that the first act of the US following Nudelman's (Why do these fuckers keep changing
their names?) Ukraine coup was to steal its gold.
"Pelosi and most of the Democratic leadership don't care about Syria, or its population's welfare. They don't care about Assad,
or Isis. They care only about the maintenance and expansion of their own Democratic Party power – for the personal wealth and
influence it continues to bestow on them."
FTFY
Just as the GOP is precisely and thoroughly corrupt in exactly the same way, focused exclusively on their own craven self-interest,
the country be damned.
@Anonymous Jimmah was the last honest man in American politics. But since he told Americans that gas was going to cost more,
that perhaps they needed to drive a wee bit less, the Americans hated him. They didn't like the "malaise" of having to pay for
their lifestyle.
As for the Israelis, what did Jimmah not to do for them : Got Egypt out of the Arab alliance, arranged the annual tribute to
Israel, started the ball rolling on the Holocaust religion, paid off Egypt and Jordan to stay away from any alliance against the
Israelis. But what did he get in return; branded as anti-Semite merely for mentioning that the Palestinians had rights, were human
beings too. With the Zionist Jews, one is always on probation. No point playing their silly games.
"... Islamic State, or Isis, didn't emerge out of nowhere. It was entirely a creation of two decades of US interference in the Middle East. ..."
"... No, I'm talking about the fact that in destroying three key Arab states – Iraq, Libya and Syria – that refused to submit to the joint regional hegemony of Saudi Arabia and Israel, Washington's local client states, the US created a giant void of governance at the heart of the Middle East. They knew that that void would be filled soon enough by religious extremists like Islamic State – and they didn't care. ..."
"... The barely veiled aim of the attacks on Iraq, Libya and Syria was to destroy the institutions and structures that held these societies together, however imperfectly. Though no one likes to mention it nowadays, these states – deeply authoritarian though they were – were also secular, and had well-developed welfare states that ensured high rates of literacy and some of the region's finest public health services. ..."
"... After Rove and Cheney had had their fill playing around with reality, nature got on with honouring the maxim that it always abhors a vacuum. Islamic State filled the vacuum Washington's policy had engineered. ..."
"... The clue, after all, was in the name. With the US and Gulf states using oil money to wage a proxy war against Assad, Isis saw its chance to establish a state inspired by a variety of Saudi Arabia's Wahhabist dogma. Isis needed territory for their planned state, and the Saudis and US obliged by destroying Syria. ..."
"... This barbarian army, one that murdered other religious groups as infidels and killed fellow Sunnis who refused to bow before their absolute rule, became the west's chief allies in Syria. Directly and covertly, we gave them money and weapons to begin building their state on parts of Syria. ..."
"... We cannot, of course, forget an assistance this witch had from very GOPiish Senators such as late American hero John McCain and his buddy Lindsey Graham. They played a key role in supporting all kinds of jihadist elements. ..."
"... Let's be accurate: It was US Democrats AND REPUBLICANS who helped cultivate the barbarism of Isis. The mess was started with Bush/Cheney/Powell. McCain was probably the biggest ISIS guy ever. Graham, Romney and friends are the same, and at best marginally better than Hitlery Clinton. ..."
"... The population of Syria increased exponentially right up through 2010, with a doubling time of about 18 years, at which point food ran out and population started trending downwards (not so much due to outright famine, as to poverty, lack of medical care, warfare, and people fleeing the country.). ..."
"... Check out the section in wikipedia on Syria's aquifers and groundwater – the water table had been dropping drastically as far back as 1985. Long before the post-2010 dry spell, Syria's rapid population growth had been consuming more water than fell as rain – EVEN DURING WET YEARS. The low rainfall post-2010 was an early trigger, but the collapse would have come regardless. ..."
"... Tulsi may not win the democratic nomination, but I see her determination to educate the majority of Americans of what our government/deep state/military industrial complex/and later senators who become lobbyists are doing. ..."
"... Worse, I suspect that many weren't too disturbed by this prospect. After all, ISIS and its incredibly vicious terrorist attacks in the West did a great deal to fuel Islamophobia -- and Islamophobia has its uses. ISIS was probably the best thing to happen to Israel since 9/11. ..."
"... I think it is worse than that : ISIS was a creation by the Israel-US- Saudi Arabia-Gulf States-axis. Significantly ISIS never attacked Israeli interests ..."
There is something profoundly deceitful in the way the Democratic Party and the corporate media are framing Donald Trump's decision
to pull troops out of Syria.
One does not need to defend Trump's actions or ignore the dangers posed to the Kurds, at least in the short term, by the departure
of US forces from northern Syria to understand that the coverage is being crafted in such a way as to entirely overlook the bigger
picture.
The problem is neatly illustrated in this line from a report by the Guardian newspaper of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's meeting
this week with Trump, who is described as having had a "meltdown". Explaining why she and other senior Democrats stormed out, the
paper writes
that "it became clear the president had no plan to deal with a potential revival of Isis in the Middle East".
Hang on a minute! Let's pull back a little, and not pretend – as the media and Democratic party leadership wish us to – that the
last 20 years did not actually happen. Many of us lived through those events. Our memories are not so short.
Islamic State, or Isis, didn't emerge out of nowhere. It was entirely a creation of two decades of US interference in the
Middle East. And I'm not even referring to the mountains
of evidence that US officials backed their Saudi allies in directly funding and arming Isis – just as their predecessors in Washington,
in their enthusiasm to oust the Soviets from the region, assisted the jihadists who went on to become al-Qaeda.
No, I'm talking about the fact that in destroying three key Arab states – Iraq, Libya and Syria – that refused to submit to
the joint regional hegemony of Saudi Arabia and Israel, Washington's local client states, the US created a giant void of governance
at the heart of the Middle East. They knew that that void would be filled soon enough by religious extremists like Islamic State
– and they didn't care.
Overthrow, not regime change
You don't have to be a Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi or Bashar Assad apologist to accept this point. You don't even have to
be concerned that these so-called "humanitarian" wars violated each state's integrity and sovereignty, and are therefore defined
in international law as "the supreme war crime".
The bigger picture – the one no one appears to want us thinking about – is that the US intentionally sought to destroy these states
with no obvious plan for the day after. As I explained in my book
Israel and the Clash of Civilisations
, these haven't so much been regime-change wars as nation-state dismantling operations – what I have termed overthrow wars.
The logic was a horrifying hybrid of two schools of thought that meshed neatly in the psychopathic foreign policy goals embodied
in the ideology of neoconservatism – the so-called "Washington consensus" since 9/11.
The first was Israel's long-standing approach to the Palestinians. By constantly devastating any emerging Palestinian institution
or social structures, Israel produced a divide-and-rule model on steriods, creating a leaderless, ravaged, enfeebled society that
sucked out all the local population's energy. That strategy proved very appealing to the neoconservatives, who saw it as one they
could export to non-compliant states in the region.
The second was the Chicago school's Shock Doctrine, as explained in Naomi Klein's book of that name. The chaotic campaign of destruction,
the psychological trauma and the sense of dislocation created by these overthrow wars were supposed to engender a far more malleable
population that would be ripe for a US-controlled "colour revolution".
The recalcitrant states would be made an example of, broken apart, asset-stripped of their resources and eventually remade as
new dependent markets for US goods. That was what George W Bush, Dick Cheney and Halliburton really meant when they talked about
building a New Middle East and exporting democracy.
Even judged by the vile aims of its proponents, the Shock Doctrine has been a half-century story of
dismal economic failure everywhere it has been attempted
– from Pinochet's Chile to Yeltsin's Russia. But let us not credit the architects of this policy with any kind of acumen for learning
from past errors. As Bush's senior adviser Karl Rove explained to a journalist whom he rebuked for being part of the "reality-based
community": "We're an empire now and, when we act, we create our own reality."
The birth of Islamic State
The barely veiled aim of the attacks on Iraq, Libya and Syria was to destroy the institutions and structures that held these
societies together, however imperfectly. Though no one likes to mention it nowadays, these states – deeply authoritarian though they
were – were also secular, and had well-developed welfare states that ensured high rates of literacy and some of the region's finest
public health services.
Given how closed a society Syria was and is, and how difficult it therefore is to weigh the evidence in ways that are likely to
prove convincing to those not already persuaded, let us set that issue aside too. Anyway, it is irrelevant to the bigger picture
I want to address.
The indisputable fact is that Washington and its Gulf allies wished to exploit this initial unrest as an opportunity to create
a void in Syria – just as they had earlier done in Iraq, where there were no uprisings, nor even the WMDs the US promised would be
found and that served as the pretext for Bush's campaign of Shock and Awe.
The limited uprisings in Syria quickly turned into a much larger and far more vicious war because the Gulf states, with US backing,
flooded the country with proxy fighters and arms in an effort to overthrow Assad and thereby weaken Iranian and Shia influence in
the region. The events in Syria and earlier in Iraq gradually transformed the Sunni religious extremists of al-Qaeda into the even
more barbaric, more nihilistic extremists of Islamic State.
A dark US vanity project
After Rove and Cheney had had their fill playing around with reality, nature got on with honouring the maxim that it always
abhors a vacuum. Islamic State filled the vacuum Washington's policy had engineered.
The clue, after all, was in the name. With the US and Gulf states using oil money to wage a proxy war against Assad, Isis
saw its chance to establish a state inspired by a variety of Saudi Arabia's Wahhabist dogma. Isis needed territory for their planned
state, and the Saudis and US obliged by destroying Syria.
This barbarian army, one that murdered other religious groups as infidels and killed fellow Sunnis who refused to bow before
their absolute rule, became the west's chief allies in Syria. Directly and covertly, we gave them money and weapons to begin building
their state on parts of Syria.
Again, let us ignore the fact that the US, in helping to destroy a sovereign nation, committed the supreme war crime, one that
in a rightly ordered world would ensure every senior Washington official faces their own Nuremberg Trial. Let us ignore too for the
moment that the US, consciously through its actions, brought to life a monster that sowed death and destruction everywhere it went.
The fact is that at the moment Assad called in Russia to help him survive, the battle the US and the Gulf states were waging through
Islamic State and other proxies was lost. It was only a matter of time before Assad would reassert his rule.
From that point onwards, every single person who was killed and every single Syrian made homeless – and there were hundreds of
thousands of them – suffered their terrible fate for no possible gain in US policy goals. A vastly destructive overthrow war became
instead something darker still: a neoconservative vanity project that ravaged countless Syrian lives.
A giant red herring
Trump now appears to be ending part of that policy. He may be doing so for the wrong reasons. But very belatedly – and possibly
only temporarily – he is seeking to close a small chapter in a horrifying story of western-sponsored barbarism in the Middle East,
one intimately tied to Islamic State.
What of the supposed concerns of Pelosi and the Democratic Party under whose watch the barbarism in Syria took place. They should
have no credibility on the matter to begin with.
But their claims that Trump has "no plan to deal with a potential revival of Isis in the Middle East" is a giant red herring they
are viciously slapping us in the face with in the hope the spray of seawater blinds us.
First, Washington sowed the seeds of Islamic State by engineering a vacuum in Syria that Isis – or something very like it – was
inevitably going to fill. Then, it allowed those seeds to flourish by assisting its Gulf allies in showering fighters in Syria with
money and arms that came with only one string attached – a commitment to Sunni jihadist ideology inspired by Saudi Wahhabism.
Isis was made in Washington as much as it was in Riyadh. For that reason, the only certain strategy for preventing the revival
of Islamic State is preventing the US and the Gulf states from interfering in Syria again.
With the Syrian army in charge of Syrian territory, there will be no vacuum for Isis to fill. The jihadists' state-building project
is now unrealisable, at least in Syria. Islamic State will continue to wither, as it would have done years before if the US and its
Gulf allies had not fuelled it in a proxy war they knew could not be won.
Doomed Great Game
The same lesson can be drawn by looking at the experience of the Syrian Kurds. The Rojava fiefdom they managed to carve out in
northern Syria during the war survived till now only because of continuing US military support. With a US departure, and the Kurds
too weak to maintain their improvised statelet, a vacuum was again created that this time has risked sucking in the Turkish army,
which fears a base for Kurdish nationalism on its doorstep.
The Syrian Kurds' predicament is simple: face a takeover by Turkey or seek Assad's protection to foil Turkish ambitions. The best
hope for the Kurds looks to be the Syrian army's return, filling the vacuum and regaining a chance of long-term stability.
That could have been the case for all of Syria many tens of thousands of deaths ago. Whatever the corporate media suggest, those
deaths were lost not in a failed heroic battle for freedom, which, even if it was an early aspiration for some fighters, quickly
became a goal that was impossible for them to realise. No, those deaths were entirely pointless. They were sacrificed by a western
military-industrial complex in a US-Saudi Great Game that dragged on for many years after everyone knew it was doomed.
Nancy Pelosi's purported worries about Isis reviving because of Trump's Syria withdrawal are simply crocodile fears. If she is
really so worried about Islamic State, then why did she and other senior Democrats stand silently by as the US under Barack Obama
spent years spawning, cultivating and financing Isis to destroy Syria, a state that was best placed to serve as a bulwark against
the head-chopping extremists?
Pelosi and the Democratic leadership's bad faith – and that of the corporate media – are revealed in their ongoing efforts to
silence and smear Tulsi Gabbard, the party's only candidate for the presidential nomination who has pointed out the harsh political
realities in Syria, and tried to expose their years of lies.
Pelosi and most of the Democratic leadership don't care about Syria, or its population's welfare. They don't care about Assad,
or Isis. They care only about the maintenance and expansion of American power – and the personal wealth and influence it continues
to bestow on them.
Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include "Israel and the Clash of Civilisations:
Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East" (Pluto Press) and "Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair"
(Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net .
The problem largely traces back to simple mistakes by prior Saudi administrations.
The Wahhabi were a threat to the royal family. So, the royal family funded them to go elsewhere. Given the craziness of Wahhabism
that made sense at the time. Crazy usually dies out. However, in this case the Crazy came with enough money in hand to establish
credibility. The extremist Muslim Brotherhood is a direct result of these exported extremism.
ISIS is the result of a schism inside the extremist Muslim Brotherhood. A "direct action" group wanted an even more extreme
and immediate solution and broke away.
-- Did the U.S. or Israel attempt to deploy ISIS? This is far-fetched beyond the bounds of reasonability. Violent, ultra-extreme
ISIS fanatics would not follow the commands of infidel heretics. The Saudi royal family by this point realized that the Muslim
Brotherhood was a threat to them just like the original Wahhabi, but they had no good way to undo their prior mistake.
-- Did Turkey attempt to use ISIS to weaken Syria and Iraq? This is far more probable. Turkey's AK party is also a schismatic
offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. So, there is a great deal of opportunity for the two troops to find common cause. The New
Ottoman Empire needs to absorb Syrian and Iraqi land, so undermining those governments would be step #1.
One does not need outside actors to explain how the hole was dug. Unfortunately, that means there is no good solution. If the
problem was driven by outside forces, those forces could stop it. However, the reality is that there are no outside forces driving
the Craziness. There is no "plug to pull".
The wild savage dogs of ISIS are the Khmer Rouge of Islamic fundamentalism and their rise and violence should be attributed to
the liberal interventionism that has proven to be a disaster not only for the region but those who carried out the intervention.
"One does not need outside actors to explain how the hole was dug. Unfortunately, that means there is no good solution.
If the problem was driven by outside forces, those forces could stop it. However, the reality is that there are no outside
forces driving the Craziness. There is no 'plug to pull'".
Absolute nonsense. And what do you mean by "outside forces." The US and Israel count as outside forces but Turkey does not?
Forces outside of what?
ISIS emerged out of ISI, Zarqawi's Islamic State in Iraq, an affiliate, for a while, of AQ. The US invasion of Iraq created
the political and military space in Iraq for transnational terror groups.
Meanwhile, the US, at Israel's instigation, had been working to weaken Assad in Syria. After the rebellion against him in 2011,
the US, along with Turkey, Saudi, Qatar, Israel and others, began to support various jihadi groups inside Syria with the goal
of eliminating the Assad government, each for his own reasons. Syria began lost control of its border with Iraq and much of eastern
Syria and the Euphrates valley as well. This process allowed ISIS to emerge from an ISI under stress during the so-called "surge"
in 2007-10 and establish itself in Syria. In 2014, ISIS, now a powerful well-armed group went back into Iraq to defeat the incompetent
and unmotivated Iraq Security Forces that the US had established.
While the US moved against ISIS in Iraq after 2014, it left ISIS in Syria alone since it was depriving Assad of control over
most of Syria's oil and much of its arable land.
And yes, of course the US, instigated by Israel, didn't "deploy" ISIS in the sense of directing its operations. But they left
ISIS largely unimpeded to play a role in the overthrow of Assad which was always the primary goal. ISIS, it was thought, could
be dealt with later after Assad was gone.
That plan would probably have worked eventually, but the Russians entered the picture in the second half of 2015 and changed
the situation.
The US had been nominally supporting the usual "freedom fighters" but in effect supplying the more competent and vicious jihadis
who could take the TOW missiles and other weapons the US was providing to the approved sad-sacks and make more effective use of
them. Finally, with Russia and Iran facilitating the roll-back of all the jihadis, and the US threatened with being relegated
to the sidelines, Obama jumped on the SDF (Kurdish) bandwagon and actually started doing what the US had not done previously:
Taking serious action against ISIS so that a Russian/Iranian-backed Syrian reconquest of eastern Syria could be pre-empted.
And of course, the biggest supporter of the Kurds has consistently been Israel, who sees the possibility of creating pro-Israel
statelets or at least enclaves in the midst of a Turkish, Iranian and Arab region that detests the Judenreich.
So in order to eliminate another of Israel's enemies, reduce a unified Syrian state to a handful of even more impotent emirates
and ensure that Bibi would not be pestered with legal questions over the seizure and retention of the Golan, Syria was laid waste
under the guise of "promoting democracy" and then further devastated under the guise of combatting ISIS.
We have done more than enough damage at the behest of Israel and its fifth column in the US. ISIS might well have emerged regardless
of US actions, but it was the Jew-induced insanity of US regime-change/COIN policies that created the geographical, political
and military space in Iraq and Syria for the jihadists and the ensuing physical destruction of so much of those countries.
The best solution would be to facilitate the re-establishment of Syrian sovereignty over all of Syria. But instead of doing
that, Trump has instead facilitated the entry of Turkish forces and allied jihadis in an attempt to mend fences with a thoroughly
alienated Erdogan. We'll see if Putin can mitigate the brutal incompetence of Israel-infected US policy.
@A123 For fuck's sake. Is there any way to stop Hasbara agents from effectively using software to get consistent first posts
on this site?
Their mere presence is annoying. Whatever they have to say, on any topic and no matter what it is, no one here wants to read
it because they are not beginning with any credibility whatsoever. As they are are religiously-avowed enemies of the West (who
they hold to be the continuation of Rome) and the demonstrated fervent enemies of non-Jewish Whites.
Given the craziness of Wahhabism
There is nothing in Sunni Islam that does not have its root in Judaism. To state otherwise is to be a typical Semitic liar.
A very real but completely unadvertised reality of these regime changes was that the publicly owned central bank of the country
– Iraq and Libya – was eliminated and changed to a private central bank. Iraq and Libya both succumbed and Ron Paul related that
the smoke had barely cleared in Libya before the private central bank charter was drafted and implemented. Syria and Iran are
the last two countries that do not have a private central banks. Hence the drive by the neo-cons to destroy those countries and
fully implement the New World (banking) Order.
Not widely discussed but (I think) vitally important to understanding foreign policy.
What of the supposed concerns of Pelosi and the Democratic Party under whose watch the barbarism in Syria took place. They should
have no credibility on the matter to begin with.
But their claims that Trump has "no plan to deal with a potential revival of Isis in the Middle East" is a giant red herring
they are viciously slapping us in the face with in the hope the spray of seawater blinds us.
I love the second para. Getting slapped with a red herring with hope that the salt water blinds us .
My only gripe with Jonathan Cook is that this and all mid-eastern conflicts are engineered by the dual citizens and Israel
isn't called out by him as the chief instigator. The saudis are slave of the west and amount to nothing.
@A123 " Did the U.S. or Israel attempt to deploy ISIS? This is far-fetched beyond the bounds of reasonability"
Perhaps. Except that it did happen in plain daylight, before our eyes, but we should, of course, trust your "reasonability" --
instead of our own lying eyes.
@A123 US President Donald Trump said Monday that a small number of US troops remain in Syria at the request of Israel and
Jordan, with some positioned near the borders with Jordan and Israel and others deployed to secure oil fields.
"The other region where we've been asked by Israel and Jordan to leave a small number of troops is a totally different section
of Syria, near Jordan, and close to Israel," Trump said when asked whether he would leave soldiers in Syria. "So we have a small
group there, and we secured the oil. Other than that, there's no reason for it, in our opinion."
Times of Israel
and J Post 21st oct
It 's all about Israel and for its "royal patsy when not for royal patsy it's for the cannon fodder/ foot solder of Israel.
This mayhem from 2003 hasn't seen the full effects of the blow-back yet .Just starting . Tulsi Gabbard and Trump have knowingly
and sometime unknowingly have told the master that the king never had any clothes even when the king was talking about the decency
of having clothes on .
"The first was Israel's long-standing approach to the Palestinians. By constantly devastating any emerging Palestinian institution
or social structures, Israel produced a divide-and-rule model on steriods, creating a leaderless, ravaged, enfeebled society that
sucked out all the local population's energy. That strategy proved very appealing to the neoconservatives, who saw it as one they
could export to non-compliant states in the region."-
This sums up everything one want to know about certain human clones and the impact of the clones on the humanity.
Who will ever blame the victims for creating a future Hitler among them ?
We cannot, of course, forget an assistance this witch had from very GOPiish Senators such as late American hero John McCain
and his buddy Lindsey Graham. They played a key role in supporting all kinds of jihadist elements.
Let's be accurate: It was US Democrats AND REPUBLICANS who helped cultivate the barbarism of Isis. The mess was started with
Bush/Cheney/Powell. McCain was probably the biggest ISIS guy ever. Graham, Romney and friends are the same, and at best marginally
better than Hitlery Clinton.
Lock them all up, regardless of party affiliation.
Many interesting points here, and I agree with a lot of them. But:
[MORE]
"Or was it driven by something else: as a largely economic protest by an under-class suffering from food shortages as climate
change led to repeated crop failures?"
Syria did run out of water, and it's hard not to see that as a major driver of the chaos that unfolded. But Syria didn't run
out of water because of "climate change," that's false.
The explanation is that the Syrian government deliberately engineered a massive population explosion. Seriously, they made
the sale and possession of contraceptives a crime! (See "Demographic Developments and Population: Policies in Ba'thist Syria (Demographic
Developments and Socioeconomics)", by Onn Winkler).
The population of Syria increased exponentially right up through 2010, with a doubling time of about 18 years, at which
point food ran out and population started trending downwards (not so much due to outright famine, as to poverty, lack of medical
care, warfare, and people fleeing the country.).
Now as far as weather goes, there were a couple of dry years before the collapse, but weather is always like that. Last year
there were record rainfalls. If Syria's population had been stable at 5 or even 10 million, they could have coasted on water stored
in the aquifers until the rains came back. But when the population increases so much that you drain the aquifers even when there
is plenty of rain, then when a temporary drought hits you have no reserve and it all falls apart.
Check out the section in wikipedia on Syria's aquifers and groundwater – the water table had been dropping drastically
as far back as 1985. Long before the post-2010 dry spell, Syria's rapid population growth had been consuming more water than fell
as rain – EVEN DURING WET YEARS. The low rainfall post-2010 was an early trigger, but the collapse would have come regardless.
simple and straightforward journalism that cuts through the "corporate veil." Tulsi may not win the democratic nomination,
but I see her determination to educate the majority of Americans of what our government/deep state/military industrial complex/and
later senators who become lobbyists are doing.
I also feel for our veterans who are indoctrinated to protect freedom, but in the end, when they come home injured and disabled,
or even dead, it was all for naught.
I find some of the rhetoric in this piece irritating and repetitive -- but the analysis is essentially correct.
We created a power vacuum that was almost certain to give rise to something like ISIS.
Worse, I suspect that many weren't too disturbed by this prospect. After all, ISIS and its incredibly vicious terrorist
attacks in the West did a great deal to fuel Islamophobia -- and Islamophobia has its uses. ISIS was probably the best thing to
happen to Israel since 9/11.
"The problem is neatly illustrated in this line from a report by the Guardian newspaper of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's meeting
this week with Trump, who is described as having had a "meltdown". "
That's a poorly written statement. It reads as though Trump was the one having a meltdown. How about: "House Speaker Pelosi's
meltdown during a meeting with Trump." ?
@MarathonMan That is a fact that should be kept foremost in the discussions of "why regime change is necessary". It is the
most basic and obvious reason for all this war in the ME.
"First, Washington sowed the seeds of Islamic State by engineering a vacuum in Syria that Isis – or something very like
it – was inevitably going to fill."
Not quite accurate. The US Government "sowed the seeds of" ISIS by giving them material support before the vacuum was created.
IS is mainly a creature of empire, including the US and older remnants of empire in the UK and Europe which survives mainly in
the existence of (international) banks.
@Christian truth Project "Tulsi is/was a member of the CFR". Aren't all Congressmen members? Doesn't that come with signing
the AIPAC form, getting the secret decoder ring from Adam Schiff, and the free trip to Israel? (maybe Ilhan Omar and Rashida Talib
"don't measure up?")
I believe CFR was the organization Biden was regaling with his story of holding up $one billion in Ukrainian
aid unless the Ukrainians fired the investigator of his son Hunter "who did nothing wrong". Can you imagine if Biden had been
President rather than VP? This would have been a scandal!
@A123 One does not need outside actors, but then there would be a lot of 'dark matter' in the history of the ME over the last
100 years. Personally it's plain state terrorism to me, and the Brits have a good definition!
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/part/I
Pelosi and most of the Democratic leadership don't care about Syria, or its population's welfare. They don't care about
Assad, or Isis. They care only about the maintenance and expansion of American power
Correction: They only care about the maintenance and expansion of Israeli power.
I think it is worse than that : ISIS was a creation by the Israel-US- Saudi Arabia-Gulf States-axis.
Significantly ISIS never attacked Israeli interests, and when it once did so by accident, it apologized to Israel. The destruction
of Syria is part of Israel's notorious Oded Yinon plan, according to which all states in Israel's neighborhood need to be fragmentized.
In Iraq and Libya that was a success, in Syria, thanks to Iran, Hizbollah and Russia, it failed. The US is simply a puppet for
Israel's foreign policy, but nobody in the US, not even Tulsi Gabbard, dares to say so.
@A123 Sorry Bibi, but your beloved Israel played a BIG part in establishing ISIS, then supporting it with shekels, medical
care for their wounded, training and weapons.
WikiLeaks: US, Israel, And Saudi Arabia Planned Overthrow Of Syrian Govt. In 2006
Cables reveal that before the beginning of the Syrian revolt and civil war, the United States hoped to overthrow Assad and
create strife between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.
Let's not forget that when the term ISIS first came out, the Tel Aviv war mongers realized it stood for Israeli Secret Intelligence
Services and changed that to ISIL, which their adoring MSM gladly obliged by parroting that change.
From the Israeli masterminded 9/11 False Flag to the destruction of Syria, there's one common factor, Israel and her American
Jew sayanim who keep pushing America into forever wars so Israel can finish off the Palestinians and steal more land.
@Digital Samizdat Absolutely. Gabbard is the "Democrat" Trump. A Jew puppet presented as an outsider. They're exactly the
same. Even Obama was presented that way to an extent.
Yet the dumb goyim will fall for it for the third time in a row.
Based on the whistleblower's extensive presentation, including internal emails, text exchanges and suppressed draft reports,
we are unanimous in expressing our alarm over unacceptable practices in the investigation of the alleged chemical attack in
Douma, near the Syrian capital of Damascus on 7 April 2018. We became convinced by the testimony that key information about
chemical analyses, toxicology consultations, ballistics studies, and witness testimonies was suppressed, ostensibly to favor
a preordained conclusion.
We have learned of disquieting efforts to exclude some inspectors from the investigation whilst thwarting their attempts
to raise legitimate concerns, highlight irregular practices or even to express their differing observations and assessments
-- a right explicitly conferred on inspectors in the Chemical Weapons Convention, evidently with the intention of ensuring
the independence and authoritativeness of inspection reports.
Fixed "report" of OPCW was necessary to maintain anti-Assad narrative which is now unchallenged even by Gabbard (not to mention
the weak sheep-dog Sanders).
@Ilyana_Rozumova The US does not have to directly support the jihadists. It just has to manage the chaos, for whatever be
the action on the ground and whoever is killed or not killed, as long as there is chaos within their chosen sandbox, the chaos
masters in Israel wins and that is all that counts with all too many Americans. It doesn't matter how many Arabs, Turks, Etruscans
or Kurds are killed, as long as Israel's interests are taken care of, the results are "worth it". Its a very deeply cynical, and
evil policy that the US has pursued all these years in the Mid-East.
But fortunately the Russians have turned things around.
@MarathonMan Gangster business and slavery are OK so long as our central bank gets our cut. ME is also about "fragmenting"
neighboring countries so Israel can expand. Yinon Plan.
Oct 18, 2019 Tulsi Gabbard responds to Hillary Clinton: Clinton "knows she can't control me"
Hillary Clinton implied Russians are "grooming" Tulsi Gabbard to run as a third-party candidate to disrupt the election, a
charge which Gabbard denies. In a live interview with CBSN, Gabbard responds to Clinton's claims and says she will not run as
a third-party candidate.
And now, according to the latest news, Trump will send tanks into Syria to help the Kurds secure the oil for Israel. It's hard
to understand why the Elders of the Deep State want to impeach Trump. He has done everything they wanted, moved the embassy, gave
Syria's Golan Heights to Israel, never criticizes the illegal settlements in Palestine. What else do they want from him?
What do you mean Pelosi has no credibility? Have you checked her bank balance lately? Nancy, had she not waded into politics,
would have been a pole dancer she had the goods for it.
@TG Excellent post. You bring up 2 very important but rarely discussed issues.
Demographics: Population is one of the most easily predictable developments within a country, and you'd think it might be one
of the most publically-discussed, and therefore, best-managed. Au contraire. Assad wasn't the only one who stood on the tracks
watching the headlights approach:
1. The EU is having problems with an aging native population because it earlier encouraged low birth rates, and is now promoting
mass immigration of rapidly-breeding immigrants who threaten to at least overwhelm if not overrun European society. Yet, as Douglas
Murray points out in his book The Strange Death of Europe, openly talking about this problem has been, and still is, verboten.
2. China is now wondering to do with its preponderance of young men, caused very predictably by the Communist Party's one-child
policy.
Climate:
If the rains had been good every single year – which is impossible – it would only have pushed the point of collapse back
a few years, at most.
The Syrian case you cite shows how even relatively minor climate changes can carry events past a tipping point. I do agree
with you that effects of APGW on climactic conditions are greatly exaggerated, yet changes in climate, for good or ill, have often
triggered much larger historical events. The cooling that caused a famine and that preceded the Justinian Plague weakened European
and Sassanian civilizations. These misfortunes paved the way for the Islamic takeover that followed. Contrariwise, Norse exploration
and the Renaissance, to give 2 examples of increasing activity, both occurred during the Medieval Warming Period.
When it comes to senior American politihoes, no one is ever right. Pelosi may be cultivating the ISIS, but Gabbard is busy blowing
assorted dictators and more closer to the heart, the hindoo nationalist queers, as impotent (I mean that in a literal sexual context,
as their elites don't marry) as they might be.
Tulsi needs to conduct herself with gravitas, because of her age. However, she is helped by the fact that the leader of the progressive
wing is a former bartender, and the leader of the environmental resistance is a high-school sophomore.
@MarathonMan It goes without comment that the first act of the US following Nudelman's (Why do these fuckers keep changing
their names?) Ukraine coup was to steal its gold.
"Pelosi and most of the Democratic leadership don't care about Syria, or its population's welfare. They don't care about Assad,
or Isis. They care only about the maintenance and expansion of their own Democratic Party power – for the personal wealth and
influence it continues to bestow on them."
FTFY
Just as the GOP is precisely and thoroughly corrupt in exactly the same way, focused exclusively on their own craven self-interest,
the country be damned.
There is nothing in Sunni Islam that does not have its root in Judaism. To state otherwise is to be a typical Semitic liar.
Lol! Deceitful lies from some godless/pagan whitrash.
If you are referring to some self-perceived notions of barbarity/deception/etc., within Islam, then you are a deceitful !@#
who is trying to cover up the sheer savagery/psychopathy/deception/hypocrisy/etc., of the Christoo whitrash race.
Again, as far as the roots of Islam being in Judaism, that is laughable. It is Christooism which is clearly having roots in
Judaism (there have been so many here who have quoted from your pagan scriptures about the haloed position of the Jooscum)
and Hindooism .
In-his-image mangods/womangods, Trinity/Trimurthi, the human body is the temple of god the list is long where you all share
your pagan theologies.
Islam utterly rejects all such pagan abominations. The following verses of the Holy Quran amply proves the simplest and purest
form of monotheism, that is Islam;
Say, "He is Allah, [who is] One, Allah, the Eternal Refuge. He neither begets nor is born , Nor is there to Him
any equivalent ."
@A123 "Did the U.S. or Israel attempt to deploy ISIS? This is far-fetched beyond the bounds of reasonability."
Wrong.
The Oded Yinon Plan employs exactly this strategy, and along with the Neocon dominated State Dept with its Regime Change program
(Oded Yinon plan in stealth mode) is the predicate. Meanwhile, once it emerged, Obama & Kerry sought to preserve ISIS as a means
to pressure Assad. Neocon Zionist fifth column in the US, & Israel-behind-the-scenes are the dual agency-behind-the-curtain of
US regime-change wars ***EVERYWHERE*** (because they hate Russia, too.).
@DESERT FOX And rule, finally, over a smoldering wreck of a planet? They already rule most of it, they're at the Endgame of
their long match with the world. Not that they eschew violence and mass murder. Indeed, they got their start thousands years ago
by worshiping a god who told them to genocide all their neighbors and steal all their goods.
@really no shit I'm in the same age cohort as most of these shameless grifters, so I know the end of this run on earth is
drawing near. I know that no one can take whatever they accumulate in this life with them into oblivion or whatever their imagined
version of paradise might be. The loot stays here in this vale of tears.
ALL of these players busy ruining and ending lives, like Pelosi, the Clintons and the Bush family, are multi-millionaires at
the least–and all on the taxpayers' dime. Why do they desperately seek to add ever more cash to their bank accounts by bringing
yet more misery into the world? It won't be very long and either the collection of psychopaths known as the government of the
United States and its ruthless war machine will end up with the proceeds or they will pass down to further generations of these
congenital parasites and deadbeats.
Does Joe ask himself whether it was worthy to spend his wretched life accumulating ill-gotten wealth to pass on to Hunter and
his ilk? Or for Hillary to set up Chelsea and the next generation of Rodham Clinton lampreys? Jimmy Carter seems to have been
the only American president who didn't constantly grasp for money once out of office and the world never heard a peep about Amy
ever again.
[MORE]
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Since publication, this story has been corrected to clarify that the fighters trained in Jordan became members
of the ISIS after their training.]
JERUSALEM – Syrian rebels who would later join the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIS, were trained in 2012 by U.S.
instructors working at a secret base in Jordan, according to informed Jordanian officials.
The officials said dozens of future ISIS members were trained at the time as part of covert aid to the insurgents targeting
the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Syria. The officials said the training was not meant to be used for any future
campaign in Iraq.
The Jordanian officials said all ISIS members who received U.S. training to fight in Syria were first vetted for any links to
extremist groups like al-Qaida.
In February 2012, WND was first to report the U.S., Turkey and Jordan were running a training base for the Syrian rebels in
the Jordanian town of Safawi in the country's northern desert region.
That report has since been corroborated by numerous other media accounts.
Last March, the German weekly Der Spiegel reported Americans were training Syrian rebels in Jordan.
Quoting what it said were training participants and organizers, Der Spiegel reported it was not clear whether the Americans
worked for private firms or were with the U.S. Army, but the magazine said some organizers wore uniforms. The training in Jordan
reportedly focused on use of anti-tank weaponry.
The German magazine reported some 200 men received the training over the previous three months amid U.S. plans to train a total
of 1,200 members of the Free Syrian Army in two camps in the south and the east of Jordan.
Britain's Guardian newspaper also reported last March that U.S. trainers were aiding Syrian rebels in Jordan along with British
and French instructors.
Reuters reported a spokesman for the U.S. Defense Department declined immediate comment on the German magazine's report. The
French foreign ministry and Britain's foreign and defense ministries also would not comment to Reuters.
Conservative government watchdog Judicial Watch have published formerly classified documents from the U.S. Department of Defence
which reveals the agencies earlier views on ISIS, namely that they were a desirable presence in Eastern Syria in 2012 and that
they should be "supported" in order to isolate the Syrian regime.
Levantreport.com reports:
Astoundingly, the newly declassified report states that for "THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY [WHO] SUPPORT THE [SYRIAN] OPPOSITION
THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR),
AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME ".
The DIA report, formerly classified "SECRET//NOFORN" and dated August 12, 2012, was circulated widely among various government
agencies, including CENTCOM, the CIA, FBI, DHS, NGA, State Dept., and many others.
The document shows that as early as 2012, U.S. intelligence predicted the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant
(ISIL or ISIS), but instead of clearly delineating the group as an enemy, the report envisions the terror group as a U.S. strategic
asset.
Government watchdog Judicial Watch published more than 100 pages of formerly classified documents from the U.S. Department
of Defense and the State Department.
The documents obtained through a federal lawsuit, revealed the agencies earlier views on ISIS, namely that they were a desirable
presence in Eastern Syria in 2012 and that they should be "supported" in order to isolate the Syrian regime.
The U.S. intelligence documents not only confirms suspicions that the United States and some of its coalition allies had actually
facilitated the rise of the ISIS in Syria – as a counterweight to the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad- but also
that ISIS members were initially trained by members and contractors of the Central Intelligence Agency at facilities in Jordan
in 2012.
@Anonymous Jimmah was the last honest man in American politics. But since he told Americans that gas was going to cost more,
that perhaps they needed to drive a wee bit less, the Americans hated him. They didn't like the "malaise" of having to pay for
their lifestyle.
As for the Israelis, what did Jimmah not to do for them : Got Egypt out of the Arab alliance, arranged the annual tribute to
Israel, started the ball rolling on the Holocaust religion, paid off Egypt and Jordan to stay away from any alliance against the
Israelis. But what did he get in return; branded as anti-Semite merely for mentioning that the Palestinians had rights, were human
beings too. With the Zionist Jews, one is always on probation. No point playing their silly games.
The path of U.S.-Israeli arrogance and domination, with its various dimensions, and with its direct and indirect extensions
and alliances, which is witnessing military defeats and political failures, reflected successive defeats for the American strategies
and plans, one after the other. All this has led [the U.S.] to a state of indecision, retreat, and inability to control the progress
of events in our Arab and Islamic world. There is a broader international context for this – a context that, in its turn, helps
to expose the American crisis, and the decline of the [U.S.] unipolar hegemony, in the face of pluralism, the characteristics
of which are yet to be stabilized.
"The crisis of the arrogant world order is deepened by the collapse of U.S. and international stock markets, and by the confusion
and powerlessness of the American economy. This reflects the height of the structural crisis of the model of capitalist arrogance.
Therefore, it can be said that we are in the midst of historic transformations that foretell the retreat of the USA as a hegemonic
power, the disintegration of the unipolar hegemonic order, and the beginning of the accelerated historic decline of the Zionist
entity.
After World War II, the U.S. has adopted the leading, central hegemonic project. At its hands, this project has witnessed great
development of the means of control and unprecedented subjugation. It has benefited from an accumulation of multi-faceted accomplishments
in science, culture, technology, knowledge, economy, and the military, which was supported by an economic political plan that
views the world as nothing but open markets subject to the laws of [the U.S.].
"The most dangerous aspect of Western logic of hegemony in general, and the American logic of hegemony in particular, is their
basic belief that they own the world, and have the right to hegemony due to their supremacy in several fields. Thus, the Western,
and especially American, expansionist strategy, when coupled with the enterprise of capitalist economy, has become a strategy
of a global nature, whose covetous desires and appetite know no bounds.
The barbaric capitalism has turned globalism into a means to spread disintegration, to sow discord, to destroy identities,
and to impose the most dangerous form of cultural, economic, and social plunder. Globalization reached its most dangerous phase,
when it was transformed into military globalization by the owners of the Western hegemony enterprise, the greatest manifestation
of which was evident in the Middle East, from Afghanistan to Iraq, to Palestine, and to Lebanon.
There is no doubt that American terrorism is the source of all terrorism in the world. The Bush administration has turned the
U.S. into a danger threatening the whole world, on all levels. If a global opinion poll were held today, the United States would
emerge as the most hated country in the world.
The most important goal of American arrogance is to take control of the peoples politically, economically, and culturally,
and to plunder their resources.
– Hassan Nasrallah December 8, 2009
and Trump IS NOT "pulling out" Will Tulsi? One way to find out. Doesn't look good though, unless shes willing to splinter the
C.I.A. into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds, as they say..
Where's the proof that she is CFR member, I see sock puppets parrot this line all the time but offer no proof. Her serving
on the armed & financial services committees and doing a speech for them doesn't make her a member. I'd take her over Trump any
day.
And now, according to the latest news, Trump will send tanks into Syria to help the Kurds
secure the oil for Israel. It's hard to understand why the Elders of the Deep State want to
impeach Trump. He has done everything they wanted, moved the embassy, gave Syria's Golan
Heights to Israel, never criticizes the illegal settlements in Palestine. What else do they
want from him?
Hundreds of Islamic State fighters, both Syrian and foreign, were covertly evacuated by US,
UK and Kurdish forces from the besieged city of Raqqa last month and freed to "spread out far
and wide across Syria and beyond".
Although reports on the convoy surfaced at the time, BBC journalists Quentin Sommerville
and Riam Dalati have revealed the details in their documentary Raqqa's Dirty Secret.
Their investigation describes how the convoy carrying 250 fighters, 3,500 family members,
and lorry loads of arms and possessions, was arranged for October 12th by local officials in
meetings attended by a western officer.
During a visit to Syria in mid-October, The Irish Times was told not only about the
evacuation but also that senior Islamic State commanders and their families, 45 people in
all, had been airlifted out of Raqqa by a US helicopter and flown to the Kurdish region in
northern Iraq.
Fighters escaping Raqqa were said to have been given passage across the desert to join
comrades battling the Syrian army and its allies in Deir al-Zor.
Among the people the BBC team interviewed for the exposé were drivers paid by the
Islamic State to drive the buses and trucks carrying the evacuees. According to driver Abu
Fawzi, men, women and children wore suicide vests and the trucks had been booby-trapped in
case "something went wrong".
The convoy contained 50 trucks, 13 buses, and more than 100 of the fighters' own vehicles.
Although it had been agreed they would take only personal weapons, they filled 10 trucks with
arms and ammunition.
Three-day convoy
It had also been stipulated that no foreigners would leave, but drivers told the BBC that
French, Turkish, Azerbaijani, Pakistani, Yemeni, Saudi, Chinese, Tunisian and Egyptians had
joined the exodus. The only restriction observed was a ban against flags and banners.
Whenever it passed through a village or hamlet, fighters warned frightened bystanders they
would return, a villager called Muhanad told the BBC, "running a finger across their
throats".
Two Humvees led the convoy into the desert where the going was rough. Coalition aircraft
and drones hovered above, dropping flares after dark to light the way. When the motorcade
reached Islamic State-held territory, fighters and civilians departed with their arms and
possessions and drivers returned home.
The BBC investigation compelled Col Ryan Dillon, spokesman for Operation Inherent Resolve,
to admit to the deal. He told the team: "We didn't want anyone to leave. But this goes to the
heart of our strategy 'by, with and through' local leaders on the ground.
His statement on foreign fighters contradicted information given to the BBC by drivers and
people along the route as well as a statement about strategy made by US defence secretary
James Mattis in May.
"... All that changed with the conversion of the federal government to a national-security state and with the adoption of a pro-empire, pro-intervention foreign policy. When that happened, the U.S. government assumed the duty to fix the wrongs of the world. ..."
"... That's when U.S. officials began thinking in terms of empire and using empire-speak. Foreign regimes became "allies," "partners," and "friends." Others became "opponents," "rivals," or "enemies." Events thousands of miles away became threats to "national security." ..."
"... The results of U.S. imperialism and interventionism have always been perverse, not only for foreigners but also for Americans. That's how Americans have ended up with out-of-control federal spending and debt that have left much of the middle class high and dry, unable to support themselves in their senior years, unable to save a nest egg for financial emergencies, and living paycheck to paycheck. Empire and interventionism do not come cheap. ..."
"... There is but one solution to all this chaos and mayhem -- the dismantling, not the reform, of the Pentagon, the military-industrial complex, the vast empire of foreign and domestic military bases, and the NSA, along with an immediate end to all foreign interventionism. A free, peaceful, prosperous, and harmonious society necessarily entails the restoration of a limited-government republic and a non-interventionist foreign policy to our land. ..."
The chaos arising from U.S. interventionism in Syria provides an excellent opportunity to explore the interventionist mind.
Consider the terminology being employed by interventionists: President Trump's actions in Syria have left a "power vacuum," one
that Russia and Iran are now filling. The United States will no longer have "influence" in the region. "Allies" will no longer be
able to trust the U.S. to come to their assistance. Trump's actions have threatened "national security." It is now possible that
ISIS will reformulate and threaten to take over lands and even regimes in the Middle East.
This verbiage is classic empire-speak. It is the language of the interventionist and the imperialist.
Amidst all the interventionist chaos in the Middle East, it is important to keep in mind one critically important fact: None of
it will mean a violent takeover of the U.S. government or an invasion and conquest of the United States. The federal government will
go on. American life will go on. There will be no army of Muslims, terrorists, Syrians, ISISians, Russians, Chinese, drug dealers,
or illegal immigrants coming to get us and take over the reins of the IRS.
Why is that an important point? Because it shows that no matter what happens in Syria or the rest of the Middle East, life will
continue here in the United States. Even if Russia gets to continue controlling Syria, that's not going to result in a conquest of
the United States. The same holds true if ISIS, say, takes over Iraq. Or if Turkey ends up killing lots of Kurds. Or if Syria ends
up protecting the Kurds. Or if Iran continues to be controlled by a theocratic state. Or if the Russians retake control over Ukraine.
It was no different than when North Vietnam ended up winning the Vietnamese civil war. The dominoes did not fall onto the United
States and make America Red. It also makes no difference if Egypt continues to be controlled by a brutal military dictatorship. Or
that Cuba, North Korea, and China are controlled by communist regimes. Or that Russia is controlled by an authoritarian regime. Or
that Myanmar (Burma) is controlled by a totalitarian military regime. America and the federal government will continue standing.
America was founded as a limited government republic, one that did not send its military forces around the world to slay monsters.
That's not to say that bad things didn't happen around the world. Bad things have always happened around the world. Dictatorships.
Famines. Wars. Civil wars. Revolutions. Empires. Torture. Extra-judicial executions. Tyranny. Oppression. The policy of the United
States was that it would not go abroad to fix or clear up those types of things.
All that changed with the conversion of the federal government to a national-security state and with the adoption of a pro-empire,
pro-intervention foreign policy. When that happened, the U.S. government assumed the duty to fix the wrongs of the world.
That's when U.S. officials began thinking in terms of empire and using empire-speak. Foreign regimes became "allies," "partners,"
and "friends." Others became "opponents," "rivals," or "enemies." Events thousands of miles away became threats to "national security."
That's when U.S. forces began invading and occupying other countries, waging wars of aggression against them, intervening in foreign
wars, revolutions, and civil wars, initiating coups, destroying democratic regimes, establishing an empire of domestic and foreign
military bases, and bombing, shooting, killing, assassinating, spying on, maiming, torturing, kidnapping, injuring, and destroying
people in countries all over the world.
The results of U.S. imperialism and interventionism have always been perverse, not only for foreigners but also for Americans.
That's how Americans have ended up with out-of-control federal spending and debt that have left much of the middle class high and
dry, unable to support themselves in their senior years, unable to save a nest egg for financial emergencies, and living paycheck
to paycheck. Empire and interventionism do not come cheap.
The shift toward empire and interventionism has brought about the destruction of American liberty and privacy here at home. That's
what the assassinations, secret surveillance, torture, and indefinite detentions of American citizens are all about -- to supposedly
protect us from the dangers produced by U.S. imperialism and interventionism abroad. One might call it waging perpetual war for freedom
and peace, both here and abroad.
There is but one solution to all this chaos and mayhem -- the dismantling, not the reform, of the Pentagon, the military-industrial
complex, the vast empire of foreign and domestic military bases, and the NSA, along with an immediate end to all foreign interventionism.
A free, peaceful, prosperous, and harmonious society necessarily entails the restoration of a limited-government republic and a non-interventionist
foreign policy to our land.
"... Whilst the are absorbing that part of their country the battle of Iblib will restart. After that they can move their attention south and southeast, al-Tanf and the oilfields. I can't see how the US will be able to stop them but at least they will have time to plan their exit. ..."
"... At the moment the Syrian Government has enough oil, it is getting it from Iran via a steady stream of SUEZMAX tankers. The cost, either in terms of money or quid pro quo, is unknown. ..."
"... For those who have wondered as to why the DC FedRegime would fight over the tiny relative-to-FUKUS's-needs amount of oil in the Syrian oilfields. It is clearly to keep the SAR hobbled, crippled and too impoverished to retake all its territory or even to restore social, civic and economic functionality to the parts it retains. FUKUS is still committed to the policy of FUKUSing Syria. ..."
"... This President appears at times to recognize the reality of nation states and the meaning of national sovereignty. He needs to understand that on principle, not merely on gut instinct. President Trump's press conference today focused in one section on a simple fact -- saving the lives of Americans. Gen. Jack Keane, Sen. Lindsay Graham, and other gamers who think they are running an imperial chessboard where they can use living soldiers as American pawns, are a menace. Thanks Col. Lang for calling out these lunatics. ..."
"... During the 2016 election, Jack Keane and John Bolton were the two people Trump mentioned when asked who he listens to on foreign affairs/military policy. ..."
"... The crumbling apart is apparent. I don't know in what delusional world can conceive that 200 soldiers in the middle of the desert can deny Syria possession of their oil fields or keep the road between Bagdad and Damascus cut. All the West's Decision Makers can do is threaten to blow up the world. ..."
"... Corporate Overlords imposed austerity, outsourced industry and cut taxes to get richer, but the one thing for certain is that they can't keep their wealth without laws, the police and the military to protect them. ..."
"... Latin America is burning too - although the elites here have plundered and imposed structural plunder for too long. No matter where you are it .. Chile poster of the right, or Ecuador, Peru, etc ..."
"... Did you notice the Middle East Monitor article on October 21 reporting that the UAE has released to Iran $700 million in previously frozen funds? ..."
"... Yet in early September, Sigal Mandelker, a senior US Treasury official, was in the UAE pressing CEOs there to tighten the financial screws on Iran. The visit was deemed a success. During this visit she was quoted as saying that the Treasury has issued over 30 rounds of curbs targeting Iran-related entities. That would include targeting shipping companies and banks. ..."
"... It depends on who will be the democratic ticket .. will it mobilize the basis? I think the compromise candidate is Warren, but she looks to me a lot like John Kerry, Al Gore.. representing the professional, college educated segment of society, and that doesn't cut it. ..."
"... Trump is far from consistent. This is the man who attacked Syria twice on the basis of lies so transparent that my youngest housecat would have seen through them, and who tried and failed to leave Syria twice, then said he was "100%" for the continued occupation of Syria. ..."
"... He could have given the order to leave Syria this month, but Trump did not. Instead, he simply ordered withdrawal to a smaller zone of occupation, and that under duress. ..."
"... The Great Trumpian Mystery. I don't pretend to understand but I'm intrigued by his inconsistent inconsistencies. https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2019/03/17/trump-mysteries-inconsistent-inconsistencies/ ..."
"... It probably should come as no surprise to us that Trump is having small, but not no, success in getting the ship to alter course - too many deeply entrenched interests with no incentive to recognize their failures and every incentive to stay the course by removing, or at least handicapping the President who was elected on a platform of change. ..."
"... Whether the country elected the right man for the job remains to be seen. At times he appears to be his own worst enemy and his appointments are frequently topsy-- turvy to the platform he ran on but he does have his moments of success. He called off the dumb plan to go to war with Iran, albeit at 20 minutes to mid night and he is trying hard against the full might of the Borg to withdraw from Syria in accord with our actual interests. Trumps, alas, assumed office with no political friends, only enemies with varying degrees of Trump hate depending on how they define their political interests. ..."
"... Keane manipulated Trump by aggravating his animosity towards Iran, more specifically, his animosity towards Obama's JCPOA. I doubt Trump can see beyond his personal animus towards Obama and his legacy. He doesn't care about Iran, the Shia Crescent, the oil or even the jihadis any more than he cares about ditching the Kurds. This administration doesn't need a national security advisor, it needs a psychiatrist. ..."
"... IMO Trump cares about what Sheldon Adelson wants and Adelson wants to destroy Iran: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sCW4IasWXc Note the audience applause ..."
"... The difference between the reality that we perceive and the way it is portrayed in the media is so stark that sometimes I am not sure whether it is me who is insane or the world - the MSM and the cool-aid drinking libtards whose animosity against Trump won't let them distinguish black from white. Not that they were ever able to understand the real state of affairs. Discussions with them have always been about them regurgitating the MSM talking points without understanding any of it. ..."
"... "This administration doesn't need a national security advisor, it needs a psychiatrist." I think TTG speaks the truth. ..."
"... On Monday, 21 October, president Trump "authorized $4.5 million in direct support to the Syria Civil Defense (SCD)", a/k/a the White Helmets, who have been discussed here on SST before-- https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-press-secretary-89/ ..."
"... TTG IMO you and the other NEVER Trumpers are confused about the presence in both the permanent and appointed government of people who while they are not loyal to him nevertheless covet access to power. A lot of neocons and Zionists are among them. ..."
"... ANDREW BACEVICH: First of all, I think we should avoid taking anything that he says at any particular moment too seriously. Clearly, he is all over the map on almost any issue that you can name. I found his comment about taking the oil in that part of Syria, as if we are going to decide how to dispose of it, to be striking. And yet of course it sort of harkens back to his campaign statement about the Iraq war, that we ought to have taken Iraq's oil is a way of paying for that war. So I just caution against taking anything he says that seriously. ..."
"... That said, clearly a recurring theme to which he returns over and over and over again, is his determination to end what he calls endless wars. He clearly has no particular strategy or plan for how to do that, but he does seem to be insistent on pursuing that objective. And here I think we begin to get to the real significance of the controversy over Syria in our abandonment of the Kurds ..."
"... the controversy has gotten as big as it is in part because members of the foreign policy establishment in both parties are concerned about what an effort to end endless wars would mean for the larger architecture of U.S. national security policy, which has been based on keeping U.S. troops in hundreds of bases around the world, maintaining the huge military budget, a pattern of interventionism. Trump seems to think that that has been a mistake, particularly in the Middle East. I happen to agree with that critique. And I think that it is a fear that he could somehow engineer a fundamental change in U.S. policy is what really has the foreign policy establishment nervous. ..."
"... we created the problems that exist today through our reckless use of American military power. ..."
"... He let them roll him, just like Obama and so many others. Just a different set of rollers. ..."
"Joltin" Jack Keane, General (ret.), Fox Business Senior Strategery Analyst, Chairman of the
Board of the Kagan run neocon "Institute for the Study of War" (ISW) and Graduate
Extraordinaire of Fordham University, was on with Lou Dobbs last night. Dobbs appears to have
developed a deep suspicion of this paladin. He stood up to Keane remarkably well. This was
refreshing in light of the fawning deference paid to Keane by all the rest of the Fox crew.
In the course of this dialogue Keane let slip the slightly disguised truth that he and the
other warmongers want to keep something like 200 US soldiers and airmen in Syria east of the
Euphrates so that they can keep Iran or any other "Iranian proxy forces" from crossing the
Euphrates from SAG controlled territory to take control of Syrian sovereign territory and the
oil and gas deposits that are rightly the property of the Syrian people and their government
owned oil company. The map above shows how many of these resources are east of the Euphrates.
Pilgrims! It is not a lot of oil and gas judged by global needs and markets, but to Syria and
its prospects for reconstruction it is a hell of a lot!
Keane was clear that what he means by "Iranian proxy forces" is the Syrian Arab Army, the
national army of that country. If they dare cross the river, to rest in the shade of their own
palm trees, then in his opinion the air forces of FUKUS should attack them and any 3rd party
air forces (Russia) who support them
This morning, on said Fox Business News with Charles Payne, Keane was even clearer and
stated specifically that if "Syria" tries to cross the river they must be fought.
IMO he and Lindsey Graham are raving lunatics brainwashed for years with the Iran obsession
and they are a danger to us all. pl
If only General Keane was as willing to defend America and America's oil on the Texas-Mexico
border. Or hasn't anyone noticed that Mexico just a lost a battle with the Sinaloa drug
cartel?
I view them as selling their Soul for a dollar. Keane comes across as dense enough to believe
his bile but Graham comes across as an opportunist without any real ideology except power.
Its probably one step at a time for the Syrians, although the sudden move over the past
couple of weeks must have been a bit of a God given opportunity for them.
Whilst the are absorbing that part of their country the battle of Iblib will restart.
After that they can move their attention south and southeast, al-Tanf and the oilfields. I
can't see how the US will be able to stop them but at least they will have time to plan their
exit.
As I posted in the other thread, the Syrian Government is the only real customer for their
oil and the Kurds already have a profit share agreement in place, so the US, if they allow
any oil out, will effectively be protecting the fields on behalf of Assad. Surely not what
Congress wants?
At the moment the Syrian Government has enough oil, it is getting it from Iran via a
steady stream of SUEZMAX tankers. The cost, either in terms of money or quid pro quo, is
unknown.
I think this might be President Putin's next problem to solve. As far as I know, there is no
legal reason for us to be there, not humanitarian, not strategic not even tactical. We simply
are playing dog-in-the-manger.
My guess is that we will receive an offer to good to refuse from Putin.
For those who have wondered as to why the DC FedRegime would fight over the tiny
relative-to-FUKUS's-needs amount of oil in the Syrian oilfields. It is clearly to keep the
SAR hobbled, crippled and too impoverished to retake all its territory or even to restore
social, civic and economic functionality to the parts it retains. FUKUS is still committed to
the policy of FUKUSing Syria.
Why is the Champs Elise' Regime still committed to putting the F in UKUS?
(I can understand why UKUS would want to keep France involved. Without France, certain nasty
people might re-brand UKUS as USUK. And that would be very not nice.)
Because France wants to be on the good side of the United States, and as you indicate, the
United States is in Syria to turn that country into a failed state and for no other reason.
A good antidote for Joltin' Jack Keane's madness would be for Lou Dobbs and other mainstream
media (MSM) to have Col Pat Lang as the commentator for analysis of the Syrian situation.
Readers of this blog are undoubtedly aware that Col. Lang's knowledge of the peoples of the
region and their customs is a national treasure.
This President appears at times to recognize the reality of nation states and the meaning
of national sovereignty. He needs to understand that on principle, not merely on gut
instinct. President Trump's press conference today focused in one section on a simple fact --
saving the lives of Americans. Gen. Jack Keane,
Sen. Lindsay Graham, and other gamers who think they are running an imperial chessboard where
they can use living soldiers as American pawns, are a menace. Thanks Col. Lang for calling out these lunatics.
In WWI millions of soldiers died fighting for imperial designs. They did not know it. They
thought they were fighting for democracy, or to stop the spread of evil, or save their
country. They were not. Secret treaties signed before the war started stated explicitly what
the war was about.
Now "representatives" of the military, up to and including the Commander in Chief say it's
about conquest, oil. The cards of the elite are on the table. How do you account for this?
During the 2016 election, Jack Keane and John Bolton were the two people Trump mentioned when
asked who he listens to on foreign affairs/military policy.
The crumbling apart is apparent. I don't know in what delusional world can conceive that
200 soldiers in the middle of the desert can deny Syria possession of their oil fields or
keep the road between Bagdad and Damascus cut. All the West's Decision Makers can do is
threaten to blow up the world.
Justin Trudeau was elected Monday in Canada with a minority in Parliament joining the
United Kingdom and Israel with governments without a majority's mandate. Donald Trump's
impeachment escalates. MbS is nearing a meat hook in Saudi Arabia. This is not a coincidence.
The Elites' flushing government down the drain succeeded.
Corporate Overlords imposed austerity, outsourced industry and cut taxes to get richer,
but the one thing for certain is that they can't keep their wealth without laws, the police
and the military to protect them. Already California electricity is being cut off for a
second time due to wildfires and PG&E's corporate looting. The Sinaloa shootout reminds
me of the firefight in the first season of "True Detectives" when the outgunned LA cops tried
to go after the Cartel. The writing is on the wall, California is next. Who will the lawmen
serve and protect? Their people or the rich? Without the law, justice and order, there is
chaos.
Latin America is burning too - although the elites here have plundered and imposed structural
plunder for too long. No matter where you are it .. Chile poster of the right, or Ecuador,
Peru, etc
No doubt that Keane and his ilk want endless war and view Trump as a growing obstacle. Trump
is consistent: He wanted out of JCPOA, and after being stalled by his national security
advisors, he finally reached the boiling point and left. The advisors who counseled against
this are all gone. With Pompeo, Enders and O'Brien as the new key security advisors, I doubt
Trump got as much push back. He wanted out of Syria in December 2018 and was slow-walked.
Didn't anyone think he'd come back at some point and revive the order to pull out? The talk
with Erdogan, the continuing Trump view that Russia, Turkey, Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia
should bear the burden of sorting out what is left of the Syria war, so long as ISIS does not
see a revival, all have been clear for a long time.
My concern is with Lindsey Graham, who is smarter and nastier than Jack Keane. He is also
Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and may hold some blackmail leverage over the
President. If the House votes up impeachment articles, Graham will be overseeing the Senate
trial. A break from Trump by Graham could lead to a GOP Senate stampede for conviction. No
one will say this openly, as I am, but it cannot be ignored as a factor for "controlling"
Trump and keeping as much of the permanent war machine running as possible.
Trump has committed the United States to a long war against the Shia Crescent. He has ceded
to Turkey on Syrian Kurds, but has continued with his operations against SAR. US needs
Turkey, Erdogan knows that. Likewise in regards to Russia, EU, and Iran. Turkey, as is said
in Persian, has grown a tail.
Did you notice the Middle East Monitor article on October 21 reporting that the UAE has
released to Iran $700 million in previously frozen funds?
Yet in early September, Sigal Mandelker, a senior US Treasury official, was in the UAE
pressing CEOs there to tighten the financial screws on Iran. The visit was deemed a success.
During this visit she was quoted as saying that the Treasury has issued over 30 rounds of
curbs targeting Iran-related entities. That would include targeting shipping companies and
banks.
It was also reported in September that in Dubai that recent US Treasury sanctions were
beginning to have a devastating effect. Iranian businessmen were being squeezed out. Even
leaving the Emirates. Yet only a few days ago--a month later-- there are now reports that
Iranian exchange bureaus have suddenly reopened in Dubai after a long period of closure.
Also, billions of dollars in contracts were signed between Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE
during Putin's recent visit to the region. It seems to me that this is real news. Something
big seems to be happening. It looks to me as if there could be a serious confrontation
between the Trump administration and MBZ in the offing.
Do you have an opinion on the Iranian situation in Dubai at the moment?
I have my doubt that Sen. Graham will lead any revolt, but if it starts to look like Trump
will lose big next year, there will be a stampede looking like the Nile getting through a
cataract.
They will not want to go down the tube with Trump. I still maintain that there is a good
reason for him to resign before he loses an election or an impeachment. It will come down to
the price.
Lose big to whom in the next election? Biden got 300 people to show up for his rally in his hometown of Scranton and he is
supposedly the front runner. Bernie got 20,000 to show up at his rally in NY when he was
endorsed by The Squad and Michael Moore. Do you think the Dem establishment will allow him to
be the nominee?
Trump in contrast routinely can fill up stadiums with 30,000 people. That was the
indicator in the last election, not the polls. Recall the NY Times forecasting Hillary with a
95% probability of winning the day before the election.
As Rep. Al Green noted , the only way the Democrats can stop him is for the Senate to
convict him in an impeachment trial. Who do you believe are the 20 Republican senators that
will vote to convict?
Trump barely won the last time and while he currently has wide support in the GOP, it is not
nearly as deep as his cultists believe. When half the country, and growing, want him removed,
there is trouble ahead. Republicans are largely herd animals and if spooked, will create a
stampede.
You can tell that there are problems when his congressional enablers are not defending him
on facts and just using gripes about processes that they themselves have used in the past. In
addition to circus acts.
I realize that many do not want to admit that they made a mistake by voting for him. I am
not so sure they want to repeat that mistake.
It depends on who will be the democratic ticket .. will it mobilize the basis? I think the
compromise candidate is Warren, but she looks to me a lot like John Kerry, Al Gore..
representing the professional, college educated segment of society, and that doesn't cut it.
It's not a question if he barely won. The fact is he competed with many other Republican
candidates including governors and senators and even one with the name Bush. He was 1% in the
polls in the summer of 2016 and went on to win the Republican nomination despite the intense
opposition of the Republican establishment. He then goes on to win the general election
defeating a well funded Hillary with all her credentials and the full backing of the vast
majority of the media. That is an amazing achievement for someone running for public office
for the first time. Like him or hate him, you have to give credit where it's due. Winning an
election for the presidency is no small feat.
There only two ways to defeat him. First, the Senate convicts him in an impeachment trial
which will require at least 20 Republican senators. Who are they? Second, a Democrat in the
general election. Who? I can see Bernie with a possibility since he has enthusiastic
supporters. But will the Democrat establishment allow him to win the nomination?
We're no longer having to listen to Yosemite Sam Bolton. His BFF Graham is left to fight on
his own. I don't think Trump feels the need to pay that much attention to Graham. He didn't
worry about him during the primary when Graham always seemed to be on the verge of crying
when he was asked questions.
Trump is far from consistent. This is the man who attacked Syria twice on the basis of lies
so transparent that my youngest housecat would have seen through them, and who tried and
failed to leave Syria twice, then said he was "100%" for the continued occupation of Syria.
He could have given the order to leave Syria this month, but Trump did not. Instead, he
simply ordered withdrawal to a smaller zone of occupation, and that under duress.
What the Colonel calls the Borg is akin to an aircraft carrier that has been steaming at near
flank speed for many years too long, gathering mass and momentum since the end of Cold War I.
With the exception of Gulf War I, none of our interventions have gone well, and even the
putative peace at the end of GUlf War I wasn't managed well because it eventuated in Gulf War
Ii which has been worst than a disaster because the disaster taught the Borg nothing and
became midwife to additional disasters.
It probably should come as no surprise to us that
Trump is having small, but not no, success in getting the ship to alter course - too many
deeply entrenched interests with no incentive to recognize their failures and every incentive
to stay the course by removing, or at least handicapping the President who was elected on a
platform of change.
Whether the country elected the right man for the job remains to be seen.
At times he appears to be his own worst enemy and his appointments are frequently topsy--
turvy to the platform he ran on but he does have his moments of success. He called off the
dumb plan to go to war with Iran, albeit at 20 minutes to mid night and he is trying hard
against the full might of the Borg to withdraw from Syria in accord with our actual
interests. Trumps, alas, assumed office with no political friends, only enemies with varying
degrees of Trump hate depending on how they define their political interests.
With that said, I doubt very much whether the Republicans in the Senate will abandon Trump in
an impeachment trial. Trump's argument that the process is a political coup is arguably
completely true, or certainly true enough that his political base in the electorate will not
tolerate his abandonment by Republican politicians inside the Beltway. I think there is even
some chance that Trump, were he to be removed from office by what could be credibly portrayed
as a political coup, would consider running in 2020 as an independent. The damage that would
cause to the Republican Party would be severe, pervasive, and possibly fatal to the Party as
such. I doubt Beltway pols would be willing to take that chance.
I don't think Keane or Trump are focused on the oil. Keane just used that as a lens to focus
Trump on Iran. That's the true sickness. Keane manipulated Trump by aggravating his animosity
towards Iran, more specifically, his animosity towards Obama's JCPOA. I doubt Trump can see
beyond his personal animus towards Obama and his legacy. He doesn't care about Iran, the Shia
Crescent, the oil or even the jihadis any more than he cares about ditching the Kurds. This
administration doesn't need a national security advisor, it needs a psychiatrist.
And in response, Russia killed and captured hundreds of US Special forces and PMC's alongside
SAS in East Ghouta . It is said that the abrupt russian op on East Ghouta was a response to
the Battle of Khasham.
The difference between the reality that we perceive and the way it is portrayed in the media
is so stark that sometimes I am not sure whether it is me who is insane or the world - the
MSM and the cool-aid drinking libtards whose animosity against Trump won't let them
distinguish black from white. Not that they were ever able to understand the real state of
affairs. Discussions with them have always been about them regurgitating the MSM talking
points without understanding any of it.
While it will always be mystifying to me why so many people on the street blindly support
America fighting and dying in the middle east, the support of the MSM and the paid hacks for
eternal war is no surprise. I hope they get to send their children and grandchildren to these
wars. More than that, I hope we get out of these wars. Trump might be able to put an end to
it, and not just in Syria, if he wins a second term, which he will if he is allowed to
contest the next election. There is however a chance that the borg will pull the rug from
under him and bar him from the elections. Hope that doesn't come to pass.
No, they just have to sit there and be an excuse to fly Coalition CAPs that would effectively
prevent SAA from crossing the Euphrates in strength. Feasible until the SAA finishes with
Idlib and moves some of its new Russian anti-aircraft toys down to Deir Ezzor.
TTG IMO you and the other NEVER Trumpers are confused about the presence in both the
permanent and appointed government of people who while they are not loyal to him nevertheless
covet access to power. A lot of neocons and Zionists are among them.
Colonel Lang, I am well aware of the power seekers who gravitate towards Trump or whoever
holds power not out of loyalty, but because they covet access to power. The neocons and
Zionists flock to Trump because they can manipulate him to do their bidding. That fact
certainly doesn't make me feel any better about Trump as President. The man needs help.
you are an experienced clan case officer. You do not know that most people are more than a
little mad? Hillary is more than a little nuts. Obama was so desperately neurotically in need
of White approval that he let the WP COIN generals talk him into a COIN war in Afghanistan. I
was part of that discussion. All that mattered to him was their approval. FDR could not be
trusted with SIGINT product and so Marshall never gave him any, etc., George Bush 41 told me
that he deliberately mis-pronounced Saddam's name to hurt his feelings. Georgie Junior let
the lunatic neocons invade a country that had not attacked us. Trump is no worse than many of
our politicians, or politicians anywhere. Britain? The Brexit disaster speaks for itself, And
then there is the British monarchy in which a princeling devastated by the sure DNA proof
that he is illegitimate is acting like a fool. The list is endless.
CK, the people surrounding Trump are largely appointees. Keane doesn't have to be let into
the WH. His problem is that those who would appeal to his non-neocon tendencies are not
people he wants to have around him. Gabbard, for instance, would be perfect for helping Trump
get ourselves out of the ME, is a progressive. Non-interventionists are hard to come by.
Those who he does surround himself with are using him for their own ideologies, mostly neocon
and Zionist.
Bacevich interview:
> Andrew Bacevich, can you respond to President Trump pulling the U.S. troops away from
this area of northern Syria, though saying he will keep them to guard oil fields?
> ANDREW BACEVICH: First of all, I think we should avoid taking anything that he says at
any particular moment too seriously. Clearly, he is all over the map on almost any issue that
you can name. I found his comment about taking the oil in that part of Syria, as if we are
going to decide how to dispose of it, to be striking. And yet of course it sort of harkens
back to his campaign statement about the Iraq war, that we ought to have taken Iraq's oil is
a way of paying for that war. So I just caution against taking anything he says that
seriously.
> That said, clearly a recurring theme to which he returns over and over and over again,
is his determination to end what he calls endless wars. He clearly has no particular strategy
or plan for how to do that, but he does seem to be insistent on pursuing that objective. And
here I think we begin to get to the real significance of the controversy over Syria in our
abandonment of the Kurds.
> Let's stipulate. U.S. abandonment of the Kurds was wrong, it was callous, it was
immoral. It was not the first betrayal by the United States in our history, but the fact that
there were others certainly doesn't excuse this one. But apart from those concerned about the
humanitarian aspect of this crisis -- and not for a second do I question the sincerity of
people who are worried about the Kurds -- it seems to me that the controversy has gotten as
big as it is in part because members of the foreign policy establishment in both parties are
concerned about what an effort to end endless wars would mean for the larger architecture of
U.S. national security policy, which has been based on keeping U.S. troops in hundreds of
bases around the world, maintaining the huge military budget, a pattern of interventionism.
Trump seems to think that that has been a mistake, particularly in the Middle East. I happen
to agree with that critique. And I think that it is a fear that he could somehow engineer a
fundamental change in U.S. policy is what really has the foreign policy establishment
nervous.
> NERMEEN SHAIKH: As you mentioned, Professor Bacevich, Trump has come under bipartisan
criticism for this decision to withdraw troops from northern Syria. Senate Majority Leader
Mitch McConnell was one of the many Republicans to criticize Trump for his decision. In an
opinion piece in The Washington Post McConnell writes, quote, "We saw humanitarian disaster
and a terrorist free-for-all after we abandoned Afghanistan in the 1990s, laying the
groundwork for 9/11. We saw the Islamic State flourish in Iraq after President Barack Obama's
retreat. We will see these things anew in Syria and Afghanistan if we abandon our partners
and retreat from these conflicts before they are won." He also writes, quote, "As
neo-isolationism rears its head on both the left and the right, we can expect to hear more
talk of 'endless wars.' But rhetoric cannot change the fact that wars do not just end; wars
are won or lost." So Professor Bacevich, could you respond to that, and how accurate you
think an assessment of that is? Both what he says about Afghanistan and what is likely to
happen now with U.S. withdrawal.
> ANDREW BACEVICH: I think in any discussion of our wars, ongoing wars, it is important to
set them in some broader historical context than Senator McConnell will probably entertain. I
mean, to a very great extent -- not entirely, but to a very great extent -- we created the
problems that exist today through our reckless use of American military power.
> People like McConnell, and I think other members of the political establishment, even
members of the mainstream media -- _The New York Times_, The Washington Post -- have yet to
reckon with the catastrophic consequences of the U.S. invasion of Iraq back in 2003. And if
you focus your attention at that start point -- you could choose another start point, but if
you focus your attention at that start point, then it seems to me that leads you to a
different conclusion about the crisis that we are dealing with right now. That is to say,
people like McConnell want to stay the course. They want to maintain the U.S. presence in
Syria. U.S. military presence. But if we look at what the U.S. military presence in that
region, not simply Syria, has produced over the course of almost two decades, then you have
to ask yourself, how is it that we think that simply staying the course is going to produce
any more positive results?
> It is appalling what Turkey has done to Syrian Kurds and the casualties they have
inflicted and the number of people that have been displaced. But guess what? The casualties
that we inflicted and the number of people that we displaced far outnumbers what Turkey has
done over the last week or so. So I think that we need to push back against this tendency to
oversimplify the circumstance, because oversimplifying the circumstance doesn't help us fully
appreciate the causes of this mess that we're in.
In addition to oil from Iran, Assad also gets oil from the SDF and the Kurds. Supposedly a
profit sharing arrangement as commented on by JohninMK in a previous post.
This oil sharing deal was also mentioned by Global Research and Southfront back in June of
2018:
Colonel Lang, the only way to "overthrow" Trump is through impeachment in the House and
conviction in the Senate. That is a Constitutional process, not a coup. The process is
intentionally difficult. Was the impeachment of Clinton an attempted coup?
In the first place isn't the dissolution of Ukraine and Syria and Iraq and Libya and Yemen
exactly what we have wished to achieve, and wouldn't an intelligent observer, such as
Vladimir Putin, want to do exactly the same thing to us, and hasn't he come very close to
witnessing the achievement of this aim whether he is personally involved or not? What goes
around comes around?
But that is relatively unimportant compared to the question whether dissolution of the
Union is a bad thing or a good thing. Preserving it cost 600,000 lives the first time. One
additional life would be one additional life too many. Ukraine is an excellent example.
Western Ukraine has a long history support for Nazi's. Eastern Ukraine is Russian. Must a war
be fought to bring them together? Or should they be permitted to go their separate ways?
As Hector said of Helen of Troy, "She is not worth what she doth cost the keeping."
After hanging up from a call to Putin, thanking him for Russia's help with the Turks, YPG
leader Mazloum Kobane returned to the Senate hearings in which he alternately reminded his
flecless American allies of their failure, not only to protect Rojava from the Turks, but
didn't even give them a heads up about what was about to happen and begged an already angry
[at Trump] Senate about their urgent need for a continued American presence in the territory.
It seems that some in the USG do not understand that all the land on the east bank of the
Euphrates is "Rojava" or somehow is the mandate of the Kurds to continue to control. For a
long time, now, the mainly Arab population of that region have been chafing under what is
actually Kurdish rule. This could be a a trigger for ISIS or some other jihadis to launch
another insurgency, or at the least, low level attacks, especially in Rojava to the
north.
To remind, the USG is not using military personnel, but also contracts, about 200 troops in
one field and 400 contractors in the other.
There is video of the SAA escorting the Americans to the Iraqi border. PM Abdel Hadi has
reiterated that the US cannot keep these troops in Iraq, as they go beyond the agreed upon
number. It is quite likely that the anti-Iranian aspect of the border region is NOT something
they wish to see.
"Iranian proxies" refers to Hezbollah, the various Shia militia groups from Pakistan and
Afghanistan, and of course, others, not the SAA.
1. CIA, Hillary Clinton, 'Rothschild-Octopus' money power. Altogether, British Israel
(Zionism).
2. Pentagon-NSA, Donald Trump, second tier elites including, for example, Sheldon Adelson.
Altogether, Israel (and the USA) First.
If these are the primary factions vying for control of the New World Order, why did HRC
throw Tulsi such a honkin' big bone by calling her a Russian asset?
Clinton has endorsed Gabbard in the same way Catholicism endorses sin: ergo, there is a
working agreement between all Globalist factions for a final settlement of WW3.
Or is there a better explanation for HRC's non endorsement endorsement of TG?
Should we also mention both are card carrying members of the Council on Foreign
Relations?
Understanding we are ruled by a duopoly of 1st and 2nd tier elites is essential piecing
together who represents whom - and what it means for the vast majority of humanity, which
remains generally ignorant and utterly voiceless.
Class is everything, which is why both Globalizing tiers have agreed to, amongst other
things, pretend we don't exist. Clinton threw Tulsi a bone so that Tulsi could throw us
another, but it all counts for nothing when the bill for elite criminality comes due. Both
factions agree that We the People, the unrepresented Third Estate, will be paying for
everything.
...buried in Donald Trump's address is a clarion call to reject transnationalism and to
re-embrace a world of sovereign nation-states that cherish their independence and unique
identities.
Western man has engaged in this great quarrel since Woodrow Wilson declared America would
fight in the Great War, not for any selfish interests, but "to make the world safe for
democracy."
Our imperialist allies, Britain, France, Russia, Japan, regarded this as self-righteous
claptrap and proceeded to rip apart Germany, Austria, Hungary and the Ottoman Empire and to
feast on their colonies.
After World War II, Jean Monnet, father of the EU, wanted Europe's nations to yield up their
sovereignty and form a federal union like the USA.
Europe's nations would slowly sink and dissolve in a single polity that would mark a giant
leap forward toward world government -- Alfred, Lord Tennyson's "Parliament of man, the
Federation of the world."
Charles De Gaulle lead the resistance, calling for "a Europe of nation-states from the
Atlantic to the Urals."
For 50 years, the Gaullists were in constant retreat. The Germans especially, given their
past, seemed desirous of losing their national identity and disappearing inside the new
Europe.
Today, the Gaullist vision is ascendant.
"We do not expect diverse countries to share the same cultures, traditions, or even
systems of government," said Trump at the U.N. "Strong sovereign nations let diverse countries
with different values, different cultures, and different dreams not just coexist, but work side
by side on the basis of mutual respect.
"In America, we do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine
as an example for everyone to watch."
Translation: We Americans have created something unique in history. But we do not assert
that we should serve as a model for mankind. Among the 190 nations, others have evolved in
different ways from diverse cultures, histories, traditions. We may reject their values but we
have no God-given right to impose ours upon them.
It is difficult to reconcile Trump's belief in self-determination with a National
Endowment for Democracy whose reason for being is to interfere in the politics of other nations
to make them more like us.
Trump's idea of patriotism has deep roots in America's past. After the uprisings of 1848
against the royal houses of Europe failed, Lajos Kossuth came to seek support for the cause of
Hungarian democracy. He was wildly welcomed and hailed by Secretary of State Daniel Webster.
But Henry Clay, more true to the principles of Washington's Farewell Address, admonished
Kossuth:
"Far better is it for ourselves, for Hungary, and for the cause of liberty that, adhering to
our wise, pacific system, and avoiding the distant wars of Europe, we should keep our lamp
burning brightly on the western shore as a light to all nations, than to hazard its utter
extinction amid the ruins of fallen or falling republics in Europe."
Trump's U.N. address echoed Clay: "In foreign affairs, we are renewing this founding
principle of sovereignty. Our government's first duty is to its people to serve their needs, to
ensure their safety, to preserve their rights, and to defend their values."
Trump is saying with John Quincy Adams that our mission is not to go "abroad in search of
monsters to destroy," but to "put America first." He is repudiating the New World Order of Bush
I, the democracy crusades of the neocons of the Bush II era, and the globaloney of Obama.
Trump's rhetoric implies intent; and action is evident from Rex Tillerson's directive to
his department to rewrite its mission statement -- and drop the bit about making the world
democratic. The current statement reads: "The Department's mission is to shape and sustain a
peaceful, prosperous, just, and democratic world." Tillerson should stand his ground. For
America has no divinely mandated mission to democratize mankind. And the hubristic idea that we
do has been a cause of all the wars and disasters that have lately befallen the republic. If we
do not cure ourselves of this interventionist addiction, it will end our republic. When did we
dethrone our God and divinize democracy?
And are 21st-century American values really universal values?
At least Mr. Buchanan's latest column has no Establishment horsefeathers about Russian
"hacking" of our precious democracy. However, doesn't he yet realize that there's usually
something for everyone in any formal address by President Trump?
The author can pluckily show how passages (apparently written by Stephen Miller?) are
consistent with America's founding principles, and perhaps an essay like this will reach and
enlighten others. But the President doesn't understand or hold those principles, as will once
again become evident in his own words thumbed into a so called smart phone and the actions of
an imperial Establishment for which he is, at best, nothing more than an embarrassing
annoyance.
"In America, we do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it
shine as an example for everyone to watch."
Perhaps not, but we have been trying to impose (((American))) style democracy and
where/when that's not possible, puppet dictators. We claim to respect national sovereignty
but overthrew Saddam Hussein, helped overthrow Qadaffi, staged a color revolution in Ukraine,
seem to be undermining Maduro of Venezuela, are looking for ways to break the nuclear
agreement and reimpose sanctions on Iran and until recently, attempting to overthrow and
depose the duly elected leader of Syria which may still be in the works.
I guess the Jew(s) who wrote Trump's speech is hoping the world has amnesia. If Trump
truly means what he says then he will start closing our military bases and bringing our
troops home. His lofty words need to be matched by deeds.
If we ever want to overthrow any leader we just claim they are killing and torturing their
own people or possess unauthorized WMD. But if you are killing and torturing your people and
Israel likes you or doesn't feel threatened by you then we'll stand down.
And are 21st-century American values really universal values?
Should all nations embrace same-sex marriage, abortion on demand, and the separation of
church and state if that means, as it has come to mean here, the paganization of public
education and the public square?
the moral rot and spiritual sewage pumped out of ((Hollywood)) and ((Madison Ave.)) are
hardly pagan.
Paganism is a spiritual celebration of a people's blood and ancient Gods of lust,
fertility and heroism. The SJW of ((American)) culture today are the exact opposite of
paganism, as they wallow in blood-profaning 'diversity' and spiritual septic tanks of
homomania.
If freedom of speech and the press here have produced a popular culture that is an open
sewer and a politics of vilification and venom, why would we seek to impose this upon other
peoples?
it isn't freedom of speech or a free press that has produced the evils you speak of Pat,
but rather the consolidation of our press and media by the enemies of free speech. Duh.
For the State Department to declare America's mission to be to make all nations look
more like us might well be regarded as a uniquely American form of moral imperialism.
hardly moral imperialism, rather amoral imperialism.
promoting, indeed demanding moral rot and spiritual gangrene are ((America's)) exports
today, along with debt and bombs.
If Trump can somehow turn this situation around, and rein in the ((purveyors)) of hatred
and mass-murder, he'll be a modern day Charles [The Hammer] Martell. The Lion of the West,
and savior of Christendom and Europa.
An (unlikely) Second Coming of sorts, where Satan's nefarious rule is pushed back, and
humanity and Western civilization are once again free from the evils of Moloch's minion$.
Just imagine Putin in the East, and Trump in the West, and a healthy and ascendant Europe
in between, free from mass migrations and serial wars of ((imposed)) hatred and theft and
misery. Oy veh!
If a U.S. president calls an adversary "Rocket Man on a mission to suicide," and warns
his nation may be "totally destroyed,"
then it is quite irrelevant what else he says, because what's obvious is that he's
continuing his game of nuclear chicken with the North Korean regime, which is because he has
a problem with the fact that a country on the other side of a huge ocean is developing
nuclear weapons. Not very Gaullist, I think.
He was also threatening Iran, all the while lengthily admonishing Iran's leaders for their
form of government, for leading a "dictatorship", for having allegedly mismanaged their
country. This is not a Gaullist position at all, for example, quite the opposite.
At this stage trying to spin Trump utterances like that he might be a Gaullist is a complete
nonsense. His only redeeming value is that his enemies are who they are. Still as last
several months indicate Trump always ends up doing exactly what these "enemies" want.
http://patriotrising.com/2017/09/22/trump-hardly-knew-ye-bad-camelot-brief-shining-moment/
"Trump has unfortunately proven to be exactly what his detractors claimed he was; immature,
egotistical, unprincipled, vain, elitist. This certainly doesn't make most of his critics
any less offensive than they are. Indeed, that is the lone redeeming value of Trump's
administration; he continues to have all the right enemies. The threats of violence, even
assassination, from every pillar of the establishment almost make one want to continue to
defend him. Almost."
The US Multi-National Chamber of Commerce makes most of its money by arbitrage between
high price retailing to consumers in the USA and low cost manufacturing in China, et.al.. And
the C of C is nakedly buying the best Congressional GOP/RNC and DNC available and they're ALL
available.
This is called channel-stuffing. Stuff more people into the USA, get more arbitrage.
Then there's nakedly laundering payments to US corporations via "foreign aid." In every
case, the "aid" is either money to buy American weapons or such, or Uncle buys it himself and
sends it. Either way, the US Treasury borrows and spends .and US corporations collect.
In this regard, Uncle Sam is just like the typical college student or medical patient,
a means by which the supplier creates a conduit to the fruits of borrowed money.
Every bit of this grew up the last 36 years (well, it got way worse, anyway, from
poisonous seeds earlier) and it won't end until interest rates rise and choke off
borrowing.
This will happen when the Mass Mind finally awakens from a three and a half decade stupor
and realizes just what happened. Instead of empty platitudes about unpayable debts and
uncollectable pensions and future cash flows, the Mass Mind will SEE it clearly for the first
time.
Oh, the RAGE will be epic. I need to buy myself a cavern or old missile silo in which to
sit out the actions that will be animated by it.
I hope the economists and popular pundits who kept telling us debt was "no problem" are at
the head of the line when scapegoating gets REAL .
Western man has engaged in this great quarrel since Woodrow Wilson declared America would
fight in the Great War, not for any selfish interests, but "to make the world safe for
democracy."
To Wilson's credit, the logic of his argument was nationalist against imperialism. In
principle(if not in practice), he was calling for self-determination and national sovereignty
for all peoples of the world.
Wilson was NOT calling for wars to spread democracy. He was saying nations should
self-determine their own destinies and HOPEFULLY, democracy is the path they take.
In this sense. Bush and Neocons were not Wilsonian but closer to Teddy Rooseveltism that
was for empire and a World Club of Imperial Nations.
That said, Trump is a two-headed snake. Gaulle was a truly legendary leader. Trump is a
showman who has now cucked out to globalist. His rhetoric means nothing.
For 50 years, the Gaullists were in constant retreat. The Germans especially, given their
past, seemed desirous of losing their national identity and disappearing inside the new
Europe.
This makes no sense. The German Guilt in WWII was imperialism, not nationalism. They waged
war on nationalism all over Europe. They forced Poles, Ukrainians, Czechs, and etc to forgo
their identity and dissolve into German empire as helots.
Anti-Nazi struggle in WWII meant recovery of one's nation's sovereignty and
independence(though this was thwarted once again by Soviet domination of Eastern Europe).
Germans sure learned the wrong lesson. They no longer send armies to other nations, but
their message is the same to Poles, Hungarians, Greeks, and others.. SURRENDER YOUR
INDEPENDENCE AND SOVEREIGNTY AND BE RUN OVER BY FOREIGN INVADERS, this time Muslims and
Africans who are even worse than Germans.
They no longer send armies to other nations, but their message is the same to Poles,
Hungarians, Greeks, and others.. SURRENDER YOUR INDEPENDENCE AND SOVEREIGNTY AND BE RUN
OVER BY FOREIGN INVADERS,
agreed. now its more political and economic.
but to be fair, we dont know how much power Germany elites really have. how much of their
talk is really their views, vs how much is influenced from US/France/etc. do they want eu
seperate, do they want atlanticist eu-us connection?
i wonder how the demographic problems will play in the future. assuming projections are
right, slavic lands (especially between Germany and Russia) will have less people due to
fertility rates. will that be lebensraum for the new mixed society of germany?
Hey, if you don't like it "you're fired!" And you can't play football either! To think I once
was a Trump supporter Hillary or not, this guy is dangerous.
If freedom of speech and the press here have produced a popular culture that is an open
sewer and a politics of vilification and venom, why would we seek to impose this upon other
peoples?
Don't blame freedom of speech and the press for the popular culture that's an open [moral]
sewer; blame the self anointed money bag "elite" who control the press and much of everything
else whose "culture" has always been a sewer, albeit somewhat discreetly closed.
They say a fish rots from the head down, and evidently the rule has, and still does, apply
to human social systems as well.
The "why would we seek to impose this upon other peoples?" question is spot on,
however.
Neocons are lobbyists for MIC, the it is MIC that is the center of this this cult. People like Kriston, Kagan and Max Boot are
just well paid prostituttes on MIC, which includes intelligence agencies as a very important part -- the bridge to Wall Street so to
speak.
Being a neoconservative should receive at least as much vitriolic societal rejection as being a Ku Klux Klan member or a child
molester, but neocon pundits are routinely invited on mainstream television outlets to share their depraved perspectives.
Notable quotes:
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Neoconservatism is a psychopathic death cult whose relentless hyper-hawkishness is a greater threat to the survival of our species than anything else in the world right now. These people are traitors to humanity, and their ideology needs to be purged from the face of the earth forever. I'm not advocating violence of any kind here, but let's stop pretending that this is okay. Let's start calling these people the murderous psychopaths that they are whenever they rear their evil heads and stop respecting and legitimizing them. There should be a massive, massive social stigma around what these people do, so we need to create one. They should be marginalized, not leading us. ..."
Glenn Greenwald has just published a very important
article in The Intercept that I would have everyone in America read if I could. Titled "With New D.C. Policy Group,
Dems Continue to Rehabilitate and Unify With Bush-Era Neocons", Greenwald's excellent piece details the frustratingly under-reported
way that the leaders of the neoconservative death cult have been realigning with the Democratic party.
This pivot back to the party of neoconservatism's origin is one of the most significant political events of the new millennium,
but aside from a handful of sharp political analysts like Greenwald it's been going largely undiscussed. This is weird, and we need
to start talking about it. A lot. Their willful alignment with neoconservatism should be the very first thing anyone ever talks about
when discussing the Democratic party.
When you hear someone complaining that the Democratic party has no platform besides being anti-Trump, your response should be,
"Yeah it does. Their platform is the omnicidal death cult of neoconservatism."
It's absolutely insane that neoconservatism is still a thing, let alone still a thing that mainstream America tends to regard
as a perfectly legitimate set of opinions for a human being to have. As what Dr. Paul Craig Roberts rightly
calls "the most dangerous ideology that has ever
existed," neoconservatism has used its nonpartisan bloodlust to work with the Democratic party for the purpose of escalating tensions
with Russia on multiple fronts, bringing our species to the brink of what could very well end up being a
world war with a nuclear superpower and its allies.
This is not okay. Being a neoconservative should receive at least as much vitriolic societal rejection as being a Ku Klux Klan
member or a child molester, but neocon pundits are routinely invited on mainstream television outlets to share their depraved perspectives.
Check out leading neoconservative Bill Kristol's response to the aforementioned Intercept article:
... ... ...
Okay, leaving aside the fact that this bloodthirsty psychopath is saying neocons "won" a Cold War that neocons have deliberately
reignited by fanning the flames of the Russia hysteria and
pushing for more escalations , how insane is it that we live in a society where a public figure can just be like, "Yeah, I'm
a neocon, I advocate for using military aggression to maintain US hegemony and I think it's great," and have that be okay? These
people kill children. Neoconservatism means piles upon piles of child corpses. It means devoting the resources of a nation that won't
even provide its citizens with a real healthcare system to widespread warfare and all the death, destruction, chaos, terrorism, rape
and suffering that necessarily comes with war. The only way that you can possibly regard neoconservatism as just one more set of
political opinions is if you completely compartmentalize away from the reality of everything that it is.
This should not happen. The tensions with Russia that these monsters have worked so hard to escalate could blow up at any moment;
there are too many moving parts, too many things that could go wrong. The last Cold War brought our species
within a hair's
breadth of total annihilation due to our inability to foresee all possible complications which can arise from such a contest,
and these depraved death cultists are trying to drag us back into another one. Nothing is worth that. Nothing is worth risking the
life of every organism on earth, but they're risking it all for geopolitical influence.
... ... ...
I've had a very interesting last 24 hours. My
article about Senator John
McCain (which I titled "Please Just Fucking Die Already" because the title I really wanted to use seemed a bit crass) has received
an amount of attention that I'm not accustomed to, from
CNN to
USA Today to the
Washington Post . I watched Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar
talking about me on The View . They called me a "Bernie
Sanders person." It was a trip. Apparently some very low-level Republican with a few hundred Twitter followers went and retweeted
my article with an approving caption, and that sort of thing is worthy of coast-to-coast mainstream coverage in today's America.
This has of course brought in a deluge of angry comments, mostly from people whose social media pages are full of Russiagate
nonsense , showing
where McCain's current support base comes from. Some call him a war hero, some talk about him like he's a perfectly fine politician,
some defend him as just a normal person whose politics I happen to disagree with.
This is insane. This man has actively and enthusiastically pushed for every single act of military aggression that America has
engaged in, and some that
it hasn't , throughout his entire career. He makes Hillary "We came, we saw, he died" Clinton look like a dove. When you look
at John McCain, the very first thing you see should not be a former presidential candidate, a former POW or an Arizona Senator; the
first thing you see should be the piles of human corpses that he has helped to create. This is not a normal kind of person, and I
still do sincerely hope that he dies of natural causes before he can do any more harm.
Can we change this about ourselves, please? None of us should have to live in a world where pushing for more bombing campaigns
at every opportunity is an acceptable agenda for a public figure to have. Neoconservatism is a psychopathic death cult whose relentless
hyper-hawkishness is a greater threat to the survival of our species than anything else in the world right now. These people are
traitors to humanity, and their ideology needs to be purged from the face of the earth forever. I'm not advocating violence of any
kind here, but let's stop pretending that this is okay. Let's start calling these people the murderous psychopaths that they are
whenever they rear their evil heads and stop respecting and legitimizing them. There should be a massive, massive social stigma around
what these people do, so we need to create one. They should be marginalized, not leading us.
-- -- --
I'm a 100 percent reader-funded journalist so if you enjoyed this, please consider helping me out by sharing it around, liking
me on Facebook , following me on
Twitter , or throwing some money into my hat on
Patreon .
"... It was this curious arrangement that Tulsi Gabbard ran smack into earlier this week. Gabbard, a congresswoman from Hawaii and Democratic presidential candidate, was attacked seemingly out of nowhere by Hillary, who implied that the Russians might somehow be controlling her. "I'm not making any predictions," Clinton intoned on a podcast, "but I think they've got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate." ..."
"... It was a base (and baseless) smear, and it drew a furious response. Gabbard tweeted that Clinton was "queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long." She also dared Clinton to jump into the race, declaring that the primary was now effectively between the two of them. ..."
"... in a more macro sense, she's correct. Of all the dividing lines vivisecting the Democratic Party right now, there's an important and understated one that runs between Clinton World and everything that Gabbard has come to represent. At issue is whether or not one family ought to be able to run the Democratic National Committee like its own LLC, installing loyalists as its leaders, freezing its foreign policy in the past, embarrassing it with self-serving fabrications. ..."
"... Preserve the brand even at the expense of the party : that's what the Clintons have always done. ..."
"... The common denominator in Clinton World is always personal short-term gain; all else, including political reality, is subordinated to that. And even when they lose, they still linger, their business more like a monopoly, having accumulated so much personnel power as to immunize it from market forces. ..."
"... Gabbard, then, isn't Clinton World's most formidable opponent, but right now she looks like its clearest antithesis. Her knight's move has been to take the Clintons off the grounds of personal accomplishment and put them on the harsher terrain of policy accomplishment ..."
"... Hillary is less eager, meanwhile, to discuss her and her husband's writ large policy records, given the current revolt against the liberal internationalism and Third Way centrism they've long regarded as de rigueur . Gabbard not only brings this up, her entire candidacy is a homing missile aimed at the establishment's failed foreign policy, one of its most gaping vulnerabilities. While Clinton World thrashes on the floor screeching at the Russian nanobots in their nose hairs, Gabbard offers up informed critiques of actual events. ..."
"... THANK YOU TULSI GABBARD for opening this debate on the direction our national diplomacy should take in the future, for demanding a reassessment of the old Cold War approach that abandoned the Constitutional requirement that wars be declared by Congress. ..."
"... It doesn't look like she has much of a chance, but I admire Ms. Gabbard's integrity and forthrightness. ..."
"... Well spoken. Indeed, one doesn't have to buy all her policy positions or support her nomination campaign. But Gabbard is worthy of the kind of genuine respect ..."
Is there anything sadder in the year 2019 than to be a hanger-on of the Clintons? It's the one form of communitarianism even we here
at TAC can oppose. Five years back, the New York Times pointed its telescope at what it called
Clinton World, the seemingly endless ecosystem of staffers, clients, strategists, old friends, wonks, flatterers, henchmen, consiglieres,
and hired dog walkers who have latched on to the Clintons over the years. The takeaway for the Times was that such a vast
coterie is difficult to control, a big rig that can only turn so quickly -- but one quote in particular stands out. Said a Clinton
friend of Clinton World: "Some people get eaten up by the charisma and forget that, in the end, it is a business."
And that's just it right there. Has anyone ever fine-tuned the business-ification of politics as have the Clintons? Their conquering
of the Democratic Party over the past 25 years has often felt like a corporate takeover, the absorption of a nationwide political
apparatus into a family syndicate that exists to build and burnish the brand of a single couple.
It was this curious arrangement that Tulsi Gabbard ran smack into earlier this week. Gabbard, a congresswoman from Hawaii
and Democratic presidential candidate, was attacked seemingly out of nowhere by Hillary, who implied that the Russians might somehow
be controlling her. "I'm not making any predictions," Clinton intoned on a podcast, "but I think they've got their eye on somebody
who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate."
It was a base (and baseless) smear, and it drew a furious response. Gabbard tweeted that Clinton was "queen of warmongers,
embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long." She also dared Clinton
to jump into the race, declaring that the primary was now effectively between the two of them.
She's wrong about that, of course, at least in the literal sense. Gabbard, who rarely clears 2 percent in the polls, has little
chance of winning the Democratic nomination. But in a more macro sense, she's correct. Of all the dividing lines vivisecting
the Democratic Party right now, there's an important and understated one that runs between Clinton World and everything that Gabbard
has come to represent. At issue is whether or not one family ought to be able to run the Democratic National Committee like its own
LLC, installing loyalists as its leaders, freezing its foreign policy in the past, embarrassing it with self-serving fabrications.
The reason Clinton slimed Tulsi as a Russian patsy is because Clinton herself is obsessed with Russia. Over and over again, she's
blamed her own loss on their supposed meddling in the 2016 election, even going so far as to call Donald Trump's presidency
"illegitimate."
This is partly understandable -- no one wants to accept fault for difficult failures, least of all when the entire country is
watching -- and partly egotistical. But the belief that maybe Hillary really won, which extends well beyond the candidate
herself and throughout Clinton World, is also good business. However scant the evidence might be that the Russians heave-hoed votes
in Wisconsin, the Clintonian goal is always to guard their own -- "protect the shield," in the nonsensical words of the NFL. Better,
then, to hang around Democrats' neck a nutty conspiracy theory then to admit, even all these years later, that the Clinton product
might not be what it once was.
Preserve the brand even at the expense of the party : that's what the Clintons have always done. It's why Bill dragged
the Democrats into the realm of adolescent word parsing ("the definition of sex") rather than admit to his affair with Monica Lewinsky
from the start. It's why he was willing to triangulate during his presidency, chucking half the party platform off the wagon in order
to ensure he could net legislative victories. It's why Hillary obtusely insisted on running in 2008 and 2016, even though anyone
paying attention knew these would be populist years with her cast in role of Dickens' Monseigneur. The common denominator in
Clinton World is always personal short-term gain; all else, including political reality, is subordinated to that. And even when they
lose, they still linger, their business more like a monopoly, having accumulated so much personnel power as to immunize it from market
forces.
Still, all the bumps and losses have at least somewhat diminished the Clintons. There is little enthusiasm for another Hillary
rev of the engine, no matter how badly she seems to want one. As for Bill, when people say they're nostalgic for the 1990s, they
generally mean boy bands and Legends of the Hidden Temple , not blue dresses. Now enter Tulsi Gabbard. She is both a walking
repudiation of Clinton World and a product of its failures. A former vice chair at the DNC, she
resigned after it became clear the organization intended to slight Bernie Sanders' presidential candidacy in favor of Hillary's.
A political neophyte, she's running a barebones campaign, in contrast to Clinton World's legions. She remains unsullied by the corrupt
Democratic influencers of yore, from Goldman Sachs to Jeffrey Epstein, all of whom the Clintons have rubbed elbows with. And most
importantly, she served as a National Guard medic in Iraq and came away jaded by the very wars Hillary keeps endorsing.
Gabbard, then, isn't Clinton World's most formidable opponent, but right now she looks like its clearest antithesis. Her knight's
move has been to take the Clintons off the grounds of personal accomplishment and put them on the harsher terrain of policy accomplishment.
Hillary loves to tout her (substantial) record of public service as a woman, but Gabbard, a war veteran, can claim that too.
Hillary is less eager, meanwhile, to discuss her and her husband's writ large policy records, given the current revolt against the
liberal internationalism and Third Way centrism they've long regarded as de rigueur . Gabbard not only brings this up, her
entire candidacy is a homing missile aimed at the establishment's failed foreign policy, one of its most gaping vulnerabilities.
While Clinton World thrashes on the floor screeching at the Russian nanobots in their nose hairs, Gabbard offers up informed critiques
of actual events.
The contrast is unavoidable, and it's made Clinton World look one slice short of a (faux New York-style) pizza. (It's always wrong
to say that conspiracy theories are the sole province of "the fringes"; they can afflict the center, too, and they're all the more
embarrassing when they do.) Sure enough, fade to Iowa, where voters are expressing renewed interest in Gabbard. One
told the Associated Press that Hillary's smear
was "divisive and despicable" and said he likes Tulsi's "anti-regime-change message," while another accused Clinton of "sowing division
in the primary." As it turns out, protecting the brand of a couple that hasn't won a nationwide election in 23 years is not
a priority in flyover country.
It may be that this is the year the Democrats are finally ready to cast out the Clintons for good, along with all their attendant
wars and machinations and courtiers. If so, the strongest tonic they could swallow would be the campaign of Tulsi Gabbard. You don't
have to support her candidacy (I don't) to appreciate what she's trying to do here.
Matt Purple is the managing editor of The American Conservative.
Tulsi Gabbard has volunteered twice to serve active duty in the US military, and continues today as a Major in the Army National
Guard...definitely NOT a "Russian asset" but rather a very patriotic American. The worst thing about HRC's slander against Ms.
Gabbard (and the repeats of that slander by other Dem party operatives and even major media publishers of HRC-echoing op-eds)
is that the endless-undeclared-multiple-wars party won't debate the merits of their approach but rather only accuse opponents
of treason.
THANK YOU TULSI GABBARD for opening this debate on the direction our national diplomacy should take in the future,
for demanding a reassessment of the old Cold War approach that abandoned the Constitutional requirement that wars be declared
by Congress. THANK YOU TULSI GABBARD for your military service to our country, for your public service in various elected offices,
and now for your campaign that forces these issues back into the national debate.
It doesn't look like she has much of a chance, but I admire Ms. Gabbard's integrity and forthrightness. She ought to at least
rate a cabinet position if a Democrat becomes president. (SecDef, or State or National Security Advisor, perhaps?). I hope she
keeps hammering away on the foreign policy issue.
Well spoken. Indeed, one doesn't have to buy all her policy positions or support her nomination campaign. But Gabbard is worthy
of the kind of genuine respect that will elude HRC's legacy.
What she coerced in life will be denied her for eternity, methinks.
But Gabbard, however she may fare this time around, has upside. Because she's the real deal.
There is such a hole where our leadership
should be, an enormous surfeit of vacuity in the leadership ranks on both sides of the ball that looks to be the curse of our
time. It wouldn't bother me a bit if she helped fill the void.
Protecting the faded brand indeed. Because it's the sole explanation of a situation when someone starts dividing a party a year
before the election and after an impeachment debacle, aside from idiocy in both colloquial, clinical and ancient Greek meaning.
Russian agents behind Gabbard, Russian agents behind Stein, Russian agents behind Trump, Russian agents behind Clinton's fridge.
And it's not said by a 5-year-old girl. It keeps on being said by a grown-up woman who, basically, rules one of America's two
biggest parties. It starts feeling like some tragifarce already.
Last month, on the 80th anniversary of the start of World War II, the European Parliament
voted on a resolution entitled
" On the Importance of European Remembrance for the Future of Europe ." The adopted
document:
" Stresses that the Second World War, the most devastating war in Europe's history, was
started as an immediate result of the notorious Nazi-Soviet Treaty on Non-Aggression of 23
August 1939, also known as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and its secret protocols, whereby two
totalitarian regimes that shared the goal of world conquest divided Europe into two zones of
influence; Recalls that the Nazi and communist regimes carried out mass murders, genocide and
deportations and caused a loss of life and freedom in the 20th century on a scale unseen in
human history, and recalls the horrific crime of the Holocaust perpetrated by the Nazi
regime; condemns in the strongest terms the acts of aggression, crimes against humanity and
mass human rights violations perpetrated by the Nazi, communist and other totalitarian
regimes."
For 75 years, we have been told that the war started on September 1st, 1939 when Germany
invaded Poland, even though the Pacific Theater between Japan and China began two years
earlier. Now we are to understand that it actually began eight days prior when the German
foreign minister visited Moscow. Take no notice of the inherent doublespeak in the premise that
a war could be the consequence of a peace agreement, which without any evidence provided is
said to have contained "secret protocols", not provisions. You see, unlike the other pacts
signed between European countries and Nazi Germany -- such as the Munich Betrayal
of 1938 with France and Great Britain to which the Soviets were uninvited while Austria and
Czechoslovakia were gifted to Hitler for the courtesy of attacking Moscow --
Molotov-Ribbentrop was really a confidential agreement between Hitler and Stalin to
conquer Europe and divide it between them.
This is pure mythology. The fact of the matter is that neither the Soviets or even Germany
drew the dividing line in Poland in 1939, because it was a reinstatement of the border
acknowledged by the League of Nations and Poland itself as put forward by the British following
WWI. Even Winston Churchill during his first wartime radio broadcast later that year admitted :
"Russia has pursued a cold policy of self-interest. We could have wished that the Russian
Armies should be standing on their present line as the friends and allies of Poland, instead
of as invaders. But that the Russian Armies should stand on this line was clearly necessary
for the safety of Russia against the Nazi menace."
Yet according to the EU, even though Moscow was the last country to agree to a peace
deal with Hitler, it was all part of a hidden plot between them. In that case, why then did
Germany choose to invade the USSR in 1941? The EU leaves this question unanswered. Forget about
its racial policies of enslaving slavs or that Hitler openly declared in Mein Kampf that
Germany needed to conquer the East to secure the Lebensraum . Nevermind that in the
Spring of 1941, less than two months before Operation Barbarossa, Stalin gave a speech to the Kremlin
at a state banquet for recent graduates of the Frunze Military Academy to give warning of an
imminent attack:
"War with Germany is inevitable. If comrade Molotov can manage to postpone the war for two
or three months through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, that will be our good fortune, but
you yourselves must go off and take measures to raise the combat readiness of our
forces."
The EU has redacted that the entire reason for the signing of the Nazi-Soviet pact in August
1939 had been to buy time for the Red Army's attrition warfare strategy to adequately prepare
its armaments against a future invasion by the Wehrmacht. The Soviet leadership well understood
that Germany would eventually renege on the agreement, considering that in 1936 it had signed
the Anti-Comintern Pact with Japan and Italy directed at the Communist International. For six
years, the USSR was thwarted in its attempts to forge an equivalent anti-fascist coalition and
to collectively defend Czechoslovakia by the British and the French, whose ruling classes were
too busy courting and doing business with Germany. It had been the Soviets alone who defended
the Spanish Republic from Franco in the final rehearsal before the worldwide conflict and only
when all other recourses had run out did they finally agree to a deal with the
Hitlerites.
Joachim von Ribbentrop signing the Anti-Comintern Pact
Just a week prior to the signing of the neutrality treaty, Stalin gave a secret
speech to the Politburo where he explained:
"The question of war or peace has entered a critical phase for us. If we conclude a mutual
assistance treaty with France and Great Britain, Germany will back off of Poland and seek a
modus vivendi with the Western Powers. War would thus be prevented but future events could
take a serious turn for the USSR. If we accept Germany's proposal to conclude with it a
non-aggression pact, Germany will then attack Poland and Europe will be thrown into serious
acts of unrest and disorder. Under these circumstances we will have many chances of remaining
out of the conflict while being able to hope for our own timely entrance into war."
This latest resolution is part of a long pattern of misrepresentation of WWII by the
Anglo-Saxon empire, but is perhaps its most egregious falsification that truly desecrates the
graves of the 27 million Soviet citizens who were 80% of the total Allied death toll. Earlier
this year, for the commemoration on the 75th anniversary of the Normandy landings, Russia and
its head of state were excluded from the events in Portsmouth, England. As if the ongoing
absence of Western European leaders from the May 9th Victory Day ceremonies held annually in
Russia weren't insulting enough, while it's true that the Eastern Front was not involved in
Operation Overlord, Russian President Vladimir Putin had previously been in attendance at the
70th anniversary D-Day events in 2014. No doubt the increase in geopolitical tensions between
the West and Moscow in the years since has given the EU license to write out Russia's role in
the Allied victory entirely with little public disapproval, though many of the families of
those who volunteered in the International Brigades were rightly insulted by this tampering of
history and voiced their objection.
The EU motion's real purpose is to fabricate the war's history by giving credit to the
United States for the liberation of Europe while absolving the Western democracies that opened
the door for the rise of fascism and tried to use Germany to annihilate the USSR. History
itself should always be open to debate and subject to study and revision, but the Atlanticists
have made this formal change without any evidence to support it and entirely for political
purposes. Like the founding of the EU project itself, the declared aim of the proposal is
supposedly to prevent future atrocities from taking place, even though the superstate was
designed by former Nazis like Walter Hallstein, the first President of the European Commission,
who was a German lawyer in several Nazi Party law organizations and fought for the Wehrmacht in
France until his capture as a POW after the invasion of Normandy.
Rather than preventing future crimes, the EU has committed one itself by deceptively
modifying the historical record of communism to be parallel with that of the Third Reich. Even
further, that they were two sides of the same coin of 'totalitarianism' and that for all the
barbarity committed during the war, the Soviets were equally culpable -- or judging by the
amount of times the text cites the USSR versus Germany, even more so. It remains unclear
whether we are now to completely disregard the previous conclusions reached by the military
tribunals held by the Allies under international law at Nuremberg of which all 12 war criminals
sentenced to death in 1946 were German, not Soviet. The document doesn't even attempt to hide
its politicized direction at the current government in Moscow, stating that:
"Russia remains the greatest victim of communist totalitarianism and that its development
into a democratic state will be impeded as long as the government, the political elite and
political propaganda continue to whitewash communist crimes and glorify the Soviet
totalitarian regime."
This accusation does not stand up to critical observation, as Russia has since erected
official memorials to those executed and politically persecuted during the so-called 'Great
Terror.' However, the stark difference between the EU resolution and the Wall of Grief in
Moscow is that the latter is based on evidence from the Soviet archives. It has become a
widespread and ridiculous belief in the West that Stalin somehow killed as much as five times
as many people as Hitler, an absurdity not reflected in the now disclosed and once highly
secretive Soviet archives, which after two decades of examination show that over a period of
three decades from the early 1920s to his death in 1953, the total recorded number of Soviet
citizens executed by the state was slightly less than 800,000. While that is certainly a horrid
number, how does it even begin to compare to an industrial scale extermination based on the
race theory?
How can anyone believe Stalin killed tens of millions of people when even the most simple
analysis of a population demographics chart shows that the Soviet population rate consistently
increased each decade with the only reduction taking place during WWII as a result of
their casualties? Socialists, who perhaps more than any other political tendency seem to suffer
from autophobia, should defend their own history from such falsification. It is only when flaws
occur under communist states that the entire political and economic system is to be denounced
outright, but never capitalism which for five centuries has colonized half the world while
enslaving and killing entire nations.
Most of the wildly exaggerated death figures stem from falsities written in The Black
Book of Communism by a group of right-wing French academics in 1997 , who did not
conceal their
apologism for the Nazi collaborationist self-proclaimed Russian Liberation Army (ROA)
commanded by Gen. Andrey Vlasov who defected to Germany during the war:
"A singular fate was reserved for the Vlasovtsy, the Soviet soldiers who had fought under
the Soviet general Andrei Vlasov. Vlasov was the commander of the Second Army who had been
taken prisoner by the Germans in July 1942. On the basis of his anti-Stalinist convictions,
General Vlasov agreed to collaborate with the Nazis to free his country from the tyranny of
the Bolsheviks."
The other highly cited work by the West for its overestimated portrayal of Soviet repression
is the equally unreliable The Gulag Archipelago volumes by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who
as historian Ludo Martens noted also attempted to provide justification for Vlasov's treason
in his best-selling 1973 work :
"And so it was that Vlasov's Second Shock Army perished, literally recapitulating the fate
of Samsonov's Russian Second Army in World War I, having been just as insanely thrown into
encirclement. Now this, of course, was treason to the Motherland! This, of course, was
vicious, self-obsessed betrayal! But it was Stalin's. Treason does not necessarily involve
selling out for money. It can include ignorance and carelessness in the preparations for war,
confusion and cowardice at its very start, the meaningless sacrifice of armies and corps
solely for the sake of saving one's own marshal's uniform. Indeed, what more bitter treason
is there on the part of a Supreme Commander in Chief?"
Alexander Solzhenitsyn
The truth is located in the Soviet archives which indicate that Stalin's successor, the
Ukrainian-born Nikita Khrushchev, was as intent on absolving the entirety of the Soviet
leadership as himself from any culpability in the purges of the 1930s so that blame for its
excesses were placed squarely on his predecessor. In succession, Western historians like the
British Foreign Office propagandist Robert Conquest followed his example and this account
quickly became official doctrine. In hindsight, Khrushchev's infamous 1956 secret speech, "
On the Cult of Personality and Its Consequences ", was what planted the seeds of
self-doubt in the Soviet system that would eventually lead to its undoing decades later. To the
contrary, what the historical records
show is most of those who were purged in that period were not necessarily perceived as
political threats to Stalin himself, but were targeted because of an overall systemic paranoia
held by the entire Soviet government regarding internal sabotage and counter-revolutionary
activity by a real fifth column getting inspiration from a certain traitorous former Bolshevik
in exile and a potential invasion originating from outside the country.
Many forget that during the Russian Civil War, exactly such a scenario had occurred when the
Allies of World War I, including the United States, collectively intervened on the side of the
Whites only to be driven out by the Red Army, making such fearful instincts not entirely
unreasonable. Not to mention, the rapid industrialization of the entire nation in a single
decade while in preparation for the growing threat of war with Germany. When Hitler began his
Masterplan for the East, their worst fears came to fruition when tens of thousands of Banderite
turncoats enlisted in the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician) in Ukraine to
collaborate with the German occupiers in the slaughter of their fellow countrymen and after the
war ended, continued their treasonous struggle during the 1950s with assistance from the CIA.
So the saying goes, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you
As for the accusation of "whitewashing", it is true that recent
polls indicate that 70% of Russians today hold a favorable view of Stalin -- but just as
many are nostalgic for communism itself and regret the breakup of the USSR on the basis that
the socialist system '
took care of ordinary people .' Putin did once remark that despite Stalin's legacy of
repression, he doubted that the native Georgian statesman would have been willing to drop two
atomic bombs on Japan like the United States, an atrocity that killed 225,000 innocent
civilians (most of them instantly) which is more than a quarter of those capitally
punished during the entire Stalin era. Was he wrong to say so? A significant amount of deaths
also occurred in the Soviet-wide famines of the 1930s, but there is significantly more evidence
to suggest that the British deliberately starved 3 million Bengalis to death then there is to
support the Holodomor fraud concocted by the Ukrainian nationalist diaspora. If the West wants
to talk about deliberate starvation, it should take a look at what the U.S. did with its
economic sanctions in the 1990s killing half a million Iraqi children which former U.S.
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright famously described as "worth it."
This isn't the first time the Anglosphere has historically omitted the Soviet role in the
Allied victory or conflated the USSR with the Third Reich. On previous occasions the European
Parliament has issued resolutions declaring August 23rd " a European day of remembrance of
the victims of the Nazi-Soviet alliance ." This is all an attempt by the Atlanticists to
depict communism as somehow worse than fascism while disconnecting the Nazis from the lineage
of European settler colonialism whose racism was its source of inspiration. Why is that which
befell the Jews not considered an extension of what was already done to the Herero-Nama tribes
for which Namibia is now suing Germany a century later?
The neoliberal political establishment in Europe and its anti-EU populist opponents are fond
of appearing dead-set against one another, but it seems they share the same fairytale beliefs
about WWII that the Nazis and Soviets were equivalent evils as inscribed in this latest decree.
It has always been ironic that the liberal billionaire "philanthropist" and currency
manipulator George Soros is so derided by right-wing populists when it was his Open Society
Institute NGOs which engineered the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe. Soros may be
averse to the anti-immigrant brand of right-wing nationalism currently on the rise in Western
Europe, but as a fanatical Russophobe he is willing to make strange bedfellows with
ultra-nationalists in Kiev to undermine Moscow's sphere of influence and that includes revising
WWII history to a version favored by the Banderites which took power during the pro-EU 2014
coup d'etat in Ukraine.
The Nazi junta regime in Kiev has since instituted Russophobic 'de-communization' laws
erasing the remaining traces of Ukraine's Soviet past while replacing them with memorials to
their wartime foes. A recent example was the city of
Vinnitsa renaming a street that paid tribute to the Soviet spy and war hero Richard Sorge to
that after Omelyan Hrabetsk, a commander of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army which cooperated with
Germany during the war and killed thousands of Poles and Jews. Sorge posed as a German
journalist in Tokyo and famously provided timely intelligence to Moscow that Japan did not plan
to attack the USSR, allowing Stalin to transfer essential reinforcements to the Battle of
Moscow which proved to be a major turning point in the war. He was executed by the Japanese in
1944 and posthumously awarded the Hero of the Soviet Union.
Now the EU is 'decommunizing' history in its own legislation. Meanwhile, Soros's influence
over the EU cannot be overstated as his lobbying power has enabled him to provide direct
council to its executive branch more than any official head of state in the political and
economic union. The hedge fund tycoon made a fortune as an investor during Russia's mass
privatization in the 1990s after enlisting Jeffrey Sachs and the IMF to apply 'shock therapy'
to its economy as it did in Poland and his native Hungary. Under Putin, however, Soros's NGOs
have since been barred from Russia. Perhaps the reason he can so cynically provide support to
fascist elements in Ukraine to undercut Moscow is that he did so personally in his upbringing
in Hungary.
Born Gyorgy Schwartz, during WWII he was a teenager from an affluent Jewish family which
survived the Axis occupation by using their wealth to bribe a government official from the
collaborationist Arrow Cross government who provided the Soros's forged documents identifying
them as Christians, while the adolescent by his own admission delivered deportation notices to
other Jews. A short time later, the young Soros impersonated the adopted gentile son of an
official who inventoried the stolen valuables and property from Jewish estates and even
accompanied him during his work. One would assume as a Jew he would have been haunted by these
experiences, but Soros has repeatedly stated he has no regrets and even disturbingly compared
it to his future work as an investor.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/X9tKvasRO54?feature=oembed SHOCKING: George Soros, a chief financial supporter of Antifa, was himself a Nazi
collaborator and to this day has no regrets
Like Soros, the EU has no ideology except an unquenchable thirst for greed and is fond of
Nazis when they are the kind that hate Russia. For its own political interests, it is willing
to dangerously foster a version of history invented by a rebranded far right where the
quislings who collaborated with the Axis powers elude guilt and the Soviets who courageously
defeated them are maliciously slandered. Fascism was never fully eradicated only because the
West continued to nurture it during the Cold War and even now that capitalism has been
reinstated in Eurasia, it continues to do so to undermine a resurgent Moscow on the world
stage.
As the world appears increasingly on the brink of WWIII, one is reminded of the expression
by Karl Marx who famously stated that "history repeats itself first as tragedy, then as farce"
in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon , when comparing Napoleon Bonaparte's
seizure of power in the French Revolution with the coup by his nephew half a century later
which brought an end to the French Revolution. Equally fitting is the humorous line by the
legendary writer and noted anti-imperialist Mark Twain who reputedly said, "history doesn't
repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Both are applicable to the unquestionable tragedy of WWII
and the farcical mockery of its history by the EU whose policies continue to make another
global conflict that much more likely.
Max Parry is an independent journalist and geopolitical analyst. His work has appeared in
Counterpunch, Global Research, Dissident Voice, Greanville Post, OffGuardian, American Herald
Tribune and more. Max may be reached [email protected]
I think it is a bit backward to say that Stalins speech in Spring of 1941 of Nazi aggression
is proof of Germany's plan to invade the Soviets, but instead more likely telegraphing and
preparing his troops for the offensive that he had planned himself.
@Tusk Have you read NOTHING?? The ENTIRE basis of Hitler's foreign policy, all the way
back to "Mein Kampf", was a massive German invasion to destroy international Bolshevism and
seize Lebensraum (living space) for German colonization in Eastern Europe. The discussions
with the Russians in 1939 were temporary, tactical diplomacy intended ONLY to stabilize the
local situation during resolution of the "Polish Crisis".
Many forget that during the Russian Civil War, exactly such a scenario had occurred when
the Allies of World War I, including the United States, collectively intervened on the side
of the Whites only to be driven out by the Red Army, making such fearful instincts not
entirely unreasonable.
America reciprocated when Russia was being threatened by an Allied force in Siberia in
1919. The United States troops were there more for the purpose of watching the Japanese
than of fighting Russians. During the course of the peace conference, both Wilson and Lloyd
George went home for a short time and in their absence the conferees were whipped up to a
mood of more active intervention. Wilson heard of it in mid-ocean and, although thoroughly
disliking the Communistic philosophy, promptly dispatched a radio message to the effect
that the only course he would agree to was speedy withdrawal of all Allied troops from
Russian soil.
The British and French exerted great pressure on Mr. Wilson for Americans to join in a
general attack on Moscow. General Foch drew up plans for such an attack. Winston Churchill,
representing the British Cabinet, appeared before the Big Four on February 14, 1919, and
demanded a united invasion of Russia.
The Americans then experience a sudden change of heart. Not only that, they ponder the
large war debts owed by their allies to them. In an internal note by Tasker Bliss:
It is perfectly well known that every nation in Europe, except England, is bankrupt, and
that England would become bankrupt if she engaged on any considerable scale in such a
venture.
I.e.: "Hey, can you guys really afford that?" Hoover himself supplies additional
reasons, in a letter to Wilson (bear in mind that Hoover had considerable experience as an
engineer in Czarist Russia):
We have also to consider, what would actually happen if we undertook military
intervention. We should probably be involved in years of police duty, and our first act
would probably in the nature of things make us a party with the Allies to re-establishing
the reactionary classes. It also requires consideration as to whether or not our people at
home would stand for our providing power by which such reactionaries held their position.
Furthermore, we become a junior in this partnership of four. It is therefore inevitable
that we would find ourselves subordinated and even committed to politics against our
convictions.
Thus Wilson guaranteed the victory of the Bolsheviks. The Brits and French pulled their
support for the Whites.
@Vinnie O Hitler met with Molotov in Nov. 1940 to try to prevent war with the Soviet
Union. But Molotov pretty much spat in Hitler's eye, and that was that.
Not since his talks with the British before Munich, in ,
had Adolf Hitler heard such tough language as Molotov used on November and
.As Ribbentrop had done before him, Hitler harangued the Russian ministeras
though he were at a Party rally: if Russia wanted to share in the booty as the British
Empire fell apart, then now was the time to declare Soviet solidarity with the Tripartite
Pact powers. He sympathised, he said, with Russia's desire for an outlet to the high seas,
and suggested that she should expand southward from Batum and Baku toward the Persian Gulf
and India; Germany would expand into Africa. As for Russia's interest in the Dardanelles,
Hitler restated his willingness to call for the renegotiation of the Montreux Convention,
which governed the straits, to bring it into line with Moscow's defensive interests.
The demands which Molotov stated were shockers. Russia wanted another stab at Finland
– she intended to occupy and annex the whole country,which had, after all, been
assigned her by the pact which he had signed with Ribbentrop in Moscow. Hitler,
however, needed Finland's nickel and timber supplies. When Molotov announced Russia's
intention of inviting Bulgaria to sign a non-aggression pact which would permit the
establishment of a Soviet base near the Dardanelles, Hitler ironically inquired whether
Bulgaria had asked for such assistance; pressed later by Molotov for a reply to Soviet
terms, Hitler evasively answered that he must consult Mussolini! Each of Molotov's
conferences with Hitler was terminated by the warning of approaching British aircraft, and
his dinner at the Soviet embassy on the thirteenth ended abruptly for the same reason.
Ribbentrop invited Molotov to the concrete shelter at his home; here the Soviet foreign
minister revealed that Moscow could never entirely forgo an interest in the western
approaches to the Baltic either – the Kattegat and Skagerrak. When Ribbentrop told
his Führer of this, Hitler was stunned. 'He demanded that we give him military bases
on Danish soil on the outlets to the North Sea,' Hitler was to recall in the last week of
his life. 'He had already staked a claim to them. He demanded Constantinople, Romania,
Bulgaria, and Finland – and we were supposed to be the victors!'
While the public was deliberately fed the impression that the formal Nazi–Soviet
discussions had been harmonious and successful, within the chancellery there was no doubt
that they had reached the parting of the ways. Irrevocable and terrible in its finality,
the decision which Adolf Hitler
now took was one he never regretted, even in the abyss of ultimate defeat.
@Vinnie O Sure that's why Stalin amassed all his units on the border and was talking
about the necessity to fight Germany. You imply it was a one way street and that Hitler was
to blame, but despite the love towards the commies in this article Stalin does bear burden
for what happened too.
So in order to combat European revisionism, Parry gives us one long story about the Soviet
Union's honourable intentions towards its neighbours. One can hang any story onto the events
preceding the invasion of Poland, but the fact is as General Manstein wrote about the Polish
camapaign, the Poles were defeated before they started since they had to plan for war against
all comers due their invidious situation. Stalin stepped into Poland a mere 17 days after the
Germans. The Poles had no "hinterland" to retreat to. Under the hammer and anvil of the Nazis
and the Commies the Poles perished.
And Chamberlain like every one else in Europe understood that to effectively contain the
Germans, the Soviet Union has to be part of a united front. But like the gentleman he was, he
could not stomach the price that Uncle Joe wanted to extract, viz the extinction of the
independence of the East European nations. That Hitler wanted Bolshevism destroyed is a no
brainer, but Saint Stalin had his own plans to invade Europe picking up the pieces after the
Europeans had duked it out. In the event the German speed caught everyone by surprise,
including the bloody Stalin
But the article has value : For much of the embroidery around the death camps came from
Soviet accounts, and their later embellishments. Who knows, the same skepticism about the
Soviet Union will later filter into Holocaust worship.
The US/UK and France (Rothschild) are demonising Russia, not the EU.
The EU is probably under pressure to demonise Russia, however most EU countries are
normally doing well with Russia, they are anti-US/UK, considering all the US-UK led NATO
horrific crimes committed in the seven ME countries.
Germany in the grip of Anglo-Saxon war policies?
by Karl Müller
{Excerpts}
"The Europe of today is politically stable and well-off, it is capable of organising its
own defence. The European states have failed to do that for much too long." And: "By using
the financial means, which the USA could spare this way, they could concentrate on Asia
– a process, that was already under way during the Obama administration." And finally:
"In regard to Russia the USA need to pursue a new path of agreement, because otherwise we
will be driving the Russians even closer towards China."
"On 22 August News Agency Reuters reported: "Germany, France and Great Britain rejected US
President Donald Trump's proposal to once again admit Russia to the Circle of G7 countries.
On Wednesday evening, before meeting with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Chancellor
Angela Merkel said that in 2014 Russia had been excluded for definite reasons, and that those
reasons were still valid [ ]. A few days before the G7 Summit in France President Emmanuel
Macron declared his rejection of Russia's re-admittance as well. "I believe that Russia's
unconditional return would be a sign of the G7's weakness and a strategic mistake. Britain's
Prime Minister Johnson concurred in this opinion. [ ]"
"Up to 2023 the USA are planning to invest another two billion dollars only in their bases
in Rheinland Pfalz. Ramstein and Landstuhl have already been rebuilt and modernized for some
billion dollars and cannot be substituted in the short and long term."
This is an interesting yet complex issue. From my blog:
May 1, 2017 – Must Ukraine Return Volhynia?
Hillary Clinton's State Department funneled $5 billion to orchestrate a "revolution" to
overthrow the elected President of Ukraine in 2014. (See my June 7, 2016 blog post for
details.) Ukraine's President was ousted because he refused to support Ukraine joining the EU
and NATO, and violence spread throughout Ukraine as CIA funded factions fought for power.
Crimea was part of Russia for over a century until it was administratively attached to
Ukraine in 1954 by a Soviet premier to promote Soviet solidarity. Russians are the majority
people in Crimea and Russian is the common language, but they were not consulted. In 2014,
after years of Ukrainian political turmoil and an American coup in Kiev, Russia accepted a
request by the people of Crimea to rejoin Russia after 94% voted in favor. (See my Aug 8,
2016 blog post for details.) Russians and Crimeans were puzzled by intense American
opposition to this reannexation, and rightly concluded the Americans really wanted "NATO"
military bases in strategic Crimea.
For those concerned about European borders and justice, they should address a truly
outrageous annexation. In 1939, the Soviet Union invaded Poland and seized half of its land
while Soviet police massacred 22,000 influential Polish POWs and civilians. This area was
invaded by Germany two years later, which formed Ukrainian paramilitary units that murdered
over 100,000 Poles during the war. Entire Polish villages disappeared as Ukrainians massacred
everyone to include women and children, who were buried in mass graves. After the war, the
Polish regions of Volhynia and Eastern Galicia were formally annexed by Soviet Ukraine after
1.5 million Poles were forcibly deported. Over the next decade, another 1.5 million Poles
were deported by Ukraine to ethically cleanse these regions (noted in yellow below).
The West did nothing about this brutality because it occurred within the powerful Soviet
Union. However, that union broke up and Ukraine is weak and at odds with Russia. On July 22,
2016, the Parliament of Poland passed a resolution recognizing the massacres of ethnic Poles
in Volhynia and Galicia as genocide. Poland is now part of NATO and American troops are based
there. Thousands of Poles are still alive who were expelled from these regions. Homes and
land were seized from millions of Poles. Ukrainian war criminals remain at large.
This raises several questions. If Poland demands a return of its territory or compensation
for Poles, will powerful NATO support its demand? Will sanctions be imposed against Ukraine
for this genocide and illegal seizure of Polish territory? Since Crimea was attached to
Ukraine without a democratic vote, and the citizens of Crimea voted to rejoin Russia, should
sanctions against Russia be removed?
Informed people know these issues will never be addressed because NATO does not exist to
protect member states, but is a proxy arm of America's neocon empire trying to conquer the
world. However, as Poland's military grows stronger and Ukraine struggles, this issue may
arise, and crafty Russia may support a return of Poland's, Slovakia's, and Romania's seized
territories!
"... NATO has become an end run around the UN in legitimizing our dirty little wars. No wonder they are going after Tulsi. ..."
"... War and spooks. It makes it me absolutely disgusted to see intelligent, left-leaning people following obvious traps into xenophobia and fascism. People I love talking about Russian conspiracies, foreign "assets", etc. ..."
What was Hillary Clinton thinking? The 2016 Democratic nominee, for some reason, felt the
need to insert herself into the 2020 race with an attack on Tulsi Gabbard, an oddball
Democratic presidential contender who barely registered in polls. The congresswoman from
Hawaii is a completely discreditable candidate -- more on that in a moment -- but Clinton's
accusation that Gabbard is a tool of the Russians was so blunt and clumsy that it has added
new life to a primary bid that should never have existed in the first place. Within a day,
Gabbard was already fundraising off of it, a development as predictable as a sunrise.
Oh no! The great neo-liberal hope proves herself inept again, and the rest of the spooks get
antsy. Damn it Hillary, you're not supposed to directly say that. You're supposed to
imply it from unverifiable sources. Geez, you're making us all look like amateurs over
here.
Here we are again, watching the people that foiseted Her onto us in the first place,
gnashing their teeth because she can't play even the most elementary of politics.
Moreover, Clinton is also right that both Stein and Gabbard are favorites of the Russian
government, which has rushed social-media bots and state-controlled media to their defense at
various times. Stein even got a seat at a dinner with Vladimir Putin, an honor one might
think is a bit out of the weight class of a super-minor American candidate. The fact that
Stein was sitting at the same table as Putin, along with the retired general, future Donald
Trump appointee, and current felon Michael Flynn, should have raised alarm bells because
Putin never wastes a minute of his day on people who cannot be of use to him. But once Trump
was in the race, Russia focused its efforts on getting him elected, and Stein was left to do
what damage she could as a third-party spoiler.
And this is great! We're just going to repeat everything she said, embellish it, and pretend
like it's common knowledge! Brilliant!
Makes Kamala's answer the other day look especially telling. Well, of course ,
everyone knows that... But god, don't say that out loud!
The Atlantic Council of the United States was established in 1961 by former Secretaries
of State Dean Acheson and Christian Herter to bolster support for NATO. The name is
derivative of North Atlantic Council, the highest governing body of NATO.
+ On April 23, 1999, NATO rocketed the central studio of Radio Televisija Srbije (RTS),
the state-owned broadcasting corporation in Belgrade, destroying the building. Sixteen
civilian employees of RTS were killed and 16 wounded. Amnesty International concluded the
attack was a war crime.
+ In a Feb. 12, 2010 atrocity that was kept secret until March 13, US Special Forces
killed a teenage girl, a pregnant mother of 10, a pregnant mother of 6, a police officer
and his brother, and were accused of then trying to cover-up the killings by digging
bullets out of the victims' bodies, washing the wounds with alcohol and lying to superior
officers.
+ While bombing Libya in March 2011, NATO refused to aid a group of 72 migrants adrift
in the Mediterranean Sea. Only nine people on board survived. The refusal was condemned as
criminal by the Council of Europe.
+ On Nov. 26, 2011, NATO jets bombed and rocketed an allied Pakistani military base for
two hours, killing 26 Pakistani soldiers and wounding dozens more. NATO refuses to
apologize
War and spooks. It makes it me absolutely disgusted to see intelligent, left-leaning
people following obvious traps into xenophobia and fascism. People I love talking about
Russian conspiracies, foreign "assets", etc.
My wife is from Hawaii, and she used to respect Tulsi a great deal. It's heartbreaking for
me to watch her fall for this shit.
@Lookout
I think it's because she actually went to school for Political Science. She was in fact, an
intern in the Clinton administration.
Now, she left politics because she was disgusted by it.... I can only imagine how gross it
is up close and personal. But, I think like many women of her time, and a true feminist,
she's fallen for Hillary's victimization game.
When I told her I made my first political donation yesterday, she was excited. When I told
her it was to Tusi, for what Clinton had said, she became immediately combative. But when, I
in exasperation, yelled "I'M DOING IT TO DEFEND A WOMAN!" I think it finally clicked. I'm
hoping that maybe she can finally see that she is just a nasty, vindictive woman.
#2.1 I think
it's because she actually went to school for Political Science. She was in fact, an
intern in the Clinton administration.
Now, she left politics because she was disgusted by it.... I can only imagine how
gross it is up close and personal. But, I think like many women of her time, and a true
feminist, she's fallen for Hillary's victimization game.
When I told her I made my first political donation yesterday, she was excited. When I
told her it was to Tusi, for what Clinton had said, she became immediately combative. But
when, I in exasperation, yelled "I'M DOING IT TO DEFEND A WOMAN!" I think it finally
clicked. I'm hoping that maybe she can finally see that she is just a nasty, vindictive
woman.
Feminism isn't about saying women are better than men but saying women are as capable as
men.
Exactly right. My wife and I own a company. She's better at sales and customer service
than I am, so she does that. I'm better at marketing and technology issues, so I do that. We
each have strengths and weaknesses. The best policy for us, and I posit for society in
general, is to base decisions on quantifiable facts, not on gender.
#2.1.1 may
consider herself a true feminist, her unrelenting support of women as THE answer to our
problems says to me, in my own opinion, she's really no feminist. Feminism isn't about
saying women are better than men but saying women are as capable as men. To me, the
uttering of women who say, like some twit in the media a couple weeks ago, that "women
aren't corrupt" is actually a highly sexist thing to say. Women with real power in our
corrupt system are indeed as corrupt as any man is and seem fully capable of using their
corruption to get ahead. And there have been many women historically who proved that
capability rather well.
I have a couple of friends who are on the same wavelength in too many ways for me.
Both are younger than I am so some of that might be generational differences in
perception, but I think a lot of it is also the media hype of MeToo, Trump, etc. I get
extremely frustrated with them at times but I have learned lately not to even respond to
the latest outrage and keep reminding them, which both do not really like, that woman or
man, in this world, that choice matters about as much as the one between R and D...
Hillary and her disgusting minions sicken me with their sexism talk. They make an open
mockery of real sexism and they feel absolutely no shame doing it. Anything to get ahead
after all, they do not care how many real women they step on, bomb, and kill to get there
either.
@edg
generally, women just think a little different. It was a woman, accountant, that confronted
Ken Lay and brought down Enron. She had nothing to gain. It was a woman FBI agent that
noticed foreign nationals were taking flying lessons that didn't include landing an aircraft.
Her observations were dismissed. Men say, do this, you will prosper, women say do this, it's
the right thing to do. Because that's what they teach their kids. Yes, women can emulate men,
the glass ceiling omits that those standing on the top rung are standing on the fingers of
those below them. But damn it, we need a different way of thinking.
Feminism isn't about saying women are better than men but saying women are as
capable as men.
Exactly right. My wife and I own a company. She's better at sales and customer service
than I am, so she does that. I'm better at marketing and technology issues, so I do that.
We each have strengths and weaknesses. The best policy for us, and I posit for society in
general, is to base decisions on quantifiable facts, not on gender.
women are not shamed, objectified, exploited, deprived of choice, deprived of freedom,
deprived of opportunity, abused, or killed for being women.
#2.1.1 may
consider herself a true feminist, her unrelenting support of women as THE answer to our
problems says to me, in my own opinion, she's really no feminist. Feminism isn't about
saying women are better than men but saying women are as capable as men. To me, the
uttering of women who say, like some twit in the media a couple weeks ago, that "women
aren't corrupt" is actually a highly sexist thing to say. Women with real power in our
corrupt system are indeed as corrupt as any man is and seem fully capable of using their
corruption to get ahead. And there have been many women historically who proved that
capability rather well.
I have a couple of friends who are on the same wavelength in too many ways for me.
Both are younger than I am so some of that might be generational differences in
perception, but I think a lot of it is also the media hype of MeToo, Trump, etc. I get
extremely frustrated with them at times but I have learned lately not to even respond to
the latest outrage and keep reminding them, which both do not really like, that woman or
man, in this world, that choice matters about as much as the one between R and D...
Hillary and her disgusting minions sicken me with their sexism talk. They make an open
mockery of real sexism and they feel absolutely no shame doing it. Anything to get ahead
after all, they do not care how many real women they step on, bomb, and kill to get there
either.
#2.1.1 may
consider herself a true feminist, her unrelenting support of women as THE answer to our
problems says to me, in my own opinion, she's really no feminist. Feminism isn't about
saying women are better than men but saying women are as capable as men. To me, the
uttering of women who say, like some twit in the media a couple weeks ago, that "women
aren't corrupt" is actually a highly sexist thing to say. Women with real power in our
corrupt system are indeed as corrupt as any man is and seem fully capable of using their
corruption to get ahead. And there have been many women historically who proved that
capability rather well.
I have a couple of friends who are on the same wavelength in too many ways for me.
Both are younger than I am so some of that might be generational differences in
perception, but I think a lot of it is also the media hype of MeToo, Trump, etc. I get
extremely frustrated with them at times but I have learned lately not to even respond to
the latest outrage and keep reminding them, which both do not really like, that woman or
man, in this world, that choice matters about as much as the one between R and D...
Hillary and her disgusting minions sicken me with their sexism talk. They make an open
mockery of real sexism and they feel absolutely no shame doing it. Anything to get ahead
after all, they do not care how many real women they step on, bomb, and kill to get there
either.
Gabbard herself has already ruled out such a challenge, but that is beside the point.
Gabbard has now vowed to take her fight to the convention, where she might argue that the
nominee, whom Clinton will applaud and support, is just another tool of the Democratic,
neoconservative, neoliberal, warmongering, globalist establishment.
I sure hope that Tulsi gets a boost out of this nonsense. No matter what one may think of
her as a candidate, I am all for a bigger group of voices, and I am definitely on my feet
applauding Tulsi's response.
Correct me if this is wrong, but I saw a graphic on Twitter or Reddit last night that may
very well explain why Tulsi Gabbard was targeted by the Great White Failure: every one of the
major candidates were either Clinton state delegates or Clinton superdelegates - with the
exceptions of Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard. Also floating around was the Wikileaks email
from the Clinton Cabal to Tulsi, chastising her for resigning. Suddenly, the vicious and
vindictive swipe makes sense.
There was also lot of speculation online too about whether the Ghoul of Politics Past was
testing the smear job waters to see what would knock Tulsi, with the plan to debut the same
hits against Bernie Sanders. I can believe it.
Just to throw the question out there too: do you think other candidates should be asked
about this? I'm now of two minds. On one hand, I believe it's a fair question, and I
especially want to hear all of them demanding that Clinton provide proof of her pretty
serious allegations. Seems to me that no one has asked for the receipts yet. On the other,
the press shouldn't have time to be asking candidates what they think; they should all be
swarming Hillary Clinton, demanding to see her alleged evidence. A third part of me wonders
why we are still giving this human herpes any attention whatsoever. She should be relegated
to the same heap that Glenn Beck currently occupies, where no one gives a rat's ass about her
or her "opinions."
@Le
Frog
Based on Fmr. Sec. Clinton's libelous statement. The language was more direct and
absolute.
Rep. Gabbard should get a bump but she, and certainly Sen. Sanders, have bigger fish to
fry than jumping up and down every time Her rattles the car keys.
is a Donald Trump asset.
I sure hope that Tulsi gets a boost out of this nonsense. No matter what one may think
of her as a candidate, I am all for a bigger group of voices, and I am definitely on my
feet applauding Tulsi's response.
Correct me if this is wrong, but I saw a graphic on Twitter or Reddit last night that
may very well explain why Tulsi Gabbard was targeted by the Great White Failure: every
one of the major candidates were either Clinton state delegates or Clinton superdelegates
- with the exceptions of Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard. Also floating around was the
Wikileaks email from the Clinton Cabal to Tulsi, chastising her for resigning. Suddenly,
the vicious and vindictive swipe makes sense.
There was also lot of speculation online too about whether the Ghoul of Politics Past
was testing the smear job waters to see what would knock Tulsi, with the plan to debut
the same hits against Bernie Sanders. I can believe it.
Just to throw the question out there too: do you think other candidates should be
asked about this? I'm now of two minds. On one hand, I believe it's a fair question, and
I especially want to hear all of them demanding that Clinton provide proof of her pretty
serious allegations. Seems to me that no one has asked for the receipts yet. On the
other, the press shouldn't have time to be asking candidates what they think; they should
all be swarming Hillary Clinton, demanding to see her alleged evidence. A third part of
me wonders why we are still giving this human herpes any attention whatsoever. She should
be relegated to the same heap that Glenn Beck currently occupies, where no one gives a
rat's ass about her or her "opinions."
@OzoneTom
I would love to see a lawsuit from Jill Stein.
#4
Based on Fmr. Sec. Clinton's libelous statement. The language was more direct and
absolute.
Rep. Gabbard should get a bump but she, and certainly Sen. Sanders, have bigger fish
to fry than jumping up and down every time Her rattles the car keys.
...but it fits this conversation too
https://thegrayzone.com/2019/10/20/max-blumenthal-on-why-hillary-clinton... (22 min)
Max Blumenthal says that Clinton's comments reflect a continued effort by Democratic
neo-liberals to deflect responsibility for their loss to Trump in 2016; marginalize voices
like Gabbard and Stein's who challenge their pro-war, corporatist agenda; and preview their
potential future attacks on Bernie Sanders.
is a Donald Trump asset.
I sure hope that Tulsi gets a boost out of this nonsense. No matter what one may think
of her as a candidate, I am all for a bigger group of voices, and I am definitely on my
feet applauding Tulsi's response.
Correct me if this is wrong, but I saw a graphic on Twitter or Reddit last night that
may very well explain why Tulsi Gabbard was targeted by the Great White Failure: every
one of the major candidates were either Clinton state delegates or Clinton superdelegates
- with the exceptions of Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard. Also floating around was the
Wikileaks email from the Clinton Cabal to Tulsi, chastising her for resigning. Suddenly,
the vicious and vindictive swipe makes sense.
There was also lot of speculation online too about whether the Ghoul of Politics Past
was testing the smear job waters to see what would knock Tulsi, with the plan to debut
the same hits against Bernie Sanders. I can believe it.
Just to throw the question out there too: do you think other candidates should be
asked about this? I'm now of two minds. On one hand, I believe it's a fair question, and
I especially want to hear all of them demanding that Clinton provide proof of her pretty
serious allegations. Seems to me that no one has asked for the receipts yet. On the
other, the press shouldn't have time to be asking candidates what they think; they should
all be swarming Hillary Clinton, demanding to see her alleged evidence. A third part of
me wonders why we are still giving this human herpes any attention whatsoever. She should
be relegated to the same heap that Glenn Beck currently occupies, where no one gives a
rat's ass about her or her "opinions."
Representative Gabbard, We were very disappointed to hear that you would resign your
position with the DNC so you could endorse Bernie Sanders, a man who has never been a
Democrat before. When we met over dinner a couple of years ago I was so impressed by your
intellect, your passion, and commitment to getting things done on behalf of the American
people. For you to endorse a man who has spent almost 40 years in public office with very
few accomplishments, doesn't fall in line with what we previously thought of you. Hillary
Clinton will be our party's nominee and you standing on ceremony to support the sinking
Bernie Sanders ship is disrespectful to Hillary Clinton. A woman who has spent the vast
majority of her life in public service and working on behalf of women, families, and the
underserved. You have called both myself and Michael Kives before about helping your
campaign raise money, we no longer trust your judgement so will not be raising money for
your campaign.
Darnell Strom & Michael Kives
Ooh..bet that hurt.
These are the guys who represent lots of powerful people in government, the media and
Hollywood. If you want to go anywhere then you need them on your side.
is a Donald Trump asset.
I sure hope that Tulsi gets a boost out of this nonsense. No matter what one may think
of her as a candidate, I am all for a bigger group of voices, and I am definitely on my
feet applauding Tulsi's response.
Correct me if this is wrong, but I saw a graphic on Twitter or Reddit last night that
may very well explain why Tulsi Gabbard was targeted by the Great White Failure: every
one of the major candidates were either Clinton state delegates or Clinton superdelegates
- with the exceptions of Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard. Also floating around was the
Wikileaks email from the Clinton Cabal to Tulsi, chastising her for resigning. Suddenly,
the vicious and vindictive swipe makes sense.
There was also lot of speculation online too about whether the Ghoul of Politics Past
was testing the smear job waters to see what would knock Tulsi, with the plan to debut
the same hits against Bernie Sanders. I can believe it.
Just to throw the question out there too: do you think other candidates should be
asked about this? I'm now of two minds. On one hand, I believe it's a fair question, and
I especially want to hear all of them demanding that Clinton provide proof of her pretty
serious allegations. Seems to me that no one has asked for the receipts yet. On the
other, the press shouldn't have time to be asking candidates what they think; they should
all be swarming Hillary Clinton, demanding to see her alleged evidence. A third part of
me wonders why we are still giving this human herpes any attention whatsoever. She should
be relegated to the same heap that Glenn Beck currently occupies, where no one gives a
rat's ass about her or her "opinions."
Thomas M. Nichols
He closes the article with this tidbit -
As a former Republican who will vote for the Democratic nominee again in 2020, I hope
that I never have to talk about Tulsi Gabbard again. I can only hope that enough Democratic
Party leaders can convince Hillary Clinton to feel the same way.
Check out his book! -
The Death of Expertise: The Campaign against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters
(!!!!)
Technology and increasing levels of education have exposed people to more information
than ever before. These societal gains, however, have also helped fuel a surge in
narcissistic and misguided intellectual egalitarianism that has crippled informed debates
on any number of issues. Today, everyone knows everything: with only a quick trip through
WebMD or Wikipedia, average citizens believe themselves to be on an equal intellectual
footing with doctors and diplomats. All voices, even the most ridiculous, demand to be
taken with equal seriousness, and any claim to the contrary is dismissed as undemocratic
elitism. Tom Nichols' The Death of Expertise shows how this rejection of experts has
occurred: the openness of the internet, the emergence of a customer service model in higher
education, and the transformation of the news industry into a 24-hour entertainment
machine, among other reasons. Paradoxically, the increasingly democratic dissemination of
information, rather than producing an educated public, has instead created an army of
ill-informed and angry citizens who denounce intellectual achievement. When ordinary
citizens believe that no one knows more than anyone else, democratic institutions
themselves are in danger of falling either to populism or to technocracy or, in the worst
case, a combination of both.
@konondrum@konondrum
But I can't remember who. The big quote was something like, "In America every shopkeeper is
an expert."
Thomas M. Nichols
He closes the article with this tidbit -
As a former Republican who will vote for the Democratic nominee again in 2020, I
hope that I never have to talk about Tulsi Gabbard again. I can only hope that enough
Democratic Party leaders can convince Hillary Clinton to feel the same way.
Check out his book! -
The Death of Expertise: The Campaign against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters
(!!!!)
Technology and increasing levels of education have exposed people to more
information than ever before. These societal gains, however, have also helped fuel a
surge in narcissistic and misguided intellectual egalitarianism that has crippled
informed debates on any number of issues. Today, everyone knows everything: with only a
quick trip through WebMD or Wikipedia, average citizens believe themselves to be on an
equal intellectual footing with doctors and diplomats. All voices, even the most
ridiculous, demand to be taken with equal seriousness, and any claim to the contrary is
dismissed as undemocratic elitism. Tom Nichols' The Death of Expertise shows how this
rejection of experts has occurred: the openness of the internet, the emergence of a
customer service model in higher education, and the transformation of the news industry
into a 24-hour entertainment machine, among other reasons. Paradoxically, the
increasingly democratic dissemination of information, rather than producing an educated
public, has instead created an army of ill-informed and angry citizens who denounce
intellectual achievement. When ordinary citizens believe that no one knows more than
anyone else, democratic institutions themselves are in danger of falling either to
populism or to technocracy or, in the worst case, a combination of both.
@konondrum
This is just what I need: My worst of all fears confirmed.
It wasn't so long ago that "standing up to experts" was just something crank Texas
dentists got skewered by Stephen Colbert for...but now?
Thomas M. Nichols
He closes the article with this tidbit -
As a former Republican who will vote for the Democratic nominee again in 2020, I
hope that I never have to talk about Tulsi Gabbard again. I can only hope that enough
Democratic Party leaders can convince Hillary Clinton to feel the same way.
Check out his book! -
The Death of Expertise: The Campaign against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters
(!!!!)
Technology and increasing levels of education have exposed people to more
information than ever before. These societal gains, however, have also helped fuel a
surge in narcissistic and misguided intellectual egalitarianism that has crippled
informed debates on any number of issues. Today, everyone knows everything: with only a
quick trip through WebMD or Wikipedia, average citizens believe themselves to be on an
equal intellectual footing with doctors and diplomats. All voices, even the most
ridiculous, demand to be taken with equal seriousness, and any claim to the contrary is
dismissed as undemocratic elitism. Tom Nichols' The Death of Expertise shows how this
rejection of experts has occurred: the openness of the internet, the emergence of a
customer service model in higher education, and the transformation of the news industry
into a 24-hour entertainment machine, among other reasons. Paradoxically, the
increasingly democratic dissemination of information, rather than producing an educated
public, has instead created an army of ill-informed and angry citizens who denounce
intellectual achievement. When ordinary citizens believe that no one knows more than
anyone else, democratic institutions themselves are in danger of falling either to
populism or to technocracy or, in the worst case, a combination of both.
Will any of HER buddies address anything in Tulsi's tweet aside from Russia? I think not.
HER is going to have to take the "rot" comment on the chin because I'm sure they really
really don't want to have that conversation.
So, I am glad Tulsi opened that door and I hope she doesn't let up on it. Russiagate is,
after all, a symptom of the corruption in the party, just like Trump is.
@Lookout
I watched it yesterday and was amazed by his take on it, especially after he had harsh words
for Tulsi regarding her version of Medicare for All. To be sure, Time Black is a big Bernie
supporter, but his latest on Tulsi is excellent.
I was sorta confused about why Hillary did it. Mostly I thought to open door to attack
Bernie. In many ways that door is closed now given the reaction of the masses. I now think
Hillary's comments were meant to sideline not so much the candidate Tulsi but her messages of
anti-war and anti-regime change. I think her constant iteration just like Bernie's
constant iteration of m4a, was reaching people way beyond her poll numbers.
It boils down to this:
Atlantic Council (war mongers) = regime change and war is good. Losing ground.
Tulsi: regime change and war is bad. Winning ground.
Tulsi's influence goes beyond her poll numbers. She is thee most dangerous candidate to
the establishment because she is winning the ideological battle over foreign policy and
war.
@MrWebster
Nothing today should be about Her. It is straight from the Trump playbook. Allowing this
absurd slander to distract us from keeping our eyes on the prize is a win for Her.
Senator Sanders and Representative Gabbard are moving ahead on the front. They are
depending on the rest of us to resist on the flanks.
"Not me, Us!" is not just a slogan...
I was sorta confused about why Hillary did it. Mostly I thought to open door to attack
Bernie. In many ways that door is closed now given the reaction of the masses. I now
think Hillary's comments were meant to sideline not so much the candidate Tulsi but her
messages of anti-war and anti-regime change. I think her constant iteration just like
Bernie's constant iteration of m4a, was reaching people way beyond her poll
numbers.
It boils down to this:
Atlantic Council (war mongers) = regime change and war is good. Losing ground.
Tulsi: regime change and war is bad. Winning ground.
Tulsi's influence goes beyond her poll numbers. She is thee most dangerous candidate
to the establishment because she is winning the ideological battle over foreign policy
and war.
@MrWebster
Excellent comment that reflects my own view of what is going on here.
Just as Bernie's 2016 Presidential campaign has greatly changed the dommestic policy
landscape, the oligarchy and the MIC are seeing that Tulsi Gabbard's 2020 Presidential
campaign is beginning to take hold in changing the political landscape foreign policy wise.
The empire is coming apart and they are lashing back.
I was sorta confused about why Hillary did it. Mostly I thought to open door to attack
Bernie. In many ways that door is closed now given the reaction of the masses. I now
think Hillary's comments were meant to sideline not so much the candidate Tulsi but her
messages of anti-war and anti-regime change. I think her constant iteration just like
Bernie's constant iteration of m4a, was reaching people way beyond her poll
numbers.
It boils down to this:
Atlantic Council (war mongers) = regime change and war is good. Losing ground.
Tulsi: regime change and war is bad. Winning ground.
Tulsi's influence goes beyond her poll numbers. She is thee most dangerous candidate
to the establishment because she is winning the ideological battle over foreign policy
and war.
...something to do with HER server, wasn't it? But what I REALLY think is going on, and I
could be totally wrong, is that Bernie is considering Tulsi as his VP pick, when and if, and
this is to sow enough doubt and deceit about Tulsi that it wounds Bernie. But one thing I
know for sure: that Clinton hag is one evil bitch!
...something to do with HER server, wasn't it? But what I REALLY think is going on,
and I could be totally wrong, is that Bernie is considering Tulsi as his VP pick, when
and if, and this is to sow enough doubt and deceit about Tulsi that it wounds Bernie. But
one thing I know for sure: that Clinton hag is one evil bitch!
"... This is when it became clear it wasn't just political operatives pushing fake news about Russian influence, but that "respected" mass media would be leading the charge for them. The rest is pretty much history. MSNBC, CNN, The Washington Post, etc have been spewing outlandish Russiagate nonsense for three years straight, and despite the complete failure of special counsel Robert Mueller to find any evidence of Trump-Russia collusion, these agents of empire refuse to stop. ..."
"... Americans like to sneer at more transparently unfree societies around the world, but when you think about the disturbing implications of former spooks delivering news to the public, one can't help but conclude that mass media in 2019 looks like a gigantic propaganda campaign targeting U.S. citizens. Moreover, as can be seen by the recent attacks by Clinton and her allies in the media on Gabbard, they aren't easing up. ..."
"... Comey was a senior vice president for Lockheed Martin before returning to Washington ..."
"... Excuse me, the voting going on up there for sanctions on Russia for various bogus things has been pretty much unanimous and bipartisan. ..."
The corporate revolution will collapse if we refuse to buy what they are selling – their ideas, their version of history, their
wars, their weapons, their notion of inevitability.
– Arundhati Roy
Last week, Hillary Clinton called Tulsi Gabbard (and Jill Stein) Russian agents on a podcast. More
specifically :
"I'm not making any predictions, but I think they've got their eye on someone who's currently in the Democratic primary and
are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She's the favorite of the Russians," said Clinton, apparently referring to Rep.
Gabbard, who's been accused of receiving support from Russian bots and the Russian news media. "They have a bunch of sites and
bots and other ways of supporting her so far." She added: "That's assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because
she's also a Russian asset. Yeah, she's a Russian asset -- I mean, totally. They know they can't win without a third-party candidate.
So I don't know who it's going to be, but I will guarantee you they will have a vigorous third-party challenge in the key states
that they most needed."
Tulsi subsequently responded to this slanderous accusation with a series of devastating blows.
Her tweets set off a firestorm, and even if you're as disillusioned by presidential politics as myself, you couldn't help but
cheer wildly that someone with a major political platform finally stated without any hint of fear or hesitation exactly what so many
Americans across the ideological spectrum feel.
Of course, this has far wider implications than a high profile feud between these two. The "let's blame Russia for Hillary's loss"
epidemic of calculated stupidity driven by Ellen-Democrats and their mouthpieces across corporate mass media began immediately after
the election. I know about it on a personal level because this website was an early target of the neoliberal-led new McCarthyism
courtesy of a ridiculous and libelous smear in the Washington Post over Thanksgiving weekend 2016 (see:
Liberty Blitzkrieg Included on Washington Post Highlighted Hit List of "Russian Propaganda" Websites) .
This is when it became clear it wasn't just political operatives pushing fake news about Russian influence, but that "respected"
mass media would be leading the charge for them. The rest is pretty much history. MSNBC, CNN, The Washington Post, etc have been
spewing outlandish Russiagate nonsense for three years straight, and despite the complete failure of special counsel Robert Mueller
to find any evidence of Trump-Russia collusion, these agents of empire refuse to stop. The whole charade seems more akin to an intelligence
operation than journalism, which shouldn't be surprising given the proliferation of former intelligence agents throughout mass media
in the Trump era.
Former CIA Director
John Brennan
(2013-17) is the latest superspook to be reborn as a TV newsie. He just
cashed in at
NBC News as a "senior national security and intelligence analyst" and served his first expert views on last Sunday's edition of
Meet the Press .
The Brennan acquisition seeks to elevate NBC to spook parity with CNN, which employs former Director of National Intelligence
James Clapper and former CIA Director
Michael Hayden
in a similar capacity.
Other, lesser-known national security veterans thrive under TV's grow lights. Almost too numerous to list, they include
Chuck Rosenberg
, former acting DEA administrator, chief of staff for FBI Director James B. Comey, and
counselor to former FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III;
Frank Figliuzzi , former chief of FBI counterintelligence;
Juan Zarate , deputy national security adviser under Bush, at NBC; and
Fran
Townsend , homeland security adviser under Bush, at CBS News.
CNN's bulging roster also includes former FBI agent Asha Rangappa
; former FBI agent James Gagliano
; Obama's former deputy national security adviser
Tony Blinken ; former House
Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers ; senior
adviser to the National Security Council during the Obama administration
Samantha Vinograd ; retired CIA operations officer
Steven L. Hall; and
Philip Mudd , also retired from the CIA.
Americans like to sneer at more transparently unfree societies around the world, but when you think about the disturbing implications
of former spooks delivering news to the public, one can't help but conclude that mass media in 2019 looks like a gigantic propaganda
campaign targeting U.S. citizens. Moreover, as can be seen by the recent attacks by Clinton and her allies in the media on Gabbard,
they aren't easing up.
Which brings us to the crux of the issue. Why are they doing this? Why is Clinton, with zero evidence whatsoever, falsely calling
a sitting U.S. Congresswoman, a veteran with two tours in Iraq, and someone polling at only 2% in the Democratic primary a "Russian
asset." Why are they so afraid of Tulsi Gabbard?
It's partly personal. Tulsi was one of only a handful of congressional Democrats to set aside fears of the Clintons and their
mafia-like network to endorse Bernie Sanders early in 2016. In fact, she
stepped
down from her position as vice-chairman of the Democratic National Committee to do so. This is the sort of thing a petty narcissist
like Hillary Clinton could never forgive, but it goes further.
Tulsi's mere presence on stage during recent debates has proven devastating for the Ellen Degeneres wing of the Democratic party.
She effectively ended neoliberal darling Kamala Harris' chances by simply telling the truth about her horrible record, something
no one else in the race had the guts to do.
In other words, Tulsi demolished Kamala Harris and put an end to her primary chances by simply telling the truth about her on
national television. This is how powerful the truth can be when somebody's actually willing to stand up and say it. It's why the
agents of empire -- in charge of virtually all major institutions -- go out of their way to ensure the American public is exposed
to as little truth as possible. It's also why they lie and scream "Russia" instead of debating the actual issues.
But this goes well beyond Tulsi Gabbard. Empire requires constant meddling abroad as well as periodic regime change wars to ensure
compliant puppets are firmly in control of any country with any geopolitical significance. The 21st century has been littered with
a series of disastrous U.S. interventions abroad, while the country back home continues to descend deeper into a neo-feudal oligarchy
with a hunger games style economy. As such, an increasing number of Americans have begun to question the entire premise of imperial
foreign policy.
To the agents of empire, dominant throughout mainstream politics, mega corporations, think-tanks and of course mass media, this
sort of thought crime is entirely unacceptable. In case you haven't noticed, empire is a third-rail of U.S. politics. If you dare
touch the issue, you'll be ruthlessly smeared, without any evidence, as a Russian agent or asset. There's nothing logical about this,
but then again there typically isn't much logic when it comes to psychological operations. They depend on manipulation and triggering
specific emotional responses.
There's a reason people like Hillary Clinton and her minions just yell "Russia" whenever an individual with a platform criticizes
empire and endless war. They know they can't win an argument if they debate the actual issues, so a conscious choice was made to
simply avoid debate entirely. As such, they've decided to craft and spread a disingenuous narrative in which anyone critical of establishment
neocon/neoliberal foreign policy is a Russia asset/agent/bot. This is literally all they've got. These people are telling you 2+2=5
and if you don't accept it, you're a traitorous, Putin-loving nazi with a pee pee tape. And these same people call themselves "liberal."
Importantly, it isn't just a few trollish kooks doing this. It's being spread by some of the most powerful people and institutions
in the country, including of course mass media.
This inane verbal vomit is considered "liberal" news in modern America, a word which has now lost all meaning. Above, we witness
a collection of television mannequins questioning the loyalty of a U.S. veteran who continues to serve in both Congress and the national
guard simply because she dared call out America's perpetually failing foreign policy establishment.
To conclude, it's now clear dissent is only permitted so long as it doesn't become too popular. By polling at 2% in the primary,
it appears Gabbard became too popular, but the truth is she's just a vessel. What's really got the agents of empire concerned is
we may be on the verge of a tipping point within the broader U.S. population regarding regime change wars and empire. This is why
debate needs to be shut down and shut down now. A critical mass of citizens openly questioning establishment foreign policy cannot
be permitted. Those on the fence need to be bullied and manipulated into thinking dissent is equivalent to being a traitor. The national
security state doesn't want the public to even think about such topics, let alone debate them.
Ultimately, if you give up your capacity for reason, for free-thought and for the courage to say what you think about issues of
national significance, you've lost everything. This is what these manipulators want you to do. They want you to shut-up, to listen
to the "experts" who destroy everything they touch, and to be a compliant subject as opposed to an active, empowered citizen. The
answer to such a tactic is to be more bold, more informed and more ethical. They fear truth and empowered individuals more than anything
else. Stand up tall and speak your mind. Pandering to bullies never works.
* * *
Liberty Blitzkrieg is now 100% ad free. To make this a successful, sustainable thing consider the following options. You can become
a Patron . You can visit the
Support Page to donate via PayPal, Bitcoin
or send cash/check in the mail.
For those of us who grew up during the Cold War going to Russia is intense. I have never been so scared in my life as when
that plane touched down at Pulkovo 2. And I though Dulles was a shithole.
Russians love art and they have fantastic museums and fantastic architecture. Food is a bit sketchy but you can make do. No
fat women there that I saw. In fact, you will see some of the most beautiful women in the world there. Trust me on that.
Pelosi is smart enough to know that all roads lead to Putin. But is she smart enough to know that're not just American and
its 'allied' Western 'roads', but now its all the roads in the world.
Because the world finally understands that Putin is the only peacemaker on the scene. And that most of the disputes the international
community is saddled with are a direct result of American foreign policy and the excesses of its economy.
The world is tired of being dragged through Hell at the whim of a handful of American neocon devotees of Paul Wolfowitz and
the fallacious Wolfowitz Doctrine which was credited with having won the Cold War for the West and has been in effect ever since.
Except there seems to be some doubt now who actually won the Cold War with America scrambling to get out of Syria, leaving
behind a symbolic force of a couple of thousand troops.
That's the reason for everything that's going on America today. Russia, under Putin, has turned the tables on Congress, the
neocons, the warmongers, and those politicians and elite who want the Middle East and its vast reserves of oil to continue to
be destabilized by intranational, neighborly hatreds, by terrorism and by America's closest ally, Israel to continue to expand
its borders with its policy of settlements. This problematic situation is scrupulously avoided in America and the West's MSM,
and can only be seen in foreign media. Which brings us back to Putin.
Is he following the strategies of Sun Tzu, who advises you to
'appear weak when you are strong and strong when you are weak.'
'all warfare is based on deception'
'victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first then try to win.'
Hillary Clinton is obviously testing the waters for a last-minute, swoop-in candidacy. She sees Biden deflating and realizes
there's nobody to keep the Democratic nomination firmly in corporate hands. She wants them to beg her, though.
Without Russia, ASSAD would be long gone and IRAN would have been bombed to oblivion, and Greater Israhell would have been
fulfilled and ruling over the MidEast.
In other words, Russia bashing by Jewish-controlled politicians and in Jewish-controlled Western media
is simply PAYBACK .
I am a Russian Agent. Well, not formally but act as one. Only in elections though as Russia forbids (after losing 30 million
dead in WW2) any military or violent interference. Agent may be too strong a word as my actions reflect the beauty of Russian
literature, music and philosophy. (qv Kropotkin, Rimsky Korsakoff etc. etc.) Maybe a spokesman?
In this coming election vote for the agent of your choice. Gabbard, Trump, (Cackles, hang on and wait for this one) or Biden
( on whom we await a conversion). This agency stuff is fun. Can't wait.
The quid pro quo for many Deep State bureaucrats comes after they are no longer in office as typified by jobs as "experts"
with the corrupt news networks. Comey was a senior vice president for Lockheed Martin before returning to Washington.
Trump is outing them all and they are out to destroy him.
If the Russians are so bad, why did we give them our Uranium? Hillary and corrupt Washington Swamp dwellers in action. How
many in Congress opposed the deal? We need Trump to be reelected to Make America Great Again.
I remember in the 80's Democrats would mercilessly lampoon and make fun of Conservatives for their (at the time) hard-line
stance against the Soviet Union and how we should just get over it: peace, love and b*llsh*t. My how times have changed.
You need a scorecard to keep track these days. Barry lampooned Mitt for speaking against the Russians, like they were the 'good
guys' (ahem, 'tell Vlad' and Kills power reset button) Make up your ******* minds people.
Thank you for bringing my attention to Russia. Had it not been for your constant denunciations, I probably would never have
investigated that nation to the extent that I have, and that would have been my loss. Allow me to explain.
As a permanent student of human history and culture, I've traveled to, and studied many different nations, from Japan, China
and Thailand, to Europe, Latin America and the Middle East, but somehow I managed to completely miss Russia. Of course I was familiar
with the Western narrative concerning communism and the USSR - I grew up with that - but I never fully understood Russian culture
until, by your actions, you forced me to look into it.
I've since studied their history intently, and have studied their language to the point where I can at least make myself understood.
I've spoken to Russian expats, read numerous books, watched their TV shows, listened to their music, and have kept a close eye
on current events, including the coup in Ukraine and Russia's response to that event. At this point I feel well enough prepared
to travel to Russia and I'm looking forward to my upcoming trip with great anticipation.
I operate on the basic premise that I'm nobody special - that there are thousands of people just like me with a deep interest
in human affairs, who, like myself, have been prompted to investigate a culture that, for various reasons, has been largely overlooked
in the West. So, on my own and their behalf I thank you for providing the impetus to focus our attention in that regard. It's
probably not what you intended, but it is what it is. Thanks to you, many hundreds, if not thousands of people have now undertaken
a study of Russia and her people, and that can only be a good thing, as the more we know about each other, the less we have to
fear, and the less likely we are to come into conflict with one another.
Bravo well written and right on the mark. If Tulsi wasn't a gun grabber and openly supported the 2nd Amendment she would be
a front runner, only a few steps behind Trump. And by the way, don't trust those 2% Polls. We all know the polls are pure ********.
When one Colonel Gary Powers was shot down in his USAF U2 spy plane in 1960 and captured alive he was asked by his then KGB
interrogators what the difference was between the Republican and Democratic parties.......and he admitted to being at a loss to
explain that there was any fundamental difference at all.
Therein lies the root problem with the American political system. All through the process it arrives at the same outcomes and
it doesnt matter who you vote for.
It could be argued that it is in effect a one party system as both are indistinguishable from each other ultimately as they
push the America PLC agenda.
The entire system is held captive by secretive and "invisible" unelected groups who call the shots and if you push too hard
they have you killed one way or another.....all the esoteric secret societies of any significance are represented.
The question therefore is this; Is America any different to China other than the wallpaper coverings?
To paraphrase Mark Twain; If voting really mattered they wouldn't let you do it.
Those on the fence need to be bullied and manipulated into thinking dissent is equivalent to being a traitor
This is true with Trumptards on this comments board. They unquestionably follow lies, manipulative, and hollow Trump doctrine
without thinking.
Just yesterday there was and idiot spewing out that 'Assange was treasonous' before engaging his cerebral matter to realise
you cannot be a traitor against a country that's not yours.
In keeping with professional journalistic ethics, The Times also reached out to
experts on fascism, fascist terrorism, terrorist fascism, fascist-adjacent Assad-apologism,
Hitlerism, horrorism, Russia, and so on, to confirm Gabbard's guilt-by-association with the
people The Times had just associated her with. Brian Levin, Director of the CSU Center
for the Study of Hate and Extremism, confirmed that Gabbard has "the seal of approval" within
goose-stepping, Hitler-loving, neo-Nazi circles. The Alliance for Securing Democracy (yes, the
one from the previous paragraph) conducted an "independent analysis" which confirmed that RT
("the Kremlin-backed news agency") had mentioned Gabbard far more often than the Western
corporate media (which isn't backed by anyone, and is totally unbiased and independent, despite
the fact that most of it is owned by a handful of powerful global corporations, and at least
one CIA-affiliated oligarch). Oh, and Hawaii State Senator Kai Kahele, who is challenging
Gabbard for her seat in Congress, agreed with The Times that Gabbard's support from
Jew-hating, racist Putin-Nazis might be a potential liability.
"Clearly there's something about her and her policies that attracts and appeals to these
type of people who are white nationalists, anti-Semites, and Holocaust deniers."
But it's not just The New York Times , of course. No sooner had Clinton finished
cackling than the corporate media launched into their familiar Goebbelsian piano routine,
banging out story after television segment repeating the words "Gabbard" and "Russian asset."
I've singled out The Times because the smear piece in question was clearly a warm-up for
Hillary Clinton's calculated smear job on Friday night. No, the old gal hasn't lost her mind.
She knew exactly what she was doing, as did the editors of The New York Times , as did
every other establishment news source that breathlessly "reported" her neo-McCarthyite
smears.
As I noted in my previous essay ,
2020 is for all the marbles, and it's not just about who wins the election. No, it's mostly
about crushing the "populist" backlash against the hegemony of global capitalism and its happy,
smiley-faced, conformist ideology. To do that, the neoliberal establishment has to
delegitimize, and lethally stigmatize, not just Trump, but also people like Gabbard, Bernie
Sanders, Jeremy Corbyn and any other popular political figure (left, right, it makes no
difference) deviating from that ideology.
Ask yourself, what do Trump, Sanders, Corbyn, and Gabbard have in common? No, it's not their
Putin-Nazism it's the challenge they represent to global capitalism. Each, in his or her own
way, is a symbol of the growing populist resistance to the privatization and globalization of
everything. And thus, they must be delegitimized, stigmatized, and relentlessly smeared as
"Russian assets," "anti-Semites," "traitors," "white supremacists," "fascists," "communists,"
or some other type of "extremists."
Gabbard, to her credit, understands this, and is focusing attention on the motives
and tactics of the neoliberal establishment and their smear machine. As I noted in
an essay last year , "the only way to effectively counter a smear campaign (whether
large-scale or small-scale) is to resist the temptation to profess your innocence, and,
instead, focus as much attention on the tactics and the motives of the smearers as
possible ." This will not save her, but it is the best she can do, and I applaud her for
having the guts to do it. I hope she continues to give them hell as they finish off her
candidacy and drive her out of office.
... ... ...
Ask them whether their smear machine is working... if you can get them off the phone with
their brokers, or whoever is decorating their summer places in the Hamptons or out on
Martha's
Vineyard .
Or ask the millions of well-off liberals who are still, even after Russiagate was exposed as an
enormous hoax based on absolutely nothing , parroting this paranoid official narrative and
calling people "Russian assets" on Twitter. Or never mind, just pay attention to what happens
over the next twelve months. In terms of ridiculous
official propaganda , spittle-flecked McCarthyite smears, and full-blown psychotic mass
Putin-Nazi hysteria, it's going to make the last three years look like the Propaganda Special
Olympics.
* * *
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist
based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play
Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant Paperbacks. He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .
She is absolutely in the best position to talk about foreign policy having been there in the
trenches and personally knowing horrors or war. I've seen bits of those Fox videos and she
was admirable there. Being a veteran probably counts for something in small towns where most
Americans live.
I wasn't following her on social media so not sure how she fares there.
Bernie, on the other hand, knows how to campaign and has very good domestic policy and he
used to be popular in swing states, certainly better than Clinton.
So two of them would be my dream ticket. I feel Warren and Biden would be a loss of
another four years or even longer.
While the mainstream liberal media remains firmly in the pocket of the Clintons' propaganda machine, spewing russophobic accusations
at any and every one who dares question the establishment and military-industrial complex line, there are some - on the left - that
are willing to step up and defend Tulsi Gabbard against the latest delusional suggestion from Hillary that she is a 'Russian asset'.
So now Crooked Hillary is at it again! She is calling Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard "a Russian favorite," and Jill Stein "a Russian
asset." As you may have heard, I was called a big Russia lover also (actually, I do like Russian people. I like all people!).
Hillary's gone Crazy!
What the circular firing squad left undone, will be accomplished by infighting between Clintonites and "moderates" ( a too
positive concept). May the Deluge drown you all in 2020.
...Tulsi served two tours of duty in the Middle East, and she continues her service as a Major in the Army National Guard.
Tulsi's 2005 deployment was a 12-month tour at Logistical Support Area Anaconda in Iraq, where she served in a field medical unit
as a specialist with a 29th Support Battalion medical company. She was awarded the Meritorious Service Medal at the end of this
tour.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren are reportedly developing a close
political friendship that might prove pivotal to deciding the Democratic presidential nomination.
Both have kept in touch since Warren announced her decision to seek the Democratic nomination last February, NBC News reported
Saturday.
"Hillary Clinton would absolutely have influence over a number of delegates to this convention," Deb Kozikowski, the vice-chairwoman
of the Massachusetts Democratic Party, told NBC, referring to the possibility that Clinton could help Warren secure delegates
if there is no clear nominee heading into the Democratic National Convention next summer .
One Democratic strategist told NBC that Clinton has been watching and approving of Warren's campaign as the senator has unveiled
a series of increasingly progressive policy proposals.
"... And then there is the Great Hillary Clinton caper. In an interview last week Hillary claimed predictably that Donald Trump is "Vladimir Putin's dream," and then went on to assert that there would be other Russian assets emerging, including nestled in the bosom of her own beloved Democratic Party ..."
"... Tulsi responded courageously and accurately "Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton . ..."
"... Tulsi has in fact been attacked relentless by the Establishment since she announced that she would be running for the Democratic nomination. Shortly before last Tuesday's Democratic candidate debate the New York Times ..."
"... quid pro quos ..."
"... Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is ..."
There was what might be described as an extraordinary amount of nonsense being promoted by
last week's media. Unfortunately, some of it was quite dangerous. Admiral William McRaven, who
commanded the Navy Seals when Osama bin Laden was captured and killed and who has been riding
that horse ever since, announced that if Donald Trump continues to fail to provide the type of
leadership the country needs, he should be replaced by whatever means are necessary. The
op-ed entitled "Our Republic is Under Attack by the President" with the subtitle "If
President Trump doesn't demonstrate the leadership that America needs, then it is time for a
new person in the Oval Office" was featured in the New York Times, suggesting that the Gray
Lady was providing its newspaper of record seal of approval for what might well be regarded as
a call for a military coup.
McRaven's exact words, after some ringing praise for the military and all its glorious deeds
in past wars, were that the soldiers, sailors and marines now must respond because "The America
that they believed in was under attack, not from without, but from within."
McRaven then elaborated that "These men and women, of all political persuasions, have seen
the assaults on our institutions: on the intelligence and law enforcement community, the State
Department and the press. They have seen our leaders stand beside despots and strongmen,
preferring their government narrative to our own. They have seen us abandon our allies and have
heard the shouts of betrayal from the battlefield. As I stood on the parade field at Fort
Bragg, one retired four-star general, grabbed my arm, shook me and shouted, 'I don't like the
Democrats, but Trump is destroying the Republic!'"
It is a call to arms if there ever was one. Too bad Trump can't strip McRaven of his pension
and generous health care benefits for starters and McRaven might also consider that he could be
recalled to active duty by Trump and court martialed under the Uniform Code of Military
Justice. And the good admiral, who up until 2018 headed the state university system in Texas,
might also receive well merited pushback for his assessment of America's role in the world over
the past two decades, in which he was a major player, at least in terms of dealing out
punishment. He wrote ""We are the most powerful nation in the world because we try to be the
good guys. We are the most powerful nation in the world because our ideals of universal freedom
and equality have been backed up by our belief that we were champions of justice, the
protectors of the less fortunate."
Utter bullshit, of course. The United States has been acting as the embodiment of a rogue
nation, lashing out pointlessly and delivering death and destruction. If McRaven truly believes
what he says he is not only violating his oath to defend the constitution while also toying
with treason, he is an idiot and should never have been allowed to run anything more demanding
than a hot dog stand. Washington has been systematically blowing people up worldwide for no
good reasons, killing possibly as many as 4 million mostly Muslims, while systematically
stripping Americans of their Bill of Rights at home. "Good guys" and "champions of justice"
indeed!
And then there is the Great Hillary Clinton caper. In an
interview last week Hillary claimed predictably that Donald Trump is "Vladimir Putin's
dream," and then went on to assert that there would be other Russian assets emerging, including
nestled in the bosom of her own beloved Democratic Party . She said, clearly suggesting
that it would be Tulsi Gabbard, that "They're also going to do third-party again. I'm not
making any predictions, but I think they've got their eye on someone who's currently in the
Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She's the favorite of
the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far."
Clinton explained how the third-party designation would work, saying of Jill Stein, who ran
for president in 2016 as a Green Party candidate, "And that's assuming Jill Stein will give it
up, which she might not because she's also a Russian asset. Yeah, she's a Russian asset -- I
mean, totally. They know they can't win without a third-party candidate. So I don't know who
it's going to be, but I will guarantee you they will have a vigorous third-party challenge in
the key states that they most needed."
Tulsi responded courageously and accurately "Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton . You, the queen of warmongers,
embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party
for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my
candidacy, there has been a concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was
behind it and why. Now we know -- it was always you, through your proxies and powerful allies
in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose. It's now clear that this
primary is between you and me. Don't cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race
directly."
Tulsi has in fact been attacked relentless by the Establishment since she announced that
she would be running for the Democratic nomination. Shortly before last Tuesday's Democratic
candidate debate the New York Timesran an
article suggesting that Gabbard was an isolationist, was being promoted by Russia and was
an apologist for Syria's Bashar al-Assad. In reality, Gabbard is the only candidate willing to
confront America's warfare-national security state.
The Hillary Clinton attack on Gabbard and on the completely respectable Jill Stein is to a
certain extent incomprehensible unless one lives in the gutter that she and Bill have wallowed
in ever since they rose to prominence in Arkansas. Hillary, the creator of the private home
server for classified information as well as author of the catastrophic war against Libya and
the Benghazi debacle has a lot to answer for but will never be held accountable, any more than
her husband Bill for his rapes and molestations. And when it comes to foreign interference,
Gabbard is being pilloried because the Russian media regards her favorably while the Clinton
Foundation has taken
tens of millions of dollars from foreign governments and billionaires seeking quid pro
quos , much of which has gone to line the pockets of Hillary, Bill and Chelsea.
Finally, one comment about the Democratic Party obsession with the Russians. The media was
enthusing last Friday over a photo of Speaker Nancy Pelosi standing up across a table from
President Trump and pointing at him before walking out of the room. The gushing regarding how a
powerful, strong woman was defying the horrible chief executive was both predictable and
ridiculous. By her own admission Pelosi's
last words before departing were "All roads lead to Putin." I will leave it up to the
reader to interpret what that was supposed to mean.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that
seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its
email is[email protected]
While Mayor Pete was a little evasive on actually talking down the "Russian asset"
accusation, he did question it, saying that "statements like that ought to be backed by
evidence."
"I don't know what the basis is for that," he said.
"But I consider her to be a competitor. I respect her service. I also have very different
views than she does, especially on foreign policy, and I would prefer to have that argument
in terms of policy which is what we do at debates and what we're doing as we go forward."
Another 2020 presidential hopeful, former Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke, also dismissed
the Gabbard claim , insisting the focus of the presidential campaign should be on the economy,
climate change and other issues affecting Americans.
"That's not correct. Tulsi is not being groomed by anyone. She is her own person," he told
reporters after delivering a keynote address Saturday at the Alabama Democratic Conference
Semi-Annual Convention in Birmingham.
"Obviously (she) has served this country, continues to serve this country in uniform, in
Congress, as a candidate for presidency so I think those facts speak for themselves."
" Tulsi Gabbard deserves much more respect and thanks than this. She literally just got
back from serving our country abroad."
And now, having been cheated of his chance against Hillary in 2016 - running to her side
like a loyal party comrade after the DNC practically ran him out of the party - a
post-heartattack Bernie Sanders - perhaps with little left to lose - has finally come out
swinging at Clinton.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Elizabeth
Warren are reportedly developing a close political friendship that might prove pivotal to
deciding the Democratic presidential nomination.
Both have kept in touch since Warren announced her decision to seek the Democratic
nomination last February, NBC News reported Saturday.
"Hillary Clinton would absolutely have influence over a number of delegates to this
convention," Deb Kozikowski, the vice-chairwoman of the Massachusetts Democratic Party, told
NBC, referring to the possibility that Clinton could help Warren secure delegates if there is
no clear nominee heading into the Democratic National Convention next summer .
One Democratic strategist told NBC that Clinton has been watching and approving of
Warren's campaign as the senator has unveiled a series of increasingly progressive policy
proposals.
"... "I'm not making any predictions, but I think they've got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate." ..."
"... The Times piece goes on to list an assortment of unsavory, extremist, white supremacist, horrible, neo-Nazi-type persons that Tulsi Gabbard has nothing to do with, but which Hillary Clinton, the Intelligence Community, The Times , and the rest of the corporate media would like you to mentally associate her with. ..."
So, it looks like that's it for America, folks. Putin has gone and done it again. He and his conspiracy of Putin-Nazis have "hacked,"
or "influenced," or "meddled in" our democracy. Unless Admiral Bill McRaven and his special ops cronies can ginny up
a last-minute
military coup , it's four more years of the Trumpian Reich, Russian soldiers patrolling the streets, martial law, concentration
camps, gigantic banners with the faces of Trump and Putin hanging in the football stadiums, mandatory Sieg-heiling in the public
schools, National Vodka-for-Breakfast Day, death's heads, babushkas, the whole nine yards.
We probably should have seen this coming.
That's right, as I'm sure you are aware by now, president-in-exile Hillary Clinton has discovered Putin's diabolical plot to steal
the presidency from Elizabeth Warren, or Biden, or whichever establishment puppet makes it out of the Democratic primaries. Speaking
to former Obama adviser and erstwhile partner at AKPD Message and Media David
Plouffe, Clinton revealed
how the godless Rooskies intend to subvert democracy this time:
"I'm not making any predictions, but I think they've got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary
and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate."
She was referring, of course, to Tulsi Gabbard, sitting Democratic Member of Congress, decorated Major in the Army National Guard,
and long shot 2020 presidential candidate. Apparently, Gabbard (who reliable anonymous sources in the Intelligence Community have
confirmed is a member of some kind of treasonous, Samoan-Hindu, Assad-worshipping cult that wants to force everyone to practice yoga)
has been undergoing Russian "grooming" at a compound in an undisclosed location that is probably in the basement of Mar-a-Lago, or
on Sublevel 168 of Trump Tower.
In any event, wherever Gabbard is being surreptitiously "groomed" (presumably by someone resembling
Lotte Lenya in From Russia With Love ),
the plan (i.e., Putin's plan) is to have her lose in the Democratic primaries, then run as a third-party "spoiler" candidate, stealing
votes from Warren or Biden, exactly as Jill Stein (who, according to Clinton, is also "totally a Russian asset") stole them from
Clinton back in 2016, allowing Putin to install Donald Trump (who, according to Clinton, is still being blackmailed by the FSB with
that "kompromat" pee-tape) in the White House, where she so clearly belongs.
Clinton's comments came on the heels of a preparatory smear-piece in The New York Times ,
What, Exactly, Is Tulsi Gabbard Up To?
, which reported at length on how Gabbard has been "injecting chaos" into the Democratic primaries . Professional "disinformation
experts" supplied The Times with convincing evidence (i.e., unfounded hearsay and innuendo) of "suspicious activity" surrounding
Gabbard's campaign. Former Clinton-aide Laura Rosenberger (who also just happens to be the Director of the
Alliance for Securing Democracy , "a bipartisan transatlantic
national security advocacy group" comprised of former Intelligence Community and U.S. State Department officials, and publisher of
the
Hamilton 68 dashboard) "sees Gabbard as a potentially useful vector for Russian efforts to sow division."
The Times piece goes on to list an assortment of unsavory, extremist, white supremacist, horrible, neo-Nazi-type persons that
Tulsi Gabbard has nothing to do with, but which Hillary Clinton, the Intelligence Community, The Times , and the rest of the corporate
media would like you to mentally associate her with.
Richard Spencer, David Duke, Steve Bannon, Mike Cernovich, Tucker Carlson, and so on. Neo-Nazi sites like the Daily Stormer .
4chan, where, according to The New York Times , neo-Nazis like to "call her Mommy."
In keeping with professional journalistic ethics, The Times also reached out to experts on fascism, fascist terrorism, terrorist
fascism, fascist-adjacent Assad-apologism, Hitlerism, horrorism, Russia, and so on, to confirm Gabbard's guilt-by-association with
the people The Times had just associated her with. Brian Levin, Director of the CSU Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism, confirmed
that Gabbard has "the seal of approval" within goose-stepping, Hitler-loving, neo-Nazi circles. The Alliance for Securing Democracy
(yes, the one from the previous paragraph) conducted an "independent analysis" which confirmed that RT ("the Kremlin-backed news
agency") had mentioned Gabbard far more often than the Western corporate media (which isn't backed by anyone, and is totally unbiased
and independent, despite the fact that most of it is owned by a handful of powerful global corporations, and at least one CIA-affiliated
oligarch). Oh, and Hawaii State Senator Kai Kahele, who is challenging Gabbard for her seat in Congress, agreed with The Times that
Gabbard's support from Jew-hating, racist Putin-Nazis might be a potential liability.
"Clearly there's something about her and her policies that attracts and appeals to these type of people who are white nationalists,
anti-Semites, and Holocaust deniers."
But it's not just The New York Times , of course. No sooner had Clinton finished cackling than the corporate media launched into
their familiar Goebbelsian piano routine, banging out story after television segment repeating the words "Gabbard" and "Russian asset."
I've singled out The Times because the smear piece in question was clearly a warm-up for Hillary Clinton's calculated smear job on
Friday night. No, the old gal hasn't lost her mind. She knew exactly what she was doing, as did the editors of The New York Times
, as did every other establishment news source that breathlessly "reported" her neo-McCarthyite smears.
As I noted in my previous essay
, 2020 is for all the marbles, and it's not just about who wins the election. No, it's mostly about crushing the "populist" backlash
against the hegemony of global capitalism and its happy, smiley-faced, conformist ideology. To do that, the neoliberal establishment
has to delegitimize, and lethally stigmatize, not just Trump, but also people like Gabbard, Bernie Sanders, Jeremy Corbyn and any
other popular political figure (left, right, it makes no difference) deviating from that ideology.
In Trump's case, it's his neo-nationalism.
In Sanders and Corbyn's, it's socialism (or at least some semblance of social democracy).
In Gabbard's, it's her opposition to the Corporatocracy's ongoing efforts to restructure and privatize the Middle East (and
the rest of the entire planet), and their using the U.S. military to do it.
Ask yourself, what do Trump, Sanders, Corbyn, and Gabbard have in common? No, it's not their Putin-Nazism it's the challenge they
represent to global capitalism. Each, in his or her own way, is a symbol of the growing populist resistance to the privatization
and globalization of everything. And thus, they must be delegitimized, stigmatized, and relentlessly smeared as "Russian assets,"
"anti-Semites," "traitors," "white supremacists," "fascists," "communists," or some other type of "extremists."
Gabbard, to her credit, understands this, and is
focusing attention on the motives and tactics
of the neoliberal establishment and their smear machine. As I noted in
an
essay last year , "the only way to effectively counter a smear campaign (whether large-scale or small-scale) is to resist the
temptation to profess your innocence, and, instead, focus as much attention on the tactics and the motives of the smearers as possible
." This will not save her, but it is the best she can do, and I applaud her for having the guts to do it. I hope she continues to
give them hell as they finish off her candidacy and drive her out of office.
Oh, and if you're contemplating sending me an email explaining how these smear campaigns don't work (or you spent the weekend
laughing about how Hillary Clinton lost her mind and made an utter jackass of herself), maybe check in with Julian Assange, who is
about to be extradited to America, tried for exposing U.S. war crimes, and then imprisoned for the remainder of his natural life.
And, if Katharine is on holiday in Antigua or somewhere, or having tea with Hillary in the rooftop bar of the
Hay-Adams
Hotel , you could try Luke Harding (who not only writes and publishes propaganda for The Guardian , but who wrote a whole
New York Times
best-seller based on nothing but lies and smears). Or try Marty Baron, Dean Baquet, Paul Krugman, or even Rachel Maddow, or any
of the other editors and journalists who have been covering the Putin-Nazi "
Attack on America ," and keeping us apprised of who is and isn't a Hitler-loving "Russian asset."
Ask them whether their smear machine is working... if you can get them off the phone with their brokers, or whoever is decorating
their summer places in the Hamptons or out on
Martha's Vineyard
.
Or ask the millions of well-off liberals who are still, even after
Russiagate was exposed as an enormous hoax
based on absolutely nothing , parroting this paranoid official narrative and calling people "Russian assets" on Twitter. Or never
mind, just pay attention to what happens over the next twelve months. In terms of
ridiculous official
propaganda , spittle-flecked McCarthyite smears, and full-blown psychotic mass Putin-Nazi hysteria, it's going to make the last
three years look like the Propaganda Special Olympics.
* * *
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published
by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel,
ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy,
Swaine & Cormorant Paperbacks. He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or
consentfactory.org .
This post generated over 2K comment on zero hedge...
Looks like Tulsi masterfully capitalized on Hillary mistake. after Russiagate the change of being Russian agent does not have the
same byte as before and now can even be played to one's advantage as a sign of anti neoliberal establishment orientation. Which is what
Tulsi did.
Tulsi would be a powerful Secretary of State I think, if she did not win the nomination...
Notable quotes:
"... "If you stand up to the rich and powerful elite and the war machine, they will destroy you and discredit your message... ," says Gabbard, who said she's suffered smears " from day one of this campaign. " ..."
"... Great! Thank you Hillary Clinton," Gabbard tweeted late on Friday afternoon. " You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain ." ..."
"... "From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know -- it was always you, through your proxies and powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose." Gabbard added. ..."
"... And now, Gabbard has capitalized on Hillary's hubris and unchallenged conspiracy theory to fundraise and increase her visibility. ..."
"... For comparison, a real protest looks like Gilet Jaunes. Some people started protesting because they are being disenfranchised by their own government. They were already in real pain long before Macron went backward on all his campaign promises. ..."
"Toe The Line Or Be Destroyed": Tulsi Gabbard Dismantles Establishment 'Hit-Job' In Viral Video by
Tyler Durden Sun, 10/20/2019 - 16:57 0 SHARES
Tulsi Gabbard unleashed her latest counterattack to the establishment hit-job against her, after Hillary Clinton suggested she's
an Russian asset.
"If you stand up to the rich and powerful elite and the war machine, they will destroy you and discredit your message...
," says Gabbard, who said she's suffered smears " from day one of this campaign. "
In a Sunday tweet accompanied by a video which has nearly 450,000 views on Twitter (and 18,000 on YouTube) as of this writing,
Gabbard writes "Hillary & her gang of rich, powerful elite are going after me to send a msg to YOU: "Shut up, toe the line, or be
destroyed." But we, the people, will NOT be silenced."
Hillary & her gang of rich, powerful elite are going after me to send a msg to YOU: "Shut up, toe the line, or be destroyed."
But we, the people, will NOT be silenced. Join me in taking our Democratic Party back & leading a govt of, by & for the people!
http:// tulsi.to/take-it-back
Last week, Clinton told Democratic operative and podcast host David Plouffe that "Russians" were "grooming" a female Democratic candidate
- clearly referring to Gabbard.
"I'm not making any predictions but I think they've got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are
grooming her to be the third-party candidate," Clinton said, in apparent reference to Gabbard, a Hawaii Army National Guard major
who served in Iraq. " She's the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so
far. "
Great! Thank you Hillary Clinton," Gabbard tweeted late on Friday afternoon. " You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of
corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind
the curtain ."
"From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was
behind it and why. Now we know -- it was always you, through your proxies and powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine,
afraid of the threat I pose." Gabbard added.
And now, Gabbard has capitalized on Hillary's hubris and unchallenged conspiracy theory to fundraise and increase her visibility.
People are seeing entirely too much into this. Seriously this is nothing but some crazy old crone, extremely jealous of someone
else and wanting revenge, honestly all I see is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrUEjpHbUMM
. No political scam, not grand strategy, just a really jealous vengeful old crone, HRC can see Tulsi Gabbard winning and in infuriates
her, fills her with jealousy fueled rage, Tulsi in every way better than Hillary, smarter, more popular, prettier (never forget
this can really freak out women) and younger (ohh the rage) and HRC blames Tulsi and Jill for HRC's arrogant public failure.
History will think extremely poorly of Hillary Rodham Clinton, extremely poorly.
Consider what is occurring here. Citizen Hillary has started a media circus with 1 of the 12 - or is it 16? - "candidates"
the spy infested DNC is fielding. The C_A MSM mouthpieces are shilling this white noise, blocking out any more important, more
difficult reporting if not analysis of world events they don't want in the news.
World Events like the Clinton, Obama, Biden, Kerry, Pelosi, Feinstein and Schiff scandals in Ukraine and China, how
well things are going in Syria and who the real villains there have been, how well negotiations are going with China, how the
Syrian refugee crisis is being settled in the best way for all concerned and how the C_A plan to start WW3 has been exposed.
The C_A can repeat this op another 11 Times. This is good because they are lazy and stupid, but even so you can expect them
to **** it up in some way every time. Evil has recruiting problems. Remember Hillary laughing about obliterating civilization
in Libya. Remember the corpse of Gadafi being dragged through the street by her mercs. Remember who stole Libya's gold, and Ukraine's
gold.
Consider all these "best" pictures of Gabbard. The method is obvious: Don't listen to the pettiness and low news value of this
PR stunt, just look at the cutie. This fits the media op signature of the Tavistock faggots on loan to Soros. Here are a few more:
BLM: Look at us. We all black! Don't listen to our demands, we still working on them, but whoever you are we coming for your
stuff.
Antifa: Look at us. We all revolutionaries! We like to rumble! Don't listen to our message. We don't have one. We're really
a lot of fun. Come to us, children, or we'll mess you up.
Naked woman protests: We are women! Every day we pretend to be smart but we're really emotionally unbalanced fools! REEEEEE...
Our message is, we need to be taken care of like babies. When you take off your clothes to protest, you've already lost.
For comparison, a real protest looks like Gilet Jaunes. Some people started protesting because they are being disenfranchised
by their own government. They were already in real pain long before Macron went backward on all his campaign promises. The
government of France has been bought and paid for from top to bottom by a few rich Jews and they are destroying civilization just
like Hillary did Libya, only they are in the subversion stage. The bombing is still to come. If you doubt me, dig for stories
about who Macron is meeting with, who he takes orders from. This is a peek into the real criminals behind the current form of
the EU. Thousands of people in the street. A few big protests got the imagination of the world, giving Macron ulcers. Good. They
got solidarity. Then Macron started sending in the thugs and gestapo. Then he sent in EU troops suited up for urban warfare. Both
the optics and the message of this are devastating to the cabal, worldwide.
IMO the best thing to do is to follow this circus and all that follow loosely. If you can't turn it around on them, for instance
pointing out that Gabbard is CFR and her positions are folly, do not give it the clicks (((they))) expect. At least screw up their
stats, make their psychological warfare "experts" lose their jobs or at least work day and night to keep up, until they melt down
in pools of their own saliva.
What this stunt is, is "opening a second media front". They created this meaningless drivel to hide the news that is favorable
to Trump and good for everybody in the world, and bad for the cabal. This is all they got. This is the best they can do. They
have nothing to offer but lies, threats and tyranny. As Hillary said, her policy is to keep them dumb, keep them poor and keep
them hungry. They are all gangsters.
Consider how cheap it is to do an op like this. That is the signature of the DS. They like cheap ops because they can do so
many.
The best we can do is open second fronts right back at them. Expose errors, omissions and lies in their fake news, as well
as what their lies are meant to conceal. It is fun to watch when the first slavos of their campaigns immediately fall apart and
get thrown back at them. Sometime real news gets out.
Tomorrow is the Canadian election. It will be a good message to them if Trudeau gets destroyed.
Brexit deadline is coming up. Pelosi swore that if they Brexit she will do all the crimes she can to obstruct US-UK trade.
Pretty sure she used up whatever stolen credibility she had with that admission of lawless tyranny.
Point is, Brexit will have a significant meaning to Americans and gangsters like her will be in the spotlight. We want good
will and trade with the UK. If this is obstructed, Pelosi has already said she's responsible and obstructing trade will have criminal
consequences on the US side. Learn all you can, keep track and if you get the chance, share any damning facts you find.
Liza
says: October 15,
2019 at 4:11 pm GMT 100 Words @eah Yes,
indeed. He is a loose cannon. Don't those people who are still kissing the hem of Trump's
garments remember all that stuff he said during his campaign? Sure, we all know that
politicians lie in order to get elected – but nothing on this level. Like the Scorpion
and Frog poem, or at least his version of it (the Snake). Read More
"... How did the United States become so involved in Ukraine's torturous and famously corrupt politics? The short answer is NATO expansion <= maybe something different? I like pocketbook expansion.. NATO Expansion provides cover and legalizes the private use of Presidential directed USA resources to enable a few to make massively big profits at the expense of the governed in the target area. ..."
"... Hypothesis 1: NATO supporters are more corrupt than Ukraine officials. ..."
"... Hypothesis 2: NATO expansion is a euphemism for USA/EU/ backed private party plunder to follow invade and destroy regime change activities designed to dispossess local Oligarchs of the wealth in NATO targeted nations? Private use of public force for private gain comes to mind. ..."
"... A lot of intelligence agency manipulation and private pocketbook expanding corruption can be hidden behind NATO expansion.. Please prove to me that Biden and the hundreds of other plunders became so deeply involved in Ukraine because of NATO expansion? ..."
"... As it is right now, the most likely outcome of the Western initiative in Ukraine will be substantially lower living standards than there would be otherwise for most Ukrainians. ..."
"... The US actions in Ukraine are typical, not exceptional. Acting as an Empire, the US always installs the worst possible scum in power in its vassals, particularly in newly acquired ones. ..."
"... Has he forgotten the historical conversation of Nuland and Payatt picking the next president of Ukraine "Yats is our guy" and "Yats" actually emerging as the president a week later ? None of these facts are in any way remotely compatible with passive role professor Cohen ascribes to the US. ..."
"... We don't know what happens next, but we know the following: Ukraine will not be in EU, or Nato. It will not be a unified, prosperous country. It will continue losing a large part of its population. And oligarchy and 'corruption' is going to stay. ..."
"... Another Maidan would most likely make things even worse and trigger a complete disintegration. Those are the wages of stupidity and desperation – one can see an individual example with AP, but they all seem like that. ..."
Thanks for your sharing you views about Prof Cohen, a most interesting and principled
man.
Only after reading the article did I realize that the UR (that's you) also provided the
Batchelor Show podcast. Thanks.
I've been listening to these broadcasts over their entirety, now going on for six or so
years. What's always struck me is Cohen's level-headeness and equanimity. I've also detected
affection for Kentucky, his native state. Not something to be expected from a Princeton / NYU
academic nor an Upper West Side resident.
And once again expressing appreciation for the UR!
How did the United States become so involved in Ukraine's torturous and famously corrupt
politics?
The short answer is NATO expansion <= maybe something different? I like pocketbook
expansion..
NATO Expansion provides cover and legalizes the private use of Presidential directed USA
resources to enable a few to make massively big profits at the expense of the governed in the
target area.
Behind NATO lies the reason for Bexit, the Yellow Jackets, the unrest in Iraq and Egypt,
Yemen etc.
Hypothesis 1: NATO supporters are more corrupt than Ukraine officials. Hypothesis 2: NATO expansion is a euphemism for USA/EU/ backed private party plunder to
follow invade and destroy regime change activities designed to dispossess local Oligarchs of
the wealth in NATO targeted nations? Private use of public force for private gain comes to
mind.
I think [private use of public force for private gain] is what Trump meant when Trump said
to impeach Trump for investigating the Ukraine matter amounts to Treason.. but it is the
exactly the activity type that Hallmarks CIA instigated regime change.
A lot of intelligence agency manipulation and private pocketbook expanding corruption can
be hidden behind NATO expansion.. Please prove to me that Biden and the hundreds of other
plunders became so deeply involved in Ukraine because of NATO expansion?
The key question is what is the gain in separating Ukraine from Russia, adding it to NATO,
and turning Russia and Ukraine into enemies. And what are the most likely results, e.g. can
it ever work without risking a catastrophic event?
There are the usual empire-building and weapons business reasons, but those should
function within a rational framework. As it is right now, the most likely outcome of the
Western initiative in Ukraine will be substantially lower living standards than there would
be otherwise for most Ukrainians. And an increase in tensions in the region with
inevitable impact on the business there. So what exactly is the gain and for whom?
The Washington-led attempt to fast-track Ukraine into NATO in 2013–14 resulted in
the Maidan crisis, the overthrow of the country's constitutionally elected president Viktor
Yanukovych, and to the still ongoing proxy civil war in Donbass.
Which exemplifies the stupidity and arrogance of the American
military/industrial/political Establishment -- none of that had anything to do with US
national security (least of all antagonizing Russia) -- how fucking hypocritical is it to
presume the Monroe Doctrine, and then try to get the Ukraine into NATO? -- none of it would
have been of any benefit whatsoever to the average American.
According to a recent govt study, only 12% of Americans can read above a 9th grade level.
This effectively mean (((whoever))) controls the MSM controls the world. NOTHING will change
for the better while the (((enemy))) owns our money supply.
There was NO "annexation" of Crimea by Russia. Crimea WAS annexed, but by Ukraine.
Russia and Crimea re-unified. Crimea has been part of Russia for long than America has
existed – since it was taken from the Ottoman Empire over 350 yrs ago. The vast
majority of the people identify as Russian, and speak only Russian.
To annex, the verb, means to use armed force to seize sovereign territory and put it under
the control of the invading forces government. Pretty much as the early Americans did to
Northern Mexico, Hawaii, etc. Russia used no force, the Governors of Crimea applied for
re-unification with Russia, Russia advised a referendum, which was held, and with a 96%
turnout, 97% voted for re-unification. This was done formally and legally, conforming with
all the international mandates.
It is very damaging for anyone to say that Russia "annexed" Crimea, because when people
read, quickly moving past the world, they subliminally match the word to their held
perception of the concept and move on. Thus they match the word "annex" to their conception
of the use of Armed Force against a resistant population, without checking.
All Cohen is doing here is reinforcing the pushed, lying Empire narrative, that Russia
invaded and used force, when the exact opposite is true!!
@Carlton
Meyer One wonders if Mr. Putin, as he puts his head on the pillow at night, fancies that
he should have rolled the Russian tanks into Kiev, right after the 2014 US-financed coup of
Ukraine's elected president, which was accomplished while he was pre-occupied with the Sochi
Olympics, and been done with it. He had every justification to do so, but perhaps feared
Western blowback. Well, the blowback happened anyway, so maybe Putin was too cautious.
The new Trump Admin threw him under the bus when it installed the idiot Nikki Haley as UN
Ambassador, whose first words were that Russia must give Crimea back. With its only major
warm water port located at Sevastopol, that wasn't about to happen, and the US Deep State
knew it.
Given how he has been so unfairly treated by the media, and never given a chance to enact
his Russian agenda, anyone who thinks that Trump was 'selected' by the deep state has rocks
for brains. The other night, on Rick Sanchez's RT America show, former US diplomat, and
frequent guest Jim Jatras said that he would not be too surprised if 20 GOP Senators flipped
and voted to convict Trump if the House votes to impeach.
The deep state can't abide four more years of the bombastic, Twitter-obsessed Trump, hence
this Special Ops Ukraine false flag, designed to fool a majority of the people. The smooth
talking, more warlike Pence is one of them. The night of the long knives is approaching.
The US actions in Ukraine are typical, not exceptional. Acting as an Empire, the US
always installs the worst possible scum in power in its vassals, particularly in newly
acquired ones.
The "logic" of the Dem party is remarkable. Dems don't even deny that Biden is corrupt,
that he blatantly abused the office of Vice-President for personal gain. What's more, he was
dumb enough to boast about it publicly. Therefore, let's impeach Trump.
These people don't give a hoot about the interests of the US as a country, or even as an
Empire. Their insatiable greed for money and power blinds them to everything. By rights,
those who orchestrated totally fake Russiagate and now push for impeachment, when Russiagate
flopped miserably, should be hanged on lampposts for high treason. Unfortunately, justice
won't be served. So, we have to be satisfied with an almost assured prospect of this
impeachment thing to flop, just like Russiagate before it. But in the process incalculable
damage will be done to our country and its institutions.
Those who support the separation of Kosovo from Serbia without Serbian consent cannot
argue against separation of Crimea from Ukraine without the consent of Kiev regime.
On the other hand, those who believe that post-WWII borders are sacrosanct have to
acknowledge that Crimea belongs to Russia (illegally even by loose Soviet standards
transferred to Ukraine by Khrushchev in 1956), Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and Soviet Union
should be restored, and Germany should be re-divided.
At least now I know why Ukraine is so essential to American national security. It's so even
more of my and my families' taxes can pay for a massive expansion of Nato, which means
American military bases in Ukraine. Greenland to the borders of China.
We're encircling the earth, like those old cartoons about bankers.
@Ron
Unz I had to stop listening after the 10th min. where the good professor (without any
push-back from the interviewer) says:
Victor Yanukovich was overthrown by a street coup . at that moment, the United States
and not only the United States but the Western European Governments had to make a decision
would they acknowledge the overthrow of Yannukovic as having been legitimate, and therefore
accept whatever government emerged, and that was a fateful moment within 24hours, the
governments, including the government of president Obama endorsed what was essentially a
coup d'etat against Yanukovich.
Has the good Professor so quickly forgotten about Victoria Nuland distributing cookies
with John McCain in the Maidan as the coup was still unfolding? Her claim at the think tank
in DC where she discusses having spent $30million (if I remember correctly) for foisting the
Ukraine coup ?
Has he forgotten the historical conversation of Nuland and Payatt picking the next
president of Ukraine "Yats is our guy" and "Yats" actually emerging as the president a week
later ? None of these facts are in any way remotely compatible with passive role professor
Cohen ascribes to the US.
These are not simple omissions but willful acts of misleading of fools. The good
professor's little discussed career as a resource for the secret services has reemerged after
seemingly having been left out in the cold during the 1st attempted coup against Trump.
No, the real story is more than just a little NATO expansion as the professor does
suggest, but more directly, the attempted coup that the US is still trying to stage in Russia
itself, in order to regain control of Russia's vast energy resources which Putin forced the
oligarchs to disgorge. The US desperately wants to achieve this in order to be able to
ultimately also control China's access to those resources as well.
In the way that Iraq was supposed to be a staging post for an attack on Iran, Ukraine is
the staging post for an attack on Russia.
The great Russian expert stirred miles very clear of even hinting at such scenarios, even
though anyone who's thought about US world policies will easily arrive at this logical
conclusion.
What about the theft of Ukraine's farmland and the enserfing of its rural population? Isn't
this theft and enserfing of Ukrainians at least one major reason the US government got
involved, overseeing the transfer of this land into the hands of the transnational banking
crime syndicate? The Ukraine, with its rich, black soil, used to be called the breadbasket of
Europe.
Consider the fanatical intervention on the part of Victoria Nuland and the Kagans under
the guise of working for the State Dept to facilitate the theft. In a similar fashion,
according to Wayne Madsen, the State Dept. has a Dept of Foreign Asset Management, or some
similar name, that exists to protect the Chabad stranglehold on the world diamond trade, and,
according to Madsen, the language spoken and posters around the offices are in Hebrew, which
as a practical matter might as well be the case at the State Dept itself.
According to an article a few years ago at Oakland Institute, George Rohr's NCH Capital,
which latter organization has funded over 100 Chabad Houses on US campuses, owns over 1
million acres of Ukraine farmland. Other ownership interests of similarly vast tracts of
Ukraine farmland show a similar pattern of predation. At one point, it was suggested that the
Yinon Plan should be understood to include the Ukraine as the newly acquired breadbasket of
Eretz Israel. It may also be worth pointing out that now kosher Ivy League schools'
endowments are among the worst pillagers of native farmland and enserfers of the indigenous
populations they claim to protect.
@Mikhail
Well, if we really go into it, things become complicated. What Khmelnitsky united with Russia
was maybe 1/6th or 1/8th of current Ukraine. Huge (4-5 times greater) areas in the North and
West were added by Russian Tsars, almost as great areas in the South and East taken by Tsars
from Turkey and affiliated Crimean Khanate were added by Lenin, a big chunk in the West was
added by Stalin, and then in 1956 moron Khrushchev "gifted" Crimea (which he had no right to
do even by Soviet law). So, about 4/6th of "Ukraine" is Southern Russia, 1/6th is Eastern
Poland, some chunks are Hungary and Romania, and the remaining little stub is Ukraine proper.
@anon
American view always was: "yes, he is a son of a bitch, but he is our son of a bitch". That
historically applied to many obnoxious regimes, now fully applies to Ukraine. In that Dems
and Reps always were essentially identical, revealing that they are two different puppets run
by the same puppet master.
Trump is hardly very intelligent, but he has some street smarts that degenerate elites
have lost. Hence their hatred of him. It is particularly galling for the elites that Trump
won in 2016, and has every chance of winning again in 2020 (unless they decide to murder him,
like JFK; but that would be a real giveaway, even the dumbest sheeple would smell the
rat).
@follyofwar
The only reason I can imagine that Putin/Russia would want to "take over" Ukraine and have
this political problem child back in the family might be because of Ukraine's black soil.
But it is probably not worth the aggravation.
Russia is building up its agricultural sector via major greenhouse installations and other
innovations.
@AP
Well, you are a true simpleton who repeats shallow conventional views. You don't ever seem to
think deeper about what you write, e.g. if Yanukovitch could beat anyone in a 1-on-1 election
than he obviously wasn't that unpopular and that makes Maidan illegal by any standard. You
say he could beat Tiahnybok, who was one of the leaders of Maidan, how was then Maidan
democratic? Or you don't care for democracy if people vote against your preferences?
Trade with Russia is way down and it is not coming back. That is my point – there
was definitely a way to do this better. It wasn't a choice of 'one or the other' –
actually EU was under the impression that Ukraine would help open up the Russian market. Your
either-or wasn't the plan, so did Kiev lie to EU? No wonder Ukraine has a snowball chance in
hell of joining EU.
@Skeptikal
Russia moved to the first place in the world in wheat exports, while greatly increasing its
production of meat, fowl, and fish. Those who supplied these commodities lost Russian market
for good. In fact, with sanctions, food in Russia got a lot better, and food in Moscow got
immeasurably better: now it's local staff instead of crap shipped from half-a-world away.
Funny thing is, Russian production of really good fancy cheeses has soared (partially with
the help of French and Italian producers who moved in to avoid any stupid sanctions).
So, there is no reason for Russia to take Ukraine on any conditions, especially
considering Ukraine's exorbitant external debt. If one calculates European demand for
transplantation kidneys and prostitutes, two of the most successful Ukrainian exports,
Ukraine will pay off its debt – never. Besides, the majority of Russians learned to
despise Ukraine due to its subservient vassalage to the US (confirmed yet again by the
transcript of the conversation between Trump and Ze), so the emotional factor is also
virtually gone. Now the EU and the US face the standard rule of retail: you broke it, you own
it. That infuriates Americans and EU bureaucrats more than anything.
@Sergey
Krieger "Demography statistic won't support fairy tales by solzhenicin and his kind."
-- What's your point? Your post reads like an attempt at saying that Kaganovitch was white
like snow and that it does not matter what crimes were committed in the Soviet Union because
of the "demography statistic" and because you, Sergey Krieger, are a grander person next to
Solzhenitsyn and "his kind." By the way, had not A. I. S. returned to Russia, away from the
coziness of western life?
S.K.: "You should start research onto mass dying of population after 1991 and subsequent
and ongoing demographic catastroph in Russia under current not as "brutal " as soviet
regime."
@AP
Maidan was an illegal coup that violated Ukrainian constitution (I should say all of them,
there were too many) and lots of other laws. And that's not the worst part of it. But it
already happened, there is no going back for Ukraine. It's a "yes or no" thing, you can't be
a little bit pregnant. We can either commiserate with Ukraine or gloat, but it committed
suicide. Some say this project was doomed from the start. I think Ukraine had a chance and
blew it.
@AnonFromTN
I usually refrain from labelling off-cycle changes in government as revolutions or coups
– it clearly depends on one's views and can't be determined.
In general, when violence or military is involved, it is more likely it was a coup. If a
country has a reasonably open election process, violently overthrowing the current government
would also seem like a coup, since it is unnecessary. Ukraine had both violence and a coming
election that was democratic. If Yanukovitch would prevent or manipulate the elections, one
could make a case that at that point – after the election – the population could
stage a ' revolution '.
AP is a simpleton who repeats badly thought out slogans and desperately tries to save some
face for the Maidan fiasco – so we will not change his mind, his mind is done with
changes, it is all about avoiding regrets even if it means living in a lie. One can almost
feel sorry for him, if he wasn't so obnoxious.
Ukraine has destroyed its own future gradually after 1991, all the elites there failed,
Yanukovitch was just the last in a long line of failures, the guy before him (Yushenko?) left
office with a 5% approval. Why wasn't there a revolution against him? Maidan put a cherry on
that rotting cake – a desperate scream of pain by people who had lost all hope and so
blindly fell for cheap promises by the new-old hustlers.
We don't know what happens next, but we know the following: Ukraine will not be in EU,
or Nato. It will not be a unified, prosperous country. It will continue losing a large part
of its population. And oligarchy and 'corruption' is going to stay.
Another Maidan would most likely make things even worse and trigger a complete
disintegration. Those are the wages of stupidity and desperation – one can see an
individual example with AP, but they all seem like that.
@AP
You intentionally omitted the second part of what I wrote: 'a reasonably democratic
elections', neither 18th century American colonies, nor Russia in 1917 or Romania in 1989,
had them. Ukraine in 2014 did.
So all your belly-aching is for nothing. The talk about 'subverting' and doing a
preventive 'revolution' on Maidan to prevent 'subversion' has a very Stalinist ring to it. If
you start revolutionary violence because you claim to anticipate that something bad might
happen, well, the sky is the limit and you have no rules.
You are desperately trying to justify a stupid and unworkable act. As we watch the
unfolding disaster and millions leaving Ukraine, this "Maidan was great!!!" mantra will sound
even more silly. But enjoy it, it is not Somalia, wow, I guess as long as a country is not
Somalia it is ok. Ukraine is by far the poorest large country in Europe. How is that a
success?
@Beckow
True believers are called that because they willfully ignore facts and logic. AP is a true
believer Ukie. Ukie faith is their main undoing. Unfortunately, they are ruining the country
with their insane dreams. But that cannot be helped now. The position of a large fraction of
Ukrainian population is best described by a cruel American saying: fool me once, shame on
you, fool me twice, shame on me.
@AnonFromTN
You are right, it can't be helped. Another saying is that it takes two to lie: one who lies,
and one to lie to. The receiver of lies is also responsible.
What happened in Ukraine was: Nuland&Co. went to Ukraine and lied to them about '
EU, 'Marshall plan', aid, 'you will be Western ', etc,,,'. Maidanistas swallowed it
because they wanted to believe – it is easy to lie to desperate people. Making promises
is very easy. US soft power is all based on making promises.
What Nuland&Co. really wanted was to create a deep Ukraine-Russia hostility and to
grab Crimea, so they could get Russian Navy out and move Nato in. It didn't work very well,
all we have is useless hostility, and a dysfunctional state. But as long as they serve
espresso in Lviv, AP will scream that it was all worth it, 'no Somalia', it is 'all normal',
almost as good as 2013 . Right.
@AP
I don't disagree with what you said, but my point was different:
lower living standards than there would be otherwise for most Ukrainians
Without the unnecessary hostility and the break in business relations with Russia the
living standards in Ukraine would be higher. That, I think, noone would dispute. One can
trace that directly to the so-far failed attempt to get Ukraine into Nato and Russia out of
its Crimea bases. There has been a high cost for that policy, so it is appropriate to ask:
why? did the authors of that policy think it through?
@AP
I don't give a flying f k about Yanukovitch and your projections about what 'would be growth'
under him. He was history by 2014 in any case.
One simple point that you don't seem to grasp: it was Yanuk who negotiated the association
treaty with EU that inevitably meant Ukraine in Nato and Russia bases out of Crimea (after a
decent interval). For anyone to call Yanuk a 'pro-Russian' is idiotic – what we see
today are the results of Yanukovitch's policies. By the way, the first custom restrictions on
Ukraine's exports to Russia happened in summer 2013 under Y.
If you still think that Yanukovitch was in spite of all of that somehow a 'Russian
puppet', you must have a very low opinion of Kremlin skills in puppetry. He was not, he was
fully onboard with the EU-Nato-Crimea policy – he implemented it until he got
outflanked by even more radical forces on Maidan.
@Beckow
Well, exactly like all Ukrainian presidents before and after him, Yanuk was a thief. He might
have been a more intelligent and/or more cautious thief that Porky, but a thief he was.
Anyway, there is no point in crying over spilled milk: history has no subjunctive mood.
Ukraine has dug a hole for itself, and it still keeps digging, albeit slower, after a clown
in whole socks replaced a clown in socks with holes. By now this new clown is also a
murderer, as he did not stop shelling Donbass, although so far he has committed fewer crimes
than Porky.
There is no turning back. Regardless of Ukrainian policies, many things it used to sell
Russia won't be bought any more: Russia developed its own shipbuilding (subcontracted some to
South Korea), is making its own helicopter and ship engines, all stages of space rockets,
etc. Russia won't return any military or high-tech production to Ukraine, ever. What's more,
most Russians are now disgusted with Ukraine, which would impede improving relations even if
Ukraine gets a sane government (which is extremely unlikely in the next 5 years).
Ukraine's situation is best described by Russian black humor saying: "what we fought for
has befallen us". End of story.
@Peter
Akuleyev How many millions? It is same story. Ukraine claims more and more millions dead
from so called Hilodomor when in Russia liberals have been screaming about 100 million deaths
in russia from bolsheviks. Both are fairy tales. Now you better answer what is current
population of ukraine. The last soviet time 1992 level was 52 million. I doubt you got even
40 million now. Under soviet power both ukraine and russia population were steadily growing.
Now, under whose music you are dancing along with those in Russia that share your views when
die off very real one is going right under your nose.
By now this new clown is also a murderer, as he did not stop shelling Donbass, although
so far he has committed fewer crimes than Porky.
Have you noticed that the Republicans, while seeming to defend Trump, never challenge the
specious assertion that delaying arms to Ukraine was a threat to US security? At first I
thought this was oversight. Silly me. Keeping the New Cold War smoldering is more important
to those hawks.
Tulsi Gabbard flipping to support the impeachment enquiry was especially disappointing.
I'm guessing she was under lots of pressure, because she can't possibly believe that arming
the Ukies is good for our security. If I could get to one of her events, I'd ask her direct,
what's up with that. Obama didn't give them arms at all, even made some remarks about not
inflaming the situation. (A small token, after his people managed the coup, spent 8 years
demonizing Putin, and presided over origins of Russiagate to make Trump's [stated] goal of
better relations impossible.)
Not really. Ukies are wonnabe Nazis, but they fall way short of their ideal. The original
German Nazis were organized, capable, brave, sober, and mostly honest. Ukie scum is
disorganized, ham-handed, cowardly, drunk (or under drugs), and corrupt to the core. They are
heroes only against unarmed civilians, good only for theft, torture, and rape. When it comes
to the real fight with armed opponents, they run away under various pretexts or surrender.
Nazis should sue these impostors for defamation.
Yanukovych signed an internationally brokered power sharing agreement with his main
rivals, who then violated it. Yanukovych up to that point was the democratically elected
president of Ukraine.
Since his being violently overthrown, people have been unjustly jailed, beaten and killed
for politically motivated reasons having to do with a stated opposition to the
Euromaidan.
Yanukovych refrained from using from using considerably greater force, when compared to
others if put in the same situation, against a mob element that included property damage and
the deaths of law enforcement personnel.
In the technical legal sense, there was a legit basis to jail the likes of Tymoshenko. If
I correctly recall Yushchenko offered testimony against Tymoshenko. Rather laughable that
Poroshenko appointed the non-lawyer Lutsenko into a key legal position.
@Beckow
The undemocratic aspect involving Yanukovych's overthrow included the disproportionate number
of Svoboda members appointed to key cabinet positions. At the time, Svoboda was on record for
favoring the dissolution of Crimea's autonomous status
@AP
Grest comment #159 by Beckow. Really, I'm more concerned with the coup against POTUS that's
happening right now, since before he took office. The Ukraine is pivotal, from the Kiev
putschists collaborating with the DNC, to the CIA [pretend] whistleblowers who now subvert
Trump's investigation of those crimes.
Tragic and pitiful, the Ukrainians jumped from a rock to a hard place. Used and abandoned
by the Clinton-Soros gang, they appeal to the next abusive Sugar-Daddy. Isn't this FRANCE 24
report fairly objective?
Revisited: Five years on, what has Ukraine's Maidan Revolution achieved?
@AP
This from BBC is less current. (That magnificent bridge -the one the Ukies tried to sabotage-
is now in operation, of course.) I'm just trying to use sources that might not trigger you.
@AP
"Whenever people ask me how to figure out the truth about Ukraine, I always recommend they
watch the film Ukraine on Fire by director @lopatonok and executive produced by
@TheOliverStone. The sequel Revealing Ukraine will be out soon proud to be in it."
– Lee Sranahan (Follow @stranahan for Ukrainegate in depth.)
" .what has really changed in the life of Ukrainians?"
@Malacaay
Baltics, Ukrainians and Poles were part of the Polish Kingdom from 1025-1569 and the
Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth 1569-1764.
This probably explains their differences with Russia.
Russia had this area in the Russian Empire from 1764-1917. Russia called this area the
Pale of Settlement. Why? This Polish Kingdom since 1025 welcomed 25000 Jews in, who later
grew to millions by the 19th century. They are the Ashkenazis who are all over the world
these days. The name Pale was for Ashkenazis to stay in that area and not immigrate to the
rest of Russia.
The reasoning for this was not religious prejudice but the way the Ashkenazis treated the
peasants of the Pale. It was to protect the Russian peasants. This did not help after 1917. A
huge invasion of Ashkenazis descended all over Russia to take up positions all over the
Soviet Union.
Ukraine US is like the Pale again. It has a Jewish President and a Jewish Prime
Minister.
Ukraine and Poland were both controlled by Tartars too. Ukraine longer than Russia. Russia
ended the Tartar rule of Crimea in 1783. The Crimean Tartars lived off raiding Ukraine,
Poland, and parts of Russia for Slav slaves. Russia ended this Slav slave trade in 1783.
But its not just the US that is a war machine. Bourne's statement equally applies to _all_
states everywhere, past present and future.
If any state appears to not be making war on other countries at any particular time,
its only because it is too busy making war on its own citizens [ eg taxes, drug laws,
weapons/gun laws, religion laws, speech laws, environmental laws etc.etc. etc.], and has not
yet created enough fake money via its central bank to enable it to debt-fund consistent
overseas aggressions against others.
Wars by the US will never end because arms manufactures own Trump. Almost one half of the
US budget goes for the security of the state, domestic and abroad. New weapon development
would come to a halt if the US was not threatened. Fake news about China and Russia planning
to attack the US keeps the arms industry humming. Over a million national security workers
and their families would be devastated if Trump stopped fighting fake wars. God bless
imagined threat of wars.
This has strengthened the possibility of the revival of the Islamic State in Iraq and
the Levant (ISIL or ISIS). There are around 10,000 such ISIS fighters currently lodged in
prisons run by the SDF.
And with this, "the war on terror" is guaranteed to go on, and on, and on..
Just in case you hadn't heard the good news, the last man from the president's foreign
policy "team" still standing, Trump whisperer Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, recently left
National Security Advisor John Bolton in the dust.
June 27, 2018 Harvard Research Scholar Explains How America Created Al-Qaeda & The
ISIS Terror Group
It's truly amazing how much the consciousness of the planet has changed within the past 5
years alone, and it's not just happening within one topic, but in several different areas
ranging from health to geopolitics and everything in-between.
What Trump wants to do and what he can do are two very different things. The MIC/Zionist rot
in DC is way too deep and entrenched for any one man to tackle.
Trump could make all his Schiffty problems go away by bombing Iran. Overnight, the man
would be lauded as the president we need and that aging hack Pelosi would suddenly drop that
phony impeachment hearing.
Trump is finding out that when making foreign policy, the safest route to take is to first
ask, "Is this good for Israel?"
I have always contended that the best way to use Trump is to support his ego. Let's
inundate him with praise for withdrawing from the Kurdish/Turkish quagmire. Sure, he hasn't
vacated Syria yet, however, he has no choice but to vacate or be evacuated. His ego will
opt for the former
@DESERT
FOX Exactly, with thousands of ISIS,ISIL(American/Israeli proxy forces)types now being
freed due to Turkey's incursions into Syria, these "rebels" will be free to re-group and
fight another day. Hence the need for American forces to STAY deployed in the Area. This is
nothing more than a distraction move by Trump, which will result in the opposite "intended"
actions of American forces being withdrawn from Syria. This will also guarantee the "need"
for a strong Soviet presence in Syria.
America/Israel/Russia have always wanted the partitioning of Syria, the only point of
contention between America/Israel and Russia was whether Assad was to be forced from power or
would be allowed to remain President as a puppet of Putin and the Russians. Syria was to
never remain a sovereign nation.
The US still hasn't acknowledged the Armenian Massacre by the Turks. Why should it care
about Kurds. US is the nation that said killing 500,000 kids in Iraq was worth it.
Syria, Iraq, Libya are now less of a threat to Israel than ever before so that is a kind
of peace.
Not really. All are still standing and not under US control. Iraq now leans even more
toward Iran and Syria toward Russia ..and that outcome in these countries has made Israel's
goal of destroying Iran much harder and less likely .
The curtailment of the Kurds, Israel's long time friends and proxy , is another blow to
Israel's plot.
It appears to me that Putin's idea is to force everyone back into their own countries and
borders .he may have shared that plan with Trump and that may have resulted in turning Turkey
loose to do that job.
@WJ
Right. But as Giraldi always points out, Trump almost attacked Venezuela. He said mean
words and rattled sabres! As opposed to Obama, who said no mean words ('cause he upheld the
"dignity of the office") but sent the fighter jets into Libya and turned that country from a
stable, secular regime into a human trafficking warzone. And also got an ambassador killed.
Here are some of Giraldi's gems from April 2011:
Libya is a humanitarian mission
it [the invasion] has no clearly stated objective except to protect Libyan
civilians
it is now clear that the rebels do not have any military organization to speak of and
Gaddafi has the whip hand
Nice analysis there, Mr. CIA lifer and Obama lickspittle. I can only assume Giraldi was
part of the crack CIA team of Sovietologists who were utterly blindsided when the Soviet
Union broke up. It's amazing how much slack he's given around here for his anti-Israel stuff.
It's like Teflon for him.
@Priss
Factor Agree, and the ZUS has killed millions in Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya and
Syria, for their zionist masters, the only lives the ZUS cares about is zionists.
@NoseytheDuke
The only question you failed to address is what was the true motives of Putin's intervention
into the whole mess. A few good points:
As in Ukraine, Putin will stay in Syria until it no longer suits him. He has no
long-term strategic goals beyond creating chaos and weakening the alliances of the free
world wherever possible. This allows him to play the big man on the international stage, an
essential element of his domestic appeal. 24/7 propaganda and Soviet nostalgia have turned
Putin's invasion into a domestic hit in Russia. In contrast, Russians have no interest in
Syria or Assad, but who cares what they want? Unlike the leaders of Europe, the U.S., and
other democratic countries, Putin doesn't have to worry about how popular his foreign
adventures are at home. There are no checks and balances in the Russian government, no free
media to criticize him, and no popularity polls that matter more than ranks of well-armed
riot police.
Licks for Giraldi: Giraldi has been careless but not where he lists Trumps lies about ending
'silly' wars. from what Trump has actually done compared to what he says about ending
America's wars he is a liar of clear and complete proportions
"the military the only real source of pride the only thing Americans feel they excel at"
An insightful point. Politicians support the military and its deployments for economic
reasons, but the support of the public might derive from "what else is there?" Examples of
institutional and private-sector failure abound in the news over recent years, and every day.
The Boeing Max. The hotel collapse. 250,000 deaths per year from medical negligence. Power
shutoffs. Useless college. The dive boat. A relaxed performance standard. The demise of
meritocracy and rationality. During Katrina, every agency except the Coast Guard went into
gridlock. There are remaining islands of expertise, but the unraveling is contagious.
The dirty, filthy hand of the Jew is all over America's Mideast policy. Israel backs ISIS in
Syria with weapons. The Israeli-Occupied Government in Washington D.C. has even protected
ISIS in Syria at times. The Jew-owned media gives no credit to Iran and Russia for defeating
Jew and American-supported terrorists inside Syria. Now the Jew-owned government is aching
for war with Iran, which is not a threat to Gentile America.
The goal was to topple Assad. Remember Obama? Assad must go? Assad and the Assad regime
are still there. The losers are the U.S., Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.
Replacing Assad was an Globalist goal, heavily pushed by Erdogan. We also remember the
failed presidency of Barak Hussein that never represented the citizens of the U.S. So it
would be more precise to say that:
-- George Soros, Erdogan, Obama, Wahhabism, and the Globalists are losing.
-- Putin, Trump, Assad, and Populism are winning.
The real test will be Putin getting all other foreign troops & proxies to leave. The
Globalist agenda is to keep the fight between Iran (Shia) and Turkey (Sunni) going, when they
both leave combatants in Syria. Hopefully, Putin will be able to fully rout the Globalists
and move out both Turkish and Iranian agitators.
@Johnny
Walker Read Maybe you don't know who the author of that article is .Garry Kasparov
Kasparov might be great at chess but in Russia he was big fail as a politician .couldn't
get any votes on his campaign to make Russia like America. He went into a self-imposed exile
in the West. claiming Putin ruined his political campaigning.
Now everything Putin does infuses all Kasparov's punditry
Kasparow's love for Bolton should clue you to what he is about.
Garry Kasparov (@Kasparov63) · Twitter
As I said about Bolton entering the Trump admin nearly 3 years ago, you may not agree with
his views as much as I generally do, but he puts US interests first, not Trump's. Can't say
same about Pompeo & the rest.
31 mins ago
The short story on Syria, Turkey, USAISRAEL, Russia –
Turkey-Syria offensive: Russia vows to prevent clashes with Assad forces
BBC
Takeaways
THEN .
"When the US decided to equip and train Syrian Kurds, as well as some Arabs, to fight IS,
they were aware of a potential problem, that their would-be Kurdish allies were regarded as
terrorists by their Nato ally, Turkey. Washington turned a blind eye to a problem that could
be kicked into the future. Now the future is here, and it has blown up."
NOW .
"On Sunday the Kurds announced a deal with the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad,
agreeing that its troops could advance into the zone that had not been controlled by Damascus
since 2012, right up to the border with Turkey. That is a big victory for the regime. The
troops moved quickly out of bases they maintained in the north-east. Assad loyalists dug out
regime flags.
It was a disastrous day for American Middle East policy. The alliance with the Kurds, and the
security guarantee safeguarding their self-governing slice of Syria, gave the Americans a
stake in the war's endgame. It was also a way of pushing against the backers of the Assad
regime: Russia and Iran. The departure of the Americans, and the advance of the Syrian army,
are victories for them too.
European governments, rattled in the way that happens when the problems of the Middle East
come knocking at their doors, are calling on Turkey to stop the offensive. Some Nato members
can see a nightmare scenario unfolding, with Syria, backed by Russian power, potentially
facing off against Turkey, a fellow Nato member. The Russians say they are in regular contact
with Turkey. But in a fluid, violent theatre of war. the chances for misperception, mistakes
and escalation are always present.
Perhaps what has happened in the last week simplifies the endgame of the Syrian war. Two
major players, the Americans and the Kurds, look to be out of the picture. And President
Assad, along with his allies from Russia and Iran, continue to solidify their victory in
Syria's catastrophic war."
WHAT IS BEING LEFT OUT OF THE CURRENT COMBING THRU THE ASHES OF THE SYRIAN WAR IS THE FACT
SAUDI STARTED THE WHOLE FUCKING SYRIAN WAR.
The discussion, if one might even call it that, regarding the apparent President Donald
Trump decision to withdraw at least some American soldiers from Syria has predictably
developed along partisan, ideologically fueled lines.
Not too sure where this partisan line is, Dr. G.
It looks like they're screeching from both sides of the isle.
Both powerful Republican Liz Cheney and Hillary called the pull out "sickening".
While Republican Senator Rand Paul applauds the decision, Tulsi Gabbard condemns it.
As for 'ideological', we all know that ideologically, the vast majority of all
congress-critters (99+%) from both sides of the isle, are motivated by the ideology of
doing "what's good for the Jew$"
NATO agreement stipulates that if an alliance member is threatened, other members must
support it in its defense. Turkey has not made that claim, but it is completely
plausible that it should do so .
Are you joking, Dr. G?
Hasn't Turkey been engaged in waging an aggressive war on Syria these last few years?
Wouldn't Turkey demanding military aid from NATO, (for a "threat" from the Kurds or
Syria), amount to the US demanding NATO aid for a "threat" from Iran?
IOW, it's Turkey that has been the murderous aggressor, and the Kurds and Syrians their
victims. Not to mention that Turkey's military could make mince-meat out of the Kurdish
"threat" in a New York minute.
So it seems to me that the only thing holding Turkey back, is orders from the ZUSA and
Russia. Russia is certainly a large part of this equation, IMHO.
did not understand the Turkish mindset regarding the Kurdish threat, which they regard
as existential.
'Existential'?
Would a limited autonomy Kurdish state on Turkey's southern border, perhaps incorporating
a small swath of Turkey, be the end of Turkey's existence?
When Nazi Germany invaded Poland, the world demanded that Germany sacrifice some of its
territory as recompense for its aggressive military imperialism.
If I were in a position to do so, I'd hand Syria a slice of Israel's and Saudi Arabia's
and Turkey's territory – as a punishment for their depraved attacks on an innocent and
unthreatening Syria.
Definitely the Hatay province, which arguably belongs to Syria anyways.
I'm sure Turkey would call that an existential! calamity, but I'd tell them 'karma's a
bitch'.
Finally, there is one other important issue that should be observed. Donald Trump's
actual record on ending useless wars is not consistent with his actions. He has sent more
soldiers to no good purpose in support of America's longest war in Afghanistan, has special
ops forces in numerous countries in Asia and Africa, has threatened regime change in
Venezuela, continues to support Saudi Arabia and Israel's bloody attacks on their neighbors
and has exited to from treaties and agreements with Russia and Iran that made armed
conflict less likely. And he has five thousand American soldiers sitting as hostages in
Iraq, a country that the United States basically destroyed as a cohesive political entity
and which is now experiencing a wave of rioting that has reportedly killed hundreds. Trump
is also assassinating more foreigners using drones based mostly on profile targeting than
all of his predecessors. These are not the actions of a president who seriously wants to
end wars
I remain you most loyal fan, Dr. G. But I confess this sounds to me like you think the
situation above started on the day of Trump's inauguration.
He inherited those things by the former ZUS regimes.
He has tried over and over again to disengage, only to be dragged back by the screeching
from the members of his own party. Not to mention the ((media)).
There are a lot of reasons to condemn the actions of Trump. The Golan Heights, for
instance. But it seem glaringly obvious to me at least, that Trump is not ideologically
committed to Eternal Wars.
As you put it, he threatened regime change in Venezuela.
He wanted to have talks with the Taliban, (and the whole deepstate and their ((media))
screeched)
He "continues to support Saudi Arabia" but as Pat Buchannan points out.. "The Saudis
got the message when the U.S., in response to a missile and drone strike from Iran or
Iranian-backed militias, which shut down half of Riyadh's oil production, did
nothing.
Said Washington, this is between Saudi Arabia and Iran."
And he has five thousand American soldiers sitting as hostages in Iraq, a country that
the United States basically destroyed as a cohesive political entity and which is now
experiencing a wave of rioting that has reportedly killed hundreds
You really do make it sound like all that is his fault.
I love your work Dr. G. And consider you one of the very best, most honorable and most
courageous writers out there.
But I confess, (like so many others!), it seems like to me that you have an irrational,
personal hatred for Donald Trump that colors your perspective.
IMHO.
I didn't have time to write this response well, have to go. Hope it's not too off
base..
@animalogicMore information on Trump & drone attacks would be useful & welcome.
There is a gigantic problem in America. It makes us dysfunctional. Certain news cannot get
to the American people.
Everyone in the know gets it – do not go to the NY Times with anti-Israel news. Do
NOT buck the AIPAC agenda – period. The darkest element of the ADL will be at your door
within minutes. The US government will soon follow.
It is obvious – when it comes to Jew matters, US government employees fear for their
jobs, if not their lives. Same for the MSM.
US President Donald Trump has lambasted American broadcaster ABC News for airing a video from
Knob Creek Gun Range in the town of West Point, Kentucky, claiming that the network used
footage from the facility to depict a Turkish attack on Kurdish civilians in northern Syria.
Trump called the mistake "a big scandal" and "a real disgrace".
"A big scandal at @ABC News. They got caught using really gruesome FAKE footage of the
Turks bombing in Syria. A real disgrace", the president wrote on Twitter early Tuesday
morning.
@renfro
The Crimean Peninsula was annexed by the Russian Federation in February–March 2014.
Despite all the protests about Crimea, the Donbass invasion using asymmetric tactics with
Putin out outright denying responsability, Ukraine is a vital interest for Putin, and he
would have been willing to confront America and Nato there because it is his home ground and
advantage. But Russia is powerful enough to; Putin only went into Syria after Obama decided
not to overthrow Assad. No one particularly cares about Syria and neither do they care about
the Kurds (despite them having as good a case as the Palestinians to be given a state) and
that is why jumped up Turkey can get away with invading Syria and attacking Kurds, just like
they INVADED Cyprus.
This whole thing is probably a a storm in a teacup, but if Turkey gets into trouble they
know, because they were already told very clearly over Cyprus, that if they play Lone Ranger,
Nato does not have their back. Doing something Israel is not happy about and Turkey
threatening to get their own nuclear weapons because Israel has them is not very good
diplomacy from Turkey's point of view. It is begining to experience delusions of its own
importance.
@renfroIt appears to me that Putin's idea is to force everyone back into their own countries and
borders .he may have shared that plan with Trump and that may have resulted in turning Turkey
loose to do that job.
Here is a very good video – Putin being interviewed. They asked him hard questions.
He came across as being very rational.
@steinbergfeldwitzcohen
People! The internet is there for you to verify/debunk any statement you question. Running a
website is a lot of work, why don't you guys collect the information you demand from Mr. Unz,
and share with us?
Or are you looking at others to supply you with ready-made opinions?
@onebornfree
Thanks for the link about Mr.Bourne and you correct about his statement applying to ALL
states.
They are more like progressive, merciful and humanitarian slave owners.
Be free
I wonder why the "high IQ" westerners have never deemed it fit to study their undeniable mass
psychopathy.
If they were indeed as smart as claimed, they would begin to admit it, and given the claim
to their innate highly civilised humanitarian inclinations *cough* , they would come to the
conclusion that this world needs less of their cursed kind.
Since that is not going to happen, I guess nature has its way
@Rev.
Spooner The point he makes is extremely vague. No specificity. None. Yet 10's of
thousands are dead. Ok, how about some evidence.
Why don't you go back to kindergarten, Rev?
@SafeNow
The support of the public for the military derives from constant and pervasive propaganda
particularly through movies and TV shows , David Sirota calls it the "Military
Entertainment
Complex".
Zero Hedge : " Documents expose how Hollywood promotes war on behalf of the Pentagon , CIA
& NSA ".
@Johnny
Walker Read I was making a rhetorical point. I don't think the U.S. can decouple from the
Middle East.
I do, however, think that Trump wants value for blood and treasure.
Long-term, America simply lacks the financial strength to continue to project power. The
MIC costs the U.S. a tremendous amount of money. Budget to the MIC will continue to be
slashed over time. The Deep State in the U.S. will contract simply due to financial
realities.
Israel will be less and less of a priority.
The next financial crisis is already beginning. The U.S. has a massive debt ratio relative to
the Money Supply. It is now 5:1. Good luck with that. It will be needed.
@Whitewolf
Yes, lack of talent and totall inane radical left wing proposals whiped up by the AOC wing
and swallowed by all the candidates 'hook, line and stinker '.
@OscarWildeLoveChild
After JFK's assassination, every successive president is/was shown a film clip of JFK's head
exploding from an angle nobody's ever seen.
It doesn't matter what party they're from; they'll tow TPTB's line. All of them.
US Foreign Policy = Occupied Palestine Foreign Policy.
That's all that's wrong with US foreign policies in a nutshell.
@Bragadocious
Whether he or his father served is irrelevant. Carter was in the Naval Academy, Reagan and
Bush 43 were in the reserves. Clinton had none and neither did Roosevelt, Hoover, Coolidge,
Harding, or Wilson.
What is telling, is the "alleged bone spurs", and "Trump's surname was changed from the
original German Drumpf".
An allegation is an unproven accusation. What Giraldi is stating, is that Trump's physician
falsified records. You think old man Trump sent Donnie for a megadollar military academy
education so he could avoid the military?
As for Drumpf, I was acquainted with a couple of Schmidts who became Smith, a Bryjolfson who
became Byron, a Pachkowski who became Berry and, no one says Roosevelt's name was changed
from Rosenfeld. The snide commentary doesn't help.
I have said all along, that there is a lot not to like about Trump, but let's keep it in the
realm of reality. Whether he wants to end the stupid wars or not, he will never be allowed
to, as long as Giraldi's old employer is in business and making up non-existent bullshit
"threats to American interests", whatever they are.
@Sean
"Doing something Israel is not happy about and Turkey threatening to get their own nuclear
weapons because Israel has them is not very good diplomacy from Turkey's point of view"
Israel is known to puff and bluff . It is grandiose polemic or rabid canine barking. It
was not exposed by the west . But the west now knows it ,thanks to Hizbullah
@anon
Getting women to work had nothing to do with their 'liberation.'
Even though my mom had her own [private] school, my dad's salary was enough to provide for
all 5 of us, go on annual holidays abroad and put three kids through college, loan-free.
To TPTB, it's better to tax 2 people instead of 1.
To them it's just a number game, like the 'Torches of Freedom' gambit, all spiel, smoke
and mirrors, to fool us gullible idiots into believing we do have a say
We should really start to use our guns and rifles to free the country and rid it of the
rot that's smothering it.
Oh, look, another Cartra$$hian selfie butt shot on Instagram!!!!!!
It's very old habit.Very much ingrained . It is also generational . Increasingly and suddenly
religious also as the feckless toothless Evangelicals are rooting for 1 second fame .
But here is a short chronology–
1 Plans for mayhem in Syria have been on the imperial table since the 1950s (Operation
Straggle).
2 US general Wesley Clark gave the game away years ago when he revealed US intentions in
the Middle East after 9/11: seven countries were to be invaded
3 Seymour Hersh gave the game away too in his 2007 New Yorker article: "The Redirection".
In this piece he revealed how the US were hooking up once again with the Saudi/Sunni
fundamentalists in and around Syria.
4 France's ex-foreign minister Roland Dumas also gave the game away when he revealed that the
British State (a definite CIA asset) was preparing for a war on Syria two years before the
start of the Syrian Holocaust in 2011.
"This operation [in Syria]," said the former French foreign minister Roland Dumas in June,
"goes way back. It was prepared, pre-conceived and planned."
As we recently learned from former French Foreign Minister Dumas, it was also about that
time, that actors in the United Kingdom began planning the subversion of Syria with the help
of "rebels"' (Christof Lehmann, Interview with Route Magazine)
Between 2006 to 2010, the US spent 12 million dollars in order to support and instigate
demonstrations and propaganda against the Syrian government. 6,3 million dollars was funneled
to the Movement for Justice and Development, a Syrian dissident organization based in London.
The Movement operated the Barada satellite channel
@Johnny
Walker Read Quote: "America/Israel/Russia have always wanted the partitioning of Syria "
Reply: Kindly allow me to correct your statement.
"America/Israel have always wanted the partitioning of Syria "
Russia has a wet entrance into the Med via Syria.
Perhaps you've dozed off a bit over the past few years, but Russia has been destroying and
killing the FUKZUIS 'war' machine goons in Syria [aka the takfiri terrorist].
They're assisting in getting the country back [on its feet] as a whole again.
@anon
I'll keep it short. You can find the beginnings back in the 2012 coverage.
In 2012 Saudi sent Saudi Prince Bandar to Syria to be in charge of helping Syrian rebels
bring down Assad, an ally of Riyadh's biggest regional rival Iran.
They were originally created, set up and armed and financed by Saudi.
The Saudis were then joined by Israel and Qatari and finally by the US under Obama.
A new twist appeared in the Saudi rebels war with Assad when ISI appeared and joined the
fight.
This scared Saudi shitless as they thought this ISI version of ALQ might be a threat to them
and lead to an invasion of Saudi as ALQ always saw it as a' westernerized' Saudi.
Everyone doubled down on both fighting Assad and fighting ISI ..which was a FUBAR if there
ever was one.
Then enter the proxies, the Kurds, the PPK terrorist group all fighting for their own
agendas within and under cover of the original war on Assad.
What could possibility go wrong in all this? LOL
Then enter Russia. Which gave some pause to the US in how far they wanted to go to throw
Assad out for Saudi and Israel and open a gateway to get Iran.
So now we are headed to the ending of the Saud and others Syrian adventure which is probably
best expressed by the fable of the fox and his shadow.
"A fox arose in the morning and saw his large shadow cast in the morning sun and said " I
will have a camel for lunch today'. The fox hunted all day for the camel without success. As
he paused in the afternoon setting sun he saw his shadow was much smaller and said "A mouse
will do after all."
In 1992, Alexandra Zapruder began to collect diaries written by children during
the Holocaust. These diaries speak eloquently of both hope and despair.
[Alexandra said:] "Anne Frank's diary was the first diary that was published. And her
voice was so powerful that it captured the voices of all the children and all the people
who had been killed. That's the way it's framed. And that by reading her diary and sort of
taking her into our hearts, we could redeem her life. . . ." [US Holocaust Memorial Museum
https://www.ushmm.org/confront-antisemitism/antisemitism-podcast/alexandra-zapruder
]
Alexandra Zapruder is the author of Twenty-Six Seconds: A Personal History of the
Zapruder Film.
Her grandfather was Abraham Zapruder, who took a twenty-six second home movie of President
John F. Kennedy's assassination[1] -- now known as the Zapruder film.( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandra_Zapruder
]
From a strategic point of view it is very noteworthy to observe that Kurdish troops are
fully positioned east of the Euphrates River. The Kurds are allies of Israel and a vital
proxy implemented to fracture Syria along the lines envisioned for Greater Israel (Oded Yinon
Plan).
It is perceived that Russia is an ally of Syria. However, Putin has not prevented Kurdish
troops from establishing themselves firmly within Syrian territory.
Israel along with their diaspora will never relent until their abomination of "Eretz
Yisrael" is achieved. It's not an accident that the ISIS flag is marked "All Jew."
@NoseytheDuke
Washingtonsblog : " Balkanizing the Middle East – The real goal of America and Israel :
shatter Iraq and Syria into many small pieces "
Thomas Harrington : " One of the prime goals of every empire is to foment ongoing internecine
conflict in the territories whose resources and/or strategic outposts they covet "
Sanchez : " Plan B is to Balkanize Israel is endorsing its plan B for Syria just when its
enemies are making it clear that its plan A (Assad must go) is not happening anytime soon ."
Pro-Israel America launched Tuesday endorsing 27 candidates -- 14 Democrats and 13
Republicans. All have long histories of working with the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee to advance the brand of pro-Israel legislation it favors. Its endorsements on its
website praise the named lawmakers for their actions favoring the legislative agenda closely
identified with the lobby: funding for Israel's defense, sanctions on Iran and its regional
proxies, and bills that seek to counter the boycott Israel movement.
They include Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Chris Coons, D-Del.; Rep. Steny Hoyer,
D-Md., the majority leader in the U.S. House of Representatives, and Rep. Kevin McCarthy,
R-Calif., the minority leader; Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., the chairman of the House Foreign
Affairs Committee, and Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, that committee's ranking Republican.
here are all of them listed .make sure you don't vote for one:
@barr
Blaming Saudi or Turkey or UAE has possibly some validity but as far as far the effect of the
independent move by any of them is concerned , it has less than zero effect on Syria on its
own.
It is like a hypothetical scenario where Florida and Alabama are independent countries .
Rest of America is splintered into 50 different states and Canada is trying to get rid of
Cuban regime for 50 years and only in last 5 years Florida and Alabama have joined the scheme
under dubious circumstances of pressure bribery and blackmail.
@NoseytheDuke
Israel was more powerful and also more favorite of the west across ideological drive until
2003
It is not a normal country . Somewhere that guilt and remorse of stealing and killing have
left a mark on its psyche . It doesn't know how to settle and be normal
It doesn't know the meaning of the power, advantage or gain . The paranoia drives to more
dangerous world of fear and insecurity . It can't rest . Even if it is left alone, he talks
to itself and bangs it head against wall . Recent election is the manifestation of more
madness . It's begging jaunt to Russia and screaming through US media show how badly weakened
the country is.
The countries that bow to Israel – UK, USA, Egypt, Saudi are finding themselves also
badly weakened ,
A seed was planted in 2006 in Lebanon . That tree is growing taller and establishing roots
, Israel will be a shrub hiding in the shadow of that tree in a few years time.
Soviet and Russia were both almost destroyed by Jews . Now they look for the Russian shadow
to hide .
@renfro
A pack of lions can bring down an adult elephant at night when they have the advantage, but
they are careful not to choose a really big strong one. Russia is fighting in the Ukraine its
traditional heartland and what H. Mackinder called the Heartland of the World Island. A
victory in Syria that only came because Obama chose to not crush Assad with a couple of days
of air raids is hardly evidence of the Empire falling.
The real meaning of Trump is the facing of the threat from China, and if the neocons want
to play games in the Middle East so what? There is a fight coming with China and it is a
match for the West led by giant Bull Elephant America, Backward ME shitholes all together
could not take down America in a thousand years.
And what were the Kurds in Iraq called?
Didn't Saddam use some type of gas on them and that's why we were siding with them? Who told
about the incubator babies, maybe some other terrorist group?
@renfro
Mmmm, okay, you must have meant something like 'organized shooting' when you said, "SAUDI
STARTED THE WHOLE FUCKING SYRIAN WAR." Sorry I bit on false advertising.
As you see from 'barr' at #119 above, your starting point is months, years, even decades
too late. For a fact (I've met some of the Syrians who met with Robert Ford in Damascus, now
here and still lobbying for regime-change), the US was meddling, encouraging, prompting the
anti-Assadists well before the 2011 demonstrations.
@Daniel
Rich Putin is not the nice guy we have been told he is. He is in Syria for a reason, and
that is not simply because he wants Syria returned to al-Assad. Syria is only one cog in the
wheel. World wide Communism marches on, if you hadn't noticed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=19&v=4sKxkY0Tz5s
LOL. My favourite rapid US evacuation was the CIA flying off the roof of the Saigon
Embassy while the Viet Kong were busting in through the door and running up the stairs.
who benefits from these wars – isn't it just one small but powerful segment of
America – AIPAC. Isn't it time to call these wars by the honest truthful term –
"AIPAC Wars?"
Except the main beneficiary of these wars is George Soros and his anti-Semitic Globalist
movement.
Soros intentionally orchestrated the ultra-weak, time limited JCPOA treaty to create a
nuclear arms race among Iran, SA, Turkey, and possibly other MENA nations. That way he and
his buddies with MIC investments could profit by selling weapons to all sides.
So let's put in everyone's face with a factual term
Trump confuses tweeting with taking action. How many times has he mentioned 'birthright
citizenship' and then done nothing about it?
A: Every time.
If Trump drives too hard, too early and the case arrives at the Supreme Court while it is
split 5-4 in favor of 'birthright citizenship' Is that a win? Or, a loss?
There is a huge difference between 'failed action' and 'successful action'.
Given the proven hostility of the deep state establishment, it makes a great deal of sense
to lay groundwork now (via tweets), but only launch the correct constitutional action once
the courts are prepared to support it.
With class, Philip Giraldi amused me by his article's mere title, "Trump wants to end the
"Stupid Wars?"
Oh yea! Thanks, Phil , & please continue with offering dashes of intelligent,
dissident, & unflappable humor. Haha. For example, "Trump's surname was changed from the
original German Drumpf and if there were any Drumpfs at Normandy, they were undoubtedly on
the German side."
(Zigh) The insatiable global tag team, M.I.C. and The Land of Bilk & Money , want "Big
Time" and more stupidly unnecessary & immoral wars. (Zigh) One sure path to a 2nd term
for President Bonespur is for him to get off the "low energy" Turkey/Syria skirmish, &
get on with real war against Iran , for Israel.
Thanks, Phil! Fyi, I think Senator Lindsey Graham wants to get Bolton back in The Blue
& White House, and sanction Camp Mar a Lago.
P.S.: For all commenters assembled here, linked below is Stephen Colbert's satiric
covering of President Drumpf's having followed Israel's yonder (fallen) , and establishing a
US Space Force Command! To that, Colbert quipped, "Trump can not join it because of his
galactic bonespur."
@9/11
Inside job Seven Nations to Destroy for the nine eleven false flag. Wesley Clark
mentioned the seven – Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Syria, Lebanon, and Iran.
Seven Nations to Destroy for Yahweh's Israel – Deut. 7:1-2 –
Tanakh/OT.
Iraq 2003 invaded Purim – shattered in pieces
Libya 2011 invaded Purim – shattered in pieces
How four other nations on the list that were destroyed.
Somalia –
Since 2006 it has been a mess with Israel/US Al-Qaeda running the show.
Bizarre article about US/Israel terrorists "worried" about the environment.
Somalia-based militant group Al-Shabab has reportedly announced a ban on the use of
single-use plastic bags in territories under its control.
The Al-Qaeda-affiliated organization, which has been blamed for thousands of deaths
since its inception in 2006, dubbed plastic a "serious threat to the well-being of both
humans and animals," the BBC reported, citing Al-Shabab's radio station Radio Andalus.
It even mentions that Osama Bin Laden, the puppet of Israel/US, was "worried" about the
environment too. It makes one wonder if this Climate Change thing and Imperialism terror are
connected.
Bin Laden wrote that Americans needed to save Obama from corporate and other nefarious
influences to empower him to "save humanity from the harmful gases that threaten its
destiny."
He added that the world would be better off fighting climate change than waging what he
claimed was a war against Islam.
Sudan
Divided in two in 2011. Israel/US is pushing for more divisions.
Asked about his demand for protection during his meeting with Putin, al-Bashir said we
wanted to highlight "the big U.S. pressure and conspiracy" on Sudan in Darfur crisis and
the huge pressure exerted on his government to separate the South Sudan.
"Now we have information that the American quest is to divide the Sudan into five
countries If we do not find protection and security. America took the world leadership and
devastated the Arab world. (See) what happened in Afghanistan, what happened in Iraq, what
happened in Syria, what happened in Yemen and what happened in Sudan," said al-Bashir.
Lebanon
Invaded by Israel in the summer of 2006. It made a mess out of Lebanon. Israel had a lot
of trouble fighting off Hezbollah. This is the reason that Israel fears going into Lebanon
again. After this adventure, Golems like US and its friends are the go to for Israel's war
adventures.
Initially, both Israel and Hezbollah claimed victory in the war, with Nasrallah
declaring that Hezbollah had achieved a "divine, historic and strategic victory". Some
international observers saw the fact that Hezbollah had survived the Israeli assault,
despite the asymmetrical power balance, as a PR victory for the group. According to
Reuters, the Lebanese government estimated direct war damage at $2.8 billion, and lost
output and income for 2006 at $2.2 billion. The economy also shrank five per cent, with
tourism effectively halted.
Six of the seven were messed up, destroyed. It leaves only Iran left. Iran is in the
"news" everyday for this reason.
Trump is flawed, ok then, but we had Clinton as the alternative. She would have been ten
times worse so what choice did the American people have? He's rolling up the Obama-Clinton
project in Syria which was a huge atrocity. Can you imagine the bloodbath that would have
ensued had the US backed jihadi cannon fodder actually succeeded in overthrowing Assad? It's
not a one man show and Trump has to go along with much of what has been taking place. Much of
this has been imposed upon the American people as well as on Trump.
The brave Turks have been fighting a thirty year war against the "terrorist" Kurdish PKK. Why
so long? Maybe the Turks oppress them? There has to be a reason the Kurds have been resisting
for so long. But yet the mighty Turks are going to defeat the Kurds of Syria even as they
can't defeat the ones living in their own country? Perhaps they'll take on the inferior
Syrian army at the same time. After all, they're a big NATO ally with lots of weapons to dump
on lightly armed foes. Reality is they haven't fought anyone in a hundred years so who knows
how well they'd do.
Quit calling Afghanistan a "war". It's an occupation with anti-guerilla operations going on.
Apparently they don't like being occupied so they fight on.
Trump's name is Trump, not Drumpf. Or do we now refer to people by the family name used a
hundred years ago, or why not five hundred years ago?
Excerpt from
"Trump Mistake: Allowing Turkish Invasion of Northern Syria"
by Joel Skousen (there is no direct link to it but it is/was on his website World Affairs Brief ):
This week in a telephone conversation with Turkish dictator Recep Erdogan he [President
Trump] assented to Erdogan's demand from over a year ago to let them enter Turkey and
establish a buffer zone where Turkey can resettle the hundreds of thousands of Syrian
refugees that have burdened Turkey since the beginning of the US-created terror attacks on
Syria. But as part of that strategy, and without emphasizing that to Trump, Erdogan intends
to drive out or destroy the Syrian Kurds which occupy northern Syria. Erdogan calls them
terrorists because the US-backed YPG Kurds are affiliated with the homegrown Kurdistan
Workers Party (PKK) which represents about 20% of the Turkish population, and which has
been fighting for independence from Turkey. So while the Turkish Foreign Minister plays lip
service to Syrian sovereignty, Turkey has already begun the invasion and occupation of
northern Syria. While Trump claims he is fulfilling a campaign promise to remove troops
from Syria, this isn't really a pullout at all since only two observation posts in the path
of the Turkish invasion are pulling out. There are thousands of other US troops elsewhere
in Syria protecting US-backed terrorist rebels.
@Johnny
Walker Read H.E. Mr. Putin has clearly stated it's up to the Syrian population to choose
who leads them, not him.
Tartus has a port Russia needs and uses.
Khmeimim Air Base is also needed and used by the Russian AF.
These are military strategic assets and used to counter balance the FUKZUS 'war' machine's
bases dotted around the ME region. Of course, those you don't mention.
No president actually controls the government, least of all Trump. The Deep State controls
the government. Trump is a an interloper. Why does one have to remind the author of this
elementary fact? The threat to destroy the economy of Turkey was made by Stephen Israel
Mnuchin. Trump had to make noises as if it was his "decision" when in fact he had nothing to
do with it. What Trump wants to do, and what he can do, are entirely different things. And
anyone who has anything to do with Americans knows what happened to all the previous allies.
Mnuchin has clued in those Turks who may have had illusions.
@renfro
very bad US is indeed . It continues to sabotage ,cast evil eye,try to strangle ,and continue
to punish Cuba . That long history is really long punctuated by half hearted Obama attempt
.
Once empire decided a project,it becomes , NASA , Present Danger , PNAC or NED . The project
goes on losing the aim . The project goes on because the vested interest
,employees,pensioner,glory seeking men, arm merchant, politicians and expatriate find means
to rake up profit and launder dishonest living into honest lifestyle . Name is changed when
it suits the project . Aim is not lost. It becomes the final destination . It never stops
energegizing the dishonest, looter,profit seekers, and opportunists . Often the brains that
gather under the flag are not that intelligent or ideologically certain.
Money and corruption drive them.
It's truly amazing how much the consciousness of the planet has changed within the past
5 years alone, and it's not just happening within one topic, but in several different areas
ranging from health to geopolitics and everything in-between.
Going broke happens slowly at first, then quickly. The Western cities are going broke, as
are those in the Third World. Nothing else changes peoples minds like having their basic
income reduced or eliminated.
All the promises (including self-governmement and freedom and equality) have turned out to
be lies, smoke. Computers, which were supposed to be a seamless adjunct to human existence, a
source of education and information, and a liberation from the bad parts of part of reality,
have turned into (poor but cheap) entertainment, gossip, a drug substitute, and a propaganda
source. The result is shock and horror, sometimes followed by violent psychosis [1] (e.g.
antifa).
Once again, I recommend "Marat/Sade"
(1967). It gives you a feel for what a revolution is like once the revolution gets going.
Note the movie's final scene, which almost breaks the "fourth wall" convention. It was made
during our last revolution, and the director wanted to record the spirit of what he had
seen.
@Art I
like it, very catchy, original, Art said: "AIPAC Wars."
Oh yea, Art, thanks, and a "spade is a spade" when one manages to get the hell out of the
AIPAC shade.
Unfortunately tonight, millions of process estranged Amerikan Democrat & GOP voters
are now "beamed up" to an AIPAC-approved strange & hostile telescreen's DebateLand.
(Zigh) Across aisle, including a possible Beaming Bloomberg entry, , "winnable" 2020
presidential nomination contestants shall pick & choose, finagle & sell, an either/or
USrael foreign policy posture, as regrettably follows:
1.) The Zio-Democrat War to end the deplorable Trump's stupid call to end all Amerika's
endless Wars just for the paltry good of gradually achieving Greater Israel's unending
endgame. or,
2.) The Zio-GOP's War to end all Democrat Party hopefuls' stupid call to end all US endless
wars just because a lefty AIPAC-Branch put an Israel Labor Party "bug in their ear" about
having lowly dead-ender 'Merikan workers fucking pay for it.
Thanks again, Art, and "Good night America."*
* Phil Giraldi inhabits Sinatra's City That Never Sleeps.
The next financial crisis is already beginning. The U.S. has a massive debt ratio
relative to the Money Supply. It is now 5:1. Good luck with that. It will be needed.
Agree.
And the financial debt must be augmented by degradation of physical infrastructure
(especially in cities and city support infrastructure) and the degradation of human capital
by importation of low IQ populations and effective destruction of education. And the capital
misallocation that continues today.
The world will be surprised at what happens when the US power projection ends, as global
trade will end with it.
The brave Turks have been fighting a thirty year war against the "terrorist" Kurdish
PKK. Why so long? Maybe the Turks oppress them? There has to be a reason the Kurds have
been resisting for so long.
Turkish birth rate low (lower in cities than in hinterlands), Kurdish birth rate high.
Kurds replace Turks in a few decades. Kurds don't follow Turkish cultural norms, nor Turks
follow Kurdish. Kurds don't want to wait a few decades, want power _now_ (c.f. Black Power
and Whiteness in USA). Kurds use destructive commando raides ("terrorism") to get power now.
Turks don't like that, respond with same.
Long term: demography wins barring very large change.
Please correct parts of this that are wrong. I'm not following this conflict closely.
Latest TruNews godcast, E. Michael Jones: The Deception Facing the Church by Christian
Zionism
YT Description:
Today on TruNews, Dr. E. Michael Jones joins us to talk about the influence of modern
Christian Zionism upon the American Church, and how that has led to a dramatic
radicalization of US foreign policy in favor of one nation, Israel.
Prof. Jones takes the deluded xian Zionists to task, calling them "useful idiots." My
favourite passage starts @ 18:58:
.. which means you got a lot of Christians who don't understand the gospel. Because
there are plenty of Christians out there who are Christian Zionists. It's a simple fact of
life. I think it can be traced to Jewish influence in our culture Jewish influence over the
publishing industry, for example. How did the Scofield Bible end up being published by
Oxford University Press? Because it's a great scholarly work? No! Because of people like
Mr. Untermeyer pulled strings. This is the way this happened. It's the biggest issue facing
American politics, right now. The role that Zionism is playing right now, in corrupting the
government of the United States, in diverting American resources into a quagmire in the
Middle East, which doesn't serve the interests of the American people at all and is all
done in the name of Israel.
@Counterinsurgency
I'm kind of having a mental barrier with this now.
There is a guy in Vancouver who predicted the 2008 financial crisis, Jensen I believe (he
wrote to the Bank of Canada and a list of people in 2006). He argues that the fundamentals
are even worse now due to the failure to finance these foreign adventures and other factors
(expenditures on domestic expenses not matching tax income, etc.).
I haven't even taken the time to consider the knock on effects. Mentally, I've been more
focused on having to sit through the screaming match that is going to occur over who is to
blame and the lying that will go on with respect to needing to move to a sound money system
but having bankers et al try to argue for a rollover into a new currency. It is going to be
ugly, I can feel it. It will provide an opportunity for some serious structural change and
constitutional amendments. A whole host of reforms are open when you have a debt induced
currency collapse. I just know it could be really ugly and I've been dreading thinking
through how this will play out. I keep thinking that I never expected to live in a time like
this; I think back to being a teenager during the Reagan years and, despite the Cold
War-nuclear war scenario hanging over our heads, it seemed a much more optimistic time.
I am not optimistic. I'm very worried.
@Robjil
Somalia under a failing Siad Barre regime was going to the dogs with various warlords
cannibalising each other. Then the Americans were told in the flush of victory in the Gulf in
1991, that they should just kick the door in to save the dumb Muslims. It is not the fault of
the late senior Bush that Somalia is compounded of that specimen of humanity that emerges
like clockwork when African tribalism is married to Islamic fanaticism (but is there any
other kind?) . The Americans were minding their own business, but were told that it was the
humanitarian thing (and furthermore quite cheap to boot) to do at little cost to themselves
to save Muslim chillun'.
Afghanistan was no better : The idiot, the younger George Bush instead of bombing the the
hell out of Al-Queda and leaving was instead misled by mystagogues of various hues, including
his own self into sinking lives and treasure in a vain attempt to civilise the Afghans.
The truth is the further you keep away from Muslims, the better it is for your health and
sanity, notwithstanding the parallel machinations of various neocohens, for Islam is a
pernicious religion that breeds insanity, intolerance and bloodshed all by itself.
E. Michael Jones: a very wise man. He believes in free speech and is hated by Jews who, of
course, label him an 'anti-semite'. I would argue they are 'truth averse' fanatical
maniacs.
He makes a good case that 'Christian Zionism' is a heresy. I don't believe he uses that term
BUT I do.
It's just another bubbling that is bursting.
What will they do besides scream and throw tantrums? Is it time for another false flag 911
type event?
What the media never really exposed was how Syria, and every Middle East country that has
been attacked by the DeepStateZio monster, has seen the oldest Christian communities on the
planet under attack. Strange pattern. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism, initiated by the
British alliance with the Wahabi's and the Saud Family and furthered by the CIA/Mossad in
Afghanistan, has corresponded with the destruction and diasporas of the world's oldest
Christian communites.
Somehow, Europe has ended up with a bunch of Muslims when these Christians would have fit
into their societies much better.
I think that none of this just 'happened'. I strongly suspect that if we were to kick over
some rocks we would find the usual suspects: the Khazar/Black Nobility Alliance.
@renfro
How?????????????????????????????????????????
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I do think it was Mc Cain.
Concerning historically lazy Saudis I am entirely confident that they were only taking care
of payroll.
( I am not entirely confident but there is a possibility that CIA did channel some profits
from Afghanistan poppy fields for this noble cause.
@Counterinsurgency
Quote: "The world will be surprised at what happens when the US power projection ends, as
global trade will end with it."
Reply: Given the vast sums of money set aside to implement China's 1 belt 1 road project,
[IMO] the global dollar trade will turn into a trickle over time, but the global trade will
not nosedive along with it.
Too much a stake for the multinationals [not necessary a good thing, but alas].
Damascus had supported U.S. intelligence operations after 9/11 and it was Washington
that soured the relationship beginning with the Syria Accountability Act of 2003, which
later was followed by the Syrian War Crimes Accountability Act of 2015, both of which were,
at least to a certain extent, driven by the interests of Israel.
It's very challenging to come up with any foreign policy initiatives that do not serve
Zionist Israel's interests, first and foremost. Israeli interests have defined American
foreign policy objectives in the ME for much of the post-WWII era. Not at Israel's behest,
but on Israel's instructions and demands via pro-Zionist lobbies and the infestation of the
Administration with Israel First officials, Israeli citizens and spies. Add to that the
Israel First MSM.
@ivan
Is it methamphetamine instead of regular fentanyl ? Anyway, this logic and perverted emotion
make sense to you. Unfortunately it will reinforce your decision to switch . Business will
sure be coming back from China to rural America.
@A123 I
respectfully disagree on this particular matter. There is no US law bestowing birthright
citizenship. All that would change is recognition of what the law really says.
Trump waiting to win another 4 (still a gamble) AND for RBG's animatronics to fizzle out
AND for her replacement to not be another skunk like Roberts is foolish.
There is no underwater 38th-dimensional quantum chess being played here, and we still have
no wall.
Oops, I posted this under another writer. (Small wonder I got no answer.) Since then, someone
else remarked that at the end of WWI this land (northern Syria) was taken from Turkey. So
this is a long grievance, with deep sense of entitlement.
Rurik wrote, " .the Americans (Obama regime), created ISIS- with the intention that they
use Libya's stolen arms caches to hack and slaughter their way across Syria "
Yes, and that's why I'm skeptical of dumping of Erdogan. How eager was he for this
conflict? Did the Obama CIA promise him N. Syria for his complicity? Doubtless assuring that
Assad would fall quickly! Or maybe they dangled EU membership, if he joined the team.
Maybe Phil can enlighten us:
We know that Robert Ford, US Embassador to Syria, was meeting privately with Syrian "civil
society" activists before the 2011 demonstrations.
-- Was Erdogan/Turkey also involved in infiltrating, inflaming those anti-Assad
elements?
-- How did Turkey involvement begin?
-- Was the CIA actively involved in Syria before the fall of Libya?
C'mon guys.
Using prior military service as some sort of litmus test to the right to critique involvement
and opinion sharing today plays to an audience mentality that encourages blind
patriotism.
There really are no necessary wars these days as they are all being fought for the banker
elite which holds no loyalty to country though it plays on ppl's ignorance to use such
loyalties for propaganda purposes.
There is no justification for US troops to be all over the world as a banker mercenary force
and this site acknowledges 911 was an Israeli- internationalist false flag which removes all
justifications for the meddling in Israeli neighbor's internal affairs.
Tolerating this to get air time with magazines that lie for power is encouraging this
negative behavior for personal advantage in a country and world striving to control the most
minute areas of our lives.
Going along to get along only brings the eternal boot down of the forehead forever@!
The fact that none of these bickering forces are targeting Israel who always was the
catalyst for the divisions there, is a huge clue that we and Israel are the problem causers
primarily. Of course we need false flags to excite the population to support the fake war on
terror within the US and Europe (as well as justify the reverse colonialism going on). Jews
for hundreds of years have counted on stupid goyim to do the fighting but now that Israel is
a supposed stand alone nation, that should be harder to accomplish but apparently total
corporate media control keeps the truth hidden from 85% of the public.
Reply: Given the vast sums of money set aside to implement China's 1 belt 1 road
project, [IMO] the global dollar trade will turn into a trickle over time, but the global
trade will not nosedive along with it.
I actually hadn't thought of that. Now that you point it out, of course the dollar trade
will decrease. Negative interest rates are, in a way, saying that nobody wants US Dollars
anymore, and trades that are not in US Dollars are being actively sought. The decrease will
happen a bit before the USN becomes ineffective. And that will be hard on the
multi-nationals, but I can't say I have much sympathy. They were firmly behind the move of
Western manufacturing to East Asia – what did they think would happen?
But I do disagree over the assertion that global trade will remain about as it is.
The New Silk Road. Interesting topic.
Well, first of all it's a reasonable thing for the PRC to do. Historically, the Silk
Road has paid off for China, at least in terms of precious metals, and being dependent on a
single transportation mode for one's raw materials is strategically undesirable. It's a
good move. It's also an attempt to realize McKinder's proposed making the World Island into
a unified state[1].
But a couple of points:
a) New Silk Road is much more expensive than sea transport [2]. If sea lanes are cut
off, China's raw materials costs increase by several times.
b) New Silk Road recapitulates the interaction of European empires of the 1800s through
1900s with ethnicities along the Silk Road. The Europeans were resented and eventually
ejected. The Chinese are having similar problems.
China has loaned money to various nations which have then spent that money on immediate
consumption and are attempting to repudiate the debt. The Chinese (who have no compunctions
about debt repudiation through currency devaluation) are apparently taking over completion
of the Silk Road facilities for which the natives can no longer pay (having spent the money
on other things). Local rulers are saying that this makes the Chinese foreign invaders (on
a very low level so far). Just like the Europeans.
Chinese society also does not mix well with either Islamic or African tribal society, yet
the Silk Road crosses both cultural territories.
So far as I know, the Chinese takeover of the Panama Canal since the US evacuation has gone
well. Last I heard, a few years back, Panama had started teaching Chinese in its public
schools. Chinese operations in South and Meso America are increasing, however, and I know
little about how they are going.
The nice thing about policed sea lanes is that shippers don't have to worry much about
the natives. Piracy is and has been a problem, but so far not a serious one. New Silk Road
goes overland, and that has (historically) always led to security problems with the locals,
whoever the locals may be.
So: Let's suppose that the USN were to become ineffective. Only the part of the Silk
Road guarded by the Russian Federation would remain secure. The rest would be subject to
local raids and extortion from the local government. Note that raw materials costs would
increase drastically for everybody (because of less shipping), so local governments and
bandits would have motives for confiscating goods.
This would be especially the case in Africa, which is largely dependent on food imports.
That conflict could become severe, as China is increasingly dependent on Africa for raw
materials (as is the rest of the world).
In other words, sole reliance on the New Silk Road (should that ever be necessary) would
be expensive in terms of shipping and in terms of security / warfare costs. China's
bellicose policy is, IMHO, counterproductive. China should be positioning itself to police
the sea lanes cooperatively but reluctantly with a declining USN, gradually assuming the
mantle of worldwide protection of the sea lanes that China needs so badly. Current efforts
to be able to interdict the sea lanes are not in the PRC's interest, as the PRC needs these
sea lanes open. It's sort of like developing a hyperbomb to make the Sun go nova. Under
what circumstances would you use such a device? Under what circumstances would China want
to cease shipping by sea?
So, what's likely to happen? The USN will decline because it needs recapitalization due
to age and a changing threat, and the US is instead devoting its income to debt repayment
and immediate social stability expenditures. The PRC, which has never been a naval power,
will still attempt to keep global trade alive. When that fails, the PRC will trade more
with the Russian Federation It will also take what sea and land it has, make an
expeditionary force out of it, and deploy it in some trading zones (possibly in countries
that have resources China needs) rather than see its population starve and itself
overthrown. That's the standard response from any H. Sap. political organization. Things
will get very messy.
And please remember that I'm like the weatherman: I report, I don't cause.
@Stan
Israel is a shitty little country but its treatment of the Palestinians is side issue for the
West, just as the way the Kurds are treated is unfortunate but hardly our responsibility. A
confrontation with burgeoning China beckons, and America needs to be united. Going off on
tangents to play Santa to peoples who lost the geopolitical game and are without a state
would weaken the West,
@Daniel
Rich What part of BOTH the US and Russia are only there to serve their own
interest don't people understand. My only point is Russia is not there out of the goodness of
their hearts. People who claim Russia is fighting the globalist juggernaut and is only in
Syria to "fight ISIS/ISL" and to make Syria "safe for Democracy" aren't seeing the big
picture. Russia is working hand in hand with China to make sure America is reduced to a
second rate global power. Assad has become nothing more than Putin's puppet on a string.
Syria will need money for re-construction, thanks to Russia destroying much of their
infrastructure, that money more than likely will come from China(China's version of "Economic
Hit Men"). All the while, lurking in the back ground, that little shit stain known as Israel.
This report will present the reality of Russia's Syrian campaign. Russia launched air
strikes on hospitals, water treatment plants, and mosques. Russia used cluster bombs.
Russia almost exclusively targeted non-ISIS targets. These are the truths that Russia will
not admit, and the truths that must be understood when negotiating with Russia as a
potential partner.
It's all about the "Belt and Road Initiative". There are no good guy's in this mess, and
the real losers in this conflict are the citizens of Syria. Russia is a main partner in
"Globalization".
One of the main problems of the People's Republic is to connect the "Belt" with the
"Road". For China it is crucial to be able to bypass the choke points represented by the
straits that separate the South China Sea from the Indian Ocean (Malacca, Sunda and Lombok)
that, being controlled by the US, prevent the Chinese maritime power to fully develop. A
first important asset in this sense is represented by the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor,
which connects by land Eastern China to the port of Gwadar in Pakistan, in turn connected
to the String of Pearls.
Why Syria?
In this perspective, Syria becomes a crucial junction within the BRI: a possible
development of its transport and port infrastructures, properly connected with each other
and with the Belt and Road Initiative, would allow China a further maritime outlet for its
land trade and a formidable trade post in the Mediterranean. A further advantage is
represented by the increased quantity of goods that China could deliver into the
Mediterranean, overcoming the further bottleneck of the Suez Canal.
Syria also has at least two important factors that represent opportunities to be
exploited by Beijing: the country's urgent need to obtain funds to be allocated to
reconstruction and development and the simultaneous disengagement of the United States from
the Middle East, an empty space not filled by the EU. Syria is therefore an extremely
interested and receptive partner to the proposals of the Chinese government, which finds
itself at the same time freed from any diplomatic controversy that could slow down its
action.
@Counterinsurgency
Chinese seem very naive in their willingness to deal with and trust black Africans and other
third worlders to honour deals and not be corrupt, etc. I suspect it will all turn sour for
them eventually.
@Abdul
Alhazred Thank you for that video. I've never been so proud of a U.S. president in my
life, as I was watching that video. He may have been cynically pandering to people like me,
but I don't care. Even if he was pandering, he said what he said.
More on Trump by Shamir's recent article:
What is much worse for Israel, is Trump's intent to leave the region. There is a good
chance you haven't seen relevant tweets of the President, for the MSM doomed to surround it
by the wall of silence. That is what the President said while ordering withdrawal:
"Fighting between various groups that has been going on for hundreds of years. USA
should never have been in Middle East. The stupid endless wars, for us, are ending! The
United States has spent EIGHT TRILLION DOLLARS fighting and policing in the Middle East.
Thousands of our Great Soldiers have died or been badly wounded. Millions of people have
died on the other side. GOING INTO THE MIDDLE EAST IS THE WORST DECISION EVER MADE IN THE
HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY! Now we are slowly & carefully bringing our great soldiers
& military home. Our focus is on the BIG PICTURE!"
Just for this recognition "GOING INTO THE MIDDLE EAST IS THE WORST DECISION EVER MADE IN
THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY" and for this promise "The stupid endless wars, for us, are
ending!" Trump deserves to be re-elected and remembered as the most courageous and
independent US President since Richard Nixon.
His efforts on withdrawing from the Middle East remind of Nixon's hard struggle to leave
Vietnam and to make peace with Russia and China. If he succeeds in this endeavour, he will
be rewarded by the American people in 2020..
If he succeeds, then he sure will have my support!
One of the main instigators of the Syrian imbroglio – Saudi Arabia – had
been beaten in Yemen and is no longer eager for battle; ditto Qatar and UAE. Europe is less
keen on removing "bloody dictators" than it was. CIA, Jewish Lobby and Clintonite Democrats
would keep Syria boiling, but mercifully they are not in full command in Washington. .
@A123
What is allegedly being built is the same worthless fence. The wall prototypes couldn't
legally be used per a clause in one of the terrible spending bills hastily signed by "Master
Negotiator" Trump.
Better than cacklin' cankles? Yes, but so is my last bowel movement.
Even if we got a real wall, Orangemeister wants legal gimmegrants in record numbers. We
just can't effing win.
Don't you think Trump was a tad premature in announcing "Only I can fix," to all these
problems?
Chinese seem very naive in their willingness to deal with and trust black Africans and
other third worlders to honour deals and not be corrupt, etc. I suspect it will all turn
sour for them eventually.
Every high value PRC project in Africa seems to come with as suspiciously large number of
military age, ethnic Han Chinese staff.
The PRC colonization effort is informed by the lessons of former Euro colonies. They have
built-in measures to make them very hard to displace. And, should they eventually be forced
out, the locals will get nothing but destroyed and poisoned lands.
@geokat62
Know more News with Adam News covers the Christian Zionist story. He is still on you
tube.
Jones was banned from that platform recently. He can still be heard on bitchute as well as
his own website, Culturewars.com
the Americans (Obama regime), created ISIS- with the intention that they use Libya's
stolen arms caches to hack and slaughter their way across Syria "
Yes, and that's why I'm skeptical of dumping of Erdogan. How eager was he for this
conflict? Did the Obama CIA promise him N. Syria for his complicity? Doubtless assuring
that Assad would fall quickly! Or maybe they dangled EU membership, if he joined the
team.
I have a metric that I use.
If a person or action is in anyway aligned with Israel, then that person or action is
suspect, at best.
Insofar as Erdogan has been aligned with Israel and its interests and agendas (the
destruction and carving up of Syria)- is the degree to which he has been a malefactor on the
world's stage.
/
Vs. the degree to which he's opposed to Israel's nefarious agendas;
– he's demonstrated actual statesmanship.
So that's my metric. That's why generally I don't have to pour over the minutia of every
action or issue with a fine tooth comb, rather I just ask, 'is this person or action aligned
with Israel's agenda.. (genocide, theft, murder, hegemony, strife ), and the question always
seems to answer itself!
Just consider the Obama regime. When I approved of what Obama was doing- peace with Iran-
it was when he was in Israel's crosshairs.
When I disapproved of Obama's treasons, it was when his actions were perfectly aligned
with Israel – destruction of Libya, destruction of Syria and so forth.
It really is a near perfect, if not perfect metric.
When Trump is betraying America and Americans, is when he's serving Israel – open
borders, drones, sanctions on Iran and Russia and others..
When he's acting like an actual American president, in the service of this nation, is when
he's in direct opposition to Israel's agenda – ending the Eternal Wars, making videos
about dead American soldiers, firing Bolton, talking about nationalism at the UN..
I'm really sort of waiting for this test to ever fail, it's been so reliably perfect for
so long.
So if you want to know if Erdogan is acting in good faith, just check to see if what he's
doing pleases Israel, and you'll know all you need to know!
Is a Kurdish state a good thing?
Well, what does the 'metric' say?
Is Turkey's incursion into Syria a good thing?
Here, a mouthpiece of Zion posits 'no'.
The Turkish government is no longer interested in helping Syrians liberate themselves
from Assad's murderous regime.
The video is very powerful, and this video linked in this link features Trump's speaking
with attendant images of the families of the soldiers and what they have to go through
.because of the lies of the warmongers.
@Rurik
As Commander in Chief tRump wanted to kill Syria President Basher Assad for having gassed his
own people & having to be restrained by his Generals, Amerikans now see another side to
their president which Rurik observed on video & gushed: "I've never been so proud of a
U.S. president in my life, as I was watching that video. He may have been cynically pandering
to people like me, but I don't care. Even if he was pandering, he said what he said Thank
God. Peace."
Am sincerely glad you're "happy," Rurik, that Trumpstein moved to shed some of his
Adelson/Netantahu skin implants. Nonetheless, & I don't want to be a GOP Likud-Party
pooper, but am sticking with Philip Giraldi's advisory to, "Let's see what he actually
does."
At any rate, linked below (& fyr in ), is Brother Nathanael's latest video. In order
to stave off our nation's descent into Greater Sodom & Gomorrah, it's understandable to
me how Bro Nat prefers "The Chosen One" to continue as ZUS president over his uber-liberal
& decadent Zio-Democrat opponents.
Thanks Rurik, and enjoy the good times of tRump's proclamation of an end to endless wars
for Greater Israel while it lasts!
"Israel is a shitty little country but its treatment of the Palestinians is side issue
for the West . . . A confrontation with burgeoning China beckons"
Israel's overall shiftiness IS not at all a "side issue" to USA, it is at the heart of US
FP dysfunction.
According to the video below, Israel is firmly on board and participating in China's
rise.
The wonderful context is, it's not up to Trump. It's not up to the US government. The world
will squeeze the CIA regime out of Syria. Russian doctrine of coercion to peace works equally
well on degenerate great powers, with the minor filip of face-saving subterfuge for routed US
functionaries.
Lindsay Graham gets to shake his tiny fist ineffectually at a sneering NATO ally instead
of shaking his tiny fist ineffectually at a nuclear power with overwhelming hypersonic
nonballistic missile capability. Much safer.
@Wally
The only way to change this cast of filthy charACTORs we have running this country is to have
a "NONE OF THE ABOVE" box located prominently at the bottom of every ballot. One I
would take the time and effort needed to check.
@Cloak And
Dagger Trump's problem is that he has very little support for his MAGA agenda in his own
party. People like Lindsey Graham who support him here and there will not hesitate to turn on
him if he takes positions that offend Sheldon Adelson. Trump's none-too-sophisticated,
none-too-affluent base is opposed by the media, academe, Wall Street, Silicon Valley, the FBI
and CIA, and the Rainbow Coalition assemblage of minority voices. Even Fox News (apart from
Tucker) opposes Trump's agenda even as it defends Trump against spurious charges of colluding
with the Russians. For example, Hannity regularly charges the Democrats with being in league
with Putin, in effect conceding that the Russians are evil enemies. Yet Trump's MAGA proposal
was detente and friendly cooperation with (now-Christian) Russia.
At the end of the day, the 4D Chess view seems more right than wrong. While Trump's
commitment to the right is both shallow and wavery, in the present setting he cannot do more
than hold the enemy at bay and wait for reinforcements to show up. That means it's up to US,
his supporters, to find ways to weigh in on his side. As the fascists used to say, a bundle
of sticks can be strong even if the individual sticks are weak.
@Sean
My question to you is: a confrontation between who or what and China? To the extent that
America collapses into a post-Christian, post-European congeries of plutocrats and their
commercial interests, such a confrontation has no clear shape. The evolving character of
American society has been put on the table by the Trump/populist revolution, and the role of
Jews in our cultural evolution is part of that even if it is taboo to discuss it. The issue
over the Palestinians is the only way to challenge the successful assumption of moral carte
blanche by the secular Jewish community, which Jewish thought leaders have parlayed into an
effective assault on freedom of speech and assembly (particularly in Europe but also here),
and a campaign to stigmatize whiteness, Christianity, and the nuclear family.
Conclusion: The issue of Palestine is a proxy for the larger issue of whether secular
Judaism deserves its current status as moral hegemon. It is the only way to raise this issue
that is not instantly dismissed as neo-Nazism.
@SolontoCroesus
SolontoCroesus wrote: "Israel's overall shiftiness IS not at all a "side issue" to USA, it is
at the heart of US FP dysfunction.
According to the video below, Israel is firmly on board and participating in China's rise."
To All commenters,
Above, when SolontoCroesus speaks, I listen & learn.
When President Bonespur speaks, it pains to listen, & I can potentially become
deceived.
Will likely get friendly fire from Rurik, but I truly wish he reads your comment &
astutely watches the very informative linked Talpiot video. Hurts when I see good men (like
him) gush while listening to "The Chosen One's" tear jerking words.
Thanks for your patriotic servus, S2C!
P.S.: Behind D.C.'s Blue & White House curtain, Treasury Secretary Mnuchin licks his
choppers in anticipation of effectual ZUS sanctions, & the Chinese communist government's
finally granting Goldman Sachs Group permission to do "untethered" investment business" in
the mainland; the largest consumer market on the planet.
@Sean'Israel is a shitty little country but its treatment of the Palestinians is side issue for
the West, just as the way the Kurds are treated is unfortunate but hardly our responsibility.
A confrontation with burgeoning China beckons, and America needs to be united. Going off on
tangents to play Santa to peoples who lost the geopolitical game and are without a state
would weaken the West,'
As usual you've being dishonest. You agree Israel is a 'shitty little country' -- but
manage to insinuate we should continue to support it.
After all, we don't have to spend a penny to 'play Santa' to the Palestinians (as if we
had nothing to do with their expulsion.). It's the Israelis we subsidize and protect, not the
Palestinians.
In fact, we can help the Palestinians and save money too! Yank Israel off our tit and we
get to have our cake and eat it too. The Palestinians get their home back, and we save
billions every year. All we have to do is to stop funding their tormentors,
If a person or action is in anyway aligned with Israel, then that person or action is
suspect, at best.'
It is always wrong to support Israel.
In 2008, I voted for McCain instead of Obama. I told myself they'd both be equally
supportive of Israel, but I knew deep down inside that was a lie.
I voted for McCain because he wasn't black. That doesn't bother me. What bothers me is
that I allowed some other consideration to seduce me into supporting Israel -- however
trivially and as it turned out ineffectually.
If you establish 911 was a fraud then subsequent war on terror is a fraud. The West will
exhaust themselves waging war against Islam and the Muslims despite killing millions of
people. They will dig their own graves and cast themselves in hell fire for eternal damnation
for subscribing to Santa Claus lies and Jesus died for their evils by supporting the money
changer's ideology for greater Israel project to usher in their Anti-Christ as their Messiah.
Anti-Christ Dajjal will take them for a ride to hell. He will play them "By way of Deception"
just as they are playing the rest of the world "By way of Deception wage wars." So how many
of us are willing to sell our souls in exchange for the worldly gains and pay a penalty for
eternal damnation?
gush while listening to "The Chosen One's" tear jerking words.
"I've never been so proud of a U.S. president in my life, as I was watching that video.
"
Gushing?
Perhaps, I suppose, depending on your definition.
But when's the last time you heard a Z.U.S. president speak of the war dead with
compassion and pathos? Hell, when's the last time you heard them speak of these tragic
victims of American f0lly (treason and war crimes), and their families- at all?
He was saying 'enough of this madness!'
And from what I understand, American troops are indeed vacating Syrian bases.
BTW, leaving for a few days, so keep up the good fight, Brother Chuck!
@Wally
Wally likes to cheap shot P.G., haha, and once again futilely asked him: "Has Giraldi ever
stated which current candidate is his preference vs. Trump?"
Get on the ball, wailing Wall! (zzZigh) Likely, even some knowledgeable CODAH associates
will inform that YOU'LL get what Supremacist Jews give you.
Haha. The Zionized D.N.C. is presently fretting over which Jewish Lobby-approved
presidential 2020 candidate they should give to their "base" voters. Haha. Liberal tribe
chieftains are confident that even Mayor Pete Buttigieg will make incumbent, Trumpstein,
Tweet-out "endless" sweat on election night.
Nonetheless, had Amerika a real choice, , Ron Paul would be my #1 "anti-Chosen One"
alternative. Refer to his article below, wailing Wall?
Yet Trump's MAGA proposal was detente and friendly cooperation with (now-Christian)
Russia.
That's why the NeoCohens hate Putin so much, for re-establishing Russian Christian
Orthodoxy as the 'national' religion. Trump, on the other hand, admires Putin for his
nationalism and wants white Christian Russia to be friends with nominally Christian
America. Unfortunately he must bow down to the Satanic anti Christ power brokers, the Cabal,
that keeps him in power and checks his nationalist leanings. Hopefully he will overcome this
in a second term but I've been saying that about presidents for years!
@ChuckOrloski
Thanks ChuckOrloski.
Undeserved, tho -- I was just being a shepherd guiding the flock to other people's good work,
a practice I learned from your comment style.
I don't want to be in the business of educating you on un-American actions undertaken by
"Z.U.S. presidents." You really know better, but since Jacques Sheete, peace be upon him, is
M.I.A., I will now do my best.
No doubt, Trumpstein is different. Please pause momentarily and consider how he very
recently wanted to sell/provide nuclear weapons systems to Saudi Arabia. Fyi, and lucky for
the entire Middle East's general population, Trump's lack of "compassion" was overuled by
those higher in the ZUS's Blue & White House Lowerarchy. (Note: He ain't "The Decider,"
he is the ever useful & divisive Zion Tweet-Chord)
So given the U.R. Moderator sword is not activated, linked down below, is a joint radio
show, hosted by Dr. David Duke & Ryan Dawson. Ideally, this action will take the job of
trying to educate YOU from off my shoulders, Rurik. No reading needed, & just carefully
listen!
Fyi, Dr. Duke and Mr. Dawson will provide the means by which an anti-Zionist &
patriotic American can resist the evil sway dished-out daily by our "Homeland's" Zionist
Corporate Media. These largely demonized gentlemen/scholars explain how Zionized Republicans
& Democrats are curiously "on the same page" when it comes to humanely protecting the
Kurds.
But when it comes to supporting & defending The Land of Bilk & Money, they unite.
Yippie! On other hand, and when it comes to actually helping the restless & sorry lot of
dumb goyim working Amerikans, they fight like , er, "Tom and Jerry." (Zigh) Why Trumpstein
even moved to kill the underachieving & oft unaffordable "Affordable Care Act," a.k.a.,
Obamacare.
Enjoy your time off, my Brother Rurik, and I suggest, at minimum, partial evacuation from
the dug-in Jewish Corporate Media "bases."
@Rurik'That's a very honest act of self-reflection, Colin.
I voted for Ron Paul, (If I recall, I wrote in his name).
I would have preferred the racist commie to the war mongering scumbag, but only because by
then I understood the nature of McCain all too well '
Now you're reminding me of 2012. Of course, I was going to vote for Obama over Israel's
man-in-the-White House-to-be. An unpleasant choice, but there it was
So my wife and I were down in Alameda at a winery. Somewhat incongruously, the server was
right-wing, and started praising Romney. I stayed tactful, as I didn't want to kill my buzz,
but my wife -- who is easily influenced -- came out of there going 'Romney number one.
Yeah -- I'm going to vote for him!'
In an unusual display of wisdom, I bit my tongue. We'll see how this plays out
You need to understand my wife comes from a poor background. If you want to meet 'the
working poor,' go see her relatives.
So the very next day, Romney comes out with his '49%' remark. It was classic.
@Johnny
Walker Read Right. This happens every so often. I am not recommending de Sade or any of
his works.
I'm recommending the movie:
"The Persecution and Assassination of Jean-Paul Marat as Performed by the Inmates of the
Asylum of Charenton Under the Direction of the Marquis de Sade ", play 1963, movie 1967 [1].
The movie has very little to do with the writings of the original Marquis de Sade [2], but it
does do a good job of showing the spirit of revolutions.
de Sade had a good reputation with the revolutionaries. He was elected a delegate to the
French National Convention, but fell during the Reign of Terror [3]. He really did direct
publicly presented plays at Charenton starting in 1803, but was eventually arrested and
denied paper and pen in 1809. Died 1815, and several large manuscripts were subsequently
burned by his son, who apparently thought that de Sade had done quite enough harm
already.
Insofar as tje video has anything to do with the real de Sade, it is that the director
(fictional de Sade) manages to stage a small revolution himself in the final scene, _after_
demonstrating that the audience is little more sane than de Sade is ("15 glorious years"
scene). As in the link given by Read [4], de Sade acts as the philosophical godfather of
revolution and revolt as an end in itself.
The really pathetic attempt by ABC to pass off Kentucky gun range footage as a Syrian
conflict zone is a good example of the consequences of Congress' horrible 2013 decision
(that you may not have heard of) to totally legalize domestic propaganda. @_whitneywebb
In the age of legal, weaponized propaganda directed against the American people, false
narratives have become so commonplace in the mainstream media that they have essentially
become normalized, leading to the era of "fake news" and "alternative facts."
The bad and ugly shepherds persistently hit vulnerable & trusting Unzers with their
"best shot." For one example, the currently M.I.A. commenter, Maven Sam Shama.
Subsequently, I see no valid reason why intelligent & good men -- like you! -- should
not give their "best shot" and attempt to support & rescue lost sheeple who regularly
appear here.*
* Some lost sheep simply like it that way, and therefore, bad shepherds, for one example,
the featherweight commenter "Sean," get lots of practice at misguiding the flock.
@steinbergfeldwitzcohen
Right, what to do is the question now that everybody has been taken by surprise.
I'd say that the advice "get out of debt, get out of the major cities" is fairly good, and
fairly obvious, and has been so for some time. As to income, I just don't know. You might try
linking up to some group (non-Left) that seems to be cohesive and has _some_ plan of action
that isn't too weird. Under stress, cohesive groups can survive better than individuals.
You might also remember the rule of thumb that prophets can predict either what or when,
but not both. It's obvious that the US in general and cities in particular are in severe
decline, but _when_ the current system will cast off much of the population it now supports
is simply not known. Abandon it too soon and you end up extremely poor, so a sharp break is
extremely risky. I'd say that retiring debt, hardening your house against home invasion, and
finding some group as above, would be about all that would be justified right now. If your
neighborhood is deteriorating, it might be a good idea to go to another one that isn't, since
the deterioration is unlikely to reverse itself. If you're in with an ethnic group that
doesn't like your ethnic group, it might be a good idea to displace, if only to avoid the
unpleasantness.
@jack
daniels The current US system / world order will end within the next decade no matter
what Trump does. Trump is trying to shut it down with minimal casualties and replace it with
something viable, which is a good thing to do, but if Trump were to vanish tomorrow the
current US system / world order would still end within the next decade, maybe two decades if
things went very badly wrong.
Trump has the wind at his back, he's trying to do things that would do themselves (although
not as well) and that's why the appearance of 4D Chess. But, as you point out, Trump leads a
very small force of government officials, and would lose without the strength given by his
supporters. Continued support, in word and in deed, should reduce casualties (to include
Trump and his family) during the current transition.
MEANWHILE, Millions Hungry and Food Insecure in the US
"According to the US Department of Agriculture in 2018, food insecurity affects 37 million
Americans, including over 11 million children -- the numbers likely way understated."
"Around 40 million Americans experience hunger annually."
"At least 15 million US households endure food insecurity."
"Hunger is caused by poverty and inadequate financial resources, a nationwide
problem."
"Around 45 million Americans rely on food stamps, an eroding program providing inadequate
help."
"1 in 6 American children may not know where their next meal is coming from."
"22 million children in America rely on the free or reduced-price lunch they receive at
school, but as many as 3 million children still aren't getting the breakfast they need."
@Rurik
I applaud the sentiment too.
I'm hearing rumours that Trump has put a thousand troops into Saudi Arabia and claimed they
are paying for it.
Is it now America's lot to be not just Israel's but SA's mercenaries?
2020 can't come fast enough. I'd love to see a Trump super majority and some serious
reform.
It's pretty clear the Evangelical Zionist's are Israelis' b@tches.
America, it seems, must not only reclaim itself but also it's religion. EV is a heresy and
the leaders are on their knees f@llating Israel. It is disgusting to watch.
Yes, I agree, having trucks and trains go overland and via various countries comes with
the risk of conflicts erupting between 2 or more states participating in Chinese projects.
China burnt itself badly in Libya, where Hillary " We Came, We Saw, He Died! Haw, haw,
haw " Rotham Clingon ran amok.
China is actively setting up routes via the attic as well, so I think China carefully
weighs all its options, but doing business comes with certain risks, those are
unavoidable.
When I was in Africa [The Gambia and there about], I noticed a lot of Chinese merchandise
being sold all over the place. I heard stories of some Chinese being attacked and/or murdered
elsewhere in Africa, but haven't dealt with any Chinese businessman myself or heard their
stories in person.
Having been on that vast continent doesn't make me an expert whatsoever, but I see Africa
become a huge anchor around the world's neck. Can't use a single brush to paint entire
nations, I know, but what I saw didn't look good.
side note : I didn't live in a hotel with armed guards, I lived in a compound with
Africans, so it's not that I have no up close experience. Furthermore, I was always treated
with kindness, respect and warmth.
Executive order 12333, 1981, prohibits the CIA from spying on American citizens on domestic
soil, or internationally, except as incidental to terrorist investigations outside the US of
A.
The POTUS is the first citizen.
Why has no one in any part of the press, right, left, or center pointed out this simple
fact?
Also, there is no "transcript" of any conversation between Trump and any other head of
state. Because there is no recording or verbatim typed record (such as a court reporter would
make) due to diplomatic protocols agreed by all parties.
There are only informal notes taken by witnesses at the time of the call. (Unless Snowden
is correct about the private contractors working for the NSA).
As for anti Russian propaganda, look first to the UK, who have been at it for several
hundred years, and who are in the habit of knighting American Republican presidents who take
orders from the square mile and Downing street, or whitehall and Balmoral castle.
The new cold war is an international project aimed at demonising Putin, who god knows is
no saint, but who is also no dummy. Unlike the image Trump likes to cultivate. Has anyone
noticed how clumsy the CIA has gotten lately? Or, how hysterical the press has become on
their behalf?
Executive order 12333, 1981, prohibits the CIA from spying on American citizens on
domestic soil, or internationally, except as incidental to terrorist investigations outside
the US of A.
The POTUS is the first citizen.
Why has no one in any part of the press, right, left, or center pointed out this simple
fact?
Has anyone noticed how clumsy the CIA has gotten lately? Or, how hysterical the press
has become on their behalf?
You answered your own questions. The law is for sheeple, Deep State does not give a hoot
about the laws, constitution, and the rest of the niceties.
@AnonFromTN
Limpet bombs on Japanese tanker, in the arabian sea, failed coup in Vn, Skripal case, etc.
Are the clumsy examples i was thinking of. They behave as if there is no internet. Not sure
if they are even aware that everything they do is being watched and evaluated from 100
different points of view.
But yeah, i know, most questions do contain an intrinsic answer.
So Democrats so jealously protecting Biden and whitewashing him they are only spinning
their wheels.
Slow wit Biden has no chance in hell to beat Trump. Trump will demolish him in every
debate.
Only Elizabeth Warren has a good chance to beat Trump. She is intelligent and authority
personality not like Biden, and she has clean record not like Hillary. Some of her ideas are
not worked out in detail, but they are of right direction. So I would assume that majority of
women will be voting for her. And that could make a difference
Only Elizabeth Warren has a good chance to beat Trump.
I would assume that majority of women will be voting for her. And that could make a
difference
Liz Warren is a lecturer and scolder. While she polls well with college educated white
women she does not have a great deal of appeal to minority and non-college white women. Her
appeal to male voters is not good across the board. She does not produce the emotional appeal
necessary to drive turnout.
Also, her false claims of American Indian background makes her an easy mark for Trump's
tactics.
IMHO, If the Dems want to beat Trump, their only option is Tulsi Gabbard. However the DNC
establishment hates her. It is hard seeing how she gets the nomination.
@Ilyana_Rozumova
On the presidential campaign prospects of Elizabeth Warren, Ilyana_Rozumova offered: "Some of
her ideas are not worked out in detail, but they are of right direction."
Hello, Ms. _Rozumova.
(Zigh) Re, above; So long as Elizabeth's evolving "ideas" continue to lean toward the
direction of the Western Wall, she might beat Likud's Chosen One, Trump.
Thanks for offering such a well worked out and "decent" delusion!
Selah, Former - unclean but authoritative DNC Chairman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, bolts
after having corralled The Bern's 2016 votes.
@Art
When congress claps its hands off, in a naked admiration for the leader of Occupied
Palestine, during 29 standing ovations, it was like a 'When do we leave Stalin's deathbed'
moment to me.
In most foreign countries MAGA = Make America Go Away.
I'd say, 'Take the country back and fly one flag."
@A123
In a country where celebrity status and showmanship are placed on the altar of normalcy,
people who actually make sense are not very well understood [not referring to Warren here].
"... "Over 18 years, the United States has spent $4.9 trillion on wars, with only more intractable violence in the Middle East and beyond to show for it," she added. "That's nearly the $300 billion per year over the current system that is estimated to cover Medicare for All (though estimates vary)." ..."
"... cancellation of current plans to develop more nuclear weapons, saving $20 billion a total nuclear weapons ban, saving $43 billion ending military partnerships with private contractors, saving $364 billion production cuts for the F-35 -- a military plane with 900 performance deficiencies, according to the Government Accountability Office -- saving $17.7 billion a shift of $33 billion per year, currently used to provide medical care to veterans, servicemembers, and their families, to Medicare for All's annual budget. ..."
"... "The public rejects the predominant, fear-based framing and policies; instead, they want to see a revamped, demilitarized American foreign policy focused on international cooperation, human rights, and peacebuilding," wrote Data for Progress. ..."
Yves here. For those of you who have friends and colleagues who would go on tilt if you tried educating them about MMT, a simpler
approach to persuade them that Medicare for All is affordable is to sell them on another worthy goal, cutting the military-surveillance
state down to size.
Even then, I still encourage you to set them up for a later conversation about MMT: "Even if you accept the idea that taxes pay
for spending, which actually isn't true for the Federal government, we can still get the money for Medicare for All by ."
Note also that the Pentagon has various black budgets, an "official" one and covert ones.
By Julia Conley, staff writer for Common Dreams. Originally published at
Common Dreams
The Institute for Policy Studies on Thursday shared the results of extensive research into how the $750 billion U.S. military
budget could be significantly slashed, freeing up annual funding to cover the cost of Medicare for All -- calling into question the
notion that the program needs to create any tax burden whatsoever for working families.
Lindsay Koshgarian, director of the National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), took aim in a
New York Times op-ed at a "chorus of scolds" from both sides of the aisle who say that raising middle class taxes is the
only way to pay for Medicare for All. The pervasive claim was a primary focus of Tuesday night's debate, while Medicare for All proponents
Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) attempted to focus on the dire need for a universal healthcare program.
At the Democratic presidential primary debate on CNN Tuesday night, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) was
criticized
by some opponents for saying that "costs will go down for hardworking, middle-class families" under Medicare for All, without using
the word "taxes." Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), on the other hand, clearly stated that taxes may go up for some middle class families
but pointed out that the increase would be more than offset by the fact that they'll no longer have to pay monthly premiums, deductibles,
and other medical costs.
"All these ambitious policies of course will come with a hefty price tag," wrote Koshgarian. "Proposals to fund Medicare for All
have focused on raising taxes. But what if we could imagine another way entirely?"
"Over 18 years, the United States has spent $4.9 trillion on wars, with only more intractable violence in the Middle East and
beyond to show for it," she added. "That's nearly the $300 billion per year over the current system that is estimated to cover Medicare
for All (though estimates vary)."
"While we can't un-spend that $4.9 trillion," Koshgarian continued, "imagine if we could make different choices for the next 20
years."
Koshgarian outlined a multitude of areas in which the U.S. government could shift more than $300 billion per year, currently used
for military spending, to pay for a government-run healthcare program. Closing just half of U.S. military bases, for example, would
immediately free up $90 billion.
"What are we doing with that base in Aruba, anyway?" Koshgarian asked.
Other areas where IPS identified savings include:
cancellation of current plans to develop more nuclear weapons, saving $20 billion a total nuclear weapons ban, saving $43 billion
ending military partnerships with private contractors, saving $364 billion production cuts for the F-35 -- a military plane with
900 performance deficiencies, according to the Government Accountability Office -- saving $17.7 billion a shift of $33 billion
per year, currently used to provide medical care to veterans, servicemembers, and their families, to Medicare for All's annual
budget.
"This item takes us well past our goal of saving $300 billion," Koshgarian wrote of the last item.
As Koshgarian published her op-ed in the Times , progressive think tank Data for Progress released
its own report showing that a majority
of Americans support a "progressive foreign policy" far less focused on decades-long on-the-ground wars, establishing military bases
around the world, drone strikes, and arms sales.
"The public rejects the predominant, fear-based framing and policies; instead, they want to see a revamped, demilitarized American
foreign policy focused on international cooperation, human rights, and peacebuilding," wrote Data for Progress.
"Voters want to see U.S. funding go to domestic needs such as healthcare, or to other national security tools like diplomacy,
instead of to the Pentagon and more endless war," according to the report.
Polling more than 1,000 ppl with YouGov, Data for Progress found that 73 percent of Democratic primary voters ranked numerous
issues -- including economic challenges and the climate -- as more important to them than national security and military funding.
Progressive national security proposals proved popular with respondents, including closing Guantanamo Bay, ending arms sales to
Saudi Arabia, and leveraging military aid to Israel to force it to adopt better human rights policies toward Palestinians.
"There is a clear appetite for progressive reforms to U.S. foreign policy," wrote Data for Progress.
In her op-ed, Koshgarian acknowledged that remaking the U.S. military as a truly "defense-based institution, rather than a war
machine and A.T.M. for private contractors, will require major changes."
But, she wrote, "that's no excuse for continuing to spend hundreds of billions in ways that make our world more dangerous and
deny us the ability to seriously invest in things like jobs, healthcare, education, and all that makes our lives better."
I would love to see it, but I strongly doubt this would happen in my lifetime. The Pentagon budget seems to be one of those
political "third rail" issues like Social Security.
Many people are so paranoid that I think it constitutes a mass hysteria; others are propagandized into 24×7 jingoism. I'm not
talking concepts here, I deal with pro-military people almost daily. Its the glorifying and fetishizing of the military that bothers
me.
Most if not all pro-military types are also deeply conservative; bring up *any* social program and they will wonder how to
pay for it.
I don't know, how many "third rail" type taboos has Trump danced on and become more popular because he did? I think the average
voter would be *extremely* receptive to a well-crafted message promoting the redirection of resources away from forever foreign
wars and bases to concrete material benefits for Americans. I don't even think it'd be a hard sell, once the pearls had been gathered
up.
What's so maddening about this question is the fact that we know that the military budget is probably much more than 750 billion
per year, but we can never know how much more, because the government is expressly allowed to hide and even fake spending totals.
What matters is whether the goods and services are there for them to buy with that money, and this is where real wealth lies.
Governments can create all the money they want, but if they create too much you will get inflation, or hyper-inflation if they
type in too many zero's when creating money.
Money has no intrinsic value; its value comes from what it can buy.
Banks create money from loans and that's easy too, just type the numbers in.
They can dash wildly into the latest fad, like the dot.com boom, and finance it with money they create out of nothing.
What could possibly go wrong?
Bankers do need to ensure the vast majority of that money gets paid back, and this is where they keep falling flat on their
faces.
Banking requires prudent lending, that is all there is to it.
If someone can't repay a loan, they need to repossess that asset and sell it to recoup that money. If they use bank loans to
inflate asset prices they get into a world of trouble when those asset prices collapse.
"It's nearly $14 trillion pyramid of super leveraged toxic assets was built on the back of $1.4 trillion of US sub-prime
loans, and dispersed throughout the world" All the Presidents Bankers, Nomi Prins.
When this little lot lost almost all its value overnight, the Western banking system became insolvent. Wall Street can turn
a normal asset price bubble into something that will take out the global economy using leverage.
Bankers create money out of nothing and the monetary system requires that nearly all that money they loaned out gets paid back.
Bank credit is a claim on future prosperity, and when you realise all that debt can't be paid back, a financial black hole
opens up, as it did in 2008.
When governments create too much money you tend to see it in consumer price inflation.
When banks create too much money you tend to see it in asset price inflation.
We see inflation in asset prices as good and consumer price inflation as bad.
The asset price boom will crash the economy, but no one realises while it's happening.
They believed in the markets and neoclassical economics in the 1920s and after 1929 they had to reassess everything. They had
placed their faith in the markets and this had proved to be a catastrophic mistake.
This is why they stopped using the markets to judge the performance of the economy and came up with the GDP measure instead.
In the 1930s, they pondered over where all that wealth had gone to in 1929 and realised inflating asset prices doesn't create
real wealth, they came up with the GDP measure to track real wealth creation in the economy.
The transfer of existing assets, like stocks and real estate, doesn't create real wealth and therefore does not add to GDP.
The real wealth creation in the economy is measured by GDP.
Inflated asset prices aren't real wealth, and this can disappear almost over-night, as it did in 1929 and 2008.
Real wealth creation involves real work, producing new goods and services in the economy.
Banking requires prudent lending, that is all there is to it. Sound of the Suburbs
100% private banks with 100% voluntary depositors means we (the general public) wouldn't have to give a flip if banks lent
prudently or not since we would have an additional but risk-free payment system consisting of debit/checking accounts for all
who want one at the Central Bank (or Treasury) itself.
Moreover without government privileges and without captive depositors and unable to hold the economy hostage via a SINGLE payment
system that must work through them, you can rest assured that banks WOULD lend prudently or go under, like they should, if they
don't.
So what is required is 100% private banks with 100% voluntary depositors and that situation has NEVER before existed in history
so it cannot be said to have failed.
When governments create too much money you tend to see it in consumer price inflation. Sound of the Suburbs
Because the DEMAND for fiat is suppressed in that only depository institutions may use it in the private sector.
Fix that injustice and eliminate all other privileges for banks and then government should be able to create much MORE fiat
for the general welfare since banks would be much LESS able to create deposits for the private welfare of themselves and for the
so-called "worthy" of what is, currently, the public's credit but for private gain.
if they [governments] create too much you will get inflation
Is this true, or is it an economist's assumption? Here's the other thought:
Capitalism embraces borrowing for investment. Real estate development is an example. Borrowing involves an assumption of paying
back more than was borrowed, but at a future date. When that future date arrives, it is in the borrower's best interest if the
face value dollars are wroth less in spending power that the face value of the loan. You stated that, but the link to inflation
is fuzzy. Bank credit is a claim on future prosperity
Rather than the government's causality, and a nebulous prosperity, it may be the borrower's CFO who then decides to raise consumer
prices to keep up with expenses. The borrowed dollars came from a banker-created asset, but the inflation is tied to a direct
result similar to the so-called "wage-price spiral." In this case, the "interest-price spiral" that is not visibly tied to the
supply of money.
I've got a new disconnect. I understand and appreciate how MMT works. It is the only way, imo, for a sovereign country to pay
for the social costs of a good society. And, of course, the government does not charge itself interest, does not expect to be
"paid back" at all. The tradeoff for the government is the betterment of society. So if your neighbor loans you $500 and you tell
him you'll pay him back as soon as your check comes in and with some interest that seems fair bec. you're dealing with two private
budgets. But when a licensed bank loans you money for a new house under the terms that you pay it back over 30 years with interests
that amounts to triple the original cost of the house – then you are not dealing as one private person to another. You are then
dealing with usury. Made legal by the private financial industry. This private industry does not use its own money – it uses the
government's money by a computer click. And the government then lets it profiteer on this tiny transaction of apples and oranges
to the degree that over time the money "earned" by the private bank accumulates and topples the steady state of the economy. At
that point there's no place left to invest that "private" profit and the whole financial system goes haywire in a panic not to
"lose" money. Money that should never have been given to them in the first place. It's an oxymoron – demanding that money be paid
back with interest when it's not your money in the first place and you do nothing to stabilize your profligate profiteering. Nothing.
Just a thought.
Zimbabwe found it all too easy to create so much money they caused hyper-inflation.
Yes, after destroying their Ag Industry, and having no Ag products to export, because Mugabe and his party assumed all the
white farmers just sat around drinking beer while the dark farm workers did all the work.
After Mugabe took the land, there was no collateral for the farmers to get loans for the next planting season.
Who knew that managing the farm was so much work? /s
Inflation in Zimbabwe first came from shortages, especially food, as things looted rhe country of 4x and mismanaged the economy,
like farm price controls under cost of production.
Historically shortages cause high inflation.
"In her op-ed, Koshgarian acknowledged that remaking the U.S. military as a truly 'defense-based institution, rather than a
war machine and A.T.M. for private contractors, will require major changes.'"
Interesting. Beyond cost cutting, what exactly would it take to remake the military into a true defense-based institution ?
How would assets be deployed? What weapons systems would be prioritized and ultimately receive funding? What doctrines would need
to change to flip from an offensive mindset to a defensive mindset? What alliances would we maintain and what alliances would
we discard?
I see that the article offers some examples, but I think crafting a progressive foreign policy would entail answering these
kinds of more fundamental military questions. Cost cutting is a laudable goal but it strikes me that there's much more to it if
real transformation is desired.
As a civil servant working for the Department of Defense, I can tell you that this would be a difficult shift in priorities
for Congress to accept. It all comes down to the defense industry political donations they receive year after year, and the jobs
the defense industry provides their constituents (no matter how meager or sub-optimal). Since defense spending is basically this
nation's sole industrial policy, I think that finding employment for displaced workers (whether defense civil servants or contractors)
is the biggest hurdle to address; a green new deal would solve the problem. We'd also need political campaign reform to force
Congress off of the teet of defense industry political contributions.
Finding employment for displaced defense civil servants or contractors? We've done that before . . . we tell them to train
for the jobs of the future as we did for manufacturing workers and leave it at that. The same goes for the parasites working in
health insurance companies, pharmacy benefit management and healtcare administration when M4A becomes a reality.
I have no sympathy for those people nor care for their well being as they deliberately, and with malice aforethought, make
life meaner for us all.
I remember when the defense/aerospace industry collapsed in Southern California in the early 1970's as the Vietnam war was
winding down.
Tech jobs were scarce.
The political sphere is well aware of potential job loss due to defense cutbacks.
I have mentioned before, the relatively liberal CA Senator Barbara Boxer fought to preserve Mare Island Naval Shipyard, in
Vallejo, CA, when it was slated to be shut down in the 1990's.
One could suggest that Vallejo has not fully recovered.
It is a tragedy of immense proportions, as I believe a future historian will remark that the USA, a nation that in its 200
+ year history had only one large deadly war on its soil (the internal Civil War), re-titled its WWII "War Department" as "Defense
Department" and then consumed tremendous resources in its purported defense for the next 70+ years.
A recent discussion with someone, that I regard as a "Northern California Liberal", about Trump's pullout of Syria further
re-enforced that the resistance to ANY change in the MIC in the USA is formidable.
He was sure that Trump would be deservedly impeached because he was pulling out of Syria and abandoning our allies, the Kurds.
And he is old enough to remember Vietnam.
The USA news media and entertainment industries (big sports/Hollywood) are fully on board with the righteous USA "war is good"
meme.
Given how the USA economy has restructured much employment and lifelihoods in costly sectors (finance, education, medicine,
military) it is difficult for me to see how there would be political will to downsize the military to any extent as "good paying"
jobs of politically powerful people would be lost.
Many of the manufacturing jobs have been moved overseas.
There is some hope for policy redirection in the Administration's recent Turkey-Syria-Kurd action. If there really is a shift
away from foreign nation building and away from endless wars over endless enmities, then that could lead to redirection and reduction
of military budgets. Watching the defenders of those engagements fall all over themselves recently has reconfirmed my notion that
they are not acting in the best interests of their constituents. Meanwhile, the sun rose today.
The current defense spending and growth of national debt
more or less "prove" the validity of MMT. This has supported the channeling of resources and energy into military activity (and
profits for enterprizes). Something similar is happening with healthcare; maybe it's inelastic
demand. (The similar something is ever-increasing costs.)
Healthcare at the moment seems to be outside of
the scope of current uses of MMT. But there are major
cost-control issues with it nonethess.
In what direction will things head if healthcare is
swept under the government MMT umbrella in the form of medicare for all? Will the government negotiate prices
with providers (hospitals, staff, pharma)? Certainly military procurement is no leading light.
While cutting the bloated Pentagon's budget is a very good idea, why is no one talking about the fringe benefit that is employer
provided healthcare? I do believe a sizable fraction of folks on private insurance (maybe 40%?) get their health coverage through
a fringe benefit from their employer. If that coverage is no longer necessary under universal coverage, it seems contractually
that the money spent on the fringe benefit should go to the employees. That money is enough to pay for their insurance under universal
coverage, so the employer pays it to the employee, the government taxes part of that to pay for the universal healthcare and everyone
is better off. The employee, due to savings in the system, ends up with more money in pocket. The employer is out from under the
ever increasing costs of the fringe benefit (plus can now claim to be paying higher salaries), and, well, the insurance companies
are left behind to pick up "expanded coverage" for those wanting to pay for it.
This and "defense" spending cuts could pay for the whole system easily, no?
The relative value of small business based jobs would increase with a functional health care system. There would be an outflow
of employees from jobs with healthcare benefits.
With single payer, looking for a less stressful job becomes an alternative. Big employers know this.
It also means people may retire earlier if they don't need their employer-provided health insurance.
Health insurance becomes a minor consideration in selecting which employer to work for.
Companies and state/local governments that provide health care coverage in retirement should see their liabilities for that
plummet as healthcare costs drop and public insurance improves.
COULD employers give the surplus to employees?
Technically, yes.
WOULD employers give the surplus to employees?
Not in this age of activist stockholders seeking new sources of "revenue." Everywhere. Benefits are simply a "cost." Human Resources
is a "cost center." Defined benefits that averaged out the risk among many have segued to defined contribution that is no more
than a tax-abated savings account. Risk has monetary value, but risk invisibly is shifting more and more to the individual.
After the last Democratic debate, it is safe say anti-war Progressivism is dead. Everyone was frothing at the mouth to prove
how much they care for the Kurds, and our nation's honor, and that we should stay in the ME. Except Tulsi, but her response fell
flat with the audience, and judging by my Left friends/family on Facebook, fell flat with them too. Having the same position as
Trump is a death sentence. My faith in my fellow citizens is at quite a low ebb.
Cheer up. No matter what you used to think of Lindsay Graham, he is setting the pace for a representative to think for him/herself.
Commentators reported surprise that he was "formerly in Trump's corner." Think about how easily we accept that the future is secured
by a majority in either house. The outrageous president is inspiring elected Republicans to analyze issues (imagine!). Even if
it is cold and calculated to influence their own voters, let's begin to applaud and encourage those who seem to think for them/ourselves.
We don't suffer from a lack of ideas in this area; no, we lack the ability (political will) to accomplish it. Thus, another
exercise in mental masturbation.
we lack the ability (political will) to accomplish it. Carl
A Citizen's Dividend would be the camel's nose under the tent since the less wasted by government, the more that could be distributed
to citizens to counter price deflation.
And it's only justice that all fiat creation, beyond that created for government to spend for the general welfare, be in the
form of an equal Citizen's Dividend.
Funny you should mention Europe since an equal Citizen's Dividend for all Euro zone citizens would be a way to eliminate austerity
that even Germany might not object to since Germans would receive it too.
For example, Italy gives the unemployed 500 euros per month and tries to find them any sort of job. I think you're a little
behind. But by all means, keep tilting at windmills.
i was just thinking about that this am while finishing my fence like in alaska.
i figger that after 40+ years of declining or stagnant wages, a majority of us are owed some frelling back-pay.
but "dividend" works just as well.
a majority of us are owed some frelling back-pay. Amfortas the hippie
The Citizen's Dividend would vary as required to counter price deflation but during the period when the banks are progressively
de-privileged, it would have to be quite high to provide for the conversion of bank deposits to fiat deposits at the Central Bank
– with the banks, by necessity, having to borrow the needed fiat from citizens.
Its still the wrong set of arguments. The problem in the US is not that Medicare-for-All would require new taxes that need
funding. The problem is that the US spends twice per capita on healthcare what the average OECD country spends. The US spends
more public tax money on healthcare per capita than Canada does, and Canada insures the entire population.
We can pay for our entire military budget as it exists if we simply drop our per capita healthcare spending to less than what
Switzerland pays. Name one other thing that costs more in the US than in Switzerland.
Americans simply cannot comprehend how exorbitantly expensive and unequal the US healthcare system is compared to the rest
of the developed world.
While I gladly accept the results of these surveys, I question the reasons they seem to have garnered from the public. To most
citizens, lower taxes mean much more than non-aggresive foreign policy and peaceful diplomacy. If the question was phrased in
such a way that respondents were replying to the lower cost AND the concomitant peace-oriented habits that should (would?) come
from it, then it is an issue whether they agreed with both statements. Further, this reorientation of spending would have to be
bully-pulpited quite strongly to educate the US as to its long-term benefits since most of us have been prepped to be anxious
about foreign nations and the paranoia of saving us from the evil dictator "X". Oh, yes, peace should come, but compare the Syria
brou-ha-ha to what would descend upon us when peace broke out. The elites won't disappear.
Bizarre. The question is: How can we afford something that's half as expensive as what we're already paying? I wouldn't expect
that level of insanity from someone in a straitjacket yet it's a commonplace in these discussions.
Even worse: the argument that government is financially constrained. It's not "tax & spend," it can't be. Where would taxpayers
get dollars to pay those taxes if government didn't spend them first?
So it must be "spend first & then ask for some back in taxes." This is how reality works. And what do we call the dollar financial
assets left in the economy, not retrieved by taxes? a) The dollar financial assets of the citizens, i.e. their savings or (same
thing) b) National 'Debt'
National 'Debt' is completely unlike household debt. It's like bank debt. If you have a bank account, that's your asset, but
to the bank, it's a liability. It's the money they owe you. It's their debt.
Now imagine a mob of depositors marching down to the bank to demand it reduce the size of its debt (i.e. make their accounts
smaller) Crazy? Yes, but that's the austerian line of talk.
Finally, the inflationistas: "If you just print money, you'll have [gasp][hyper-]inflation!" This is the finest quality bullshit,
and people spout it practically without prompting. The truth: The Fed extended $16 – $29 trillion in credit to cure the frauds
of the financial sector in 2007-8. I defy anyone to find a measurement of inflation that says there was any then.
Was there central-bank-run-amok inflation in the classical cases (Weimar, Zimbabwe). Nope. Not even there. Yes they did print
lots of Deutchmarks and Zimbabwe currency, but only after a shortage of good occurred that actually caused the inflation.
Just printing money, especially if there's spare capacity, does not cause inflation. You need a bidding war for some commodity
that's become scarce (like oil in the '70s). So Weimar had the burden of war reparations, a balance of payments problem, and when
they delayed sending some telephone poles to France, the French military shut down the German equivalent of Ohio (the Ruhr). Shortages
led to the hyperinflation. Similarly, the Rhodesian colonists left Zimbabwe, which had previously fed itself, and food shortages
led to the hyperinflation.
The Cato study of 56 hyperinflationary episodes in human history also validates the above. In *no* case did a central bank
"run amok" and print too much to kick off the hyperinflation. Always the cost push of a shortage of goods drove it.
Gosh, it's all so simple. We just need to take on the military industrial complex, the medical industrial complex, and our
corrupt political system all at the same time.
Researchers Detail How Slashing the Social Security and Medicare Budgets Could Pay for More Pointless Wars While Creating the
Progressive Wall Street Bailouts Americans Want.
"... "Along with the wreckage of the family, we are seeing record levels of depression and mental illness, dispirited young people, soaring suicide rates, increasing numbers of angry and alienated young males, an increase in senseless violence, and a deadly drug epidemic," he said. ..."
Share U.S. Attorney General
William Barr raised concerns about the increase in secularism in society in a speech on
Oct. 11, speaking about how that has contributed to a number of social issues plaguing
communities across the nation.
Barr, who
delivered his remarks to students at the University of Notre Dame's law school, drew
attention to the comprehensive effort to drive away religion and traditional moral systems in
society and to push secularism in their place.
"We see the growing ascendancy of secularism
and the doctrine of moral relativism," Barr said.
He said that the forces of secularism are using mass media and popular culture, the
promotion of greater reliance on government intervention for social problems, and the use of
legal and judicial institutions to eliminate traditional moral norms.
Barr explored several of the consequences of "this moral upheaval," highlighting its effect
on all parts of society.
"Along with the wreckage of the family, we are seeing record levels of depression and
mental illness, dispirited young people, soaring suicide rates, increasing numbers of angry and
alienated young males, an increase in senseless violence, and a deadly drug epidemic," he
said.
"Over 70,000 people die a year from drug overdoses," he said. "But I won't dwell on the
bitter results of the new secular age. Suffice it to say that the campaign to destroy the
traditional moral order has coincided, and, as I believe, has brought with it, immense
suffering and misery."
Barr said religion has come under increasing attack over the past 50 years, underscoring how
secularists are using society's institutions to systematically destroy religion and stifle
opposing views.
"Secularists and their allies have marshaled all the forces of mass communication, popular
culture, the entertainment industry, and academia in an unremitting assault on religion and
traditional values. These instruments are used not only to affirmatively promote secular
orthodoxy but also to drown out and silence opposing voices," he said.
He said that people are moving away from "micro-morality" observed by Christians, a system
of morality that seeks to transform the world by focusing on their own personal morality and
transformation. Instead, he said the modern secularists are pushing a "macro-morality," which
focuses on political causes and collective actions to address social problems.
"In the past, when societies are threatened by moral chaos, the overall social costs of
licentiousness and irresponsible personal conduct become so high that society ultimately
recoils and reevaluates the path it is on," Barr said.
"But today, in the face of all the increasing pathologies, instead of addressing the
underlying cause, we have cast the state in the role as the alleviator of bad consequences. We
call on the state to mitigate the social costs of personal conduct and irresponsibility. So the
reaction to growing illegitimacy is not sexual responsibility but abortion; the reaction to
drug addiction is safe injection sites."
"The call comes for more and more social programs to deal with this wreckage, and while we
think we are resolving problems, we [actually] are underwriting them."
He also pointed out how the law has been used to "break down traditional moral values and
establish moral relativism as the new orthodoxy," giving the example of how laws have been used
to aggressively force religious people and entities to subscribe to practices and policies that
are antithetical to their faith .
"The forces of secularism have been continually seeking to eliminate the laws that reflect
traditional moral norms," he said.
Barr also highlighted the role of religion in society, saying it promotes moral discipline
while it influences people's conduct.
"Religion also helps promote moral discipline in society. We're all fallen. We don't
automatically conform our conduct to moral rules, even when we know that they're good for us.
But religion helps teach, train, and habituate people to want what's good," he said.
"It doesn't do this primarily by formal laws -- that is, by coercive power -- it does this
through moral education and by framing society's informal rules -- the customs and traditions
which reflect the wisdom and experience of the ages. In other words, religion helps frame a
moral culture within society that instills and reinforces moral discipline."
"... Liz Warren is a lecturer and scolder. While she polls well with college educated white women she does not have a great deal of appeal to minority and non-college white women. Her appeal to male voters is not good across the board. She does not produce the emotional appeal necessary to drive turnout. ..."
"... Also, her false claims of American Indian background makes her an easy mark for Trump's tactics. ..."
@renfro
I believe that the Israeli /Anglo Zionist goal was to either 1) destroy Iran or 2) being Iran
back into the Western orbit as a vassal state tied to the dollar.
Those two goals which once may have been attainable are no longer so.
Even Pentagon war planners know that their children would have to fight Iran and that war
with Iran would prove 100x tougher than Iraq.
China's Silk Road Offers seems to offer economic growth without vassal state status
@Counterinsurgency
I understand, and I am aware that you operate at a higher level of intelligence than most
here (including myself). I look forward to your insight's, although at times it takes me a
bit to comprehend your message. Keep up the good fight.
@jack
daniels Cutting Israel lose to feel morally pure, would would be nice, but cost plenty
and in my opinion too much. Feeling good about oneself is hardly worth destruction of the
anti China alliance before it even got off the launch pad . The Israel Lobby are a pain, but
we need them, because we need everyone all pulling together for the fight that is coming. Yes
it makes you feel dirty, but we are down here with the filth and worms not in an ivory tower
I believe that the Israeli /Anglo Zionist goal was to either 1) destroy Iran or 2) being
Iran back into the Western orbit as a vassal state tied to the dollar. Those two goals
which once may have been attainable are no longer so.
The goal of the civilized world is stop Iran from destabilizing and threatening the world.
Iranian al'Hezbollah occupies Lebanon and undermines the legitimate government. Iran is
trying to infiltrate Syria so it can be driven into failure like Lebanon. Iran is developing
nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles to deliver them.
Iran can easily rejoin the civilized world of of it stops the violence against its
neighbors. Alas, Ayatollah Khameni is a sociopath. He does not care about the suffering of
the Iranian workers trying to survive in a collapsing economy. (1)
The Iranian rial official rate is set at 42,000 rials to the U.S. dollar, but its market
rate stood at around 115,000 against the dollar on Tuesday, according to foreign exchange
website Bonbast.com.
Iran's economy is expected to shrink by 9.5% this year, the International Monetary Fund
(IMF) said, down from a previous estimate of a 6% contraction, as the country feels the
impact of tighter U.S. sanctions.
@Daniel
Rich Thanks for your reply! Africans and Black people from the Caribbean can be kind,
respectful, and warm as long as their societies are intact.
I'd imagine that Donald Rich is familiar with these works and more, but here's a brief
popular literature / internet search for material concerning trading in sub-Saharan Africa
and the Third World in general:
and the Africans (indeed, third world countries worldwide) seem to have only one way of
coping. Looking at it from that angle, the Vietnam War was about throwing out the Chinese
businessmen and the French/Americans who were supporting them. See Chua's discussion of this
in _The World on Fire_
The universal group preference seems to be living in a society that the group has developed
for itself over a society that produces more goods and longer lives but is run by
foreigners.
@Counterinsurgency
A kick-off observation: Counterinsurgency's "screen name" is intriguing, and it suggests, to
me, a fellowship beyond that of a single commenter.
Broken Scranton greetings, Counterinsurgency!
Your following words make ominous sense but I cannot place my arms around what you
precisely mean when zeroing in upon "The current US system / world order."
Questions sprout from even keen ambiguity, so I politely ask you to provide an improved
definition of, "The current US system / world order." Hm. Is it in part the "US" maintaining
it's shaky reserve currency distinction, and it's attack/sanction every country that deserves
such?
And regarding the "US world order," one pauses to recognize that such is now become a
downsized & disputed residual of President G.H.W. Bush's "New World Order"
proclamation.
And then, a reader (like me!) becomes rather dazzled by a quasi-Nostradamus/Protocols of
Zion style prediction that all "will end within the next decade no matter what Trump does.
Trump is trying to shut it down with minimal casualties, and replace it with something
viable." Hm. Something "viable," eh, like City of Scranton's position, in the E.R.? Haha,
(Zigh)
No doubt alluring & as Johnny Walker Read attested in comment #229, "I am aware that
you (Counterintelligence) operate at a higher level of intelligence than most here (including
myself)." In addition, you comment as if operating with greater awareness & confidence of
what the hell is really going down. Impressive, !
But regarding noble & brotherly Amerikans who are willing to work toward a semblance
of national unity & salvation, there's a problem, Counterinsurgency.
The awesome ZUS government "system" prioritizes feeding the wealthy; for easy examples,
themselves, friends, oligarchs, multinational corporations, and of course Israel & the
M.I.C. (Zigh) Consequently, employed but oft still struggling average Amerikan subjects get
scraps which fall from off the national budget's indebted banquet table.
The USA population now endures an advanced engineered-experiment where a nation becomes
characterized by Haves & Have Not; in parable language, a "Rich Man & Lazarus"
divide.
Agreed, you're spot-on correct on Trump's main Executive job as limitation of casualties
during "the transition." Nonetheless, I respectfully suggest a crystal ball tune-up because,
& very regrettably, "the wind at Trump's back" blows from Tel Aviv, London, and AIPAC
headquarters.
Thanks, Counterinsurgency, and can you please offer a sunshine response?
@Counterinsurgency
Reasonably, and to Daniel Rich, Counterintelligence explained: "Africans and Black people
from the Caribbean can be kind, respectful, and warm as long as their societies are intact."
Above, & as you're aware, "societies" originate in packs/tribes." * In general, &
for lack of a better word, such entities permit themselves to be governed.
In the America where I grew up, there was a saying that "fish rot from the head."
Now, Counterintelligence, I indulge the word "fish" as a metaphor for submerged Amerikan
human beings. Okay? Fyi, haha, Jews are fisherman for consumable pools of 'Merikan Shabbos
goy carp.
When either packs/tribes or nations become governed by distorted & selfish leaders,
the collective entity rots & such process typically starts from the "head."
Now we arrive at Amerika's dreaded fate, and one which you described as President tRump's
managing a gradual engineered "transition." (Zigh) No doubt, the throwaway fish rots from the
head? Thanks, Counterintelligence!
P.S.: Sometimes during particularly glum "Homeland" moments, & instead of the tribe's
actual imposed governance, , I wish my country was ruled by the first ten (10) "kind" people
who are listed in Somalia's Yellow Pages.
* Try Jewish author, Elias Canetti's remarkable book, "Packs and Tribes."
Andrew Zimmern, the Jewish chef and celebrity who does a TV program called "bizarre foods,"
visited Syria in 2011 (season 6, episode 1) before the start of the civil war. Zimmern was
pretty apprehensive about the visit and says so at the beginning but he was won over by the
kindness and humanity of the Syrian people and the beauty of the country. It is a tragedy
what has happened there. I don't know how long the link below will be available, but see the
show for yourself.
I did not study US constitution.
I do have a question:
When Trump will be impeached, and Trump loose support in Senate and so he will be removed
from presidency, will he still be entitled to run in next election?
I did not study US constitution. I do have a question: When Trump will be impeached, and
Trump loose support in Senate and so he will be removed from presidency, will he still be
entitled to run in next election?
Your hypothetical will not happen. There is no chance of a Senate Conviction & Removal
during an election year. Then resulting internal fight would also wipe out the Republicans in
the House and Senate.
_____
That being said. The answer to your constitutional question is, "Yes". Neither House
impeachment nor Senate conviction is a bar to serving as President.
The only requirements to serve as U.S. President are found in two places:
Article II, Section I, Clause 5
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time
of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither
shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of
thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.
Amendment 22
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person
who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a
term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the
President more than once.
"Let's see what he actually does " , it appears that he's shuffling forces around and even
adding to them as John Feffer describes in his article : " Trump's Endless Wars" which
appears in the most recent edition of Informed Comment .
Feffer : " In fact , the Trump administration has deployed an additional 14,000 US forces to
the Middle East since the Spring , compare that to the 1000 troops he is withdrawing from
Northern
Syria . The President seems more intent on starting fires than ending them ."
@ChuckOrloski"the wind at Trump's back" blows from Tel Aviv, London, and AIPAC
headquarters.
Chuck -- thanks for the AIPAC mention.
AIPAC is a small but powerful political tribe within our nation. Clearly, we cannot leave
Syria because of AIPAC. When it comes to foreign policy – it rules America. Only 60
members of congress voted to leave Syria. Some 375 members voted with AIPAC, while most
Americans want us to leave. Is that not stunning? What political power.
No informed American can like AIPAC. It is time that we pacifically target AIPAC as a
coercive organization. Clearly, it is in the wrong – it is vulnerable. Those in
congress who support it like lemmings – also need condemnation.
p.s. Going after AIPAC has the added benefit of not attacking all Jews.
@TGDZimmern was pretty apprehensive about the visit and says so at the beginning but he was
won over by the kindness and humanity of the Syrian people and the beauty of the country.
The same is said by people who visit Iran. Rick Steves Travels Program – did a Iran
video – he had the same generous reaction about Iran.
Interestingly, Art recommended: "Going after AIPAC has the added benefit of not attacking all
Jews."
Agreed, Art, but with one major caveat.
As you know, the late-President JFK and Attorney General RFK wanted AIPAC's predecessor to
register as a foreign agent. ! Fyi, the young Illinois Congressman, Donald Rumsfeld,
articulated his opposition in writing to Bobby.
These days, invulnerable AIPAC must simply remind all standing ZUS presidents &
members of our Knesset Congress West about the severe risks involved in attacking AIPAC.
(Note: Regrettably, AIPAC doesn't hesitate to expel even Jewish Senators; for one example,
groping Al Franken, who also non amusingly "spilled the beans" about his family's having
received Odigo warning messages just prior to the 9/11 Manhattan-based attacks)
Thanks & my respect, Art!
P.S.: Sincerely wish RobinG was around so that I could be bitten, badgered, & charged
with defeatism.
So Democrats so jealously protecting Biden and whitewashing him they are only spinning
their wheels.
Slow wit Biden has no chance in hell to beat Trump. Trump will demolish him in every
debate.
Only Elizabeth Warren has a good chance to beat Trump. She is intelligent and authority
personality not like Biden, and she has clean record not like Hillary. Some of her ideas are
not worked out in detail, but they are of right direction. So I would assume that majority of
women will be voting for her. And that could make a difference
Only Elizabeth Warren has a good chance to beat Trump.
I would assume that majority of women will be voting for her. And that could make a
difference
Liz Warren is a lecturer and scolder. While she polls well with college educated white
women she does not have a great deal of appeal to minority and non-college white women. Her
appeal to male voters is not good across the board. She does not produce the emotional appeal
necessary to drive turnout.
Also, her false claims of American Indian background makes her an easy mark for Trump's
tactics.
IMHO, If the Dems want to beat Trump, their only option is Tulsi Gabbard. However the DNC
establishment hates her. It is hard seeing how she gets the nomination.
@Ilyana_Rozumova
On the presidential campaign prospects of Elizabeth Warren, Ilyana_Rozumova offered: "Some of
her ideas are not worked out in detail, but they are of right direction."
Hello, Ms. _Rozumova.
(Zigh) Re, above; So long as Elizabeth's evolving "ideas" continue to lean toward the
direction of the Western Wall, she might beat Likud's Chosen One, Trump.
Thanks for offering such a well worked out and "decent" delusion!
Selah, Former - unclean but authoritative DNC Chairman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, bolts after
having corralled The Bern's 2016 votes.
@Art
When congress claps its hands off, in a naked admiration for the leader of Occupied
Palestine, during 29 standing ovations, it was like a 'When do we leave Stalin's deathbed'
moment to me.
In most foreign countries MAGA = Make America Go Away.
I'd say, 'Take the country back and fly one flag."
@A123
In a country where celebrity status and showmanship are placed on the altar of normalcy,
people who actually make sense are not very well understood [not referring to Warren here].
So the ADL banned Red Ice & The Blue & White Gulag Roundup, Inc. is comin' to my
hometown soon, eh?
Da, Rodnoy brat geokat! Am delighted that "we," who regularly assemble here at U.R.
Comment-Department, have an ancillary threat warning system. Thank you, geo.
P.S.: Were Ron Unz whimsically responsive & less civilized, I would lobby for a
color-coded Zionist threat-level banner that constantly flashes atop the daily U.R. article
masthead, and flexibly changes according to dire political circumstance; i.e., fluctuates
from a pale Zion Red to a flaming Zion Red. One color needed, (Zigh)
@Cloak And
Dagger It is interesting that it has been a one way street. What could be happening is
that we are witnessing the growing great divide between American and Israeli Jewry. In
America the white man is the racist. Trump is associated with white nationalist in America.
Jews believe people of European descent can't be nationalist but the Israelis are going past
the American Jews' comfort zone with their openly racist policies. American Jewish kids don't
get conscripted in order to shoot brown kids and to help take their homes from them. In
Israel they do. In Israel the Jews are racist and are proud of it. There is a disconnect.
They encourage American Jews to visit and to feel connected with Israel but they don't have
them take up arms and shoot Palestinian kids as a right of passage. Jews in America are a
minority with a lot of political power but in Israel they rule and everyone else is a second
class citizen. What we are seeing on the left is the effects of this growing divide in the
experiences of the two populations. If Trump was Jewish they'd make him King of Israel.
Also many American Jews who are fine with Israeli racialism value the bipartisan
consensus. Trump will come and go but they hope that will last a very longtime. Netanyahu has
ruffled feathers by throwing his lot with Trump. Now that he maybe is down for the count they
hope that the new Israeli leader can project the right image and use the right rhetoric to
quell the rebellion on the American Left while continuing Israel's racist policies. They use
Trump's troop removal as proof that Netanyahu was wrong to support Trump regardless of all
the gifts Trump has bestowed onto Israel. Israel loves all those gifts but what they really
want is for Americans to die fighting Iran for them in order to weaken Hezbollah. Trump has
yet to do that but even if he did they'd still try to remove him from office.
@barr
What do you think of this? Pepe correctly identifies the "cultural misunderstanding" by
US/NATO. I just have a hard time believing that the Turks, right next door and with a forever
history, could be so deluded about Syria. Oh well, human folly.
It should be observed that the Syrian incursion by the American military, which was
initiated by President Barack Obama and his band of lady hawks during the so-called "Arab
Spring" of 2011, was illegal from the gitgo. Syria did not threaten the United States, quite
the contrary. Damascus had supported U.S. intelligence operations after 9/11 and it was
Washington that soured the relationship beginning with the Syria Accountability Act of 2003,
which later was followed by the Syrian War Crimes Accountability Act of 2015, both of which
were, at least to a certain extent, driven by the interests of Israel.
When American soldiers first arrived in Syria the U.S. War Powers act was ignored, making
the incursion illegal. Nor was there any mandate authorizing military intervention emanating
from any supra-national agency like the United Nations. The excuse for the intervention was
plausibly enough to destroy ISIS, but the reality was much more complex, with U.S. forces in
addition seeking to limit Iranian and Russian presence in Syria while also bringing about
regime change. The objectives were from the start unattainable as Iran and Russia were
supporting the Syrian Army in doing most of the hard fighting against ISIS while the regime of
President Bashar al-Assad was not threatened by a so-called democratic alternative which only
existed in the minds of Samantha Powers and Susan Rice.
Unwilling to see large numbers of Americans coming home in caskets, the United States
inevitably began to search for proxies to carry out the fighting on the ground and wound up
willy-nilly arming, training and otherwise supporting terrorists, to include the al-Qaeda
affiliate al-Nusra. The Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces eventually became the principal tool
of U.S. military, but it must be observed that the Kurds in all likelihood had no illusions
about the staying power of their American patrons. They were fighting Syrian forces as well as
ISIS because they were seeking to carve out their own homeland of Kurdistan from the ruins of
the Syrian state. Their expansion into northern Syria, aided by the U.S., was at the expense of
the local population, which was overwhelmingly not Kurdish. Their occupation of that area was
not reported honestly in the U.S. media, but other sources suggest that their behavior was
often brutal.
So the lament about abandoning one's Kurdish allies has a kernel of truth, but the Senator
Lindsey Graham response, to include sanctioning Turkey, should be considered to be little more
than a dangerous misstep that would lead to acquiring a new and more powerful enemy. And, of
course, the argument in favor of leaving the Kurds to their fate found its most ridiculous
expression from the mouth of Donald Trump himself, who, up until recently had praised the Kurds
as friends who had "fought and died for us." Trump is now observing
that "they [the Kurds] didn't help us in the Second World War, they didn't help us with
Normandy." As President Trump did not serve his country in Vietnam due to alleged bone spurs
and his father Fred likewise did not serve in the military, the comment is particularly ironic.
Trump's surname was changed from the original German Drumpf and if there were any Drumpfs
present at Normandy they were undoubtedly on the German side.
Finally, there is one other important issue that should be observed. Donald Trump's actual
record on ending useless wars is not consistent with his actions. He has sent more soldiers to
no good purpose in support of America's longest war in Afghanistan, has special ops forces in
numerous countries in Asia and Africa, has threatened regime change in Venezuela, continues to
support Saudi Arabia and Israel's bloody attacks on their neighbors and has exited to from
treaties and agreements with Russia and Iran that made armed conflict less likely. And he has
five thousand American soldiers sitting as hostages in Iraq, a country that the United States
basically destroyed as a cohesive political entity and which is now experiencing a wave of
rioting that has reportedly killed hundreds. Trump is also assassinating more foreigners using
drones based mostly on profile targeting than all of his predecessors. These are not the
actions of a president who seriously wants to end wars even if one does not consider the
economic warfare that is currently taking place through the use of sanctions that is reportedly
killing tens of thousands.
So should one take Donald Trump seriously when he says he wants to end the pointless wars?
Perhaps not, but even giving him the benefit of the doubt, he should be judged by his actions,
not by his words and, apart from the withdrawal of a handful of soldiers from the actual front
lines in Syria, nothing has changed. It is quite possible that nothing will change.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest,
a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a
more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its
email is[email protected]
The Turkish Army, which is one of the most powerful in NATO, will do whatever is
necessary to crush them. Trump should have realized that before he started talking.
IDK, Phil. I am not sure that he didn't. My sense is that he has been pandering to the
neocons in the hope of a compromise that would allow him to deliver enough of his campaign
promises to permit his re-election. I think hiring Bolton was just such a move –
thinking that keeping his enemies closer would permit him more control.
Recently, he has expressed frustration with his staff and I speculate that he has come to
realize that pandering to the jews is going to be a one-way street. He has given them a score
of concessions, including Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. He hasn't received anything in
return, except for the onslaught of palace coups, one after the other, orchestrated by the
very same zionist forces in both parties.
My hypothesis is that the man, narcissistic as he is, has reached the end of his tether.
Faced with the potential to not get re-elected, he has mounted a counteroffensive against
them. He, rightly, believes that the people who got him elected are the only ones who can get
him re-elected. So, his recent tweets are both an attempt to recapture us to his side, while
at the same time slapping the zionists across their faces with a show of power, as he is
won't to do in business negotiations where he feels that he has been betrayed.
I could be completely wrong as I try to pry into his mind.
So should one take Donald Trump seriously when he says he wants to end the pointless
wars? Perhaps not, but even giving him the benefit of the doubt, he should be judged by his
actions, not by his words and, apart from the withdrawal of a handful of soldiers from the
actual front lines in Syria, nothing has changed. It is quite possible that nothing will
change.
It serves us naught to take this pessimistic stance in the absence of a replacement
candidate. I have always contended that the best way to use Trump is to support his ego.
Let's inundate him with praise for withdrawing from the Kurdish/Turkish quagmire. Sure, he
hasn't vacated Syria yet, however, he has no choice but to vacate or be evacuated. His ego
will opt for the former.
Trump is also assassinating more foreigners using drones based mostly on profile targeting
than all of his predecessors.
These are not the actions of a president who seriously wants to end wars even if one does not
consider the economic warfare that is currently taking place through the use of sanctions
that is reportedly killing tens of thousands
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Mr. Giraldi,
Could you please elaborate on the first point: the use of drones. Who and where?
Secondly, economic warfare: are you referring to Iran or Venezuela? Could you
elaborate?
@A123
NATO members will not help the New Ottoman Empire "offensive".
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Wow, Israeli is really terrified. What will they do when the U.S. decouples from the Middle
East completely? It's pretty clear that, short of running to Russia and fellating Putin, Bobo
the Clown of Tel Aviv has no plan.
Tic Toc.
The fact of the matter is that President Donald Trump is a Corrupt "Crypto Jew" in spite of
the American people may think Trump is as he was chosen by the Elite to serve and protect
Israel and churn profits for Elite owned and controlled Armaments industry in promoting wars
against the Best interests of the citizens of United States of America.
If Washington withdraws its military, spooks and mercenaries the Syrian Curds will go back to
being Syrians. Syria, Iran, Russia and Turkey will negotiate the peace. The U.S., Israel,
Saudi Arabia and Turkey will have been defeated in their war against Assad. Syria, unlike
Iraq and Libya will remain standing.
Everyone loves to hate on Erdogan. I was hoping for a more nuanced view than [he] "is just
crazy enough to do that." Remember when George Galloway called him "a lion," awestruck at his
reaction to the Israeli murders of Turks on the boat to Gaza? Is it true that Turkey has made
tremendous economic gains under his administration? He has much support, as shown by the
[popular] squelching of attempted coup.
I've just never understood why he facilitated the chaos on his border, harboured the White
Helmets, probably murdered Serena Shim, etc. And now, what will he do with his jihadi proxy
army? As far as his threats to release migrants to Europe, I have no sympathy for EU
countries who've been part of the war on the ME. What goes around, comes around. Same for the
Kurds.
There have been some suggestions that the Kurds could make nice with the Damascus
government and rely on the protection of the Syrian Army to deter the Turks, an option that
they have already begun to exercise.
The Kurds have caved. Plus our radical Islamic rebels are going over, with our equipment
etc to the Ass man.
Updated Oct. 14, 2019 6:48 pm ET. WSJ
ISTANBUL -- Syrian troops entered areas that have been outside their control for years on
Monday, after a quickly forged pact between Kurdish forces and the Syrian government to
confront a Turkish military campaign reshaped alliances in Syria.
That pact transformed the Kurds, an erstwhile partner of the U.S. in the fight against
Islamic State, into a force more closely aligned with Russia and Iran, as the U.S. began
withdrawing its troops from northeastern Syria.
Until recently, thousands of U.S.-backed fighters had trained at a military base in the
town of Ain Eissa. After the Syrian military arrived on Monday morning, soldiers raised the
tricolor Syrian flag in the town center.
The US gets out of the way, and Assad, who won the Civil War, immediately settles with the
Kurds and Nustra.
So, it wasn't many troops, but we had successfully prevented Assad from absorbing
(voluntarily) two groups in the Civil War. Meaning we (US) alone was preventing settlement.
The. deep state has thwarted Trump's intentions to leave for 3 years.
"Or the Turks might be willing to escalate their own offensive to take on the inferior Syrian
Army and the Kurds together." It is a stretch without careful analysis.
Many people said the same about the world's most cowardice army, the Israeli. There is an
agreement between the parties and Erdogan will comply. The Kurds are the West-Israel proxy
terrorists. They proved their usefulness many times.
But in pursuing their aspirations for self-rule, Syria's Kurds risked overreach and
miscalculation. American officials have long made clear in meetings and public comments
that U.S. military backing never amounted to an endorsement of Kurdish political
ambitions.
In December, U.S. envoy to Syria James Jeffrey likened the partnership with the SySo he
rian Kurds to a "transactional relationship for a specific goal."
Trump got it basically right -- time to leave and we never promised Kurds a Rose
Garden.
His bumbling ruling decrees via Twitter stem from the lack of loyal staff. His decisions
are ignored or subverted when he goes through channels. So he announces it and works from
there. This is the 3rd Time Trump has announced withdrawal from Syria. Although the neocon
press and Hawkish politicians howled.
Trump also implemented the Pivot to Asia (an Obama failure) by engaging China
diplomatically through efforts at trade reform. Much more nuanced that fortifying bases.
Its never pretty, but Trump tends to stubbornly pursue a less warlike agenda.
The mideast is where everybody backstabs everybody recalling the CIA used to deliver
renditioned prisoners to Assad to be tortured along lines a bit more than 'enhanced'
interrogations (karma could be a b *** h.) The soup only gets thicker as the pot boils down.
Remember those NATO nukes kept at Incirlik?
Why had NATO (the USA particularly) sat on its hands these past 3+ years? It's not like no
one was aware there could be a serious problem with 50 (or more) tactical nukes in the hands
of the paranoid narcissist Erdogan:
@A123
"that is, the goods and services produced by the economy -- rises faster than the money
created, so there is no inflation, and rises faster than the debt created, so the country's
debt burden doesn't increase."
"The long term prospects for peace are still there. A return to the status quo ante. Russia
remains as guarantor of the peace and all other foreign fighters and their proxies exit the
nation."
Spot on.
Given cast-iron assurances re the PKK & it's Syrian cousins that Nth Syria will cease to
be a zone for organising attacks (or any kind of nefarious Kurdish behaviour) on Turkey, I
think Erdogan would likely consider a withdrawal of his forces.
i think there are few unknowns between Russia, Turkey, Syria; the plan seems to be to get
ISIS, SDF, the PYD/YPD without regard to who is supporting them. Unleash ISIS, even those in
prisons so they can move against Assad to be destroyed ? Those trapped in Idlib can either
commit suicide or wait for the executioner. I have no facts, but by observing that the
sanctions warfare is directed at those who intend to destroy ISIS, SDF, PYD/YPD and Israelis
and Iranians visiting in Syria I conclude Russia and Turkey have skunked the Pentagon (maybe
Trump is also in on it?) .
Russia and Syria have agreed to stand by while Turkey engages in some target practice at
unwanted visitors in Syria? Invade Syria even North Western Iraq.. rid the world of pesky,
trouble making, fake news head chopping face book and Twitter super stars, destroy all traces
of Kurds, remove all non Syrian others threatening the Ottoman, Syrian Turf. Don't look now,
but Iran seems to be on the Turkey list of non Syrians ?. ..After the area is cleared Assad's
problem, will be, what if Turkey (Erdogan) refuses to return to Turkey, and that return to
Turkey promise has probably been be guaranteed to Assad by Russia.
I read a Russian statement somewhere last year [early 2018], in which they unequivocal said
there would never be an autonomous Kurdish state. They [the Kurds] could stick to some of
their customs, but legally and lawfully they would fall on Damascus' rule/s.
Trump's foreign policy constitutes an egregious betrayal of his election platform which was
to "stay neutral" on Israel/Palestine, withdraw remaining troops and avoid any further
entanglements. He reneged on all pledges.
The recent announcement that he was withdrawing troops from Syria was followed the next
day by an announcement of 2,000 US troops being deployed to Saudi Arabia to protect that
country from Iran. Say what?
It was totally predictable five years ago that Turkey was in Israel's gunsights, and as
usual Israel tends to destroy others by proxy. They can sit back and savor Turkey destroying
more of Syria, while US sanctions destroy more of Turkey.
The waves of death and destruction that have hammered the Middle East for the last seventy
years are all symptoms of one problem and that is the illegitimate "state of Israel".
Most Americans seem obsessed with stupid wars. For example the vast majority of people in the
UK see the Iraq War as a catastrophic mistake and despise Tony Blair, yet in the US most
people still seem to see the Iraq War as a good thing. The mentality is far apart.
Americans seem a very insecure people, projecting military power is all they really have.
If America is not constantly embroiled in a war somewhere then most Americans feel they have
nothing to be proud of. I would go as far to say that the military is the only real source of
pride in America, it's the only thing Americans feel they undeniably excel at.
There are no "stupid wars", every slaughter of millions was long time in planning and was
based on greed and racism of the "master" races vs. "subhumans".
USA corporation, can not and will not survive without WARS.
Complete "economy" is a WAR machine, USA corporations has WEAPONIZED it ALL.
It is nice to dream, even HollyWood supports and promotes it.
Whiskey Rebellion me think was the Birthday of citizen USA and blessed it's associates
with representation by corrupt and greedy anointed by others rushing to become corrupt and
greedy.
Trump has shown himself to be completely unreliable on every important issue; I do not
see why it will be different this time -- his desire for approval from the Establishment is
apparently far stronger than any principles he may hold -- you can see this in practically
everything he does, perhaps most notably in his constant bleating about black and Hispanic
unemployment -- he simply can't be trusted.
On the other hand Trump has not started any new wars (so far). He is also resisting the elite
of Deep State (MIC) and the mdia, probably in his own weird way by making confusing
statements keeping them off balance. No body knows we are all simply speculating. Time will
tell.
@WorkingClass
Not really. The goal all along was not to "take" Syria so much as to destroy it and leave it
in fragments. Mission accomplished! Syria, or at east large swathes of it has been reduced to
rubble, its economy is gutted and its people are scattered to the winds. The US had no goals
there to begin with and has just been acting in the service of its "great friend and ally"
Israel. Your tax dollars at work.
Syria, Iraq, Libya are now less of a threat to Israel than ever before so that is a kind
of peace. Solitudenum facient, pacem appellant said Tacitus. They make desolation and call it
peace.
@Europe
natonalist I agree. Worship of the military is surely modern America's most cringeworthy
and repellent aspect. The war hero is the American equivalent of the medieval saint, and you
can't even blame the Jews for it. It's clearly a whitey thing. Get a few bullets shot at you
by some primitive and soon to be obliterated savages and you can live large on your war
stories for the rest of your comfortably pensioned days. The sad thing is that there are no
wars for the US military to fight these days except those they create themselves.
America, an exceptionally immature, warlike and stupid nation. And they worship Jesus! Who
of course will just laugh when he presses the button and sends them all into the lake of fire
without a second thought.
@Cloak And
Dagger Interesting, I've been mulling over this possibility recently and was thinking
about it earlier as a potential outcome-based upon basic game theory.
What I don't understand is, if there be an alleged discreet hidden super-hand of
power controlled by the Jewish elite, and Trump seemed to be doing their bidding (moving the
Embassy), where are all the "compromising photos" and "Blasey Ford's" for the Warren's and
Biden's of the world? Certainly some damaging (and likely private) material, or "witnesses"
from the past exist, against those who attack Trump? Certainly the Mossad and/or other hidden
forces have such information, that could protect Trump. Here's a guy with a (now) Jewish
daughter and a Jewish son-in-law, doing positive things for Israel and the Jewish elite in
the US/West, and yet, he has been subject to continual attacks, as have those around him, and
now he is facing impeachment?
I don't see Israel getting it any better if Warren is elected (certainly not by her base,
which is turning more toward a BDS worldview). It just makes me think their power is not as
great as conspiracy theorists alleged, or in the alternative (perhaps likely) their "power"
is superseded by an even greater hidden force of elites. If their power is as awesome and
infiltrating as alleged, why isn't he president for life at this point? Using the media,
politics, blackmail, international banking, this guy could usher in Israel as the capital of
the universe, but yet none of that is happening. He is betrayed at every corner and faces
removal from office, disgrace (for actually being the removed, i.e. the other side actually
"winning" against him), and probably the destruction of any chance Ivanka and Jared had of
becoming the first couple, in the future.
So perhaps as you offer, he's going for broke and just doing whatever he wants or wanted
to do in the beginning. Time will tell. Strange times indeed.
@Contraviews
, Contraviews said: "He (Trump) is also resisting the elite of Deep State (MIC) and the mdia,
probably in his own weird way by making confusing statements keeping them off balance."
No! Zionist Jews & Israel are keeping you and almost all of Amerika "off balance."
Refer to Jerusalem Post article (linked below) and you will distinguish "confusing
statements" by Trump from the reality of mandatory ZUS endless ME wars since 9/11.
Everybody should be happy Uncle Sam is getting out of Syria. Look at the disasters the US
created in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, etc. and all the money wasted which could have been
better spent here at home.
Much of what's being said in the MSM has to do with the American narrative that Turkey and
Syria are bad guys for the unspoken reason that they have opposed the zionist enterprise.
What American national interest justified the occupation and dismemberment of Syria? Why
should we support terrorist groups like the PPK against NATO member Turkey? Why should we
ally with al-Qaeda affiliate HTS for israel's benefit?
@anon
Good point about DJT needing to use Twitter to announce his decisions since they'd otherwise
be thwarted or outright ignored going through normal channels. But, how can he actually be
against these wars when they're contrasted with his embarrassing servility toward Israel,
which in actuality is an enemy state responsible for Lavon, Liberty, and 9/11, not to mention
it's theft of our technology that's used against us by Israel's intel tech companies for
profit and communications espionage at the deepest levels of our government? The canard about
other, overriding strategic interests doesn't hold water since the $trillions wasted on these
wars could have secured our economic and military interests a hundredfold through trade and
cultural interaction. As much as I want to trust DJT and would stand with him and the
deplorables at the barricades if necessary, I cannot overcome my repugnance at his support
for Israel, knowing as he now must know that Israel did 9/11.
The reason America was pushed into the mideast wars was the attack on the WTC 911 by Israel
and traitors in the ZUS government and this attack was blamed on the Arabs and America was
tricked into attacking Afghanistan and Iraq and Syria, all this for Israels goal of greater
Israel, and all this at the cost of millions in lives and 7 trillion and counting in
taxpayers money.
To top off the deception, AL CIADA aka ISIS is a creation of the CIA and the Mossad and
MI6, and these are the real terrorists!
The Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) announced a deal with the Syrian
government of president Bashar al-Assad to resist the ongoing Turkish invasion. Syrian forces
have already moved into Kobane and Manbij. If Turkey continues with its push southwards into
Syria, a war between the Turkish and Syrian forces seems imminent.
As per the deal signed on October 13, the SDF will dissolve its Autonomous Administration
of North and East Syria, also known as Rojava, and hand over the control of cities, such as
Kobane and Manbij to the Syrian government. Talks between the SDF and the Syrian government
were facilitated by the Russians at their Syrian base at Hmeimim in Latakia.
Turkey and its ally, the Free Syrian Army – many of whose members were directly
affiliated to Al Qaeda and other extremist groups – continue their offensive and
atrocities. The FSA has reportedly already illegally executed 13 people. The victims include
Hervin Khalaf, leader of the Future Syria Party, and her two drivers.Turkey launched
'Operation Peace Spring' on October 9. The operation has already led to the death of around
60 Kurdish and 18 Turkish fighters. It has already caused the displacement of more than
130,000 people.
How has the discussion predictably developed along partisan lines? Trump said he wants out of
Syria. That united the war mongers in the house and senate because war means massive profits
to the military industrial complex and congress works for them. Trump said something that
affects the bottom line of the rich and they reacted predictably.
@A123
You can google and watch what Assad told the Kurds in a press conference. It will contradict
part of your statement. The Kurds risked and lost. Great warriors, but weak diplomats and
strategists.
1BEIRUT, LEBANON (11:50 A.M.) – The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) has taken over the U.S.
military base in Manbij after entering the city last night.
According to a military source in the Aleppo Governorate, the Syrian Arab Army has
deployed several units to Manbij as they look to block any potential Turkish offensive to
capture the city.
Men, Do This Today – You Will Never Need ED Pills Again!
MedJournal
Ads by Revcontent
Find Out More >
38,273
On Tuesday, the Anna News Agency reported from Manbij, as they showed the deployment of
the Syrian Army and their eventual take over of the U.S. military base there. -- AMN news
.
2 A stunning development in the key northern Syrian city of Manbij -- the Pentagon has
confirmed a planned handover to Russian military forces is underway amid a Turkish military
assault on the region. This also hours after President Trump tweeted that Assad "wants
naturally to protect the Kurds" and that the problem should be left to local powers.
Late Monday the main US base in Manbij was filmed empty of US forces, and American convoys
were also spotted hastily pulling out of the city as Syrian national forces entered,
following Sunday's historic deal between the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and
the Assad government. Newsweek reports the developments follows:
I think Russia has allowed Turkey to attack Syria to satisfy Turke's main objective of
rooting out the Kurd on the condition of returning the territory to Syria . It has given Kurd
the bleak choice of oblivion or self preservation . America suffers from PTSD . The flashback
of Saigon on the roof top reappeared again . It ran. Good a sensible job by Trump.
@WJ The
machinations people are making on this topic are truly stunning when it's clear Trump is
doing the right thing. Today are reports that US positions and bases in N. Syria have been
turn keyed over the Assad and Russian forces. Trump IS Protecting the Kurds, just not with
American blood, as he promised.
The one thing Turkey has always wanted is a broken Syria so it can gobble up the remnants.
Past US (and many current) leaders and Democrats were complicit in this by funneling cash and
weapons to Syrian opposition, which directly led to the rise of Isis and deaths of thousands
– can you say evil?
I have hope that Trumps current actions will bring an end to thus war for good –
Turkey was OK to beat up on some kurds but war with Russia is something else.
@OscarWildeLoveChild
imho Jewish power keeps Trump on a perpetual short leash (Schiff is this month's designee to
'walk the dog') until Iran is wrecked.
[edit: renfro commented on Giraldi's earlier thread reminding readers that Israel has a
major interest in the Kurds, their territory, which is oil rich. Remember the proposals to
divide Iraq into three ]
Warren -- BDS is one thing, but her agenda to tax >$50million -- that's the part people
hear & cheer: Hooray! Soak the rich!
The next thing she says is, "Use the money to pay for universal child care, universal
kindergarten, increase pay for child care workers."
This gets cheers from millennials struggling to keep two people employed and kids cared
for.
But think about how drastically anti-family those proposals are.
TOTALLY turn over the care of our children to the loving embrace of the federal government
aka the Frankfurt school
The combined synthesis of social theory and psychoanalysis thus allows resituating on
new bases the Marxist optimism according to which the working class, due to its position in
the relations of production, is disposed to adopt a point of view scientifically based on
reality as well as promote legitimate forms of action.
Knowledge of the forms of the becoming-adult of humanity conceived by Freud, in the form
of a theory of passage through different stages that must result in an assumed genital
sexuality, leads to the recognition of a working class that is believed to be less
encumbered by typically bourgeois prejudices and perversities.
@NoseytheDuke
The goal was to topple Assad. Remember Obama? Assad must go? Assad and the Assad regime are
still there. Where is Saddam Hussein? Where is Muammar Gaddafi? After seven years of war in
Syria the victors are Syria, Iran and Russia. The losers are the U.S., Israel, Saudi Arabia
and Turkey. The real losers of course are the dead and the maimed. The widows and orphans.
And the millions who have been displaced and have become refugees. All are victims of
Imperial aggression. And the real winners of course are the war profiteers who have grown
fatter and fatter since 9/11.
@J. O.
Step 1 in ending hunger in America:
Stop importing hungry foreigners who can't earn a living here.
Do that and somebody might take you seriously. As it is, you're morally despicable.
Liza
says: October 15,
2019 at 4:11 pm GMT 100 Words @eah Yes,
indeed. He is a loose cannon. Don't those people who are still kissing the hem of Trump's
garments remember all that stuff he said during his campaign? Sure, we all know that
politicians lie in order to get elected – but nothing on this level. Like the Scorpion
and Frog poem, or at least his version of it (the Snake). Read More
"... Russia hating is the lynchpin of oligarchic deepstate MIC MSM propaganda. Take that away and the fat cats are revealed as the naked face of evil that they are. Hating Russia (and China) supposedly justifies all their crimes. ..."
The transcript of President Trump's July 25 telephone conversation with Ukraine's recently
elected president, Volodymyr Zelensky, has ignited the usual anti-Trump bashing in American
political-media circles, even more calls for impeachment, with little, if any, regard for the
national security issues involved. Leave aside that Trump should not have been compelled to
make the transcript public and ask: Which, if any, foreign leaders will now feel free to
conduct personal telephone diplomacy with an American president directly or indirectly, of the
kind that helped end the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, knowing that his or her comments might
become known to domestic political opponents? Consider instead only the following undiscussed
issues:
§ Even if former vice president Joseph Biden, who figured prominently in the
Trump-Zelensky conversation, is not the Democratic nominee, Ukraine is now likely to be a
contested, and poisonous, issue in the 2020 US presidential election. How did the United States
become so involved in Ukraine's torturous and famously corrupt politics? The short answer is
NATO expansion, as some of us who opposed that folly back in the 1990s warned would be the
case, and not only in Ukraine. The Washington-led attempt to fast-track Ukraine into NATO in
2013 -- 14 resulted in the Maidan crisis, the overthrow of the country's constitutionally
elected president Viktor Yanukovych, and to the still ongoing proxy civil war in Donbass. All
those fateful events infused the Trump-Zelensky talk, if only between the lines.
§ Russia shares centuries of substantial civilizational values, language, culture,
geography, and intimate family relations with Ukraine. America does not. Why, then, is it
routinely asserted in the US political-media establishment that Ukraine is a "vital US national
interest" and not a vital zone of Russian national security, as by all geopolitical reckoning
it would seem to be? The standard American establishment answer is: because of "Russian
aggression against Ukraine." But the "aggression" cited is Moscow's 2014 annexation of Crimea
and support for anti-Kiev fighters in the Donbass civil war, both of which came after, not
before, the Maidan crisis, and indeed were a direct result of it. That is, in Moscow's eyes, it
was reacting, not unreasonably, to US-led "aggression." In any event, as opponents of eastward
expansion also warned in the 1990s, NATO has increased no one's security, only diminished
security throughout the region bordering Russia.
§ Which brings us back to the Trump-Zelensky telephone conversation. President Zelensky
ran and won overwhelmingly as a peace-with-Moscow candidate, which is why the roughly $400
million in US military aid to Ukraine, authorized by Congress, figured anomalously in the
conversation. Trump is being sharply criticized for withholding that aid or threatening to do
so, including by Obama partisans. Forgotten, it seems, is that President Obama, despite
considerable bipartisan pressure, steadfastly refused to authorize such military assistance to
Kiev, presumably because it might escalate the Russian-Ukrainian conflict (and Russia, with its
long border with Ukraine, had every escalatory advantage). Instead of baiting Trump on this
issue, we should hope he encourages the new peace talks that Zelensky has undertaken in recent
days with Moscow, which could end the killing in Donbass. (For this, Zelensky is being
threatened by well-armed extreme Ukrainian nationalists, even quasi-fascists. Strong American
support for his negotiations with Moscow may not deter them, but it might.)
§ Finally, but not surprisingly, the shadow of Russiagate is now morphing into
Ukrainegate. Trump is also being sharply criticized for asking Zelensky to cooperate with
Attorney General William Barr's investigation into the origins of Russiagate, even though
the role of
Ukrainian-Americans and Ukraine itself in Russiagate allegations against Trump on behalf of
Hillary Clinton in 2016 is now well-documented
.
We need to know fully the origins of Russiagate, arguably the worst presidential scandal in
American history, and if Ukrainian authorities can contribute to that understanding, they
should be encouraged to do so. As I've argued repeatedly, fervent anti-Trumpers must decide
whether they loathe him more than they care about American and international security. Imaging,
for example, a Cuban missile -- like crisis somewhere in the world today where Washington and
Moscow are militarily eyeball-to-eyeball, directly or through proxies, from the Baltic and the
Black Seas to Syria and Ukraine. Will Trump's presidential legitimacy be sufficient for him to
resolve such an existential crisis peacefully, as President John F. Kennedy did in 1962?
Stephen F. Cohen is a professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York
University and Princeton University. A Nation contributing editor, his most recent book War
With Russia? From Putin & Ukraine to Trump & Russiagate is available in paperback and
in an ebook edition. His weekly conversations with the host of The John Batchelor Show, now in
their sixth year, are available at www.thenation.com.
Trump is an agent of the Deep State, playing good cop to the bad cop Deep State. I have been
saying this since mid April 2017. His multitude of actions belie his promises. Trump is a
quisling to his supporters.
Here is an excellent article that comports with my view of Trump.
I am puzzled why Cohen is permitted to publish in the Nation. Is it due to his marriage
to its publisher or to the magazine's remnant infatuation with the Soviet state? Just
asking.
The whole situation is a rather ironic
Prof. Cohen is certainly one of America's most eminent Russia scholars, and I think that
for decades he was regarded as one of the most left-leaning ones, regularly denounced for his
leftism by all the Neocons and other rightwingers. I remember I used to see him on the PBS
Newshour, sometimes paired with a conservative critic of the Soviets. I'd guess that past
history plus being married to the publisher of The Nation is what gives him his
residual foothold there.
I'd suspect that if someone had told him a couple of decades ago that by the late 2010s
he'd be blacklisted from the MSM and denounced as a "Russian agent," he probably would have
been greatly saddened at the disheartening turn in American society, but not totally shocked.
He probably would have regarded such a scenario as having a 10% possibility.
But if someone would have told him that the people denouncing and blacklisting him would
have been the *liberal Democrats* and some of their most "excitable" elements would be
accusing him of being a "Neo-Nazi White Supremacist Russian Agent" he would have thought the
entire country had gone on LSD.
It's sad that our entire country has gone on LSD
The whole situation is actually a perfect parallel to the various past American purges
I've often covered in my articles:
Russia is the excuse for US actions in the Ukraine as it was in the ME.
What is America without a big bad boogeyman like Russia?.
Certainly not a “Superpower’ defending the world.
Without enemies like Russia we would be nothing but big rich country.
And all the Neos and Zios and politicians would have to use Viagra instead of war to squirt
out their poison.
A lot of countries like the Ukraine have gotten a lot of US taxpayer money by
‘standing up to a Russian takeover’….and are laughing all the way to
their bank.
How did the United States become so involved in Ukraine’s torturous and famously
corrupt politics?
The short answer is NATO expansion <= maybe something different? I like pocketbook
expansion..
NATO Expansion provides cover and legalizes the private use of Presidential directed USA
resources to enable a few to make massively big profits at the expense of the governed in
the target area.
Behind NATO lies the reason for Bexit, the Yellow Jackets, the unrest in Iraq and Egypt,
Yemen etc.
Hypothesis 1: NATO supporters are more corrupt than Ukraine officials.
Hypothesis 2: NATO expansion is a euphemism for USA/EU/ backed private party plunder to
follow invade and destroy regime change activities designed to dispossess local Oligarchs
of the wealth in NATO targeted nations? Private use of public force for private gain comes
to mind.
I think [private use of public force for private gain] is what Trump meant when Trump
said to impeach Trump for investigating the Ukraine matter amounts to Treason.. but it is
the exactly the activity type that Hallmarks CIA instigated regime change.
A lot of intelligence agency manipulation and private pocketbook expanding corruption
can be hidden behind NATO expansion.. Please prove to me that Biden and the hundreds of
other plunders became so deeply involved in Ukraine because of NATO expansion?
It is more than ironic that the Dems (and their like-minded cronies in Big Media) are up in
arms over Trump’s attempt in find ‘dirt’ about Joe Biden when the
‘dirt’ looks and smells like actual corruption. Have laws been broken? Was
Biden selling influence through his son? Stranger things have happened. At the very least,
it looks as though Joe Biden crossed an ethical line. This will likely cost him the
nomination.
Similarly, the news media should–if it was doing its job–pursue leads that
would help find the source behind the missing server and the Fake News that helped justify
the toxic and duplicitous ‘Russiagate’ investigation. But they’d rather
pursue Trump instead. I have never witnessed a more partisan and bloodthirsty Fourth
Estate.
Why is the media so utterly uninterested in finding out who/how the fake
Putin-Trump ‘conspiracy’ was cooked up in the first place? Doesn’t it
make sense the Trump would want to find out more? Justice demands it. False intelligence
can sow chaos and start wars.
Consider, for instance, the manufactured lies (Saddam’s phantom WMD, links to 911,
etc) that were used to justify Zio-America’s annihilation of Iraq. What intelligence
agency cooked up these falsehoods? Who spoon-fed these fairy tales to G.W. Bush and Colin
Powell?
Not only have these questions never been answered, they are seldom even asked! The Deep
State has gone rogue. And Big Media is covering it up.
This whole ridiculous drama may profit the Dem’s in the longer term — that is,
by removing that corrupt, dementia ridden nit-wit Biden from the presidential
competition.
As president, Biden would be a greater sock puppet than even GWB…of course,
“sock puppet” maybe just what the Dem’s want….
The key question is what is the gain in separating Ukraine from Russia, adding it to NATO,
and turning Russia and Ukraine into enemies. And what are the most likely results, e.g. can
it ever work without risking a catastrophic event?
There are the usual empire-building and weapons business reasons, but those should
function within a rational framework. As it is right now, the most likely outcome of the
Western initiative in Ukraine will be substantially lower living standards than there would
be otherwise for most Ukrainians. And an increase in tensions in the region with inevitable
impact on the business there. So what exactly is the gain and for whom?
@Ron Unz Thanks to Tucker Carlson’s show, some folks on the left like Cohen, Mate
and Greenwald, are more likely to get air time on Fox News than MSNBC and CNN.
The current CIA talking point is that it is illegal for the President to seek foreign
assistance for his campaign. One might also slant it that the President of the United
States has an obligation to the people who elected him to require an allied, friendly
government to reopen the investigation of Biden because there is adequate reason to suspect
that the Democrats are running yet another corrupt criminal for President. Incidentally,
this puts Zelensky in a very awkward position, as one of the backers of his transition from
sitcom star to President of Ukraine was a principal in Burisma
It is not the threat of impeachment that will energize Trump’s base; it is the
grotesque, constant character assassination in the (largely CIA manipulated) media that
will return him to the White House. The American people have a sense of fairness. They have
always been of better character than the reprobates we are allowed to vote for. Whatever
happened to trusting the democratic process, instead of using intelligence assets to
engineer domestic regime change?
History is not made by nice guys. Trump has torn a big hole in the tissue of lies about
what this country is and what it stands for, and that is too much for those who make their
living deceiving us.
Russia hating is the lynchpin of oligarchic deepstate MIC MSM propaganda. Take that
away and the fat cats are revealed as the naked face of evil that they are. Hating Russia
(and China) supposedly justifies all their crimes.
The Washington-led attempt to fast-track Ukraine into NATO in 2013–14 resulted in
the Maidan crisis, the overthrow of the country’s constitutionally elected president
Viktor Yanukovych, and to the still ongoing proxy civil war in Donbass.
Which exemplifies the stupidity and arrogance of the American
military/industrial/political Establishment — none of that had anything to do with US
national security (least of all antagonizing Russia) — how fucking hypocritical is it
to presume the Monroe Doctrine, and then try to get the Ukraine into NATO? — none of
it would have been of any benefit whatsoever to the average American.
Looks like our stable genius" pushed Putin against Erdogan and sided with Erdogan in the
process.
Notable quotes:
"... The U.S. has seven NATO allies on the Med -- Spain, France, Italy, Croatia, Albania, Greece and Turkey, and two on the Black Sea, Romania and Bulgaria. We have U.S. forces and bases in Afghanistan, Iraq, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman and Djibouti. Russia has no such panoply of bases in the Middle East or Persian Gulf. ..."
"... There is first President Erdogan, who is demanding a 20-mile deep strip of Syrian borderland to keep the Syrian Kurds from uniting with the Turkish Kurds of the PKK. Erdogan wants the corridor to extend 280 miles, from Manbij, east of the Euphrates, all across Syria, to Iraq. ..."
"... Then there is Bashar Assad, victorious in his horrific eight-year civil war, who is unlikely to cede 5,000 square miles of Syrian territory to a permanent occupation by Turkish troops. ..."
"... The Syria of which Putin is now supposedly king contains Hezbollah, al-Qaida, ISIS, Iranians, Kurds, Turks on its northern border and Israelis on its Golan Heights. Five hundred thousand Syrians are dead from the civil war. Half the pre-war population has been uprooted, and millions are in exile in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Europe. ..."
"... Our foreign policy elites have used Trump's decision to bash him and parade their Churchillian credentials. But those same elites appear to lack the confidence to rally the nation to vote for a war to defend what they contend are vital American interests and defining American values. ..."
"... Endless demonization of Putin by the elitist press is pure idiocy. Putin's aim is no different from any decent leader. Do the best for your countrymen and countrywomen; yet without harming others. ..."
"... The answer lies in the Military Industrial Complex (MIC). Sadly, today's USA revenue to large extent dependent on militaristic revenue; even though most of that revenue ends up in the coffers of the MIC, supported by the media that is sustained by the MIC. Yet, I still believe that with a bit of pain Americans can turn around this horrid situation. ..."
"... The war in Syria and the growth of ISIS was entirely the result of actions by the Obama administration - and it is an outrage that no one in a position of power, not even Donald Trump, has called the Democrats out on this. ..."
"... Oh yeah, Name you seem to have forgotten Obama authorizing CIA training the moderate rebels (AKA Al qaida or moderate head choppers). By the way we handed the ME at least to Iran when Bush invaded Iraq under the false pretenses. Saintly Obama wanted to look forward but not backward on the false pretenses and he in turn engaged on the same BS as Bush. When history is written in a few years all this will come out. ..."
"... ISIS formed in the chaos that was the Iraq War, neat how you guys never accept blame for anything. ..."
"... The people who are obsessed w/staying in Syria, just for the sake of denying Russia a 'victory', at admitting that they just want to be a spoiler. They want to keep Syria partitioned into two weak states and not allow it to reform into a single state and heal. ..."
"... Our imperialists must have misread Tacitus, because it seems they aspire to making peaceful deserts. ..."
"... Putin is trusted in the middle east (and in most of the rest of the world) because he is an intelligent, consistent and respected world leader. Now compare this to the clown show of US politicians (Republican and Democrat). ..."
"... No serious person can say that US politicians are better than Putin, which is also the reason Putin is so demonized by the US political elite. ..."
"Russia Assumes Mantle of Supreme Power Broker in the Middle East," proclaimed Britain's
Telegraph .
The article began:
"Russia's status as the undisputed power-broker in the Middle East was cemented as Vladimir
Putin continued a triumphant tour of capitals traditionally allied to the U.S."
"Donald Trump Has Handed Putin the Middle East on a Plate" was the title of yet another
Telegraph column. "Putin Seizes on Trump's Syria Retreat to Cement Middle East Role,"
declared the Financial Times .
The U.S. press parroted the British: Putin is now the new master of the Mideast. And woe is
us.
Before concluding that Trump's pullout of the last 1,000 U.S. troops in Syria is America's
Dunkirk, some reflection is needed.
Yes, Putin has played his hand skillfully. Diplomatically, as the Brits say, the Russian
president is "punching above his weight."
He gets on with everyone. He is welcomed in Iran by the Ayatollah, meets regularly with Bibi
Netanyahu, is a cherished ally of Syria's Bashar Assad, and this week was being hosted by the
King of Saudi Arabia and the royal rulers of the UAE. October 2019 has been a triumphal
month.
Yet, consider what Putin has inherited and what his capabilities are for playing power
broker of the Middle East.
He has a single naval base on the Med, Tartus, in Syria, which dates to the 1970s, and a new
air base, Khmeimim, also in Syria.
The U.S. has seven NATO allies on the Med -- Spain, France, Italy, Croatia, Albania,
Greece and Turkey, and two on the Black Sea, Romania and Bulgaria. We have U.S. forces and
bases in Afghanistan, Iraq, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman and Djibouti. Russia has no such
panoply of bases in the Middle East or Persian Gulf.
We have the world's largest economy. Russia's economy is smaller than Italy's, and not a
tenth the size of ours.
And now that we are out of Syria's civil war and the Kurds have cut their deal with
Damascus, consider what we have just dumped into Vladimir Putin's lap. He is now the man in the
middle between Turkey and Syria.
He must bring together dictators who detest each other. There is first President
Erdogan, who is demanding a 20-mile deep strip of Syrian borderland to keep the Syrian Kurds
from uniting with the Turkish Kurds of the PKK. Erdogan wants the corridor to extend 280 miles,
from Manbij, east of the Euphrates, all across Syria, to Iraq.
Then there is Bashar Assad, victorious in his horrific eight-year civil war, who is
unlikely to cede 5,000 square miles of Syrian territory to a permanent occupation by Turkish
troops.
Reconciling these seemingly irreconcilable Syrian and Turkish demands is now Putin's
problem. If he can work this out, he ought to get the Nobel Prize.
"Putin is the New King of Syria," ran the op-ed headline in Thursday's Wall Street
Journal.
The Syria of which Putin is now supposedly king contains Hezbollah, al-Qaida, ISIS,
Iranians, Kurds, Turks on its northern border and Israelis on its Golan Heights. Five hundred
thousand Syrians are dead from the civil war. Half the pre-war population has been uprooted,
and millions are in exile in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Europe.
If Putin wants to be king of this, and it is OK with Assad, how does that imperil the United
States of America, 6,000 miles away?
Wednesday, two-thirds of the House Republicans joined Nancy Pelosi's Democrats to denounce
Trump's decision to pull U.S. troops out of Syria and dissolve our alliance with the Kurds. And
Republican rage over the sudden abandonment of the Kurds is understandable.
But how long does the GOP believe we should keep troops in Syria and control the
northeastern quadrant of that country? If the Syrian army sought to push us out, under what
authority would we wage war against a Syrian army inside Syria?
And if the Turks are determined to secure their border, should we wage war on that NATO ally
to stop them? Would U.S. planes fly out of Turkey's Incirlik air base to attack Turkish
soldiers fighting in Syria?
If Congress believes we have interests in Syria so vital we should be willing to go to war
for them -- against Syria, Turkey, Russia or Iran -- why does Congress not declare those
interests and authorize war to secure them?
Our foreign policy elites have used Trump's decision to bash him and parade their
Churchillian credentials. But those same elites appear to lack the confidence to rally the
nation to vote for a war to defend what they contend are vital American interests and defining
American values.
If Putin is king of Syria, it is because he was willing to pay the price in blood and
treasure to keep his Russia's toehold on the Med and save his ally Bashar Assad, who would have
gone under without him.
Who dares wins. Now let's see how Putin likes his prize.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made
and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.
Endless demonization of Putin by the elitist press is pure idiocy. Putin's aim is no
different from any decent leader. Do the best for your countrymen and countrywomen; yet
without harming others. At a recent interview with Arabic media a UAE journalist tried to
drive a wedge between Russia and Iran in favor of Saudi Kingdom by challenging Putin to
condemn Iran for alleged attacks on Saudi oil installations by Iran.
To which Putin
skillfully replied: "Russia will never be friends 'with one country against another' in the
Middle East". Nor would Putin condemn Iran unless he was presented with clear evidence - not
just accusations - of Iran's guilt. Point in case: Putin does it better than others; sure,
but why is that bad?
Oh of course envy and fear of one being exposed for inept leadership.
Time long overdue to shake hands with Putin and Russia.
https://www.rt.com/russia/o...
I haven't a concern for Russia in the middle east.
Russia is doing the US the biggest unasked favor proving where our friends and allies
loyalties in the middle east lay by forcing them to make choices in the face of shifting
alliances that they wouldn't reveal if the US continued its presence.
Russia is depopulating and it has choke points with China, with Central Asia, with the
middle east and Europe. Russia will eventually not have the population to defend all these
choke points and will eventually withdraw and focus on its own national security. At that
time, I think its possible to see Russia shift its relationship in eastern Europe while
distancing itself from Chinese expansionism that might one day want its old north pacific
territories back (like what is today Vladivostok and Sakhalin).
Depopulating? Where did you get that from? Population decrease in Russia stopped. By the
latest stats it is just about breaking even (death rates = birth rates). Moreover, population
is growing albeit very slowly. Sorry but Russkies won't die out like extinct species. As far
as its own national security; well, the old notion of "Russia is, more or less, a giant gas
station pretending to be a real country." is as dead as Senator McCain, who pretended to know
something about Russia; alas he was sadly and dangerously uninformed.
https://www.forbes.com/site...
The US has troops and a base or more in Syria?
I don't see any Syrian army bases in the US...
And, the US is telling/demanding where the Syrian army come and goes in...Syria?
What the hell is wrong with this picture?
You know!?
Oh, now hypocrite neo-con enabler Pelosi and some of the freaky other politicians are
concerned with human lives in Syria? Ha ha
But...not about the lives of children dying in Yemen and Afghanistan and Gaza?
How come?
And, the US is telling Turkey what it had better do with it's border? Also, friends and enemies o' mine,just which entity, nation and group is not a US ally?
Ally? What does that mean?
As if the American people know the hell that words means anymore and as if there's even a
meaning to that. And the American people do not watch the news, read magazines (news) as they
did before.
They don't know what is going on in the world, they gave up.
People under 50 automatically tune world news out, thanks mostly to the phonies at CNN and
the major, basically neo-con supporting networks confusing the public, purposely so that they
don't see the misery that is in the nations of the MId-East thanks to US invasions and
bombings. Just look at cnn-they spend all day talking about what Trump or some politician
said, no coverage of battles overseas, unless it benefits the continuing spinning of the news
for intervention and so on.
The US won't get a grip and stop threatening nation after nation
(while Russia does not) and so, people all over the world are thinking,
you now what, look at how dumb Americans are that they allow people from Obama, Hillary,
Schumer, Pelosi, Graham and more to conduct foreign policy that makes enemies for America
daily. And don't forget Cheney and that group, too from before. These people are actually an
insult to America.
Compare how the leaders of Russia and America talk and conduct themselves.
Russia has Lavrov, the gentleman diplomat, the US has Pompeo and the likes of Bolton and
Kushner, the Israeli lobbyist and the Presidents son in law.
How does a so-called Republic allow the President to have his daughter and Kushner, her
husband, to be security/foreign policy advisers. You're really losing it, America.
"But those same elites appear to lack the
confidence to rally the nation to vote for a war to defend what they
contend are vital American interests and defining American values."
No, they don't lack "confidence". They've got all the confidence in the world. What they
lack is competence, integrity, and credibility with the American people and the rest of the
world. They have dragged America through the mud in the Middle East for nearly two decades.
They transformed the once proud American military and diplomatic corps into a customer
service operation for Israel and Saudi Arabia.
We don't need more lectures and directives about "our interests" and "Western values" that
always turn out to be Israeli and Saudi Arabian interests and values. We need new foreign
policy elites, free of the current elite's miserable record of failure, corruption, and
subordination to foreign interests. Above all, we need to get out of the Mideast swamps that
the younger Bush and Obama pushed us into, bring our troops back to America, start defending
America and American interests again.
How simple and true what U've said. Sounds like a sound position and logical too. So why is
this not happening? The answer lies in the Military Industrial Complex (MIC). Sadly, today's
USA revenue to large extent dependent on militaristic revenue; even though most of that
revenue ends up in the coffers of the MIC, supported by the media that is sustained by the
MIC. Yet, I still believe that with a bit of pain Americans can turn around this horrid
situation.
The war in Syria and the growth of ISIS was entirely the result of actions by the Obama
administration - and it is an outrage that no one in a position of power, not even Donald
Trump, has called the Democrats out on this.
Oh yeah, Name you seem to have forgotten Obama authorizing CIA training the moderate rebels
(AKA Al qaida or moderate head choppers). By the way we handed the ME at least to Iran when
Bush invaded Iraq under the false pretenses. Saintly Obama wanted to look forward but not
backward on the false pretenses and he in turn engaged on the same BS as Bush. When history
is written in a few years all this will come out.
The people who are obsessed w/staying in Syria, just for the sake of denying Russia a
'victory', at admitting that they just want to be a spoiler. They want to keep Syria
partitioned into two weak states and not allow it to reform into a single state and heal.
Trump is indeed our Dorian Gray, he is just outwardly reflecting our narcissism, 'if we
don't get to do it then no one else can'.
Obvious Pat we have no consistent foreign policy in the region since we inherited the mantle
from the Brit Empire post WW 2. Oil and Israel were a marketable justification for our wars
and changing partners ( regime change ), for a long time. Now neither is relevant. We have
all the fossil fuels we need, and Israel is all powerful.. Long term I doubt the Russians
will make a difference, in the Muslim quest to resurrect the Ottoman Empire. We have lost too
many of our sons and daughters. get out.
Trump is a genius.
At the moment, Syria is a poisoned chalice to anyone accepting responsibility for it.
Russia is only there because they cannot get a naval base in any other Mediterranean
country.
When, or if peace is achieved in Syria, it will be the US that swoops in to market the
brands the Arabs love. The Syrians won't be buying Russian products.
Name an American brand the "Arabs love": Toyota, Lexis, Rollex, Sony, Nikon, Panasonic,
Samsung, iPhone (made in China)? Which one(s). While their infrastructure and basic
technology are and will continue to be Russian.
Putin is trusted in the middle east (and in most of the rest of the world) because he is an
intelligent, consistent and respected world leader. Now compare this to the clown show of US
politicians (Republican and Democrat).
No serious person can say that US politicians are better than Putin, which is also the
reason Putin is so demonized by the US political elite.
The Middle East is home to oil, terrorism, access points for maritime transportation (The Red
Sea, The Bosphorus, Suez Canal, Persian Gulf). It is strategically important. It was a
mistake for Obama to leave Iraq before there was a stable situation and it is a mistake for
Trump to leave before there is a stable situation.
To say, "Just let them all fight it out" is foolhardy and likely just a rationalization
for your mistake to support the narcissistic fool in the White House.
I don't think Putin is going to be unhappy about it. The various powers of the ME will now go
to him for favors, and he will get favors in return. I doubt US interests will be among them.
Putin said, I've got your no fly zone right here. After Russian deployment of the SA400's,
america had no choice but to begin withdrawal.
And kind of missing from Buchanan's list of
putin friends, is erdogan himself.
So, it will be interesting to see what happens now. Putin
holds all the cards and is in the best position of anybody on the planet to broker a deal
between assad and erdogan. Part of that deal will likely be very bad for those who threw
their lot in with the US.
Turkey is not a small country and has an enormous military.
Buchanan himself said that we should stay out of Syria and let the Turks deal with ISIS.
But
they were too smart for that, and had their own coup to worry about. I have always thought
that the US should have brokered a homeland for the kurds. It would have been hard, but now
it is impossible.
Turkey is now a client state of Russia much more than a member of NATO. At
least in appearance. They now buy SA400's and SU-57's from mother russia.
Who supplies and
maintains your best weapon systems indicates who your real allies are. What has the US lost?
I would say we lost anybody across the globe that we ever hoped would ally with us against
the new sino-russian superpower. Russia has unlimited space and resources. China has
unlimited people and no limits on its technical growth and markets. The US? We are the
biggest debtor third world nation that has ever existed. But hey, we have the most stable
genius as our president, and the sky is the limit for what he will accomplish other than
permanent tax cuts for corporations. Right? The right again.
Except for 2 wrongs, they
wouldn't even exist. Can faith overcome inconvenient truth? Real faith probably could by
accepting inconvenient truth. But real faith is mostly dead. It was replaced with tax free
religiosity and assault weaponry sponsored by corporate fascist government. I watched it
happen. And his story is being rewritten in days or weeks instead of years and decades.
It's not often that I would agree with Pat B. Essentially never.
But on this point, yes. If Putin wants the Middle East, by all means proceed.
That region has been messing up our politics for literally my whole life - It is most
decidedly not a Promised Land for the United States. Let the Saudis and the
Iranians and the Russians and the Turks fight it out. It should be lovely. The Israelis call
sell weapons to all of them.
Thank you for this small bit of obvious wisdom, Mr. Buchanan. Your insights are very common
sensical here, and thus, most valuable. Too bad they will mostly fall on the deaf ears of our
moronic "Elites".
I believe Obama said that Putin would be overwhelmed in Syria. However, Putin has overseen an
excellent strategy of picking an area of insurgents, militarily pounding them, then offering
them free passage to a safe area (Idlib). After doing this across Syria, he and Assad now
have all of the jihadist groups in one place where they can pound them senseless or just sit
back and wait for them to start shooting each other.
Trump did not screw up the Kurds' clearing of ISIS above the Euphrates. Now he has given
Putin and Assad the results of that. I expect the PA team will stabilize that area in short
order.
So, Idlib and NW Syria will be a cauldron for a while. Now Al Tanf is the only insurgent
holdout. Be interesting to see how that unfolds.
Lest Trumpland forget, there is a reason we got involved in the region. Jihadists can and
will use neglect to later come after us.
Putin shows us how its done. 3 billion or so, find good Muslims (anyone other than Sunni
islamists) and help them blow up, conquer, and occasionally repress the bad Muslims.
We spent several TRILLION ourselves and thousands of American lives for nothing. We never
had a single achievable objective in any of these conflicts.
Donald is a moron for selling out the Kurds, who it cost nothing to back, to Turkey but
the DC elites made this inevitable by refusing to cut a deal with Assad for the Kurds. He's
been the only realistic option for a long time now.
Russia is the excuse for US actions in the Ukraine as it was in the ME.
What is America without a big bad boogeyman like Russia?. Certainly not a "Superpower'
defending the world. Without enemies like Russia we would be nothing but big rich
country.
And all the Neos and Zios and politicians would have to use Viagra instead of war to
squirt out their poison.
A lot of countries like the Ukraine have gotten a lot of US taxpayer money by 'standing up
to a Russian takeover' .and are laughing all the way to their bank.
But if someone would have told him that the people denouncing and blacklisting him would
have been the *liberal Democrats* and some of their most "excitable" elements would be
accusing him of being a "Neo-Nazi White Supremacist Russian Agent" he would have thought
the entire country had gone on LSD.
It's quite ironic that the party that was in power when it was revealed that the NSA was
spying on every US citizen (and a ton of foreigners) – an obvious violation of the 4th
Amendment – now want to moan about the unconstitutionality of this phone call.
@Dennis
Gannon "If we ever get a dictator in the USA, I would not be surprised to see everyone in
the lying mainstream media wind up in a gulag."
If we ever get a dictator in the USA, he will owe his dictatorship to the lying mainstream
media. But that of course doesn't mean he won't turn on them. But it's more likely he'll
enjoy their continued support.
Ran into a Ukie from Odessa yesterday on a beach i go to i go to Saigon n Vung Tau. He told
me all about how Putin set up the Maidan in Kyiv, in order to invade and take Crimea. He was
doing a great propaganda act, for this American, until I told him I live in Crimea. I gave
some info how the US did Kyiv, then he stormed off. The Ukie nationalist are super
brainwashed. Spacibo Unz Rev.
"... As it is right now, the most likely outcome of the Western initiative in Ukraine will be substantially lower living standards than there would be otherwise for most Ukrainians. ..."
"... The US actions in Ukraine are typical, not exceptional. Acting as an Empire, the US always installs the worst possible scum in power in its vassals, particularly in newly acquired ones. ..."
"... Has he forgotten the historical conversation of Nuland and Payatt picking the next president of Ukraine "Yats is our guy" and "Yats" actually emerging as the president a week later ? None of these facts are in any way remotely compatible with passive role professor Cohen ascribes to the US. ..."
"... We don't know what happens next, but we know the following: Ukraine will not be in EU, or Nato. It will not be a unified, prosperous country. It will continue losing a large part of its population. And oligarchy and 'corruption' is going to stay. ..."
"... Another Maidan would most likely make things even worse and trigger a complete disintegration. Those are the wages of stupidity and desperation – one can see an individual example with AP, but they all seem like that. ..."
Thanks for your sharing you views about Prof Cohen, a most interesting and principled
man.
Only after reading the article did I realize that the UR (that's you) also provided the
Batchelor Show podcast. Thanks.
I've been listening to these broadcasts over their entirety, now going on for six or so
years. What's always struck me is Cohen's level-headeness and equanimity. I've also detected
affection for Kentucky, his native state. Not something to be expected from a Princeton / NYU
academic nor an Upper West Side resident.
And once again expressing appreciation for the UR!
Read More • Replies: @Mikhail
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
How did the United States become so involved in Ukraine's torturous and famously corrupt
politics?
The short answer is NATO expansion <= maybe something different? I like pocketbook
expansion..
NATO Expansion provides cover and legalizes the private use of Presidential directed USA
resources to enable a few to make massively big profits at the expense of the governed in the
target area.
Behind NATO lies the reason for Bexit, the Yellow Jackets, the unrest in Iraq and Egypt,
Yemen etc.
Hypothesis 1: NATO supporters are more corrupt than Ukraine officials.
Hypothesis 2: NATO expansion is a euphemism for USA/EU/ backed private party plunder to
follow invade and destroy regime change activities designed to dispossess local Oligarchs of
the wealth in NATO targeted nations? Private use of public force for private gain comes to
mind.
I think [private use of public force for private gain] is what Trump meant when Trump said
to impeach Trump for investigating the Ukraine matter amounts to Treason.. but it is the
exactly the activity type that Hallmarks CIA instigated regime change.
A lot of intelligence agency manipulation and private pocketbook expanding corruption can
be hidden behind NATO expansion.. Please prove to me that Biden and the hundreds of other
plunders became so deeply involved in Ukraine because of NATO expansion?
The key question is what is the gain in separating Ukraine from Russia, adding it to NATO,
and turning Russia and Ukraine into enemies. And what are the most likely results, e.g. can
it ever work without risking a catastrophic event?
There are the usual empire-building and weapons business reasons, but those should
function within a rational framework. As it is right now, the most likely outcome of the
Western initiative in Ukraine will be substantially lower living standards than there would
be otherwise for most Ukrainians. And an increase in tensions in the region with
inevitable impact on the business there. So what exactly is the gain and for whom?
The Washington-led attempt to fast-track Ukraine into NATO in 2013–14 resulted in
the Maidan crisis, the overthrow of the country's constitutionally elected president Viktor
Yanukovych, and to the still ongoing proxy civil war in Donbass.
Which exemplifies the stupidity and arrogance of the American
military/industrial/political Establishment -- none of that had anything to do with US
national security (least of all antagonizing Russia) -- how fucking hypocritical is it to
presume the Monroe Doctrine, and then try to get the Ukraine into NATO? -- none of it would
have been of any benefit whatsoever to the average American.
According to a recent govt study, only 12% of Americans can read above a 9th grade level.
This effectively mean (((whoever))) controls the MSM controls the world. NOTHING will change
for the better while the (((enemy))) owns our money supply.
There was NO "annexation" of Crimea by Russia. Crimea WAS annexed, but by Ukraine.
Russia and Crimea re-unified. Crimea has been part of Russia for long than America has
existed – since it was taken from the Ottoman Empire over 350 yrs ago. The vast
majority of the people identify as Russian, and speak only Russian.
To annex, the verb, means to use armed force to seize sovereign territory and put it under
the control of the invading forces government. Pretty much as the early Americans did to
Northern Mexico, Hawaii, etc. Russia used no force, the Governors of Crimea applied for
re-unification with Russia, Russia advised a referendum, which was held, and with a 96%
turnout, 97% voted for re-unification. This was done formally and legally, conforming with
all the international mandates.
It is very damaging for anyone to say that Russia "annexed" Crimea, because when people
read, quickly moving past the world, they subliminally match the word to their held
perception of the concept and move on. Thus they match the word "annex" to their conception
of the use of Armed Force against a resistant population, without checking.
All Cohen is doing here is reinforcing the pushed, lying Empire narrative, that Russia
invaded and used force, when the exact opposite is true!!
@Carlton
Meyer One wonders if Mr. Putin, as he puts his head on the pillow at night, fancies that
he should have rolled the Russian tanks into Kiev, right after the 2014 US-financed coup of
Ukraine's elected president, which was accomplished while he was pre-occupied with the Sochi
Olympics, and been done with it. He had every justification to do so, but perhaps feared
Western blowback. Well, the blowback happened anyway, so maybe Putin was too cautious.
The new Trump Admin threw him under the bus when it installed the idiot Nikki Haley as UN
Ambassador, whose first words were that Russia must give Crimea back. With its only major
warm water port located at Sevastopol, that wasn't about to happen, and the US Deep State
knew it.
Given how he has been so unfairly treated by the media, and never given a chance to enact
his Russian agenda, anyone who thinks that Trump was 'selected' by the deep state has rocks
for brains. The other night, on Rick Sanchez's RT America show, former US diplomat, and
frequent guest Jim Jatras said that he would not be too surprised if 20 GOP Senators flipped
and voted to convict Trump if the House votes to impeach.
The deep state can't abide four more years of the bombastic, Twitter-obsessed Trump, hence
this Special Ops Ukraine false flag, designed to fool a majority of the people. The smooth
talking, more warlike Pence is one of them. The night of the long knives is approaching.
The US actions in Ukraine are typical, not exceptional. Acting as an Empire, the US
always installs the worst possible scum in power in its vassals, particularly in newly
acquired ones.
The "logic" of the Dem party is remarkable. Dems don't even deny that Biden is corrupt,
that he blatantly abused the office of Vice-President for personal gain. What's more, he was
dumb enough to boast about it publicly. Therefore, let's impeach Trump.
These people don't give a hoot about the interests of the US as a country, or even as an
Empire. Their insatiable greed for money and power blinds them to everything. By rights,
those who orchestrated totally fake Russiagate and now push for impeachment, when Russiagate
flopped miserably, should be hanged on lampposts for high treason. Unfortunately, justice
won't be served. So, we have to be satisfied with an almost assured prospect of this
impeachment thing to flop, just like Russiagate before it. But in the process incalculable
damage will be done to our country and its institutions.
Those who support the separation of Kosovo from Serbia without Serbian consent cannot
argue against separation of Crimea from Ukraine without the consent of Kiev regime.
On the other hand, those who believe that post-WWII borders are sacrosanct have to
acknowledge that Crimea belongs to Russia (illegally even by loose Soviet standards
transferred to Ukraine by Khrushchev in 1956), Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and Soviet Union
should be restored, and Germany should be re-divided.
At least now I know why Ukraine is so essential to American national security. It's so even
more of my and my families' taxes can pay for a massive expansion of Nato, which means
American military bases in Ukraine. Greenland to the borders of China.
We're encircling the earth, like those old cartoons about bankers.
@Ron
Unz I had to stop listening after the 10th min. where the good professor (without any
push-back from the interviewer) says:
Victor Yanukovich was overthrown by a street coup . at that moment, the United States
and not only the United States but the Western European Governments had to make a decision
would they acknowledge the overthrow of Yannukovic as having been legitimate, and therefore
accept whatever government emerged, and that was a fateful moment within 24hours, the
governments, including the government of president Obama endorsed what was essentially a
coup d'etat against Yanukovich.
Has the good Professor so quickly forgotten about Victoria Nuland distributing cookies
with John McCain in the Maidan as the coup was still unfolding? Her claim at the think tank
in DC where she discusses having spent $30million (if I remember correctly) for foisting the
Ukraine coup ?
Has he forgotten the historical conversation of Nuland and Payatt picking the next
president of Ukraine "Yats is our guy" and "Yats" actually emerging as the president a week
later ? None of these facts are in any way remotely compatible with passive role professor
Cohen ascribes to the US.
These are not simple omissions but willful acts of misleading of fools. The good
professor's little discussed career as a resource for the secret services has reemerged after
seemingly having been left out in the cold during the 1st attempted coup against Trump.
No, the real story is more than just a little NATO expansion as the professor does
suggest, but more directly, the attempted coup that the US is still trying to stage in Russia
itself, in order to regain control of Russia's vast energy resources which Putin forced the
oligarchs to disgorge. The US desperately wants to achieve this in order to be able to
ultimately also control China's access to those resources as well.
In the way that Iraq was supposed to be a staging post for an attack on Iran, Ukraine is
the staging post for an attack on Russia.
The great Russian expert stirred miles very clear of even hinting at such scenarios, even
though anyone who's thought about US world policies will easily arrive at this logical
conclusion.
What about the theft of Ukraine's farmland and the enserfing of its rural population? Isn't
this theft and enserfing of Ukrainians at least one major reason the US government got
involved, overseeing the transfer of this land into the hands of the transnational banking
crime syndicate? The Ukraine, with its rich, black soil, used to be called the breadbasket of
Europe.
Consider the fanatical intervention on the part of Victoria Nuland and the Kagans under
the guise of working for the State Dept to facilitate the theft. In a similar fashion,
according to Wayne Madsen, the State Dept. has a Dept of Foreign Asset Management, or some
similar name, that exists to protect the Chabad stranglehold on the world diamond trade, and,
according to Madsen, the language spoken and posters around the offices are in Hebrew, which
as a practical matter might as well be the case at the State Dept itself.
According to an article a few years ago at Oakland Institute, George Rohr's NCH Capital,
which latter organization has funded over 100 Chabad Houses on US campuses, owns over 1
million acres of Ukraine farmland. Other ownership interests of similarly vast tracts of
Ukraine farmland show a similar pattern of predation. At one point, it was suggested that the
Yinon Plan should be understood to include the Ukraine as the newly acquired breadbasket of
Eretz Israel. It may also be worth pointing out that now kosher Ivy League schools'
endowments are among the worst pillagers of native farmland and enserfers of the indigenous
populations they claim to protect.
@Mikhail
Well, if we really go into it, things become complicated. What Khmelnitsky united with Russia
was maybe 1/6th or 1/8th of current Ukraine. Huge (4-5 times greater) areas in the North and
West were added by Russian Tsars, almost as great areas in the South and East taken by Tsars
from Turkey and affiliated Crimean Khanate were added by Lenin, a big chunk in the West was
added by Stalin, and then in 1956 moron Khrushchev "gifted" Crimea (which he had no right to
do even by Soviet law). So, about 4/6th of "Ukraine" is Southern Russia, 1/6th is Eastern
Poland, some chunks are Hungary and Romania, and the remaining little stub is Ukraine proper.
@anon
American view always was: "yes, he is a son of a bitch, but he is our son of a bitch". That
historically applied to many obnoxious regimes, now fully applies to Ukraine. In that Dems
and Reps always were essentially identical, revealing that they are two different puppets run
by the same puppet master.
Trump is hardly very intelligent, but he has some street smarts that degenerate elites
have lost. Hence their hatred of him. It is particularly galling for the elites that Trump
won in 2016, and has every chance of winning again in 2020 (unless they decide to murder him,
like JFK; but that would be a real giveaway, even the dumbest sheeple would smell the
rat).
@follyofwar
The only reason I can imagine that Putin/Russia would want to "take over" Ukraine and have
this political problem child back in the family might be because of Ukraine's black soil.
But it is probably not worth the aggravation.
Russia is building up its agricultural sector via major greenhouse installations and other
innovations.
@AP
Well, you are a true simpleton who repeats shallow conventional views. You don't ever seem to
think deeper about what you write, e.g. if Yanukovitch could beat anyone in a 1-on-1 election
than he obviously wasn't that unpopular and that makes Maidan illegal by any standard. You
say he could beat Tiahnybok, who was one of the leaders of Maidan, how was then Maidan
democratic? Or you don't care for democracy if people vote against your preferences?
Trade with Russia is way down and it is not coming back. That is my point – there
was definitely a way to do this better. It wasn't a choice of 'one or the other' –
actually EU was under the impression that Ukraine would help open up the Russian market. Your
either-or wasn't the plan, so did Kiev lie to EU? No wonder Ukraine has a snowball chance in
hell of joining EU.
@Skeptikal
Russia moved to the first place in the world in wheat exports, while greatly increasing its
production of meat, fowl, and fish. Those who supplied these commodities lost Russian market
for good. In fact, with sanctions, food in Russia got a lot better, and food in Moscow got
immeasurably better: now it's local staff instead of crap shipped from half-a-world away.
Funny thing is, Russian production of really good fancy cheeses has soared (partially with
the help of French and Italian producers who moved in to avoid any stupid sanctions).
So, there is no reason for Russia to take Ukraine on any conditions, especially
considering Ukraine's exorbitant external debt. If one calculates European demand for
transplantation kidneys and prostitutes, two of the most successful Ukrainian exports,
Ukraine will pay off its debt – never. Besides, the majority of Russians learned to
despise Ukraine due to its subservient vassalage to the US (confirmed yet again by the
transcript of the conversation between Trump and Ze), so the emotional factor is also
virtually gone. Now the EU and the US face the standard rule of retail: you broke it, you own
it. That infuriates Americans and EU bureaucrats more than anything.
@Sergey
Krieger "Demography statistic won't support fairy tales by solzhenicin and his kind."
-- What's your point? Your post reads like an attempt at saying that Kaganovitch was white
like snow and that it does not matter what crimes were committed in the Soviet Union because
of the "demography statistic" and because you, Sergey Krieger, are a grander person next to
Solzhenitsyn and "his kind." By the way, had not A. I. S. returned to Russia, away from the
coziness of western life?
S.K.: "You should start research onto mass dying of population after 1991 and subsequent
and ongoing demographic catastroph in Russia under current not as "brutal " as soviet
regime."
@AP
Maidan was an illegal coup that violated Ukrainian constitution (I should say all of them,
there were too many) and lots of other laws. And that's not the worst part of it. But it
already happened, there is no going back for Ukraine. It's a "yes or no" thing, you can't be
a little bit pregnant. We can either commiserate with Ukraine or gloat, but it committed
suicide. Some say this project was doomed from the start. I think Ukraine had a chance and
blew it.
@AnonFromTN
I usually refrain from labelling off-cycle changes in government as revolutions or coups
– it clearly depends on one's views and can't be determined.
In general, when violence or military is involved, it is more likely it was a coup. If a
country has a reasonably open election process, violently overthrowing the current government
would also seem like a coup, since it is unnecessary. Ukraine had both violence and a coming
election that was democratic. If Yanukovitch would prevent or manipulate the elections, one
could make a case that at that point – after the election – the population could
stage a ' revolution '.
AP is a simpleton who repeats badly thought out slogans and desperately tries to save some
face for the Maidan fiasco – so we will not change his mind, his mind is done with
changes, it is all about avoiding regrets even if it means living in a lie. One can almost
feel sorry for him, if he wasn't so obnoxious.
Ukraine has destroyed its own future gradually after 1991, all the elites there failed,
Yanukovitch was just the last in a long line of failures, the guy before him (Yushenko?) left
office with a 5% approval. Why wasn't there a revolution against him? Maidan put a cherry on
that rotting cake – a desperate scream of pain by people who had lost all hope and so
blindly fell for cheap promises by the new-old hustlers.
We don't know what happens next, but we know the following: Ukraine will not be in EU,
or Nato. It will not be a unified, prosperous country. It will continue losing a large part
of its population. And oligarchy and 'corruption' is going to stay.
Another Maidan would most likely make things even worse and trigger a complete
disintegration. Those are the wages of stupidity and desperation – one can see an
individual example with AP, but they all seem like that.
@AP
You intentionally omitted the second part of what I wrote: 'a reasonably democratic
elections', neither 18th century American colonies, nor Russia in 1917 or Romania in 1989,
had them. Ukraine in 2014 did.
So all your belly-aching is for nothing. The talk about 'subverting' and doing a
preventive 'revolution' on Maidan to prevent 'subversion' has a very Stalinist ring to it. If
you start revolutionary violence because you claim to anticipate that something bad might
happen, well, the sky is the limit and you have no rules.
You are desperately trying to justify a stupid and unworkable act. As we watch the
unfolding disaster and millions leaving Ukraine, this "Maidan was great!!!" mantra will sound
even more silly. But enjoy it, it is not Somalia, wow, I guess as long as a country is not
Somalia it is ok. Ukraine is by far the poorest large country in Europe. How is that a
success?
@Beckow
True believers are called that because they willfully ignore facts and logic. AP is a true
believer Ukie. Ukie faith is their main undoing. Unfortunately, they are ruining the country
with their insane dreams. But that cannot be helped now. The position of a large fraction of
Ukrainian population is best described by a cruel American saying: fool me once, shame on
you, fool me twice, shame on me.
@AnonFromTN
You are right, it can't be helped. Another saying is that it takes two to lie: one who lies,
and one to lie to. The receiver of lies is also responsible.
What happened in Ukraine was: Nuland&Co. went to Ukraine and lied to them about '
EU, 'Marshall plan', aid, 'you will be Western ', etc,,,'. Maidanistas swallowed it
because they wanted to believe – it is easy to lie to desperate people. Making promises
is very easy. US soft power is all based on making promises.
What Nuland&Co. really wanted was to create a deep Ukraine-Russia hostility and to
grab Crimea, so they could get Russian Navy out and move Nato in. It didn't work very well,
all we have is useless hostility, and a dysfunctional state. But as long as they serve
espresso in Lviv, AP will scream that it was all worth it, 'no Somalia', it is 'all normal',
almost as good as 2013 . Right.
@AP
I don't disagree with what you said, but my point was different:
lower living standards than there would be otherwise for most Ukrainians
Without the unnecessary hostility and the break in business relations with Russia the
living standards in Ukraine would be higher. That, I think, noone would dispute. One can
trace that directly to the so-far failed attempt to get Ukraine into Nato and Russia out of
its Crimea bases. There has been a high cost for that policy, so it is appropriate to ask:
why? did the authors of that policy think it through?
@AP
I don't give a flying f k about Yanukovitch and your projections about what 'would be growth'
under him. He was history by 2014 in any case.
One simple point that you don't seem to grasp: it was Yanuk who negotiated the association
treaty with EU that inevitably meant Ukraine in Nato and Russia bases out of Crimea (after a
decent interval). For anyone to call Yanuk a 'pro-Russian' is idiotic – what we see
today are the results of Yanukovitch's policies. By the way, the first custom restrictions on
Ukraine's exports to Russia happened in summer 2013 under Y.
If you still think that Yanukovitch was in spite of all of that somehow a 'Russian
puppet', you must have a very low opinion of Kremlin skills in puppetry. He was not, he was
fully onboard with the EU-Nato-Crimea policy – he implemented it until he got
outflanked by even more radical forces on Maidan.
@Beckow
Well, exactly like all Ukrainian presidents before and after him, Yanuk was a thief. He might
have been a more intelligent and/or more cautious thief that Porky, but a thief he was.
Anyway, there is no point in crying over spilled milk: history has no subjunctive mood.
Ukraine has dug a hole for itself, and it still keeps digging, albeit slower, after a clown
in whole socks replaced a clown in socks with holes. By now this new clown is also a
murderer, as he did not stop shelling Donbass, although so far he has committed fewer crimes
than Porky.
There is no turning back. Regardless of Ukrainian policies, many things it used to sell
Russia won't be bought any more: Russia developed its own shipbuilding (subcontracted some to
South Korea), is making its own helicopter and ship engines, all stages of space rockets,
etc. Russia won't return any military or high-tech production to Ukraine, ever. What's more,
most Russians are now disgusted with Ukraine, which would impede improving relations even if
Ukraine gets a sane government (which is extremely unlikely in the next 5 years).
Ukraine's situation is best described by Russian black humor saying: "what we fought for
has befallen us". End of story.
@Peter
Akuleyev How many millions? It is same story. Ukraine claims more and more millions dead
from so called Hilodomor when in Russia liberals have been screaming about 100 million deaths
in russia from bolsheviks. Both are fairy tales. Now you better answer what is current
population of ukraine. The last soviet time 1992 level was 52 million. I doubt you got even
40 million now. Under soviet power both ukraine and russia population were steadily growing.
Now, under whose music you are dancing along with those in Russia that share your views when
die off very real one is going right under your nose.
By now this new clown is also a murderer, as he did not stop shelling Donbass, although
so far he has committed fewer crimes than Porky.
Have you noticed that the Republicans, while seeming to defend Trump, never challenge the
specious assertion that delaying arms to Ukraine was a threat to US security? At first I
thought this was oversight. Silly me. Keeping the New Cold War smoldering is more important
to those hawks.
Tulsi Gabbard flipping to support the impeachment enquiry was especially disappointing.
I'm guessing she was under lots of pressure, because she can't possibly believe that arming
the Ukies is good for our security. If I could get to one of her events, I'd ask her direct,
what's up with that. Obama didn't give them arms at all, even made some remarks about not
inflaming the situation. (A small token, after his people managed the coup, spent 8 years
demonizing Putin, and presided over origins of Russiagate to make Trump's [stated] goal of
better relations impossible.)
Not really. Ukies are wonnabe Nazis, but they fall way short of their ideal. The original
German Nazis were organized, capable, brave, sober, and mostly honest. Ukie scum is
disorganized, ham-handed, cowardly, drunk (or under drugs), and corrupt to the core. They are
heroes only against unarmed civilians, good only for theft, torture, and rape. When it comes
to the real fight with armed opponents, they run away under various pretexts or surrender.
Nazis should sue these impostors for defamation.
Yanukovych signed an internationally brokered power sharing agreement with his main
rivals, who then violated it. Yanukovych up to that point was the democratically elected
president of Ukraine.
Since his being violently overthrown, people have been unjustly jailed, beaten and killed
for politically motivated reasons having to do with a stated opposition to the
Euromaidan.
Yanukovych refrained from using from using considerably greater force, when compared to
others if put in the same situation, against a mob element that included property damage and
the deaths of law enforcement personnel.
In the technical legal sense, there was a legit basis to jail the likes of Tymoshenko. If
I correctly recall Yushchenko offered testimony against Tymoshenko. Rather laughable that
Poroshenko appointed the non-lawyer Lutsenko into a key legal position.
@Beckow
The undemocratic aspect involving Yanukovych's overthrow included the disproportionate number
of Svoboda members appointed to key cabinet positions. At the time, Svoboda was on record for
favoring the dissolution of Crimea's autonomous status
@AP
Grest comment #159 by Beckow. Really, I'm more concerned with the coup against POTUS that's
happening right now, since before he took office. The Ukraine is pivotal, from the Kiev
putschists collaborating with the DNC, to the CIA [pretend] whistleblowers who now subvert
Trump's investigation of those crimes.
Tragic and pitiful, the Ukrainians jumped from a rock to a hard place. Used and abandoned
by the Clinton-Soros gang, they appeal to the next abusive Sugar-Daddy. Isn't this FRANCE 24
report fairly objective?
Revisited: Five years on, what has Ukraine's Maidan Revolution achieved?
@AP
This from BBC is less current. (That magnificent bridge -the one the Ukies tried to sabotage-
is now in operation, of course.) I'm just trying to use sources that might not trigger you.
@AP
"Whenever people ask me how to figure out the truth about Ukraine, I always recommend they
watch the film Ukraine on Fire by director @lopatonok and executive produced by
@TheOliverStone. The sequel Revealing Ukraine will be out soon proud to be in it."
– Lee Sranahan (Follow @stranahan for Ukrainegate in depth.)
" .what has really changed in the life of Ukrainians?"
@Malacaay
Baltics, Ukrainians and Poles were part of the Polish Kingdom from 1025-1569 and the
Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth 1569-1764.
This probably explains their differences with Russia.
Russia had this area in the Russian Empire from 1764-1917. Russia called this area the
Pale of Settlement. Why? This Polish Kingdom since 1025 welcomed 25000 Jews in, who later
grew to millions by the 19th century. They are the Ashkenazis who are all over the world
these days. The name Pale was for Ashkenazis to stay in that area and not immigrate to the
rest of Russia.
The reasoning for this was not religious prejudice but the way the Ashkenazis treated the
peasants of the Pale. It was to protect the Russian peasants. This did not help after 1917. A
huge invasion of Ashkenazis descended all over Russia to take up positions all over the
Soviet Union.
Ukraine US is like the Pale again. It has a Jewish President and a Jewish Prime
Minister.
Ukraine and Poland were both controlled by Tartars too. Ukraine longer than Russia. Russia
ended the Tartar rule of Crimea in 1783. The Crimean Tartars lived off raiding Ukraine,
Poland, and parts of Russia for Slav slaves. Russia ended this Slav slave trade in 1783.
Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton . You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and
personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally
come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a
...
Tulsi Gabbard 1:20 PM - 18 Oct 2019
... concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why.
Now we know -- it was always you, through your proxies and ...
Tulsi Gabbard 1:20 PM - 18 Oct 2019
... powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose.
It's now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don't cowardly hide behind your
proxies. Join the race directly.
The current CIA talking point is that it is illegal for the President to seek foreign
assistance for his campaign. One might also slant it that the President of the United States
has an obligation to the people who elected him to require an allied, friendly government to
reopen the investigation of Biden because there is adequate reason to suspect that the
Democrats are running yet another corrupt criminal for President. Incidentally, this puts
Zelensky in a very awkward position, as one of the backers of his transition from sitcom star
to President of Ukraine was a principal in Burisma
It is not the threat of impeachment that will energize Trump's base; it is the grotesque,
constant character assassination in the (largely CIA manipulated) media that will return him
to the White House. The American people have a sense of fairness. They have always been of
better character than the reprobates we are allowed to vote for. Whatever happened to
trusting the democratic process, instead of using intelligence assets to engineer domestic
regime change?
History is not made by nice guys. Trump has torn a big hole in the tissue of lies about
what this country is and what it stands for, and that is too much for those who make their
living deceiving us.
"... I suspect that Gabbard has very little chance of beating Trump because he is also campaigning - quite successfully - against 'endless wars', and Gabbard is too radical for most Americans. ..."
"... This sparks some interesting questions, such as, exactly who are party members, and how do they become members? The actual structure and functioning of political parties in the US is seldom discussed, and I wonder why that is. "Opaque" seems to be a good description ..."
"... The primary voting system is a huge financial subsidy to the two officially approved parties, which are, of course, merely two branches of the Business Party. ..."
"... Good for Tulsi. I love the way she punches. She not only decked Clinton in one, but she got a lot of other important points across at the same time. ..."
"... Whenever she tries to curve her stance close to the establishment, she comes off as someone who is running for Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense; as someone with her eyes on a high status job in the establishement. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton can't be thrown out of the Dem party because she in a sense IS the Dem party as it stands now, a long way from its roots. The Dem party now has been fully integrated into the bureaucracy, the intelligence services and the corporate media similar to how Tony Blair in the UK took the Labour Party to be deeply embedded in the UK establishment. ..."
"... Hillary is still around because she literally owns the Democrat party. Follow the funding: in 2016, almost all of it flowed through HRC. Not just the presidential, but the state and significant part of the local. ..."
Hillary Clinton appeared to suggest that Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) is the "favorite of the Russians" to win the 2020 presidential
election and is being groomed by Moscow to run as a third-party candidate against the eventual Democratic nominee.
...
The Russians already have their "eye on somebody who's currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party
candidate," she said, in an apparent reference to Gabbard.
"She's the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her, so far," Clinton
told David Plouffe, the podcast's host and the campaign manager for former President Obama's 2008 campaign.
"And that's assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she's also a Russian asset," Clinton added, referring
to the 2016 Green Party presidential candidate.
The responses were appropriate:
Tulsi Gabbard @TulsiGabbard - 22:20 UTC
· Oct 18, 2019
Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that
has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy,
there has been a ...
... concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know -- it was always you, through
your proxies and ...
... powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose.
It's now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don't cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly.
The Streisand effect of Clinton's shoddy remark will help Tulsi Gabbard with regards to name recognition. It will increase her
poll results. With Joe Biden faltering and Elizabeth Warren increasingly exposed as a phony Clinton copy, Bernie Sanders could become
the Democrats leading candidate. Then the “favorite of the Russians” smear will be applied to him.
Clinton should be suspended from the Democratic Party for damaging it's chances to regain the White House. But the Democratic
establishment would rather sabotage the election than to let one of the more progressive candidates take the lead.
Voters do not like such internal squabble and shenanigans. The phony Ukrainegate 'impeachment inquiry' is already
a gift for Trump. Messing with the candidate field on top
of that will inevitably end with another Trump presidency.
and Suspend her from what? a lamp post? That's a little bit harsh.
Hillary is actually doing something constructive for the first time in her career - by giving a boost to Tulsi Gabbard who
is the only candidate who challenges the military industrial complex, which has probably caused more death and destruction than
anyone else in history.
I suspect that Gabbard has very little chance of beating Trump because he is also campaigning - quite successfully - against
'endless wars', and Gabbard is too radical for most Americans.
But none of the other Democratic candidates stand a chance of beating Trump either. The two front-runners are medically unfit
for any important challenging job - Biden (senility) and Sanders (recent heart attack/stroke?).
Tulsi is urging Hillary to "enter the race" !! Hillary is foaming at the mouth with desire to enter the 2020 race. Is Tulsi
working for Hillary?
Behind the scenes it was decided to make HunterBidenGate the pretext for a Trump impeachment. This, it
was thought, would damage Trump AND Biden and make way for the resurrection of Hillary Clinton. There were so many other pretexts
available but they chose this one.
"Clinton should be suspended from the Democratic Party"
This sparks some interesting questions, such as, exactly who are party members, and how do they become members? The actual
structure and functioning of political parties in the US is seldom discussed, and I wonder why that is. "Opaque" seems to be a
good description. Even a quick review of the Wikipedia entry reveals little.
As best I can tell, a person is a party member by checking the box on the voter registration form. The few times I have registered,
I did not check a box for any party. It is none of the state's business who I associate with or vote for.
It is also not the state's business to supervise and fund the selection of party candidates. But that is what happens in the
US. The primary voting system is a huge financial subsidy to the two officially approved parties, which are, of course, merely
two branches of the Business Party.
"It didn't come much clearer nor more explicit than when Gabbard fired up the Democratic TV debate this week. It was billed
as the biggest televised presidential debate ever, and the Hawaii Representative told some prime-time home-truths to the nation:
"Donald Trump has blood of the Kurds on his hands, but so do many of the politicians in our country from both parties who have
supported this ongoing regime-change war in Syria that started in 2011 along with many in the mainstream media who have been championing
and cheer-leading this regime-change war."
The 38-year-old military veteran went on to denounce how the US has sponsored Al Qaeda terrorists for its objective of overthrowing
the government in Damascus."
Good for Tulsi. I love the way she punches. She not only decked Clinton in one, but she got a lot of other important points
across at the same time. The way she tries to finesse her stances on Iran, India and Israel is disturbing though.
Whenever she tries to curve her stance close to the establishment, she comes off as someone who is running for Secretary
of State or Secretary of Defense; as someone with her eyes on a high status job in the establishement.
When she's forthright, punches hard and says the things that many people are thinking but few dare say - as she did in her
statement on Syria, but didn't in her statement on Iran - she comes off as the first real candidate for President that I've seen
in my lifetime (I don't count the likes of Dennis Kucinich, who never seemed to actually want to win).
If Tulsi is serious about doing the world good, this is the path she needs to take. Speak the truths no one else is willing
to say; punch hard; stick with it. Yeah and be willing to die for it. If they can't stop you, which I don't think they can, they'll
come gunning for you...
Finally, at last, foreign affairs (i.e wars) has made it into a presidential campaign, and by a veteran, with veterans currently
being sanctified in the U.S. The women (Tulsi, Jill and Hillary) are getting down and dirty, too, which is always a good thing
and a feature of politics in time past, as in the Truman era. President Harry Truman: "If you can't stand the heat, get out of
the kitchen. If you cannot handle the pressure, you should not remain in a position where you have to deal with it."
Let's hope that they get into the details of Hillary's failures, including Libya, Somalia, and especially Syria. Let's get
it on! In the last election she never was forced to answer for her specific failures. Now's the time.
Hillary Clinton can't be thrown out of the Dem party because she in a sense IS the Dem party as it stands now, a long way
from its roots. The Dem party now has been fully integrated into the bureaucracy, the intelligence services and the corporate
media similar to how Tony Blair in the UK took the Labour Party to be deeply embedded in the UK establishment.
What Trump has successfully done from the right that Sanders/Gabbard (like Corbyn in the UK) are struggling to do from the
left is to attack the establishment that's in a permanent state of warfare abroad and at home against its "enemies" and unfettered
capitalism at home For a brief moment it was hoped by progressives that Obama - who defeated the faces of the establishment, Clinton
and McCain in 2008 - would really fight the establishment but he ended up becoming more of a celebrity politician like Trudeau
who talked a good game but was unable to effect real change on the ground which of course led to a large number or African Americans
not voting in 2016 and a lot of white blue collar Obama 2008 voters going for Trump.
The corporate media which has been totally corrupted and infiltrated by intelligence agencies - quote openly versus covertly
as in the past - is going to make every effort to shut down not just Gabbard but Sanders and ensure that Warren - a wannabe feel-gooder
like Obama - be completely neutered to effect real change.
Hillary is still around because she literally owns the Democrat party. Follow the funding: in 2016, almost all of it flowed
through HRC. Not just the presidential, but the state and significant part of the local.
"... Clinton's claims, made without the slightest effort at factual substantiation, are an attempt to criminalize the anti-war statements of the two candidates as treasonous. ..."
"... Clinton's attacks on Gabbard and Stein make clear once again that the Democrats' assertions of "Russian meddling" in the 2016 election were primarily aimed not at Trump, but at the anti-war and anti-capitalist sentiments that led millions of people to refuse to vote for her in 2016. They underscore how the Democrats have appropriated the McCarthyite tactics historically associated primarily with the Republican right. ..."
"... As a central part of their anti-Russia campaign, Clinton and the Democrats promoted the media effort to poison public opinion against journalist Julian Assange by slandering him as a "Russian agent," preparing the way for the Trump administration to indict him on bogus sedition charges and secure his imprisonment in London under conditions that threaten his life. ..."
"... "That's assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not, because she's also a Russian asset," Clinton said. "Yes, she's a Russian asset, I mean, totally. They know they can't win without a third-party candidate." ..."
"... Gabbard replied to Clinton's slander on Twitter by declaring, "Thank you @HillaryClinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain." Gabbard's performance in this week's Democratic presidential debate no doubt put her in Clinton's crosshairs. Gabbard vowed, "As president, I will end these regime-change wars," and "would make sure that we stop supporting terrorists like Al Qaeda in Syria, who have been the ground force in this ongoing regime-change war." ..."
"... Gabbard's true statement that the United States -- with Clinton as secretary of state under Obama -- had allied with forces linked to Al Qaeda in the drive to overthrow the Syrian government was passed over in total silence by the rest of the candidates and the CNN and New York Times moderators. It was then blacked out in the post-debate media coverage of the event. ..."
"... In an earlier debate, Gabbard said the greatest geopolitical danger facing the United States was the threat of nuclear war -- another taboo in the broadcast media, which routinely demands that the United States "stand up" to Russia without mentioning what a military confrontation with the nuclear-armed country would look like. ..."
Hillary Clinton, the widely despised former Democratic Party presidential candidate, has
slandered two of her political opponents -- Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard and 2016 Green Party
presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein -- as traitors and Russian spies.
The World Socialist Web Site has fundamental political differences with both Ms.
Gabbard and Dr. Stein. But Clinton's claims, made without the slightest effort at factual
substantiation, are an attempt to criminalize the anti-war statements of the two candidates as
treasonous.
Clinton's attacks on Gabbard and Stein make clear once again that the Democrats' assertions
of "Russian meddling" in the 2016 election were primarily aimed not at Trump, but at the
anti-war and anti-capitalist sentiments that led millions of people to refuse to vote for her
in 2016. They underscore how the Democrats have appropriated the McCarthyite tactics
historically associated primarily with the Republican right.
As a central part of their anti-Russia campaign, Clinton and the Democrats promoted the
media effort to poison public opinion against journalist Julian Assange by slandering him as a
"Russian agent," preparing the way for the Trump administration to indict him on bogus sedition
charges and secure his imprisonment in London under conditions that threaten his life.
At the same time, in the name of countering the supposed menace of Russian "fake news," the
Democrats pressured Google to slash search traffic to left-wing political websites and insisted
that Facebook and Twitter delete left-wing accounts with millions of followers.
In a podcast interview published Thursday, Clinton told former Obama adviser David Plouffe,
"I think they've got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are
grooming her to be the third-party candidate." Implicitly but clearly referring to Gabbard,
Clinton continued, "She's the favorite of the Russians."
"They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her," Clinton added.
Asked later if the former secretary of state was referring to Gabbard in her comment,
Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill told CNN, "If the nesting doll fits "
Clinton then went on to make her strongest assertion yet that Jill Stein was a "Russian
asset."
"That's assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not, because she's also a
Russian asset," Clinton said. "Yes, she's a Russian asset, I mean, totally. They know they
can't win without a third-party candidate."
Gabbard replied to Clinton's slander on Twitter by declaring, "Thank you @HillaryClinton.
You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has
sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain."
Gabbard's performance in this week's Democratic presidential debate no doubt put her in
Clinton's crosshairs. Gabbard vowed, "As president, I will end these regime-change wars," and
"would make sure that we stop supporting terrorists like Al Qaeda in Syria, who have been the
ground force in this ongoing regime-change war."
Gabbard's true statement that the United States -- with Clinton as secretary of state under
Obama -- had allied with forces linked to Al Qaeda in the drive to overthrow the Syrian
government was passed over in total silence by the rest of the candidates and the CNN and
New York Times moderators. It was then blacked out in the post-debate media coverage of
the event.
In an earlier debate, Gabbard said the greatest geopolitical danger facing the United States
was the threat of nuclear war -- another taboo in the broadcast media, which routinely demands
that the United States "stand up" to Russia without mentioning what a military confrontation
with the nuclear-armed country would look like.
Toward the end of Thursday's interview, Clinton implicitly called for censorship. She
condemned the growth of internet news outlets, which have broadened the number and range of
sources of information available to the population.
"I think it's a lot harder for Americans to know what they're supposed to believe," she
said. In the 1970s, with only three major national newspapers, "It was a much more controllable
environment."
Jill Stein advocates the reform of capitalism and is an opponent of Marxism. She has stated
that she is opposed to "state socialism." Tulsi Gabbard, a veteran of the Iraq war and major in
the Hawaii National Guard, describes herself as a "hawk" in many aspects of US foreign
policy.
Nevertheless, it is clear that the statements they have made in opposition to the wars in
Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria correspond to the sentiments of the overwhelming majority of
the American people, who see these wars of aggression launched on the basis of lies, which have
killed and maimed millions, as a criminal squandering of lives and resources.
Clinton, speaking for a rabidly pro-war faction of the American financial oligarchy and the
military-intelligence establishment, sees these sentiments as treasonous and argues for their
criminalization.
Her statements make clear once again that the working class has no stake in the struggle
between the Trump faction and his opponents in the Democratic Party and intelligence apparatus.
Trump, relying on fascistic appeals to his right-wing base, is seeking to turn the United
States into a personalist dictatorship. But Clinton's faction does not oppose his concentration
camps for immigrants or his pro-corporate agenda. Rather, it opposes Trump on the grounds that
he is "soft" on Russia and insufficiently aggressive in waging America's wars.
Isn't it funny that the Clinton trolls were weaponizing her gender in the last election,
screaming "sexist!" at anyone who criticized her for her actual policies and corrupt
practices, slandering Sanders supporters as "Bernie Bros", and to the point of Albright
claiming there was a special place in hell for women who didn't support her, while the Queen
of Warmongering, who was besties with Trump, married to Bill, took cash from Weinstein, and
flew with Epstein (all serial rapists) gets to baselessly smear women as treasonous spies
without a peep from the liberal feminists, metoo-ers, and media mouthpieces? And, for a
cherry on top, she's on tour for a book called "Gutsy Women"!
Gabbard, after deftly doing a front-stabbing number on Bad Cop Harris, torpedoing Saint
Obomber's "legacy" with his bungled attempt to surf AQ to regime-change in Syria and rightly
ripping the agitprop rags NYT and CNN some fresh axeholes, has indeed now flushed out the
deranged Alien Queen, wildly spitting globs of steaming molecular acid at the one who dared
wound her drones.
She raises some ugly home truths rarely heard from bourgeois politicians at this level
and, having busted the media blackout to get back in the debates, for her troubles is now
receiving what amount to transparent public death threats from a top Mafiosa desperate to
evade any proper scrutiny of her own and the Party's many warcrimes.
Regardless of the rest of her politics, one has to recognise Gabbard's personal bravery in
tackling dangerous predators like this and hope she has an extremely dedicated 24/7 armed
personal protection detail, to ward off the elevated risk of Arkancide.
""I think it's a lot harder for Americans to know what they're supposed to believe," she
said. In the 1970s, with only three major national newspapers, "It was a much more
controllable environment.""
This is a true voice of bourgeois democracy, of course.
" 'That's assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not, because she's also a
Russian asset,' Clinton said. 'Yes, she's a Russian asset, I mean, totally. They know they
can't win without a third-party candidate.' "
"We came, we saw, he died." -- Clinton on Khaddafy
But can you guess who uttered the following quote(hint: it is not the "white nationalist"
Donald Trump, who unlike some public figures is politically apt enough not to say "white
people" aloud):
"Senator Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening
again, and whites in both states who had not completed college are supporting me." *
The capitalist Democratic Party is a loudmouthed, racist buffoon.
* working hard when not hardly working--but maybe it's not just whites
The vile, vindictive nature of Mrs Clinton has reached new lows as her seeming unaccepting
the loss of the '16 election to shift the blame to anyone but her. She is why we have Trump.
She really needs to fade away and quit meddling in our elections.
"Thank you @HillaryClinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and
personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally
come out from behind the curtain." - An Interview with Tulsi Gabbard regarding the role of
HIllary Clinton, the military-industrial complex, and her anti-war stance here. To my
surprise, she makes the clear connection that Clintons claim that she is a 'russian asset' is
aimed also at demonizing all Americans who oppose the war-regime.
https://www.youtube.com/wat...
"... Clearly, Gabbard may have real problems with Donald Trump as president but she's learned very quickly from him that the best way to deal with Hillary and her media quislings is to attack them without mercy. ..."
"... Gabbard throws down the gauntlet here outing Hillary as the mastermind behind the DNC strategy of allowing the current crop of future losers to fall all over themselves to alienate as many centrist voters as possible. ..."
"... She emerged from that debate as the only candidate with any moral compass capable of pointing in a single direction. Warren made a fool of herself responding with bromides about leaving in the 'rightt way' indistinguishable from any other presidential puppet of the last twenty years. ..."
"... The people Gabbard is up against are even more ruthless since Hillary intends to win, whereas the Republicans in 2008 were fighting for the right to lose to her at the time. ..."
"... Gabbard's rise in popularity among Trump voters and centrists is born of the same exhaustion the American people have with endless wars for globalism. She is Trump's Kryptonite. ..."
"... The party she represents is irrelevant. By wrapping herself in the mantle of the front-runner for the nomination is not delusional, it's the most strategic thing she's done to date. ..."
"... Join my Patreon to assist me in helping you expose the frauds and liars whose perversions of truth threaten the fabric of civil society. Install the Brave Browser to make it harder for them to track you and marginalize similar voices. ..."
Clearly, Gabbard may have real problems with Donald Trump as president but she's learned very quickly from him that the
best way to deal with Hillary and her media quislings is to attack them without mercy.
Gabbard throws down the gauntlet here outing Hillary as the mastermind behind the DNC strategy of allowing the
current crop of future losers to fall all over themselves to alienate as many centrist voters as possible.
This paves the way for Hillary to swoop in on her broom, pointed hat in hand, and declare herself the savior of the
Democratic Party's chances to defeat Donald Trump next November.
Remember that leading up to the debate Gabbard was going to boycott the event because it was such a corrupted event
and stage-managed to showcase the chosen 'front-runners' -- Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren.
It makes sense to me that she decided at the last minute to join the debate after the Times piece just to ensure she
got the national platform to openly call out the corruption in the same breath as attacking Trump for his, to this
point, disastrous foreign policy mistakes.
She emerged from that debate as the only candidate with any moral compass capable of pointing in a single direction.
Warren made a fool of herself responding with bromides about leaving in the 'rightt way' indistinguishable from any
other presidential puppet of the last twenty years.
This is two debates in a row where Gabbard came out blazing at the front-runner, claiming a moral and ethical high
ground on foreign policy that, at just over half the age of her rivals, that shows a maturity well beyond her years.
Her calling Hillary the "Queen of Warmongers" is so self-evidently true that it will reverberate far beyond Twitter
into votes.
And it tells Hillary that Gabbard has zero fear of her and her political machine.
You can't cow a person without fear who has nothing to lose.
Bullies like Hillary never learn that lesson until they are humiliated beyond recognition.
Moreover, when you look at this sequence of events it's clear that the DNC, Hillary and everyone else close to the
corridors of power fear Gabbard's rise. If they weren't they wouldn't be putting out smears in the New York Times.
They wouldn't be spending millions on social media trolls to discredit her in the public fora.
The first rule of politics is "You never attack down."
Well, Hillary attacked down. The Times attacked down. The DNC, by gaming the debate rules, attacked down. And that
spells disaster for anyone who does it.
This was the exchange that ended Rudy's political career. 150 seconds of truth-telling that ignited a movement which
culminated in the election of Donald Trump.
Gabbard is following that same course. The difference between her and Dr. Paul is that she's less polite. But as to
their moral clarity there is little difference. And she shouldn't be polite. The stakes are higher today than they were
in 2008.
The people Gabbard is up against are even more ruthless since Hillary intends to win, whereas the Republicans in 2008
were fighting for the right to lose to her at the time.
Gabbard's rise in popularity among Trump voters and centrists is born of the same exhaustion the American people have
with endless wars for globalism. She is Trump's Kryptonite.
The party she represents is irrelevant. By wrapping herself in the mantle of the front-runner for the nomination is
not delusional, it's the most strategic thing she's done to date.
It's also becoming more and more realistic as the days go on.
Because by responding to Hillary's ham-fisted
attempts to position herself as the voice of reason, Gabbard clarifies for everyone just how sick and
bile-filled Hillary is by outing her as the delusional one.
And reminding everyone that Hillary is the architect of the very policies in the Middle East that Trump is
now taking heat for trying to unwind.
Gabbard knows what the plan is. She was there in 2016 when Hillary stole the nomination from Bernie Sanders
and quit her position in the DNC because of it.
Even Trump knows that foreign policy and foreign entanglements will be the big ticket issue for this
election cycle.
Why?
Because Gabbard has single-handedly made it so.
Trump is already running against her by pulling back from Syria, looking for peace options in Afghanistan,
firing John Bolton while using proxies and, yes, Vladimir Putin to assist him in fixing his myriad mistakes of
the first thirty months of his presidency.
Hillary trying to position herself as the one who can save the Middle East from Trump's bumbling is
laughable and Gabbard just laughed in Hillary's face.
Calling everyone who voices any dissent from foreign or domestic policy orthodoxy a Russian agent is a
losing proposition. It belies reality and what people see with their own eyes.
Americans want better relations with Russia now World War III. Trump's popularity has risen since he backed
off on starting a war with Iran.
The media spent four years marginalizing Dr. Paul. The RNC stole the nomination from him just as surely as
the DNC stole the nomination from Bernie. As the people in the U.K. are finding out, their votes don't matter.
Democracy doesn't matter, only the fever dreams of the soulless and the power mad who think they run the
world. Look at what Hillary has become, not what you remember her to be.
She's a tired, sick, fragile woman whose bitterness and evil is literally eating her up from the inside out.
Have you noticed that she hasn't been photographed standing up for months?
She's the epitome of everything wrong with America and, in fact, the world and Tulsi Gabbard just stood up
and laughed at her for still thinking she was the Emperor when in reality she's The Joker.
Join my Patreon
to assist me in helping you expose the frauds and liars whose
perversions of truth threaten the fabric of civil society.
By now this new clown is also a murderer, as he did not stop shelling Donbass, although
so far he has committed fewer crimes than Porky.
Have you noticed that the Republicans, while seeming to defend Trump, never challenge the
specious assertion that delaying arms to Ukraine was a threat to US security? At first I
thought this was oversight. Silly me. Keeping the New Cold War smoldering is more important
to those hawks.
Tulsi Gabbard flipping to support the impeachment enquiry was especially disappointing.
I'm guessing she was under lots of pressure, because she can't possibly believe that arming
the Ukies is good for our security. If I could get to one of her events, I'd ask her direct,
what's up with that. Obama didn't give them arms at all, even made some remarks about not
inflaming the situation. (A small token, after his people managed the coup, spent 8 years
demonizing Putin, and presided over origins of Russiagate to make Trump's [stated] goal of
better relations impossible.)
The "logic" of the neoliberal MSM is remarkable. They don't even deny that Biden is corrupt,
that he blatantly abused the office of Vice-President for personal gain. What's more, he was dumb
enough to boast about it publicly. Therefore, let's impeach Trump.
It is more than ironic that the Dems (and their like-minded cronies in Big Media) are up in
arms over Trump's attempt in find 'dirt' about Joe Biden when the 'dirt' looks and smells
like actual corruption. Have laws been broken? Was Biden selling influence through his son?
Stranger things have happened. At the very least, it looks as though Joe Biden crossed an
ethical line. This will likely cost him the nomination.
Similarly, the news media should–if it was doing its job–pursue leads that
would help find the source behind the missing server and the Fake News that helped justify
the toxic and duplicitous 'Russiagate' investigation. But they'd rather pursue Trump instead.
I have never witnessed a more partisan and bloodthirsty Fourth Estate.
Why is the media so utterly uninterested in finding out who/how the fake
Putin-Trump 'conspiracy' was cooked up in the first place? Doesn't it make sense the Trump
would want to find out more? Justice demands it. False intelligence can sow chaos and start
wars.
Consider, for instance, the manufactured lies (Saddam's phantom WMD, links to 911, etc)
that were used to justify Zio-America's annihilation of Iraq. What intelligence agency cooked
up these falsehoods? Who spoon-fed these fairy tales to G.W. Bush and Colin Powell?
Not only have these questions never been answered, they are seldom even asked! The Deep
State has gone rogue. And Big Media is covering it up.
This whole ridiculous drama may profit the Dem's in the longer term -- that is, by removing
that corrupt, dementia ridden nit-wit Biden from the presidential competition.
As president, Biden would be a greater sock puppet than even GWB of course, "sock puppet"
maybe just what the Dem's want .
It is not complicated !!!!
All payments to Biden son were channel of bribery to Democratic administration.
Anybody can understand it.
So impeachment attempt of Trump is actually coverup of Democratic misdeeds .
Russia hating is the lynchpin of oligarchic deepstate MIC MSM propaganda. Take that away and
the fat cats are revealed as the naked face of evil that they are. Hating Russia (and China)
supposedly justifies all their crimes.
"... For those who don't speak fluent neoconservative, "isolationist" here means taking even one small step in any direction other than continued military expansionism into every square inch of planet Earth, and "We are becoming isolationist" here means "We have hundreds of military bases circling the globe, our annual military budget is steadily climbing toward the trillion-dollar mark, and we are engaged in countless undeclared wars and regime change interventions all around the world." ..."
"... a war criminal with a blood-soaked legacy of mass murder, torture and military expansionism telling Trump that he is endangering peace with his "isolationism" ..."
"... Nobody actually believes that US foreign policy is under any threat of anything remotely resembling isolationism. The real purpose of this buzzword is to normalize the forever war and drag the Overton window so far in the direction of ghoulish hawkishness that the opposite of "war" is no longer "peace", but "isolationism". By pulling this neat little trick, the propagandists of the political/media class have successfully made endless war seem like a perfectly normal thing to be happening and any small attempt to scale it back look weird and freakish, when the truth is the exact opposite. War is weird, freakish and horrific, and peace is of course normal. This is the only healthy way to see things. ..."
Humanity was treated to an important lecture on peace at a recent event for the NIR School of the Heart by none other than Ellen
Degeneres BFF and world-renowned peace expert George W Bush.
"I don't think the Iranians believe a peaceful Middle East is in their national interest," said the former president according
to The Washington Post 's Josh Rogin, whose
brief Twitter thread on the subject appears
to be the only record of Bush's speech anywhere online.
"An isolationist United States is destabilizing around the world," Bush said during the speech in what according to Rogin was
a shot at the sitting president.
"We are becoming isolationist and that's dangerous for the sake of peace."
For those who don't speak fluent neoconservative, "isolationist" here means taking even one small step in any direction other
than continued military expansionism into every square inch of planet Earth, and "We are becoming isolationist" here means "We have
hundreds of military bases circling the globe, our annual military budget is steadily climbing toward the trillion-dollar mark, and
we are engaged in countless undeclared wars and regime change interventions all around the world."
It is unclear why Bush is choosing to present himself as a more peaceful president than Trump given that by this point in his
first term Bush had launched not one but two full-scale ground invasion wars whose effects continue to ravage the Middle East to
this very day, especially given the way both presidents appear to be in furious agreement on foreign policy matters like Iran. But
here we are.
From a certain point of view it's hard to say which is stranger:
(A) a war criminal with a blood-soaked legacy of mass murder, torture and military expansionism telling Trump that he is
endangering peace with his "isolationism", or
(B) the claim that Trump is "isolationist" at all.
But these bogus warnings about a dangerous, nonexistent threat of isolationism are nothing new for Dubya. In
his farewell address to the nation , Bush said the following:
"In the face of threats from abroad, it can be tempting to seek comfort by turning inward. But we must reject isolationism
and its companion, protectionism. Retreating behind our borders would only invite danger. In the 21st century, security and prosperity
at home depend on the expansion of liberty abroad. If America does not lead the cause of freedom, that cause will not be led."
As we discussed
recently , use of the pro-war buzzword "isolationism" has been re-emerging from its post-Bush hibernation as a popular one-word
debunk of any opposition to continued US military expansionism in all directions, and it is deceitful in at least three distinct
ways. Firstly, the way it is used consistently conflates isolationism with non-interventionism, which
are two wildly
different things . Secondly, none of the mainstream political figures who are consistently tarred with the "isolationist" pejorative
are isolationists by any stretch of the imagination, or even proper non-interventionists; they all support many interventionist positions
which actual non-interventionists object to. Thirdly, calling someone who opposes endless warmongering an "isolationist" makes as
much sense as calling someone who opposes rape a man-hating prude; opposing an intrinsically evil act is not the same as withdrawing
from the world.
Nobody actually believes that US foreign policy is under any threat of anything remotely resembling isolationism. The real
purpose of this buzzword is to normalize the forever war and drag the Overton window so far in the direction of ghoulish hawkishness
that the opposite of "war" is no longer "peace", but "isolationism". By pulling this neat little trick, the propagandists of the
political/media class have successfully made endless war seem like a perfectly normal thing to be happening and any small attempt
to scale it back look weird and freakish, when the truth is the exact opposite. War is weird, freakish and horrific, and peace is
of course normal. This is the only healthy way to see things.
It would actually be great if George W Bush could shut the fuck up forever, ideally in a locked cell following a public war tribunal.
Failing that, at the very least people should stop looking at him as a cuddly wuddly teddy bear with whom it's fun to
share a sporting arena suite or a
piece of hard candy or to
hang award medals on for his treatment of veterans. This mass murdering monster has been
growing more and more popular with
Democrats lately just because he offers mild criticisms of Trump sometimes, as have war pigs like
Bill Kristol and Max Boot and even John
Bolton for the same reason, and it needs to stop. And in the name of a million dead Iraqis, please don't start consulting this
man on matters of peace.
The Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) announced a deal with the Syrian
government of president Bashar al-Assad to resist the ongoing Turkish invasion. Syrian forces
have already moved into Kobane and Manbij. If Turkey continues with its push southwards into
Syria, a war between the Turkish and Syrian forces seems imminent.
As per the deal signed on October 13, the SDF will dissolve its Autonomous Administration
of North and East Syria, also known as Rojava, and hand over the control of cities, such as
Kobane and Manbij to the Syrian government. Talks between the SDF and the Syrian government
were facilitated by the Russians at their Syrian base at Hmeimim in Latakia.
Turkey and its ally, the Free Syrian Army – many of whose members were directly
affiliated to Al Qaeda and other extremist groups – continue their offensive and
atrocities. The FSA has reportedly already illegally executed 13 people. The victims include
Hervin Khalaf, leader of the Future Syria Party, and her two drivers.Turkey launched
'Operation Peace Spring' on October 9. The operation has already led to the death of around
60 Kurdish and 18 Turkish fighters. It has already caused the displacement of more than
130,000 people.
How has the discussion predictably developed along partisan lines? Trump said he wants out of
Syria. That united the war mongers in the house and senate because war means massive profits
to the military industrial complex and congress works for them. Trump said something that
affects the bottom line of the rich and they reacted predictably.
@A123
You can google and watch what Assad told the Kurds in a press conference. It will contradict
part of your statement. The Kurds risked and lost. Great warriors, but weak diplomats and
strategists.
1BEIRUT, LEBANON (11:50 A.M.) – The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) has taken over the U.S.
military base in Manbij after entering the city last night.
According to a military source in the Aleppo Governorate, the Syrian Arab Army has
deployed several units to Manbij as they look to block any potential Turkish offensive to
capture the city.
Men, Do This Today – You Will Never Need ED Pills Again!
MedJournal
Ads by Revcontent
Find Out More >
38,273
On Tuesday, the Anna News Agency reported from Manbij, as they showed the deployment of
the Syrian Army and their eventual take over of the U.S. military base there. -- AMN news
.
2 A stunning development in the key northern Syrian city of Manbij -- the Pentagon has
confirmed a planned handover to Russian military forces is underway amid a Turkish military
assault on the region. This also hours after President Trump tweeted that Assad "wants
naturally to protect the Kurds" and that the problem should be left to local powers.
Late Monday the main US base in Manbij was filmed empty of US forces, and American convoys
were also spotted hastily pulling out of the city as Syrian national forces entered,
following Sunday's historic deal between the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and
the Assad government. Newsweek reports the developments follows:
I think Russia has allowed Turkey to attack Syria to satisfy Turke's main objective of
rooting out the Kurd on the condition of returning the territory to Syria . It has given Kurd
the bleak choice of oblivion or self preservation . America suffers from PTSD . The flashback
of Saigon on the roof top reappeared again . It ran. Good a sensible job by Trump.
@WJ The
machinations people are making on this topic are truly stunning when it's clear Trump is
doing the right thing. Today are reports that US positions and bases in N. Syria have been
turn keyed over the Assad and Russian forces. Trump IS Protecting the Kurds, just not with
American blood, as he promised.
The one thing Turkey has always wanted is a broken Syria so it can gobble up the remnants.
Past US (and many current) leaders and Democrats were complicit in this by funneling cash and
weapons to Syrian opposition, which directly led to the rise of Isis and deaths of thousands
– can you say evil?
I have hope that Trumps current actions will bring an end to thus war for good –
Turkey was OK to beat up on some kurds but war with Russia is something else.
@OscarWildeLoveChild
imho Jewish power keeps Trump on a perpetual short leash (Schiff is this month's designee to
'walk the dog') until Iran is wrecked.
[edit: renfro commented on Giraldi's earlier thread reminding readers that Israel has a
major interest in the Kurds, their territory, which is oil rich. Remember the proposals to
divide Iraq into three ]
Warren -- BDS is one thing, but her agenda to tax >$50million -- that's the part people
hear & cheer: Hooray! Soak the rich!
The next thing she says is, "Use the money to pay for universal child care, universal
kindergarten, increase pay for child care workers."
This gets cheers from millennials struggling to keep two people employed and kids cared
for.
But think about how drastically anti-family those proposals are.
TOTALLY turn over the care of our children to the loving embrace of the federal government
aka the Frankfurt school
The combined synthesis of social theory and psychoanalysis thus allows resituating on
new bases the Marxist optimism according to which the working class, due to its position in
the relations of production, is disposed to adopt a point of view scientifically based on
reality as well as promote legitimate forms of action.
Knowledge of the forms of the becoming-adult of humanity conceived by Freud, in the form
of a theory of passage through different stages that must result in an assumed genital
sexuality, leads to the recognition of a working class that is believed to be less
encumbered by typically bourgeois prejudices and perversities.
@NoseytheDuke
The goal was to topple Assad. Remember Obama? Assad must go? Assad and the Assad regime are
still there. Where is Saddam Hussein? Where is Muammar Gaddafi? After seven years of war in
Syria the victors are Syria, Iran and Russia. The losers are the U.S., Israel, Saudi Arabia
and Turkey. The real losers of course are the dead and the maimed. The widows and orphans.
And the millions who have been displaced and have become refugees. All are victims of
Imperial aggression. And the real winners of course are the war profiteers who have grown
fatter and fatter since 9/11.
It should be observed that the Syrian incursion by the American military, which was
initiated by President Barack Obama and his band of lady hawks during the so-called "Arab
Spring" of 2011, was illegal from the gitgo. Syria did not threaten the United States, quite
the contrary. Damascus had supported U.S. intelligence operations after 9/11 and it was
Washington that soured the relationship beginning with the Syria Accountability Act of 2003,
which later was followed by the Syrian War Crimes Accountability Act of 2015, both of which
were, at least to a certain extent, driven by the interests of Israel.
When American soldiers first arrived in Syria the U.S. War Powers act was ignored, making
the incursion illegal. Nor was there any mandate authorizing military intervention emanating
from any supra-national agency like the United Nations. The excuse for the intervention was
plausibly enough to destroy ISIS, but the reality was much more complex, with U.S. forces in
addition seeking to limit Iranian and Russian presence in Syria while also bringing about
regime change. The objectives were from the start unattainable as Iran and Russia were
supporting the Syrian Army in doing most of the hard fighting against ISIS while the regime of
President Bashar al-Assad was not threatened by a so-called democratic alternative which only
existed in the minds of Samantha Powers and Susan Rice.
Unwilling to see large numbers of Americans coming home in caskets, the United States
inevitably began to search for proxies to carry out the fighting on the ground and wound up
willy-nilly arming, training and otherwise supporting terrorists, to include the al-Qaeda
affiliate al-Nusra. The Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces eventually became the principal tool
of U.S. military, but it must be observed that the Kurds in all likelihood had no illusions
about the staying power of their American patrons. They were fighting Syrian forces as well as
ISIS because they were seeking to carve out their own homeland of Kurdistan from the ruins of
the Syrian state. Their expansion into northern Syria, aided by the U.S., was at the expense of
the local population, which was overwhelmingly not Kurdish. Their occupation of that area was
not reported honestly in the U.S. media, but other sources suggest that their behavior was
often brutal.
So the lament about abandoning one's Kurdish allies has a kernel of truth, but the Senator
Lindsey Graham response, to include sanctioning Turkey, should be considered to be little more
than a dangerous misstep that would lead to acquiring a new and more powerful enemy. And, of
course, the argument in favor of leaving the Kurds to their fate found its most ridiculous
expression from the mouth of Donald Trump himself, who, up until recently had praised the Kurds
as friends who had "fought and died for us." Trump is now observing
that "they [the Kurds] didn't help us in the Second World War, they didn't help us with
Normandy." As President Trump did not serve his country in Vietnam due to alleged bone spurs
and his father Fred likewise did not serve in the military, the comment is particularly ironic.
Trump's surname was changed from the original German Drumpf and if there were any Drumpfs
present at Normandy they were undoubtedly on the German side.
Finally, there is one other important issue that should be observed. Donald Trump's actual
record on ending useless wars is not consistent with his actions. He has sent more soldiers to
no good purpose in support of America's longest war in Afghanistan, has special ops forces in
numerous countries in Asia and Africa, has threatened regime change in Venezuela, continues to
support Saudi Arabia and Israel's bloody attacks on their neighbors and has exited to from
treaties and agreements with Russia and Iran that made armed conflict less likely. And he has
five thousand American soldiers sitting as hostages in Iraq, a country that the United States
basically destroyed as a cohesive political entity and which is now experiencing a wave of
rioting that has reportedly killed hundreds. Trump is also assassinating more foreigners using
drones based mostly on profile targeting than all of his predecessors. These are not the
actions of a president who seriously wants to end wars even if one does not consider the
economic warfare that is currently taking place through the use of sanctions that is reportedly
killing tens of thousands.
So should one take Donald Trump seriously when he says he wants to end the pointless wars?
Perhaps not, but even giving him the benefit of the doubt, he should be judged by his actions,
not by his words and, apart from the withdrawal of a handful of soldiers from the actual front
lines in Syria, nothing has changed. It is quite possible that nothing will change.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest,
a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a
more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its
email is[email protected]
The Turkish Army, which is one of the most powerful in NATO, will do whatever is
necessary to crush them. Trump should have realized that before he started talking.
IDK, Phil. I am not sure that he didn't. My sense is that he has been pandering to the
neocons in the hope of a compromise that would allow him to deliver enough of his campaign
promises to permit his re-election. I think hiring Bolton was just such a move –
thinking that keeping his enemies closer would permit him more control.
Recently, he has expressed frustration with his staff and I speculate that he has come to
realize that pandering to the jews is going to be a one-way street. He has given them a score
of concessions, including Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. He hasn't received anything in
return, except for the onslaught of palace coups, one after the other, orchestrated by the
very same zionist forces in both parties.
My hypothesis is that the man, narcissistic as he is, has reached the end of his tether.
Faced with the potential to not get re-elected, he has mounted a counteroffensive against
them. He, rightly, believes that the people who got him elected are the only ones who can get
him re-elected. So, his recent tweets are both an attempt to recapture us to his side, while
at the same time slapping the zionists across their faces with a show of power, as he is
won't to do in business negotiations where he feels that he has been betrayed.
I could be completely wrong as I try to pry into his mind.
So should one take Donald Trump seriously when he says he wants to end the pointless
wars? Perhaps not, but even giving him the benefit of the doubt, he should be judged by his
actions, not by his words and, apart from the withdrawal of a handful of soldiers from the
actual front lines in Syria, nothing has changed. It is quite possible that nothing will
change.
It serves us naught to take this pessimistic stance in the absence of a replacement
candidate. I have always contended that the best way to use Trump is to support his ego.
Let's inundate him with praise for withdrawing from the Kurdish/Turkish quagmire. Sure, he
hasn't vacated Syria yet, however, he has no choice but to vacate or be evacuated. His ego
will opt for the former.
Trump is also assassinating more foreigners using drones based mostly on profile targeting
than all of his predecessors.
These are not the actions of a president who seriously wants to end wars even if one does not
consider the economic warfare that is currently taking place through the use of sanctions
that is reportedly killing tens of thousands
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Mr. Giraldi,
Could you please elaborate on the first point: the use of drones. Who and where?
Secondly, economic warfare: are you referring to Iran or Venezuela? Could you
elaborate?
@A123
NATO members will not help the New Ottoman Empire "offensive".
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Wow, Israeli is really terrified. What will they do when the U.S. decouples from the Middle
East completely? It's pretty clear that, short of running to Russia and fellating Putin, Bobo
the Clown of Tel Aviv has no plan.
Tic Toc.
The fact of the matter is that President Donald Trump is a Corrupt "Crypto Jew" in spite of
the American people may think Trump is as he was chosen by the Elite to serve and protect
Israel and churn profits for Elite owned and controlled Armaments industry in promoting wars
against the Best interests of the citizens of United States of America.
If Washington withdraws its military, spooks and mercenaries the Syrian Curds will go back to
being Syrians. Syria, Iran, Russia and Turkey will negotiate the peace. The U.S., Israel,
Saudi Arabia and Turkey will have been defeated in their war against Assad. Syria, unlike
Iraq and Libya will remain standing.
Everyone loves to hate on Erdogan. I was hoping for a more nuanced view than [he] "is just
crazy enough to do that." Remember when George Galloway called him "a lion," awestruck at his
reaction to the Israeli murders of Turks on the boat to Gaza? Is it true that Turkey has made
tremendous economic gains under his administration? He has much support, as shown by the
[popular] squelching of attempted coup.
I've just never understood why he facilitated the chaos on his border, harboured the White
Helmets, probably murdered Serena Shim, etc. And now, what will he do with his jihadi proxy
army? As far as his threats to release migrants to Europe, I have no sympathy for EU
countries who've been part of the war on the ME. What goes around, comes around. Same for the
Kurds.
There have been some suggestions that the Kurds could make nice with the Damascus
government and rely on the protection of the Syrian Army to deter the Turks, an option that
they have already begun to exercise.
The Kurds have caved. Plus our radical Islamic rebels are going over, with our equipment
etc to the Ass man.
Updated Oct. 14, 2019 6:48 pm ET. WSJ
ISTANBUL -- Syrian troops entered areas that have been outside their control for years on
Monday, after a quickly forged pact between Kurdish forces and the Syrian government to
confront a Turkish military campaign reshaped alliances in Syria.
That pact transformed the Kurds, an erstwhile partner of the U.S. in the fight against
Islamic State, into a force more closely aligned with Russia and Iran, as the U.S. began
withdrawing its troops from northeastern Syria.
Until recently, thousands of U.S.-backed fighters had trained at a military base in the
town of Ain Eissa. After the Syrian military arrived on Monday morning, soldiers raised the
tricolor Syrian flag in the town center.
The US gets out of the way, and Assad, who won the Civil War, immediately settles with the
Kurds and Nustra.
So, it wasn't many troops, but we had successfully prevented Assad from absorbing
(voluntarily) two groups in the Civil War. Meaning we (US) alone was preventing settlement.
The. deep state has thwarted Trump's intentions to leave for 3 years.
"Or the Turks might be willing to escalate their own offensive to take on the inferior Syrian
Army and the Kurds together." It is a stretch without careful analysis.
Many people said the same about the world's most cowardice army, the Israeli. There is an
agreement between the parties and Erdogan will comply. The Kurds are the West-Israel proxy
terrorists. They proved their usefulness many times.
But in pursuing their aspirations for self-rule, Syria's Kurds risked overreach and
miscalculation. American officials have long made clear in meetings and public comments
that U.S. military backing never amounted to an endorsement of Kurdish political
ambitions.
In December, U.S. envoy to Syria James Jeffrey likened the partnership with the SySo he
rian Kurds to a "transactional relationship for a specific goal."
Trump got it basically right -- time to leave and we never promised Kurds a Rose
Garden.
His bumbling ruling decrees via Twitter stem from the lack of loyal staff. His decisions
are ignored or subverted when he goes through channels. So he announces it and works from
there. This is the 3rd Time Trump has announced withdrawal from Syria. Although the neocon
press and Hawkish politicians howled.
Trump also implemented the Pivot to Asia (an Obama failure) by engaging China
diplomatically through efforts at trade reform. Much more nuanced that fortifying bases.
Its never pretty, but Trump tends to stubbornly pursue a less warlike agenda.
The mideast is where everybody backstabs everybody recalling the CIA used to deliver
renditioned prisoners to Assad to be tortured along lines a bit more than 'enhanced'
interrogations (karma could be a b *** h.) The soup only gets thicker as the pot boils down.
Remember those NATO nukes kept at Incirlik?
Why had NATO (the USA particularly) sat on its hands these past 3+ years? It's not like no
one was aware there could be a serious problem with 50 (or more) tactical nukes in the hands
of the paranoid narcissist Erdogan:
@A123
"that is, the goods and services produced by the economy -- rises faster than the money
created, so there is no inflation, and rises faster than the debt created, so the country's
debt burden doesn't increase."
"The long term prospects for peace are still there. A return to the status quo ante. Russia
remains as guarantor of the peace and all other foreign fighters and their proxies exit the
nation."
Spot on.
Given cast-iron assurances re the PKK & it's Syrian cousins that Nth Syria will cease to
be a zone for organising attacks (or any kind of nefarious Kurdish behaviour) on Turkey, I
think Erdogan would likely consider a withdrawal of his forces.
i think there are few unknowns between Russia, Turkey, Syria; the plan seems to be to get
ISIS, SDF, the PYD/YPD without regard to who is supporting them. Unleash ISIS, even those in
prisons so they can move against Assad to be destroyed ? Those trapped in Idlib can either
commit suicide or wait for the executioner. I have no facts, but by observing that the
sanctions warfare is directed at those who intend to destroy ISIS, SDF, PYD/YPD and Israelis
and Iranians visiting in Syria I conclude Russia and Turkey have skunked the Pentagon (maybe
Trump is also in on it?) .
Russia and Syria have agreed to stand by while Turkey engages in some target practice at
unwanted visitors in Syria? Invade Syria even North Western Iraq.. rid the world of pesky,
trouble making, fake news head chopping face book and Twitter super stars, destroy all traces
of Kurds, remove all non Syrian others threatening the Ottoman, Syrian Turf. Don't look now,
but Iran seems to be on the Turkey list of non Syrians ?. ..After the area is cleared Assad's
problem, will be, what if Turkey (Erdogan) refuses to return to Turkey, and that return to
Turkey promise has probably been be guaranteed to Assad by Russia.
I read a Russian statement somewhere last year [early 2018], in which they unequivocal said
there would never be an autonomous Kurdish state. They [the Kurds] could stick to some of
their customs, but legally and lawfully they would fall on Damascus' rule/s.
Trump's foreign policy constitutes an egregious betrayal of his election platform which was
to "stay neutral" on Israel/Palestine, withdraw remaining troops and avoid any further
entanglements. He reneged on all pledges.
The recent announcement that he was withdrawing troops from Syria was followed the next
day by an announcement of 2,000 US troops being deployed to Saudi Arabia to protect that
country from Iran. Say what?
It was totally predictable five years ago that Turkey was in Israel's gunsights, and as
usual Israel tends to destroy others by proxy. They can sit back and savor Turkey destroying
more of Syria, while US sanctions destroy more of Turkey.
The waves of death and destruction that have hammered the Middle East for the last seventy
years are all symptoms of one problem and that is the illegitimate "state of Israel".
Most Americans seem obsessed with stupid wars. For example the vast majority of people in the
UK see the Iraq War as a catastrophic mistake and despise Tony Blair, yet in the US most
people still seem to see the Iraq War as a good thing. The mentality is far apart.
Americans seem a very insecure people, projecting military power is all they really have.
If America is not constantly embroiled in a war somewhere then most Americans feel they have
nothing to be proud of. I would go as far to say that the military is the only real source of
pride in America, it's the only thing Americans feel they undeniably excel at.
There are no "stupid wars", every slaughter of millions was long time in planning and was
based on greed and racism of the "master" races vs. "subhumans".
USA corporation, can not and will not survive without WARS.
Complete "economy" is a WAR machine, USA corporations has WEAPONIZED it ALL.
It is nice to dream, even HollyWood supports and promotes it.
Whiskey Rebellion me think was the Birthday of citizen USA and blessed it's associates
with representation by corrupt and greedy anointed by others rushing to become corrupt and
greedy.
Trump has shown himself to be completely unreliable on every important issue; I do not
see why it will be different this time -- his desire for approval from the Establishment is
apparently far stronger than any principles he may hold -- you can see this in practically
everything he does, perhaps most notably in his constant bleating about black and Hispanic
unemployment -- he simply can't be trusted.
On the other hand Trump has not started any new wars (so far). He is also resisting the elite
of Deep State (MIC) and the mdia, probably in his own weird way by making confusing
statements keeping them off balance. No body knows we are all simply speculating. Time will
tell.
@WorkingClass
Not really. The goal all along was not to "take" Syria so much as to destroy it and leave it
in fragments. Mission accomplished! Syria, or at east large swathes of it has been reduced to
rubble, its economy is gutted and its people are scattered to the winds. The US had no goals
there to begin with and has just been acting in the service of its "great friend and ally"
Israel. Your tax dollars at work.
Syria, Iraq, Libya are now less of a threat to Israel than ever before so that is a kind
of peace. Solitudenum facient, pacem appellant said Tacitus. They make desolation and call it
peace.
@Europe
natonalist I agree. Worship of the military is surely modern America's most cringeworthy
and repellent aspect. The war hero is the American equivalent of the medieval saint, and you
can't even blame the Jews for it. It's clearly a whitey thing. Get a few bullets shot at you
by some primitive and soon to be obliterated savages and you can live large on your war
stories for the rest of your comfortably pensioned days. The sad thing is that there are no
wars for the US military to fight these days except those they create themselves.
America, an exceptionally immature, warlike and stupid nation. And they worship Jesus! Who
of course will just laugh when he presses the button and sends them all into the lake of fire
without a second thought.
@Cloak And
Dagger Interesting, I've been mulling over this possibility recently and was thinking
about it earlier as a potential outcome-based upon basic game theory.
What I don't understand is, if there be an alleged discreet hidden super-hand of
power controlled by the Jewish elite, and Trump seemed to be doing their bidding (moving the
Embassy), where are all the "compromising photos" and "Blasey Ford's" for the Warren's and
Biden's of the world? Certainly some damaging (and likely private) material, or "witnesses"
from the past exist, against those who attack Trump? Certainly the Mossad and/or other hidden
forces have such information, that could protect Trump. Here's a guy with a (now) Jewish
daughter and a Jewish son-in-law, doing positive things for Israel and the Jewish elite in
the US/West, and yet, he has been subject to continual attacks, as have those around him, and
now he is facing impeachment?
I don't see Israel getting it any better if Warren is elected (certainly not by her base,
which is turning more toward a BDS worldview). It just makes me think their power is not as
great as conspiracy theorists alleged, or in the alternative (perhaps likely) their "power"
is superseded by an even greater hidden force of elites. If their power is as awesome and
infiltrating as alleged, why isn't he president for life at this point? Using the media,
politics, blackmail, international banking, this guy could usher in Israel as the capital of
the universe, but yet none of that is happening. He is betrayed at every corner and faces
removal from office, disgrace (for actually being the removed, i.e. the other side actually
"winning" against him), and probably the destruction of any chance Ivanka and Jared had of
becoming the first couple, in the future.
So perhaps as you offer, he's going for broke and just doing whatever he wants or wanted
to do in the beginning. Time will tell. Strange times indeed.
@Contraviews
, Contraviews said: "He (Trump) is also resisting the elite of Deep State (MIC) and the mdia,
probably in his own weird way by making confusing statements keeping them off balance."
No! Zionist Jews & Israel are keeping you and almost all of Amerika "off balance."
Refer to Jerusalem Post article (linked below) and you will distinguish "confusing
statements" by Trump from the reality of mandatory ZUS endless ME wars since 9/11.
Everybody should be happy Uncle Sam is getting out of Syria. Look at the disasters the US
created in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, etc. and all the money wasted which could have been
better spent here at home.
Much of what's being said in the MSM has to do with the American narrative that Turkey and
Syria are bad guys for the unspoken reason that they have opposed the zionist enterprise.
What American national interest justified the occupation and dismemberment of Syria? Why
should we support terrorist groups like the PPK against NATO member Turkey? Why should we
ally with al-Qaeda affiliate HTS for israel's benefit?
@anon
Good point about DJT needing to use Twitter to announce his decisions since they'd otherwise
be thwarted or outright ignored going through normal channels. But, how can he actually be
against these wars when they're contrasted with his embarrassing servility toward Israel,
which in actuality is an enemy state responsible for Lavon, Liberty, and 9/11, not to mention
it's theft of our technology that's used against us by Israel's intel tech companies for
profit and communications espionage at the deepest levels of our government? The canard about
other, overriding strategic interests doesn't hold water since the $trillions wasted on these
wars could have secured our economic and military interests a hundredfold through trade and
cultural interaction. As much as I want to trust DJT and would stand with him and the
deplorables at the barricades if necessary, I cannot overcome my repugnance at his support
for Israel, knowing as he now must know that Israel did 9/11.
Our neocon policies have proven to be an existential threat to the solvency , well being,
and future of the United States.
We have squandered tens of trillions of dollars on stupid wasteful wars when we could have
been using those exact same resources to build out our infrastructure, education and
technological advantages.
Our pentagon should be producing best and first technologies ACROSS THE BOARD, not
spending all its time trying to hide from the taxpayer how many billions the neocons pilfered
last quarter.
We need to replace our policy of "perpetual war fraud" with a policy of empowering and
igniting creativity and human excellence.
It's quite ironic that the party that was in power when it was revealed that the NSA was
spying on every US citizen (and a ton of foreigners) – an obvious violation of the 4th
Amendment – now want to moan about the unconstitutionality of this phone call.
But if someone would have told him that the people denouncing and blacklisting him would
have been the *liberal Democrats* and some of their most "excitable" elements would be
accusing him of being a "Neo-Nazi White Supremacist Russian Agent" he would have thought
the entire country had gone on LSD.
Ran into a Ukie from Odessa yesterday on a beach i go to i go to Saigon n Vung Tau. He told
me all about how Putin set up the Maidan in Kyiv, in order to invade and take Crimea. He was
doing a great propaganda act, for this American, until I told him I live in Crimea. I gave
some info how the US did Kyiv, then he stormed off. The Ukie nationalist are super
brainwashed. Spacibo Unz Rev.
@Dennis
Gannon "If we ever get a dictator in the USA, I would not be surprised to see everyone in
the lying mainstream media wind up in a gulag."
If we ever get a dictator in the USA, he will owe his dictatorship to the lying mainstream
media. But that of course doesn't mean he won't turn on them. But it's more likely he'll
enjoy their continued support.
Russia is the excuse for US actions in the Ukraine as it was in the ME.
What is America without a big bad boogeyman like Russia?. Certainly not a "Superpower'
defending the world. Without enemies like Russia we would be nothing but big rich
country.
And all the Neos and Zios and politicians would have to use Viagra instead of war to
squirt out their poison.
A lot of countries like the Ukraine have gotten a lot of US taxpayer money by 'standing up
to a Russian takeover' .and are laughing all the way to their bank.
This New York Times article about @TulsiGabbard is perfect. It belongs in a museum to show
how the NYT & DNC smear anyone who expresses any dissenting views: accuse them of serving
RUSSIA & white nationalists, quote Neera Tanden & Laura McCarthy Rosenberg, etc.
What, Exactly, Is Tulsi Gabbard Up To? - The New York Times
6:56 AM - 12 Oct 2019
[ Radical, unethical Democratic National Committee folks are determined to defame and
destroy an heroic Democratic member of congress, a combat veteran and still serving member of
the armed forces, reelected with a 70% majority in 2018. ]
Astonishing the Democratic leadership calumny of a Democratic member of Congress, a woman, of
Indian and Samoan heritage, a combat veteran and serving member of the armed forces. Such is
self-styled supposed Democratic leadership, steeped in the terrible terrifying tradition of
Joseph McCarthy.
(The price of admission, so as to be
able to read the posts of others, is
for now, posting something, anything.)
What, Exactly, Is Tulsi Gabbard Up To? https://nyti.ms/33s1Aj8
NYT - Lisa Lerer - October 12
WASHINGTON -- Stephen K. Bannon, President Trump's former chief strategist, is impressed
with her political talent. Richard B. Spencer, the white nationalist leader, says he could
vote for her. Former Representative Ron Paul praises her "libertarian instincts," while
Franklin Graham, the influential evangelist, finds her "refreshing."
And far-right conspiracy theorists like Mike Cernovich see a certain MAGA sais quoi.
"She's got a good energy, a good vibe. You feel like this is just a serious person," Mr.
Cernovich said. "She seems very Trumpian." ...
(The price of admission, so as to be
able to read the posts of others, is
for now, posting something, anything.)
What, Exactly, Is Tulsi Gabbard Up To? https://nyti.ms/33s1Aj8
NYT - Lisa Lerer - October 12
WASHINGTON -- Stephen K. Bannon, President Trump's former chief strategist, is impressed
with her political talent. Richard B. Spencer, the white nationalist leader, says he could
vote for her. Former Representative Ron Paul praises her "libertarian instincts," while
Franklin Graham, the influential evangelist, finds her "refreshing."
And far-right conspiracy theorists like Mike Cernovich see a certain MAGA sais quoi.
"She's got a good energy, a good vibe. You feel like this is just a serious person," Mr.
Cernovich said. "She seems very Trumpian." ...
Among her fellow Democrats, Representative Tulsi Gabbard has struggled to make headway as a
presidential candidate, barely cracking the 2 percent mark in the polls needed to qualify for
Tuesday night's debate. She is now injecting a bit of chaos into her own party's primary
race, threatening to boycott that debate to protest what she sees as a "rigging" of the 2020
election. That's left some Democrats wondering what, exactly, she is up to in the race, while
others worry about supportive signs from online bot activity and the Russian news media. ...
On podcasts and online videos, in interviews and Twitter feeds, alt-right internet stars,
white nationalists, libertarian activists and some of the biggest boosters of Mr. Trump heap
praise on Ms. Gabbard. They like the Hawaiian congresswoman's isolationist foreign policy
views. They like her support for drug decriminalization. They like what she sees as
censorship by big technology platforms. ...
Ms. Gabbard has disavowed some of her most hateful supporters, castigating the news media
for giving "any oxygen at all" to the endorsement she won from the white nationalist leader
David Duke. But her frequent appearances on Tucker Carlson's Fox News show have buoyed her
support in right-wing circles.
Both Ms. Gabbard and her campaign refused requests for comment about her support in
right-wing circles or threat to boycott the debate. Even some political strategists who have
worked with her are at a loss to explain her approach to politics.
"She's a very talented person but I'm not sure, I just don't know what to say about the
campaign exactly," said Mark Longabaugh, a Democratic strategist who worked with Ms. Gabbard
when she was campaigning for Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont in 2016. ...
Stephen K. Bannon, President Trump's former chief strategist, is impressed with her political
talent....
-- Lisa Lerer
[ This is a vile article, contemptible for the New York Times to have printed. An heroic
member of congress, a woman, a person of color, a combat veteran, a serving member of the
armed forces, a person who serves others to seek peace, is being contemptibly slandered.
Shame, shame, shame for writing and printing such an article. ]
You and a number of the posters here are horribly naive about the Nixon Rat(bad word
omitted)s. Tulsi has been working with them. This should be automatically disqualifying.
Gabbard is a veteran, very much younger than I, she also is the most opposed to the neocon
permanent war (strong in securing the US' post WW II world order)agenda which seems to be
standard democrat stance.
"
By Dillon Ancheta | October 10, 2019 at 10:13 AM HST - Updated October 10 at 5:54 PM
HONOLULU, Hawaii (HawaiiNewsNow) - Claiming a "rigged" primary process, presidential
candidate Tulsi Gabbard says she's seriously considering boycotting the next Democratic
presidential debate.
Twelve contenders, including Gabbard, have qualified for the Oct. 15 debate in Ohio.
But in a video posted on social media Thursday, Gabbard said she's not sure she'll take
the debate stage because she believes the Democratic National Committee and corporate media
rigged the 2016 primary election against Bernie Sanders and are trying to do it again with
the 2020 primary.
She said the election is being rigged against early voting states.
"There are so many of you who I've met in Iowa and New Hampshire who have expressed to me
how frustrated you are that the DNC and corporate media are essentially trying to usurp your
role as voters in choosing who our Democratic nominee will be," Gabbard said, in the
video.
"In short, the DNC and corporate media are trying to hijack the entire election process,"
she added."
This of course is sheer nonsense, and so hurtful to Dems that she has drawn the admiration
of right wing crazies for her efforts to help trump.
Nonsense in 2016 just like this hurt Dems; ruined the Supreme Court; and damaged the
country. And she is trying to do it again in the midst of a primary in which she never, ever
had a ghost of a chance. And that was because of her total inexperience and a number of
highly questionable actions in the last decade.
At this point, she has managed to remove herself from higher office for the rest of her
life. And deservedly so.
In Hawaii you cannot run for two public offices at once, so this is her plan to run for
the House. Trash the DNC and media for defeating her, despite the fact she never had any
chance to even be a serious player in the primary.
Combine that with her gay conversion stance of a decade ago and her meddling withe asaad
and Modi, and I am starting to question her sanity.
If she loses the House primary, I would fully expect her to be the Rep candidate.
American interventionalist is not an aberration; it is dictated by the design to maintain and expand the USA led global
neoliberal empire. It is impossible to cure without the destruction of this empire. But the process of destruction already
started with US-China trade war.
Notable quotes:
"... Fontaine's article misses the biggest argument against frequent military interventions: the U.S. has no right to bomb and invade other countries at will. The assumption that the U.S. has the right to use force in other countries whenever it decides to is wrong in principle, and it is the source of countless policy failures and tremendous human suffering. If we respected the "rules-based international order" that we claim to support, our government would use force sparingly and only when there were no other alternatives. That is a "rigid formula" that we should insist on upholding. ..."
Rubble aftermath of a Saudi airstrike on a Yemeni neighborhood in 2015.
Almigdad Mojalli/Voice of America Richard Fontaine
claims that there is now
a consensus for military restraint, and he believes the consensus to be wrong:
Faced with such a sweeping political consensus, one might conclude that Washington should simply get on with it and embrace
restraint. The problem is that such a strategy overlooks the interests and values that have prompted U.S. action in the first
place and that may for good reasons give rise to it in the future. The consensus also neglects the fact that, despite the well-known
failures of recent large-scale interventions, there is also a record of more successful ones -- including the effort underway
today in Syria.
To assume that nonintervention will become a central tenet of future U.S. foreign policy will, if anything, induce Americans
to think less seriously about the country's military operations abroad and thus generate not only less successful intervention
but possibly even more of it. Instead of settling into wishful thinking, policymakers should accept that the use of military force
will remain an essential tool of U.S. strategy. That, in turn, requires applying the right lessons from recent decades.
Fontaine makes two mistakes early on his article that mar the rest of his argument. The first is to assert that a strategy of
restraint "overlooks the interests and values that have prompted U.S. action" in the past. That is simply not true. Advocates of
restraint don't overlook these interests and values. We deny that the U.S. has interests in many of the places interventionists claim
to find them, and we insist that waging unnecessary wars against states and people that have done nothing to us is contrary to American
values. Proponents of restraint aren't overlooking anything. We contest and reject many of the assumptions that interventionists
take for granted. Constant warfare in multiple countries is not only harmful to U.S. security and interests, but it has been steadily
corroding our constitutional system and giving virtually unchecked power to the executive. The forever war has horribly distorted
our foreign policy, and it has been deforming our system of government as well.
The other mistake is to suggest that nonintervention will cause Americans "to think less seriously about the country's military
operations abroad." The word seriously is doing all of the work in that statement, and it gets to the heart of the disagreement that
advocates of restraint have with interventionists. Non-interventionists do think very seriously about U.S. military operations. Sometimes
it seems as if we are some of the only people who do think seriously about them, because we consider their costs not only for the
U.S. but also for the countries and peoples affected by them. Advocates of restraint also tend to think seriously about the illegality
of a lot of these operations, many of which have never been authorized by Congress. Others rely on an expansive interpretation of
the 2001 AUMF for their legal justification, and it has become extremely difficult to accept that a 2001 vote can be used to authorize
military action in completely different parts of the world almost twenty years later.
It is debatable whether there is a "sweeping political consensus" in favor of military restraint. There is significant political
support for extricating the U.S. from many of its current conflicts, but it is not clear that there is anything like consensus on
how the U.S. should respond to foreign conflicts and crises in the future. Fontaine conjures up this imaginary consensus to serve
as a foil for his argument, and then proceeds to point out that there really isn't a consensus after all.
He also trots out the old cliche about presidents reluctantly going to war:
Even at a rhetorical and intellectual level, then, the end of intervention is not nearly as clear-cut as today's politicians
suggest. The reality of being commander in chief complicates things further: on the campaign trail, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush,
Barack Obama, and Trump each pledged to engage in fewer foreign military adventures and redirect resources toward needs at home.
In office, each reluctantly proceeded to not only continue existing wars but also launch new offensives.
Fontaine greatly exaggerates the reluctance with which these presidents have ordered the use of force. In Bush's case, he simply
makes it up. It is true that then-Gov. Bush campaigned against "nation-building" of the kind that Clinton had done in the 1990s,
but his "humble" foreign policy rhetoric was belied by the fact that he didn't oppose a single military intervention in the past
and surrounded himself with extremely hawkish advisers who were only too eager to use force. The trope of Obama as "reluctant warrior"
has been repeated so many times that it is easy to forget that this is also wildly misleading. The "reluctant" Obama ordered the
bombing of Libya when he had no legal authority to do so, and he did so even though no vital U.S. interests were threatened. He then
oh-so-"reluctantly" launched another illegal war in 2014 in Iraq and Syria that has continued to this day. A truly reluctant president
would not start or join wars without Congressional authorization, but that is exactly what Obama did more than once. His decision
to throw U.S. support behind the Saudi coalition was yet another example of how he involved the U.S. in a foreign conflict when didn't
need to. A consistently non-interventionist president is hard to imagine, but that is only because we haven't had one for such a
long time.
Fontaine then sets up a strawman by pointing out that U.S. interventionism after the Cold War is just more of what the U.S. did
during the Cold War:
American military action is not, as many believe, a feature of post–Cold War overstretch; it has been a central element of
the United States' approach to the world for decades.
I'm not sure what argument Fontaine thinks he is refuting here. Non-interventionist critics of America's post-Cold War foreign
policy are almost always equally appalled by and opposed to U.S. military interventions during the Cold War. Some non-interventionists
have been against unnecessary and illegal wars all along, and others have come around to recognizing the futility and folly of these
interventions in recent decades. No one really disputes that intervening militarily in other countries has been "a central element
of the United States' approach to the world for decades." We know it has been a central element. We think it has been the cause of
enormous harm, and that's why we seek to put an end to it! Fontaine calls attention to the fact that the U.S. has been frequently
resorting to force for a long time as if that is an argument for letting this destructive pattern continue indefinitely.
Fontaine offers a number of "guidelines" that he wants us to use when judging future military interventions. He gets off to a
bad start with the first one:
The first guideline is to avoid overlearning the supposed lessons of past interventions.
It is impossible to read this and not think of the many hawkish admonitions that Americans have "overlearned" the lessons of the
Iraq war. No doubt it is meant to bring that to mind. The idea that Americans have ever "overlearned" lessons from our failed and
unnecessary wars is almost funny, because it seems obvious that our political leaders have barely learned anything at all. It is
true that each case is different and should be judged on its own merits, but surely we should draw on past experience to inform how
we judge these new cases. When hawks consistently underestimate how difficult and costly a war will be, it is relevant to cite the
Iraq war as an example of how disastrously wrong war supporters can be. When we hear promises from proponents that war with Iran
won't be as costly or prolonged as the Iraq war, it is probably worth recalling that proponents of invading Iraq promised that the
war would be cheap, easy, and quick, too. Many of our politicians and analysts stubbornly refuse to learn from what they euphemistically
call the "mistake" of the Iraq war. That brings us back to the earlier point about thinking seriously about military operations abroad.
As a general rule, interventionists treat going to war very cavalierly and don't think through the consequences. When things predictably
go awry, they then insist that we can't quit the war we should never have waged.
Fontaine adds, "Sticking to rigid lines based on prior errors can easily lead to new and different pitfalls." It is always possible
that in avoiding certain errors the U.S. will end up making different ones, but surely that is an argument for intervening as infrequently
as possible. If we keep missing the mark every time, perhaps we should stop shooting. This also ignores that sticking to a rigid
line against a Vietnam or Iraq war-style intervention is always the right call. There is no scenario in which waging a war like that
would be a prudent and necessary use of force. If subsequent military interventions have also caused problems or failed to resolve
everything, that is much better than being bogged down for years (or decades) in unwinnable wars that serve no American interests.
I am probably the most vocal critic of the Libyan war then and now, but Obama's error was intervening in the first place. The "failure"
to follow up the intervention with an occupation was the best of the bad available options. If Obama had committed U.S. troops to
Libya after Gaddafi was overthrown, they would probably still be fighting there in large numbers today, and we would be hearing from
the usual suspects that they can't be withdrawn for many more years.
Fontaine's second guideline sounds reasonable, but it isn't all that helpful:
Another guideline is to pick interventions that meet clear conditions and commit to those that are chosen. The United States
should generally undertake interventions only when political leaders -- namely, the president and a majority of Congress -- believe
that force is necessary to attain a clearly stated objective.
This doesn't seem like a bad guideline, but we should remember that this guideline wouldn't have prevented the Iraq war. The president
and a majority of Congress were in agreement that the U.S. should launch an invasion to achieve regime change, and they were horribly
wrong. Even when a majority of Congress is on board with the idea of launching an illegal invasion, that doesn't make it right.
Another guideline sounds sensible, but it is not as useful as it seems:
They should conclude that the benefits of a military intervention over the long run are reasonably expected to exceed the costs.
The problem here is that interventionists always conclude that the benefits of intervention will exceed the costs, and in the
debate before a war begins the cavalier proponents of "action" usually prevail because of the ingrained bias in favor of "doing something."
They often do this by grossly overestimating the benefits (of which there are usually few or none) and ignoring the costs all together.
The Iraq war is the most famous example of this, but it is true of virtually every military intervention that the U.S. has engaged
in over at least the last thirty years. This guideline raises a number of questions: how are the benefits being calculated, who benefits,
and how long is "the long run"? The fact that U.S. politicians and policymakers have usually done a horrible job of calculating the
costs and benefits of past interventions should make us question why we think that our government is a fit judge of such matters.
There are a few big omissions in Fontaine's argument that need to be addressed. First, he says nothing about international law
or the Constitution. More often than not, U.S. military interventions bend or outright break international law and the U.N. Charter.
Many of them are also carried out in clear violation of the Constitution. One of the main rules in future debates has to be that
any future military intervention needs to be authorized by Congress and consistent with the U.N. Charter's prohibition against the
unauthorized use of force except for self-defense. Very few U.S. interventions since 1989 have met this standard, but it is an extremely
important one. The U.S. wages so many wars of choice because it can, and very few of them have been legal.
Fontaine says near the end of his article:
No grand strategy can be built on the presumption that military intervention is mostly an erroneous activity of yesteryear,
rather than an enduring feature of U.S. foreign policy.
We are having this debate because we all know that military intervention is not an "activity of yesteryear." It is what our government
is doing right now. We are still very far from having a consensus that it is an erroneous one. Military intervention does not have
to be an "enduring feature" of U.S. foreign policy if we were to adopt a grand strategy that makes it a much rarer thing. Fontaine
doesn't want to adopt a strategy of restraint, but he has not made the case that the U.S. would have to keep intervening on a regular
basis if that were our government's strategy. He takes for granted that interventionism is inevitable, and dismisses the possibility
that it could ever be stopped.
Fontaine's article misses the biggest argument against frequent military interventions: the U.S. has no right to bomb and
invade other countries at will. The assumption that the U.S. has the right to use force in other countries whenever it decides to
is wrong in principle, and it is the source of countless policy failures and tremendous human suffering. If we respected the "rules-based
international order" that we claim to support, our government would use force sparingly and only when there were no other alternatives.
That is a "rigid formula" that we should insist on upholding.
"a strategy of restraint "overlooks the interests and values that have prompted U.S. action" in the past."
What a deeply stupid statement. He doesn't seem to understand that "restraint" IS one of America's "interests and values".
Leaving others alone. Minding our own business. Mature recognition of the limits of our power, knowledge, and competence.
"... George W. Bush's presidency wasn't just morally bankrupt. In a superior reality, the Hague would be sorting out whether he is guilty of war crimes. Since our international institutions have failed to punish, or even censure him, surely the only moral response from civil society should be to shun him. But here is Ellen DeGeneres hanging out with him at a Cowboys game: ..."
"... This is what we say to children who don't want to sit next to the class misfit at lunch. It is not -- or at least it should not -- be the way we talk about a man who used his immense power to illegally invade another country where we still have troops 16 years later. His feet should bleed wherever he walks and Iraqis should get to throw shoes at him until the end of his days. ..."
"... DeGeneres isn't a role model for civility. Her friendship with Bush simply embodies the grossest form of class solidarity. From a lofty enough vantage point, perhaps Bush's misdeeds really look like minor partisan differences. Perhaps Iraq seems very far away, and so do the poor of New Orleans, when the stage of your show is the closest you get to anyone without power." ..."
"... There is no reason that anyone should treat George Bush with respect. ..."
"Comedian Ellen DeGeneres loves to tell everyone to be kind. It's a loose word, kindness; on her show, DeGeneres customarily
uses it to mean a generic sort of niceness. Don't bully. Befriend people! It's a charming thought, though it has its limits
as a moral ethic. There are people in the world, after all, whom it is better not to befriend. Consider, for example, the person
of George W. Bush. Tens of thousands of people are dead because his administration lied to the American public about the presence
of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and then, based on that lie, launched a war that's now in its 16th year. After Hurricane
Katrina struck and hundreds of people drowned in New Orleans, Bush twiddled his thumbs for days. Rather than fire the officials
responsible for the government's life-threateningly lackluster response to the crisis, he praised them, before flying over
the scene in Air Force One. He opposed basic human rights for LGBT people, and reproductive rights for women, and did more
to empower the American Christian right than any president since Reagan.
George W. Bush's presidency wasn't just morally bankrupt. In a superior reality, the Hague would be sorting out whether
he is guilty of war crimes. Since our international institutions have failed to punish, or even censure him, surely the only
moral response from civil society should be to shun him. But here is Ellen DeGeneres hanging out with him at a Cowboys game:
And here is Ellen DeGeneres explaining why it's good and normal to share laughs, small talk, and nachos with a man who has
many deaths on his conscience:
Here's the money quote from her apologia:
"We're all different. And I think that we've forgotten that that's okay that we're all different," she told her studio
audience. "When I say be kind to one another, I don't mean be kind to the people who think the same way you do. I mean be
kind to everyone."
This is what we say to children who don't want to sit next to the class misfit at lunch. It is not -- or at least it
should not -- be the way we talk about a man who used his immense power to illegally invade another country where we still
have troops 16 years later. His feet should bleed wherever he walks and Iraqis should get to throw shoes at him until the end
of his days.
Nevertheless, many celebrities and politicians have hailed DeGeneres for her radical civility:
There's almost no point to rebutting anything that Chris Cillizza writes. Whatever he says is inevitably dumb and wrong,
and then I get angry while I think about how much money he gets to be dumb and wrong on a professional basis. But on this occasion,
I'll make an exception. The notion that DeGeneres's friendship with Bush is antithetical to Trumpism fundamentally misconstrues
the force that makes Trump possible. Trump isn't a simple playground bully, he's the president. Americans grant our commanders-in-chief
extraordinary deference once they leave office. They become celebrities, members of an apolitical royal class. This tendency
to separate former presidents from the actions of their office, as if they were merely actors in a stage play, or retired athletes
from a rival team, contributes to the atmosphere of impunity that enabled Trump. If Trump's critics want to make sure that
his cruelties are sins the public and political class alike never tolerate again, our reflexive reverence for the presidency
has to die.
DeGeneres isn't a role model for civility. Her friendship with Bush simply embodies the grossest form of class solidarity.
From a lofty enough vantage point, perhaps Bush's misdeeds really look like minor partisan differences. Perhaps Iraq seems
very far away, and so do the poor of New Orleans, when the stage of your show is the closest you get to anyone without power."
...I am all in favor of Tulsi Gabbard's anti-war stance, but this comment shows me she is too childish to hold any power.
Tulsi Gabbard
Verified account @TulsiGabbard
22h22 hours ago
.@TheEllenShow msg of being kind to ALL is so needed right now. Enough with the divisiveness. We can't let politics tear
us apart. There are things we will disagree on strongly, and things we agree on -- let's treat each other with respect, aloha,
& work together for the people.
There is no reason that anyone should treat George Bush with respect.
"... "Sorry, until George W. Bush is brought to justice for the crimes of the Iraq War, (including American-lead torture, Iraqi deaths & displacement, and the deep scars -- emotional & otherwise -- inflicted on our military that served his folly), we can't even begin to talk about kindness," the actor of Incredible Hulk fame tweeted. ..."
"... While some online were appreciative of the anti-Bush sentiment, many wondered aloud why similar treatment was rarely afforded to Bush's successor, Barack Obama, who is largely given a pass despite pursuing – in some cases escalating – many of the same policies for which Bush is condemned today. ..."
"... From a massive escalation of the Afghan war in 2009, ramping up drone bombings on Pakistan, establishing a secret presidential "kill list" that included American citizens, leading a NATO operation that left Libya in ruin, or arming violent Islamist militants in Syria – Obama still has much to answer for, but is rarely asked to do so. Despite bragging that he'd already bombed seven countries by 2015, liberal celebrities like Ruffalo have had few harsh words for the Nobel Peace Prize winner. ..."
"... *Nobel Peace Drones™ ..."
"... "Mark Ruffalo (correctly) calling out George Bush for being a war criminal, responsible for the displacement and death of millions," ..."
Actor Mark Ruffalo was shredded for double standards after he posted a "callout" tweet
assailing George Bush for the sins of the Iraq War, with many netizens noting his aversion to
slamming Barack Obama's military adventures. Weighing into a controversy kicked off by TV
personality Ellen Degeneres, who came under fire for schmoozing it up with former President
George W. Bush at a football game last weekend, Ruffalo insisted no quarter or kindness should
be offered to perpetrators of heinous war crimes until they face consequences, including
Bush.
"Sorry, until George W. Bush is brought to justice for the crimes of the Iraq War,
(including American-lead torture, Iraqi deaths & displacement, and the deep scars --
emotional & otherwise -- inflicted on our military that served his folly), we can't even
begin to talk about kindness," the actor of Incredible Hulk fame tweeted.
Sorry, until George W. Bush is brought to justice for the crimes of the Iraq War,
(including American-lead torture, Iraqi deaths & displacement, and the deep scars --
emotional & otherwise -- inflicted on our military that served his folly), we can't even
begin to talk about kindness. https://t.co/dpMwfck6su
While some online were appreciative of the anti-Bush sentiment, many wondered aloud why
similar treatment was rarely afforded to Bush's successor, Barack Obama, who is largely given a
pass despite pursuing – in some cases escalating – many of the same policies for
which Bush is condemned today.
Claiming Bush is some monster while worshipping Obama even though they did the same things
abroad🤔
From a massive escalation of the Afghan war in 2009, ramping up drone bombings on Pakistan,
establishing a secret presidential "kill list" that included American citizens, leading
a NATO operation that left Libya in ruin, or arming violent Islamist militants in Syria –
Obama still has much to answer for, but is rarely asked to do so. Despite bragging that he'd
already bombed seven countries by 2015, liberal celebrities like Ruffalo have had few harsh
words for the Nobel Peace Prize winner.
"Woke Twitter, [including] Mark Ruffalo, are selective about call outs," one user
observed, noting the several occasions former first lady Michelle Obama posed affectionately
with Bush without facing a similar wave of outrage from figures like Ruffalo.
People ripping Jameela Jamil and the celebs in these screenshots but it was tumbleweed 101
when Michelle Obama was getting regular sweeties fixes from George W. Bush & going above
and beyond duty in friendly optics. Woke Twitter, incl Mark Ruffalo, are selective about call
outs. pic.twitter.com/snNYZEbAWM
It's funny how Mark Ruffalo can criticize Ellen, who was an actual person affected by
Bush's ignorance, but not a peep about Michelle Obama who admits to having a special
FRIENDSHIP with GW. https://t.co/9UM1BP8GpY
Another commenter seconded Ruffalo's views on Bush, but encouraged the actor to take his
criticism further, applying the same humanitarian standard evenly, regardless of the party in
power.
"Mark Ruffalo (correctly) calling out George Bush for being a war criminal, responsible
for the displacement and death of millions," the user said.
The same is true for Obama. He started 5 wars and displaced even more people than Bush.
However, Obama is a media darling who Mark gushes over.
Mark Ruffalo (correctly) calling out George Bush for being a war criminal, responsible for
the displacement and death of millions
The same is true for Obama. He started 5 wars and displaced even more people than Bush
However, Obama is a media darling who Mark gushes over
100% on Bush. You forgot to add Obama & Clinton though. No reason to root for justice
against one war criminal, while giving a free pass to others. It makes it partisan, rather
than ethical.
Some interesting estimates of the numbers of foreign fighters that participated in the Donbass War
from 2014-2019 from a report [PDF]
by the Soufan Center. (h/t
Kholmogorov)
Kiev-controlled Ukraine served as a destination for would-be murderers seeking impunity for
years. However, inviting foreign scum will help it about as much as it helped ISIS. Maybe
even less: some foreign and domestic ISIS bandits had ideology beyond raping and looting,
Ukrainian bandits in Donbass do not. "True believer" Ukies are in Canada, the US, or far away
from the front in Ukraine itself and studiously avoid getting into real fighting, where they
can be maimed or killed.
In contrast, many volunteers on the side of Donbass freedom fighters do have honest
beliefs and are not cowards avoiding combat. Not all, though: some just look for an
adventure, on the battlefield and in bed.
@Korenchkin If
you go by quintessence of Nazi ideology "my tribe is better than your tribe", every nation
has its Nazis, including Russia.
To its credit, tribal nationalists never got more than ~7% electoral support in
Russia.
After Ukrainian experience showed that any country can be quickly ruined by primeval
tribal nationalism, their support in Russia dropped to below 2%. But it still isn't zero.
Then again, ~1% of any population are schizophrenics, 2-3% are gays/lesbians, etc., so single
digit representation of any kind of deviation is not threatening country's survival.
@Mr. Hack I
asked the questions first, but I'll be generous and explain this to you on the fingers.
1. I used the term "Banderists" in the context of Ukraine's volunteer battalions –
that is, where foreigners have the most realistic chance of getting accepted.
2. Polls show Ukrainians to generally be 50/50 on Bandera, but obviously, that number will be
much higher amongst the rather self-selected sample that are volunteer battalion members. At
least 80%, if not 90%.
3. Poles obviously couldn't care less for Bandera. Polish *nationalists* – even less
so.
4. Nationalists are the likeliest foreigners to participate in the Donbass.
5. Do you now see why this would be a pertinent point to mention in the specific context of
why 10x fewer Poles fight for the Ukraine relative to Georgians, despite having 10x the
population?
I'm not sure if 14 fighters is a big enough sample size to justify lumping Canada into the
dreaded "Russophobe" category. But the 10 pro-Ukrainians to 4 pro-Russians ratio closely
mirrors that of self-declared ethnic Ukrainians (1,359,655) to Russians (622,445) in Canada.
Though many, possibly even a majority of those "Russians" are actually Jews. The Ukrainian
lobby has been disturbingly powerful in Canada for a long time (multiculturalism was their
bright idea), while the Russian lobby is seemingly invisible.
There are signs and symbols of Ukrainian nationalism everywhere (banks, festivals, flags,
bumper stickers etc), while similar Russian symbols are basically non-existent. The Uke to
Russkie ratio may be only 10-4, but it feels more like 10-1, or even 100-1.
I expected more Russians from the Baltics. Apparently, they and Serbs were early arrivals in
Girkin's group. Perhaps the ethnic Russians were counted as Russian?
Quite a few White Russians emigrated to France. The Whites were well supported by ethnic
Russians in the Donbass during the Civil War.
Many Irish Nationalist commentators supported Russia (enemy's enemy) but the table shows
Ireland Pro Ukraine (anti-imperialist a stronger driver?). The Russian settlers in the
Donbass are such an obvious parallel to the Orangemen.
1. Chechens would be the obvious answer. I recall reading there were 2x as many Chechens
fighting for Ukrainians than for Russians.
2. Svidomy Ukrainians in Russia.
3. And, as mentioned, Neo-Nazis and White Nationalists (~60%-70% on Ukraine's side, at
least initially). The other brands of Russian nationalists were overwhelmingly
pro-Russian.
@AnonFromTN
More foreign "scum" on Donbas side than Ukrainian side. As one would expect. It's not all bad
however, Donbas should be kept apart from Ukraine.
"True believer" Ukies are in Canada, the US, or far away from the front in Ukraine
itself and studiously avoid getting into real fighting, where they can be maimed or
killed.
Ukrainian-American Paslawsky fought and died in the war.
A graduate of the U.S. Military Academy and the only American known to have fought
alongside Ukrainian forces against pro-Russian separatists has been killed in eastern
Ukraine.
Mark Gregory Paslawsky, 55, died while fighting with the volunteer Donbas Battalion.
Paslawsky, who fought under the nom de guerre "Franko," was killed on August 19 during
fighting in the town of Ilovaysk, near the Ukrainian city of Donetsk, according to a Facebook
post by Ukrainian Interior Ministry adviser Anton Herashchenko.
Paslawsky was born in 1959 in New York and grew up in a tight-knit Ukrainian-American
family in New Jersey. He moved to Ukraine around two decades ago and informed his family
earlier this year that he planned to volunteer for the Ukrainian Army, according to his
brother, Nestor Paslawsky.
::::::::::::::
The American fighting for Donbas, "Cowb0y", meanwhile was some sort of petty criminal in
the USA. Like Motorola in Russia, of course.
@Philip Owen
Well the Serbs played a major role in the defence of the territory that is today the Donbas
(not particularly well known among modern Russians). So Serbian nationalists have an extra
cause in regards to the Donbas
Slavo-Serbia or Slaveno-Serbia, was a territory of Imperial Russia between 1753-64. It was
located by the right bank of the Donets River between the Bakhmutka River
(Бахмут) and Luhan
(Лугань) rivers. This area today constitutes the
territories of present-day Luhansk Oblast and Donetsk Oblast of Ukraine. The
administrative centre of Slavo-Serbia was Bakhmut (Bahmut).
In contrast, many volunteers on the side of Donbass freedom fighters do have honest
beliefs and are not cowards avoiding combat. Not all, though: some just look for an
adventure
Not mutually exclusive. If you feel that you're leading a meaningless life and you are
looking for adventure, something radically different from a cubicle job or whatever, might as
well do something like join a war where you get to defend innocent people.
Considering ex ISIS fighters are often left to go free and claim benefits it was interesting
to see the fate of the fella who went to the Donbass and didn't even fight.
@anonymous
coward So was South Africa but didn't stop there being close ties between loyalists and
the apartheid government, a few Ulstermen were in the the government and there was the shared
settler Calvinist outlook. The IRA had quite close links to Croats, don't know if loyalists
had the same with Serbs. MP Ian Paisley junior is somewhat of a Russophile.
@SveVid This is
all true, but all those people are completely and utterly assimilated into Ukrainians /
Russians and have been for much longer than living memory. Most people in Serbia (except
history nerds etc) have no idea about this history. A much more plausible explanation for
Serbs going to fight in the Donbass would make some reference to Russian (and also Greek btw)
volunteer units fighting with the Serbs in the 1990s and contacts established during that
time.
@Anatoly Karlin
Mazepa is way up there and he joined the early 17th century Swedish invasion of Russia that
ended with the defeat at Poltava. That effectively ended Sweden as a great power. Seems like
Ukrainians have a thing for worshipping losers allied with anyone west of them, so there is
some hope for Porky's eventual rehabilitation.
Carl Bildt's ancestors were there in high stockings among the vanquished at Poltava
– the Bildts never forgave the humiliation, those Swedes can be sneaky. That explains
the persistent anti-Russian attitudes among the Nordics. Swedes also tend to be
simple-minded, nobody swallows the current globo-homo propaganda as eagerly or looks for
Russian submarines hiding behind every whale.
By and large Austria and Croatia are the only surprises – here, the history of the last
century is a bit complicated. "Altösterreicher" is a popular euphemism for "Galician
Jew" i.e. the current Kiew regime. The Croats are more probably channeling their recent
hatred for the Serbs. [Not really] funny what the separation of East and West Rome is still
doing to a people.
"'You can assume that these terrorists are fighting for Israel. If they aren't part of the
regular Israeli army, they're fighting for Israel. Israel has common goals with Turkey, the
United States, France, Britain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other countries,' Assad was quoted by
Ynet" – https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4946010,00.html
it's quite amazing that nothing similar happened only two decades later in WWII
Oh it did, we just changed the target race to the Japanese, as like Dan states, the German
race had been sufficiently castigated in the previous war, never to recover.
Our Supreme Allied Commander was said to have been of Jewish German descent
(((Eisenhauer))).
And yes, we know with which blood line he sided with.
Just one item about the Statue of Liberty. Its association with Emma Lazarus' later ode to
immigration has eclipsed the original meaning of the great monument. French sculptor
Bartholdi named his creation "Goddess Liberty enlightening the world." He conceived the idea
for the statue on July Fourth 1865 to commemorate the suppression of the slaveholder
insurrection two months earlier; Lazarus' poem was not added until1903. Bartholdi proposed to
give the statue to the people of America as an enduring monument to their successful struggle
to preserve the world's sole experiment in republican self-government.
Americans of 1865 understood it was their responsibility to maintain the free institutions
of their republic as an example to the world, not to function as an asylum for its poor and
downtrodden. It was the world's peoples' task to fight free government in their own
homelands, not to relocate to ours. While Europe's despots cheered the collapse of America's
first republic in 1861, there was an immense outpouring of support among the common folk for
the Union and the hope for democracy in their own nations that it inspired. Mindful of the
1848 republican revolutions that convulsed the Old Word, British and European rulers dared
not endorse the Confederate oligarchy, lest they trigger a new round of class warfare in
their own restive kingdoms.
Mass immigration of non-English speaking people was allowed for the first time in the
corrupt laissez-faire Gilded Age that followed the Civil War because the victorious northern
capitalists needed vast supplies of cheap labor to do the hard manual and industrial work
that Americans did not wish to do, having fought a costly war to abolish the most grotesque
form of exploitation of labor, and which four million ex-slaves could no longer be compelled
to do without wages.
It seems that Karl Muck wasn't the only musician arrested and interned as an emery alien
during WW I. Another conductor, Ernst Kunwald of the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra was also
arrested.
In fact so many other musicians were arrested that Karl Muck was able to conduct a full
symphony orchestra when he made his last performance at the Interment camp at Fort Oglethorpe
, Georgia
It is highly likely that those musicians were denounced by their artistic rivals in order
to gain advancement
Curious that so far no one has mentioned just how magnificent a conductor actually Muck was.
His version of Parsifal, available on CD from I think Naxos is a supreme revelation of the
difference between a good conductor like, say, Karajan, and a sublimely great one like Muc...
It seems that Burrage initially approached this project with only a superficial
understanding of her subject matter. The subtitle of her work is Classical Music and
Xenophobia in World War I America . The dust jacket blurb tips her hand even more (or, more
likely, that of her publishers):
One of the cherished narratives of American history is that of the Statue of Liberty
welcoming immigrants to it shores. Accounts of the exclusion and exploitation of Chinese
immigrants in the late nineteenth century and Japanese internment during World War II tell a
darker story of American immigration. Less well known, however, is the treatment of
German-Americans and German nationals in the United States during World War I. Initially
accepted and even welcomed into American society, at the outbreak of the war this group would
face rampant intolerance and anti-German hysteria.
From such vain moral posturing, one can conclude that this book will amount to yet another
blunt instrument with which the Left can pummel supporters of President Trump for wishing to
build a wall on the Mexican border and limit non-white immigration. If we can shame people for
past xenophobia, according to this strategy, perhaps we can conquer xenophobia today and allow
the huddled masses of future Democrats to keep streaming into America. (Stephen Jay Gould
attempted a similar kind of history-shaming – only with psychometrics – in his
thoroughly debunkedThe Mismeasure of Man. )
Burrage hits a snag, however, when she reveals Muck's true character. He was the most
celebrated conductor in America at the time. Under his leadership, the BSO became the nation's
leading orchestra, which aided greatly in keeping Boston at the forefront of American high
society and culture. Affable, charismatic, and cultured, Muck was extremely popular in Boston,
and, shortly after arriving at the behest of financier and BSO founder Henry Lee Higginson in
1906, became a de facto member of Boston's aristocracy.
This aristocracy was so famous, it had a name: the Boston Brahmins . Boston was also home
to a very large German population and was ground zero for Germanophilia in New England. German
businesses, German newspapers, German food, and German culture were highly visible in Beantown
in the early twentieth century. Of course, everybody loved German classical music, which Muck
was all too happy to provide.
Higginson was Muck's biggest booster, despite not being German himself. They were close
friends who had much in common, culturally and ideologically. Both were highly aristocratic and
conservative. Higginson had spent many years in Germany and Austria in his youth studying
piano, and was fluent in German. In a peculiar coincidence, both men had similar scars on their
right cheeks. Muck received his from a fencing duel in his youth, and Higginson from a
Confederate saber during the Civil War.
But who was Karl Muck? He was a highly educated man of world-class talent who was proud of
his German roots, possessed nationalistic sympathies for his nation of birth, and held the
realistic opinions on race which were common in his day. This was, after all, the heyday of
writers such as Madison Grant, Lothrop Stoddard, and Henry Adams. Race realism, as well as
cultural chauvinism and a healthy support for eugenics, were de rigueur in educated
circles back then. And this included a relatively mild form of anti-Semitism among the
still-strong WASP elites:
[Muck's] racial views also affected his actions and judgment. When composer Ernest Bloch
presented his Three Jewish Poems for inclusion on the Boston Symphony program, Muck
was reluctant to debut the work if Bloch did not change the title. Bloch supposedly
responded, "Dr. M[uck] you speak exactly like my Jewish friends, who advised me to change the
title for obvious reasons." Bloch defended the title of his piece, to which Muck replied, "If
there were more Jews like you, there would be less anti-Semitism."
Higginson was worse in this regard – or better, depending on your perspective. He
supported immigration restriction in order to keep undesirables out of America and was a race
patriot almost as much as he was an American patriot. He was a leading member of the Immigrant
Restriction League, and was well ensconced in the national power circles of the day, being
cousins with fellow immigration hawk Senator Henry Cabot Lodge . Higginson used his
contacts in government to bust musician's unions. He also wrangled with Jewish attorney and
future Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis , who sought to curtail
Higginson's various business interests in the name of trust-busting. And this, according to
Burrage, informed Higginson's negative opinions of Jews.
Not surprisingly, Burrage considers Higginson's racial views "flawed," and then describes
Higginson and the Immigrant Restriction League like so:
The league also used pseudo-scientific dogma to divide European white men into
biological categories, classifying eastern Europeans into the most inferior type to justify
their arguments. Its view of nationalism was built on an "ideology of kinship to enthrone
their own tribe and oppress others." It justified discrimination, arguing that America
could "improve its race" by selecting immigrants based on "appropriate national origins." The
league was influenced by eugenicist Madison Grant, who wrote The Passing of the
Great Race (1916), which promoted a theory of "Nordic" racial supremacy and advocated the
separation or removal of all "worthless" and "unfit" types. It was inspired by scientist
Robert DeCourcy Ward, who publicized his view that "science decrees restrictions on the new
immigration for the conservation of the 'American race."' Higginson's father-in-law, Harvard
professor Louis Agassiz, was a prolific writer and teacher on the topic of
scientific racism, believing that races were distinct and unequal and could be
classified based on climatic zones. Boston's upper classes feared that foreigners would
replace their own native stock, and they worried about "biological defeat." Immigration
restriction was a "phase of national defense" against "the strange invaders who seemed so
grave a threat to their class, their region, their country, and their race."
After stepping back from this and having a cigarette, I believe most of us on the Dissident
Right will conclude that we were all born a century and a half too late.
Getting over that, there is so much to unpack here, one hardly knows where to begin. Yes,
there's the stunned respect we all must have for this Higginson fellow, who was related to both
Henry Cabot Lodge and Louis Agassiz (whom Gould heartily denounced in Mismeasure
), and who was able to speak in defense of white, ethnocentric interests so candidly. The
Boston Brahmins had every reason to worry about biological defeat; we're entering the jaws of
that defeat today. Also, this passage should be met with some sadness regarding the hidebound
chauvinism whites used to have toward other whites. This attitude will have to be discarded
entirely for whites to have enough solidarity to thrive in the next century.
Most apropos to The Karl Muck Scandal , however, is how Burrage attempts to paint
Karl Muck as the victim of xenophobia. Of course, he was. He was a perfectly innocent
man when federal authorities arrested and incarcerated him in March 1918. But Muck and
Higginson were Dissident Rightists back when the not-so-Dissident Right ruled the roost in
America. So Burrage is in effect going to bat for someone on the Right in order to strike a
blow for the Left. How's that for irony?
The story undergoes a few more twists before completely unraveling. If there is a villain in
this book, it is New York socialite Mrs. William (Lucie) Jay, who really didn't like Germans.
Jay, whose deceased husband was descended from early American statesman John Jay, tirelessly
lobbied for Muck's dismissal from the BSO all throughout the war. Muck hired too many German
musicians, or he played too much German music, according to her. The woman organized committees
to ban all German music. She tried to prevent the BSO from playing in New York. She spread
false rumors about Muck in order to discredit him. She hurled insults at him as often as
possible. She called for boycotts. She accused him of supporting the German military effort.
She also (ahem) muck -raked his life, searching for sexual impropriety. As anti-German
feeling in America grew more and more intense, Jay's attacks on Muck grew more and more
strident.
Here she is at her hysterical best:
Rather a thousand times that the orchestral traditions fade from our lives than one hour
be added to the war's duration by clinging to this last tentacle of the German octopus!
Then there was the "Star-Spangled Banner" non-scandal which got the attention of the entire
country. In October 1917, the BSO had received numerous requests to play the "Star-Spangled
Banner" before a concert in Providence, Rhode Island. Since it was late and the programs had
already been printed, Higginson decided to ignore the requests. The song hadn't yet become the
national anthem (which wouldn't happen until 1931) and didn't quite fit in with the pieces the
BSO was slated to play that evening, anyway. Of course, Higginson didn't bother to tell Muck
about this, and allowed the oblivious maestro to conduct a concert free of star-spangled
banners.
In an astonishingly brazen instance of "fake news," John Rathom, the editor of the
Providence Journal, then accused Muck of deliberately refusing to play the patriotic
anthem because of his German sympathies. Not only did this story later appear in newspapers all
across the country, but Rathom kept the momentum going with even more accusations:
The zealous newspaperman spread reports among his readership that Muck was pro-German and
a friend of Kaiser Wilhelm. Rathom distorted the facts, claiming to uncover foreign espionage
plots that were later revealed to be fraudulent. Once such plot suggested that Muck intended
to destroy American munitions factories. On November 21, 1917, the New York Times
reported that Rathom "thrilled and enthused" seven hundred members of the Pilgrim Publicity
Association at the Boston City Club with a story of "German spies in Boston" outlining his
great campaign against them.
This damaged Muck's reputation overnight, and Lucie Jay later used it relentlessly to incite
violent hatred against him. (Burrage speculates that Jay and Rathom colluded in Muck's
character assassination, but no one knows for sure.) Thousands of influential Americans were
now onboard Lucie Jay's muck-up-Muck train. People were calling for the conductor's
assassination, internment, or deportation. Crowds as far away as Baltimore were chanting "Kill
Muck! Kill Muck!" It got so bad that the authorities had to step in to determine if Muck was
indeed a dangerous enemy alien. In all cases, they found no evidence of wrongdoing – but
not for lack of trying. Some investigators feared that Muck was putting coded messages in his
musical scores. Others theorized that he kept a disassembled radio transmitter in his Maine
summer house with which he signaled German U-boats. (The apparatus belonged to the landlord,
and was unbeknownst to Muck.)
Regardless, we should remember that this was a period when the American war machine was
churning out absolutely vicious anti-German
propaganda – and the people were beginning to believe it and take part in the
suppression of all things German. Violence against German-Americans became quite common during
this time. So these false accusations from Jay and Rathom threatened to have deadly
consequences.
A First World War-era anti-German propaganda poster A German-American after
being whipped, tarred, and feathered in August 1918
Despite her hypermodern moral posturing, Burrage does provide useful scholarship. Most
notable in The Karl Muck Scandal is her well-researched contention that Lucie Jay was
not all that she was cracked up to be. Jay may indeed have been an American patriot. She may
also have been as anti-German as advertised. But her real motivations behind ruining Karl
Muck's life were far pettier. She was on the Board of Directors of the New York Philharmonic
(NYP), and was jealous of the BSO's star conductor. Other than the brief period from 1909 to
1911, when Gustav Mahler waved their baton, the Knickerbockers really did play second fiddle to
the Celtics back then – and that bothered a lot of wealthy and powerful people in Gotham.
Taking out the NYP's top rival in the most literal sense became Lucie Jay's idée
fixe throughout the wa,r and ultimately made her the Tonya Harding of classical music.
Burrage reveals another reason for Jay's hatred for Muck, and this one's even pettier. Yeah,
it was all about money:
Jay had even deeper motives for her persistent attacks on the Boston Symphony that cut to
the heart of her own economic security. In September of 1906, her brother Hermann had passed
away. Estranged from his wife, much of his estate was bequeathed to Mrs. Jay and her brother
Charles. Mrs. Jay acquired a large share in the North German Lloyd Steamship Line and
presumably railroad stocks from the Vanderbilt interests as well. It made logical sense to
support her family's interests and further their progress within the United States, which was
threatened, as we shall see, by political forces directly related to the BSO.
And what were these political forces? None other than Henry Lee Higginson and his powerful
anti-immigration allies in government. Since the 1880s, millions of immigrants, many of whom
were Eastern European Jews, had been streaming into America from Europe on steamships, making
Mrs. William Jay and her family richer and richer by the mile. Immigration was Mrs. Jay's bagel
and cream cheese, as it were, and Higginson with all his race realism and polite anti-Semitism
was threatening to spoil the bar mitzvah. That's basically it. So, let's now appreciate another
level of irony in which Burrage is forced to cast a pro-immigration harpy like Jay as the
villain in a drama that's ostensibly pro-immigration.
Unbelievable as it sounds, there's even more irony to this story. Lucie Jay, as it turns
out, was herself German! Her maiden name was Oelrich – a fact she obscured beneath her
husband's time-honored and quite Anglo last name. It seems to me that the obsession behind
Jay's Muck-hate was a form of ethnocentrism in reverse, the kind of contempt born only from
familiarity. I can't prove this, but it seems to be the prime motivator here. America was
pulled into a war with Germany, and Jay felt especially betrayed by her own people whenever
they expressed sympathy for the enemy. And in Muck's case, this was at least half-true. Before
America's entry into the war, he had actively supported his homeland and was on excellent terms
with the German ambassador in Washington. He also never applied for American citizenship and
never denounced Germany. For a person like Lucie Jay, who wanted to erase or hide everything
about her that was German, what Karl Muck did (and did not do) must have seemed like
treason.
The story could have ended here. Worn down by years of slander, libel, hostility, and death
threats, Karl Muck and his wife Anita decided to leave for Germany. He resigned from the BSO in
March 1918 and was preparing to depart when he was hit with the bombshell news that the
Massachusetts District Attorney would not let him leave. Apparently, the DA was intrigued by
Lucie Jay's previous unproven accusations of sexual impropriety, and felt that Muck may have a
skeleton rattling around in his closet after all. And after a thorough investigation by the
Bureau of Investigation (BOI), they found it. Muck had been having an affair with a 22-year-old
mezzo-soprano named Rosamond Young.
This wasn't a mere summer fling; he was madly in love with her, so much so that he wrote her
love letters and promised to divorce his wife for her. Yes, he was a married man in his late
50s. Yes, under normal circumstances, this would be quite the scandal. But it hardly amounts to
law-breaking. Yet the BOI and powerful anti-German elements in the federal government –
especially hardline Attorney General and rabid Hun-hater A. Mitchell Palmer – were
determined to make it so. And under what contrived pretenses did they finally nab Muck?
Well, Muck (kind of) violated the Comstock Act of 1873 , which forbade sending
anything obscene or immoral by US Mail. Apparently, sappy quotes such as this qualified as
"obscene":
But can't you see, my darling, how much harder it is for me to renounce the love that grew
between us so sublimely? Must we, for the sake of foolish sentiments that are imposed on us
by others, foreswear the love that is divine and inexpressible by common language? No, a
thousand times, no! You are mine and I am your slave and so I must remain.
He also (sort of) violated the Mann White Slavery Act of 1910 , which prohibited
transporting women or girls across state lines "for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery,
or for any other immoral purpose." Muck had apparently "abducted" Young every time he traveled
with her out of state with the BSO to perform.
Such flimsy reasons to arrest a man may seem ridiculous today, but they were deadly serious
back then. Yes, the US government needed to keep a lid on the immoral behavior of its citizens
(if only it would do so today!), and yes, white slavery was quite the menace back then.
However, Karl Muck's arrest clearly amounted to abuse.
And the abuse did not end there. American authorities then blackmailed Muck into
being interned as an enemy alien at Fort Oglethorpe in Georgia in return for their keeping
quiet about his affair with Young. It was either that or going public and trying him as a
sexual deviant in a Boston court – a humiliation that would ruin him, Young, and Anita
regardless of the trial's outcome. Honorable gentleman that he was, Muck "was only too proud to
shoulder" the burden of internment, and opted for the extended vacation in Georgia. He stayed
there for a year and a half.
Then, while Muck was serving time behind barbed wire and machine guns in the sweltering
Georgia heat, the US government reneged on its promise and allowed the Boston press to
publicize his affair and his love letters to Young anyway. This caused nearly all of
what remained of Muck's fan base to abandon him. The Boston Brahmins did so as well, likely
because distancing themselves from Muck would keep the heat off their own sexual indiscretions,
of which, according to Burrage, there were many. Unfortunately, Higginson was counted among
this number – although in his case he seemed to be acting more out of wartime American
patriotism than sexual hypocrisy.
If this weren't enough, the US authorities then stole all of Muck's assets. When they
finally deported him nine months after the war, he went back to Germany flat broke.
Given the vitriolic hatred of Germans in WWI, it's quite amazing that nothing similar
happened only two decades later in WWII. Best demonstrated by the family name of the #1
General of the Allied forces in Europe.
The remnants of America's still virulent World War I germanophobia had taken its toll. By
World War II it had essentially totally eviscerated German-American culture and political
strength. A job well-done by the Anglo-American establishment!
This short documentary mentions German-American persecution during World War I, and the
massive numbers of draft dodgers. It also notes problems with the British royals German
roots, including the fact the Kaiser was a first cousin and buddy of the King of England.
Most Americans don't realize that Anglo-Saxons were Germans who immigrated to England!
"... This is a profound and sound thesis, i.e., the Power Elites could encourage universal suffrage and not feel it threatened, significantly, their long term interests or direction. The "Masses", that undifferentiated formless and shapeless blob-like gelatinous mass, could simply be "Nudged" and fudged and snockered to vote against their own interests based on generated fantasy, lies. agitprop, propaganda, and easily subverted Christianity-thoroughl made into a double agent. ..."
"... They are a kind of unlanded gentry, or a bankster oligarchy if you will. The "capitalist class" is really a pseudo-capitalist, Cultural Marxist, corruption-dependent, chosen class. ..."
"... YES – Trump is an insufferable jerk – but clearly, they are the ones being dishonest. Russiagate was a hoax – Ukrainegate is a gross exaggeration of a problem. ..."
"... This is as it's going to get before the country breaks apart. Overall, I don't regret voting for Trump, but there is not a lot of swamp draining going on. ..."
Tell me something about liberal hatred and plans I don't know.
Trump is not ridiculous. He looks good for his age. Compare him to that withered crone
actor de Niro.Or the hideous Lyndon Johnson. Or lardass big bellied cucumber nose WC Field
face Bill Clinton. whoever said a president has to be good looking?
NYC has been corrupt since it was a Dutch Colony and pirate's flea market to rival Port
Royal in Jamaica. NYC Real estate? Founding fathers Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr and
others were NYC real estate speculators 230 years ago. Construction may have been reasonably
honest in NYC at some point but that ended when immigrants from 2 countries took over the
construction business long before Trump and his parents were born. Construction and real
estate is a tough business as I know well. The Trumps waded in to the toughest town in the
country fought the good fight and beat the crooks at their own game.
I can't wait till Trump wins again to see the liberals heads totally explode. I was in a
joyous mood all November and December 2016 as I saw the angst and despair of the liberals
The liberals hate me and mine as much as they hate Trump.
I suppose the author is trying to say Trump and the liberals are both bad. Trump used too
much gold in his apartment in Trump tower. Well, I suppose if you're an IKEA person you're
not used to anything else
He'll have to find something other than Trump is a repulsive clown to convince me.
@animalogic
i agree with you .. the oligarchs are just fine.. they have N. Korea wondering what to do
next, the situation in Iraq is Kurds have generated total Chaos in Iraq. the situation in
Syria in Idib has the Terrorist hiding behind the Syrians trapped there, so it is a stand off
for now, and Erdergodan has abandoned the USA as a partner in N. Syria and will move
independently into Syria to establish the 20 mile wide buffer zone in order to separate Kurds
from Turks, Iraq just wiped out the Kurd radio and tv stations, and Sissi in Egypt has been
exposed in corruption so the masses in the streets demanding his demise, the situation in
France is yellow jackets on the rise, the situation in Hong Kong is shoot the protesters,
China has given the high sign and is preparing for war, Israel can't find an honest leader,
Russia and Iran have teamed to avoid the USA dollar Hegemony..and Iran is setting higher and
better than ever and Briton is about to leave the UK and the EU and the USA is infighting to
impeach its President.
but what I see coming is not another American revolution instead I see a worldwide
revolution developing the masses against the corrupt nation state system and all its bankers,
corporatist and politicians. The elites have been using the Nation state system, and
privately owned media, to organize their crimes and to further their corrupt profits and to
deny everyone, everywhere their human rights. and that denial is about to come home to rest.
Americans are far behind the rest of the world in understanding but soon, I believe, they too
will catch up..
I believe we are about to see humanity take on the powers that be. everywhere all at once.
The war cry is going to be no more corruption, no more nation states, no more top down
governance.. and the result is going to be chaos for the bankers, the corporations and the
people that depend on the rule of law and bureaucracies for their protection.. Cause I don't
think there is going to be any protection for them.
@Laurent
Guyénot LOL. Donald Obama Trump belongs to the swamp. Only the zombie voting class
can't see that. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that the voting class consists of
100% deluded zombies who believe they personally can influence the creatures who own and rule
them.
Doing what is needed to avoid fighting/dying in yet another "bankster's" war is hardly
cowardly, in fact it is the only moral and brave thing to do. Wars for the sake of empires
are not only immoral, they are illegal.
I don't know how old you are but that realization only took place in the population
because of the Vietnam war ..not before it.
The military allowed for pacifist who objected to killing anyone as medics or supply
jobs.
This guy made clear he ran not because he objected to war on a moral basis but because he was
afraid of getting his little self hurt.
There IS a difference.
@French
Pronografer You ain't kidding! Does anyone remember the Don(ald) was hobnobing with the
Clintons? He was writing checks to their reelection campaigns and they had been guests at his
last wedding. The zombies are getting scarier
Many insightful comments to think about, but the most practical one was to be ready when the
"SHTF." (I love that initialism. The precursor to GTFO). Graham Greene wrote that every man's
life has a turning point; but that most men do not recognize it at the time. Societies, I
think, are the same. The challenge is to recognize the SHTF/GTFO/RuralTown point in a timely
fashion.
@Ash
Williams Q: "Do you seriously believe that the people coming out of 'higher education'
today with basket weaving degrees can compete with the Chinese that major in STEM?"
A: "You mean the IP spies they send to the USA? I think that's being addressed."
Regardless of how STEM-educated the Chinese really are, and regardless of whether they
stole or invented their high tech, their high tech manufacturing capabilities appear to have
already outpaced those of the USA. They quickly build giant automated factories making very
sophisticated and high quality gear at low cost, and seem to have few problems finding
employees to operate them. They are quite agile and advanced. I doubt that they have
hindrances like unions, drug-addiction, high labor cost, and stifling regulations on the same
scale that the USA does. Probably about 20% of USA working-age citizens are basically
ineducable.
@RoatanBill
". Do you also attend some religious institution to pray to some space man? "
Hey Bill, l enjoy your comments but you ought to show a little decency towards certain
aspects of this so- called "life" and the faith and INSPIRATIONAL aspects that give some of
us the courage and energy to FIGHT on here on the front lines.. for what is OURS. What WE
built.
To pot shot from the side-lines in Roatan, is kinda dirty pool, eh?
This is a profound and sound thesis, i.e., the Power Elites could encourage universal suffrage
and not feel it threatened, significantly, their long term interests or direction. The
"Masses", that undifferentiated formless and shapeless blob-like gelatinous mass, could
simply be "Nudged" and fudged and snockered to vote against their own interests based on
generated fantasy, lies. agitprop, propaganda, and easily subverted Christianity-thoroughl
made into a double agent.
Hmmm. We are approaching an existence resembling that of The Matrix-which was non-fiction
fiction.
Let me offer you democratarians some succor. The Republic is in good hands, by the
populace, so shall ye know the country:
@SafeNow
When the Dems take over they will do the opposite of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot who forced
people into the countryside. The current elites hate the rural life and those that own small
farms. Absolutely hate them. The Dems will install heavy carbon, meat and ammunition taxes
among others forcing what is left of meth infested rural white America into the cesspools
that are our cities. Really I don't see any way out of this mess we've got ourselves in. You
think people are going to stand up and fight knowing the heavy counter force that will come
their way swiftly and savagely? The time to roll this lunacy back was in the 70s and 80s.
I'm
a YM 1955. Lived through it all my man. By the grace of God the Vietnam war ended the year I
graduated high school and I did not have to face the decision of submitting to a governments
edict that I must "go and do my patriotic chore" or saying f*ck it and disrupting my life up
to that point and knowing it could never, ever be the same.
You keyboard commando's talk shit, because it is cheap. How many of you have ever received
a letter from uncle sugar which started out with the words "Greeting"? By the way, after
5o,000 KIA's and many more WIA's, what was actually achieved by the Vietnam war? My
chonies(google it) are now made in Vietnam. Please tell me why this could not have been hashed
out in a trade deal, without all the death and destruction.
@Stonehands
Congratulations – you're the first person I'm aware of that figured out what my screen
name signifies.
To me, religion and gov't are the two worst inventions of mankind with religion being the
precursor that led to gov't. Once you can convince people of some god, it's not a far stretch
to convince them they absolutely need a leader. Both institutions are anti freedom and
detrimental to the worlds people.
Throne and alter were twins–two vultures from the same egg.
To attack the king was treason; to dispute the priest, blasphemy.
The sword and cross were allies.
Together they attacked the rights of men; they defended each other.
The king owned the bodies of men, the priests the souls.
One lived on taxes collected by force, the other on alms collected by fear.
Both robbers, both beggars.
The king made laws, the priest made creeds.
With bowed backs the people carried the burdens of one, with open-mouthed wonder received the
dogmas of the other.
The king said rags and hovels for you, robes and palaces for me.
The priest said God made you ignorant and immoral; He made me holy and wise; you are the
sheep, I am the shepherd; your fleeces belong to me.
You must not reason, you must not contradict, you must believe.
Robert G. Ingersoll
My only gripe would be referring to the Western power class as "capitalist" (a common, minor
complaint here in the comments section of this article).
Granted, there is a thin veneer of capitalism coating the ugly visage of the globalist power
class, but scratch the surface and you discover something else altogether.
Western elites do not live by the rules & strictures of the free market. They are a kind of unlanded gentry, or a bankster oligarchy if you will.
The "capitalist class" is really a pseudo-capitalist, Cultural Marxist, corruption-dependent,
chosen class.
The homeless & the powerless know capitalism.
The powerful & rich here in the West know only that their financial missteps must be
& will be socialized, & insured by the dwindling wealth of the angry but impotent
masses.
@renfro Now
students, let us go over the history of American warfare.
Revolution;
organized by the wealthiest people in the colonies who borrowed 13 billion in French money
to pay for it all. This included our first gold deposits for our treasury. As per usual, most
of the money stayed in France to pay for armaments soldiers and ships to get it all to
America.
After the war, Hamilton and the rest of the founders decided they weren't going to tax
themselves to pay for the war, build the Capitol and support the new government.
So Hamilton sec treasury decided to tax the frontier hillbillies redneck deplorables who'd
done most of the fighting on their only transportable cash crop whiskey. The deplorables
rebelled. Washington led a bigger army against veterans of the revolutionary war than he ever
did against the British. The leaders of the whiskey rebellion were hanged. By the way, we
never did pay France back
Civil War; 750,000 White men in the prime of life killed so as to leash on the scale of the Black Plague. Side effect
100 years of poverty for the south
Spanish American War;
ostensibly to free Cubans from Spain so they could have a wonderful democracy. Lots of
American men killed and crippled. Real purpose, to grab Manila Harbor and the Philippines for
a forward base to harass east Asia. Side effect, burdened with Puerto Rico and Rican
immigrants.
WW1;
conned into it by Britain that needed our help to destroy its major economic competition
Germany and Jews who wanted to invade Palestine using the British army. Lots of American men
killed and crippled
WW2.;
more of the same. Side effects communists swallowed up China east and Central Europe and
fomented revolution and death all over the world. Jews became supreme rulers of the west due
to their martyrdom during the war.
Korea;
A lot of American men killed and crippled for no good reason. Side effect, best guarded
border in the world. Unlike the borders of America which are essentially unguarded
Vietnam;
Caused by Cold War egomania of Kennedy and Johnson. A lot of American men Killed and
crippled for no good reason. We lost Side effect all S Vietnamese classified as refugees for
admission to America Set a very very very very bad precedent.
Late 1990s Balkan War;
America fought with the bad guys Muslim Albanians and Bosnians against the good guys
Christian Culture Serbs and Croats.
1990 to eternity war;
Killing and bombing Middle East so Israel won't have to fight its own wars. Lots of
American soldiers lots of civilians killed and crippled for no good reason. Side effect
Zionist jews in Pentagon steal billions of dollars and vast amounts of armaments. Loot
presumably sent to Israel.
Oldie but goodie
Q. What's the battle song of the Israeli army?
A. Onward Christian Soldiers
Off topic, that Batman movie with Danny de Vito and Christopher Walken's on TV.
@Ash
Williams Interesting observations about China and Russia. They seems to prefer a
multi-polar world based on co–operation and being "left alone". In my view they would
probably also co-operate with the Anglo-Zionists if they were not such warmongers intent on
global hegemony. I think Trump wants to cooperate with Russia but the MIC globalists will not
let him.
@Anon Sorry
to be a spoil sport and a doom monger. I really wish I could say that there were good guys. I
always used to think of Israel (and the US and UK) as the "good guys" but then I woke up.
There are no good guys. Nations operate out of self-interest. Empires struggle for supremacy.
They have all done bad things. Might is right.
Where does this leave us? We must seek out like minded Christians and like minded people
who will resist the coming evil. We are all asked to repent and to preach about the coming
judgement. If the Apocalypse is anything to go by then "overcoming the world" actually means
resisting until death. I am sorry. Bad times ahead. Keep the faith try and be kind don't back
down from standing up for the truth.
Perhaps the monetary answer to the banksters' usury has been tried before. And because it was
so successful the banksters declared war on this simple yet principled system of monetary
discipline and demonized its leader–unlike any other person before and since
(specifically so this system would not catch on and put the banksters out of usurious
money-lending practices).
What if most of everything we were told–especially about history–was an
outright lie, fabrication, "enhancement", distortion or embellishment? What if you could
investigate for yourselves and confirm this fable was organized? If so, then it must be by
way of reason to have been intentional! We are not talking about pieces here or there, but
wholesale chunks inverted and presented by corrupt "officials" as sacrosanct history based on
"research". No, ladies and gentlemen, these are no more than propaganda talking points made
to keep you in your place: devoid of the truth, distracted from an en-devour thereof, or
coerced into silence or taken out if all else failed.
The awakening is here and now in our lifetimes; what remains is our effort to commit .
time for a reprogramming course indeed .
Hitler, more than an other politician since then, cared more about his people than
imaginable. For example, he used non-inflationary government created and issued Labor
Treasury Certificates to fund Germany from the poorest country in Europe to the richest in
five years. This made the bankers (Judea) declare on Germany. This simple approach to money
(money is not an intrinsic value rather it is a "measure" of value much like a measuring cup
that measures commodities like sugar, flour, grain, etc.) could have caught on in the rest of
Europe and throughout the world putting the end to the banksters and their usury.
"Germany issued debt-free and interest-free money from 1935 on, which accounts for
Germany's startling rise from the depression to a world power in five years. The German
government financed its entire operations from 1935 to 1945 without gold, and without debt.
It took the entire Capitalist and Communist world to destroy the German revolution, and
bring Europe back under the heel of the Bankers."
If you have ever dared or not to watch a video, please make an concerted effort to watch
this one (just about six minutes long but one that needs views and redistribution like none
other) and one that may hold the most retained value from its consumption:
The American attitude has changed dramatically the public majority has lost its innocence
and is not 'trusting' as it was once. Vietnam was the eye opener for the public but not until
it dragged on and on till no one could justify it. People didn't want to believe the
government perfidy.
With good reason we have learned war is politics and the still fooled or patriot believer
young people get sent to war.
A lot of people talking about war have great 'hindsight'.
@RoatanBill
Even the average atheist draws the line whenever someone says that we DO NOT have any degree
of freedom and that moral responsibility is not a reality.
As a die-hard unbeliever, you may
reject the position that moral laws descend from a higher plane unperceived by our senses; as
a tax- paying citizen, however, you still need to live by sublunary standards of civility.
And this can be done only if free will and moral realism are the law of the land.
In the normal course of events both you and l are one in promoting some kind of " operative
morality."
As a guardian of morality, whether you feel this necessary truth is objectively real (
Christianity) or subjectively true (as l presume it is for you)- we could not go on living
and believe that being alive is all right , unless we enact these inferences or postulations.
@Who Cares
Well, my friend, CA is way ahead of you. High gas prices, translating into high
transportation costs. Outrageous vehicle license fees. Everything is more expensive here, and
going up everyday. Insane building codes and exorbitant fees. Background checks every time
you buy a box of ammo. Homeless everywhere, some have been arrested up to 50 times and still
on the street. I've seen bums sleeping on the sidewalk roll over and piss right in front of
everyone. Don't expect any help from the cops, they're too busy chasing car thieves,
stabbings, murders and other mayhem. And if you're stupid enough to take matters into your
own hands?
You'll end up in jail. Meth, opioids, you name it. Oh, and on windy days, they
sometimes cut the power. This is out here in the country, the cities are way worse. The
communists have turned a once great state into a turd world shit hole. I'm not overly fond of
Trump, but the Bolsheviks scare the piss out of me. And they're just getting started. Smile!
It only gets worse. Try the Soylent Green New Meal at McDonald's! Babies. It's what's for
dinner! America the fucking beautiful, my ass.
@Johnny Walker
Read An informative book on Vietnam is, Charlie Company, What Vietnam Did to US, by Peter
Goldman and Tony Fuller, based on interviews of 65 Vietnam veterans.
@Laurent
Guyénot No doubt Trump is fundamentally a non-obedient character which is what
determines the "information" attitude towards him.
No doubt Trump tried to wake up the part of America that the élite lives on the
shoulder of, in the early stage of his political rise: the élite noticed it and found
it, naturally, outrageous. The part of America that is ridden herd on by the élite,
however, didn't notice the wake-up signs.
That's natural too no Trump nor anyone else can revert the natural hiearchy, and order of
things between people, because that's determined by the quality of their minds.
The comments against Trump by people who are on his same team just confirm the above, with
their primary (or secondary) school way of looking at things in here-and-now and
smash-them-to-win ways.
Trump's achievements are severely limited by his team's characteristics, so to speak.
@Cyrano
Great comment But around 99% of Western "nationalists", brought up on a constant brainwashing
diet of socialism-o-phobia, Soviet-o-phobia, Russophobia, and mindless adoration of "Western
capitalism" as patriotism literally since their toddler days, will shy away from recognizing
the truth of this.
@Robert
DolanAnn Coulter has soured on him, but says she feels compelled to defend him
because the
Jmedia lies about him all day long.
Exactly – I find myself in the same boat. It is not just the Dems and the Jew media,
it is also the entrenched security state – the CIA, the FBI leadership, and the
permanent bureaucracy, that are all trying to take Trump down on false premises.
YES – Trump is an insufferable jerk – but clearly, they are the ones being
dishonest. Russiagate was a hoax – Ukrainegate is a gross exaggeration of a
problem.
The "virtue signaling" of his opposition is without question BS! Truly his opposition are
phonies! The truth is they are all ripping off America – using the government to enrich
themselves.
Trump is doing America a favor by exposing Bidden as a crook. (Good god – when Is
Obama going to be a three-figure millionaire?)
The real evil is Bannon, Clapper, and Comey using the security state to attack and nullify
the 2016 election. They are making fools of democracy itself.
Anything that can be construed as actually or potentially presenting a "threat" or a
"challenge" to the untrammeled world domination of the globo-imperialist capitalist
Anglo-Zionist/Western ruling class must be demonized, execrated and slandered – up to
& including their own native population's yearnings for a normal existence and sensible,
nativist ethno-nationalism.
This is as it's going to get before the country breaks apart. Overall, I don't regret voting
for Trump, but there is not a lot of swamp draining going on. Too bad we can't repeal
birthright citizenship and kick more illegals out of the country. Team R wants to give more
greencards out.
"... Biden's criminal extortion wasn't a secret. He boasted of this racket at a public occasion. He famously admitted that: ..."
"... The Ukrainians put in place someone who was solid at the time, so solid that he terminated the investigation of Burisma oil company. This company was the vessel to transfer bribes to VP Biden, via his son Hunter Biden. John Solomon of The Hill wrote: ..."
"... The Ukraine became a Clintonite colony, and Joe Biden their viceroy in the Ukraine. Biden's involvement in the coup d'état was his biggest crime, but nobody speaks of that, noticed Joe Lauria . ..."
"... Joe Biden had been treated royally in Kiev. He was asked to chair government meetings and proudly sat on the Presidential seat. The Ukrainians are not famous for their subtlety. Nice people, but rather simple ones, even by East European measure. ..."
"... People in Kiev say he had built the case against Russia on the strength of a single server allegedly used for hacking the DNC. The server is located in the Ukraine, not in Russia. President Trump asked for its whereabouts in his conversation with the Ukrainian President Mr Zelensky. ..."
"... The Dems claimed Trump threatened to withdraw funds from the Ukraine if they won't cooperate with the US enquiry. This claim had been debunked after the full transcript of two Presidents' chat had been published ..."
"... How could they find fault in Trump allegedly threatening to cut aid to Ukraine if they think Biden was perfectly all right for doing exactly that? But these guys aren't playing cricket. ..."
"... The forthcoming Presidential race is becoming a global affair, it seems. In so many countries the US influence had been delivered by agents of Clintonite clan, and all of them are tempted to do what the Clintonites ask, that is to help them to undermine President Trump. In the Ukraine, the struggle of Clintonites and Trumpers is far from over. President Zelensky promised President Trump to help him; but the oligarchs of the Ukraine are in Clintonite camp. ..."
"... All but one: Igor (Benny) Kolomoysky, a maverick Jewish oligarch and a friend of the President, is an enemy of Clintonites. He also stands against IMF, International Monetary Fund, the powerful bankers' body that issued many loans to the Ukraine. ..."
"... People in Kiev say that about 1.7 billion dollars of the latest loan had been pocketed by the American supporters of Poroshenko, meaning Joe Biden and his ilk. Now Mr Kolomoysky suggests the new Ukrainian president may default on IMF loans. ..."
"... The Ukrainians like to back winners; once they made a mistake supporting Mrs Clinton, as they were sure she would win. Perhaps they will make this mistake again. It would depend on the actual Dem contender. Joe Biden had cooked his goose by taking too many bribes in the Ukraine, but another contender may have a better chance, the Ukrainians think. Mrs Warren, perhaps? ..."
"... "Maverick" Kolomoysky is a Zionist, Jewish supremacist, unhinged Putin-hater- in the mold of Khodorkovsky . A couple of Rothschild stooges installed to loot Ukraine and Russia respectively. ..."
"... You are 100% bang on with this article, Mr. Shamir. If anyone should be impeached, it's Joe Biden and his criminal enterprise, otherwise known as his family. Joe Biden should be pre-emptively impeached before he has even bigger chance to do even more damage to his country and the world. ..."
"... Notice how Eliz Warren is skyrocketing. Because she's talking about government corruption and the middle class. Most people .that have a brain at all will unite against corruption ..no matter which party they support .there will be tunnel vision knuckle draggers who wont .but most people will. No one likes being cheated or betrayed. ..."
"... The forthcoming Presidential race is becoming a global affair, it seems. In so many countries the US influence had been delivered by agents of Clintonite clan, and all of them are tempted to do what the Clintonites ask, that is to help them to undermine President Trump. In the Ukraine, the struggle of Clintonites and Trumpers is far from over. President Zelensky promised President Trump to help him; but the oligarchs of the Ukraine are in Clintonite camp. ..."
"... Adam Schiff received campaign contributions from a Ukrainian donor/host at a fundraiser. All solid citizens, especially the host, an arms dealer. ..."
"... Nancy Pelosi also received funding for her campaign in the Ukraine and other Democrats may have as well. ..."
The Borderlands of the Ukraine have been a decisive battlefield for centuries. Here
Stockholm, Berlin and Moscow vied for dominance. Karl XII had lost here to Peter the Great;
Stalin defeated Hitler; now the Clintonites are likely to suffer in the Ukraine their ultimate
defeat. The Democrats had made their biggest political mistake of the century in attacking
Trump for the Biden affair -- that is, if the Americans retain any common sense.
Vice-President Biden extorted millions of dollars in personal bribes from the vulnerable
Ukrainian client state. When this sordid affair came under investigation, he blackmailed
Ukrainians, using his position and American taxpayer money to force the sovereign state to fire
its Attorney General for investigating the bribes.
Instead of covering their face in shame and dismissing Biden as a potential party candidate
in the 2020 race, the Dems led by the superannuated Mrs Pelosi decided to impeach the President
for uncovering this rogue. In the well-remembered flick Dirty Harry the lawyers tried to
save a criminal by attacking the policeman who didn't observe the niceties of a Miranda warning . This was
the model for the Dems in their impeachment attempt.
Biden's criminal extortion wasn't a secret. He boasted of this racket at a public occasion.
He famously admitted
that:
I said, I'm telling you [the Ukrainian leaders], you're not getting the billion dollars. I
said, you're not getting the billion. I'm going to be leaving here in, I think it was about
six hours. I looked at them and said: I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not
fired, you're not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they
put in place someone who was solid at the time.
The Ukrainians put in place someone who was solid at the time, so solid that he terminated
the investigation of Burisma oil company. This company was the vessel to transfer bribes to VP
Biden, via his son Hunter Biden. John Solomon of The Hill wrote:
"U.S. banking records show Hunter Biden's American-based firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners
LLC, received regular transfers into one of its accounts -- usually more than $166,000 a
month -- from Burisma from spring 2014 through fall 2015, during a period when Vice President
Biden was the main U.S. official dealing with Ukraine and its tense relations with
Russia."
The fired prosecutor Mr Viktor Shokin
said that Biden fils had been under investigation. After he was dismissed due to
Biden père interference, the money continued to pour out of poor Ukrainian pockets
to well-stuffed Biden coffers. My Kiev acquaintances had a memory of a good-for-nothing young
man, keen on coke and broads, who by himself would never get such a salary.
You would ask, why Biden admitted to the crime? He considered himself untouchable like Mrs
Clinton and other people of her circle. Mischievous President Trump decided to prosecute Biden
for bribery and extortion, as if he were an ordinary mortal. This was a direct threat to the
Clintonites (let us use this nickname for the power variously described as Democrats, Liberals,
Internationals, financiers, Masters of Discourse or Deep State). This challenge caused them to
abandon caution and to start a furious pre-emptive campaign against cocky Trump.
Their accusation is outright ridiculous: they claim Trump's intention to bring Corrupt Joe
to justice was criminal per se , as Biden was a likely contender for the Dem nomination.
As it happens, the US Constitution didn't find it fit to provide likely contenders with full
immunity for past and future crime prosecutions. It's just the Clintonites were used to be
above the law. Indeed, for three years President Trump avoided to touch them. Crimes of Mrs
Clinton were well known, from the simple affair of the email server to the Libya murders.
It was expected victorious Trump would unleash the law against the defeated dowager for Mrs.
Clinton's role in the Obama administration's decision to allow the Russian nuclear agency
to buy a uranium mining company . Conservatives have long pointed to donations to the
Clinton family foundation by people associated with the company, Uranium One, as proof of
corruption, reported the New
York Times . The Clintonites saved the old lady's skin by starting the Russiagate
hoax. In 2016 election debate Trump told Clinton that, if he was in charge of the nation's
laws, "you'd be in jail". But a year later he was in charge, and she wasn't in jail, not even
charged. The ruse of Russiagate worked wonders: the President accused of collusion with
Russia did not dare to charge his adversary with this very offence.
Now the Clintonites decided to repeat their feat and began impeachment procedure hoping it
will keep Trump busy and away from uncovering the Ukrainian Hell's Kitchen.
What actually had happened in the Ukraine? In 2014, Clintonites had managed the regime
change in this former Soviet republic. They removed the legitimate president by using the full
spectre of illegal operations. The Ukraine became a Clintonite colony, and Joe Biden their
viceroy in the Ukraine. Biden's involvement in the coup d'état was his biggest crime, but
nobody speaks of that, noticed
Joe Lauria . They had turned Ukraine against Russia and instigated the civil war in the
East of the poor country, despite strong efforts of president Putin to keep Russia out of
Ukrainian turmoil. But they also gave a thought to personal profiteering, like they did in
Russia in 1990.
Joe Biden had been treated royally in Kiev. He was asked to chair government meetings and
proudly sat on the Presidential seat. The Ukrainians are not famous for their subtlety. Nice
people, but rather simple ones, even by East European measure. They became involved in 2016
election campaign on the Clintonite side. There is no doubt VP Biden was the man who directed
this "foreign involvement in the US elections". The obliging Ukrainians delivered to him the
dirt on Paul Manafort, and Manafort went to jail.
The Ukraine is the second home for CrowdStrike , the cyber-security company that was
instrumental in accusing Russia of meddling. Its founder and head, a Russian Jew and American
citizen Dmitry Alperovich is a pathological Russia hater on the model of Masha Gessen and Max
Boot. People in Kiev say he had built the case against Russia on the strength of a single
server allegedly used for hacking the DNC. The server is located in the Ukraine, not in Russia.
President Trump asked for its whereabouts in his conversation with the Ukrainian President Mr
Zelensky.
The subject of the server makes many people in the Clintonite camp extremely nervous. They
already
marked it with "conspiracy" marker, meaning you may not touch it. In another "conspiracy
debunking" item they
created a straw man, saying "the notion that there is some missing "server," and that the
server might exist somewhere -- like in Ukraine -- has no basis in reality. The DNC's network
consisted of many servers and computers". However, the server Trump asked about is not the DNC
server, but the server allegedly used to hack DNC server. It had left some Russian-language
traces, and it was presented as a proof of Russian involvement. But Alperovich's hackers in the
Ukraine also use Russian as their working language, and this allowed the Russia-hating Jew an
opportunity to create the whole chain of "proofs" of Russian hackers' activity with fancy
names. Recovery of the server would put paid to the whole myth of Russian hacking, and would
make the Clintonite case untenable.
Alperovich, obsessed with his hatred, could cook the case of Russian meddling, but it had to
be ordered and utilized by somebody up the feeding chain, most probably Joe Biden. And now Joe
Biden, the real criminal, who took bribes and blackmailed the friendly state officials, who
orchestrated foreign involvement in the US elections, went on to become the leading contender
for Dem party.
The Dems claimed Trump threatened to withdraw funds from the Ukraine if they won't cooperate
with the US enquiry. This claim had been debunked after the full transcript of two Presidents'
chat had been published. But even if it were sterling truth, it would be business as usual for
the US. You probably remember the threats of cutting aid that were issued by the US
representative in the UN in order to force sovereign states to vote for Israel. The execrable
Nicky Haley
said , 'The US will be taking names', and Donald Trump
added his own threats to cut aid.
How could they find fault in Trump allegedly threatening to cut aid to Ukraine if they think
Biden was perfectly all right for doing exactly that? But these guys aren't playing
cricket.
The forthcoming Presidential race is becoming a global affair, it seems. In so many
countries the US influence had been delivered by agents of Clintonite clan, and all of them are
tempted to do what the Clintonites ask, that is to help them to undermine President Trump. In
the Ukraine, the struggle of Clintonites and Trumpers is far from over. President Zelensky
promised President Trump to help him; but the oligarchs of the Ukraine are in Clintonite
camp.
All but one: Igor (Benny) Kolomoysky, a maverick Jewish oligarch and a friend of the
President, is an enemy of Clintonites. He also stands against IMF, International Monetary Fund,
the powerful bankers' body that issued many loans to the Ukraine. Just this year, Kiev has to
pay six billion dollars to the IMF to remain solvent, and IMF refused to refinance it. The
loans were mainly stolen by the gang of the former President, Mr Poroshenko. People in Kiev say
that about 1.7 billion dollars of the latest loan had been pocketed by the American supporters
of Poroshenko, meaning Joe Biden and his ilk. Now Mr Kolomoysky suggests the new Ukrainian
president may default on IMF loans.
Kolomoysky is also the only oligarch who is not in bed with the liberals. The balance of
power in the Ukraine is not in favour of Trumpers. The Ukrainians like to back winners; once
they made a mistake supporting Mrs Clinton, as they were sure she would win. Perhaps they will
make this mistake again. It would depend on the actual Dem contender. Joe Biden had cooked his
goose by taking too many bribes in the Ukraine, but another contender may have a better chance,
the Ukrainians think. Mrs Warren, perhaps?
They even fiddle with the idea of Mrs Hillary Clinton running again and winning this time.
The Ukrainian oligarchs, and first of all Mr Victor Pinchuk, a Jewish billionaire from Dnepro
city, No. 1 among the rich Ukrainians, would do anything for her. He contributed many millions
to her fund; he finances the Atlantic Council, the Clintonite think-tank, fighting against
Russia and Euro-sceptics. He is 'the wealthy businessman' Trump referred to in his talk with Mr
Zelensky. Judging by Trump's interest in the Ukrainian server, the President is aware that the
old lady is still able to do some mischief, and his promise to take her to jail is still
unfulfilled.
It is possible in the presidential race 2020, the Dems will use drafting technique, as the
long-distance runners (or bikers, or cross-country skiers) do. The first leading contender (in
our case, Biden) would get the flak, get exhausted, and in the last moment he would withdraw
from the race yielding the nomination to his well-rested comrade, be it Warren or Clinton or
whoever. Bearing that in mind, Trumpers could keep some of the ammo they have on Biden (and
there is a lot to find in the Ukraine) until (or rather if) he gets the nomination.
If this depiction of events is remotely true (I haven't personally researched it), one might
conclude that the cunning, ruthlessness, brazenness, greed and malice of the Clintonite
Democrats is off the charts -- of Mafia or Stalinist caliber.
One might also conclude that, with their command of the Deep State (especially the CIA and
FBI) and mainstream media, they will come out the winner in this game.
The key mode of operation: aggressively, and very loudly, accuse your opponents of
whatever crimes you are committing. Flip reality upside down.
The mainstream media have thoroughly obstructed all lines of investigation into facts
which contradict the Clintonite narrative. And Silicon Valley is working furiously to shut
down any discussion in alternative media on the Internet which addresses these issues.
Are we moving towards the consolidation of a Soviet-style regime in the United States?
Great summary. There is also that one billion dollars the Biden clan got from China. More
from my blog:
Jun 7, 2016 – The $5 Billion Coup
I thought the claim that the USA spent $5 billion to organize a coup to take control of
Ukraine was a wild estimate. I recently found this 2013 video where the semi-covert coup
manager from Hillary's State Department, rabid neocon Victoria Nuland, spouts nonsense and
states that $5 billion was spent! I love the Chevron sponsorship symbol in the
background.
For those unfamiliar with the massive Uranium one Clinton bribery scandal, here is a hot
story that disappeared from our news, from my blog:
Dec 16, 2018 – Rogue FBI
As a follow-up to my December 2nd blog post, our major media failed to report that last
week:
"The Justice Department and FBI have missed a Wednesday deadline to provide information
about the government's mysterious raid on a former FBI contractor-turned-whistleblower's home
last month. Sixteen FBI agents on Nov. 19 raided the home of Dennis Nathan Cain, who
reportedly gave the Justice Department's Inspector General (IG) documents related to the
Uranium One controversy and potential wrongdoing by former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton.
The documents in question allegedly showed that federal officials failed to investigate
possible criminal activity related to Clinton, the Clinton Foundation and Rosatom, a Russian
nuclear company. Its subsidiary purchased Canadian mining company Uranium One in 2013.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, whose panel has oversight of
the Justice Department, penned a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray and Justice
Department IG General Michael Horowitz, requesting information on the justification for the
raid. Grassley gave Wray and Horowitz until Dec. 12 to respond to his request. That deadline
has come and gone, and neither the FBI nor DOJ has produced any documents or response."
Why would a coke head like Hunter Biden, with a string of failed ventures with shady
characters and living in the US have been sought out for a position on the board of a Ukraine
gas company?
Even "if" Biden did not secure that job for is son and his son was 'sought out' by the
Ukraine gov or the company owners because they thought that contact would help them
Then Biden is still guilty of putting his son's advancement above obvious 'conflicts of
interest' in letting him assume the job.
Don't know about others but when I was growing up in teen years I was constantly schooled
by my father to 'not put myself in ' company or situations' that could lead to my being
associated with anything questionable that might happen.
I would think that should have been how Biden viewed his son taking the Ukraine company
position..
But then again Biden is both stupid and without any ethics. And so much for his free
speech support LOL
The Biden Campaign Is Demanding That TV Execs Stop Booking Guiliani
During this time, Hunter Biden was busy making a living in his father's wake.
He began working at MBNA bank, one of Delaware's largest employer, in 1996. He left to become
a lobbyist in 2001, though he continued receiving consulting fees from the bank. For years,
beginning in the late '90s, Joe Biden had been a top Democratic supporter of a controversial
bankruptcy bill that aided issuers of credit card debt, like MBNA, by making it harder for
borrowers to seek bankruptcy protections. The consulting fees to Hunter continued until 2005,
when the bankruptcy bill finally passed with Joe's support.
At his new firm, Oldaker, Biden & Belair, Hunter also lobbied for the music-sharing
service Napster while the Judiciary Committee, on which Joe sat, took on digital music piracy
and represented public universities seeking congressional earmarks. The Bidens have said that
Hunter avoided lobbying his father. In 2008, The Washington Post reported that, as a senator,
Obama had sought more than $3.4 million in earmarks for Hunter's clients before Joe became
his running mate and that another lobbyist at Hunter's firm had successfully lobbied Joe for
an earmark for the University of Delaware
Biden and his wife, Jill, have set about providing for themselves, earning more than $15
million in the two years following the end of his vice presidency in early 2017"'
Do me a favor did Biden say to Obama ????? .." Obama had sought more than $3.4 million in
earmarks for Hunter's clients before Joe became his running mate and that another lobbyist at
Hunter's firm had successfully lobbied Joe for an earmark for the University of Delaware"
So some Jewish oligarchs are for the Clintons (Biden Dems etc) and other Jewish oligarchs are
for Donald the Orange (Repugs etc) It seems uncannily just like the situation in the US with
good ole Sheldon and Haim. A cynic might even suggest that it was a type of a pincer movement
or a case of good cop/bad cop. Either way I suspect than none of the aforementioned
characters give a rodents patootie about Joe Six-pack and the American people.
Igor (Benny) Kolomoysky, a maverick Jewish oligarch and a friend of the President, is an
enemy of Clintonites. He also stands against IMF, International Monetary Fund, the powerful
bankers' body that issued many loans to the Ukraine.
Really? Sure he is agains bankers. Who are you fooling Shamir? Come on, get real. This is
intra-Jewish affair. Kolomoysky is as bad for Ukraine as the Clintonites.
"In the well-remembered flick Dirty Harry the lawyers tried to save a criminal by attacking
the policeman who didn't observe the niceties of a Miranda warning. This was the model for
the Dems in their impeachment attempt."
I want to be careful here because many people don't grasp the value of what the justice is
really all about. At it core the Constitution is by design intended to limit government
intrusion. The Miranda expectation is not a dodge. Its primary if fencing the abridgement of
a citizens personal space on a whim. In reality Miranda is probably not strong enough. It is
not a trick to cover up criminal behavior.
And the democrats call for impeachment is not in any way related to Miranda, not as simile
or metaphor.
" The ruse of Russiagate worked wonders: the President accused of collusion with Russia
did not dare to charge his adversary with this very offence."
If this depiction of events is remotely true (I haven't personally researched it), one
might conclude that the cunning, ruthlessness, brazenness, greed and malice of the
Clintonite Democrats is off the charts -- of Mafia or Stalinist caliber.
One might also conclude that, with their command of the Deep State (especially the CIA
and FBI) and mainstream media, they will come out the winner in this game.
"I now think that Trump WILL be impeached in the House."
-- Richard Spencer, Sept. 27, 2019
More from Richard Spencer on the Ukraine impeachment matter:
[Hide MORE]
"[Trump] still has 90% approval among Republicans. These Senators, though, they'll go with
the wind. They certainly could do it [vote to remove Trump from office], but something
dramatic would have to change."
"Trump will be impeached but will be let off by the Senate, and he will likely benefit
from this process because we're going to be talking about this [impeachment drama] and kind
of defending him, not criticizing him. So I think Trump ultimately will benefit."
"I'm rather shocked. This whole Ukraine thing is so weak . The Mueller and
Russia hysteria has apparently gone out the window, or it's kind of background to this. We've
now moved on to this -- phone call."
"I've seen this transcript I can only look at and laugh. It's basically Trump being Trump.
He is praising this comedian that won a miraculous victory "
"In 2014, Clintonites had managed the regime change in this former Soviet republic. Ukraine
became a Clintonite colony, and Joe Biden their viceroy in Ukraine.
They instigated the civil war"
-- Let them rot in hell for the destroyed lives of the innocent civilians.
In a morally healthy society, these criminals would suffer anathema and ostracism. In a
morally unhealthy society well.
Kolomoysky is the beneficial owner of the company, Burisma Holdings, that Hunter Biden
supposedly worked for. All the MSM is pretending that the previous owner, Mykola Zlochevsky,
is the one who hired Biden – an obvious lie. The Wikipedia supports this Zionist lie:
It is important to realize that this company has acquired licenses to exploit Ukraine's
largest gas field through dishonest means. The bribes paid to father Biden are much greater
than what the son received. In any case, these bribes are a tiny fraction of the value of
these gas fields.
This gas company is in a position to greatly profit from any deterioration in
Russian-Ukrainian relations.
An extension and exacerbation of the civil war in the east of that country will lead to a
shortage of gas. Shortage of gas leads to higher prices for consumers. War-profiteering at
the expense of the poorest country in Europe.
@Sean
McBride Sean, I agree with what you say – mostly. The fact that we are reading Mr
Shamir's excellent appreciation here shows that not all Westerners are mugs, though.
The bigger question is: how much does it really matter what crimes and tricks are played
in Washington? I am reminded of J.G. Ballard's superb short story "Manhole 69", about an
experiment to see if men could be treated and trained to do without sleep. They succeed, but
are found one morning in a state of catatonic withdrawal. To them, the whole world has shrunk
and collapsed down to a tiny bubble surrounding each person's body, so that – with no
external source of stimuli – their minds shut down.
Similarly, the more fascinated the Swamp creatures get with their own navels, the less
their intrigues matter to anyone outside their little personal bubble. By and by, they may
look up to notice that the world has gone on without them.
Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft [taxes], and
counterfeiting [central bank monopolies], all governments are essentially, at their very
cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams which cannot be "reformed","improved", nor "limited" in
scope, simply because of their innate criminal nature." onebornfree
"Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no
way to differentiate the activities of its founders, administrators and beneficiaries from
those of a professional-criminal class." Albert J. Nock
"The kind of man who wants the government to adopt and enforce his ideas is always the
kind of man whose ideas are idiotic" H.L.Mencken
"Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure" Robert LeFevere
"Why should any self-respecting citizen endorse an institution grounded on thievery?
For that is what one does when one votes. If it be argued that we must let bygones be
bygones, see what can be done toward cleaning up the institution of the State so that it
might be useful in the maintenance of orderly existence, the answer is that it cannot be
done; you cannot clean up a brothel and yet leave the business intact. We have been voting
for one "good government" after another, and what have we got?" Frank Chodorov, Out of
Step (1962)
"Joe Biden , the Hawk " by Branko Marcetic in the Jacobin Magazine , " If you're looking for
a president with a track record of foreign intervention , expanding the surveillance state
and steadfastly backing Israel despite its war crimes Joe Biden is your guy ."
@EliteCommInc.
Shamir isn't saying that the Miranda ruling itself is a ruse. Clearly, the article states
that Clintonites are using misdirection as a ruse. Russiagate is also a ruse, and is
unrelated to Miranda.
The mention of Miranda is in reference to a fictional screenplay. What else you got over
there?
@NoseytheDuke
True (and funny). George Eliason has written a couple of pieces concerning the recent history
of the Ukraine connection with the US deepstate and its campaigns such as Russiagate and the
current impeachment push:
[Crowdstrike's] founder and head, a Russian Jew and American citizen Dmitry Alperovich
is a pathological Russia hater on the model of Masha Gessen and Max Boot.
Try as I might, I was hard pressed to confirm the ethnic origin of Dmitry Alperovich. But
Israel Shamir was kind enough to put that mystery to rest. Thanks Israel!
"Make no mistake about it: UKRAINEgate is very real, but not the false narrative pushed by
the media. Trump tricked the Democrats into blowing wide open their own Ukraine scandal under
Obama. Just how big is that? It will expose BIDENgate. Which will expose the real RUSSIAgate
conspiracy. Which will then expose Clinton's EMAILgate and SERVERgate
scandals. Which will in turn expose Deep State and their International Banking Cartel
sponsors. Even the Illuminati hidden hand may be revealed as never before along with the
forever veiled Black Nobility."
-- Intelligence Analyst & Former U.S. Army Officer
I'm not a "Q" follower or one who believes Trump is some kind of 5D chess player, but for
the life of me I could not see how UKRAINEgate would not come back to bite the Democrats in
the ass. I guess we'll just have to wait and see if the above statements are true. http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=128744#more-128744
The Ukraine is a corrupt zionist controlled government just like the zionist corrupt ZUS
government so it is no surprise that the zionist backed Bidens would be feeding at the trough
just as they feed off the American taxpayers, corruption is as corruption does and that is
how zionists control governments.
Why would a coke snorting loser like Hunter Biden be given millions from a Ukrainian company
when he doesn't even speak the language? Same reason the Clintons used to get $500k for
"speeches". Give us a millions to our fraudulent charity and we will give you millions of tax
payer money.
@APilgrim" .There are two possible ways for people to relate to each other: either voluntarily or
coercively. The State is pure institutionalized coercion. As such, it's not just unnecessary,
but antithetical, to a civilized society. And that's increasingly true as technology
advances. It was never moral, but at least it was possible in oxcart days for bureaucrats to
order things around. Today the idea is ridiculous .":
Are we moving towards the consolidation of a Soviet-style regime in the United
States?
No it's already an upgraded Owellian regime that relies on 24/7 brainwashing. The Soviet
regime could repress people through violence or the threat of it. They could never convince
people that there really are 52 sexes or the need to bring in tens of millions of illegals
and replace the population with foreigners.
Bidengate is killing the blind Dems. Will he be in the Oct 15 debate or forced out before
that? For once, it may be worth watching as the other Dems will profit when he is out. Like
vultures they will seek his campaign donors and voters. The lying mainstream media can't make
this pig look pretty. Biden was already going to lose based on his failing mental abilities.
Now, he is really toast. The phony impeachment claims are killing the Dems also. It seems
they are suicidal this election and want to make SURE Trump wins in a landslide.
An 'independent' Ukraine is nothing more than a preponderantly Jewish directed outpost for
the Anglo-Zionist Empire. It is always going to be raped, and then charged for the service of
the rape, by those who run the Anglo-Zionist Empire.
@Whitewolf
Correct. The WASP-created and currently WASP+Jews administered Anglosphere, the Anglo-Zionist
Empire (which controls Western Europe and all of Latin America it wants to control), is today
much worse off in many ways than the USSR ever was.
Am I the only one who finds it strange Obama was never mentioned by Mr. Israel?
What no one is talking about here is the much bigger crime against humanity that the
Obama administration committed by engineering the catastrophic Ukraine Civil War. Not only
did Biden's warmongering tear apart that country, that continuing war served to re-start
the Cold War with Russia. How calamitous for the world community of nations is that
intentional outcome designed by the Obama-Biden-Clinton-Nuland war-making team?!
Which means that the recent UKRAINEgate is really about stifling Trump's initiative to
get to the bottom of BIDENgate because that will inevitably lead to the root cause of the
real UKRAINEgate, not the current fake one. It ought to be apparent how the Left is
co-opting real scandals with fake scandals by even using the same memes and MSM
emotionally-charged language. Deep State knows that the ensuing confusion is simply far too
great for the average American voter to comprehend as the true story is so obfuscated by
the CIA-controlled Mockingbird Media.
Clintonites? A clintonite would be a follower and not an equal partner in crimes. And
Clintons maybe everything else but powerful they are not. Let's call it the Cabalites. For
they are members of a cabal (not to be confused with Jews though certainly there are Jews in
it along with a ton of non Jews) and equal participants in crimes such as Biden corruption.
Biden was/is Obama errand boy and as such got paid his share of the thirty pieces of silver.
It's a cabal, deep and secretive with octopus like reach that has the government cornered
with Democrats and their counterparts, the Republicans!
This remains to be seen. I'm not optimistic considering the massive propaganda
loudspeakers being brought out to steer the narrative. The Clintons and Biden, among others,
have been irredeemably corrupt their entire lives yet have had a sense of impunity
throughout, a well grounded sense since nothing has ever touched them. The rottenness of all
of it makes one's head swim. All of them have also been fond of committing war crimes
overseas, killing and displacing millions of people everywhere, which is even worse than
their financial flimflam. American democracy, what a joke, way different in reality than the
garbage they taught us in school.
Only slow people, aka the willing slaves called the voting class, believe a difference exists
between democrats and republicans. The rich know better.
The US staged a Nazi coup in Ukraine and wanted to station the navy in the Crimea. Before
that, the US had the dying Soviet Union hand over Crimea to Ukraine for free, out of love of
Russia.
Clearly both Republicans and Democrats see the law as a tool to enrich themselves and harm
their "enemies."
@Alfred
Shamir, and now you, mention bribes to Joe Biden. Is there documentation in one of your links
about those bribes? (Shamir cited nothing.) I don't doubt it, but can't share empty
allegations. (D0es Shamir think this is common knowledge? Or does he just never back up his
claims.)
This is such a hoax conspiracy that I question why they allow this op-ed to be printed.
Without bank and tax records to prove it , why would you make these fictitious claims? You' d
be better off tracking Trumps financials and building on those facts. Good luck with that.
@Bastien
McCormick Was the de-nuclear treaty enforced by both US and Russia over Ukraine a US plot
as well?
Face it, a jew currently runs Ukraine, the national socialists are bidding their times in
every parts of the world, waiting for a chance to save this post-1945 world.
"Shamir isn't saying that the Miranda ruling itself is a ruse. Clearly, the article states
that Clintonites are using misdirection as a ruse. Russiagate is also a ruse, and is
unrelated to Miranda."
There is nothing in this matter that can be remotely associated with Miranda. By
referencing Miranda as like the collusion accusations the author is making the comparison
between the two. Such as lawyer uses Miranda to draw attention away from the case.
That is a false comparison, even if the person is actually guilty of the accusation.
Miranda says, the state cannot proceed to abuse a citizens ignorance of the process to
prosecute, The citizen is entitled to know how to protect himself/herself from state
authority – period. It is a legal standard.
There is no legal standard for the collusion accusation. It is not linked even remotely to
the Constitutional protections of citizens. Your response is circular self reinforcing and
flawed logic coming and going. The liberals are not claiming a legal standard -- they are
merely slinging mud. Because even if the president were in fact colluding, it would not
provide a legal basis that the liberals and democrats lost the election as result.
Furthermore, even if they colluded by sharing information that alone is not a crime.
Unlike collusion, Miranda is a legal standard that upon violation moots a case because of
the governments abuse of power --
nothing at all like manufacturing a lie to cover incompetence, face saving or illegal
activity (including conspiring with foreign powers to start violent revolutions among
sovereign nations, i.e. Syria, the Ukraine, Libya, etc.) in office, or ineffective campaign
choices.
The collusion argument does reflect the kind of circular rhetoric in defending this
authors false comparison.
For the lovers of the IQ : the collective , national , IQ of white blond ukraruinas , polacks
, and other ex-soviets specimens is much much lower than mexicans . Puro pendejos .
Did anyone actually believe that Biden is not corrupt? Or that Ukraine is not corrupt? Or
that Porky and his appointees are not corrupt? If these people exist, they must be either
remarkably naïve or simply retarded.
@anon It's
untrue that Lutsenko, appointed by his buddy Porky, has no legal experience. Yes, he has no
legal education. But he spent some time in jail, which counts as legal experience.
Clintonites (let us use this nickname for the power variously described as Democrats,
Liberals, Internationals, financiers, Masters of Discourse or Deep State).
All but one: Igor (Benny) Kolomoysky, a maverick Jewish oligarch and a friend of the
President, is an enemy of Clintonites.
a "maverick" eh?
Kind of like John McCain, huh?
As Truth3 mentioned,
"Kolomoisky is one of Rothschild's front men."
Yep.
However, the server Trump asked about is not the DNC server, but the server allegedly
used to hack DNC server. It had left some Russian-language traces, and it was presented as
a proof of Russian involvement. But Alperovich's hackers in the Ukraine also use Russian as
their working language
What's with all this misdirection?
Assange has all but said the DNC data was given to him by Seth Rich, [RIP]
There was no 'Russian (or Ukrainian) hacking. Rich was pissed that 'corrupt Hillary' had
shut out Bernie in the primaries. He had a motive.
What, pray tell- would be the motive of the corrupt, Obama State Dept. installed-
Ukrainians, (working for the Clintonites) to expose Hillary's corruption? (and their
own)?
Eh?
"Maverick" Kolomoysky is a Zionist, Jewish supremacist, unhinged Putin-hater- in the mold
of Khodorkovsky . A couple of Rothschild stooges installed to loot Ukraine and Russia
respectively.
The "maverick' is conducting himself in perfect, parallel alignment with the "Democrats,
Liberals, Internationals, financiers, Masters of Discourse or Deep State", (i.e. the
Clintonites) that hate Putin's guts, and would like to see him dead.
In fact, there are deep ties between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, and the
'Maverick'.
The Maverick owns the television station where Zelensky performed his comedy routine.
I'd say in all probability that Zelensky is the Maverick's boy. Which would go a long way
toward understanding why Putin is staying at arms length from the comedian.
All of this rot and corruption and its effects on ZUS politics is why I looked forward to
getting some insights from Mr. Shamir.
@Sean
McBride Spencer might say some things that are valid and even things that pro-Whites
agree with but he's still controlled opposition just like David Duke.
Its common knowledge that most politicians are crooked lying thieving bastards but the
brazenness of Biden is truly astounding. His boasting about the Ukraine affair should cost
him 10 years in prison if there was truly justice in America. But just like Hildabeast
Clinton they know no matter what they say or do they are a protected class in this God
forsaken country.
congrats issy, marvelous work.. while i read your column, i was also watching the clive owen
film "the international". i couldn't tell which one's more thrilling; possibly yours, because
your story is real!
all these show, that the fight between "patriots and globalists" (as pres. trump put it in
his UN speech: "the future belongs to patriots, not to globalists!") is flaring up.
globalist agendas like climate change and the EU are on the retreat, nevertheless
globalists seem not to leave the arena without bitter fighting.
patriots may be the last hope for earth to survive in the form known to us, but they are
more vital for america herself. why? -- because the "democraps and rebloodicans" with their
globalist agendas were growing to be disgusting in the eyes of many ordinary american people
before trump. remember, trump is a guy from the outside of the "political establishment",
don't get fooled by that he imitates the "rebloodican"!
for many american people, and for reasons above, the american federal government had
morphed into an alien body, regardless of the voters' political will, pushing its own alien
globalist agenda and endless wars.
4-5 years ago, there was the talk of secession.. american states should leave the union en
masse to cancel a useless federal govt. and summon a new continental convention. a new
constitution will be proclaimed which allows the states to fire any president or congress,
who don't heed to states' (people's) calls to come to senses, by a majority vote. i don't
know how widespread that discussion was.. i know, it exists. and if trump is unsuccessful
somehow or gets imprisoned, that danger still looms.
it may seem unimportant, what happens to america; but remember, she is the flagship of the
western civilization. for all people on earth, what happens to the u.s.a. will this or that
way affect what happens to them. regards..
@Smith
Yes.
I would love to see BO hoisted on this petard along with Biden.
Why should Biden be the only one to take the fall for BO, the Clintons, Nuland, etc.?
Actually, that logic doesn't seem quite kosher to me -- doesn't the actual truth/reality
count for something?
Its quite logical the 'appearance ' of a conflict of interest can lead to questioning
motives that's why judges 'recluse' themselves in cases where they have ties to anyone or
anything involved in the case.
Since you cant peer into the mind of someone who has the 'appearance 'of conflicting interest
the best approach is to remove said person from any involvement in the search for the
truth.
@Sean
McBride One issue that stuns me is that snarky comments of Chelsea Clinton to the
President, publicly made and without one ounce of fear. He tweeted something about the
Biden/Ukraine impeachment hoax was part of the biggest political scam, and this repellent
little beast shot back:
Yes, you are.
Readers here know, and certain members of the media know (Ammanpour, Anderson Cooper who
have actually traveled without fixers and entourages)
that if the daughter of a past PM or President smarted off to Erdogan, Xi or Rouhani on a
social media account,
she would likely disappear, be tortured or her children would be snatched for a few weeks,
to get her "mind right".
Chelsea Clinton is a repulsive slob who has no achievements other than inviting an actual
human sex trafficker to her marriage to a fat, sullen Jew that is unemployed.
Trump needs to go full thug. He needs to go completely bananas bat shit and have Biden's
son indicted TODAY.
From his first day, I was certain that it was a catastrophic error not to indict Hillary
Clinton and her accomplices. She never let up, and it appears she may just win yet.
@Johnny Walker
Read "Am I the only one who finds it strange Obama was never mentioned by Mr. Israel?"
No! Not the only one.
But in the case of Shamir I chalk it up to his focusing on the Biden details -- not on the
big Barry picture. Surely the buck for this whole thing comes to rest like a stinking turd on
Barack Obama's desk. It all occurred on his watch, overseen by his State Dept.
Or perhaps not on his desk.
Obama must owe major Jewish chits in Chicago. Rahm Emanuel, anyone?
I am kind of flailing here, but when I think Chicago and Dem party and Obama I think Rahm
Emanuel and Penny Pritzker, and when I think Rahm Emanuel I think dual citizen and dad was a
Zionist terrorist. What does all of that have to do with the Ukraine? I don't know!!
Plenty of Jewish oligarchs there . .
Biden is corrupted. Clinton is corrupted. But Trump is corrupted too for the following
reasons (among others):
1. Timing: He has not investigated Biden nor Clinton for almost 3 years. Now that Biden
seems likely Democrat nominee, he suddenly becomes so keen to investigate, while still
ignoring (or not pushing for) investigation of Clinton (who is not running).
2. Corruption: Trump appears corrupted too when he tries to use US aids as leverage to get
Ukraine to start the ball rolling on something that can benefit his re-election. This is
almost no difference than what Biden did.
3. Vengeance: Instead of letting the machinery of Justice and State departments work at
their own pace, Trump looks vengeful when he and his personal lawyer Giuliani are intimately
involved.
The end results is that Trump supporters becomes more convinced of Biden/Clinton/Democrats
wrong doing, and the Democrat supporters becomes more convinced of Trump's corruption and
guilt. So, the country hardens the divide and more people lose confidence of politicians.
Here's Scott Ritter , Iraq weapons inspector who objected to calling off the Iraq
inspections. .
My Letter From Joe Biden
Author's note: The 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq by a U.S.-led coalition
will go down in history as one of the greatest geopolitical disasters in modern history.
Then-Sen. Joe Biden was in a unique position to prevent this war from happening. That he
chose not to speaks volumes about the man who now seeks to become the next president of the
United States. My personal experiences with Biden from 1998 to 2002 provide a window into the
character of the man that Americans should familiarize themselves with before considering
whether to give him their support.
Scott Ritter
[MORE]
"I envy your position. I sincerely do. I envy the ability to have such clarity on this
issue."
Listening to those words, coming as they were from Sen. Joe Biden, one of the most vociferous
defenders of the policies of Bill Clinton's administration, I knew I was in for a grilling.
It was Sept. 15, 1998. I was seated, alone, at a table reserved for witnesses, giving
testimony to a joint session of the Senate foreign relations and armed services committees
about the reasons behind my resignation as a chief weapons inspector with the United Nations
Special Commission (UNSCOM), charged with overseeing the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of
mass destruction (WMD) programs. Arrayed before me were some of the most powerful people in
the United States, if not the world. The combined membership of these two committees totaled
36 senators, a little over a third of the entire membership of that esteemed body. More than
20 were present at the hearing and, over the course of the next hour and a half, I was
questioned in detail by 17 of them, none of whom seemed to object to my presence more than
Biden.
"Let me ask you a question," Biden continued. "Do you think you should be the one to be
able to decide when to pull the trigger?"
By Aug. 28, I had received a call from the staff of the Senate Armed Services Committee,
requesting my presence on Sept. 3 before a joint session of that committee and the Committee
on Foreign Relations.
Biden, however, had taken umbrage over the fact that the hearing had been allowed to go
forward without the presence of either the secretary of state or secretary of defense to
offer balance, especially when, as he couched the issue, I was trying to push the United
States to war with Iraq. "Isn't that what this is about?" he demanded. And despite my answers
to the contrary, Biden proceeded to lecture me on the limitations of my position as an
inspector. "I respectfully suggest that [the secretaries of state and defense] have
responsibilities slightly above your pay grade that's why they get paid the big bucks. That's
why they get the limos and you don't." The issue, Biden said, was more complex than simply a
question of "Old Scottie Boy didn't get in." It was a decision "above my pay grade," and the
jobs of those charged with making that decision were "a hell of a lot more complicated than
yours." It was about as insulting an experience one could imagine, and it took all my
willpower to sit there and take it unflinchingly
Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, who said, "We realize, Major Ritter, as far as we
know, that you did not have a limousine; you did not make the big bucks we understand that,
like sergeants and junior officers and people who carry the rifles and actually do the
fighting and do the inspecting, that you may have a perspective that the big-bucks people
don't."
But rather than allow the inspections to run their course, the Clinton administration
instead used the work of UNSCOM to deliberately provoke a confrontation, seeking to inspect a
sensitive facility belonging to the Baath Party based upon old intelligence information that
had long since expired. The goal was to get the Iraqis to deny inspectors access to the site.
When Iraq instead agreed to allow inspectors inside the facility, the Clinton administration
immediately ordered all UNSCOM inspectors out of Iraq, before initiating a 72-hour bombing
campaign, Operation Desert Fox,
Biden, later declined to talk to me directly, instead dispatching a senior member of the
minority staff of the Foreign Relations Committee to meet with me. This meeting was a
singular disappointment. The staffer began by calling me a traitor for speaking out about
Iraq and took umbrage when I backed up my claims with documents. "You are not supposed to
have these materials," he said. "They are classified, and you are a traitor for publicizing
the information they contain."
After reminding the staffer that he was walking a very
dangerous line in calling a former officer of Marines a traitor, I pointed out that the
information I cited was from my time as an inspector, and was not classified in any way.
The staffer agreed that the article was fact-based, even if he disagreed with its
conclusion. "But this isn't about facts. This is about politics, and Senator Biden will not
go against the policies of the Clinton administration, even if those policies are
failing."
Biden convened his hearing, which sought the testimony of witnesses hand-picked to sustain
the desired conclusion that Iraq was a threat worthy of war. He then went on to vote in
support of the use of military force against Iraq -- a sharp contrast to the position he took
in 1991.
You are 100% bang on with this article, Mr. Shamir. If anyone should be impeached, it's Joe
Biden and his criminal enterprise, otherwise known as his family. Joe Biden should be
pre-emptively impeached before he has even bigger chance to do even more damage to his
country and the world.
I also agree that all of this is a deep state operation against Trump. Why the deep state
doesn't like Trump? Because they are afraid that he is going to blow their cover about the
supposedly "liberal" US. It's all phony, but that's all they got, fake liberalism to keep the
proles quiet in order not to demand real social improvements in their "democracy", instead of
senseless voting in fixed elections.
The "catastrophic error" was allowing the Mueller/Russia farce to drag on and on, with the
media and hack political/pundit class shitting on him daily, questioning the legitimacy of
his election and robbing him of nearly all presidential authority -- he showed himself to be
an easy mark, which is one reason they haven't let up -- he should have given Mueller six
months and not a day more, then very publicly fired the lot of them -- but he didn't have the
balls and this is the result -- instead he kisses Jew ass and bleats on and on about low
black and Hispanic unemployment -- then he acts surprised when they still hate his guts and
show him zero respect -- what's the point of being President and having the power of the
presidency if you're not going to use it?
@d dan This
a zionist tactic, divide and conquer, it is not good enough for the zionists that they
control the ZUS government, the zionists like to see their puppets tear each other apart, is
a continual zionist recreation.
The mockingbird mainstream whore media is unrelenting in its coordinated effort to coverup
the crimes of creepy Joe Biden and his son Hunter, whilst hoisting the blame for said crimes
on President Trump who had the audacity to request that the crimes of Joe and Hunter be
investigated.
September 20, 2019 Video of Joe Biden admitting that he bribed the Ukrainian President
with $1 billion dollars to fire lead prosecutor investigating his corrupt son
@eah I see
Trump's tactical error differently. He needed to take a shot at the big money with a series
of antitrust cases against big tech, big banks and investment banks, big media.
It would have been very popular, and he would have been hitting the correct targets.
Trump
is a stupid cuck, a miserable pussy. That's why he can't get anything done. He TALKS big ..but then he rolls over every time. The biggest loss is on immigration/demographics. He isn't going to do anything about
it.
He responds to jewing by bending over more .and the jews respond by reaming his ass even
HARDER.
If he'd just stand up to them and tell them to fuck off, the whole world would be better
for it.
@Robert
Dolan Yea, Trump is not very good, but the cackling hyena would have been atrocious. It's
too bad we are reduced to choosing between shit and even bigger shit, but is it quite clear
which shit was bigger in 2016. It looks like it's going to be just as clear in 2020, as Dems
did everything to remove even half-decent candidates.
Best damn thing said about the Trump and Biden corruption fight..
Its everybody pilgrims everybody.
Just read thru to see ALL the US politicos and Elites involved in the huge money pit
corruption that is Ukraine. There are dozens of them. Protecting the Ukraine from Russia is
the guise for getting stinking rich for those using their office or connections to congress
or the StateDept.
ITS THE CORRUPTION THAT HAS BECOME NORMALIZED IN THE US BABY CAKES!
Don't waste your time with partisan bullshit defending Trump or Biden.
Notice how Eliz Warren is skyrocketing.
Because she's talking about government corruption and the middle class.
Most people .that have a brain at all will unite against corruption ..no matter which party
they support .there will be tunnel vision knuckle draggers who wont .but most people
will.
No one likes being cheated or betrayed.
There was little chance that the Trump Administration could prosecute Clinton Inc. without a
widespread hue and cry of political vengeance being leveled: Likewise with the Bidens.
As I've commented in UR a few times before, Trump should hand out Presidential Pardons to
the scurvy lot of them; they'll never be prosecuted for their misdeeds, so why not tar them
with pardons that spell out those misdeeds in gleeful detail.
This isn't partisan oppo war. Kurt Volker, the virgin they threw into the volcano when Biden
got burned? I knew him back when he disappeared into CIA. Think he quit, and just happened to
show up in all these sensitive jobs?
McCain's ventriloquist, then senior ratfuck officer
assigned to Dmytro Firtash? This is just more of the same shit, CIA picks up their
presidential Ken dolls and shakes them around like they're talking to each other.
Biden's
role as poster boy for corruption is all-you-can-steal, but don't imagine he has agency or
discretion or anything.
The forthcoming Presidential race is becoming a global affair, it seems. In so many
countries the US influence had been delivered by agents of Clintonite clan, and all of them
are tempted to do what the Clintonites ask, that is to help them to undermine President
Trump. In the Ukraine, the struggle of Clintonites and Trumpers is far from over. President
Zelensky promised President Trump to help him; but the oligarchs of the Ukraine are in
Clintonite camp.
The Clintonite clan can be better described as the Western Global(ist) Deep State. Whether
it's the global white genocide project or the global CO2 control initiative, it's glaringly
obvious that a lot of "our" political representatives are getting their marching orders from
a half-hidden group of wannabe masters of the universe.
The scary part is that a lot of those politicians are unflinchingly pushing unpopular and
ultimately political-career-ending policies. That's how much their loyalty lies on the side
of these enemies of humanity.
@renfro I
would only insert the note that all this mess started by Carter moving into Somalia.
I was really puzzled by that. Only years after I did realize that it was long term plan for
destabilization of Muslim power
@Realist I
guess you don't have the proper reverence for "Bite-Me". Every other story ever written about
that slimeball mentions that he lost a wife and child in an auto accident right after he won
his first election to the US Senate. He's been trafficing off of it for nearly fifty years
now. Sometimes he says the accident was caused by a drunk driver (not true). The family of
the other driver has been trying to get him to stop making that claim, but I guess it brings
more sympathy.
If you love Jews for Israel Vote for Joe.
Did you know that our constitution is based on Jewish values?
I didn't know that but Joe says it is.
Strange there's not a single Jew among the signers of the Del of Indep. or the Constitution.
Biden: 'Jewish heritage is American heritage'
excerpts
"The truth is that Jewish heritage, Jewish culture, Jewish values are such an essential
part of who we are that it's fair to say that Jewish heritage is American heritage," he said.
"The Jewish people have contributed greatly to America. No group has had such an outsized
influence per capita as all of you standing before you, and all of those who went before me
and all of those who went before you."
"So many notions that are embraced by this nation that particularly emanate from over 5,000
years of Jewish history, tradition and culture: independence, individualism, fairness,
decency, justice, charity.
Jews have also been key to the evolution of American jurisprudence, he continued,
namedropping Brandeis, Fortas, Frankfurter, Cardozo, Ginsberg, Breyer, Kagan. "You literally
can't. You can't talk about the recognition of rights in the Constitution without looking at
these incredible jurists that we've had."
"Jewish heritage has shaped who we are – all of us, us, me – as much or more
than any other factor in the last 223 years. And that's a fact," he said.
"We talk about it in terms of the incredible accomplishments and contributions" of Jews in
America, Biden added, but it's deeper "because the values, the values are so deep and so
engrained in American culture, in our Constitution."
"So I think you, as usual, underestimate the impact of Jewish heritage. I really mean
that. I think you vastly underestimate the impact you've had on the development of this
nation. We owe you, we owe generations who came before you," he said."
I don't think Nancy would impeach if she could not get a conviction. Why would Republican
Senators say no to Trumps head on a platter? He's not one of them. The House will impeach and
the Senate will convict.
Then what? Then the Clinton/Bush/Obama crime family and their paymasters will remain safe
and in charge of the Federal Government. Safe from Orange Man and the Deplorables I mean.
Russia, China and Iran are another matter.
Unless U.S. Atty Barr has something really good up his sleeve. Does anybody here think
Barr will actually do anything? Other than not inditing Comey?
Today America is governed by an Organized Criminal Enterprise. a take over that began with
then Vice President Bush after his bungled assasination of Ronald Regan. However, it wasn't a
complete failure as it resulted in Bush (a Rockefeller asset) actually running the WH, and
subsequently winning the presidency.
Bill Clinton (a possible Rockefeller offspring, who for
all his Democratic party trappings is a CIA (Bush) creation who was treated by G. Bush like
a favored nephew, and both benefitted greatly in partnership international narcotics
trafficking.
After Bill it was George's son's turn, after that came Rockefeller's next choice
Obama. Trump interrupted the Rockefeller reign, but he has problems too steming from his
accepting Russian mafia money in the late 80s early 90's, to save his real estate empire.
They, the Russian/Ukrainians, needed a brand name through which to launder money into the
states, looted from mother Russia, and Trump filled that need to a T. So today we're
witnessing a fight between the Russian mafia crooks including a reluctant but fatally comprimised Trump, and the Rockefeller's communist crooks, all for control of America, her
banks and military, and ultimately the world.
@Justvisiting
I understand the approach; it would be very popular with Joe 6-Pack. Big Media has been
exposed: watch Giuliani and George Stepinshitalopolous. The Naked Deceit of the MSM has been
laid bare. I think that in future, many will look back and see that a simple win as you
suggest was not doable;the lack of executive control of the Alphabet agencies and Civil
Bureaucracy is near non-existent at this point. 2020 will break the will of the Democrat
Party. Two years of controlling the House and Senate could actually allow for this type of
activity because the way was cleared to do so in the first term.
What the Dems did was go spastic for 3 years screaming Russia to hide Ukraine. I'm sure
there is more dirt in Ukraine and China and .Notice Trump has 2 personal lawyers that he has
briefed to handle items he could normally count on a Cabinet Secretary to do? Why? These are
not, I suggest, normal times. The C_A, Brennan, Clapper and others are in full court press.
But now it's the 4th period and they are out of gas (sorry, bad sports metaphor).
Trump could get impeached. The Senate would look at it. Rule it is spurious and throw it out.
Then McConnell could say: 'What about this CFR video, Biden, Ukraine what about that?" Trump
gets elected in 2020 with a landslide after gaining significant sympathy and support. The
MORE INSANE the MOCKINGBIRD CIA media behaves, the more people are leaving the Democrat Party
and the more Independents see Trump as the only game in town.
Who is their to vote for: Biden, Warren, Booker, Bernie? The Left has no one except Gabbard
and they don't trust her. Kamala Harris has lost all heart. Killary Clinton or Big Mike
Obama? The voters would reject both. They have nothing.
@Sean
McBride I have a colleague, who I believe to be a psychopath, who always backs the person
he thinks will win in our organization's power struggles.
He has been very successful, and
leads a happy and celebrated life. I would urge all of you to consider his example, think
first of your families, and desist from backing a losing cause.
America is mostly lost. We
can keep it alive in our homes, but our political culture is, and will remain, an alien
culture, that renounces the vision of our founders.
@Rurik
Rurik,
good or bad, Mr Kolomoysky is the only one Ukr oligarch who is against IMF and against
Clintonites. Good or bad, he is not considered as anti-Putin, or anti-Russian in the Ukraine.
If he is connected to the nefarious entity called Rothschild, this omnipotent Rothschild did
not help him when the other bankers took over his bank.
The world is not that simple, Rurik. You see a Jew and you presume he is a Zionist, Jewish
supremacist, unhinged Putin-hater and Rothschild stooge. With this presumption, you do not
have to read at all.
@Cato A
question to consider: has America been a Masonic project from the start? Has it been a
Masonic project all along? Has there always been a radical disconnect between America's overt
agenda and a hidden agenda?
Which is precisely why Trumpenstein must be destroyed, and why Brexit must not be
allowed to happen or, if it does, why the people of the United Kingdom must be mercilessly
punished. It is also why the Gilets Jaunes are being brutally repressed by the French
police, and disappeared by the corporate media
The author nailed it
True believers in the Globalist faith as a matter of dogma believe, "Anyone who does not
meekly submit to unelected elites must be mentally ill." That people wish to have freedom is
beyond their ability to comprehend.
Thus the 1st Mosque of the Globalist Faith leads only to failure. Free Christian citizens
will not go to Globalist Mosques to revere graven images of the Most Holy Soros. In fact,
Christianity has sanctions for such idolatry.
Now that the fake stream, corporate media no longer controls the narrative -- The far left
cannot win the next election. Will the beast of the underworld, The IslamoSoros, try to steal
the election? Probably. But, such spawn of Satan can be defeated by men of goodwill.
Candidates for POTUS who are fundraising off "impeachment" are undermining credibility of
inquiry in eyes of American people, further dividing our already fractured country. Please
stop. We need responsible, patriotic leaders who put the interests of our country before
their own.
On day one of my presidency, I will call a summit between the United States, China, and
Russia to work to end the new Cold War, stop the arms race, and reduce tensions and increase
cooperation going forward.
A recent interview given by a former high-ranking official in Israeli military
intelligence has claimed that Jeffrey Epstein's sexual blackmail enterprise was an Israel
intelligence operation run for the purpose of entrapping powerful individuals and politicians
in the United States and abroad.
Since the apparent death by suicide of Jeffrey Epstein in a Manhattan prison, much has come
to light about his depraved activities and methods used to sexually abuse underage girls and
entrap the rich and powerful for the purposes of blackmail. Epstein's ties to intelligence,
described in-depth in a recent MintPress investigative
series , have continued to receive minimal mainstream media coverage, which has essentially
moved on from the Epstein scandal despite the fact that his many co-conspirators remain on the
loose.
For those who have examined Epstein's ties to intelligence, there are clear links to both
U.S. intelligence and Israeli intelligence, leaving it somewhat open to debate as to which
country's intelligence apparatus was closest to Epstein and most involved in his
blackmail/sex-trafficking activities. A recent interview given by a former high-ranking
official in Israeli military intelligence has claimed that Epstein's sexual blackmail
enterprise was an Israel intelligence operation run for the purpose of entrapping powerful
individuals and politicians in the United States and abroad.
In an
interview with Zev Shalev, former CBS News executive producer and award-winning
investigative journalist for Narativ , the former senior executive for Israel's
Directorate of Military Intelligence, Ari Ben-Menashe, claimed not only to have met Jeffrey
Epstein and his alleged madam, Ghislaine Maxwell, back in the 1980s, but that both Epstein and
Maxwell were already working with Israeli intelligence during that time period.
"They found a niche"
In an
interview last week with the independent outlet Narativ , Ben-Menashe, who himself
was involved in Iran-Contra arms deals, told his interviewer Zev Shalev that he had been
introduced to Jeffrey Epstein by Robert Maxwell in the mid-1980s while Maxwell's and
Ben-Menashe's involvement with Iran-Contra was ongoing. Ben-Menashe did not specify the year he
met Epstein.
Ben-Menashe told Shalev that "he [Maxwell] wanted us to accept him [Epstein] as part of our
group . I'm not denying that we were at the time a group that it was Nick Davies [Foreign
Editor of the Maxwell-Owned Daily Mirror ], it was Maxwell, it was myself and our team
from Israel, we were doing what we were doing." Past reporting by Seymour Hersh and others
revealed
that Maxwell, Davies and Ben-Menashe were involved in the transfer and sale of military
equipment and weapons from Israel to Iran on behalf of Israeli intelligence during this time
period.
He then added that Maxwell had stated during the introduction that "your Israeli bosses have
already approved" of Epstein. Shalev later noted that Maxwell "had an extensive network in
Israel at the time, which included the then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, according to
Ben-Menashe."
Ben-Menashe went on to say that he had "met him [Epstein] a few times in Maxwell's office,
that was it." He also said he was not aware of Epstein being involved in arms deals for anyone
else he knew at the time, but that Maxwell wanted to involve Epstein in the arms transfer in
which he, Davies and Ben-Menashe were engaged on Israel's behalf.
However, as MintPress reported in Part
IV of the investigative series " Inside the Jeffrey Epstein
Scandal: Too Big to Fail ," Epstein was involved with several arms dealers during this
period of time, some of whom were directly involved in Iran-Contra arms deals between Israel
and Iran. For instance, after leaving Bear Stearns in 1981, Epstein began
working in the realms of shadow finance as a self-described "financial bounty hunter,"
where he would both hunt down and hide money for powerful people. One of these powerful
individuals was Adnan Khashoggi, a Saudi arms dealer with close ties to both Israeli and U.S.
intelligence and one of the main brokers of Iran-Contra arms deals between Israel and Iran.
Epstein would later forge a business relationship with a CIA front company involved in another
aspect of Iran-Contra, the airline Southern Air Transport, on behalf of Leslie Wexner's
company, The Limited.
http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/how-israel-controls-its-narrative/
Email This Page to Someone
Remember My
Information
=>
List of Bookmarks
◄
►
◄
►
▲
▼
Remove from Library
B
Show
Comment
Next New Comment
Next
New Reply
Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More...
This Commenter
This Thread
Hide Thread
Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They
are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My
Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Email Comment
Ignore
Commenter
Follow Commenter
Add to
Library
Bookmark
Toggle
All
ToC
▲
▼
Search Text
Case
Sensitive
Exact Words
Include Comments
Search
Clear
Cancel
It is interesting to note how the Israel
Lobby is able to manage and contain the commentary of groups in America that might normally be critical of
Israeli policies vis-à-vis the United States.
A recent article
by Professor Andrew Bacevich entitled "President Trump, Please End the American Era in
the Middle East" is a good example of how self-censorship by authors works. The piece appeared as one of
Bacevich's regular weekly contributions to
The American Conservative
website under the rubric
"Realism and Restraint."
The article particularly focused on the
foreign policy pronouncements of Bret Stephens, the resident neocon who writes for
The New York Times
.
Stephens, per Bacevich, has been urging constant war in the Middle East and
worrying lest
"we may be witnessing the beginning of the end of the American era in the Middle East."
Bacevich, unlike Stephens, is a genuine foreign policy expert, a realist, an Army veteran, and always quite
sensible. He correctly described how "in the Middle East, the military power of the United States has played
a large part in exacerbating problems rather than contributing to their solution."
The overall message is sound, but in
this case, it is interesting to note what Bacevich left out rather than what he included. It is easy to
understand the "realism" part when he writes and it is sometimes also possible to perceive the "restraint."
He cited Iran seven times as well as Saudi Arabia, but, strangely enough, he never mentioned Israel at all,
which a number of commenters on the piece noted. It rather suggests that there is a line that Bacevich is
reluctant to cross. The omission is particularly odd as Israel is absolutely central to and might even be
described as driving American policy in the Middle East and Bret Stephens, whom Bacevich excoriates, is a
notable Israel-firster who once worked as the editor of the
Jerusalem Post.
Almost everything
Stephens writes is basically a promotion of Israel and its interests coupled with a call for the United
States to do what it must to attack and destroy the Jewish state's principal perceived enemy Iran.
The reticence is perhaps understandable
as Bacevich is president of a newly organized group called the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft,
which
I have written about previously
, that will have its official launch in November. It claims to promote
"ideas that move U.S. foreign policy away from endless war and toward vigorous diplomacy in the pursuit of
international peace" and further takes some pride in being non-partisan though bipartisan might be a better
description. To be sure, Quincy's two major donors are the highly controversial George Soros on the
globalist left and the equally notorious Koch Foundation on the libertarian-lite right, which leads one to
wonder who is ordering the restraint when it comes to Israel. Or is it both of them as neither organization,
though very active in foreign policy, has indicated any desire to seriously criticize the many crimes of the
Jewish state. I appear to have accurately predicted in my earlier article on Quincy that " there will
inevitably be major issues that Quincy will be afraid to confront, including the significant role played by
Israel and its friends in driving America's interventionist foreign policy."
Indeed, anyone who wants to be a player
in Washington DC has to avoid the Israel hot wire. That it should be so is a tribute to the power of the
Jewish lobby coupled with the bulk support and Bible-belt votes of its brain-dead Christian Zionist spear
carriers. Congress, once described by Pat Buchanan as "Israeli-occupied territory," likewise knows whom not
to offend lest one be unemployed in the next electoral cycle. That is why criminalizing criticism of Israel
or support of a non-violent boycott of the country are regularly introduced in Congress and find themselves
with more than one hundred sponsors and co-sponsors. Nearly two dozen such pro-Israel bills are currently at
certain points in the legislative process,
including one
that will enable aggrieved Israelis to sue the Palestinian Authority (PA) in sympathetic
U.S. courts for damages, a move that will potentially bankrupt the PA.
And the colleges and universities have
not been immune from pressure to conform to the pro-Israel narrative. The White House acting through the
Department of Education is functioning as thought police on behalf of the Jewish state. It is currently
planning on withholding
some federal funding of the University of North Carolina and Duke because their
joint Middle Eastern studies program does not meet alleged government standards. The standards involved
relate to the fact that the program has had speakers and course content that can be construed as critical of
Israel and friendly to Muslims. The message clearly being sent to the schools by the Trump Administration is
that if you criticize the Jewish state you will be punished.
The drive to eliminate any pushback
against Israeli actions at colleges has been spearheaded by leading Zionist Kenneth L. Marcus, who was
appointed the Education Department's Assistant Secretary of Civil Rights. Marcus, who has worked as a paid
pro-Israel activist, has been urging the government to define the BDS movement as anti-Semitic and has used
his office to designate any Palestinian advocacy as a violation of Jewish students' civil rights.
The federal action to enforce
educational conformity on Israel is not exactly new as universities have long since been self-censoring,
just like Bacevich, normally in response to complaints by Jewish groups. To cite only one example, in 2013,
at nominally Catholic Fordham University in New York City,
a student group sought
to form a Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) club. Their paperwork advised
that their goal was to "build support in the Fordham community among people of all ethnic and religious
backgrounds for the promotion of justice, human rights, liberation and self-determination for the indigenous
Palestinian people." The applicants also revealed that they would support the Boycott, Divestment and
Sanctions (BDS) movement. Three years later, Fordham's Dean of Education denied the application because of
the support for BDS. The students took Fordham to court and in August of this year, three years later, a New
York judge finally struck down the decision as "
arbitrary
and capricious
."
So it took six years and a lawsuit to
enable a group of students to form a club that was admittedly political in nature but non-violent and
welcoming of everyone. So much for freedom of speech and association at America's colleges and universities
when they run up against the Israel wall.
What is less observed is how Israel's
message is promoted at the state and local levels. At the state level, anti-BDS legislation is now the rule
in 26 states, with some requiring government employees to sign a pledge not to boycott Israel. And the same
thing is happening among Boards of Education. Fourteen states now require holocaust education, where
students are compelled to read fiction like Eli Wiesel's "Night" while also consuming the established and
standard, largely fabricated, account of what the so-called holocaust was all about. In Virginia, for
example,
a shadowy
group
called the Institute for Curriculum Services (ICS), which is actually a "partisan group with
backing by state and local Israel advocacy organizations,"
is seeking to
change the information conveyed by the history and social studies textbooks used in K-12
classrooms across the state. ICS recommended changes include: "1. Emphasizing Arab culpability for crisis
initiation leading to military action and failure of peace efforts -- and never Israeli culpability, even when
it is undisputed historic fact. 2. Replacing the commonly used words of "settlers" with "communities,"
"occupation" with "control of," "wall" with "security fence," and "militant" with "terrorist." 3.
Referencing Israeli claims such as "Israel annexed East Jerusalem" and the Golan Heights as accepted facts
without referencing lack of official recognition by the United Nations and most member nation states."
The ICS is only one example of the
persistent Israel Lobby brainwashing of the American public on behalf of the Jewish state to completely
alter the narrative about what is going on in the Middle East. Taken all together, the self-censorship of
groups and individuals that wish to remain viable by ignoring the Israel problem, the criminalization of
non-violent movements like BDS, and the pressure on universities and schools to conform with positive
narratives about Israel means that any genuine understanding of that nation's war crimes and crimes against
humanity will, unfortunately, remain on the margins.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is
Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation
(Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.
Website is
https://councilforthenationalinterest.org,
address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA
20134 and its email is
[email protected].
The day Jeffrey Epstein turned up dead in a New York jail cell, I decided I needed to write
something about Eyes Wide Shut (1999), Stanley Kubrick's last and weakest movie.
Epstein has quickly faded from the headlines, so let me remind
you briefly of who he was. Epstein was an American Jew who enjoyed immense wealth from
unknown sources, hob-knobbed with the global elite, including Bill Clinton and Prince Andrew,
and was a pervert with a taste for underage girls, meaning that he was a serial rapist. He is
also accused of sharing these women with his wealthy and powerful friends, which would have
implicated them in marital infidelity and statutory rape, making them subject to blackmail.
In 2006, the FBI began investigating Epstein, tracking down over 100 women. In 2007, he was
indicted by the federal government on multiple counts of sex trafficking and conspiracy to
traffic minors for sex. If convicted, he and his co-conspirators could have spent the rest of
their lives in prison. But US Attorney Alex Acosta was told to go easy on Epstein, because "he
belonged to intelligence." Epstein received a sweetheart deal. He pled guilty to two state
prostitution charges and spent 13 months at a Florida county jail with generous work release.
Epstein's co-conspirators were not prosecuted at all. The records were sealed, and would have
remained so, were it not for the efforts of reporter Julie Brown , whose stories
led to the unsealing of Epstein's records, followed by his arrest and death in custody.
The most plausible explanation for Epstein's mysterious life and death is that he was a pimp
who implicated rich and powerful men and then blackmailed them, financially and politically. If
he enjoyed the patronage of "intelligence," it was most likely Israeli. When he was first
arrested, he called in favors from his patrons (and probably from his victims as well), to
avoid federal prosecution, which could have embarrassed many powerful people. When Epstein was
re-arrested, there was no way he could escape prosecution, so he was murdered to protect the
secrets of any (or all) of his patrons and victims.
... ... ...
The higher one climbs in the social hierarchy, the closer one approaches the inner party,
the greater the degeneracy and the more ferocious the assault on marital fidelity.
... ... ...
So why would the power-elites of a society engage in group perversion? The richer a person
is, the more opportunities there are for self-indulgence. After a while, though, such people
get jaded and hunger for exotic pleasures, including ones that violate the rules of morality
and the laws of society. It takes a highly developed sense of honor not to abuse the freedom
granted by great wealth. Even when such an aristocratic ethos was cultivated, there were many
spectacular failures. Moreover, today's oligarchy has dispensed with the pretenses of honor
entirely.
...Beyond routine degeneracy, elites also use sexual perversion as a tool of control. Just
as street gangs require prospective members to sully themselves with crimes to join, elites
have similar rituals, the more morally repulsive the better.
The prospects are eager to incriminate themselves because joining the gang will bring them
power. But self-incrimination also gives the gang power over its members, who must obey lest
they be exposed and humiliated. And of course worse sanctions are waiting in the wings, as
Jeffrey Epstein reminds us.
... ... ...
But for all its faults, Eyes Wide Shut has two important messages to which today's
Dissident Rightists are particularly receptive. It dramatizes important truths about man-woman
relationships and displays how sexual perversion is a tool of elite control. If you already
know the score on these matters, however, you might not want to suffer through two hours and
forty minutes of Cruise and Kidman.
In his phone call with Zelensky, President Trump mentioned two subjects in particular which
are Kryptonite to the Democrats: Crowdstrike and "the server," meaning the DNC server which
was never forensically examined by the FBI. Pulling on these two threads may be even more
interesting than the stuff about the big-bucks shakedowns of foreign governments by Joe Biden
& Son, Inc. Just for starters: what the fcuk is the DNC server doing in Ukraine?
As I reported on the previous thread, Sanders endorsed the impeachment proceedings in a
tweet I linked to and cited. Gabbard is apparently the only D-Party candidate that said this
decision is a mistake.
This article about her stance is actually balanced. Citing her recent interview by
FOXNews :
"'I have been consistent in saying that I believe that impeachment in this juncture would
be terribly divisive for our country at a time when we are already extremely divided,'
Gabbard explained. 'Hyper-partisanship is one of the things that's driving our country
apart.'
"'I think it's important to defeat Donald Trump. That's why I'm running for president, but
I think it's the American people who need to make their voices heard, making that decision,'
she said.
"Regardless of how you feel about Gabbard, you have to give her credit on this front.
America is extremely divided today and politicians in Washington play into that. The
impeachment saga is a prime example of their role in this division ." [My Emphasis]
When one digs deeper into the forces Gabbard's attacking, she's the most patriotic one of
the entire bunch, including the Rs. I haven't looked at her election websites recently, but
from what I see of her campaign appearances, her and Sanders seem to be sharing each other's
policy proposals, although they both choose to place more emphasis on some than others. For
Gabbard, its the wonton waste and corruption of the Empire that keeps good things from being
done for all citizens at home, whereas Sanders basically inverts the two.
Pelosi on Tuesday started this rock rolling down the hill.
She has made impeachment, which did not even come up in the last Democratic debate, the
issue of 2020. She has foreclosed bipartisan compromise on gun control, the cost of
prescription drugs and infrastructure. She has just put her own and her party's fate and future
on the line.
With Pelosi's assent that she is now open to impeachment, she turned what was becoming a
cold case into a blazing issue. If the Democrats march up impeachment hill, fail and fall back,
or if they vote impeachment only to see the Senate exonerate the president, that will be the
climactic moment of Pelosi's career. She is betting the future of the House, and her party's
hopes of capturing the presidency, on the belief she and her colleagues can persuade the
country to support the indictment of a president for high crimes.
One wonders: Do Democrats blinded by hatred of Trump ever wonder how that 40% of the nation
that sees him as the repository of their hopes will react if, rather than beat him at the
ballot box, they remove him in this way?
The first casualty of Pelosi's cause is almost certain to be the front-runner for the party
nomination. Joe Biden has already, this past week, fallen behind Sen. Elizabeth Warren in Iowa,
New Hampshire and California. The Quinnipiac poll has her taking the lead nationally for the
nomination, with Biden dropping into second place for the first time since he announced his
candidacy.
By making Ukraine the focus of the impeachment drive in the House, Pelosi has also assured
that the questionable conduct of Biden and son Hunter Biden will be front and center for the
next four months before Iowa votes.
What did Joe do? By his own admission, indeed his boast, as vice president he ordered
then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to either fire the prosecutor who was investigating
the company that hired Hunter Biden for $50,000 a month or forgo a $1 billion U.S. loan
guarantee that Kiev needed to stay current on its debts.
Biden insists the Ukrainian prosecutor was corrupt, that Hunter had done no wrong, that he
himself was unaware of his son's business ties.
All these assertions have been contradicted or challenged.
There is another question raised by Biden's ultimatum to Kiev to fire the corrupt prosecutor
or forgo the loan guarantee. Why was the U.S. guaranteeing loans to a Kiev regime that had to
be threatened by the U.S. with bankruptcy to get it to rid itself of a prosecutor whom all of
Europe supposedly knew to be corrupt?
Whatever the truth of the charges, the problem here is that any investigation of potential
corruption of Hunter Biden, and of the role of his father, the former vice president, in
facilitating it, will be front and center in presidential politics between now and New
Hampshire.
This is bad news for the Biden campaign. And the principal beneficiary of Pelosi's decision
that put Joe and Hunter Biden at the center of an impeachment inquiry is, again, Warren.
Warren already appears to have emerged victorious in her battle with Bernie Sanders to
become the progressives' first choice in 2020. And consider how, as she is rising, her
remaining opposition is fast fading.
Sen. Kamala Harris has said she is moving her campaign to Iowa for a do-or-die stand in the
first battleground state. Sen. Cory Booker has called on donors to raise $1.7 million in 10
days, or he will have to pack it in. As Biden, Sanders, Harris and Booker fade, and "Mayor
Pete" Buttigieg hovers at 5 or 6% in national and state polls, Warren steadily emerges as the
probable nominee.
One measure of how deeply Biden is in trouble, whether he is beginning to be seen as too
risky, given the allegations against him and his son, will be the new endorsements his
candidacy receives after this week of charges and countercharges.
If there is a significant falling off, it could be fatal.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and
Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
In his phone call with Zelensky, President Trump mentioned two subjects in particular which
are Kryptonite to the Democrats: Crowdstrike and "the server," meaning the DNC server which
was never forensically examined by the FBI. Pulling on these two threads may be even more
interesting than the stuff about the big-bucks shakedowns of foreign governments by Joe Biden
& Son, Inc. Just for starters: what the fcuk is the DNC server doing in Ukraine?
I now think that someone on the Trump team did this leak. It only helps him. The dirt on
Biden was public, but ignored by the corporate media. Now they are forced to report it to
attack Trump, and it makes Dems look corrupt. Big media spins this, but not true leftists
like Jimmy Dore and others with millions of followers.
I'm writing from Athens, Greece, where the Greek language media, along with most other
European non-English language media, have tracked the Hunter Biden story since 2014 –
the unashamed and unabashed nepotism, corruption and conflict of interest of his appointment
to Burisma, and the subsequent trail of arrests in Ukraine for drugs, prostitution, drunk
driving. Burisma itself is not a pretty story, and by being headquartered in Cyprus it of
course evades Ukrainian taxes.
All this is an old story here.
It is satisfying, given the outrages that have been forced on the Ukrainian people, to have
at least one tiny part of this horrible mess brought to light. For us it is immaterial who
does this good thing.
The fact that the Ukrainian prosecutor intended to prosecute despite Washington's
domination speaks to his honesty. Only the compradore "elites" of Europe would pretend
anything different – for Washington's sake.
Meanwhile one can only marvel at the Democrat party: surely they realise they are only
shooting themselves in the foot. Worse, what if it leads to the unveiling of other Obama era
crimes?
Biden insists the Ukrainian prosecutor was corrupt, that Hunter had done no wrong, that he
himself was unaware of his son's business ties.
All these assertions have been contradicted or challenged".
This is par the "American" course. This attitude of ordering other nations interface with
many unrelated areas . America vouch for their honesty integrity and love for rule of law,
desire for woman's lib , peace, democracy and open business as the reasons for them to
liberate Iraq ,sanction Iran, topple Basher ,kill foreign leaders ,impose IMF on Libya or
Pakistan and displace tribals from Amazon or Ganges ,or dismantle welfare stems in Venezuela
or India.
Biden just made this personal.
Whats wrong with this?
Just as Biden knows that he was aware of the business and the corruption so was America
that Taliban did nit attack USA and Saddam did not carry out 911 or conduct any WMD or CW
tests .
Biden was bombastic. So was America in 2003.
Chicken coming home to roost . But the home has been usurped also by latinos blacks
immigrants and by the climate change.
Good one. She's gotta be next to get defrocked, a phony progressive Wall Street war hawk.
Only not so soon that a limp Biden zombie could rise again.
TULSI Gabbard = A Thinly Veiled Threat to Israel
This speech was about Saudi Arabia, but the Israel Lobby has to get a cold chill at the
thought of a US military that ONLY DEFENDS AMERICA. "Our military exists to defend America -- not the radical Islamist dictatorship of Saudi
Arabia"
@yetagain
We all enjoy Trump, and I hope the enjoyment lasts another few years, because there is a lot
of roach-infested curtains and termite-infested walls to be torn down by the bumbling
mastodont.
(And, bugger me sideways, La Pelosi looks like something out of a Disney "Ghosts of the
Carribean" amusement park ride, what's going on?)
@anonymous
Dems are in a bind on this one. I think the DNC orchestrated the leak to take out Biden who
is clearly losing it. But Biden's strength was his "so called" pro-labor appeal, and there's
no one to take up that mantle. "So Called" because Biden sold out labor on the TPP with China
in exchange for $1.5 Billion to Hunter.
The replacement is the problem. Warren ain't it. Watch the Fake News Media and see who
they start promoting. Yes Warren can win the primary, but free medical to illegals means
she's toast.
@JamesD
Justice Kennedy – who decreed the change in legal marriage – was another
Republican choice for whom young Mr. Kavanaugh clerked before helping President Cheney with
the Patriot Act to earn his first robe on the Swampville Circuit. Chief Justice Roberts was
the one who nailed down Big Sickness for the pharmaceutical and insurance industries.
Like the "federal" elections held every November in even-numbered years and the 5-4
decrees of the Court, the nail-biting confirmation hearings are another part of the show that
keeps people gulled into accepting that so many things in life are to be run by people in
Washington. Mr. Buchanan for years has been proclaiming each The Most Important Ever.
I'm still inclined to the notion that the Constitution was intended, at least by some of
its authors and supporters, to create a limited national government. But even by the time of
Marbury, those entrusted with the powers have arrogated the authority to redefine them. In my
lifetime, the Court exists to deal with hot potato social issues in lieu of the invertebrate
Congress, to forebear (along with the invertebrate Congress) the warmongering and other
"foreign policy" waged under auspices of the President, and to dignify the Establishment's
shepherding and fleecing of the people.
Why should a robed, unelected politician be redefining marriage? Entrusted to enforce the
Constitutional limitations on the others? Sure, questions like these are posed from time to
time in a dissenting Justice's opinion, but that ends the discussion other than in the
context of replacing old Justice X with middle-aged Justice Y. Those of us outside the
Beltway are told to tune in and root Red. And there are pom pom shakers and color
commentators just like Mr. Buchanan for Team Blue.
@anon
No democrat votes will be cast for months, yet Pat and other pundits are already saying that
Pocahontas Warren will be their nominee. Tulsi raised the question of Warren's lack of
qualifications to be Commander-in-Chief (the most important job of any president). The media
and the DNC are trying to bury Tulsi, just as the RNC tried to do the same with Trump –
and we know how that turned out. The DNC failed this time to cheat her out of her rightful
place in the upcoming debate, which must make phoneys like Warren scared to death. Don't
count Tulsi out. Americans are sick unto death of constant war.
Academic freedom is a relatively simple principle. It refers to the "liberty to teach,
pursue, and discuss knowledge without restriction or interference, as by school or public
officials."
This principle seems to be under attack in America. The American administration has openly
interfered with the liberty to freely teach, pursue and discuss knowledge.
The New
York Times writes : "in a rare instance of federal intervention in college course content,
the department asserted that the universities' Middle East program violated the standards of a
federal program that awards funding to international studies and foreign language
programs."
According to the NYT the focus on 'anti Israeli bias' "appears to reflect the views of an
agency leadership that includes a civil rights chief, Kenneth L. Marcus, who has made a career
of pro-Israel advocacy and has waged a years long campaign to delegitimize and defund Middle
East studies programs that he has criticized as rife with anti-Israel bias."
One may wonder why America is willing to sacrifice its liberal ethos on the pro Israel
altar? Miriam Elman provides a possible answer. Elman is an associate professor at Syracuse
University and executive director of the Academic Engagement Network, which opposes BDS. Elman
told the NYT that this "should be a wake-up call what they're (the Federal government
presumably) saying is, 'If you want to be biased and show an unbalanced view of the Middle
East, you can do that, but you're not going to get federal and taxpayer money."
In Elman's view academic freedom has stayed intact, it is just the dollars that will
be withheld unless a university adheres to pro Israel politics.
Those who follow the history of Zionism, Israeli politics and Jewish nationalism find
this latest development unsurprising. Zionism, once dedicated to the concept of a "promised
land," morphed decades ago into an aspiration toward a 'promised planet.' Zionism is a global
project operating in most, if not all, Western states. Jewish pressure groups, Zionist think
tanks and Pro Israel lobbies work intensively to suppress elementary freedoms and reshape the
public, political and cultural discourse all to achieve Zionism's ambitious goal. After all,
Jewish power, as I define it, is the power to suppress criticism of Jewish power.
ORDER
IT NOW
This authoritarian symptom is not at all new. It is apparently a wandering phenomenon. It
has popped out in different forms at different times. What happened in the USSR provides a
perfect illustration of this symptom. In the early days of Soviet Russia, anti-Semitism was met
with the death penalty as stated by Joseph Stalin in
answer to an inquiry made by the Jewish News Agency: "In the U.S.S.R. anti-semitism is
punishable with the utmost severity of the law as a phenomenon deeply hostile to the Soviet
system. Under U.S.S.R. law active anti-semites are liable to the death penalty."
Germany saw the formation of Jewish anti defamation leagues attempted to suppress the rise
in anti Jewish sentiments.* There's no need to elaborate on the dramatic failure of these
efforts in Germany. And despite Stalin's early pro-Jewish stance, the Soviet leader turned
against the so- called " rootless cosmopolitan s." This
campaign led to the 1950s Doctors' plot , in which a group of doctors
(mostly Jewish) were subjected to a show trial for supposedly having plotted to
assassinate the Soviet leader.
In Britain and other Western nations we have seen fierce pro Israel campaigns waged to
suppress criticism of Israel and Jewish politics. Different lobbies have been utilizing
different means amongst them the adoption of the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism by
governments and institutions. In Britain, France, Germany and other European countries,
intellectuals, artists, politicians, party members and ordinary citizens are constantly
harassed by a few powerful Jewish pressure groups. In dark Orwellian Britain 2019, critics of
Israel have yet to face the death sentence, but they are subjected to severe reprisals ranging
from personal intimidation to police actions and criminal prosecution. People have lost their
jobs for supporting Palestine, others have been expelled from Corbyn's compromised Labour Party
for making truthful statements. Some have even been jailed for satirical content. And as you
might guess, none of this has made Israel, its supporters or its stooges popular. Quite the
opposite.
I learned from the NYT that the administration "ordered" the universities' consortium to
submit a revised schedule of events it planned to support, a full list of the courses it offers
and the professors working in its Middle East studies program. I wonder who in the
administration possesses the scholarly credentials to assess the academic level of university
courses or professors? Professor Trump himself, or maybe Kushner & Ivanka or Kushner's
coffee boy Avi Berkovitch , or
maybe recently retired 'peace maker'
Jason Greenblat t?
It takes years to build academic institutions, departments, libraries and research
facilities. Apparently, it takes one determined lobby to ruin the future of American
scholarship.
*In his book Final Solution David Cesarani brings the story of the Centralverein deutscher
Staatsbürger jüdischen Glaubens (Central Association of German Citizens of Jewish
Faith) that operated in Germany since the late 19th century "suing rabble rousers for
defamation, funding candidates pledging to contest antisemitism " You can read about the
association and its activity here
' 'Those who follow the history of Zionism, Israeli politics and Jewish nationalism find
this latest development unsurprising. Zionism, once dedicated to the concept of a "promised
land," morphed decades ago into an aspiration toward a 'promised planet.' '
It is quite clear that this legislation is in breach of the U.S. Constitution and that it
sets a new standard for legislation designed to prevent any type of negative speech against
Israel.
You are flat out wrong Gilad.
There is a difference between criticism of Israel and racist talk. There has been a lot of
racist behavior towards Jews going on college campuses. Students have been thrown off student
boards just because they went to Israel on a birthright trip. University of California has a
Israel Apartheid week, where Jewish students face physical abusive. Three is a curriculum
course on called "How to eliminate Israel".
You have not followed American Universities closely and are taking one incident out of
context see below what happened at a pro Gaza conference at UNC, when a Palestinian rapper
got really racist.
Just fill in Jews for Black, Muslim, gays, etc. There is a big difference you refuse to
acknowledge because a lot of your followers are racist. Isn't that what we are talking about?
American Universities have trustees that donate tons of money. Here in NY. NYU lost a lot of
trustee money from Alumni because of harassment by the SJP of Jewish students. In California
Jewish students are routinely harass and bullied. Racism is racism, not about Jews.
Columbia University had Edward Sayed and now Rashid Kaledi. Both who were outspoken critics
of Israel, and continue uninterrupted. L
This is what the rapper sang:
"Let's try it together. I need your help. I cannot be "anti-Semitic" alone," Nafar said
before singing, "don't think of Rihanna when you sing this, don't think of Beyonce –
think of Mel Gibson. I'm in love with a Jew/Oh/I fell in love with a Jew/Oh/Her skin is
white and my skin is brown, she was going up, up and I was going down."
@Sean The Palestinians are losers, who do not want their own state but rather they want
the Jews gone. That is their entire raison d'être, not national sovereignty.
It is you who need to come out of the trees.
Every left winger wants to make the Pals out to be the natives who got kicked out. Not true,
there were always Jews in Palestine, which belonged to no one and was a province of the
Ottomans.
It is a stupid story. 70% of Israelis come from Arab countries not Europe. The Pals are not
the Native Americans, with a distinct culture and identity who were replaced by colonizers.
It is a bogus story.
Their leaders are Jihadist who want to murder Jews, if they wanted a state the whole thing
would have been over like 50 years ago. Look at those corrupt leaders, keeping the entire
population prisoners of their greed and lust for destruction. They care little for national
sovereignty if it involves sharing land with the Jews.
The Jews figured it out a long time ago, it is just a matter of weaning the global
community from the propaganda and showing people what a scam the Palestinian cause is. The
arabs have abandoned them a long time ago, because their cause was not sincere.
Do no blame the Jews for all the death and destruction in the ME. Muslims have their own
porblems.
Prior to 9/11 the consensus of experts on the Middle East, Islam, Comparative Religion, etc.
was that MI6 Zionist Bernard Lewis was an ignorant, extremist lunatic. When Lewis feuded with
Edward Said, the whole academy sided with Said, who was elected president of MLA in a
landslide.
The 9/11 neocon-Zionist coup terrorized the academy and made Lewis a mainstream guru,
advisor to Bush Jr. and bestselling author. Since then the insane Zionist party line, which
has always dominated in both liberal and conservative media as well as politics, has been
forced on the academy, whose experts are smart enough and knowledgable enough to know how
insane it is but what can they do?
Atzmon tips his hand when mentioning the so called "Doctors plot" by citing Zionist dominated
Wikipedia on the subject.
Wikipedia is certainly not a reasonable, unbiased source for anything of special interest to
Jews.
@MarkU Yes, "Sean's" comment is illustrative of an emerging tendency among sophistic,
pilpul-pushing Jews (and some shabbosgoyim) in comment strings.
One key feature that we see here is the traditional Jew resort to claims of inevitability
for whatever goal the Jew is pursuing. The Jew is on the "right side of history." And those
in opposition are sure to be on the losing side. Note also the employment of Trump-like
winner/loser dichotomy. The Jew looks at what "sells" to any particular slice of goyim.
"Sean" figures that Trump-style language and phraseology will have some appeal here and so he
uses these terms in his comment.
Of course, the Jew has been thrown out of every place he has every infested. He first
alienated the Greeks of the Hellenistic Eastern Mediterranean, then the Western Europeans,
then the Eastern Europeans, and ultimately in the 20th century, the Muslim world. So over the
longer historical term, the Jews doesn't really look like much of a winner. The things he
does to "win" get him expelled or exterminated. But he is counting on the short historical
memory of the goyim to render that reality moot.
The Jew's first inclination is to make a moralistic appeal. His sense of his own morality
is a dominant characteristic of the Jew psyche. But here, "Sean" appeals explicitly to Jewish
power–"the strongest power." The Jew understands that the destructive obsessions of the
Jew left (really, pseudo-left) and Jew Neocons have exhausted and alienated American goyim.
So now he is trying to jump off that train and onto the MAGA or nationalist train. This is
absolutely typical of how the Jew thinks and operates. He doesn't really believe in anything
except what happens to be "good for the Jews" at the moment and in the foreseeable future.
The Jew observes that MAGA Goyim who think this way are inclined to accept power realities,
so the Jew wants to appeal to that by asserting the overwhelming power of the Jew in the US,
which, he informs us for our edification, is the most powerful country in the world. The
message is that whether you like the Jew or not, his position is unassailable, so you might
as well give in to it.
Another characteristic feature of the contemporary faux-conservative scheming Jew is the
inclination to co-opt anti-immigration sentiment. Notice how he links the British Labor
Party, one of the Jew's current bogeymen, with immigration, which he assumes is an emotive
topic for MAGA goyim, in an attempt to make his enemy everyone else's enemy. Again,
this is typical Jew behavior.
The Jews would go berserk if Israel came to an end. Sorry but its not worth it, and we
have responsibilities to our own that come first.
"Sean" concludes with a final warning that Jew power must be accommodated and projects an
air of resignation. He also strangely appends two quotes from former Italian PM Giulio
Andreotti:
"We learn from the Gospel that when they asked Jesus what truth was, he did not reply.
"Power wears out those who don't have it"
Now who would know or take the time to come up with these pessimistic, even nihilistic
comments from an old, Italian politician? It could be an utterly dejected and morally
defeated Catholic–in theory. But it's much more likely that this is all a Jew's notion
of how to promote the idea of the power of Jewry and the powerlessness of those who oppose
Jewry's global scheming. The Jew says to himself, "Well if the goyim are focused on the
scheming of the Jews, then I will co-opt that focus to impress on the goy the idea that
resistance is futile–that Jew schemes are destined to succeed no matter what the goy
does."
TUR is clearly a place where a good deal of experimentation goes on–including Jew
experimentation in how to anti-Jewish sentiments–judo-like–for use on behalf of
the Jew.
This sort of conniving–double and triple games–is at the very heart of how the
Jew sees and behaves towards the goyim.
@Oscar Peterson Woha there bucaroo!
Sean does not represent classic Hasbara thought or ideas. Not. He is not a classic Jew a
phobic in his thoughts, and often strays from the message, so much so that we Hasbara Jews
scratch out heads.
Zionist Jews do not think the Palestinians got treated badly. They believe that the entire
story is a Jihad against the Jews in an attempt to wipe them out as a religion. Nothing to do
with land and or peace. That is the beginning middle and end of the story, and we care little
about the Palestinians and their cause, talk to the Jihadist and stop them from trying to
eradicate us.
The rest of your story is pure speculation and bullshit and Jews have little time to ponder
such far out thoughts as they are facing constant threats of annihilation from Islam.
You may disagree with my points, but lets at least stay on track.
Thoughts like this:
Yes the Palestinian got badly treated and are had their rights violated, I consider
myself under any obligation to be on their side, I am on the side of the traditional people
of the West in their own countries. For helping other peoples I need to see some benefit to
my people, who cannot afford altruism. The Palestinians bring nothing to the table and are
helpless. As someone pointed out to Giraldi the other day on RT one of the main reasons the
Palestinians are helpless is because the other Muslims of the Middle East have lost
interest in them. Now they are left with Iran.
"Sean" is clearly using standard Jew techniques of sophistic argumentation: Inevitability,
selling Israel with different pitches to different goy audiences, attempting to sell pro-Jew
intellectual schlock as a "package deal" with memes assumed to be favorably received by the
targeted goyim.
These are absolutely indicators of the Jew rhetorical style.
Now, whether Sean is ultimately a classically conniving, dishonest Jew or an
unconventionally conniving, dishonest Jew or a shabbosgoy who has learned at the knee of the
conniving, dishonest Jew or a hapless goy whom the conniving, dishonest Jew has succeeded via
his propagandistic efforts in demoralizing to the point of a Stockholm-Syndrome-style
recitation is not a fully resolved issue. But clearly, we can see that the Jew or his
influence has been at work here one way or another.
Beyond that, you have said nothing except that you don't like the post, which is not a
concern for me in any case.
Sanders is spend force in any case. His endorsement does not matter much. But for Warren this
is a blunder. Tulsi is the only one out of this troika who proved to be capable politician.
As I reported on the previous thread, Sanders endorsed the impeachment proceedings in a
tweet I linked to and cited. Gabbard is apparently the only D-Party candidate that said this
decision is a mistake.
This article about her stance is actually balanced. Citing her recent interview by
FOXNews :
"'I have been consistent in saying that I believe that impeachment in this juncture would
be terribly divisive for our country at a time when we are already extremely divided,'
Gabbard explained. 'Hyper-partisanship is one of the things that's driving our country
apart.'
"'I think it's important to defeat Donald Trump. That's why I'm running for president, but
I think it's the American people who need to make their voices heard, making that decision,'
she said.
"Regardless of how you feel about Gabbard, you have to give her credit on this front.
America is extremely divided today and politicians in Washington play into that. The
impeachment saga is a prime example of their role in this division ." [My Emphasis]
When one digs deeper into the forces Gabbard's attacking, she's the most patriotic one of
the entire bunch, including the Rs. I haven't looked at her election websites recently, but
from what I see of her campaign appearances, her and Sanders seem to be sharing each other's
policy proposals, although they both choose to place more emphasis on some than others. For
Gabbard, its the wonton waste and corruption of the Empire that keeps good things from being
done for all citizens at home, whereas Sanders basically inverts the two.
"... The conservative movement's unwholesome obsession with Israel is not an entirely organic obsession to be sure. There is a whole lot of dark kosher oligarch money lurking behind the neoconservative cause, Christian Zionism, and the Reagan/Zioboomer battalion ..."
"... there is something awfully peculiar, almost disturbing about the old guard's infatuation with Israel. I mean, why are American boomers so concerned about the Jewish state and its survival? How exactly does a tiny apartheidesque ethnostate half-way around the world affect their everyday lives? Are they simply mind-slaves to a mainstream media dominated by powerful Jews and powerful Jewish interest groups? Is this all really about scripture as Christian radio likes to contend? Or is there something else afoot here? Well, in short, there is. ..."
"... White Westerners, white Americans in particular, are a thoroughly vassalized, deracinated people. We aren't allowed to celebrate our own race's host of historic accomplishments anymore. That would be racist. We aren't allowed to put our own people first either, as all other peoples do. That would likewise be racist. White Western peoples aren't even allowed to have nations of our own any longer, nations which exist to advance our interests, and which are populated by and overseen by people like us, who share our interests and our attitudes. That also would be, you guessed it, racist. Our very existence is increasingly little more than an unfortunate, racist obstacle to a brighter, more diverse future, in the eyes of the Cultural Marxist sociopaths who rule the Western World. Needless to say, most white Americans would rather be dead than racist, and so we are naturally, quite literally dying as a result. ..."
"... The white American psyche has been tamed, broken as it were. Ziocucking is a symptom of that psychic injury. ..."
"... White Americans can not, they must not, stake claim to an identity or a future of their own, so they have essentially committed themselves to another people's identity and future instead of their own. ..."
"... Actually, Donald Trump's electoral victory is at least partially attributable to a very similar psychological phenomenon. White Americans, who have largely lost the self-confidence to stand behind their traditions and convictions, still had the gumption to vote for a man who possesses in oodles and cringy oodles, the self-same self-confidence they lack. White Americans are thus engaged in an almost unstated, indirect, vicarious defiance of Cultural Marxism via Trump/Trumpism, a tangible, albeit somewhat incoherent, symbol of open revolt against Western elites. The repressed group will of whites is longing for an authentic medium of civilizational expression, but can only find two-bit demagoguery and Israel worship. The weather is not fair in the white, Western mind. ..."
"... After all, the birthrates of Jews in Israel are at well above replacement level . Israelis are optimistic about the future. As whites in the West fall on their proverbial sword to atone for their racist past, Jews in Israel are thriving. ..."
"... that unwholesome obsession will not dissipate until whites reclaim their own history, rediscover their roots, learn to take their own side, and demand a place in the planet's future (yes, I said demand , ..."
"... Until whites have a story and a spirit of their own, they will only, and can only, live through the identities and triumphs of other races. And perhaps most critically, they will continue to be a ghost people on the march to extinction. ..."
The conservative movement's unwholesome obsession with Israel is not an entirely organic
obsession to be sure. There is a whole lot of dark kosher oligarch money lurking behind the
neoconservative cause, Christian Zionism, and the Reagan/Zioboomer battalion. Nevertheless,
whether organic or not, the boomer generation's excessive regard for Israel is today authentic
and undeniable. A strong fealty to Israel is deeply entrenched amongst boomer-generation
conservatives. Indeed, when it comes to defending Israel and its conduct, many of these types
are like samurais on meth. They don't seem to care at all if their entire state or city should
devolve into a semi-anarchic New Somalia, but god forbid some Somali congresswoman should
lambaste the sacred Jewish state. That simply can't be countenanced here in the land of the
free!
Mind you, this article is not meant to constitute a polemic against Israel, or Jewish
ethnopolitics for that matter. The BDS movement is just as wrongheaded as Ziocuckoldry, in my
humble opinion. Although there is much wrong with Israel, there is plenty right with it as
well. Despite what the modern left may believe, there is nothing inherently illegitimate about
a state like Israel, one rooted in history, in genes, in religion, and in race. States built
around a shared ethnicity or a shared religion (or, as in Israel's case, an ample helping of
both) are generally more stable and successful than diverse societies erected upon propositions
most people and peoples don't really accept, or leftist values that have ideological quicksand
for their foundations.
With that said, there is something awfully peculiar, almost disturbing about the old guard's infatuation with Israel. I
mean, why are American boomers so concerned about the Jewish state and its survival? How exactly does a tiny apartheidesque ethnostate half-way around the world
affect their everyday lives? Are they simply mind-slaves to a mainstream media dominated by
powerful Jews and powerful Jewish interest groups? Is this all really about scripture as
Christian radio likes to contend? Or is there something else afoot here? Well, in short, there
is.
White Westerners, white Americans in particular, are a thoroughly vassalized, deracinated
people. We aren't allowed to celebrate our own race's host of historic accomplishments anymore.
That would be racist. We aren't allowed to put our own people first either, as all other
peoples do. That would likewise be racist. White Western peoples aren't even allowed to have
nations of our own any longer, nations which exist to advance our interests, and which are
populated by and overseen by people like us, who share our interests and our attitudes. That
also would be, you guessed it, racist. Our very existence is increasingly little more than an
unfortunate, racist obstacle to a brighter, more diverse future, in the eyes of the Cultural
Marxist sociopaths who rule the Western World. Needless to say, most white Americans would
rather be dead than racist, and so we are naturally, quite literally dying as a result.
The white American psyche has been tamed, broken as it were. Ziocucking is a symptom of that
psychic injury. Because white boomers possess no group/tribal identity any longer, or
collective will, or sense of race pride, or civilizational prospects, because they have been enserfed by a viciously anti-white Cultural Marxist overclass, they have opted to live
vicariously through another race. White Americans can not, they must not, stake claim to an
identity or a future of their own, so they have essentially committed themselves to another
people's identity and future instead of their own. Indeed, just as the cuckold doesn't
merely permit another man to penetrate his wife, but actually takes a kind of perverse pleasure
in the pleasure of that other man, in large measure by fetishizing his dominance and sexual
prowess, the Ziocuck likewise doesn't merely allow his civilization to be debased, he takes an
equally perverse pleasure in the triumphs of other peoples and nations, and by so doing
imagines, mistakenly of course, that America itself is still as free and proud a nation as
those foreign nations he fetishizes.
Actually, Donald Trump's electoral victory is at least partially attributable to a very
similar psychological phenomenon. White Americans, who have largely lost the self-confidence to
stand behind their traditions and convictions, still had the gumption to vote for a man who
possesses in oodles and cringy oodles, the self-same self-confidence they lack. White Americans
are thus engaged in an almost unstated, indirect, vicarious defiance of Cultural Marxism via
Trump/Trumpism, a tangible, albeit somewhat incoherent, symbol of open revolt against Western
elites. The repressed group will of whites is longing for an authentic medium of civilizational
expression, but can only find two-bit demagoguery and Israel worship. The weather is not fair
in the white, Western mind.
Through this sordid, vicarious identitarianism, threats to Jewish lives become threats to
their own white lives. Jewish interests become tantamount to their own interests. It is a sad
sight to behold anyhow, a people with no sense of dignity or shame, too cowed by political
correctness to stand up for their own group interests, too brainwashed to love themselves, too
reprogrammed to be themselves, idolizing alien peoples. Nevertheless, the need for belonging in
place, time, and history, and for collective purpose, doesn't just go away because Western
elites say being white signifies nothing but "hate". As white civilization aborts and hedonizes
itself into extinction, as whites practice suicidal altruism and absolute racial denialism,
atomized white individuals seek out other histories, other stories, other peoples to attach
themselves to and project themselves onto.
White Americans have thus foolishly come to see their own destiny as inseparable from the
destiny of a people whose destiny they don't really share.
After all, the birthrates of Jews in Israel are at well above replacement level .
Israelis are optimistic
about the future. As whites in the West fall on their proverbial sword to atone for their
racist past, Jews in Israel are thriving.
As whites in America suffer from various epidemics of despair , their fellow white
Americans seem more interested in the imaginary plight of Israelis who can't stop winning
military skirmishes, embarrassing their Arab enemies, and unlawfully acquiring land and
resources in the Levant. The actual, visceral plight of their own people seems almost an
afterthought to most white Americans. The whole affair is frankly bizarre and shameful.
This peculiar psychological phenomenon of vicarious identitarianism is at least partially
responsible for the Zioboomer's undying devotion to Israel. Furthermore, that unwholesome
obsession will not dissipate until whites reclaim their own history, rediscover their roots,
learn to take their own side, and demand a place in the planet's future (yes, I said
demand , since the white race's many enemies have no intention of saving a place for
them or willingly handing them a say in that future). Until whites have a story and a spirit of
their own, they will only, and can only, live through the identities and triumphs of other
races. And perhaps most critically, they will continue to be a ghost people on the march to
extinction.
A related phenomenon is Russia-cucking. White American conservatives who have seen through
Jewish bullshit often seem to conclude that the racial predicament in America is hopeless, so
they switch to Russia-cucking. Being pro-Russia is obviously more sensible than being
pro-Israel, but it's nationalism by proxy all the same.
"... Tulsi is the only Democrat who has her head screwed tight on her shoulders. As for the rest of that clown show---God help us!! ..."
"... Russia Gate 2.0 ..."
"... The Ukrainian gas HoldCo gave Hunter Biden a no-show job that paid $600K a year. They could have hired dozen of Yale Law grads for less. ..."
"... Kind of sad we Americans after two years of Russia gate will be dragged through a new political ploy. Our intelligence community and the DOJ need come clean and quick. ..."
"... The transcript of Trump's call to the Ukrainian president is out. There is absolutely no mention of anything close to a quid pro quo. ..."
"... "Repeat after me: the President should not demand foreign powers investigate his political rivals." How about Senate Democrats, Hillary Clinton, the DNC? Do you have a problem with them soliciting, even paying cash, to foreigners to investigate Trump? How about spying? Do you have a problem with one party using U.S. intelligence to spy on another party's nominee? ..."
"... This time - played into showing an utter electoral weakness by demanding an impeachment with no grounds for such a year before an election they, according to their screams on every corner, are "poised to win". Uncool, bros and sises, uncooool... ..."
"... The only mildly critical observation as to how exactly Trump played the said fiddle is that it would have been a tad better had he taken his time and waited for some days. ..."
"... The Democrats have hitched their train to the impeachment star not with impeachment per se as the goal. ..."
"... Just dragging us through this execrable process will achieve what they want nicely, i.e., disrupting possible Trump progress on his policy initiatives ( such as they are ), and weakening his electoral chances amongst the incorrigibly indecisive segment of American voters at the margin. Fighting corruption with corruption has now become the norm in Washington, D.C. ..."
I agree with Tulsi Gabbard - an impeachment at this time serves no point. It also discounts
the value of voting Democrat. This act may hand the White House to Trump for another 4
years. One can only hope that a Tusi G can arise and become our next president. The rest of
the team are basically knee jerk politicians waiting for the lobbies to instruct.
If Democrats weren't fanatically determined to prevent her from arising at all costs, she
could become the president already in a year. She can realiably beat any Republican aside
from Rand Paul, who isn't much more loved within his party than she within hers. One can
only wonder why the Democratic establishment hates her so much. Not a member of the Cult?
Better losing on and on and on than allowing an anti-war candidate to get the nomination?
Collective political manifestation of Freudian death wish?
"I hope with all of my soul, and with respect for those like Ellsberg, Manning, and
Snowden, that this whistleblower proves worthy to stand next to them. And God help him and
our country if not."
So, Democrats have done just what he wanted them to do - started a miserable (and a doomed,
given that the Senate is in Republican hands) circus instead of actually campaigning with
their voters, while also riling his ones. But thanks, team D, for showing what your
candidates' chances to get elected really are. Has been no secret to me that those chances
are illusory, but thanks for making the thing official anyways. Starting a stillborn
attempt to depose a president, against whom you, in your fantasy world, are "poised to win"
in a year, is the best testimony of how toast you are in the said fantasy world's real
counterpart. Attacongressboys and attacongressgirls. Take some metaphorical cookies from
the metaphorical jar.
The only sad thing is that you're sullying the notion of whistleblower with a clown,
who, most probably, doesn't even exist. The whole thing is actually your petty revenge
against Snowden, who has just released his new book, ain't it? Low.
"Remember, he knows what was said and the Dems demanding impeachment do not."
Exactly and the Dems are setting themselves up for another public disaster thus handing
Trump his reelection. Anyway Biden is history and he should withdraw immediately. Fighting
this losing battle will only invoke the well deserved wrath of justice.
Looks to me that Trump is turning the tables on the democrats and they are in for a
world of hurt when the investigations and indictments start rolling now.
Kind of sad we Americans after two years of Russia gate will be dragged through a new
political ploy. Our intelligence community and the DOJ need come clean and quick.
The transcript of Trump's call to the Ukrainian president is out. There is absolutely no
mention of anything close to a quid pro quo. Trump asks the president to take calls from
Bill Barr and Giuliani to talk about corruption broadly. Biden's son is also included in
what they'll talk about. It is all very high-level, general, surface talk. If Dems want to
try and impeach on this, it is a long shot at best.
https://fm.cnbc.com/applica...
"Repeat after me: the President should not demand foreign powers investigate his political
rivals."
How about Senate Democrats, Hillary Clinton, the DNC? Do you have a problem with them soliciting, even paying cash, to foreigners to
investigate Trump? How about spying? Do you have a problem with one party using U.S. intelligence to spy on
another party's nominee?
I'll repeat after you once you clarify your position on those things. But if you're not
consistent, why should I?
The transcript released has Trump asking for an investigation of Biden and Biden's son
explicitly. Then it emphasizes how "very good" to the Ukraine the U.S. has been and how the
relationship "has not always been reciprocal".
At the time of the call the president was holding back hundreds of millions of dollars
in Ukranian aid. How dumb do you have to be to not interpret this as a gangsta time of quid-pro-quo
attempt?
The whole whistle blower report should be released.
The Demos have no real choice but to start an impeachment query as their voters will
interpret not doing this as clear cowardice and moral spinelessness. They know the
impeachment won't succeed.
So, looks like "some" folks have been played like a fiddle all over again. This time -
played into showing an utter electoral weakness by demanding an impeachment with no grounds
for such a year before an election they, according to their screams on every corner, are
"poised to win". Uncool, bros and sises, uncooool...
The only mildly critical observation as to how exactly Trump played the said fiddle is
that it would have been a tad better had he taken his time and waited for some days.
Nothing practical - the situation served its purpose fairly and squarely - but it would be
such a cute circus, and wailings would be so much louder if everything fell apart just a
little bit later. But maybe he just doesn't like the circus. De gustibus non est
disputandum , though.
Whoa, there cowboys and indigenous peoples! The Democrats have hitched their train to the
impeachment star not with impeachment per se as the goal.
Just dragging us through this
execrable process will achieve what they want nicely, i.e., disrupting possible Trump
progress on his policy initiatives ( such as they are ), and weakening his electoral
chances amongst the incorrigibly indecisive segment of American voters at the margin.
Fighting corruption with corruption has now become the norm in Washington, D.C.
It's sort of the long game, with a hint of the "Hail Mary" pass thrown in for good
measure. They know what they're up to. But, as the author says, it just might backfire.
They may overplay their hand. Or make one of the two classic blunders.
Vizzini: "Ha-ha, you fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most
famous of which is 'Never get involved in a land war in Asia,' but only slightly less well
known is this: 'Never go in against a Sicilian, when death is on the line!'"
A presentation and reading by Hamilton Gregory, author of "McNamara's Folly: The Use of
Low-IQ Troops in the Vietnam." Because so many college students were avoiding military service
during the Vietnam War, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara lowered mental standards to induct
354,000 low-IQ men. they were known as McNamara's "Moron Corps." Their death toll in combat was
appalling. Gregory indicates at the end of his talk that the situation didn't really change.
The same practice is taking place nowadays.
England patriot says:
September
24, 2019 at 5:27 pm GMT 100 Words A lot of people mistake low IQ brutishness for genuine
bravery and strength, which is why blacks are considered by many whites to be the toughest race
and probably why they are favoured by the military.
A big weakness of the US and UK militaries is the assumption that street thugs make the most
effective and capable troops, in reality such people are often the most useless and cowardly in
an actual war zone. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All
Comments
The story is definitely true. Not only were there low moron troops but even the so called
West Point graduates with no experience in war were complete idiots. It was a two fold fiasco
because these graduates couldn't read coordinates on maps and the morons couldn't find them
and thus they often bombed our own troops.
There were a lot "friendly fire" deaths that were never reported. The carnage of Vietnam
was a disgrace from poor military strategies to morons and incompetents running them. We were
not prepared for the "Jungle Type Gorilla War" our leaders got us into and the results are
told forever on the Vietnam Memorial in Washington. What did they die for? Another
"Communist" are taking over Domino Policy when the true Communist Jews were running the stuff
in the USA and destroying us.
Two destroyers were recently collided into by slow-moving merchant ships. Someone said that
this is like a Chevy Corvette being struck by a bulldozer on the Bonneville Salt Flats while
a team of trained experts had the job of keeping the Corvette from being hit.
@A123
Any civilization that sends their Best and Brightest to the front lines is taking huge risks.
Cannon fodder troops generally come (and should come) from the lower tiers of society. This
promotes a nation's long-term health and vitality.
There is no starvation–only fasting–during Ramadan. Fasting occurs each day
from sunrise to sundown. On the other hand, Israel's high fertility rates among Orthodox and
Sephardic Jews has dysgenics written all over it. This explains why Israel's average IQ
average remains below 100. Highly religious and less-intelligent Jews are producing a
disproportionate number of the births inside Israel.
It's a lesson the US could've learned back in World War II. The US deployed black troops in
France, and instead of proving that the blacks were just as capable fighters as the whites,
the blacks engaged in typical black behavior of rape and thievery. It got so bad in areas
like Cherbourg that the local population preferred the Germans over their supposed
'liberators'.
The same thing happened earlier in the war when the Allies deployed Moroccan mercenaries
in Italy.
After the battle of Monte Cassino, these savages could rape Italian women with impunity, they
wouldn't be stopped by the French, the British or indeed the Americans, and as a result more
than 30.000 Italian women became victims of these vicious assaults.
But I bet it was all in good faith of course, after all the US was making Europe safe for
stali I mean, 'democracy'
Politicians did not want the war to become an issue among the affluent. It was the old adage
about wars: "Rich men start them; poor men fight them." There were plenty of chicken hawks
around.
The article and comments, so far, are interesting.
A military is a tool of the ruling class/caste/layer/whatever. What is moronic, or not, is
for them to decide. The only principle: is the tool good for the job?
There are several very good reasons to have "low-level IQ" troops in the military, a
modern war/combat in particular.
In an infantry company of, say, 160 men, a smart O.C. would love to have 10-20 of those
types. Plenty of jobs/assignments for them and definitely attributing to combat efficiency of
the unit.
Even better in logistics, especially in higher units/rear areas. Comparison:
warehouse/storage facilities employees in civvy street.
BTW, those guys, if/when properly treated (LEADERSHIP) can be utterly loyal and
dependable. For "experts" around, there are plenty of miserable, mind-numbing jobs/tasks in
the military, plus quite dangerous, which those guys shall do when others won't. If .treated
properly
And, one more element, especially in contemporary wars: certain moral attitude, "relaxed"
approach to human life and limb etc. Ability to commit acs of war other, more, say, smart,
"sensitive" troops, are reluctant to do.
Israel. IDF as the state tool to keep Palestinians under control.
Occupation forces of The Empire in Afghanistan and Iraq.
And one more thing: for suppressing possible internal unrest in a Western country ..For
that job you really don't want very intelligent/sensitive people.
Etc.
Big topic but, of course, not for this thread, for obvious reasons. Program.
Sorry for the interruption, guys. Feel free to resume the "bashing".
Infantry in Vietnam was known to be awful. Everyone in the military knew to avoid it. It was
openly used as a threat for non-compliance to troops elsewhere.
There were certainly exceptions. Some Marines, people wanting or needing to get their
ticket punched, etc. But before anything, Vietnam Infantry was getting the dregs. Not that I
doubt McNamera leaned into it as an opportunity.
Why in the world did they want or need all these troops? Westmorland kept asking for more
and more. After 500,000, per the pentagon papers, the JCS mood Westmorland that given US
presence in Europe, Japan, Korea, etc., there were no more extra troops.
Too bad that the US military has made a cottage industry out of revisionist accounts
regarding how it could have been "won". Showing a remarkable lack of insight into what it
means to win.
@A123
Interesting to see how a conniving Jew takes a piece about Vietnam and uses it to further his
objective of trying (quite unsuccessfully, one infers) to generate sympathy for the
Judenreich. He then doubles down with a further tangent leading somehow to Ramadan (!) It's
almost comical how transparent Jew scheming has become. It makes one wonder if the Hasbara
brigades have had to go low-IQ at this point?
Both in terms of IQ and class background, infantry in Vietnam were generally
representative of the general population. As one author assessed, "If they [soldiers in
combat units] were not the social and intellectual cream of American youth, neither were they
its dregs or castoffs."
nI saw the author of the book give at talk. I believe it was at a Tennessee Unversity. What
he described he saw as an enlisted man if I remember correctly. He was sent to OCS later and
sounded a very decent man. The conditions were awful for these guys. They were treated as
expendable by peers and officers alike.
I wonder how the IDF works this issue out. The Israelis are masters of the universe at
everything don't you know. They are utter geniuses.
All this brouhaha over Russiagate and to think that in the end it
was Ukraine that did it
Anyhow:
I am pretty sure this is a trap (for the Dems), who are initiating impeachment without even
knowing what's on the damn transcript.
It will be nice to see some questions on how exactly Hunter Biden was given a position at
Ukraine's natural gas monopoly with a monthly salary of $50,000 (in a country where the average
wage is two orders of magnitude lower) while daddy campaigned against Ukrainian corruption.
Perhaps there'll even be some good opportunities for knowledge about the Maidan false flag
to seep into the US, discourse though I'll believe it when I see it.
I do not know where the Dems are going with this. To actually get Trump out of office would
require a 2/3 majority of the senate to vote for conviction do the Dems really think there's
any set of circumstances under which they get those votes? Impeachment itself is nothing more
than "bringing charges." Bill Clinton was impeached; he still finished his term.
4D chess: the Dem establishment wants to knock off Biden and they think any extended
investigation into this Ukraine stuff may bring him down. But it could backfire: Biden still
ends up the nominee but Trump uses any dirt unearthed to portray him as a corrupt
wheeler-dealer, thereby weakening Biden's campaign.
a monthly salary of $50,000 (in a country where the average wage is two orders of
magnitude lower)
FWIW, the New York Times report suggests Hunter Biden's monthly salary for this cushy
position fluctuated, and that $50,000 was the maximum he ever received for his
services in any given month.
I wonder, if they had salary information, why not publish the full total? e.g., it could
have been [to make up a plausible number] $1,500,000 over his five years in that role (ca.
May 2014 to April 2019), ranging from $10,000 to $50,000 a month.
What would a Ukrainian look like who makes a salary as high as – one –
order of magnitude lower than Hunter Biden made for his Ukraine consulting work?
Someone made an English wiki page on Ukraine salaries:
According to that page, the salary avg. in Kiev was at 11,400 hryvnia/month in mid 2017,
while most other oblasts were at 6-7,000 hryvnia/month.
The exchange rate to USD
(nominal) in the period Sept. 2015 to Sept. 2019 has fluctuated between 21 and 29 hryvnia to
1 USD, which yields, covering the exchange rate range:
– avg. Kiev salary: something between $400 and $540/month [USD]
– avg. non-Kiev salary: something between $210 and $335/month [USD]
But the PPP-to-nominal spread for Ukraine suggests a more accurate view, when viewing the
figures in USD as above, would mean multiplying each by about 3x or even 3.33x.
So it looks like a lower-rung Kiev professional making ~1.5x to 1.75x the Kiev avg.
monthly salary, when that salary-figure is pushed up by PPP, is able to make, in one year,
what Hunter Biden may have made in a typical (not peak) month.
The ratcheting up of retaliatory actions between the US and Iran will lead to a war that
will be devastating to the people of both countries. As president I will re-enter the Iran
Nuclear Agreement and end the sanctions against Iran to move us back from the precipice of
war.
Reckless Retaliation Has Us One Spark Away From War
Most of the surprising material presented here is hardly hidden or kept under
lock-and-key. Nearly all the books are easily available at Amazon or even freely readable
on the Internet, many of the authors have received critical and scholarly acclaim, and in
some cases their works have sold in the millions. Yet this important material has been
almost entirely ignored or dismissed by the popular media that shapes the common beliefs of
our society. So we must necessarily begin to wonder what other massive falsehoods may have
been similarly promoted by that media, perhaps involving incidents of the recent past or
even the present day. And those latter events do have enormous practical significance.
Being the Guardian, of course, their prescription is that people should make a more
sincere effort to support the Reporters of Truth, such as the Guardian. In their retrograde
Left vs Right world, it's still up to the 'goodthinkers' to preserve our liberties from the
Boris Johnsons and Donald Trumps of the world. Never in a million years would they entertain
the possibility that Johnsons and Trumps come about because the Establishment–most
certainly including its MSM lackeys–is corrupt to its core.
As the Washington Post has it, "Democracy Dies in Darkness" -- neglecting to add, "We
supply the Darkness."
"... Aaron Maté warned, "They're doubling down on failure: a failure to transform after losing 2016; & a failure to bring Trump down w/ the failed Russiagate conspiracy theory." ..."
We've long commented that Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) is certainly the most interesting and
'outside-the-establishment-box' candidate on the Democrat side running for president
--
a
"Ron
Paul of the Left"
of sorts given her outspoken criticism of US regime change wars and standing
against foreign policy adventurism as her central message.
She even once met in 2016 with then President-elect Trump to discuss Syria policy and
non-interventionism at a private meeting at Trump Tower just ahead of his being sworn into office,
after which she said both agreed to resist "the drumbeats of war [on Syria] that neocons have been
beating to drag us into an escalation...".
And now
she's resisting calls for Trump to be impeached,
saying it
would be
"terribly divisive"
. She
told "Fox &
Friends"
on Tuesday that she'll remain consistent to her message that the road to 2020 can only
be found in a clear victory and mandate, saying it's for
"the American people... making
that decision" of who is in the White House,
not impeachment
.
"I believe that impeachment at this juncture would be terribly divisive for the
country at a time when we are already extremely divided. The hyperpartisanship is one of the
main things driving our country apart,"
Gabbard
told
host Brian Kilmeade.
Once again showing herself outside of the establishment and its blindly loyal partisan
narrative, and perhaps more in-tune with the American public, she's further setting herself apart
from her main Democratic rivals and the presidential nominee front-runners on this one.
"I think it's important to beat Donald Trump, that's why I'm running for president," she said.
"But I think it's the American people who need to make their voices heard making that
decision."
Top contender Elizabeth Warren, for example, tweeted
early Tuesday
, "The House must
impeach. It must start today."
A number of commentators pointed out this would likely end in failure as the Democrats double
down on impeachment even after Trump agreed to release the full, unredacted transcript of the
Ukraine call in question.
One progressive journalist and political commentator, Aaron Maté warned, "They're doubling down
on failure: a failure to transform after losing 2016; & a failure to bring Trump down w/ the failed
Russiagate conspiracy theory."
As we noted earlier, Democrats are now scrambling as it seems President Trump's
decision
to release the transcript has spoiled their narrative.
Like the failed Mueller investigation, should this blow up in Democrats' faces
it will
practically guarantee the reelection of Donald Trump
.
And likely for this very reason, Pelosi herself had for months resisted calls to start the
impeachment process, and
yet here we are
, with Pelosi leading the charge.
When the other candidates prove reliably progressive, I'll consider them. So far, Sanders
is the only one to reach that threshold. You may call that "purism"; I call it not supporting
candidates who don't support me.
I contributed to Tulsi Gabbard's campaign (and supported her as a potential VP candidate)
despite having reservations about her, specifically because I wanted her to be on the debate
stage to promote her anti-imperialist foreign policy views. She lost a lot of ground with me
on her vote on the anti-BDS referendum.
Not a Gabbard 'fan', despite donating to her. She was never a serious candidate; her
usefulness was in bringing a genuine anti-war platform into the debate. Now that the
'democratic' Party has cut her out, she doesn't have much point. She's still a drone loving
Zionist, and her continued supporting of literal fascist (or the next closest thing) Modi is
just gross.
Purity suggests politics is about morality. It isn't. It's about who's going to get you
stuff. Only Bernie talks in those terms. And he isn't pure but barely acceptable.
Purity is posturing for those who think politics is about public performance and self
expression. Upper middle class liberals can afford to approach things this way, but most
people are too busy trying to keep their horse out of the ditch. They need stuff.
Your work concentrates on Jewish guilt. There is another side of it that should be
considered: Jewish strategy has, at least since the end of the Napoleonic Wars, been good for
the Jewish financial oligarchy.
The current position of Jewish financial oligarchy worldwide is highly precarious. The
only Jewish state is small and surrounded on all sides by either sea or states that range
from hostile to at best neutral. States with nuclear weapons are among its fairly close
adversaries. Stability of the area depends on the United States, a Christian power (even yet)
that is severely weakened by two decades of war [1]. Jewish populations in the Middle East
are gone, and Christian populations in the area have been severely diminished in number.
Further, the population expansion that has been required to retain control of the Israeli
government by equaling the Arab birth rate has resulted in a very large highly religious
Jewish population that apparently is supported by welfare and believes so strongly in the
power of God that it relies on divine intervention for physical security and won't join the
IDF.
The only society that tolerates Judaism, Christianity, has been severely weakened
worldwide. It is being replaced by societies that in some cases do not tolerate Judaism and
in other cases treat Judaism as one of a number of competitors for foreign market dominant
minority.
During many years of writing about or describing the terrible damage that the "special
relationship" with Israel has done to the United States the question occasionally comes up
"Given the enormous power of the Zionist lobby, what can we do to bring about change?"
It is a simple question, though one that begs for multiple answers, but it also requires
some thinking about how the Establishment, better known as the Deep State, operates in America.
The American Deep State, which has as one of its dearest principles eternal nurturing of
Israel's interests, is actually a bundle of individual enterprises that together operate to
sustain policies that are mutually beneficial. Its epicenters include financial services and
faux news media in New York and the political hub in Washington, but it also is served by
Hollywood's entertainment plus propaganda machine.
And the three parts of the Deep State are essentially interchangeable, with generals and
intelligence figures ignorant of finance winding up in the KKR Global investment firm as has
General David Petraeus and Michael Morell in Beacon Global Strategies, while leading
representatives from Wall Street do a turn in government, particularly at the Treasury
Department. Television news and entertainment also feature celebrities from across the
Establishment while Hollywood draws on all of the above and works hard to make sure the
contrived narrative about American democracy and its wonderful "allies" is promoted at every
opportunity.
Which brings us to the Israel Lobby which is an integral part of the Deep State and in some
ways one of its most powerful elements as it has a foot in all the other components plus depth
that enables it to interfere in American government at the federal, state and local levels. It
is indisputably the driving force behind U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and even beyond
as it enforces standards on alleged anti-Semitism and engages in Lawfare and other shady
practices to protect the Jewish state. It differs somewhat from other parts of the
Establishment in that it pretends to have no such power at all, a fiction that it preserves by
pretending that its actions are all in defense of U.S. national security against evil nations
like Iran. From the Lobby's expressed point of view, Israeli and American interests just happen
to coincide.
By some estimates, there are 600 Jewish organizations active in the United States that have
at least as part of their raison d'etre the defense of Israel and Israeli interests.
They are supplemented by Christian Zionist groups like Christians United for Israel (CUFI) that
claims seven million supporters. The leading predominantly Jewish organizations like the
American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies
(FDD) are largely funded by Jewish oligarchs and exist to promote Israeli interests, to include
pressuring the United States into attacking Iran.
The Israel Lobby groups are awash in money, with AIPAC alone having an annual budget of more
than $100 million and 200 employees, who are able to blanket Capitol Hill and actually write
legislation for lazy congressmen. The salary and benefits of its Executive Director Howard Kohr
exceed $1 million. Against that, no organization critical of the Israeli relationship has
resources sufficient to do anything beyond surviving at a basic level and trying to get the
message out.
So what to do? First of all, there is Congress. Pat Buchanan once referred to Congress as
"enemy occupied territory." He was referring to the Israel Lobby's ability not only to control
the discussion on the Middle East but also to focus its efforts to defeat any congressman who
dared criticize the Jewish state. Politicians like Paul Findley, Chuck Percy, William
Fulbright, Pete McCloskey, James Traficant and Cynthia McKinney, who were brave enough to stand
up against Israel, found themselves out of a job after confronting well-funded and media
supported opponents at reelection time, sending the message that it was career ending to do
so.
That would suggest that it must be regarded as a given that congressmen and women will be
terrified of saying the wrong thing about Israel, but the reality is not quite so simple. I
have had numerous contacts with congressmen through the years, first by way of government
Congressional Delegations (CODELS) when I was overseas with CIA, and more recently in
Washington at various conferences and meetings. A quite surprising percentage of legislators
were privately quite willing to express their dislike of Israel and its policies, though none
of them were brave enough to go public with such sentiments. Some of them even expressed their
desire to see the Israel Lobby effectively destroyed because of its corruption of America's
institutions, surely an admirable viewpoint.
That means that there is an audience in Congress even if it is essentially passive. American
citizens who wish to become involved but are disdainful of getting active in political
campaigns or in even dealing with congressmen should recall Plato's warning that "Those who are
too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber." A good
friend of mine from California who has worked the congressional circuit on Palestinian issues,
most recently in backing the
Congresswoman Betty McCollum bill opposing Israel's military detention of children,
believes that it is necessary to be persistent to get through. She calls her congressman and
tries to set up an appointment to discuss the Middle East, saying that she is available
whenever there is an opening in the schedule and is even willing to fly to Washington if that
works best. When she is predictably put off, she persists, calling again and again until she
gets an appointment. The appointment itself is usually with a staffer, but when she gets to the
office she pushes again for another meeting, this time with the congressman. She repeats the
process as necessary.
One might argue that one woman meeting with one congressman has virtually no impact, which
may on the surface be true, but it reflects a failure to understand how congress works. If that
same congressman gets twenty-five calls on one issue, it is highlighted by the staff and the
congressional office begins to pay attention. If there are a hundred calls it is treated
seriously. Surely in every congressional district in the U.S. there are one hundred activists
willing to bug congress on the issue of the Israel relationship and the wars and devastation
that it has brought. If everyone angry about Israel were to call his or her congressmen there
would be a panic on Capitol Hill to be sure, but major unrest over the lopsided and dangerous
relationship is exactly what is needed.One particular subject to raise with congressmen is the
issue of Zionist foundations' apparent immunity from having to register as foreign agents under
the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) of 1938. Russian media outlets have been forced to
comply even though they are in no position to advance policies favorable to Moscow. The Israel
Lobby, which even writes legislation favorable to its most favored nation, is only exempted
because congress and the White House fear confronting Jewish power.
For activists who identify with the political parties, in a like fashion putting pressure on
delegates to next year's nominating conventions would also be desirable. While the Republican
Party's hawkish representatives would almost certainly be difficult to approach in that
fashion, the Democrats could prove to be much more susceptible. There has been considerable
criticism of Israel surfacing among the Democratic base, not just from the "Squad in Congress,"
most of which is now more sympathetic to the Palestinians than to the Israeli occupiers. An
uprising by the party faithful demanding an open discussion of the blank check support for
Israel is not inconceivable and it would really shake up the status quo .
The same basic formula works with the media. Send in one letter-to-the-editor criticizing
Israel and you will be ignored. Send in letter after letter and one piece might eventually
appear. If one hundred newspaper subscribers are sending in letters, the editorial staff will
begin to take notice. This has, in fact, been a development in the mainstream media over the
past five years. Disenchantment with Benjamin Netanyahu and the horror that he represents has
been growing, so much so that the genie is out of the bottle regarding Israeli "democracy." As
a result, it is now possible to read op-eds and editorials highly critical of Israel even in
Jewish-owned Establishment pillars like The New York Times . But much, much more of the
same is needed.
Finally, people who want to be freed from the Israeli yoke should support organizations that
are seeking to do just that and have been in the front line of the struggle. There is my own
Council for the National
Interest as well as If Americans
Knew , The Washington Report and
IRMEP just for starters, supplementing the
activity of a number of groups that focus on Palestinian rights. Sites like the Ron Paul Institute and Antiwar are also excellent sources of information.
All such organizations do benefit from the support of activists who are willing to speak up
and protest over the brutal behavior of the Israeli government, particularly as the Israel
Lobby has turned the United States into a co-conspirator for the Jewish state's war crimes. All
the groups are active in holding seminars and speaking events nationwide, information which can
be obtained from their websites.
So, the message is that the Israel Lobby is powerful but it is not invulnerable. We have to
keep pounding on congress, the political parties and the media if we are ever to be unshackled
from the Israeli monster. We have to do it and even more because the very future of our country
and what kind of nation we will be is at stake.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest,
a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a
more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org,
address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is[email protected] .
"The US served as a benevolent hegemon,
administering the occasional rap on the knuckles
to those acting in bad faith"
". Meanwhile, the system's multilateral institutions,
especially the International Monetary Fund,
helped countries in dire need of funds,
provided they followed the rules."
Behind the escalating global conflict over trade and technology is a larger breakdown of the
postwar rules-based order, which was based on a belief that any country's growth benefits
all. Now that China is threatening to compete directly with the United States, support for
the system that made that possible has disappeared.
By RAGHURAM G. RAJAN
CHICAGO – Another day, another attack on trade. Why is it that every dispute –
whether over intellectual property (IP), immigration, environmental damage, or war
reparations – now produces new threats to trade?
For much of the last century, the United States managed and protected the rules-based
trading system it created at the end of World War II. That system required a fundamental
break from the pre-war environment of mutual suspicion between competing powers. The US urged
everyone to see that growth and development for one country could benefit all countries
through increased trade and investment.
Under the new dispensation, rules were enacted to constrain selfish behavior and coercive
threats by the economically powerful. The US served as a benevolent hegemon, administering
the occasional rap on the knuckles to those acting in bad faith. Meanwhile, the system's
multilateral institutions, especially the International Monetary Fund, helped countries in
dire need of funds, provided they followed the rules....
"The US served as a benevolent hegemon, administering the occasional rap on the knuckles to
those acting in bad faith"
USA foreign policy since 70th was controlled by neocons who as a typical Trotskyites
(neoliberalism is actually Trotskyism for the rich) were/are hell-bent of world domination
and practice gangster capitalism in foreign policy. Bolton attitude to UN is very symptomatic
for the neocons as a whole.
Madeline "not so bright" Allbright was the first swan. As well as Clinton attempts to
bankrupt and subdue Russia and criminal (in a sense of no permission from the UN) attack on
Yugoslavia. Both backfired: Russia became permanently hostile. The fact he and his coterie
were not yet tried by something like Nuremberg tribunal is only due to the USA dominance at
this stage of history.
The truth is that the dissolution of the USSR the USA foreign policy became completely
unhinged. And inside the country the elite became cannibalistic, as there was no external
threat to its dominance in the form of the USSR.
The USA stated to behave like a typical Imperial state (New Rome, or, more correctly,
London) accepting no rules/laws that are not written by themselves (and when it is convenient
to obey them) with the only difference from the classic imperial states that the hegemony it
not based on the military presence/occupation ( like was the case with British empire)
Although this is not completely true as there are 761 US Military Bases across the planet
and only 46 Countries with no US military presence. Of them, seven countries with 13 New
Military Bases were added since 09/11/2001. In 2001 the US had a quarter million troops
posted abroad.
Still as an imperial state that is the center of neoliberal empire the USA relies more on
financial instruments and neoliberal comprador elite inside the country.
With the collapse of neoliberal ideology in 2008 the USA centered neoliberal empire
experiences first cracks. Brexit and election of Trump widened the cracks in a sense of
further legitimizing the ruling neoliberal elite (big middle finger for Hillary was addressed
to the elite as whole)
If oil price exceed $100 per barrel there will yet another crack or even repetition of the
2008 Great Recession on a new level (although we may argue that the Great Recession never
ended and just entered in Summers terms "permanent stagnation" phase)
Although currently with unhinged Trump at the helm the USA empire still going strong in
forcing vassals and competitors to reconsider their desire to challenge the USA. Trump
currently is trying to neutralize the treat from China by rejecting classic neoliberal
globalization mechanism as well as signed treaties like WTO. He might be successful in the
short run.
In the long run the future does not look too bright as crimes committed by the USA during
triumphal period of neoliberalism hangs like albatross around the USA neck.
EU now definitely wants to play its own game as Macron recently stated and which Merkel
tacitly supports. If EU allies with Russia it will became No.1 force in the world with the
USA No. 2. With severe consequences for the USA.
If Russia allied with China the USA No.1 position will hinge of keeping EU vassals in
check and NATO in place. Without them it will became No.2 with fatal consequences for the
dollar as world reserve currency and sudden change of the USA financial position due to the
level of external debt and required devaluation of the dollar.
Looks like 75 year after WWII the world started to self-organize a countervailing force
trying to tame the USA with some interest expressed by such players as EU, Russia, China,
India, Iran, Turkey, Pakistan and even Saudi Arabia. As well as ( in the past; and possibly
in the future as neoliberal counterrevolutions in both countries probably will end badly) by
Brazil and Argentina.
Only Canada, Australia and probably UK can be counted as the reliable parts of the USA
empire. That's not much.
"If Russia allied with China the USA No.1 position "........
Think Italy moving into the Axis in 1937? Or the Soviet German Non Aggression Pact.
Nuclear weapons removes the incentive for large "rearmaments" or not?
Would the Britain to France 1938 relationship describe the US to EU? Thinking in 1939
(1914?) terms Europe is less stitched together than in 1936.
Most of the surprising material presented here is hardly hidden or kept under
lock-and-key. Nearly all the books are easily available at Amazon or even freely readable
on the Internet, many of the authors have received critical and scholarly acclaim, and in
some cases their works have sold in the millions. Yet this important material has been
almost entirely ignored or dismissed by the popular media that shapes the common beliefs of
our society. So we must necessarily begin to wonder what other massive falsehoods may have
been similarly promoted by that media, perhaps involving incidents of the recent past or
even the present day. And those latter events do have enormous practical significance.
Being the Guardian, of course, their prescription is that people should make a more
sincere effort to support the Reporters of Truth, such as the Guardian. In their retrograde
Left vs Right world, it's still up to the 'goodthinkers' to preserve our liberties from the
Boris Johnsons and Donald Trumps of the world. Never in a million years would they entertain
the possibility that Johnsons and Trumps come about because the Establishment–most
certainly including its MSM lackeys–is corrupt to its core.
As the Washington Post has it, "Democracy Dies in Darkness" -- neglecting to add, "We
supply the Darkness."
Sigal Mandelker ,
the Zionist Under Secretary of the Treasury in charge of enforcing sanctions and boycotts,
was one of the high-ranking Department of Justice officials who signed off on the
nonprosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein in 2008.
Was she the one who told Acosta to back off on Epstein, as he belonged to intelligence and
was above Acosta's pay grade?
She did make him look stupid – all he had was a handful of talking points. Occasionally
he did try to talk over her to hammer home his points, but often he sat quietly and let her
finish. When your interviewer lets you speak, he's interested in what you have to say, or if
opposed to you, in letting you hang yourself.
When he talks over you, he's simply trying to do all the talking while offering the
pretense of an interview.
Given their age old fame for perfidy, corruption, cunning, mendacity and hatred of the
nations, along with their proclivity for high technology, my money would be on the Amish or
the Russian Old Believers as prime suspects and beneficiaries of the attacks.
Once again, the contest appears to be coming down to a choice between a "centrist"
establishmentarian corporatist with institutional backing (Joe Biden) and a left-leaning
populist progressive (Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders) preferred by Democrats, of whom 3 out
of 4 voters self-identify as progressives.
In 2016, the Democratic National Committee smooshed their thumbs all over the scale,
brazenly cheating the insurgent progressive Sanders so they could install their preferred
choice, the right-leaning Hillary Clinton. They won the battle but lost the war. Fewer than 80%
of Democrats who supported Bernie in the primaries voted for Hillary in the general election.
Disgruntled progressive voters -- especially those who sat at home on Election Day -- cost her
the race.
... If anything, Biden is even less appealing to the progressive base than Hillary
was
Warren sounded good when she said "let's break up the banks" but of course she sold out her
economic common sense to the Dem's corporate masters and had to embrace hard-core lefty
identity politics as a poor substitute.
wake up mr rall the democratic party is not monolithic and is in real likelihood of
disintegrating over the next few years into 2 parties: the hillary clinton democrats (in
reality part of the uniparty repubocrats) nad the progressive democrats who are obviously
unable to swallow any longer the fascism that IS the uniparty.
should trump be re elected i fully expect the democrats to split into 2 factions but still
use democrat in the name in whole or in part.
It has been 17 days since a four-year study of the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7
by civil engineers was made available to the media. The study concluded that fire was not the
cause of the collapse of the 47-story building. The study also concluded that "the collapse of
WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the
building."
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/09/04/the-official-story-of-the-collapse-of-wtc-building-7-lies-in-ruins/
In other words, the study concludes that the building was intentionally destroyed by
controlled demolition. Controlled demolition means that there was a plan to destroy the
building and that access to the building inhabited by a number of US security agencies was
permitted in order to wire the building for demolition. This finding is consistent with what
the owner of the World Trade Center, Silverstein, said on television, that the decision was
made "to pull" the building.
"... Margolis also says the KSA's US made air defences "failed" to protect their oil installations. This maybe so. But apart from the fact that their air defences are orientated away from Yemen there's a good chance the defences were turned OFF -- apparently this is common practice in the KSA, esp on weekends. I don't believe that Margolis's "mystery" is anywhere as deep as he suggests. The Houthis have received weapons & training from Iran/Hezbollah & have demonstrated an ability to hit KSA targets with unmanned aerial weapons. ..."
"... Until better evidence appears, I'm willing to give it to the Houthis -- if for no other reason than that they deserve to get in some good licks against that vile "Kingdom" (I'd suggest they next hit the water purification plants that serve Riyadh with all its water – apparently, the city has about 3 days of water stored. Evacuating 6 million from the Capital, the Sauds would be exposed as the corrupt, negligent, incompetent, stupid, vicious frauds we all know they are. ..."
"... These Hawks are under delusional assumption that an American led war against Iran would be a "Cakewalk" ..."
"... What they do know for sure is that the military industrial complex will increase its budget during and after such a war. Follow the money! ..."
Who Launched That Mystery Attack? Eric Margolis September 21, 2019 700 Words
14 CommentsReply Email This
Page to Someone
Remember My Information
=>
◄►◄►▲▼
Remove from Library B Show Comment Next New
Comment Next New Reply Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread
Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public
Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to
recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information'
checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour. Email Comment Ignore Commenter Follow
Commenter Add to Library
Bookmark Toggle All ToC ▲▼ Search
Text Case Sensitive
Exact Words
Include Comments
Search Clear Cancel
List of
Bookmarks
The Mideast has its own variety of crazy humor. The Saudis have been blasting and bombing
wretched Yemen, one of this world's poorest nations, since 2015.
These US-supported attacks and a naval blockade of Yemen imposed by Saudi Arabia and its
sidekick ally, the United Arab Emirates, have caused mass starvation. No one knows how many
Yemenis have died or are currently starving. Estimates run from 250,000 to one million.
The black humor? The Saudis just claimed they were victims of Iranian `aggression' this past
week after the kingdom's leading oil treatment facility at Abqaiq was hit by a flight of armed
drones or cruise missiles. The usual American militarists, now led by State Secretary Mike
Pompeo after the demented warmonger, John Bolton, was finally fired, are calling for military
retaliation against Iran even though the attack was claimed by Yemen's Shia Houthi
movement.
This drama came at roughly the same time that Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, a
close ally of US president Donald Trump, vowed to annex Palestine's entire Jordan Valley if
elected. Not a peep of protest came from the US, which recently blessed Netanyahu's annexation
of Syria's Golan Heights while scourging Russia's leader, Vladimir Putin, for annexing Crimea
– a Russian possession for over 300 years.
I studied US photos of the damaged Saudi oil installations. Its oil tanks appear to be
precisely hit at the same place. After the attack, the Saudis claimed half of their oil
production was knocked out; but a day later, they vowed production would be resumed within a
week. Parts of so-called drones were shown that appeared way beyond the technological
capabilities of Yemen or even Iran. The missiles may have been supplied by Ukraine.
The Saudis, like their patron in Washington, have a poor record for truthfulness. Remember
the Saudi denials about the murder of journalist and Saudi critic Jamal Khashoggi? More
important, we have been waiting for more false flag attacks in the Gulf designed to justify a
US attack on Iran.
The pattern of so-called drone attacks against the Saudi oil installations is just too neat
and symmetrical. The Israelis have a strong interest in promoting a US-Saudi War. The attacks
in Saudi came ironically right after the anniversary of 9/11 that plunged the US into war
against large parts of the Muslim world.
As a long-time military observer, I find it very hard to believe that drones could be guided
over such long distances and so accurately without aircraft or satellites to guide them. In
Yemen, which is just creeping into the 12th century, changing a flat tire is a major
technological achievement. To date, Iran's missile arsenal has poor reliability and major
guidance problems.
Adding to the questions, the Saudis have spent billions on US-made air defense systems. They
failed to protect the oil installations. The Saudis would have been better off buying air
defenses from the Russians, at a quarter of the US selling price.
ORDER IT NOW
Trump at least showed some wisdom by so far rejecting demands from the neocons that surround
him to launch major attacks on Iran. Blasting Iran would not serve much purpose and would
expose US forces in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Somalia, and Syria to Iranian guerrilla
attacks. Saudi oil installations – after what we saw last week – are
vulnerable.
Attacking Iran, even if just from the air, risks a much wider Mideast war just as the Trump
administration – which originally campaigned against 'stupid' Mideast wars – faces
next year's elections. But the administration is under intense pressure from its pro-Israel
base to go after Iran.
Bombing Iran's oil infrastructure would be relatively easy and has been intensively planned
since early 2002. But what next? So-called 'regime change' (Washington's favorite euphemism for
overthrowing disobedient foreign governments) rarely works as planned and can get the US into
horribly messy situations. The CIA overthrew Iran's democratic government in 1953 and look
where we are today.
Perhaps the attacks on Abqaiq may cause the reckless Saudi leaders to stop devastating Yemen
and throttle back on their proxy war against Iran which has gone on since 1979. But don't count
on it.
The so called "Zionist Hawks" in Israel and Washington, who want to start a war between
the USA and Iran.
These Hawks are under delusional assumption that an American led war against Iran would be
a "Cakewalk", and that Iranians have no means to defend themselves, will capitulate –
these are of course delusional assumptions – only found in disturbed minds of a bunch
of Go-Getter Zionist Think-Tanks in Washington, DC who are eager to serve their own tribal
interests at the US expense.
The US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, and Iraq in 2003, both are still ongoing –
have long proven how delusional are these ridiculous assumptions – Iran will be at
least 10 times harder nut to crack than Iraq was under Saddam Hussein – at least not
without serious consequences to the security of Israel, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states and the
US itself, along with serious ramification to the post WWII international order under the
USA; established since 1945.
By now, president Trump knows too well that he is being poorly served by these so called
"Zionist Hawks" – who have instigated the US unilateral withdrawal from the Iranian
Nuclear Agreement – but thanks to Trump's own instinct, and his close relationship with
Emmanuel Macron; Shinzo Abe; and of course Vladimir Putin – so far, Trump has resisted
the temptation of going to all out war against Iranians.
President Trump should ban these" Go-Getter Zionist Hawks" from the White House; they are
"Disloyal Jews" – who are eager to serve their own tribal interests at the US
expense.
Trump at least showed some wisdom by so far rejecting demands from the neocons that
surround him to launch major attacks on Iran.
He doesn't want to get involved in another Iraq (or worse) which makes excellent sense for
the US and himself on many levels.
However, if the US Deep State (with the Israelis) could set up 9/11 without President Bush
in the loop, then they could also arrange a False Flag attack on these oil installations,
without Trump's knowledge.
The CIA looks very much like an independent international criminal enterprise, and they're
used to working with their Israeli and Saudi friends.
This is a seriously flawed analysis of Yemen's and Iran's actual capabilities. We've already
seen Iran's precision strike capability in Iran and Syria and we've seen Yemen's homemade
drones and missiles do similar to this at slightly lesser differences. The parts shown by SA
are matches to Yemeni made missiles and drones such as Iran has been sharing around with
their allies. The reason they avoided the US defences was that they came from a direction
these do not cover, being pointed as they are at Iran. I'd say this was a Houthis attack and
as they say, more will be coming if the aggression from SA against Yemen does not stop. One
thing this attack has done is cool the heels of US, Saudi and Zionist warmongers. The damage
done here by relatively small attack and cheap means gives some inkling of what things might
look like after an attack on Iran. This was doubtless supported by Iran and as such a
masterstroke. We enter a new paradigm.
Saudi Arabian oil pipelines have always been vulnerable to attack. They are not well guarded
at all. This is well known by Security Experts worldwide but not well known, it would seem,
by hack 'journalists'.
Saudi Arabia is attacking Yemen as part of a long term plan to reroute it's oil pipelines
to the other side of it's country, the Red Sea side, so that it is no longer vulnerable at
the Strait of Hormuz 'choke point'. In order to get rid of the Iranian threat to it's oil as
it leaves port in the Persian Gulf, the Saudi's must sustain huge costs and PR losses to
"stabilize" Yemen by a brutal war and then transit it's oil via the Red Sea. This is also
well known by Security Experts but not 'hack journalist'.
Trump rejected neocon demands for a war with Iran as he saw his chances for re-election
vanish in the smoke of an US-Iran war. If Trump is reelected Americans will have to worry
every day about a US-Iran war.
I love this comment by Margolis, that the KSA & US have a "poor record for truthfulness"
Priceless. Apparently Genghis Khan had a poor record for brushing his feet on the mat
before entering a town for a bit of light shopping.
Margolis also says the KSA's US made air defences "failed" to protect their oil
installations. This maybe so. But apart from the fact that their air defences are orientated
away from Yemen there's a good chance the defences were turned OFF -- apparently this is
common practice in the KSA, esp on weekends.
I don't believe that Margolis's "mystery" is anywhere as deep as he suggests. The Houthis
have received weapons & training from Iran/Hezbollah & have demonstrated an ability
to hit KSA targets with unmanned aerial weapons.
Until better evidence appears, I'm willing to give it to the Houthis -- if for no other
reason than that they deserve to get in some good licks against that vile "Kingdom" (I'd
suggest they next hit the water purification plants that serve Riyadh with all its water
– apparently, the city has about 3 days of water stored. Evacuating 6 million from the
Capital, the Sauds would be exposed as the corrupt, negligent, incompetent, stupid, vicious
frauds we all know they are.
Given their age old fame for perfidy, corruption, cunning, mendacity and hatred of the
nations, along with their proclivity for high technology, my money would be on the Amish or
the Russian Old Believers as prime suspects and beneficiaries of the attacks.
The Jeffrey Epstein case is notable for the ups and downs in media coverage it's gotten over the years. Everybody, it seems, in
New York society knew by 2000 that Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell were corrupting teenage girls, but the press wouldn't cover
it. Articles by New York in 2002 and
Vanity Fair in 2003 alluded to it gently,
while probing Epstein's finances more closely. In 2005, the Palm Beach police investigated. The county prosecutor, Democrat Barry
Krischer, wouldn't prosecute for more than prostitution, so they went to the federal prosecutor, Republican Alexander Acosta, and
got the FBI involved. Acosta's office prepared an indictment, but before it was filed, he made a deal: Epstein agreed to plead guilty
to a state law felony and receive a prison term of 18 months. In exchange, the federal interstate sex trafficking charges would not
be prosecuted by Acosta's office. Epstein was officially at the county jail for 13 months, where the county officials under Democratic
Sheriff Ric Bradshaw gave him scandalously
easy treatment , letting him spend his days outside, and letting him serve a year of probation in place of the last 5 months
of his sentence. Acosta's office complained, but it was a county jail, not a federal jail, so he was powerless.
Epstein was released, and various lawsuits were filed against him and settled out of court, presumably in exchange for silence.
The media was quiet or complimentary as Epstein worked his way back into high society. Two books were written about the affair, and
fell flat.
The FBI became interested again around 2011 (
a little known fact
) and maybe things were happening behind the scenes, but the next big event was in 2018 when the Miami Herald published a
series of investigative articles rehashing what had happened. In 2019 federal prosecutors indicted Epstein, he was put in jail, and
he mysteriously died.
Now, after much complaining in the press about how awful jails are and how many people commit suicide, things are quiet again,
at least until the Justice Department and
the State of Florida finish their
investigation a few years from now. (For details and more links, see " Investigation: Jeffrey Epstein
"at Medium.com and " Jeffrey Epstein " at Wikipedia
.)
I am shocked that nobody is asking Barr why Epstein's autopsy hasn't been made public.
Also, why is nobody asking Acosta who
told him that Epstein should be treated gently because he "belongs to intelligence" and what they meant by that. Rumor is that
Mueller told him. So, Mueller has been making the rounds, yet nobody asks him.
Also, Epstein's seized video collection shows various individuals committing serious crimes so why is nobody going through
it and charging those individuals who can be identified? Is the DOJ now of the opinion that these crimes are not important enough
to pursue? And if they should point to a blackmailing operation involving a major intelligence service, that might be worth exposing?
I feel like I am almost the only person in the world asking.
Society has been corrupted by the promotion of cost-benefit moral thinking to a point where nobody can be trusted to do their
job if they think it might be 'better overall' to act corruptly.
I keep thinking of innocent Joe DiGenova assuring us that however frustrating it has been in the past, the appointment of Bob
Barr will turn everything around. Nonsense. Barr is a fat man, and as James Watson reminds us, you never want to give a fat man
a critical job. So far he is acting like a fat man. Firing a couple minor players is window dressing at best.
Gabbard's uncompromising honesty and principles on these important foreign policy positions
give her the moral high ground.
Trump can't respond to that without betraying his entire Presidential aura.
She is correct that US citizens who sign up for the military take an oath to protect and
defend the constitution and the people of the United States. They did not take an oath to
protect foreign dictators incapable of basic defense of their most precious and valuable real
estate.
This is especially true when said dictators are the aggressors in a war of conquest against
their neighbors. After more than four years of fighting, using weapons produced by the United
States, with assistance by US military advisers, the Saudi Arabians have completely botched
their war in Yemen, committing dozens, if not hundreds, of despicable attacks on civilian
targets without anything to show for it but animosity and, now, wholly insecure
infrastructure.
That this infrastructure is vital to the global economy should be irrelevant to Trump's
calculus as to where to send US troops and war materiel. That was something Saudi Arabia's
Clown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman should have considered before starting this war back in
2015.
The Houthi rebels in Northern Yemen claimed responsibility for the attack on the Abqaiq gas
processing facility as a direct consequence of Saudi aggression. Of course, they are backed by
Iran and Iranian technology.
It's nearly a week after the event and we still don't know for sure what happened. We have
vague assurances from anonymous sources with the US and Saudi governments but no concrete
details other than what was hit and how.
More questions abound, still, than answers.
That Trump ultimately decided against going to war with Iran over this incident doesn't
negate Gabbard's attack on him. It was cogent given the moment and is principled in how US
troops should be used.
In all of this discussion about a potential war with Iran no one in the Trump administration
or anywhere else have made a credible argument as to what actual threat Iran poses to the
people of the United States.
Vague proclamations by Iranian politicians of "death to America" are, ultimately far less
threatening or interesting than the parade of US Senators and Congresscritters saying that Iran
is a "rogue regime" and it should be wiped off the face of the earth.
Are our sensibilities so fragile that we can't handle a little criticism from people we have
waged war by proxy with for over 70 years?
How is this any different than the average tweet
by Lindsay Graham (R-AIPAC)?
We have senior officials, like the Secretary of State and the erstwhile National Security
Adviser calling Iran 'evil' and we have officially lumped their army in with the same lot of
terrorists as Al-Qaeda and ISIS. We have sanctioned their government and individuals within
it.
Never forget that you reap what you sow in this life. And any animosity Iran and Iranians
bear towards the US and Americans is richly deserved. The reverse, however, is difficult to
make a case for.
Because, little factoid, Iran hasn't attacked anyone in a span of time that is longer than
the US has been a country.
Iran threatens Israel in the same way that Israel threatens it. Saudi Arabia threatens Iran
as an oil competitor and religious one.
And the idea that the President of the United States should entertain even a mere thought of
going to war with Iran over an attack on Saudi oil production should be anathema to anyone with
two brain cells to rub together and make a spark.
Because at the end of the day this is not our fight. This is a fight between enemies made
rich by oil in some cases (Saudi, Iran), political clout in high places in the US and U.K. in
others (Israel) and friends in other high places and cultural integrity (Iran).
This is a cultural and religious conflict we barely understand and cannot change the
dynamics of by blundering in with weapons of mass destruction. It is precisely because we take
sides in this conflict that this conflict never ends.
And it is a conflict that dovetails with prevailing 'wisdom' in the West about how to
maintain control over the planet that dates back more than 150 years. And that is why we do
what we do. But it is time for that worldview to end.
It's time bury Mackinder's ideas alongside his corpse.
To Trump's credit he seems to have realized that this incident was another like the events
which led up to the US Global Hawk drone getting shot down in June. It was designed to get him
to over-commit to a policy which would engulf the world in a war that only a very few powerful
and highly placed want.
Even the tweet that Gabbard called him out on was carefully worded to cool things down and
hint that he wasn't prepared to respond militarily to this incident. As Gabbard climbs in the
polls and is treated worse than Bernie Sanders in 2016 and Ron Paul by the Republicans in 2008
and 2012, she will hold Trump to account on foreign policy with an ever-growing clout and moral
clarity which bodes well for the future of US involvement overseas.
And, like Nigel Farage in the U.K. offering the Tories a non-aggression pact to get a real
Brexit over the finish line, Gabbard should put country before career and applaud Trump when he
doesn't act like Saudi Arabia's "Bitch." That will win her even more votes and more respect
among the silent majority who are not in the throes of Trump Derangement Syndrome on both the
Left and the Right.
Along with this, the likely end of Netanyahu's political career should mark a sea change in
US policy. While AIPAC's pull is still very strong in the US, Israel's commitment to an
aggressive foreign policy with an uncommitted President should falter under a new government
without its Agitator-in-Chief.
And without that animus propelling events along eventually cooler heads will prevail, and
the present dynamic will change.
Trump made an enormous mistake pulling out of the JCPOA. That genie cannot be put back in
the bottle. The question now is does he have the sense and the humility to realize his board
position has materially weakened to the point where the probability of a rout is rising?
2020 for him has to be about making good on his promises to end the Empire building and
improving relations with Russia. With Putin openly trolling him and the Saudis recently over
weapon sales the odds of the latter happening are low.
But he can still make good on the former. Trump has lost so much of his goodwill with the
people he's 'negotiating with' that there is little to no wiggle room left. He has no leverage
and he's got no goodwill.
I saw this coming the day he bombed the Al-Shairat airbase in April 2017. I said then that
it was one of the biggest geopolitical mistakes ever. It set the stage for all the others
because it showed us just how out of his depth Trump was on foreign affairs. It set him back
with both Putin and Chinese Premier Xi and it also showed how easily he could be manipulated by
his staff and their rotten information.
It's a deep hole he's dug for himself. But there are still people who want to help him climb
out of it. Gabbard's 'bitch slap' is an example of the kind of tough love he needs to right his
Presidency's ship.
His base needs to do that a little more often and then maybe, just maybe, we'd get
somewhere
It was neoliberalism that ensured the redistribution of wealth up -- this was an explicit
goal.
Jewish bankers of course played their role but stress should be on bankers, not of Jewish.
Financial oligarchy should be regulated as special type of organized crime.
At the same time the rise of question of particularion and role of Jews in financial sector
is a dangerous sign . Jews are convenient scapegoats and were used as one in 1030th in Germany.
We should not forget that. As Eric Fromm said: "When Fascism came into power, most people were
unprepared, both theoretically and practically. They were unable to believe that man could
exhibit such propensities for evil, such lust for power, such disregard for the rights of the
weak, or such yearning for submission. Only a few had been aware of the rumbling of the volcano
preceding the outbreak." ( Escape from Freedom )
Also: "Fascism begins the moment a ruling class, fearing the people may use their political
democracy to gain economic democracy, begins to destroy political democracy in order to retain
its power of exploitation and special privilege." ~Thomas Clement Douglas
If you're a member of the working class, 1/3 of your pay has been stolen from you.
You would think this would be front page news every day until the problem is fixed. Not only
is that a huge amount of money for a huge portion of the country, but you would expect our left
leaning media to be all over this. There is no better evidence that capitalism, at least in its
current state, is failing. If the left actually cared about the working class, if the wave of
cultural Marxism that has spread through academia and the media was actually about the plight
of workers oppressed by a distant and uncaring elite, no fact would be repeated more often than
this.
And yet, aside from a handful of articles – such as one from the New York Times in
2011, and another from The Atlantic in 2015 – the issue hardly gets mentioned by the
media. And even when it is mentioned, it is often editorialized in a way that distorts the
problem and hides its root cause, if not outright lied about by a media with an agenda that has
little to do with helping actual workers.
The evidence for the theft of 1/3 of the working class' pay comes primarily from a left wing
think tank called the Economic Policy Institute, and comes from a comparison of productivity
growth in the economy vs the average hourly pay of non-management workers. Their graph shows
that worker pay increased steadily at basically the same rate at productivity from the 1948
until 1972. In 1972, productivity was up 92.2% from where it was in 1948 while the average
worker's hourly compensation was up 91.3%. From 1972-3, productivity rose to 97.0% higher than
its 1948 value while pay fell to only 91.0% higher than it was in 1948. Productivity and pay
both fell from 1973-4, but productivity rose again from 1974-5 while pay declined for another
year, widening the gap between productivity and pay growth to over 10% for the first time since
1948, a gap which would never close again.
Pay then rose more slowly than productivity for the rest of the 70s, fell during the 80s and
early 90s, grew slowly again during the dotcom boom of the late 90s when productivity grew far
more rapidly, and stagnated again for most of the 00s. Then from 2008-09, pay rose sharply by
almost 8% of its 1948 value. In other words, during the housing market collapse, when wealthy
investment bankers were losing a lot of money (and before they got it back during the bailout),
workers' hourly compensation jumped up faster than productivity for the first time in decades
– though not by nearly enough to close the gap, as productivity had risen by more than
100% more than pay by 2008. After the bailout, pay stagnated again, though according to many
sources pay is increasing under Trump at a faster rate than it did for most of the past few
decades.
However, for some reason, both the Economic Policy Institute's current graph and the New
York Times graph put a line through 1979 to divide the era of regular pay growth and pay
stagnation, despite the gap having grown to about 15% by then. It would seem that 1972-3, when
pay growth stagnated and then fell for the first time in decades, would be a better place to
put the line – and indeed, that is where The Atlantic's graph (and some older versions of
EPI's graph) put it. Is there a reason for this obfuscation?
There is, of course, some disagreement over EPI's findings. Right wing sources like the
Heritage Foundation claim that worker pay is actually rising at about the same rate as
productivity. Their main disagreement with EPI's findings is due to the fact that EPI doesn't
include management workers and self-employed professionals in their estimate of worker pay.
When those groups are included, pay did in fact increase at almost the same rate as
productivity – however, as the Heritage Foundation notes, only the top 20% of earners saw
their earnings rise at a faster rate than productivity since the 70s, while the middle 60% saw
far lower growth in their pay, so their findings are of little comfort to a majority of
American workers, particularly the shrinking middle class.
One final analysis, this one from BLS data published by Pew Research and Statista, both of
whom look only at wages and not productivity, actually suggests the situation may be even worse
than EPI's data suggests – where EPI shows wages grew by about 25% of their 1948 value
from 1972-2018, Pew shows worker pay peaking in 1973, falling from the mid 70s through the mid
90s, and rising slowly from the mid 90s until now with a significant jump during the 2008
recession. According to Statista, 2019 was the first year wages rose above their 1973 value
– by about $0.05 cents an hour in 2019 dollars.
Basically everyone's data suggests the same thing. After seeing solid wage growth prior to
the early 1970s, non-management worker pay stagnated from the mid 70s until the mid 90s, and
rose more slowly than productivity from the mid 90s until now with the exception of one
significant jump up during the housing market crash. The economic stagnation experienced by a
solid majority of Americans, particularly the middle class, is the driving force behind a
variety of economic, social, and political problems. It's among the reason why many Americans
eat too much cheap overprocessed food, why young people are burdened with debt to pay for
degrees to qualify for more complicated and demanding jobs that don't pay enough to pay off
their student loans, and why more women are working outside the home and choosing not to marry
as they can't find husbands capable of supporting them. It's the driving cause of both the
left's growing agitation for more socialist programs to make up for their lack of fair pay and
the new right's longing for a bygone era when the American economy was great because workers
actually got paid what their productivity was worth. Finding the cause of this problem and
solving it would relieve much of the growing polarization and political dissatisfaction that's
growing among people who are too young to remember an era when workers got real raises every
year.
The left blames this problem on a variety of factors that have little relationship to the
actual wage data, such as declining union membership and minimum wage laws that don't keep up
with inflation. Union membership has been declining since the early 1950s, so workers continued
to get raises for the first two decades of declining union membership. And while minimum wage
laws haven't kept up with inflation since about the same time worker pay began to stagnate,
that's likely a symptom of the same problem rather than the cause. Nor can this be blamed on
lower taxes on the rich, since this data looks at pre-tax income and 1/3 of your pay is being
stolen before a single dollar of taxes is taken out.
The establishment right mostly tries to dismiss the existence of the gap, despite a variety
of sources pointing to its existence and the Heritage Foundation's admission that middle class
has indeed seen their pay stagnate even as their productivity rose. It might be tempting for
some on the right to blame the problem on immigration, and changes in immigration policy in the
1960s did allow for an increase in the number of immigrants entering the country, but growth in
immigration was slow until the late 80s and early 90s. By that time pay had already been
stagnant for a while, so immigration doesn't seem to be the driving force keeping wages down,
even if it may be a small factor. This doesn't negate the many other reasons many Americans
want more control over immigration, such as preventing criminals from entering our country and
protecting our cultural values by making sure immigrants share those values before letting them
in, but we must look elsewhere to explain why worker pay is stagnant.
Other theories include the rise of automation, increased female participation in the
workforce, and corporate greed. Blaming automation implies that automation was not happening
from the 1940s through the early 1970s, or was at least not significant enough to affect worker
pay until then, and that it has happened much faster since the 70s. There's no objective way to
measure automation to test that theory, but as automation is one of the driving factors behind
increased worker productivity, it seems like automation should be increasing the availability
of goods and services to each worker. Shouldn't automation result in an economy where most
people can get more stuff for less work, rather than the same amount of stuff for more work?
There's no good explanation for why automation would result in stagnating worker pay,
especially as jobs become more high tech and require a more educated middle class that should
be able to demand higher wages relative to poorly educated and low skill workers. Instead, it
is precisely that highly educated middle class who have taken the biggest hit to their wages.
As for women in the workforce, much like the stagnant minimum wage, this appears to be more a
symptom of a greater problem than the cause – the rise of second wave feminism in the 70s
occurred as pay was stagnating, and was likely driven at least in part by women needing to work
outside the home more to make up for their husbands' stagnant pay. And considering the
significant increases in productivity and automation, workers ought to be able to provide for
their families without needing their wives to work as there should be more resources available
per worker today than there were a few decades ago when fewer women worked outside the home. As
for corporate greed, corporations were just as greedy from the 1940s until the early 70s as
they are today, and simply blaming greed does nothing to explain how the elite are able to
siphon more money out of the economy today than they did decades ago. A better explanation is
needed.
There was a major change in the way our economy is run that occurred in the early 1970s,
just before worker pay stopped growing. That change occurred in 1971, just before pay stagnated
from 1972-3. From 1944-1971, an international monetary agreement called Bretton Woods tied
the value of the dollar (and many other currencies around the globe) to the value of gold,
limiting the Federal Reserve and banking industry's ability to manipulate the money supply.
During the Bretton Woods years, changes in the money supply and value of the dollar were
primarily driven by market forces rather than by the decisions of bankers and economic elites.
The Bretton Woods years overlap so perfectly with the period when worker pay kept up with
productivity growth that the glaring lack of any mention of it by any of the think tanks and
media outlets – left, right, or center – that have written about the gap between
pay and productivity says a lot about the dishonesty of our media and academics.
Is Federal Reserve policy really capable of causing such a major economic shift? It
certainly seems to be. Consider a recent study from economist Brian Barnier of FedDashboard.com
that found that over 90% of stock market price fluctuation since 2008 has been due to Fed
policy. If the Fed can cause that much of a shift in the market, it's likely that the Fed can
cause a lot of other changes too. That same study found that from the end of WWII until the
early 70s, GDP growth caused most of the change in the stock market – as it would
normally be expected to. Then, in the mid 70s, the growth of debt based spending –
enabled by the end of Bretton Woods which gave the bankers much greater ability to expand the
money supply through loans – became the biggest factor in the stock market's movement,
causing a solid majority of stock market movement over the next few decades, first through the
expansion of consumer debt and credit cards, then by business loans and mortgages. Fiscal
policy, primarily set by the Fed, has been the driving cause of stock market movement since
shortly after the end of Bretton Woods, rather than market forces which were the driving cause
of market changes under Bretton Woods. And the worst drop in worker pay came during the 1980s
when Paul Volcker, who said that helping end Bretton Woods while he worked in Nixon's Treasury
department was the most important decision of his career, was chairman of the Federal
Reserve.
It's clear that Bretton Woods and the era when supply and demand ruled the market coincided
with the steady rise of worker pay, while the era of Federal Reserve policy dominating the
market has coincided with stagnant worker pay and wealth redistribution to the rich. Whether
this is due to inflation, as workers who aren't as economically savvy as management and owners
won't always realize that a raise that's equal to or less than inflation is not actually a
raise at all, or due to the direct creation of wealth within the banking industry and by
members of the investor class through fractional reserve banking and other tools enabled by the
Fed, or a combination of those and other factors is not entirely clear, but it is certainly
clear that there is a strong correlation between central bank meddling in the economy and
stagnating worker pay. This justifies far more investigation, and we may not have all the
answers to how the rich are gaming the system and screwing the working class without a full
audit of the Federal Reserve. But there are two more questions we can ask now without waiting
for that audit that may help shed light on who's responsible for the problem: who has been in
charge of Federal Reserve policy for the past few decades, and where is the money going?
Remember that it was Paul Volcker who was both instrumental in ending Bretton Woods,
enabling the rise of the Fed's dominance of the economy and redistribution of wealth, and who
oversaw the largest decrease in worker pay in the past half century. There's one other thing
you need to know about Paul Volcker, something that will help answer the question of who
controls Fed policy and where the money is going. Paul Volcker shares something in common with
four other recent Federal Reserve chairs during the period of wage stagnation and with an
extremely disproportionate number of billionaires – Volcker was hereditarily (though not
religiously) Jewish. Arthur Burns, who became chairman of the Federal reserve in 1970, the year
before Volcker convinced Nixon to end Bretton Woods, was the first Jewish Federal Reserve
chairman since World War 2 and ran the Fed through most of the 70s. Volcker took over the Fed
in 1979 and was followed by three more Jews in a row: Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, and Janet
Yellen. While it may be tempting to blame ties to corporate or banking interests instead, only
Volcker and Greenspan had any history of working in corporate banking prior to working at the
Fed; Burns, Bernanke, and Yellen had mostly academic and government advisory experience before
their appointments to Federal Reserve chair. Last year, Trump appointed the first non-Jewish
Fed chair since the 1970s, and that year was one of the best years for wage growth since the
1970s.
Just how wealthy have the Jews become while controlling our central bank, the most powerful
financial regulatory agency in the country? Most estimates of Jewish wealth (including Jewish
sources) find that over 1/3 of American billionaires are Jewish in a country that is less than
2% Jewish, meaning you're roughly 20 times as likely to be a billionaire if you're Jewish than
if you're not. That overrepresentation is even greater at the top, where 5 of the 10 richest
Americans are Jewish according to the Times of Israel. Coincidentally, Jews are overrepresented
among the billionaire class by about the same amount as the portion of the working class' pay
that's missing from their checks. And according to one estimate, Jews were 23% of the
billionaire class in 1987; that year, workers were losing about 20% of what they should have
been getting paid based on their productivity according to EPI, about the same percent as
Jewish overrepresentation among the billionaire class. As the rich have gotten richer while the
working class have gotten robbed, the rich have also gotten more Jewish.
Of course, not all Jews benefit from the Fed's theft of the working class. Rather, it's more
likely that there is a Jewish financial cartel in much the same way there are Mexican drug
cartels, an Italian mafia, Islamic sex slave grooming gangs and terror networks, and many other
gangs whose identity is based partly on ethnic and religious affiliation. Volcker, as someone
who both was and was not Jewish, was the perfect patsy – he was ethnically Jewish enough
to be part of the tribe, but any backlash against him for his role in ending Bretton Woods and
reducing worker pay could be deflected away from the Jewish financial cartel because he was a
practicing Christian. Not all Jews have to be a part of this financial cartel for the people
responsible for stealing 1/3 of the American working class' pay to be Jewish, and those that
aren't should be just as upset about the actions of those that are as anyone else. While the
idea of a Jewish financial cartel may come off as conspiratorial to some, two of the biggest
news stories of the past year – Jeffrey Epstein and NXIVM – have been about Jewish
billionaires (the Bronfmans in the case of NXIVM) running pedophilic sex slave trading networks
which they used to blackmail and manipulate the rich, famous, and powerful. It's not much of a
stretch to assume that part of the reason why they needed those criminal networks was to help
cover up an even bigger ongoing crime.
But it is possible, if unlikely, that there is no Jewish financial cartel. In that case,
however, the resulting assumption seems much worse for the Jewish people – that five
different Jewish Federal Reserve chairs simply happened to accidentally oversee the stagnation
of the American working class' pay as Jewish investment bankers capitalized on their fiscal
policies after more than two decades of solid worker pay growth under non-Jewish Fed chairs. If
that's the case, a five for five record of screwing over the working class is more than enough
evidence that Jews should never be allowed near the halls of financial power in the United
States ever again. But, as many lower and middle class Jews are hurt just as much by the
financial theft that's been going on for decades, it would be far better to investigate the
possible existence of the Jewish financial cartel and focus our attention on the people
directly responsible for robbing a majority of Americans first, rather than directing our ire
at all Jews.
Regardless of whether or not this Jewish financial cartel exists, a few things should be
clear. First, the Federal Reserve needs a full audit and investigation to determine how corrupt
the institution has become and whether they are directly enriching particular members of the
billionaire class or just accidentally creating the kind of economy where rich and often Jewish
investment bankers profit while the rest of us stagnate. Second, we need to seriously consider
changing our monetary system, whether that means returning to a gold standard, a pseudo-gold
standard such as Bretton Woods, or some other form of stable currency that limits the
inflationary and wealth redistribution power of the banking industry. Third, Jewish control of
our financial (not to mention political) institutions must be dismantled in much the same way
our Jewish media and academics talk about dismantling white privilege, regardless of whether
the problem turns out to be a specific criminal cartel comprised mostly of wealthy and powerful
Jews or whether the problem turns out to be that the nature of the Jewish people is to manage
the economy for the good of investment bankers and upper management, rather than for the good
of the workers who produce and distribute the things we all rely on to survive and thrive.
Americans deserve an economy that works for us as much as we work for it.
There is a systematic tax theft ongoing, all under the auspices of Woke Capitalism. But
don't worry about this, let's distract you about non-existing identity controversies on
gender, trannies, homosexuals, race, religion etc. And people fall for it.
The FED is a jewish banking cartel. It is not federal. Greenspan admitted on Charlie Rose
that, "There is no government agency that has power over The Federal Reserve."
Ron Paul spent his entire career trying to end the FED and wrote a great book with that
title.
The FED causes a misallocation of resources, creates bubbles, funds wars for Israel.
I suspect that the government and financial sector have played a huge role in the decline
of the white middle class and our falling birthrates.
I read "The Creature From Jekyl Island" many years ago and the story of the origin of the
FED is quite fascinating.
It's what started happening when Nixon took the US completely off the Gold standard, which
facilitated the subsequent rise of the FIRE economy in place of real productive economic
activity.
While individual productivity continued to rise, the fruits of that productivity got
sidetracked into excessive growth of the FIRE economy.
p.s. Now that I've read the full article, I see I'm just giving a quick summary; the
article just proves my point in much greater detail.
Basically everyone's data suggests the same thing. After seeing solid wage growth prior
to the early 1970s, non-management worker pay stagnated from the mid 70s until the mid 90s,
and rose more slowly than productivity from the mid 90s until now.
In the early 1970's I remember the first Asian manufactured products starting to appear
along with digitalization and the basic internet. The article could have highlighted the
fact, since digitalization and the internet had a big part in making Asian outsourcing
technically (and economically) viable.
As the article points out, elites and their top managers did well, and from this POV, they
would do well, since they were the ones capturing the extra profitability (Western sales
prices less Asian manufacturing costs). It was their workers who lost out as local
manufacturing was shut down. Agreed that mass immigration also put a downward pressure on
wages.
IMO Neoliberalism (economic liberalism) was the academic fraud that opened the
political door to outsourcing – and it was Neoliberalism that allied with the extreme
social liberalism of open frontiers (anti-racist), LGBT, Black/White guilt narratives etc..
Also agree that Jews were heavily involved in the "progressive" push for both types of
liberalism and enabled the mass indebtedness (through the FED) that sustains it. If the
government can't cover its social spending (or the cost of its wars), it gets into debt, and
if a person has a minimum wage job then they're also heading into debt.
Productivity and pay both fell from 1973-4, but productivity rose again from 1974-5
while pay declined for another year, widening the gap between productivity and pay
growth to over 10% for the first time since 1948, a gap which would never close
again .
The reason it happened right then and there:
The oil "embargo" of 1973, totally politically arranged but giving all the big industrial
firms an excuse to freeze wages, stop hiring, and eventually ship jobs overseas.
As long as the "national bank" is a privately run corporation it cannot be fixed. It works
for its members not for its nation. Keep in mind the steel and auto factories were owned by
the same folks who run the Fed.
The entire nation started the slo-mo drop to our current status as incipient Third World
member in 1973. This isn't really surprising: A fellow might have put a down payment on a
house in 1955 with massive monthly mortgage payments like $140 and paid it off in funny money
in the 1970s. Think of it as the "bonus" that many of the Greatest Generation got.
Bur after them, the lines all go negative. And not all of them were in a position to take
advantage of the near-hyperinflation of the post-Vietnam period. It is certain, though, that
even adjusting for inflation, house payments in the Fifties were cheaper than renting a flop
is now. The Reagan "boom" was a goldmine for suburban yuppies, everyone else got the
shaft.
Volcker was hereditarily (though not religiously) Jewish
Does the author have any source for this claim at all?
Paul Volcker (b.1927)'s grandparents were all German(-born) Protestants; he was raised in
a Lutheran church in the US, and as best I can tell remains a Lutheran today.
This allegation that Volcker is Jewish seems baseless, frivolous, and
self-discrediting.
The largest reasons for wage suppression relative to worker value (productivity is a measure
of it) has to do with the steady takeover by Jews of Corporate Boards and Management since
the late 1960's.
Eastern Banks (largely Jewish owned or led) exerted their influence in Corporate America
by forcing their nominees onto Corporate Boards of the firms they lent to, or bought shares
(or were granted) of.
Management became far more Jewish as the years progressed. In fact, without Jews in
Management positions far in excess of representative ratios, Banks would simply not lend to
'White' corporations and the Greenmail and other tactics of the 1970's and 1980's were
largely attempts by Jews to hijack Companies outright.
When CEO pay went from 10x worker pay to 100x or more, there was a reason for that Jewish
GREED. Boards authorized extravagant CEO and other top Management position pay increases
beyond all reason, why? Jews were selected at a 10x to 50x higher proportion for those slots.
Hey, what's best for the tribe, right?
Off shoring was largely a Jewish phenomenon. Financial Globalism, it's Umbrella, is as
well. Offshoring and Globalism suppresses American wages more than in any other country by
far.
Lastly Wall Street sucks the wealth from American workers in countless ways. I have known
Capital Giant VP's that spent their entire career raiding pension funds, or breaking up
companies and throwing workers out by the millions to reap a few pennies on the dollar by
selling off the main assets and looting the hidden ones. Who, do you think, dominated that
practice? Jews.
In my lay understanding about the decline of wages since the 1970s, it is necessary to look
at the whole picture – not pick and choose individual factors which, on their own, are
not necessarily the answer. Obviously, the FRB has the power to affect most of those factors
(setting interest rates, quantitative easing, controlling the money supply, etc.). Obviously
the predominantly Jewish financial institutions as the FRB, Treasury and banks have the power
to affect those factors. Obviously, and ultimately, the US Government and Congress also have
the power to affect those factors.
Putting all together, the political system enables and promotes policies in favour of the
corporate elite to the detriment of the wage-slaving working class. It has been so since
aeons and it will never change until the wage-slaves assume the reigns of political power and
enact policies for their benefit. Looking at the reasons for the diminishing purchasing power
of wages is like missing the forest for the trees.
After all, one does not need to look at macroeconomic data, flow charts and whatnots to
understand that a class based society is necessarily ruled by the ruling class for its own
benefit, not for the benefit of the ruled underclass of wage slaves. Therefore, the
plutocracy in power today is doing what the previous ruling aristocracy did before, and
before that what the Patricians of Rome and the Citizens of Greece did: using political power
for selfish ends.
Yes, there was a "golden era" of raising working class incomes from the end of WWII to the
1970s – the reconstruction boom in Europe and concomitant booming imports from the US.
But that wage bonanza was predominantly due to the Cold War itself, namely to show off that
Capitalism was capable of offering a decent wage to workers in order to tame the then popular
appeal of Communism identified with the victorious USSR. Not to mention the shortage of the
workforce following the carnage.
By the 1970s, the war was a fading memory, the counterculture movement was in full swing,
the politicians treated the people and countries as their fiefdoms, the neoliberal doctrines
taking root in academia and government. No need to pretend anymore that governments cared for
the people. The mask came off and brutal Capitalism revealed its true nature: voracious greed
for the plutocracy and large sinecural bribes for the political stooges.
@anon I take back my AGREE – meant to DISAGREE (I thought there was a
way to do that within a certain period, Ron?)
I agree with most of the article with a couple of exceptions. Immigration has been a BIG
factor in the stagnation in real pay. Secondly, instead of "Jewish financial control" being
dismantled how about just "financial control" period. Are you for sound money or not, Mr.
Tripp?
[T]here was no such thing as a progressive movement, that is, no organized campaign
uniting all the manifold efforts at political, social, and economic reform. On the contrary,
there were numerous progressive movements operating in different areas simultaneously . [T]he
progressive movement, in its political manifestations, was essentially a revolt of the middle
classes [i]
The Progressive Era is the title traditionally applied to the period from roughly 1900
through 1920 in U.S. history. It is particularly significant because it marks the first time
that our shared, fundamental values -- which collectively we call the American Political
Culture (APC) -- were called into question and, consequently, transformed. Although those two
decades are described by the single term, Progressive Era, there was actually much less
consistency to the period than its now well recognized title implies.
Progressive
Origins: the Populist Movement of the 1890s
For most of the first century of our nation's existence -- until the later decades of the
nineteenth century -- politics was fairly elitist in nature. That is to say, while much has
been written about our democratic heritage in general and about periods such as the "era of
Jacksonian democracy" in particular, in fact the role of ordinary citizens in running the
country was pretty limited. Over time, however, that situation became less and less acceptable
to the ordinary people who were doing the hard work that was moving the country forward but who
didn't have much of a say in deciding how the fruits of those labors got divided up and
distributed among different interests in society. The slowly spreading movement by which
ordinary people began demanding more of a voice in how the political economy was run is what we
call populism . Populism, in simple terms, is a democratic revolt against the ruling
powers of the well-to-do, well-positioned elites.
Common mythology has it that the populist revolts of the 1890s were, by and large, sagebrush
revolutions launched by small, independent farmers. The story holds that farmers in the
upper-midwest regions of the country were being gouged by the newly developed power of the
railroad trust. The monopoly-like power of the big railroads allowed them, according to this
line of analysis, to charge exorbitant rates for farmers to ship their crops to big-city
markets. While there certainly is an element of truth to this rendering of history, there also
is more to the story than that simple approach conveys.
The populist revolts of that period may have had as much to do with land speculation and the
price of real estate as with the relative rates for crops and shipping. The entrepreneurial
spirit for which Americans became so well known apparently was in full swing by the last decade
of the nineteenth century, including among small farmer-landowners in the rural Midwest.
Despite history's tendency (and our political culture's desire) to paint them as small,
independent farmers in the Jeffersonian tradition -- hacking out a new way of life for
themselves and their families in the bounteous but untamed wilderness of the American frontier
-- land speculation was not uncommon among the agricultural set. When, in the throes of the
worldwide economic depression of the 1890s, the bottom fell out of the (international)
agricultural real estate market, thousands of "small farmers" were left holding deeds to
homesteads that were suddenly worth considerably less than they had paid for them. And when the
private market failed, panicked landholders began turning to government to help them save their
real estate holdings.
As those cries for relief mounted, America grew up. Although the myth of the yeoman farmer
would never fade away completely -- indeed, it remains a critical component even in today's
political culture -- subsequently the ideal would be tempered by the new economic reality of
agriculture-as-ever-bigger-business. More important for our purposes, the politics of
the era underwent a fundamental change.
Those seeking to reform the system gravitated from an insurgent (populist/third-party)
political approach to a more traditional pursuit of politics by means of lobbying and pressure
tactics exercised within the existing, two-party system of Republicans and Democrats. The
Populist movement reached its apex with the presidential candidacy in 1896 of William Jennings
Bryan. Thereafter, the Progressives took up the reformist cause.
In a sense, the political unrest that characterized the populist decade was absorbed by a
growing rumble in the nation's cities. Where the landowner-farmers who drove the populist
movement had been narrowly rural in their upset, however, the newer, urban brand of
reform-minded agitator was more broadly national in outlook and more professional/intellectual
in background. In short, Progressivism would be a more complex, but also a more moderate,
tendency than was Populism.
In place of angry farmers and small-town leaders would form a coalition of clergy,
academics, lawyers and small professionals; all united against the growing power of both the
new barons of the industrializing, increasingly concentrated economy and the recently forming
labor unions that supplied a growing share of the manpower for the modern engines of American
growth. At the heart of the Progressives' concerns was the fear that the increasingly
concentrated power of the trusts and the unions would be able to drive prices ever upward.
Progressivism: A Conservative Approach in Liberal Clothing?
Seeking a
Restoration of Values
The Populists had been backward-looking insofar as they saw many of the problems facing
America as arising from the impersonal nature of the modern world, with its emphasis on science
and specialization; from economic concentration and social collectivization; and to a certain
extent from immigration.
Progressives shared some of those concerns, but with different interpretations of the
symptoms characterizing the changing American political economy. In particular, Progressives
didn't so much fear the future as they longed for a kind of idealized past that few of them (as
city-dwellers) had actually experienced. For them, the moral/spiritual purity springing from
the rugged individualism of the small, independent farmer was a loss that needed to be
restored.
Unlike their predecessors, however, Progressives were not unmindful of the benefits of the
newly industrializing economy. Thus, they didn't seek to retard progress entirely (as had at
least some of the populist strains). Instead, the Progressives sought to insure that the
increasing concentration in both economic and political life would not stifle the incentives
for individual attainment; that the economic trusts and political parties would not
interfere with the traditional, American value of individual opportunity via the
acquisition of private property . In that sense, rather than appear as what we would
today call a "liberal" movement, Progressivism can be seen as inherently conservative in
nature, in that it sought a restoration of an imagined, righteous past.
Since the concentrated economic power of the trusts (rail, coal, steel, meat-packing, etc.)
was seen by the Progressives as the major impediment to the realization of a more broadly
virtuous society -- they were aided immeasurably in their quest to preach the Progressive
gospel to the masses by the investigative journalists (as we would call them today) known
alternately as "yellow journalists" Yellow
Journalism or "muckrakers" -- the solution they proposed was to increase the power of
governments (federal, state, and/or local, as need be) so as to put them on a more equal
footing with large corporations.
The underlying goal, then, was to help those whom they saw as the victims of
industrialization -- but to do so in all cases without resorting to the kinds of "radical" or
"socialistic" solutions that were at that time finding considerable sympathy among certain
groups, particularly among the working classes.
The Place of Labor in the Progressive
Universe
In the roughly sixty-year period stretching between the Civil War and the First World War,
approximately thirty million immigrants were absorbed into the United States. The male
breadwinners for an overwhelming number of those newly arrived families became the backbone of
the emerging, organized labor movement in this country.
In their old countries, many of them had become personally familiar with systems of
government and schemes for workplace organization that were far more progressive/socialistic
than were the political and economic institutions that they encountered in their new, American
home. As a result, labor unions in the rapidly industrializing American political economy
became seedbeds for revolution. Proposals for asserting the role of common laborers in the
workplace came to be heard with increasing frequency and growing intensity. Their opposition to
the emerging class of corporate titans might seem to have positioned workers to be the natural
allies of the Progressives, who also sought to curtail (albeit for their own reasons, recall)
the seemingly unbridled power of the business elites.
In fact, however, the largely middle-class reformers who rallied under the Progressive
banner had little sympathy for organized labor -- and, in some respects, actually saw their
concentrated, potential strength as a threat to the restoration of individualistic virtue for
which they longed.
The labor unions, being far weaker than the big businesses and
the [political party] machines, held an ambiguous place in Progressive thinking. The
Progressive sympathized with the problems of labor but was troubled about the lengths to which
union power might go if labor-unionism became the sole counterpoise to the power of business.
The danger of combinations of capital and labor that would squeeze the consuming public and the
small businessman was never entirely out of sight . And wherever labor was genuinely powerful
in politics Progressivism took on a somewhat anti-labor tinge.[ii]
Even without the sometimes overt opposition of the Progressive leadership organized labor
faced problems as it sought to become a central force in the evolving, American political
economy. Although they may have shared concerns about their corporate superiors, workers in
early-twentieth-century United States nevertheless were divided by ethnic, religious, and
racial considerations -- differences that their managers were only too willing to exploit if
they allowed them to maintain control in the workplace by pitting one group of workers against
another.
The labor movement was divided, as well, along professional lines: into a more conservative
class of skilled artisans -- under the banner of the American Federation of Labor (AFL) -- and
a much larger but less prestigious group of by and large common laborers -- under the banner of
the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO). It would be some years before those two groups
would overcome their disagreements and merge into the AFL-CIO.
In the end, then, the American political economic system failed to deliver the kind of
welfare state that was becoming more and more common in Europe. The United States became
"exceptional" among modern, industrialized democracies for that failure. Facing the often
staunch opposition of the business community (led by the National Association of
Manufacturers); led during its period of greatest potential for reform by a President (Woodrow
Wilson) who exhibited no sympathy for the kind of collectivization that might have resulted in
significant increases in social welfare for its most at-risk groups; and with a working class
plagued by internal divisions; the U.S. failed to implement what is perhaps the bottom-line
characteristic of a true "welfare state": that male workers (i.e., "breadwinners") should be
broadly and automatically protected by social insurance as a matter of course, rather than in
only scattershot fashion (as became the case here). In the end, only mothers and their children
(the so-called "deserving poor") were targeted for public assistance. For the rest of the
working class, the rugged individualism that constituted the core of the American political
culture would have to sustain them through economic hard-times.
The obvious question that arises is, given the agitation for change among the working
classes at the time, why did the U.S. not see the formation of a true labor party? In addition
to the cultural explanation provided in the preceding paragraph, we must consider also the
relative prosperity enjoyed by the typical American worker. If not wealthy, the average worker
at least was making steady material progress as the economy which he helped drive grew
dramatically during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. As the economic
historian Warner Sombart has so cleverly put it, "All socialistic utopias come to nothing on
roast beef and apple pie." [iii] With their personal,
financial situations improving regularly, in other words, there was not always an obvious
rationale for workers to get riled up.
But cultural and economic explanations of American "exceptionalism" provide an incomplete
accounting of the situation. It was neither natural nor inevitable, in fact, that workers would
adopt a less threatening posture toward the development of corporate capitalism. Rather, the
ability of workers to band together under a common banner of worker solidarity was
short-circuited -- often deliberately, although not always so -- by the tactics of the
Progressive reformers with whom they vied for control of political economic developments of
that era.
In addition to dealing with the fallout from the corporate trusts that had come to dominate
key sectors of the economy, the Progressives also were determined to weed out the political
corruption that was the lubricant for the political party
"machines that dominated so many major cities in the increasingly urbanized nation. In
seeking to loosen the stranglehold that the party organizations had on politics in
turn-of-the-century, urban American, reformers succeeded in throwing the "baby" of political
organization for the masses out with the "bathwater" of corrupt, one-party politics.
By instituting such reform measures as nonpartisan elections, the secret ballot, and civil
service examinations as a prerequisite for holding government jobs, reformers were able to deny
the machines the tools they needed to sustain their positions of privilege. At the same time,
however, those reforms tended to work against the ability of the working classes to present a
united, political front against the growing alliance between big business and big government.
Political parties were the best hope of the lower classes for securing for themselves a decent
share of the growing "pie" that the American economy was producing. Lacking that institutional
mechanism for realizing their shared interests under a common, partisan banner, the lower
classes were more easily bought off by material rewards or diverted by racial, ethnic, or
religious concerns -- and the first era of significant reform in the American political culture
was more easily steered in a centrist direction that was deemed acceptably safe by the barons
of the new, corporate-capitalist order.
Progressivism: A Precursor of the New Deal?
The Progressive era ended clearly and decisively with the U.S.'s entry into the First World
War. The new internationalism required by that initiative cost Woodrow Wilson dearly, as the
economic sacrifices required by the war effort ushered in a series of Republican presidents
(Harding, Coolidge, Hoover) following the war. With its figurehead in political retirement and
with the postwar prosperity of the "Roaring '20s" distracting Americans' attentions from
pre-war concerns, the reform spirit dwindled and then died.
Although it is possible to cast a retrospectively critical eye on America's first period of
political-cultural reform, we must be careful to acknowledge as well the important changes in
the system that were realized as a result of the Progressive era.
Not only the extent of government intervention, but the manner in which policy was
formulated and executed changed beyond recognition. The main features were the appearance of
regulatory agencies entrusted with wide discretionary powers and a consequent diminution of the
role of both legislatures and courts in the conduct of economic policy.[iv]
Government, in other words, began to take the shape that would come to characterize it in
later decades: a public authority alternately allied with and antagonistic to corporate
capital. Maintained was the traditional, American allegiance to markets -- i.e., to
private authority -- for organizing the political economy. The driving spirit had been
to restore markets, to counter-act the organizational power of the new, corporate giants
that came to dominate the economy. What was different as a result of the Progressive era was
that government would exercise the police power deemed necessary to check the abuses of
the new class of economic plutocrats.
Essentially lost in the political shuffle, however, was the collective fate of millions of
lower- and working-class Americans. Although it was their plight at the hands of an apparently
uncaring, corporate-capitalist order that seemed to have spurred much of the activity during
the Progressive era, in fact the economic fortunes of the poor, the elderly, the working
classes, and racial minorities wound up taking a back seat to the broader, institution-driven
agenda of Progressive reformers. It would fall to the next significant era of
political-cultural change, the New Deal, to address those needs in any significant way.
In an even broader sense, however, what was perhaps the Progressive era's most fundamental
goal proved to be unattainable: for it sought nothing less than the removal of politics
from the decision-making processes that had come to characterize the modern political economy.
What Progressivism succeeded in doing, instead, was substituting one form of politics
(bureaucratic) for another (partisan -- i.e., "machine"). As subsequent eras would demonstrate,
that change made the American political system even more open to influence by special interests
-- an ironic outcome for America's first, major reform era.
"... American war-making will persist so long as the United States continues to seek military dominance across the globe. ..."
"... A government that imagines that it has both the right and responsibility to police the entire planet will find an excuse to mire itself in one or more conflicts on a regular basis, and if there isn't one available to join it will start some ..."
"... U.S. military dominance should have at least guaranteed that we remained at peace once our major adversary had collapsed at the end of the Cold War, but the dissolution of the USSR encouraged the U.S. to become much more aggressive and much more eager to use force whenever and wherever it wanted. Wertheim provides an answer for why this is: ..."
"... Why have interventions proliferated as challengers have shrunk? The basic cause is America's infatuation with military force. Its political class imagines that force will advance any aim, limiting debate to what that aim should be. ..."
"... Using force appeals to many American leaders and policymakers because they imagine that frequent military action cows and intimidates adversaries, but in practice it creates more enemies and wastes American lives and resources on fruitless conflicts. ..."
"... The constant warfare of the last two decades in particular has corroded our political system and inured the public to the idea that it is normal that American soldiers and Marines are always fighting and dying in some foreign country in pursuit of nebulous goals, but nothing could be more abnormal and wrong than this. ..."
"... Our establishment would rather give up their skin. They don't call it hegemony, they call it the post ww2 order, leadership, resisting isolationism or some other such nonsense. ..."
"... any country that attempts to gain enough power to assert its own sovereignty is considered a threat that must be crushed and we roll out all of the tools at our disposal to do it. ..."
"... Al Qaeda's attack on us was due to us using them as a tool to stop Russia's push into Afghanistan. ..."
"... Good luck with that. We are ruled by people who are functionally indistinguishable from sociopaths, and sociopaths learn only from reward and punishment. ..."
"... I do not see a politically feasible way to end our global empire without destabilizing that same globe that has come to rely on our military power. ..."
"... Empires have a sort of inertia, and few in history voluntarily give up dominion. ..."
"... What is unsustainable is the current rate of government spending. The current rate of military spending is driving up our debt and making it impossible to reinvest in desperately needed infrastructure. ..."
"... We have been coasting on the infrastructure investments of the 50's and 60's but if we don't start cutting military spending and redirecting that money elsewhere we are going to be bankrupt. ..."
"... I agree that it is almost impossible to conceive of any scenario whereby this "ideology" of so-called world order and/ hegemony would change in the US and in its puppets. ..."
"... The deck is so totally stacked in favor of this ideology, the totally controlled MSM, the MIC, the corrupt and controlled congress, and the presidential admin structure itself, would never allow this mantra to be challenged. ..."
"... It is all about greed and power-the psychopaths pursuing and defending this 'ideology' would never ever go quietly. The money and power is too corrupting. ..."
"... I'm not sure that most of the citizens in those European countries we occupy actually support our permanent military presence in their countries. ..."
"... The new paradigm is that private militarism dominates government, turning it to its preferred priorities of moneymaking warmaking. ..."
Stephen Wertheim explains
what is required to bring an end to unnecessary and open-ended U.S. wars overseas:
American war-making will persist so long as the United States continues to seek military dominance across the globe.
Dominance, assumed to ensure peace, in fact guarantees war. To get serious about stopping endless war, American leaders must do
what they most resist: end America's commitment to armed supremacy and embrace a world of pluralism and peace.
Any government that presumes to be the world's hegemon will be fighting somewhere almost all of the time, because its political
leaders will see everything around the world as their business and it will see every manageable threat as a challenge to their "leadership."
A government that imagines that it has both the right and responsibility to police the entire planet will find an excuse to mire
itself in one or more conflicts on a regular basis, and if there isn't one available to join it will start some.
U.S. military dominance should have at least guaranteed that we remained at peace once our major adversary had collapsed at
the end of the Cold War, but the dissolution of the USSR encouraged the U.S. to become much more aggressive and much more eager to
use force whenever and wherever it wanted. Wertheim provides an answer for why this is:
Why have interventions proliferated as challengers have shrunk? The basic cause is America's infatuation with military
force. Its political class imagines that force will advance any aim, limiting debate to what that aim should be.
Using force appeals to many American leaders and policymakers because they imagine that frequent military action cows and
intimidates adversaries, but in practice it creates more enemies and wastes American lives and resources on fruitless conflicts.
Our government's frenetic interventionism and meddling for the last thirty years hasn't made our country the slightest bit more secure,
but it has sown chaos and instability across at least two continents. Wertheim continues:
Continued gains by the Taliban, 18 years after the United States initially toppled it, suggest a different principle: The profligate
deployment of force creates new and unnecessary objectives more than it realizes existing and worthy ones.
The constant warfare of the last two decades in particular has corroded our political system and inured the public to the
idea that it is normal that American soldiers and Marines are always fighting and dying in some foreign country in pursuit of nebulous
goals, but nothing could be more abnormal and wrong than this. Constant warfare achieves nothing except to provide an excuse
for more of the same. The longer that a war drags on, one would think that it should become easier to bring it to an end, but we
have seen that it becomes harder for both political and military leaders to give up on an unwinnable conflict when it has become
an almost permanent part of our foreign policy. For many policymakers and pundits, what matters is that the U.S. not be perceived
as losing, and so our military keeps fighting without an end in sight for the sake of this "not losing."
Wertheim adds:
Despite Mr. Trump's rhetoric about ending endless wars, the president insists that "our military dominance must be unquestioned"
-- even though no one believes he has a strategy to use power or a theory to bring peace. Armed domination has become an end in
itself.
Seeking to maintain this dominance is ultimately unsustainable, and as it becomes more expensive and less popular it will also
become increasingly dangerous as we find ourselves confronted with even more capable adversaries. For the last thirty years, the
U.S. has been fortunate to be secure and prosperous enough that it could indulge in decades of fruitless militarism, but that luck
won't hold forever. It is far better if the U.S. give up on hegemony and the militarism that goes with it on our terms.
Our establishment would rather give up their skin. They don't call it hegemony, they call it the post ww2 order, leadership,
resisting isolationism or some other such nonsense.
Truth be told, as your article states, any country that attempts to gain enough power to assert its own sovereignty is
considered a threat that must be crushed and we roll out all of the tools at our disposal to do it.
It makes us less safe. Isolationism did not cause 9/11. In the 90's when we were being attacked by Al Qaeda we were too distracted
dancing on Russia's bones to pay any attention to them. While Al Qaeda was attacking our troops and blowing up our buildings we
were bombing Serbia, expanding NATO and reelecting Yeltsin and sticking it to Iran.
It goes beyond that. Al Qaeda's attack on us was due to us using them as a tool to stop Russia's push into Afghanistan.
We later abandoned them when the job was done: a pack hound we trained, pushed to fight, then left in the forest abandoned and
starved. Then we wonder why it came back growling.
Isolationism may not be the most effective solution to things, but I'll admit a LOT of pain, on ourselves and others, would've
never happened if we took that policy.
Good luck with that. We are ruled by people who are functionally indistinguishable from sociopaths, and sociopaths learn only
from reward and punishment.
So far, they only have been rewarded for their crimes.
While I think the economic basis of the Soviet Union was faulty, and it had lost the popular support it might have had in early
days, the USSR's military aggression, particularly in Afghanistan, was a major precipitating factor in its downfall. It would
have eventually crumbled, I believe, anyway, but had they taken a less aggressive stance I think they would have lasted several
decades longer.
Is it really in our hands to actually disengage though? Is this politically feasible?
How does this work? The US gets up one day and says "We're pulling all of our troops out of Saudi and SK. No more funding for
Israel! No bolstering the pencil-thin government of Afghanistan. All naval bases abroad will be shut down. Longstanding alliances
and interests be damned!"
I sympathize very strongly with the notion that we must use military force wisely and with restraint, and perhaps even that
the post-WW2 expansion abroad was a mistake, but I do not see a politically feasible way to end our global empire without
destabilizing that same globe that has come to rely on our military power.
This is the world we live in, whether we like it or not, and barring some military or economic disaster that forces a strategic
realignment or retreat (like WW2 did for the old European powers) I don't know how you practically pull back. Empires have
a sort of inertia, and few in history voluntarily give up dominion.
What is unsustainable is the current rate of government spending. The current rate of military spending is driving up our
debt and making it impossible to reinvest in desperately needed infrastructure.
We have been coasting on the infrastructure investments of the 50's and 60's but if we don't start cutting military spending
and redirecting that money elsewhere we are going to be bankrupt.
Sure. That doesn't mean American withdrawal would create less instability in toto. Maybe it would. Who knows? We mortals can only
take counterfactuals so far.
I agree that it is almost impossible to conceive of any scenario whereby this "ideology" of so-called world order and/
hegemony would change in the US and in its puppets.
The deck is so totally stacked in favor of this ideology, the totally controlled MSM, the MIC, the corrupt and controlled
congress, and the presidential admin structure itself, would never allow this mantra to be challenged.
It is all about greed and power-the psychopaths pursuing and defending this 'ideology' would never ever go quietly. The
money and power is too corrupting.
Maybe, just maybe, however, as we are at $22 trillion in debt and counting (just saw a total tab for F-35 of $1.5 trillion)
that the money will run out, and zero interest rate financing is not all that awesome, this unsustainable mindlessness will be
curtailed or even better, changed.
It's not really hegemony. Old-fashioned empires took over territory in order to gain resources and labor. We haven't done that
since 1920. Especially since 1990 we've been making war purely to destroy and obliterate. When our war is done there's nothing
left to dominate or own.
Domestically we've been using politics and media and controlled culture to do the same thing. Create "terrorists" and "extremists"
on "two" "sides", set them loose, enjoy the resulting chaos. Chaos is the declared goal, and it's been working beautifully for
70 years.
China is expanding empire in Africa and Asia the old-fashioned way, improving farms and factories in order to have exclusive
purchase of their output.
Could not have said it better. "On our terms" would mean that Europe is forced to take matters of military security in it's own
hands, I hope. But chanches are slim, history shows empires must fall hard and break a leg or so first before anything changes.
Iran, Saudi-arabia, the greater ME, China, the trade wars and the world economy are coming together for a perfect storm it seems.
The problem with US hegemony is Israel. Look around the world. Neither Japan nor South Korea nor Vietnam nor Philippines nor India
nor Indonesia nor Australia (the same can be said for South and Central America, Mexico, Canada and Europe) require a significant
US presence.
None of them are asking for a greater presence in their country (except Poland) while being perfectly happy with
our alliance, joint defense, trade, intelligence and technology sharing.
It is only Israel and Saudi Arabia which are constantly pushing the US into middle eastern wars and quagmires that we have
no national interest. Trump sees the plain truth that the US is in jeopardy of losing its manufacturing and its technological
lead to China. If we (US) dont start to rebuild our infrastructure, our defense, our cities, our communities, our manufacturing,
our educational system then our nation is going to follow California into a 3rd world totalitarian state dominated by democratic
voting immigrants whose only affiliation to our country and our constitutional republic is a welfare check, free govt programs
and incestuous govt contracts which funnel govt dollars into the re-election PACs of democratic / liberal elected officials.
The new paradigm is that private militarism dominates government, turning it to its preferred priorities of moneymaking warmaking.
Defeat is now when war's income streams end. The only wars that are lost, are those that end, defeating the winning of war profits.
War, as a financial success story, has become an end in itself, and an empire that looks for more to wage means some mighty big
wages with more profit opportunities. Victory is to be avoided - red ink being spilled through peace detestable - and blood spilled
profitably to be encouraged.
There was a moment in Viet Nam when I questioned whether everything I had been taught
about "America" was one big fabricated lie – a huge pretend. It was April 1969, and I had
just experienced witnessing the aftermath of a series of bombings of supposed military targets.
They were in fact inhabited, undefended villages where virtually everyone in those villages
perished from low flying bombings, that included napalming. The majority of dead –
murdered – were young burned children. On several occasions I observed those bodies up
close, sickened by the sight, now burdened by the criminal nature of the US war. The policy of
accumulating massive numbers of body counts was an inkling of the Grand Lie. Reading the
entrance sign to my squadron in-country headquarters, "Welcome to Indian Country," was a first
clue.
My duty station was the "home" of the fighter-bombers and pilots who followed orders to
destroy those "enemy targets", i.e., villages. I was the USAF night security commander
following orders to protect those soldiers and planes from mortar and sapper attacks.
A few days later I was reading an article in Stars and Stripes , an official,
independent newspaper for soldiers, reporting on a recent Supreme Court decision (
Street v . New York , 1969) that upheld the right of desecrating our "sacred"
symbol – the US flag. During a period of increased burnings of the US American flag in
protests of the US wars against African-Americans at home, and Asians abroad, an
African-American veteran recipient of a Bronze Star, Sidney Street , publicly burned his
personal flag on a New York City street corner for which he was arrested and convicted.
Depressed, I pondered how it is that one could be arrested for burning a piece of cloth
– even a national symbol – that represented an official policy of criminally
burning innocent human beings, including large numbers of young children, while the
pilot-perpetrators were commended, and whom, in my duties I was protecting? Initially suicidal,
I had difficulty wrapping my head around this dystopian nightmare. I was in psychic shock from
extreme cognitive dissonance.
Our behavior against the Vietnamese, a nation of peasants with one-sixth the population of
the USA, one-thirtieth its size, certainly must rank as one of the worst of a number of
barbarisms in the 20 th Century. The US left 26 million bomb craters, sprayed
21 million gallons of DNA-altering chemical warfare on the landscape and people,
murdered some 6 million Southeast Asians, destroyed by bombing over 13,000 of Viet Nam's
21,000 villages, 950 churches and pagodas, 350 clearly marked hospitals, 3,000 high schools and
universities, 15,000 bridges, etc.
Why all this overwhelming firepower and destruction? Incredulously, to prevent the
Vietnamese from enjoying their self-determination, absurdly touted as necessary to stop
"communism." Does there in fact exist a kind of psychopathy in our cultural DNA? Though I
hadn't fired a bullet myself, or dropped a bomb, I had been a compliant participant in a
mindless murder machine. Viet Nam was not an aberration, but consistent with a long history of
arrogant interventions revealing something very dark about who we are. Was I part of a savage
culture of unthinking sadists, I wondered?
Learning Real People's Versus Fake, Kool Aid US History
I have spent countless hours studying a more comprehensive people's version of world and US
history. Study of US history of course is part of the Eurocentric globalization/colonization
over the past 500 years. The 20 percent Eurocentric "developed-world" is a product of
self-proclaimed "superiors" violently and deceitfully stealing resources and labor from the
other 80 percent, all cloaked in the conceited rhetoric of spreading "civilization." This
patriarchal policy is totally unsustainable from a social, political, ecological,
psychological, and moral perspective.
It is instructive to learn that the "Founding Fathers" chose, not democracy, but
oligarchy/plutocracy "to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority." Jefferson's
"empire of liberty" was a vision to expand private property for large landowners. Our
Constitution is more a document to preserve freedom of "property" and commercial transactions,
than it is to preserve human liberty, of which free speech is the most fundamental. Historian
Staughton Lynd summarized it thus: inherited land replaced inherited government. Recently the
highest court of the land ruled the legal fiction that property (money) is a person with free
speech rights, as preposterous as the earlier legal fiction that a person (slave) is
property.
A fear-laden gun culture originating in violent settler-colonialism and white
nationalism-supremacy serve as a basis for the founding ideology and military strategy of the
United States. Slave patrols and Indian fighters were our first "special operations,"
establishing the essential White character of our militarized culture. As the systematic
dispossession project continued, the US government signed over 400 treaties with Indigenous
nations, violating every one of them, establishing deceit and outright lying as part of
our cultural DNA.
The politics of violence based on classism and racism has been incessant throughout our
history. Examining the US criminal injustice system housing a quarter of all the world's
prisoners reveals brutal truth when comparing extreme disparities in punishments by race, and
class. Justice?
I studied the history of the city of my birth – Geneva, New York, which in the 1700s
was Kanadesaga, capitol of the Seneca nation. On September 8, 1779, Major General John Sullivan
and his forty-five hundred soldiers eradicated these "merciless Indian Savages" in the largest
Revolutionary War battle of 1779 – a terrorist, scorched-earth campaign massacring
civilians while destroying all forty of the well-established Seneca towns, including
Kanadesaga. By 1788, the European settlers renamed it Geneva, as if nothing had happened, a
deserved reward for superiors.
All those arrowheads I enjoyed collecting as a child possessed a profound dark secret about
the nature and character of my ancestors. However, I would only discover their secret after
deep reflections from my Viet Nam awakening.
Official US military interventionism began with the US Marine invasion of the Dominican
Republic in 1798 during the undeclared naval war with France. However, hundreds of settler
paramilitary units had been killing Indians since the 1620s. But imperialism has been
explicit policy since the late 1890s to assure domestic prosperity. In 1907,
Woodrow Wilson while president of Princeton University (six years before being elected US
president) lectured:
"Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world
as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are
closed against him must be battered down. .Colonies must be obtained or planted, in order
that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or left unused."
President McKinley, and various Senators continued to advocate "a foreign market for our
surplus products." US meddling, both "soft," and hard, has never stopped.
Traveling to a number of nations in Latin America, Asia, and the Middle East have exposed me
to details of hundreds of US overt interventions, and thousands of covert
destabilization actions. These policies have caused the murders of millions, 20 to 30
million alone since WWII during the so-called "Cold War". Only five of these nearly 600
military interventions have been declared wars as required by the Constitution, clearly
indicating our sacred document is not taken seriously. This also tells us the system has no
interest in being accountable to its own Constitution, or international law. Speaking with
peasants in these victim-countries invariably reveals the horrendous cruelty of US interveners
and their surrogates. Does the US possess any intentions to be law-abiding? Does the US possess
any feelings for others, or only selfish imperial ambitions? And does anyone care?
Violence against even White citizens has matched violence we have carried out in foreign
policy. The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1917-18 were enacted to suppress anti-war dissent
against US entrance into World War I. Thousands of US Americans were deported and
imprisoned following World War I for "radical" anti-war expressions, including labor leaders
and socialists. Some were tortured in US prisons. Ironically, free speech dissent is most
critical when a government decides to go to war. The original Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798
stifled free speech of US citizens, including elected officials, who objected to the undeclared
war against France. Free speech? Huh?
While the US was locking up and deporting citizens for opposing World War I, the FBI was
ignoring extremely violent KKK supremacist groups whose six million members –
nearly 25 percent of the white male population at the time – were lynching with impunity
an average of six African-Americans a month. Equal protection?
The first known use of air power against civilians was committed by US Marines in Haiti in
1919. But, the second known use of US air power against civilians occurred in Tulsa, Oklahoma,
May 31-June 1, 1921, when hundreds of economically successful Black residents living in a
36-square block community were murdered, including from low flying white-piloted planes
dropping incendiaries, destroying nearly 1,300 buildings. How many US Americans know about this
abomination?
Walter White, a longtime leader in the National Association for Advancement of Colored
People (NAACP), concluded that southerners fear of Negro progress offends the
intangible feeling of racial superiority, explaining the intensity of White savagery. The sense
of established White superiority (or anyone possessing those feelings) often leads to an
insecure character from lack of practicing accountability with others in a world of varied,
challenging relationships. Those feelings easily morph into paranoia of others, and delusions
of self grandeur – one of the most difficult psychological orders to treat, as the
persistent pathology of racism (and classism) so attests.
The third known use of US bombing civilians occurred at Blair Mountain, West Virginia,
August-September 1921. As many as 15,000 striking coal miners attempting to unionize were
attacked by 2,000 armed sheriff's deputies, coal company paramilitaries, US troops, and US Army
Martin MB-1 bombers, killing as many as 100 miners, with many more wounded. Before the battles
had ended, more than a million ammunition rounds had been fired. Nearly 1,000 miners were
ironically indicted for murder of the nearly 30 deaths among the miner's attackers. Over 700
union organizers have been murdered in our history. Is this known by many?
We continue to be obsessed with personal and government guns (police and military) as a
guarantor of our security. Those who question easy access to guns, even assault weapons, or the
ridiculously wasteful military spending, are thought of as nearly traitorous. US citizens
personally own nearly 400 million firearms, or 40 percent of all private guns in the world. On
average, three US citizens are killed every day by police, disproportionately
African-Americans. So far in 2019, the US has experienced more than one mass shooting (4 or
more shot) every day. Our gun death rate is ten times above that of other high income
countries. Using violence as a default position historically ends in disaster, as it has been
proven over and over that violence spirals out of control into more violence, while distracting
from serious discourse. Why the incredible record of violence? Insecurity?
Under its doctrine of Full Spectrum Dominance, the US government routinely dispatches
military ships to every sea space, military planes to every airspace, hundreds of satellites
into outer space, while ordering Special Forces units to operate clandestinely in nearly
three-fourths of the world's countries. Additionally, of the 1.4 million US soldiers in the
world, nearly 200,000 are positioned in as many as 150 countries, most stationed at 800 major
military bases in 80 nations. The US also possesses a large percentage of the world's weapons
of mass destruction, and recently has dispensed with any genuine effort at containing the
spread of nuclear weapons. The annual military budget, including hidden costs, amounts to an
exorbitant $1.25 trillion a year, more money than the next seven countries combined spend on
their militaries. If you want to be guaranteed health care and a modest house, join the Army.
Otherwise these human rights are "unaffordable." If you want gun control, start at the top.
How to explain the extent and breadth of our violent militarism and global imperialism?
Paranoia? It seems that our sense of superiority justifies hurtful dispossession from others to
acquire and preserve undeserved privilege.
After exiting the military in 1970, my opinions about the US war against the Vietnamese were
affirmed with the 1971 release of the Pentagon Papers revealing the more than 20 years of
criminal intentions, and deceit, to thwart Vietnamese aspirations for self-determination.
Earlier in 1971, January 31-February 2, Vietnam Veterans Against the War conducted the "Winter
Soldier Investigation: An Inquiry into American War Crimes" when nearly 120 veterans testified
about the war crimes and atrocities they committed or witnessed in Viet Nam. I was aghast when
learning about Nixon's intended Huston plan to criminally interrupt antiwar activities, the
FBI's sixteen-year COINTELPRO of more than 2,000 illegal actions against innocent US citizens,
the CIA's Operation CHAOS keeping tabs on 300,000 citizens opposed to the Viet Nam war, and the
National Security Agency's Operation SHAMROCK watch lists of those communicating with people
overseas. Respect for the law? Huh? Further research revealed that as early as 1934 President
Roosevelt instituted a long-standing joint FBI-military program to conduct domestic
intelligence with broad investigative scope. The "American" Kool Aid indeed has sedated us.
Today our freedoms are further curtailed, for example, as the National Security Agency (NSA)
spies on every US American, the Authorization of Military Force Act (AUFA) allows
warrantless electronic surveillance of anyone suspected of aiding terrorism, and the National
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) enables indefinite detention of US citizens, even arrest by
the military. Where is the Constitution when we need it? Or was it ever really there for
us?
One of the most revealing chapters in our history is the incredible sympathy the US
possessed for authoritarian Nazi Germany. Even though the Soviet military was most critical in
defeating the Nazis in World War II, deep fear of the Bolsheviks (the emergence of an
alternative social-economic system to capitalism) motivated US America's wealthy class, with
complicity of the US government, to support the rise of Nazi Germany from the mid-1930s
into the war years themselves. The US capitalists supported the Nazi capitalists to defeat the
"threat" of socialism. Elite power brokers included leaders of Wall Street and wealthy "barons"
such as the Rockefellers and Andrew Mellon, and businesses such as Ford Motor, IBM (tabulating
daily location of Jews in the Holocaust), General Motors, General Electric, Standard Oil,
Texaco, ITT, International Harvester, Chase Manhattan Bank, the House of Morgan banking
dynasty, DuPont, United Aircraft, etc., who enjoyed huge profits from the war. And following
the war, the US's "Operation Gladio" systematically defeated popular anti -Nazi groups
throughout Europe, while "Operation Paperclip" secretly brought Nazi scientists and other
professionals to the US. Our affinity for fascism has been established.
Psychologically, it is important to note that our national identity has consistently
been markedly defined by demonizing others – "merciless savages", "uppity ni**ers",
"anarchists", "radicals", "communists", "Russians", "alien filth", "narco-traffickers",
"terrorists", "shithole countries", "vermin", etc., echoing psychologist Carl Jung's principle
of "shadow projection." Jung described a cowardly trick we play on ourselves: avoid looking in
the mirror so as not to take responsibility for seeing our own demons. We "see" the evil in
others, perpetuating a nation addicted to war against them, obscenely profiting as we
self-righteously deny our own severe pathologies. If we had looked in the mirror we would have
learned what Pogo told us, "We have met the enemy and he is us."
Eco-psychologist Chellis Glendinning suggests that modern humans suffer from deep insecurity
that emerged from collective traumas hundreds of generations ago. A serious disconnect from
intimacy with the earth occurred when our ancient ancestors began controlling nature through
agriculture and animal domestication. Evolutionary philosopher Gregory Bateson concludes that
addictive behavior is consistent with the Western approach to life that pits mind against body,
while behaving as if the natural world is a commodity. We seek various distractions to numb our
pain from this feeling of aloofness. Technology, not Nature, has become our God.
Recognizing the Lie
Could it be that virtually everything I was taught by my parents, community, school, church,
and political leaders in terms of factual history, morality, ethics, and rational thinking
about "America" was the opposite of what had been represented? How could that be?
Yes, I have been conditioned by an incredibly comfortable fairy tale, a massive cultural
system denying or distorting historic realities, founded on shameful genocides. I had been
betrayed. We are told we are the greatest, even as we (s)elect imperial Presidents and
Congresspeople in an orgy of fantastic fiction about "democracy." The US Senate is a
millionaire's club, with many members of the US House also in that class. Indian author
Arundhati Roy describes "democracy" and "pro-democracy" as the "Free World's whores", hollow
words satisfying a whole range of tastes, available to be used and abused at will where facts
don't matter.
US America loves its myth of being committed to justice for all, but in fact it is a society
ruled and funded by a wealthy elite. This is not a government of, by and for the people!
It is a ruthless oligarchy sanctioned by a majority of the people believing their vote
counts. Money has always mattered, severely rigging the game in many ways toward an
upper class (obscenely bribing candidates, corporate personhood power, gerrymandering,
proprietary election software, hacking capacity to effect results, Jim Crow laws, voter
suppression, etc.). The oligarchy approves "acceptable" candidates, while contrived rhetoric,
propaganda, and our education system keep us faithful to our political system comprised of one
party with two right wings, the winner ruling by tyranny of its majority. But the bottom line
is that (s)elected representatives obey their large donors who thrive on war-making against
vulnerable others.
Nonetheless, these facts do not preclude existence of individual conscientious politicians.
However, the political economic system itself is fixed, it is not broken, a dilemma every
honest politician must face. This delicious Kool Aid has in fact concealed a delusional
madness, a Kafkaesque, Orwellian nightmare. Our political leaders have consistently and
collectively acted outside the Constitution, while selectively applying laws that
preserve the cabal in power. It has always been this way, though the social revolution of the
1960s threatened to overturn the oligopoly. This revolution was unfortunately unsuccessful but
the fearful system's repressive reaction is now in its fifth decade. In the end, we are in fact
a nation of men, not laws.
So, in effect, our mythological story made me functionally stupid, a "good kid" who became
complicit in mindless, mass murder. And I am suggesting that it has created a society comprised
of millions of functionally stupid people. This is different from intelligence. This is not
idiocy. This is serious non -thinking of intellectually capable people who, in effect,
have suspended their autonomous critical thinking, basking in an intoxicated spell of our sense
of national invincibility. It has enhanced the Friedman era of neoliberal privatization,
worshipping greed, while millions are without health care and homeless. This is mass
psychopathy, a dangerous cultural mental illness.
German Lutheran theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer , while a prisoner in one of Hitler's jails,
wrote about the role of stupidity in the German people that substantially contributed to the
rise of Nazism and worship of savior Hitler. He argued that it is very separate from
intellectual capacity but occurs when a cult-like belief system dangerously suspends critical
thinking, bringing collective relief to an emotionally anxious population. It is a form of
voluntary servitude more dangerous than malice, an entrenched belief system that makes genuine
dialogue and education almost impossible. (Bonhoeffer was hung in April 1945).
As US Americans we possess no visceral memory of the two unspeakable genocides
our ancestors shamefully committed, forcefully dispossessing Indigenous Africans of their
labor, and genuine Americans of their land, murdering millions with impunity. Even though we
are superficially taught about slavery and conquering the Indigenous, their egregious suffering
has been outsourced outside our feeling fields for 25 generations . Thus, was
established our cultural "DNA" of achieving expansion benefitting a few (mostly White males and
those who think like them) through any means while escaping any accountability
whatsoever. Now nearly 600 overt, and thousands of covert interventions later, US Americans
still know little or nothing about our unspeakable imperialism. Why not? Isn't it critically
important that we seriously grapple with our diabolical history?
In 2019, the President, US military, CIA, and other "regime change" entities like the
National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and their funders in Congress, continue to intervene
almost everywhere, destabilizing with crippling sanctions, sadistically causing suffering,
causing chaos, creating kill lists, murdering, bombing, etc. Does any of this criminal insanity
even happen? Has it ever? Does it matter to most people? I believe there is a deep shame
that burdens us. It is understandable to avoid looking at shame, but the cost is perpetual war
for perpetual peace until we are all dead. The era of privilege is over, as we enter the
terrifying era of consequences, bringing fear, insecurity and anxiety to many heretofore
privileged folks. Denial becomes a lethal seduction.
Our amnesia has precluded emotional intelligence, a depth of character, so necessary
for mature development, with little understanding of historical context. We are effectively
emotionally retarded, blocking the universal embedded human feeling of empathy, and the
collective solidarity that emerges therefrom. Thus, "America" is very insecure having been
conveniently wrapped in a fake, pretend narrative, convincing us of our "exceptional" nature,
ignoring both our systemic pattern of domestic violence, and global imperialism. The corporate
media, and corporate-owned social media platforms, serve as stenographers for our oligarchic
policies and values. They create an agenda-driven narrative that inoculates our minds with
constant group think untruths of neo-liberal capitalism.
We now live in a post-truth world, where narcissistic life is experienced as virtual, not
real. Do we feel the pain of the Afghani, Yemeni, the Syrian, Iraqi, Iranian, Libyan, Somali,
the Russian, the Venezuelan, Nicaraguan, Honduran, Guatemalan, Mexican, Palestinian in Gaza, or
our neighbor down the street whose cancer left her homeless due to foreclosure? How much do we
care? Answering these questions can tell us a lot about our own survival, including yours and
mine.
Serious discussion and debate of a broad range and depth of ideas is virtually
nonexistent. Mention of "socialism" is considered traitorous to the religion of neoliberal
corporatism. In reality, we promote individualism over community, competition over cooperation,
and acquisitiveness over inquisitiveness. These capitalist characteristics condition human
development in a way that is diametrically opposed to our inherent, genetic nature as a social
species requiring for survival cooperation in all our relations.
The economy and political system is now virtually dependent upon what Eisenhower proclaimed
as the military/security industrial complex, and that complex thrives on creation of endless
"enemies" which produce obscene war profits for a very few. Community and family units have
disintegrated, and citizenship is less engaged as life is increasingly defined in terms of
commodities. Everything and everybody is for sale to the highest bidder. This leads to anomie,
violence and madness. And yet, we continue to enjoy shopping as the government conducts its
daily bombing. How can this be? How can we pay taxes and go about our business as usual when so
many people in the world are being impoverished or eliminated by US policies facilitating the
wealthy getting richer?
The Deep Divide – 1959 – 2019
Having graduated from a rural upstate New York high school in 1959 at the height of
post-WWII Cold War euphoria, in the midst of the short historic blip of aspiring consumerism,
the "American" Kool Aid I and my 28 fellow graduates drank at that time was delicious. I was
raised in a lower middle class home by conservative, religious parents, not dissimilar to the
upbringings of many of my classmates. Life seemed great, and simple. However, my Viet Nam
experience rudely exposed the poisonous nature of this delicious drink and its true
ingredients.
Discovering information about my former classmates finds several still living in the same
area we grew up, possessing similar views to that which we believed in 1959 – religiously
and politically conservative, but now supporters of MAGA, Trump and Israel. One classmate who
had been a basketball cheerleader, still married to her high school sweetheart after 60 years,
read my Facebook postings from Nicaragua, then declared me "a fool" admonishing me to "stay
there." This same cheerleader chanted for each starter before games, such as "Brian, Brian,
he's our man, if he can't do it, nobody can."
Being raised in and conditioned by US America instills a desire to preserve a fantasy of
post-WWII euphoria for many, at least until President Reagan. But experiential reality
painfully destroys make-believe. I argue that the USA has never been great, but suspect many of
my 1959 classmates would vehemently disagree.
Trump Exposes the Pretend Society
The phenomenon of the Presidency of Donald John Trump disturbingly "offers" our culture, and
the world, an overdue undisguised photo of our real culture and its politics. Some say
Trump brings out the worst in people – hatred, self-centeredness, cruelty, insensitivity,
crassness, racism, insulting language, poisonous divisiveness, adolescent delinquency, etc. But
is it possible that his language and demeanor are validating expressions of historically
suppressed feelings and values which have never been sufficiently addressed or openly
acknowledged in our Eurocentric, capitalist, money-oriented, nature-defying, often
mean-spirited culture? These censored feelings once unleashed, no matter how adolescent they
seem, are capable of manifesting in a vicious authoritarian and neo-fascist state, as they did
in Germany nearly 100 years ago. It seems we are at that point again.
The "developed" world, now led by the United States of America, has historically been built
on egregious exploitation and violence hidden under fanciful rhetoric. Inevitably, the chickens
will come home to roost. As Eurocentrics we have been lying to ourselves and the world with our
highly touted economic system and "democracy," fooling ourselves by myths and lies we have long
believed about our "superiority" built on the suffering of others. As stated above, we have
(s)elected leaders who are to varying degrees corrupted by money who use politically "correct"
language and a finessed demeanor to gain approval. In fact, they have consistently been
imperial and oligarchic, selfishly stealing to assure an insatiably consumptive lifestyle for
under 5 percent of the world's population (but only benefitting a minority of its own people),
while gobbling up anywhere from 25 to 50 percent of the globe's resources (depending on the
resource and era examined). We ad nauseum excuse our interventions using "national
security" or "humanitarian justice." We have followed in the footsteps of our imperial teachers
in the United Kingdom. Fair? Sustainable? Ever thought about the structural unfairness and
gross arrogance that has enabled 500 years of colonization? Trump's Presidency reveals a lot
about us that we have not wanted to recognize. Scary? Our historical chronic complicity in this
horror story cannot be ignored.
Trump serves as an avatar, or caricature, of a collective, creepy, violent, disgusting,
mean-spirited, immature culture, at least as experienced by large numbers of people both in the
US and the world. Trump's appeal can largely be attributed to the fact that he has taken the
clothes off of Pretend . His childish nature of lying, tweeting and exaggerating,
ironically reveals an ugly "truth" about our modern selves that has been drowned under
incredible "public relations" – education, the media, Hollywood, sports, the State
Department, etc. His extreme personal narcissism matches well our extreme collective
exceptionalism. Is it clearer now just how big the LIE has been, protected by our comfortable
500-year myths? Welcome to dystopia, Kafka, and Orwell.
Conclusion
The 400-year history of Western dualistic Cartesian thinking (named after French philosopher
Rene Descartes' view of reductionist mind-body dualism) divorcing human beings from study of
observable nature, has produced a terribly flawed epistemology. The opposite basis for
knowledge is holism, a framework that enables comprehension of multiple interconnections and
historical context. Dispensing with any serious concern for consequences, the insatiably
consumer-driven materialistic Western Way of Life has ironically and blissfully been destroying
life itself by its addiction to burning finite fossil fuels. The harsh truth is that a
capitalist system is on a direct collision course with sustainable societies that require
conserving healthy interconnected relationships with each other and the earth's eco-system. We
have become accustomed to wishful thinking that resources are infinite, and that they belong to
us. This theft can only happen, of course, by force or its threat, and deceit, while living in
the toxic illusion we are better than others. Does this suggest a kind of arrogant
collective stupidity?
Nature bats last, something our cortex apparently chose to fatally ignore. We now face the
greatest existential crisis as Nature bats last humbling modern humans into extinction, or near
so. We somehow forgot the most critical truth of all – that we all part of the One. If we
can now recognize our various levels of "stupidity", we have an adrenaline opportunity to leap
out of our heretofore seductive comfortable fantasy, choosing instead to access our buried
human characteristic of interconnection with everything and everybody, i.e., mutual respect and
accountability. This leap now must be of a revolutionary nature, rocketing us out of our
historic arrogant pleasureableness. Our survival foundation: embracing the evolutionary feeling
of empathy. Saving ourselves is pretty damn important, and that means saving life for all.
Let's do it! We are not worth more; they are not worth less.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Brian Willson, Viet Nam veteran and trained lawyer, has been a lifelong critic of US
domestic and foreign policy. His essays and biography are found at his website:
brianwillson.com. His recent book, "Don't Thank Me for My Service: My Viet Nam Awakening to the
Long History of US Lies" is published by Clarity Press (2018). His psycho-historical memoir,
"Blood on the Tracks: The Life and Times of S. Brian Willson" was published by PM Press (2011).
A documentary, "Paying the Price for Peace: The Story of S. Brian Willson" was produced in 2016
by Bo Boudart Productions.
While early Zionism was a desperate attempt to divorce the Jews from the ghetto and
their tribal obsession and make them "people like all other people,"
Zionist wanting to make Jews 'like all other people' by giving them a Jew ruled only
state to get away from non Jews is as contradictory as 'Israel is Jewish and
Democratic.'
You're never going to find logical thinking in Jews.
I'm afraid you've lost me with this one. Let's start with this:
' While early Zionism was a desperate attempt to divorce the Jews from the ghetto and
their tribal obsession and make them "people like all other people," the present adherence
to Jewishness and kinship induces a return to Judeo-centric chauvinism '
I'm afraid I don't see the distinction. As I mentioned a while back, I see Zionism as the
Jewish response to the racial nationalism that dominated thinking in Europe in the second
half of the nineteenth century. There were Frenchmen, and they had France. There were
Germans, and they had Germany. There were Greeks, and they had Greece. There were Jews, and
they should have a Jewish state.
In all of these, the nation, its land, and the ethnic entity that was its people were
perceived as indivisible -- and in point of fact, many previously amiably accepted ethnic
minorities found themselves persecuted in consequence. The Poles under Prussian rule are an
example: perfectly welcome in Frederick the Great's Prussia, but repeatedly targeted in
Wilhelmine Germany.
It had become nonsense to speak of a 'German' who wasn't German by birth, a Turk who
wasn't Turkish, etc, etc. So how would Zionism -- the Jewish equivalent of all this -- be
distinct from 'Judeo-centric chauvinism'? And indeed, in the new dispensation, Jews were
forced to choose between assimilation and Zionism; they could be 'Hungarians (or whatever) of
the Mosaic faith' or they could be Zionists -- the traditional Jewish identity had become
obsolete.
What form could 'Judeo-centric chauvinism' have taken but Zionism? Aren't the two one and
the same?
Thanks Gilad for your courageous work. I think we should always remember the ordinary Jews,
the grocers, the tailors, and all the others who have lived ordinary lives and suffered due
to the activities of their elites. We should remember the radical Jews and the artists like
Cohen, Dylan and Lou Reid to mention just a few. I could make a case that the English
elites have caused just as much trouble as elite Jews. In fact, it was the meeting of English
and Jewish elites that created the British empire.
@Iron
Lion Zion "The dichotomy of Israeli vs Jew is rhetoric from the Israeli radical-left."
well, perhaps the survey cited was invalid -- the one concerning how Jews/Israelis
self-identified.
ASAIK the original Zionist idea, or the most powerful version of it in the 20th century,
was Jabotinsky's Revisionist Zionism, which was a secular movement.
If no one in Israel any longer gives even lip service to this concept, then that is indeed
a big change. And, we have read at this site and elsewhere of the takeover of the Israeli
state by the orthodox. Pushback on this explains the stance of Avigdor Liberman and his party
members. Many of which are Russian jews who do not want to support their orthodox countrymen
and -women, who are becoming demographically overrepresented but will not serve in the armed
forces, etc.These issues were written about at this site recently. I think under the title
"the End of Israel."
Certainly that contributoin suggests that what it means to be a Jew/Israeli is changing
and that it is the Israeli "left" that is trying to maintain some kind of image of a secular
Jew who is an Israeli citizen, but is going against the contemporary flow in this effort.
@Colin
Wright The Greeks, French, Germans (etc.) that you cite were people who lived within
national borders, spoke Greek, French, German etc., were educated in these countries and
voted and fought for them (including jews) – but had many different backgrounds and a
variety of religions, though of course predominately Christian. In Europe a country define
themselves by their culture, not by 'race'. i.e. their history, language, philosophy, arts
etc.
'Race' is a jewish divide-and-rule political tool to make up for the fact that:
Judaism is simply a belief (or, rather lifestyle) system – literally a set of life
style proscriptions they call 'laws' and not technically a religion since it contains no
universal, philosophic or transcendental content.
The problem for jews is what is now called judaism, which was born after Christ and
born out of opposition to Christi anity. It is in fact not a religion but a
political movement, anti-faith and anti-religion and anti-love of humankind.
Driven by oppositionalism, they were great proselytisers. People of many different
backgrounds converted to judaism, from Ethiopians to Turkic tribes. Thus there is no "jewish
nation". There is no jewish culture either as is evidenced by jews' meagre contribution to
the arts, philosophy. There wasn't even a jewish language until hebrew was revived /
re-invented all too recently and for political reasons.
Yiddish is a true language of jews if there is one – but it is merely a dialect, not a
standalone.
The Germans destroyed themselves by falling into the jewish anti-Christian, 'racialist'
trap. To aid the Germans in WW2 you had to agree to be an unter-menschen and recognise
Germans as your uber-menschen ..how self-defeating is that?
And why should anyone be surprised that the exact same mentality rules in Israel today, since
it is the delusional heart of judaism? A fake "Racial" Supremacy is the raison
d'être of "judaism".
All of this adds up to a tragic, self-defeating and ultimately stupid (un-intelligent)
position.
Peoples tend to want their own nation state presumably because it it the most
satisfying, protective and benevolent context for individuals to mediate their lives in the
world. Unfortunately German Jews lived in a state while being of a different nation to the
majority, and had their rights suddenly taken away. In the Jewish state of Israel Jews are
having their need for imprescriptible rights met. Palestinians want their own state and those
rights that go with it.
"... Committee members Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Vir.) explicitly announced their opposition to war with Iran. And prominent war powers critic Sen. Jeff Markley (D-Ore.) quipped that, "[b]ack when Presidents used to follow the Constitution, they sought consent for military action from Congress, not foreign governments that murder reporters," referring to the assassination of Saudi-American journalist Jamal Khashoggi. ..."
"... "Diplomacy by Twitter has not worked so far and it surely is not working with Iran. The president needs to stop threatening military strikes via social media," said Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Mary.) in response to a question from the National Interest . "The attack on Saudi Arabia is troubling whether it was perpetrated by Houthi rebels or Iran. The U.S. should regain its leadership by working with our allies to isolate Iran for its belligerent actions in the region." ..."
"... "The U.S. should not be looking for any opportunity to start a dangerous and costly war with Iran. Congress has not authorized war against Iran and we've made it crystal clear that Saudi Arabia needs to withdraw from Yemen," he continued. ..."
"... Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) has long been a critic of Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen, proposing a successful bill to cut off U.S. support for the Saudi-led war effort. (He did not have enough votes to override the veto.) After the attacks, he wrote a long Twitter thread explaining how "the Saudis sowed the seeds of this mess" in Yemen. ..."
"... "It's simply amazing how the Saudis call all our shots these days. We don't have a mutual defense alliance with KSA, for good reason. We shouldn't pretend we do," Murphy added. "And frankly, no matter where this latest drone strike was launched from, there is no short or long term upside to the U.S. military getting more deeply involved in the growing regional contest between the Saudis and Iranians." ..."
"... "Having our country act as Saudi Arabia's bitch is not 'America First,'" said Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard, invoking a popular Trump slogan. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ken.), who had invoked Trump's antiwar message in a public feud with Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) over the weekend, took to CNN to warn against striking Iran. ..."
"... "This is a regional conflict, that there's no reason the superpower of the United States needs to be getting into bombing mainland Iran. It would be a needless escalation of this," he told journalist Jake Tapper. "Those who loved the Iraq War, the Cheneys, the Boltons, the Kristols, they all are clamoring and champing at the bit for another war in Iran. But it's not a walk in the park." ..."
"... "In order to have clean ships by the first of January next year, all the world's shipping fleet from about now until the end of the year are busy emptying their tanks of heavy sulphur fuel oil and filling their tanks with low sulphur fuel oil, which is the new standard," Latham explained, claiming that the attack could have taken up to 20 percent of the world's desulphurization capacity out of commission. ..."
"... "This little accident was designed to be maximally disruptive to the world's oil market. It could not have happened at a worse time." "But what is really interesting is in Amsterdam this morning, I saw that for fuel oil -- the sulphurous stuff -- the price went down," Latham continued, speculating that international powers might delay the new environmental regulations by months and inadvertently drive down the price of oil in the long run. ..."
"... On Sunday, Trump tapped into emergency U.S. oil reserves, in order to stabilize prices. It's not clear, however, that the United States has enough oil to cope with wider attacks on energy infrastructure. "If the Iranians did this, they have shown they have pretty immense capabilities clearly," Parsi told the National Interest . "In the case of a full-scale war, imagine what this will do for the global economy. It's not that difficult to imagine what that will do to Trump's re-election prospects. I think that is something Trump understands." ..."
Retired Lt. Col. Daniel L. Davis pointed out that the puncture marks do not actually show
the origin of the attack. "Missiles can fly from almost anywhere. They have the ability to
maneuver! And certainly drones can, too," the Defense Priorities senior fellow told the
National Interest . "There hasn't been the time to do an actual analysis on the
ground, so let's wait and see."
Mark Latham, managing partner at the London-based analysis firm Commodities Intelligence,
told the National Interest that the puncture marks pointed to a cruise missile with no
explosive warhead. Removing the payload would allow the missile to carry more fuel and launch
from farther away from its target.
... ... ...
"Mr. X is a sophisticated fellow. He's sourced some Iranian cruise missiles.
He's removed the explosive payload. He's replaced the explosive payload with fuel," he said.
"So this isn't your twenty dollar Amazon drone. This is a sophisticated military operation."
"The culprit behind the Abqaiq attack is most definitely the Islamic Republic, either
directly or through one of its proxies," argued Varsha Koduvayur, a senior research analyst at
the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
"The attack fits the pattern of Iran signaling to the Gulf states that if it can't get its
oil out, it will cause their oil exports to become collateral damage," Koduvayur told the National Interest . "It's because of how strong our coercive financial tools are that
Iran is resorting to attacks like this: it's lashing out."
Violating an Obama-era agreement to regulate Iran's nuclear research program, the Trump
administration imposed massive sanctions on Iran's oil industry beginning in May 2018. The goal
of this "maximum pressure" campaign was to force Iran to accept a "better" deal. Since then,
Iranian forces have captured a British oil tanker and allegedly sabotaged tankers from other
countries.
There were some signals that Trump was planning to use the ongoing United Nations General
Assembly in New York to open a new
diplomatic channel with Iran, especially after the
firing of hawkish National Security Advisor John Bolton. But the weekend attack sent Trump
into reverse.
"Remember when Iran shot down a drone, saying knowingly that it was in their 'airspace'
when, in fact, it was nowhere close. They stuck strongly to that story knowing that it was a
very big lie," he said in a Monday morning Twitter post, referring to a June incident
when Iranian and American forces almost went to war. "Now they say that they had nothing to do
with the attack on Saudi Arabia. We'll see?"
He also hinted at a violent U.S. response.
"There is reason to believe that we know the culprit, are locked and loaded depending on
verification, but are waiting to hear from the Kingdom as to who they believe was the cause of
this attack, and under what terms we would proceed!" Trump wrote on Sunday.
"Saudi Arabia is not a formal treaty ally of ours, so there are no international agreements
that obligate us to come to their defense," John Glaser, director of foreign-policy studies at
the CATO Institute, stated. "This does not amount to a clear and present danger to the United
States, so no self-defense justification is relevant. He would therefore need authorization
from Congress."
Members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee had mixed reactions to the attack.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) proposed putting "on the table an attack on Iranian oil
refineries" in order to "break the regime's back." His press office did not respond to a
follow-up question from the National Interest asking whether the president would have
the authority to do so.
Amy Grappone, spokeswoman for Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.), told the National Interest
that the Senator "will support an appropriate and proportionate response" after "studying the
latest intelligence pertaining to Iran's malign activities, including these recent attacks in
Saudi Arabia."
Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), the ranking Democrat on the committee, condemned the attack with
a backhanded insult towards Saudi Arabia. "Despite some ongoing policy differences with the
kingdom, no nation should be subjected to these kinds of attacks on it soil and against its
people," he wrote on Twitter, declining to name Iran as the culprit.
Committee members Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Vir.) explicitly announced
their opposition to war with Iran. And prominent war powers critic Sen.
Jeff Markley (D-Ore.) quipped that, "[b]ack when Presidents used to follow the Constitution,
they sought consent for military action from Congress, not foreign governments that murder
reporters," referring to the assassination of Saudi-American journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
"Diplomacy by Twitter has not worked so far and it surely is not working with Iran. The
president needs to stop threatening military strikes via social media," said Sen. Ben Cardin
(D-Mary.) in response to a question from the National Interest . "The attack on Saudi
Arabia is troubling whether it was perpetrated by Houthi rebels or Iran. The U.S. should regain
its leadership by working with our allies to isolate Iran for its belligerent actions in the
region."
"The U.S. should not be looking for any opportunity to start a dangerous and costly war with
Iran. Congress has not authorized war against Iran and we've made it crystal clear that Saudi
Arabia needs to withdraw from Yemen," he continued.
Asked how he would vote on a declaration of war, the senator told the National
Interest : "Let's hope it does not come to that. Congress has not authorized war against
Iran. The majority voted to engage them diplomatically to slow their nuclear ambitions. The
international community is ready to work with the U.S. again to ease economic pressure on Iran
in exchange for their restraint. We are at a dangerous precipice."
In a statement emailed to the National Interest and posted to Twitter, Sen. Tim
Kaine (D-Va.) was even more direct: "The US should never go to war to protect Saudi oil."
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) has long been a critic of Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen, proposing
a successful bill
to cut off U.S. support for the Saudi-led war effort. (He did not have enough votes to override
the veto.) After the attacks, he wrote a long Twitter thread
explaining how "the Saudis sowed the seeds of this mess" in Yemen.
"It's simply amazing how the Saudis call all our shots these days. We don't have a mutual
defense alliance with KSA, for good reason. We shouldn't pretend we do," Murphy added. "And
frankly, no matter where this latest drone strike was launched from, there is no short or long
term upside to the U.S. military getting more deeply involved in the growing regional contest
between the Saudis and Iranians."
But the reaction did not fall neatly along party lines.
"Iran is one of the most dangerous state sponsors of terrorism. This may well be the thing
that calls for military action against Iran, if that's what the intelligence supports," said
Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) in a Monday interview with Fox News. Others pointed out that
attacking Iran would contradict Trump's own principles.
"Having our country act as Saudi Arabia's bitch is not 'America First,'" said Democratic
presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard, invoking a popular Trump slogan. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ken.),
who had invoked Trump's antiwar message in a public feud
with Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) over the weekend, took to CNN to warn against striking Iran.
"This is a regional conflict, that there's no reason the superpower of the United States
needs to be getting into bombing mainland Iran. It would be a needless escalation of this," he
told journalist Jake Tapper. "Those who loved the Iraq War, the Cheneys, the Boltons, the
Kristols, they all are clamoring and champing at the bit for another war in Iran. But it's not
a walk in the park."
Davis agreed with Paul's assessment. "There's too many people who have lost touch with
understanding what war is all about. They think it's easy," he told the National
Interest . "Just imagine this. What we go ahead and do this, and Iran makes good on their
threats, and American warships get sunk in the Gulf?" "This is not America's fight," he
concluded. "The American armed forces are not on loan as a Saudi defense force."
"There's another claim that the impact on oil markets is sufficient to impact the vital U.S.
interest in the free flow of energy coming out of that region, but that argument quickly
descends into absurdity when we remember that the Trump administration has been trying to
zero-out Iranian oil exports, for a host of spurious reasons," Glaser told the National
Interest . "Washington is also aggressively sanctioning Venezuela, making it harder for
Caracas to bring oil to market, too. If we really cared about the supply of oil, we wouldn't be
doing this."
In any case, the attack may not have affected oil markets in such a straightforward way.
Latham says that the attack struck an oil desulphurization facility. At the moment,
desulphurized fuel is in high demand from the shipping industry, which is rushing to comply
with new international environmental regulations.
"In order to have clean ships by the first of January next year, all the world's shipping
fleet from about now until the end of the year are busy emptying their tanks of heavy sulphur
fuel oil and filling their tanks with low sulphur fuel oil, which is the new standard," Latham
explained, claiming that the attack could have taken up to 20 percent of the world's
desulphurization capacity out of commission.
"This little accident was designed to be maximally
disruptive to the world's oil market. It could not have happened at a worse time." "But what is
really interesting is in Amsterdam this morning, I saw that for fuel oil -- the sulphurous
stuff -- the price went down," Latham continued, speculating that international powers might
delay the new environmental regulations by months and inadvertently drive down the price of oil
in the long run.
On Sunday, Trump tapped into emergency U.S. oil reserves, in order to stabilize prices. It's
not clear, however, that the United States has enough oil to cope with wider attacks on energy
infrastructure. "If the Iranians did this, they have shown they have pretty immense
capabilities clearly," Parsi told the National Interest . "In the case of a full-scale
war, imagine what this will do for the global economy. It's not that difficult to imagine what
that will do to Trump's re-election prospects. I think that is something Trump
understands."
Matthew Petti is a national security reporter at the National Interest.
Saudi Arabia oil supply was attacked. There is reason to believe that we know the culprit, are locked and loaded depending
on verification, but are waiting to hear from the Kingdom as to who they believe was the cause of this attack, and under what
terms we would proceed!
in American imperialism and the power imbalance isn't about just oil? How about we elaborate on that. It's not enough to criticize
American military meddling without also calling out the geopolitical and economic meddling. These are intertwined and while I
think Tulsi is very strong and very correct on military "interventions," she can and should go further. (All Americand should,
no arguments here.) I mean, as far as this tweet goes, it's a cheap shot at a total loser who is already an easy target. Is she
tweeting this at the American companies with interests in Saudi oil?
as far as this tweet [by Tulsi] goes, it's a cheap shot at a total loser who is already an easy target. Is she tweeting
this at the American companies with interests in Saudi oil?
The "total loser" is a master politician, surviving a coup attempt , battling hostile MSM 24/7 and with an enlarging voter
base. Include rising favorability ratings, though still less than 50%. His popularity currently equals that of Obomber at a similar
point in first term.
in American imperialism and the power imbalance isn't about just oil? How about we elaborate on that. It's not enough to
criticize American military meddling without also calling out the geopolitical and economic meddling. These are intertwined
and while I think Tulsi is very strong and very correct on military "interventions," she can and should go further. (All Americand
should, no arguments here.) I mean, as far as this tweet goes, it's a cheap shot at a total loser who is already an easy target.
Is she tweeting this at the American companies with interests in Saudi oil?
I'm not trying to be contrary, but I honestly do not get what she's saying here, other than Trump is being KSA's "bitch" because
he's waiting to hear what they say before letting bombs fly at whoever the US "believes" is responsible. Personally I think that's
a big improvement over him immediately ordering an attack on Iran, or wherever.
If her statement criticized the "locked and loaded" part of his statement and she directly said we should not be bombing
anyone on behalf of Saudi Arabia, then I'd agree with her.
But instead she criticized his waiting to hear from the country that was actually bombed, before doing anything or taking unilateral
action. Calling him SKA's bitch, means he's being weak and submissive. Goading him into quicker action ... seems like an odd way
to discourage war and the macho-man thinking that drives it.
I guess I really don't understand at all why people like this rhetoric from her. I personally have a confused, but basically
negative, gut reaction to her comment.
@CS in AZ@CS in AZ
I ran across her statements on youtube. And I don't see how you can interpret what she said as "goading" him.
I'm not trying to be contrary, but I honestly do not get what she's saying here, other than Trump is being KSA's "bitch"
because he's waiting to hear what they say before letting bombs fly at whoever the US "believes" is responsible. Personally
I think that's a big improvement over him immediately ordering an attack on Iran, or wherever.
If her statement criticized the "locked and loaded" part of his statement and she directly said we should not be bombing
anyone on behalf of Saudi Arabia, then I'd agree with her.
But instead she criticized his waiting to hear from the country that was actually bombed, before doing anything or taking
unilateral action. Calling him SKA's bitch, means he's being weak and submissive. Goading him into quicker action ... seems
like an odd way to discourage war and the macho-man thinking that drives it.
I guess I really don't understand at all why people like this rhetoric from her. I personally have a confused, but basically
negative, gut reaction to her comment.
was a country at peace and was suddenly attacked, I could sort of understand your objection to Gabbard criticizing Trump for
waiting to hear from the Saudi princes about what to do next.
But that's not the situation. Saudi Arabia has been targeting school buses, hospitals, weddings, and has starved 85,000 children
to death in Yemen, and we have HELPED! Starving a child to death is torture.
The fact that the civilized world hasn't rained retribution down on the Saudi government for supporting Al Qaeda, for supporting
ISIS and its atrocities, and for using the people of Yemen for target practice just to benefit our defense contractors, is an
abomination. We are not just being USED by the Saudi government. We are being ABUSED, as a nation, as a people, as a culture that's
supposed to have values. We are being transformed into the sucking scum of the earth. For money. For a few contractors.
I'm not trying to be contrary, but I honestly do not get what she's saying here, other than Trump is being KSA's "bitch"
because he's waiting to hear what they say before letting bombs fly at whoever the US "believes" is responsible. Personally
I think that's a big improvement over him immediately ordering an attack on Iran, or wherever.
If her statement criticized the "locked and loaded" part of his statement and she directly said we should not be bombing
anyone on behalf of Saudi Arabia, then I'd agree with her.
But instead she criticized his waiting to hear from the country that was actually bombed, before doing anything or taking
unilateral action. Calling him SKA's bitch, means he's being weak and submissive. Goading him into quicker action ... seems
like an odd way to discourage war and the macho-man thinking that drives it.
I guess I really don't understand at all why people like this rhetoric from her. I personally have a confused, but basically
negative, gut reaction to her comment.
Trump is his own worst enemy. His thoughtless tweets reveal him to be some seriously damaged goods.
Not since the late days of dementia ridden Reagan has a more dangerous finger been on "The Button".
@earthling1@earthling1
Trump's policies are by and larger terrible, neoliberal, disguised as populism. But before considering that Trump is an idiot,
rather than one prone to bad choices in policy, please consider his current POLIICAL status. See my comment above to Monsieur
le Frog.
Trump is his own worst enemy. His thoughtless tweets reveal him to be some seriously damaged goods.
Not since the late days of dementia ridden Reagan has a more dangerous finger been on "The Button".
have not unreasonably read his tweet as saying what it clearly seems to be saying, that the US will wait to see who the Saudis
decide carried out the bombing, and the US will wait for their instructions on how the US should proceed -- deferring to the Saudis
on two counts.
Does seem rather clear, and odd, for a US president to state a foreign power should dictate our actions on their behalf.
I didn't read it at all as a complaint that the US has to wait and cool its heels for the Saudis in order to rush into military
action.
Of course she went on twitter to respond to DT's tweet. Twitter, the short-form of communication, where brief tweets are always
vulnerable to misunderstanding.
This used to be called diplomacy. That's what we (the peace-not-war minded) people) wanted from our government. I still
do, and I'm forced to say I think I actually agree with trump on this one. His tweet was unusually diplomatic and relatively calm.
I was glad he said something reasonable, for perhaps the first time ever.
WE (the US) are not the world dictatorship that should feel free to bomb anyone anywhere anytime, and screw the rest of the
world. Cooperation among governments is not being anyone's bitch. That's the pro war, pro US empire kind of thinking.
America first... see, that's not really what I believe in. So I see now, that must be why I felt so disturbed by her comment.
I just disagree with her basic premise.
have not unreasonably read his tweet as saying what it clearly seems to be saying, that the US will wait to see who the
Saudis decide carried out the bombing, and the US will wait for their instructions on how the US should proceed -- deferring
to the Saudis on two counts.
Does seem rather clear, and odd, for a US president to state a foreign power should dictate our actions on their behalf.
I didn't read it at all as a complaint that the US has to wait and cool its heels for the Saudis in order to rush into military
action.
Of course she went on twitter to respond to DT's tweet. Twitter, the short-form of communication, where brief tweets are
always vulnerable to misunderstanding.
@CS in AZ@CS in AZ
is when two countries engage in discussions to possibly reach a mutual agreement. That seems like an incredibly expansive and
pro-Trump reading of his bizarre tweet.
Twump's tweet, in the clear language of the brief text, was about the US president waiting to hear marching orders from Crown
Prince Mohammed "Ben" Salman as to what the US should do.
Tulsi's tweet and use of the word "bitch" was actually referencing a previous tweet she had made months ago criticizing the
way the US seems to be subservient to the Saudis.
This used to be called diplomacy. That's what we (the peace-not-war minded) people) wanted from our government. I
still do, and I'm forced to say I think I actually agree with trump on this one. His tweet was unusually diplomatic and relatively
calm. I was glad he said something reasonable, for perhaps the first time ever.
WE (the US) are not the world dictatorship that should feel free to bomb anyone anywhere anytime, and screw the rest of
the world. Cooperation among governments is not being anyone's bitch. That's the pro war, pro US empire kind of thinking.
America first... see, that's not really what I believe in. So I see now, that must be why I felt so disturbed by her comment.
I just disagree with her basic premise.
Gabbard Campaign Video Slams Trump For Making US "The Prostitute Of Saudi Arabia"
by Tyler Durden
Wed, 04/17/2019
Democratic presidential candidate for 2020 Rep. Tulsi Gabbard lashed out at Trump on Wednesday after the president vetoed
the Yemen War Powers Resolution this week, which sought to end US support for the Sauid-led war in Yemen.
The Hawaiian congresswomen and outspoken US foreign policy critic asserted the president is turning the nation "into the
prostitute of Saudi Arabia" and further stated he vetoed the bill "to please his Saudi masters" in a minute-and-a-half campaign
video.
"Unlike Donald Trump I will not turn our great country into the prostitute of Saudi Arabia."
#5.1#5.1 is when two countries
engage in discussions to possibly reach a mutual agreement. That seems like an incredibly expansive and pro-Trump reading of
his bizarre tweet.
Twump's tweet, in the clear language of the brief text, was about the US president waiting to hear marching orders from
Crown Prince Mohammed "Ben" Salman as to what the US should do.
Tulsi's tweet and use of the word "bitch" was actually referencing a previous tweet she had made months ago criticizing
the way the US seems to be subservient to the Saudis.
@Linda Wood
which provides the context for Tulsi's latest tweet. In this manner, Tulsi continues to emphasize a theme: no matter the circumstance
(i.e., excuses), Saudi is a barbarous country, executing its detractors with swords rather than nice "surgical" drone strikes
like Obomba and DJT have used.
Gabbard Campaign Video Slams Trump For Making US "The Prostitute Of Saudi Arabia"
by Tyler Durden
Wed, 04/17/2019
Democratic presidential candidate for 2020 Rep. Tulsi Gabbard lashed out at Trump on Wednesday after the president vetoed
the Yemen War Powers Resolution this week, which sought to end US support for the Sauid-led war in Yemen.
The Hawaiian congresswomen and outspoken US foreign policy critic asserted the president is turning the nation "into
the prostitute of Saudi Arabia" and further stated he vetoed the bill "to please his Saudi masters" in a minute-and-a-half
campaign video.
"Unlike Donald Trump I will not turn our great country into the prostitute of Saudi Arabia."
very
convoluted version , Iranian drones were launched from an Iranian affiliated militia base in Iraq in retaliation for Saudi
funded Israeli drone strikes originating from a US/Kurdish base in Syria that struck Iranian/Iraqi bases, weapons depots, and
a convoy in August.
Middle East Eye, a Qatari financed outlet, reported yesterday that the attack was launched from Iraq by Iran aligned forces
in revenge for Israeli attacks in Syria. The author, David Hearst, is known for slandered reporting. The report is based on
a single anonymous Iraqi intelligence source. Qatar, which is struggling with Saudi Arabia and the UAE over its support for
the Muslim Brotherhood, would like to see a larger conflict involving its rivals east and west of the Persian Gulf. The report
should therefore be disregarded.
but with all the various reports it does seem clear that who launched them (drone or planes) look hard to ascertain for certain.
but trump was far more careful than pompeo and lindsey graham who want to bomb bomb bomb iran on speculation, because iran
is evil.
ah, i've been trying to figure out ho to compile a post on possibilities v. blame, and it's getting further and further away
from me. but both KSA and trump (or his generals) may really understand what's at stake. what's bibi saying?
very
convoluted version , Iranian drones were launched from an Iranian affiliated militia base in Iraq in retaliation for Saudi
funded Israeli drone strikes originating from a US/Kurdish base in Syria that struck Iranian/Iraqi bases, weapons depots, and
a convoy in August.
it's clear that Gulf oil installations are vulnerable from a new generation of drones that these players are assembling or
otherwise acquiring themselves. Several years ago, the Iranians were able to hack a Predator drone and bring it down intact, suitable
for reverse engineering. In past war games, the entire US fleet in the Persian Gulf was destroyed in a matter of minutes by swarms
of Iranian missiles. The Yemen war is likely to be over and the possibility of an attack on Iran seems more unlikely now as well.
Middle East Eye, a Qatari financed outlet, reported yesterday that the attack was launched from Iraq by Iran aligned
forces in revenge for Israeli attacks in Syria. The author, David Hearst, is known for slandered reporting. The report is
based on a single anonymous Iraqi intelligence source. Qatar, which is struggling with Saudi Arabia and the UAE over its
support for the Muslim Brotherhood, would like to see a larger conflict involving its rivals east and west of the Persian
Gulf. The report should therefore be disregarded.
but with all the various reports it does seem clear that who launched them (drone or planes) look hard to ascertain for
certain. but trump was far more careful than pompeo and lindsey graham who want to bomb bomb bomb iran on speculation,
because iran is evil.
ah, i've been trying to figure out ho to compile a post on possibilities v. blame, and it's getting further and further
away from me. but both KSA and trump (or his generals) may really understand what's at stake. what's bibi saying?
against such a swarm attack like this (and so accurately targeted), nor does the US, according to b and a few others. iran
probably does have russian missile defense, but clearly: riyadh needs to make peace with the houthis at any cost. there must be
next to nothing left standing there after what, four years?
it's clear that Gulf oil installations are vulnerable from a new generation of drones that these players are assembling
or otherwise acquiring themselves. Several years ago, the Iranians were able to hack a Predator drone and bring it down intact,
suitable for reverse engineering. In past war games, the entire US fleet in the Persian Gulf was destroyed in a matter of minutes
by swarms of Iranian missiles. The Yemen war is likely to be over and the possibility of an attack on Iran seems more unlikely
now as well.
against such a swarm attack like this (and so accurately targeted), nor does the US, according to b and a few others. iran
probably does have russian missile defense, but clearly: riyadh needs to make peace with the houthis at any cost. there must
be next to nothing left standing there after what, four years?
@dystopian
She, as many predicted, is pushing Trump further and further into a non-confrontational foreign policy. There is not one of the
Klown Kontenders with enough guts to call out Trump as forcefully as this--including Bernie.
This is a new tweet from Tulsi this afternoon with a short vid...
The attack marks a turning point in asymmetrical warfare: no longer can a country bomb its neighbor without fearing a significant
attack in return. An that attack won't be tossing a few rockets in the general direction of a targey; instead they'll be precision
strikes taking out key infrastructure.
The concept of an air force has changed and the big powers won't have a monopoly going forward. Mutually assured destruction
lite.
While the Trump Administration seems to be cozying up to America's Jewish voters, here is an
article that outlines what American Jews really think of Donald Trump and his leadership:
Thanks Gilad for your courageous work. I think we should always remember the ordinary Jews,
the grocers, the tailors, and all the others who have lived ordinary lives and suffered due
to the activities of their elites. We should remember the radical Jews and the artists like
Cohen, Dylan and Lou Reid to mention just a few. I could make a case that the English elites
have caused just as much trouble as elite Jews. In fact, it was the meeting of English and
Jewish elites that created the British empire.
"Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) slammed President Donald Trump for turning the nation into
"Saudi Arabia's bitch" after he assured the kingdom that the U.S. is "locked and loaded" as
it waits to hear who may be behind an attack on its oil supply.
"Trump awaits instructions from his Saudi masters," the Democratic presidential candidate
tweeted Sunday. "Having our country act as Saudi Arabia's bitch is not 'America First.'"
Gabbard previously accused Trump of making the U.S. "Saudi Arabia's bitch" last November
for his failure to take action against Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman who, according
to the U.S. intelligence community, directed the killing of Washington Post journalist Jamal
Khashoggi."
"Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) has doubled down attacking President Donald Trump over his
response to the weekend's drone attacks on major oil sites in Saudi Arabia.
Trump assured Saudi Arabia via Twitter that the U.S. is "locked and loaded" and awaiting
its direction following the strikes, which were claimed by Yemen's Houthi rebels but which
Trump claimed were backed by Iran.
The Democratic presidential candidate -- a combat veteran and a major in the Army National
Guard ― called Trump's response "disgraceful" in a new video shared online Monday.
"Mr. President, as you know, I have never engaged in hateful rhetoric against you or your
family and I never will," said Gabbard. "But your offering our military assets to the
dictator of Saudi Arabia to use as he sees fit is a betrayal of my brothers and sisters in
uniform who are ready to give our lives for our country."
Gabbard said Trump's belief he can "pimp out our proud servicemen and women to the prince
of Saudi Arabia is disgraceful and it once again shows that you are unfit to serve as our
commander in chief."
"My fellow service members and I, we are not your prostitutes," she concluded. "You are
not our pimp."
Most of our disagreements here are not on either economic or political principles, but rather
the awarding of style points with considerable confusion regarding the (sometimes remotely)
possible, the plausible, and the actual.
"... Only President Donald Trump, predictably, had something so say in his usual personalized fashion, which was that the report was "hard to believe," that "I don't think the Israelis were spying on us. My relationship with Israel has been great Anything is possible but I don't believe it." ..."
"... So Trump is stupid, a liar and an Israeli sycophant what's the solution? ..."
Just bewildering to read the Left's continuing insistence that Israel is best understood as
'just another outpost of the American empire'. This is probably the most damaging idea in
circulation right now, as its diversionary effect is only matched by its absurdity.
The Left simply cannot 'go there' though, no matter how much factual evidence is stacked up.
(On top of the spying and theft we have 'The Lobby' documentary, the defence pact, party
funding, etc. etc.). They have to avoid the reality, one which can only be explained through
cross border tribal allegiances and religious history going back many centuries. These, of
course, lay outside the Left's purview, and any consideration of them is dogmatically
opposed. It is getting to be a kind of insanity.
Tulsi can allege that Saudi Arabia was behind the 9/11 attacks and that they pull the
strings in Washington, (and many on the Left will applaud) but she cannot point out the
rather more glaring 9/11 connections to Israel and the whole machinery of control that lies
at the centre of American empire.
As she votes against BDS, has there ever been a more ridiculous double standard ?
Only President Donald Trump, predictably, had something so say in his usual
personalized fashion, which was that the report was "hard to believe," that "I don't think
the Israelis were spying on us. My relationship with Israel has been great Anything is
possible but I don't believe it."
So Trump is stupid, a liar and an Israeli sycophant what's the solution?
It's amazing how little coverage this story got. Can you imagine if Russian devices had been
found? It would be on CNN, etc. hour after hour and they'd be interviewing Nancy Pelosi non
stop.
@Cloak And
Dagger I think you are correct there maybe many Americans in the USA.. It may take the
few Americans who have been allowed to see the big picture at the USA
"I've never seen a President -- I don't care who he is -- stand up to them. It just
boggles the mind. They always get what they want. The Israelis know what is going on all
the time. I got to the point where I wasn't writing anything down. If the American people
understood what a grip these people have on our government, they would RISE UP IN ARMS.
Our citizens certainly don't have any idea what goes on." – Admiral Thomas Moorer, head
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, interview, 24 Aug. 1983
Admiral Moorer, "the dirty anti-semite," was one of the few people with influence to call
out Israel for their deliberate attack on the USS Liberty – https://www.erasingtheliberty.com/
The American Legion continues to wet its pants apparently believing that kissing (((ass)))
is more patriotic than standing up for America and members of the Navy.
Whats new about Israeli spying against the zio/US, hell the government is full of zionists in
every facet of the government, they run every department, including and especially the CIA ,
which would be better named the Mossad West, in fact the Mossad is so embedded in the CIA
that the only way to end this would be to as JFK said to scatter it to the winds aka abolish
the Mossad infested CIA.
the placement of technical surveillance devices by Israel was clearly intended to target
cellphone communications to and from the Trump White House. As the president frequently chats
with top aides and friends on non-secure phones, the operation sought to pick up conversations
involving Trump with the expectation that the security-averse president would say things off
the record that might be considered top secret.
The Politicoreport
, which is sourced to top intelligence and security officials, details how "miniature
surveillance devices" referred to as "Stingrays" imitate regular cell phone towers to fool
phones being used nearby into providing information on their locations and identities.
According to the article, the devices are referred to by technicians as "international mobile
subscriber identity-catchers or IMSI-catchers, they also can capture the contents of calls and
data use."
Over one year ago, government security agencies discovered the electronic footprints that
indicated the presence of the surveillance devices around Washington including near the White
House. Forensic analysis involved dismantling the devices to let them "tell you a little about
their history, where the parts and pieces come from, how old are they, who had access to them,
and that will help get you to what the origins are." One source observed afterwards that "It
was pretty clear that the Israelis were responsible."
The Israeli Embassy denied any involvement in the espionage and Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu adroitly and predictably lied regarding the report, saying "We have a directive, I
have a directive: No intelligence work in the United States, no spies. And it's vigorously
implemented, without any exception. It is a complete fabrication, a complete fabrication."
The Israelis are characteristically extremely aggressive in their intelligence gathering
operations, particularly in targeting the United States, even though Trump has done the
Netanyahu government many favors. These have included moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem,
withdrawing from the nuclear deal and sanctioning Iran, recognizing Israeli sovereignty over
the Golan Heights, and looking the other way as Israel expands its settlements and regularly
bombs Syria and Lebanon.
Israel's high-risk spying is legendary, but the notion that it is particularly good at it
is, like everything having to do with the Jewish state, much overrated. Mossad has been caught
in flagrante numerous times. In 2010, an undercover Mossad hit team was caught on 30
minutes of surveillance video as it wandered through a luxury Dubai hotel where it had gone
to kill a leading Hamas official. And the notion that Mossad and CIA work hand-in-hand is also
a fiction. Working level Agency officers dislike their reckless Mossad counterparts.
Newsweek magazine's "Spy Talk" once cited
a poll of CIA officers that ranked Israel "dead last" among friendly countries in actual
intelligence cooperation with Washington.
The fact is that Israel conducts espionage and influence operations against the United
States more aggressively than any other "friendly" country, including tapping White House
phones used by Bill Clinton to speak with Monica Lewinski. Israeli "experts" regularly provide
alarmist and inaccurate private
briefings for American Senators on Capitol Hill. Israel also constantly manufactures
pretexts to draw the U.S. into new conflicts in the Middle East, starting with the Lavon Affair in Alexandria Egypt
in 1954 and including the false flag attack on the U.S.S. Liberty in 1967. In short,
Israel has no reluctance to use its enormous political and media clout in the U.S. to pressure
successive administrations to conform to its own foreign and security policy views.
The persistent spying, no matter what Netanyahu claims, is a very good reason why Israel
should not receive billions of dollars in military assistance annually. Starting in 1957,
Israel's friends stole enriched uranium from a
Pennsylvania refinery to create a nuclear arsenal. More recently we
have learned how Arnon Milchan, a Hollywood producer/billionaire born in Israel, arranged
the illegal purchase of 800 krytron triggers to use in the production of nuclear weapons. The
operation also involved current Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu.
The existence of a large scale Israeli spying effort at the time of 9/11 has been
widely reported, incorporating Israeli companies in New Jersey and Florida as well as hundreds
of "art students" nationwide. Five "dancing" Israelis from one of the companies were observed
celebrating against the backdrop of the twin towers going down.
While it is often observed that everyone spies on everyone else, espionage is a high-risk
business, particularly when spying on friends. Israel, relying on Washington for billions of
dollars and also for political cover in international fora like the United Nations, does not
spy discreetly, largely because it knows that few in Washington will seek to hold it
accountable. There were, for example, no consequences for the Israelis when Israeli
Mossad intelligence officers using U.S. passports and pretending to be Americans recruited
terrorists to carry out attacks inside Iran. Israelis using U.S. passports in that fashion put
every American traveler at risk.
Israel, where government and business work hand in hand, has obtained significant advantage
by systematically stealing American
technology with both military and civilian applications. The U.S. developed technology is
then reverse engineered and used by the Israelis to support their own exports. Sometimes, when
the technology is military in nature and winds up in the hands of an adversary, the
consequences can be serious. Israel has sold advanced weapons systems to China that incorporate
technology developed by American companies.
The reality of Israeli large-scale spying in the United States is indisputable. One might
cite Jonathan Pollard, who stole more highly classified information than any spy in history.
And then there were Ben-Ami Kadish, Stuart Nozette and Larry Franklin, other spies for Israel
who have been caught and tried, but they are only the tip of the iceberg. Israel always
features prominently in the annual FBI report called "Foreign Economic Collection and
Industrial Espionage." The 2005 report states "Israel has
an active program to gather proprietary information within the United States. These collection
activities are primarily directed at obtaining information on military systems and advanced
computing applications that can be used in Israel's sizable armaments industry." It adds that
Israel recruits spies, uses electronic methods, and carries out computer intrusion to gain the
information.
A 1996 Defense Investigative Service report noted that Israel
has great success stealing technology by exploiting the numerous co-production projects that it
has with the Pentagon. It says "Placing Israeli nationals in key industries is a technique
utilized with great success." A General Accounting Office (GAO) examination of espionage
directed against American defense and security industries described how Israeli citizens
residing in the U.S. had stolen sensitive technology to manufacture artillery gun tubes,
obtained classified plans for reconnaissance systems, and passed sensitive aerospace designs to
unauthorized users.
The GAO has concluded that
Israel "conducts the most aggressive espionage operation against the United States of any U.S.
ally." In June 2006, a Pentagon administrative judge ruled against a difficult to even imagine
appeal by an Israeli denied a security clearance, saying that "The Israeli government is
actively engaged in military and industrial espionage in the United States." FBI counter
intelligence officer John Cole has also reported how many
cases of Israeli espionage are dropped under orders from the Justice Department., making the
Jewish state's spying consequence free. He provides a "conservative estimate" of 125 viable
investigations into Israeli espionage involving both American citizens and Israelis that were
stopped due to political pressure.
So, did Israel really spy on Donald Trump? Sure it did. And Netanyahu is, metaphorically
speaking, thumbing his nose at the American president and asking with a grin, "What are you
going to do about it?"
For those who have not heard of Israeli startup Carbyne911 (partly owned by Ehud Barak, run
by former Israeli officers of the unit 8200, and to which Jeffrey Epstein donated to) here is
an interview TruNews with Whitney Webb:
Carbyne911: Israeli Tech Scheme to Weaponize 911 Emergency Call System
(Interview starts at 11:16 mark)
The rarest occurrence was when Epstein would fly without any of his usual entourage and
just one other passenger. There was only one name that jumped out from the flight manifest
as a good example of when Epstein alternated from his routine. His second meeting with
Nicole Junkermann.
The link between Nicole Junkermann, the Israeli state intelligence services and the
Israeli Defence Force is not a tenuous one. The ominously named "Reporty Homeland Security"
was the first incarnation of what is now called "Carbyne911" and is referred to as simply
"Carbyne." Described as a "global leader in public safety technology," Carbyne is a call
handling platform app that allows you to, amongst other things, stream any ongoing
emergency directly to the responding emergency services. It claims, in the information
section of a promotional video on YouTube entitled "Nicole Junkermann presents Carbyne,
They promise to combine the use of personal data, location data, live video, data from
surrounding wearable tech, and even information from parked smart cars, to deliver more
information to the emergency services who should be responding. They can pinpoint your
location, even indoors, to within three feet, and they claim that they can even collect
data from dropped calls. However, they fail to mention how they'll get the permission to
use such masses of available data. Who are these angels behind this revolutionary
technology which aims to get between a victim and the emergency services?
One of the directors of Carbyne is Nicole Junkermann. The chairman of the board of
directors is Ehud Barak, the 10th Prime Minister of Israel, the 14th Chief of Staff of the
Israel Defense Forces, former Minister of Defense and former Head of Military Intelligence
for Israel.
Another of Carbyne's directors and board members is Brigadier Pinchas Buchris, the
former Deputy Commander of an elite IDF operations unit and former Commander of the IDF
8200 Cyber Intelligence Unit. Amir Elichai is the Founder and CEO of Carbyne, he is
also a former Israeli Army officer who served in various positions in the special elite
forces and the intelligence corps. Alex Dizengof is Carbyne's Co-Founder & CTO. He's
described as a Software Architect and Algorithms Developer. Dizengof had previously
developed machine learning algorithms for robots and mobile platforms, as well as cyber
security software for the Israeli Prime Minister's Office.
The GAO has concluded that Israel "conducts the most aggressive espionage operation
against the United States of any U.S. ally."
Even a statement like this from the GAO is misleading in that it implies that the next
friendly country spying on the US (the UK, presumably) to be out-edged by Israel, when in
fact the difference is probably one of order (if not of kind) in magnitude.
FBI counter intelligence officer John Cole has also reported how many cases of Israeli
espionage are dropped under orders from the Justice Department ., making the Jewish
state's spying consequence free.
Wow.
So when Paul Craig Roberts says "US Justice Department (sic)" we now have Giraldi's total
confirmation. If fact, Roberts is being too much of a gentleman about it.
Maybe call it (((Justice Department))) from now on and get it over with.
The Israelis are characteristically extremely aggressive in their intelligence gathering
operations, particularly in targeting the United States, even though Trump has done the
Netanyahu government many favors. These have included moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem,
withdrawing from the nuclear deal and sanctioning Iran, recognizing Israeli sovereignty
over the Golan Heights, and looking the other way as Israel expands its settlements and
regularly bombs Syria and Lebanon.
I'm sure that the Israelis don't regard these as favours...
"... I guess America does not need Saudi oil any more, cause it looks like Israel is about to be made king of the Oil Kingdoms in the middle east.? ..."
I think you are correct there maybe many Americans in the USA.. It may take the few Americans who have been
allowed to see the big picture at the USA...
Interestingly, one of the people the Ukrainians gave up in this exchange was Vladimir
Tsemakh, a native of the Donbass who was kidnapped by the Ukie SBU in Novorussia (our noble
"Europeans" did not object to such methods!) and declared the "star witness" against Russia in
the MH-17 (pseudo-)investigation. Even more pathetic is that
the Dutch apparently fully endorsed this load of crapola . Finally, and just for a good
laugh, check out how the infamous'
Bellingcat presented Tsemakh . And then, suddenly, everybody seem to "forget" that "star
witness" and now the Ukies have sent him to Russia. Amazing how fast stuff gets lost in the
collective western memory hole
Thus we see these apparently contradictory developments taking place: on on hand, the
Ukraine finally agreed to a prisoner swap with Russia (a painful one for Russia as Russia
mostly traded real criminals, including a least twobona fide Ukie
terrorist, against what are mostly civilian hostages, but Putin decided – correctly I
think – that freeing Russian nationalists from Ukie jails was more important in this
case) while on the other hand, the Ukronazi armed forces increased their shelling, even with
152mm howitzers which fire 50kg high explosive fragmentation shells, against the Donbass.
Whatever may be the case, this prisoner swap, no matter how one-sided and unfair, is a positive
development which might mark the beginning of a pragmatic and less ideological attitude in
Kiev.
Some very cautious beginnings of a little hint of optimism might be in order following that
exchange, but the big stuff seems to be scheduled for the meeting of the Normandy Group (NG),
probably in France. So far, the Russians have made it very clear that they will not meet just
for the hell of meeting, and that the only circumstance in which the Russians will agree to a
NG meeting would be if it has good chances of yielding meaningful results which, translated
from Russian diplomatic language simply means "if/when Kiev stops stonewalling and sabotaging
everything". Specifically, the Russians are demanding that Zelenskii commit in writing to the
so-called "
Steinmeier formula " and that the Ukrainian forces withdraw from the line of contact. Will
that happen? Maybe. We shall soon find out.
Here is my informal translation of these words:
The international order is being shaken in an unprecedented manner, above all with, if I
may say so, by the great upheaval that is undoubtedly taking place for
the first time in our history , in almost every field and with a
profoundly historic magnitude . The first thing we observe is a major
transformation, a geopolitical and strategic re-composition. We are undoubtedly
experiencing the end of Western hegemony over the world . We were accustomed to an
international order which, since the 18th century, rested on a Western hegemony, mostly
French in the 18th century, by the inspiration of the Enlightenment; then mostly British in
the 19th century thanks to the Industrial Revolution and, finally, mostly American in the
20th century thanks to the 2 great conflicts and the economic and political domination of
this power. Things change. And they are now deeply shaken by the mistakes of Westerners
in certain crises, by the choices that have been made by Americans for several years
which did not start with this administration, but which lead to revisiting certain
implications in conflicts in the Middle East and elsewhere, and to rethinking a deep,
diplomatic and military strategy, and sometimes elements of solidarity that we thought were
intangible for eternity, even if we had constituted together in geopolitical moments that
have changed. And then there is the emergence of new powers whose impact we have
probably underestimated for a long time. China is at the forefront, but also the Russian
strategy, which has, it must be said, been pursued more successfully in recent years
. I will come back to that. India that is emerging, these new economies that are also
becoming powers not only economic but political and that think themselves, as some have
written, as real "civilizational states" which now come not only to shake up our
international order but who also come to weigh in on the economic order and to
rethink the political order and the political imagination that goes with it, with much
dynamism and much more inspiration than we have. Look at India, Russia and China. They
have a much stronger political inspiration than Europeans today. They think about our planet
with a true logic, a true philosophy, an imagination that we've lost a little
bit.
... ... ...
6) " Look at India, Russia and China. They have a much stronger political inspiration
than Europeans today. They think about our planet with a true logic, a true philosophy, an
imagination that we've lost a little bit."
This is the "core BRICS" challenge to the Empire: China and Russia have already established
what the Chinese call a "Comprehensive Strategic Partnership of Coordination for the New Era".
If they can now extend this kind of informal but extremely profound partnership (I think of it
as "symbiotic") to India next, then the BRICS will have a formidable future (especially after
the Brazilian people give the boot to Bolsonaro and his US patrons). Should that fail and
should India chose to remain outside this unique relationship, then the SCO will become the
main game in town. And yes, Macron is spot on: China and, especially, Russia have a
fundamentally different worldview and, unlike the western one, theirs does have "much stronger
political" goals (Macron used the word "aspirations"), "a real philosophy and imagination"
which the West has lost, and not just a "little bit" but, I would argue, completely. But one
way or the other, and for the first time in 1000 years, the future of our planet will not be
decided anywhere in the West, not in Europe (old or "new"), but in Asia, primarily by the
Russian-Chinese alliance. As I explained here , the AngloZionist Empire is
probably the last one in history, definitely the last western one.
The Americans have gotten themselves in a real bind with their maximum pressure campaign on Iran. This latest attack on Saudi
Arabia's oil production looks like an escalation of the previous attacks on shipping and the spy drone. It is not evident how
the Americans can respond to this latest attack.
As I see it their options are:
1. To let KSA respond to the Houthi attack and continue with their campaign to shut down Iranian oil production, without any
direct U.S. response to the attack. However this will achieve nothing, as next month Iran will up pressure again with another
attack on Middle-East oil assets, and we'll be back to the same place.
2. To bomb Iran's oil industry, as Pompeo and Graham suggest. However this risks blowing up the whole Middle East, as well
as the World's oil market and their own (Western) economies.
3. Forget about Iran and move the fight to maintain U.S. global hegemony to another front: back to Venezuela? Serbia? Hong
Kong? Taiwan? However the end result of such a move would more than likely be another humuliating defeat for the U.S.
4. Do as Stephen Wertheim / New York Times suggest and sue for peace. This will end the dream of U.S. World dominance, Globalization
and the current western based financial system. The U.S. will become no more than a heavily indebted regional power in a 'Multi-polar
World Order' led by China and Russia.
As I see it, the U.S. is out of options to continue their war for global dominance. #4 is the only viable option. But, as one
author argued in a recent paper (I don't have the reference), wars continue long after the victor is clear, because the loser
can't admit defeat (at heavy additional costs to the loser). I think that this is the position that the U.S. finds itself in now.
What the attack on Saudi oil infrastructure shows us, is that now Iran has united her proxys into one united front.
While they were cautious to not leave evidence of their involvment with the Houtis before, they now are putting their support
more and more into the open.
The attack seemed to have involved not only Houti drones (already build with help from Iran), but also Iranian backed forces
in Iraq, AND pro Iranian forces in Saudi Arabia itself. And maybe even other actors.
This is a major new development. Not only for the war on Yemen, but also in the context of Iran providing a credile detterence
against US+Saudi aggression.
They excalated with increasing levels, and one wonders, what could top this last attack off.
And i am pretty sure, we will find out sooner rather than later.
@ 27
WaPo: Abqaiq . .damaged on the west-northwest sides
That's it! It was Hezbollah for sure. (not)
Actually there were two targets, the Buqaiq (Abqaiq) oil processing plant and the Khurais oil field, both in the Eastern Province.
These attacks are not the first -- from longwarjournal:
Last month, the Houthis claimed another drone operation against Saudi's Shaybah oil field near the United Arab Emirates. At
more than 1,000 miles away from it's Yemen territory, that strike marked one of the Houthis farthest claimed attacks.
The Houthis also claimed a drone strike on the Abu Dhabi airport last year, but that has been denied by Emirati officials.
Additionally, a drone strike on Saudi's East-West oil pipeline near Riyadh earlier this year, which the Houthis claimed responsibility,
was allegedly conducted by Iranian-backed Iraqi militants. If accurate, that means the Houthi claim of responsibility acted
as a type of diplomatic cover for the Iraqi militants.
Since beginning its drone program last year, the Houthis have launched at least 103 drone strikes in Yemen and Saudi Arabia
according to data compiled by FDD's Long War Journal. . .
here . . .and more
here .
Really appreciated the write up on the Houthis attack.
Sounds like the attack left substantial damage. Another bigger issue underlying all of this, aside from Saudi inability to get
what it wants now from it's IPO, is the fact that the US Patriots did not detect this attack.
The Saudis spent billions last year on this defense system. Sounds like the clown Prince better give Russians a call about their
S-400.
But the US wouldn't appreciate that much, would they?
DNC is a criminal organization and the fact that Debbie Wasserman
Schultz escaped justice is deeply regreatable.
Notable quotes:
"... The problem facing the Democratic National Committee today remains the same as in 2016: How to block even a moderately left-wing social democrat by picking a candidate guaranteed to lose to Trump, so as to continue the policies that serve banks, the financial markets and military spending for Cold War 2.0. ..."
"... Trump meanwhile has done most everything the Democratic Donor Class wants: He has cut taxes on the wealthy, cut social spending for the population at large, backed Quantitative Easing to inflate the stock and bond markets, and pursued Cold War 2.0. Best of all, his abrasive style has enabled Democrats to blame the Republicans for the giveaway to the rich, as if they would have followed a different policy. ..."
"... The effect has been to make America into a one-party state. Republicans act as the most blatant lobbyists for the Donor Class. But people can vote for a representative of the One Percent and the military-industrial complex in either the Republican or Democratic column. That is why most Americans owe allegiance to no party. ..."
"... I'm just curious about how much longer this log-jam situation can persist before real political realignment takes place. Bernie Sander is ultimately a relic not a representative of new political vigor running through the party, like Trump he would be largely be on his own without much congressional support from his own party. ..."
"... As the 2016 election and Brexit have illuminated, globalisation is a religion for the upper middle classes. ..."
"... They just refuse to understand that political solidarity, key to any such policies is permanently damaged by immigration. ..."
"... If you make people chose between their ethnicity being displaced and class conflict, they'll pick the preservation of their ethnicity and it's territory every time. I ..."
"... My prediction: The elites in the US won't give way, people will simply become demoralised and the Trump/Sanders moment will pass with significant damage done to the legitimacy of American democracy and media but with progressives unable to deal with immigration (Much like the right can't deal with global warming) they will fail to get much done. The general population has become too atomised and detached, beaten-down bystanders to their own politics and society to mount a popular political movement. Immigrants, recent descendants of immigrants and the upper middle classes will continue to instinctually understand globalisation is how they loot America and will not vote for 'extreme' candidates that threaten this. The upper middle class will continue to dominate the overton window and use it to inject utter economic lies to the public. ..."
I hope that the candidate who is clearly the voters' choice, Bernie Sanders, may end up as the party's nominee. If he is, I'm
sure he'll beat Donald Trump handily, as he would have done four years ago. But I fear that the DNC's Donor Class will push Joe Biden,
Kamala Harris or even Pete Buttigieg down the throats of voters. Just as when they backed Hillary the last time around, they hope
that their anointed neoliberal will be viewed as the lesser evil for a program little different from that of the Republicans.
So Thursday's reality TV run-off is about "who's the least evil?" An honest reality show's questions would focus on "What are
you against ?" That would attract a real audience, because people are much clearer about what they're against: the vested
interests, Wall Street, the drug companies and other monopolies, the banks, landlords, corporate raiders and private-equity asset
strippers. But none of this is to be permitted on the magic island of authorized candidates (not including Tulsi Gabbard, who was
purged from further debates for having dared to mention the unmentionable).
Donald Trump as the DNC's nominee
The problem facing the Democratic National Committee today remains the same as in 2016: How to block even a moderately left-wing
social democrat by picking a candidate guaranteed to lose to Trump, so as to continue the policies that serve banks, the financial
markets and military spending for Cold War 2.0.
DNC donors favor Joe Biden, long-time senator from the credit-card and corporate-shell state of Delaware, and opportunistic California
prosecutor Kamala Harris, with a hopey-changey grab bag alternative in smooth-talking small-town Rorschach blot candidate Pete Buttigieg.
These easy victims are presented as "electable" in full knowledge that they will fail against Trump.
Trump meanwhile has done most everything the Democratic Donor Class wants: He has cut taxes on the wealthy, cut social spending
for the population at large, backed Quantitative Easing to inflate the stock and bond markets, and pursued Cold War 2.0. Best of
all, his abrasive style has enabled Democrats to blame the Republicans for the giveaway to the rich, as if they would have followed
a different policy.
The Democratic Party's role is to protect Republicans from attack from the left, steadily following the Republican march rightward.
Claiming that this is at least in the direction of being "centrist," the Democrats present themselves as the lesser evil (which is
still evil, of course), simply as pragmatic in not letting hopes for "the perfect" (meaning moderate social democracy) block the
spirit of compromise with what is attainable, "getting things done" by cooperating across the aisle and winning Republican support.
That is what Joe Biden promises.
The effect has been to make America into a one-party state. Republicans act as the most blatant lobbyists for the Donor Class.
But people can vote for a representative of the One Percent and the military-industrial complex in either the Republican or Democratic
column. That is why most Americans owe allegiance to no party.
The Democratic National Committee worries that voters may disturb this alliance by nominating a left-wing reform candidate. The
DNC easily solved this problem in 2016: When Bernie Sanders intruded into its space, it the threw the election. It scheduled the
party's early defining primaries in Republican states whose voters leaned right, and packed the nominating convention with Donor
Class super-delegates.
After the dust settled, having given many party members political asthma, the DNC pretended that it was all an unfortunate political
error. But of course it was not a mistake at all. The DNC preferred to lose with Hillary than win with Bernie, whom springtime polls
showed would be the easy winner over Trump. Potential voters who didn't buy into the program either stayed home or voted green.
No votes will be cast for months, so I don't know how Mr. Hudson can say that Sanders is "clearly the voters choice." He would
be 79 on election day, well above the age when most men die, which is something that voters should seriously consider. Whoever
his VP is will probably be president before the end of Old Bernie's first term, so I hope he chooses his VP wisely.
In any case I laugh at how the media always reports that Biden, who has obviously lost more than a few brain cells, has such
a commanding lead over this field of second-raters. The voters, having much better things to do, haven't even started to pay attention
yet.
And, how could anyone seriously believe in these polls anyway? Only older people have land lines today. If calling people is
the methodology pollsters are using, then the results would be heavily skewed towards former VP Biden, whose name everyone knows.
I lost all faith in polls when the media was saying, with certainty, that Hillary was a lock to win against the insurgent Trump.
Tulsi Gabbard is the only candidate beside Trump with charisma today. With her cool demeanor, she is certainly the least unlikeable.
She would be Trump's most formidable opponent. But the democrats, like their counterparts, are owned by Wall Street and the Military
Industrial Complex. Sadly, most democrats still believe that the party is working in their best interests, while the republicans
are the party of the rich.
If you watch the debates tonight, which I will not be, you will notice that Tulsi Gabbard won't be on stage. That is by design.
She is a leper. At least the republicans allowed Trump to be onstage in 2016, which makes them more democratic than the democrats.
Plus they didn't have Super Delegates to prevent Trump from achieving the nomination he had rightfully won. Something to think
about since the DNC, not the voters, annointed Hillary last time.
If the YouTube Oligarchs still allow it, I plan on watching the post-debate analysis with characters like Richard Spencer and
Eric Striker. Those guys are most entertaining, and have insights that are not permitted to be uttered in the controlled, mind-numbing
farce of the mainstream media.
Elizabeth Warren seems a more likely nominee than Sanders.
Elizabeth Warren is phony as phuck(PAP). Just like forked tongued Obama she's really just a tool for the neo-liberal establishment,
which does make her more likely.
Here is another question. Can the DNC or RNC really change institutionally fast enough?
I'm just curious about how much longer this log-jam situation can persist before real political realignment takes place.
Bernie Sander is ultimately a relic not a representative of new political vigor running through the party, like Trump he would
be largely be on his own without much congressional support from his own party.
As the 2016 election and Brexit have illuminated, globalisation is a religion for the upper middle classes. Many of
them may be progressives but they refuse to understand the very non-progressive consequences of mass immigration (Or, one should
say over-immigration) or globalisation more generally. The increasing defection of such individuals to the Liberal Democrats in
Britain is a fascinating example. They just refuse to understand that political solidarity, key to any such policies is permanently
damaged by immigration.
It is interesting to see the see-saw effect of UKip and now the Brexit party in the UK (Well, in England). With them first
drawing working class voters from Labour without increasing Conservative performance, bringing about a massive conservative majority
and now threatening to siphon voters from the Tories with the opposite effect.
But UKip and later the Brexit party almost exist through the indispensable leadership of Nigel Farage and a very specific motivating
goal of leaving the EU. I can't see a third party rising to put pressure on the mainstream parties.
If you make people chose between their ethnicity being displaced and class conflict, they'll pick the preservation of their
ethnicity and it's territory every time. I f the centre left refuses to understand this (Something that wouldn't have been
hard for them to understand when they still drew candidates from the working classes) they will continue their slide into oblivion
as they have done across the Western world. (Excluding 2 party systems and Denmark where they do understand this)
My prediction: The elites in the US won't give way, people will simply become demoralised and the Trump/Sanders moment
will pass with significant damage done to the legitimacy of American democracy and media but with progressives unable to deal
with immigration (Much like the right can't deal with global warming) they will fail to get much done. The general population
has become too atomised and detached, beaten-down bystanders to their own politics and society to mount a popular political movement.
Immigrants, recent descendants of immigrants and the upper middle classes will continue to instinctually understand globalisation
is how they loot America and will not vote for 'extreme' candidates that threaten this. The upper middle class will continue to
dominate the overton window and use it to inject utter economic lies to the public.
The novel internet mass media outlets that allowed such unpoliced political discussion to reach mass audiences will be pacified
by whatever means and America will slide into an Italian style trans-generational malaise at a national level for some time.
Here is another question. Can the DNC or RNC really change institutionally fast enough?
Trump is trying to change the RNC away from Globalist elites and towards Christian Populist beliefs and Main Street America.
I am some what hopeful, as the U.S. is not alone in this trajectory. There is a global tail wind that should help the GOP change
quickly enough.
The true test will be the 2024 GOP nomination. A bold choice will have to break through to keep the RNC from backsliding into
the clutches of Globalist failure.
I think Sanders could have beat Trump in 2016. This time around it is not that clear because so many of his supporters in 2016
feel burnt.
Badly burnt. Or Bernt. He threw his support for Hillary, even if it was tepid, and then got a bad case of Russiagateitis which
his base on the left really hated. His left base never bought Russiagate for a minute. We knew it was an internal leak, probably
by Seth Rich, who provided all the information to Assange. He still seems to be a strong Israel supporter even if has stood up
to Netanyahu.
And while it may seem odd, many of his base on the left have grown weary of the global climate change agenda.
He has not advocated nuclear power and there is a growing movement for that on the left, especially by those who think renewables
will not generate the power we need.
But since Sanders does seem to attract the rural and suburban vote more than any other Democrat, Sanders has a chance to chip
away at Trumps' base and win the Electoral College. Another horrible loss to rural and suburban America by the Democrats will
cost them the EC again by a substantial margin, even if they manage to pull off another popular vote win.
the republican party is as globalist as you can find,and I'm sure you will be the first one to inform us when the global
elite including those in America throw in the towel,
Some elite Globalist NeverTrumpers, such as George Will and Bill Kristol, have thrown in the towel on the GOP. This allows
their "neocon" followers to return to their roots in the war mongering Democrat Party. So it *IS* happening.
The real questions are:
-- Can it happen fast enough?
-- Can it be sustained after Donald Trump term limits out?
I'm not bold enough to say it is inevitable. All I will say is, "There are reasons to be at least mildly hopeful."
Has everyone forgot the last time the DNC openly cheated Sanders he said nothing publicly, but then endorsed Clinton? Sanders
knows he is not allowed to become president, his role to prevent the formation of a third party, and to keep the Green Party small.
Otherwise he would jump to the Green Party right now and may beat the DNC and Trump.
Sanders treats progressives like Charlie Brown. Once again, inviting them to run a kick the football, only to pull it away
and watch them fall. He recently backed off his opposition to the open borders crazies, rarely mentions cuts to military spending
to fund things, and has even joined the stupid fake russiagate bandwagon.
Note that he dismisses the third party idea as unworkable, when he already knows the DNC is unworkable. Why not give the Green
party a chance? Cause he don't want to win knowing he'd be killed or impeached for some reason.
@Carlton Meyer The
Stalinist DNC openly cheated Tulsi Gabbard when they left her off the debate stage last night. When asked about it on 'The View'
recently, Sanders said nothing in her defense, or that she deserved to be on the stage. Nice way to stab her in the back for leaving
her DNC position to support you last time, Bernie. Socialist Sanders wants to be president, yet is afraid of the DNC. Nice!
Those polls were rigged against Tulsi, and everyone who is paying attention knows it. But, far from hurting her candidacy by
not making the DNC's arbitrary cut, her exclusion may wind up helping her. Kim Iverson, Michael Tracey, and comedian Jimmy Dore,
anti-war progressive YouTubers with large, loyal followings, have lambasted the out-of touch DNC for its actions. Tucker Carlson
on the anti-war right has also done so.
One hopes that the DNC's stupidity in censoring her message may wind up being the best thing ever for Tulsi's insurgent candidacy.
We shall see. OTOH, who can trust the polls to tell us the truth of where her popularity stands.
@RadicalCenter Do you
forget about Trump's declaration that he wants the largest amount of immigration ever, as long as they come in legally? There
are no good guys in our two sclerotic monopoly parties when it comes to immigration. Since both are terrible on that topic, at
least Tulsi seems to have the anti-war principles that Trump does not.
Those who control the public forum, as Spengler pointed out, obviously use their control to further their own interests and no
others. Why in the world would an American-hating MSM give Americans an equal voice?
Notable quotes:
"... These educated lemmings believe what they're spoon fed by CNN or Fox News. They cannot possibly accept that they're immune to facts and disproof of their cherished assumptions because they've been emotionally conditioned on a subconscious level, after which facts and reasoning are emotionally reacted to like they were personal attacks. ..."
"... A newly scripted financial crisis will complete transfer of much of America's corporate assets to the government when the $7 trillion in private retirement assets is appropriated in emergency legislation, immediately conceded by the Republicans amid the usual handwringing and crocodile tears. In exchange Americans will receive rapidly deflating gov bonds that will be accepted as the new store of wealth, which it will be for the elites who own American as surely as they do in Venezuela. ..."
Politics in America is a function of those who control the public forum via the msm. Those
who control the public forum, as Spengler pointed out, obviously use their control to further
their own interests and no others. Why in the world would an American-hating msm give
Americans an equal voice?
The msm aren't merely some unfortunate artifact of the First Amendment we have to live.
The msm control the formation of men's minds. As Jacques Ellul points out in his masterpiece
on propaganda, it's those among us who're most educated and most inclined to closely follow
the "news" who are most susceptible to brainwashing. These educated lemmings believe what
they're spoon fed by CNN or Fox News. They cannot possibly accept that they're immune to
facts and disproof of their cherished assumptions because they've been emotionally
conditioned on a subconscious level, after which facts and reasoning are emotionally reacted
to like they were personal attacks.
This explains why college educated white women are the Dems' winning edge, trading empty
moral posturing for condemning their own children and grandchildren to die hounded and
dispossessed in their own land. But there are never any consequences when they insist they
have the best of intentions. These women whose thoughts are authored by their own people's
enemies will probably put a Warren or one of the other Marxists over the top in 2020.
A newly
scripted financial crisis will complete transfer of much of America's corporate assets to the
government when the $7 trillion in private retirement assets is appropriated in emergency
legislation, immediately conceded by the Republicans amid the usual handwringing and
crocodile tears. In exchange Americans will receive rapidly deflating gov bonds that will be
accepted as the new store of wealth, which it will be for the elites who own American as
surely as they do in Venezuela.
Those who control the public forum, as Spengler pointed out, obviously use their control to further their own interests and no
others. Why in the world would an American-hating MSM give Americans an equal voice?
Notable quotes:
"... These educated lemmings believe what they're spoon fed by CNN or Fox News. They cannot possibly accept that they're immune to facts and disproof of their cherished assumptions because they've been emotionally conditioned on a subconscious level, after which facts and reasoning are emotionally reacted to like they were personal attacks. ..."
"... A newly scripted financial crisis will complete transfer of much of America's corporate assets to the government when the $7 trillion in private retirement assets is appropriated in emergency legislation, immediately conceded by the Republicans amid the usual handwringing and crocodile tears. In exchange Americans will receive rapidly deflating gov bonds that will be accepted as the new store of wealth, which it will be for the elites who own American as surely as they do in Venezuela. ..."
Politics in America is a function of those who control the public forum via the msm. Those
who control the public forum, as Spengler pointed out, obviously use their control to further
their own interests and no others. Why in the world would an American-hating msm give
Americans an equal voice?
The msm aren't merely some unfortunate artifact of the First Amendment we have to live.
The msm control the formation of men's minds. As Jacques Ellul points out in his masterpiece
on propaganda, it's those among us who're most educated and most inclined to closely follow
the "news" who are most susceptible to brainwashing. These educated lemmings believe what
they're spoon fed by CNN or Fox News. They cannot possibly accept that they're immune to
facts and disproof of their cherished assumptions because they've been emotionally
conditioned on a subconscious level, after which facts and reasoning are emotionally reacted
to like they were personal attacks.
This explains why college educated white women are the Dems' winning edge, trading empty
moral posturing for condemning their own children and grandchildren to die hounded and
dispossessed in their own land. But there are never any consequences when they insist they
have the best of intentions. These women whose thoughts are authored by their own people's
enemies will probably put a Warren or one of the other Marxists over the top in 2020.
A newly
scripted financial crisis will complete transfer of much of America's corporate assets to the
government when the $7 trillion in private retirement assets is appropriated in emergency
legislation, immediately conceded by the Republicans amid the usual handwringing and
crocodile tears. In exchange Americans will receive rapidly deflating gov bonds that will be
accepted as the new store of wealth, which it will be for the elites who own American as
surely as they do in Venezuela.
@follyofwar
Agreed . she was better off absent from that snore session. They all looked weak and
pathetic. BTW, Tulsi's now gotten her 3rd qualifying poll. She'll surge back much stronger.
And maybe even smarter, if she endorses this:
That means protection against the Republican-Democratic threats to cut back Social
Security to balance the budget in the face of tax cuts for the richest One Percent and
rising Cold War military spending. This means a government strong enough to take on the
vested financial and corporate interests and prosecute Wall Street's financial crime and
corporate monopoly power.
Analogies with late Imperial Rome are by now so cliché that even your average
dullard is familiar with them. But I find that the most fascinating -- and frightening --
parallels are with another empire of more recent vintage: the Empire of Japan.
The above quote brought to my mind the political unrest in Tokyo during the 1930s. Far
from being the work of a cabal of "militarists", as postwar legend would have it, Japan's
various internecine (and often bloody) political feuds and expensive military ventures were
driven by a public heavily invested in these affairs; hoping against hope for an outlet to
vent their increasing rage over dwindling social programs and opportunities at the cost of
propping up a concurrently fattening elite class.
Analyzing events like the Ni-ni-roku jiken (2/26 Incident) can be highly
instructional for Americans seeking some manner of explanation for their present failing
political system. While it is true that this nearly successful insurrection was carried out
by ultra-nationalists, their intention was not to deny the people a voice in the running of
government with their aspiration for direct rule by the Shōwa Emperor (then as now, the
Emperor served in a quasi-religious capacity with little ability to actually govern). Rather,
they felt that parliamentary democracy was a sham that benefitted only the monied and
privileged; and that only the Emperor, as the living incarnation of the Japanese state, could
act and respond according to the sovereign will of its people. What appeared to be a desire
for authoritarianism was, in fact, the radical, ideological inversion of the Marxist concept
of a "dictatorship of the proletariat". The Shōwa Emperor, in other words, was the
instrument of effecting the will of the nation; the "Emperor of the people"
(天皇の國民 Tennō no kokumin ).
I view in a similar vein the fascination and dreams that Trump and other such figures
excite in many: The radical hope that only a leader willing to smash the system, which to all
intents and purposes appears to only serve the few, can paradoxically restore the ability of
the many to express and act. Bogged down as we are by ballooning military debt (and blood),
economic stagnation, and an ever-widening chasm between the "haves" and "have-nots", and it
becomes difficult to ignore the parallels between the US today and Japan in 1936.
This was an interesting article, but I hold no illusions about the future. There will be
no breakup of the two major parties, no viable alternatives. Things will only get worse.
I envy those in their 50s and up today -- they will likely miss out on the momentous
history that people my generation and younger will be bearing reluctant witness to.
1. Sanders votes for all the Military Expenditures (almost 50% of our National
budget).
2. Sanders voted for all the $100s of Billions giveaways to the worst -most racist –
most anti-Semitic, Apartheid, proto-Fascist Government on the planet. He is a Traitor. He
serves another Master, not America.
3. Sanders apparently, had no recorded means of employment for the first 40+ years of his
life.
4. How many times has Sanders been married? What is the significance of this?
5. Sanders said nothing: Who is the Zionist Military Hero General Woman who is blocked
from the debates by the UNDEMOCRATIC DEMOCRAP GANG??? Gabbard? I recall Hollywood (we must
pass the $Bailout) Obomber did not allow former President Carter to address his Democrap
Convention. Not very Democratic – are they?
Memories (I'm humming the lines as I vent).
Once it is understood that the United States is an Occupied Puppet Nation ,...
"... As in every election we're now being bombarded with propaganda about how "your vote makes a difference" and associated nonsense. According to the official version ordinary citizens control the state by voting for candidates in elections. The President and other politicians are supposedly servants of "the people" and the government an instrument of the general populace. This version is a myth. ..."
"... It does not matter who is elected because the way the system is set up all elected representatives must do what big business and the state bureaucracy want, not what "the people" want. Elected representatives are figureheads. ..."
"... Politicians' rhetoric may change depending on who is elected, but they all have to implement the same policies given the same situation. Elections are a scam whose function is to create the illusion that "the people" control the government, not the elite, and to neutralize resistance movements. All voting does is strengthen the state & ruling class, it is not an effective means to change government policy. ..."
"... What a politician says to win an election and what he actually does in office are two very different things; politicians regularly break their promises. This is not just a fluke but the outcome of the way the system is set up. Bush the second said he wouldn't engage in "nation-building" (taking other countries over) during the 2000 election campaign but has done it several times. He also claimed to support a balanced budget, but obviously abandoned that. Clinton advocated universal health care during the 1992 election campaign but there were more people without health insurance when he left office than when he took office. Bush the first said, "read my lips – no new taxes!" while running for office but raised taxes anyway. Reagan promised to shrink government but he drastically expanded the military-industrial complex and ran up huge deficits. Rather than shrinking government, he reoriented it to make it more favorable to the rich. ..."
"... Carter promised to make human rights the "soul of our foreign policy" but funded genocide in East Timor and backed brutal dictators in Argentina, South Korea, Chile, Brazil, Indonesia and elsewhere. During the 1964 elections leftists were encouraged by Democrats to vote for Johnson because Goldwater, his Republican opponent, was a fanatical warmonger who would escalate US involvement in Vietnam. ..."
"... Johnson won, and immediately proceeded to escalate US involvement in Vietnam. FDR promised to maintain a balanced budget and restrain government spending but did the exact opposite. Wilson won reelection in 1916 on the slogan "he kept us out of war" but then lied us into World War One. Hoover pledged to abolish poverty in 1928 but instead saw it skyrocket. ..."
I have no Idea when this article was printed, but it matters
not. This holds true for every election ever held in America.
If voting mattered they
wouldn't let us do it.
As in every election we're now being bombarded with propaganda about how "your vote makes a
difference" and associated nonsense. According to the official version ordinary citizens
control the state by voting for candidates in elections. The President and other politicians
are supposedly servants of "the people" and the government an instrument of the general
populace. This version is a myth.
It does not matter who is elected because the way the system
is set up all elected representatives must do what big business and the state bureaucracy want,
not what "the people" want. Elected representatives are figureheads.
Politicians' rhetoric may
change depending on who is elected, but they all have to implement the same policies given the
same situation. Elections are a scam whose function is to create the illusion that "the people"
control the government, not the elite, and to neutralize resistance movements. All voting does
is strengthen the state & ruling class, it is not an effective means to change government
policy.
From the same article, a list of campaign promises never kept (needs to be updated with
Obama/Trump).
What a politician says to win an election and what he actually does in office are two
very different things; politicians regularly break their promises. This is not just a fluke
but the outcome of the way the system is set up. Bush the second said he wouldn't engage in
"nation-building" (taking other countries over) during the 2000 election campaign but has
done it several times. He also claimed to support a balanced budget, but obviously abandoned
that. Clinton advocated universal health care during the 1992 election campaign but there
were more people without health insurance when he left office than when he took office. Bush
the first said, "read my lips – no new taxes!" while running for office but raised
taxes anyway. Reagan promised to shrink government but he drastically expanded the
military-industrial complex and ran up huge deficits. Rather than shrinking government, he
reoriented it to make it more favorable to the rich.
Carter promised to make human rights the "soul of our foreign policy" but funded
genocide in East Timor and backed brutal dictators in Argentina, South Korea, Chile, Brazil,
Indonesia and elsewhere. During the 1964 elections leftists were encouraged by Democrats to
vote for Johnson because Goldwater, his Republican opponent, was a fanatical warmonger who
would escalate US involvement in Vietnam.
Johnson won, and immediately proceeded to escalate
US involvement in Vietnam. FDR promised to maintain a balanced budget and restrain government
spending but did the exact opposite. Wilson won reelection in 1916 on the slogan "he kept us
out of war" but then lied us into World War One. Hoover pledged to abolish poverty in 1928
but instead saw it skyrocket. https://www.bigeye.com/elections.htm
These educated lemmings believe what they're spoon fed by CNN or Fox News. They cannot
possibly accept that they're immune to facts and disproof of their cherished assumptions
because they've been emotionally conditioned on a subconscious level, after which facts and
reasoning are emotionally reacted to like they were personal attacks.
Correct, but a little more detail on "how" it is done is needed. The trick is to hypnotize
the viewer.
This is done by using motion on the screen–left motion, right motion, left motion,
right motion seems to be the most effective technique, but getting the viewer dizzy by
constant screen motion and short cuts seems to work as well.
While the conventional wisdom was that advertising used such techniques (auto ads are the
most blatant–cars heading left, then cars heading right, then cars heading left, etc.)
to sell product, it appears that the ads are actually "prepping" the viewer to believe the
"news" that follows.
In addition, there is a lot of research out there demonstrating that "news" commentators
most important attribute is their ability to persuade others by appearing to have integrity.
This is tested using focus groups (test subjects). It is on this basis that they are
hired–and if they lose the technique or refuse to employ it–fired.
Then having very (unsafely) gone off the Gaderene cliff deep end, you opined, "Trump
seems to understand that resistance to Shelly Adelson's demands about foreign policy
decisions regarding Israel is the best way to show patriotism to the USA."
Let me elaborate further on that sentence.
Trump has acceded to 2 of the 4 demands of Republican Party donor and Jew billionaire
Shelly Adelson in regards to Israel:
1) Trump has killed the Iran nuclear deal and 2) Trump has moved the US embassy to
Jerusalem.
But,
3) Trump has refused to invade Iran or start a war with Iran and 4) Trump has not dropped
a nuclear bomb on Iran.
Shelly Adelson wants the US military to invade Iran and Shelly Adelson wants the US
military to drop a nuclear bomb on Iran.
Trump knows that there is a difference between the American Empire and the United States
of America. Trump pushes military Keynesianism for the jobs and the loot for the American
people, but Trump doesn't think that the American Empire must continually be at war to
justify the war expenditures. Trump gave an interview where he spoke of the
military-industrial complex and Trump is a baby boomer who remembers Ike and his warnings
about the profiteers and scoundrels who would use the American Empire to profit off the
USA.
Trump made the wise decision to not go to war against Iran with that drone incident, and
that is a good thing. Trump may have thought about oil at two hundred dollars a barrel or he
might have thought it's better to pop the Iranians surreptitiously rather than televised on
CNN with air strikes and the like.
I do think that Trump puts the interests of Israel ahead of the interests of the USA, but
a lot of the ruling class slobs who run the American Empire don't even think that the USA
exists anymore. A lot of us voted for Trump to reclaim the sovereignty and independence of
the USA from the American Empire.
So I think Trump is in his own way being patriotic to a certain extent by giving Shelly
Adelson some of what Adelson wanted but not all.
Trump may also understand that German American women and other American women in the Great
Lakes states don't want their sons or husbands or uncles or fathers getting killed or
horribly wounded in endless wars that only benefit Israel. The German Americans, bless them,
have historically shown great reluctance to get caught up in all the endless war crud that
the JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire cooks up.
I won't vote for Trump because of his backstab on immigration, but I think Trump knows
that he is the government leader of a big monster and that big monster is the creature that
encompasses both the American Empire and the United States of America.
I was long winded, but there's a point in there somewhere!
" My relationship with Israel has been great," Trump said, listing some of his pro-Israel
accomplishments. "Anything is possible," he conceded, "but I don't believe it."
"Yesterday you heard the lies that Israel tried to spy on the White House, a complete
lie," Netanyahu said in a Hebrew-language video.
He then quoted Mark Levin as saying on his show that "this is exactly like the tricks
carried out by Joel Benenson. He was an adviser to Obama and now he is the adviser to [Blue
and White leaders Benny] Gantz and [Yair] Lapid."
@Charles Pewitt Trump
certainly deserves criticism for his ME policies.
However, it's pure folly to think that the alternatives to Trump would be any better, in
fact I suggest that most would be worse.
It's always interesting to see those here who are so quick to bash Trump never tell us
which of the alternative candidates they are willing to endorse and why.
Thank you, Mr. Unz, for reposting Whitney Webb's articles here. She is without doubt one
of the greatest investigative journalists of our time–a new Seymour Hersh almost.
Some have also alleged that Chertoff's mother, Livia Eisen, had links to Israeli
intelligence.
Chertoff is definitely bad seed. Here's what Wikispooks has to say about his role in the
9/11 cover-up:
Michael Chertoff – In charge of the Criminal Division in the USDOJ on 9/11.
Essentially responsible for the 9/11 NON-investigation. He let hundreds of Israeli spies
who were arrested prior to and on 9/11 go back home to Israel. He was also a prosecuting
judge in the first terrorist attack on the WTC in 1993. Chertoff purportedly holds dual
citizenship with the US and Israel. His family is one of the founding families of the state
of Israel and his mother was one of the first ever agents of the Mossad. His father and
uncle are ordained rabbis and teachers of the Talmud.
"... After he became vice president in 1940, as Roosevelt was increasingly ill, Wallace promoted a new vision for America's role in the world that suggested that rather than playing catch up with the imperial powers, the United States should work with partners to establish a new world order that eliminated militarism, colonialism and imperialism. ..."
"... In diplomacy, Wallace imagined a multi-polar world founded on the United Nations Charter with a focus on peaceful cooperation. In contrast, in 1941 Henry Luce, publisher of Time Magazine, had called for an 'American century,' suggesting that victory in war would allow the United States to "exert upon the world the full impact of our influence, for such purposes as we see fit and by such means as we see fit." ..."
"... Foreign aid for Wallace was not a tool to foster economic dominance as it was to become, but rather "economic assistance without political conditions to further the independent economic development of the Latin American and Caribbean countries." He held high "the principle of self-determination for the peoples of Africa, Asia, the West Indies, and other colonial areas." He saw the key policy for the United States to be based on "the principles of non-interference in the internal affairs of other nations and acceptance of the right of peoples to choose their own form of government and economic system." ..."
"... The United States should be emulating China, its Belt and Road Initiative and Community of Common Destiny, as a means of revitalizing its political culture and kicking its addiction to a neo-colonial concept of economic development and growth. Rather than relying on militarization and its attendant wars to spark the economy, progressives should demand that the US work in conjunction with nations such as China and Russia in building a sustainable future rather than creating one failed state after another. ..."
This is as good a time as any to point to an alternative vision of foreign policy. One based on the principle of non-interference,
respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity, and, above all, international law. One based on peaceful coexistence and mutual
cooperation. A vision of the world at peace and undivided by arbitrary distinctions. Such a world is possible and even though
there are currently players around the world who are striving in that direction we need look no further than our own history for
inspiration. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you one Henry A. Wallace, for your consideration.
(The following excerpts from an article by Dr. Dennis Etler. Link to the full article provided below.) --
The highest profile figure who articulated an alternative vision for American foreign policy was the politician Henry Wallace,
who served as vice president under Franklin D. Roosevelt from 1940-1944 and ran for president in 1948 as the candidate of the
Progressive Party.
After he became vice president in 1940, as Roosevelt was increasingly ill, Wallace promoted a new vision for America's
role in the world that suggested that rather than playing catch up with the imperial powers, the United States should work with
partners to establish a new world order that eliminated militarism, colonialism and imperialism.
Wallace gave a speech in 1942 that declared a "Century of the Common Man." He described a post-war world that offered "freedom
from want," a new order in which ordinary citizens, rather than the rich and powerful, would play a decisive role in politics.
That speech made direct analogy between the Second World War and the Civil War, suggesting that the Second World War was being
fought to end economic slavery and to create a more equal society. Wallace demanded that the imperialist powers like Britain and
France give up their colonies at the end of the war.
In diplomacy, Wallace imagined a multi-polar world founded on the United Nations Charter with a focus on peaceful cooperation.
In contrast, in 1941 Henry Luce, publisher of Time Magazine, had called for an 'American century,' suggesting that victory in
war would allow the United States to "exert upon the world the full impact of our influence, for such purposes as we see fit and
by such means as we see fit."
Wallace responded to Luce with a demand to create a world in which "no nation will have the God-given right to exploit other
nations. Older nations will have the privilege to help younger nations get started on the path to industrialization, but there
must be neither military nor economic imperialism." Wallace took the New Deal global. His foreign policy was to be based on non-interference
in the internal affairs of other countries and mutual respect for each other's territorial integrity and sovereignty.
Sadly, since then, despite occasional efforts to head in a new direction, the core constituency for US foreign policy has been
corporations, rather than the "common man" either in the United States, or the other nations of the world, and United States foreign
relations have been dominated by interference in the political affairs of other nations. As a result the military was transformed
from an "arsenal for democracy" during the Second World War into a defender of privilege at home and abroad afterwards.
-- - Foreign aid for Wallace was not a tool to foster economic dominance as it was to become, but rather "economic assistance without
political conditions to further the independent economic development of the Latin American and Caribbean countries." He held high
"the principle of self-determination for the peoples of Africa, Asia, the West Indies, and other colonial areas." He saw the key
policy for the United States to be based on "the principles of non-interference in the internal affairs of other nations and acceptance
of the right of peoples to choose their own form of government and economic system."
--
Wallace's legacy suggests that it is possible to put forth a vision of an honest internationalism in US foreign policy that
is in essence American. His approach was proactive not reactive. It would go far beyond anything Democrats propose today, who
can only suggest that the United States should not start an unprovoked war with Iran or North Korea, but who embrace sanctions
and propagandist reports that demonize those countries.
Rather than ridiculing Trump's overtures to North Korea, they should go further to reduce tensions between the North and the
South by pushing for the eventual withdrawal of troops from South Korea and Japan (a position fully in line with Wallace and many
other politicians of that age).
Rather than demonizing and isolating Russia (as a means to score political points against Trump), progressives should call for
a real détente, that recognizes Russia's core interests, proposes that NATO withdraw troops from Russia's borders, ends sanctions
and reintegrates Russia into the greater European economy. They could even call for an end to NATO and the perpetuation of the
dangerous global rift between East and West that it perpetuates.
Rather than attempt to thwart China's rise, and attack Trump for not punishing it enough, progressives should seek to create new
synergies between China and the US economically, politically and socioculturally.
-- -
In contrast to the US policy of perpetual war and "destroying nations in order to save them," China's BRI proposes an open plan
for development that is not grounded in the models of French and British imperialism. It has proposed global infrastructure and
science projects that include participants from nations in Africa, Asia, South and Central America previously ignored by American
and European elites -- much as Wallace proposed an equal engagement with Latin America. When offering developmental aid and investment
China does not demand that free market principles be adopted or that the public sector be privatized and opened up for global
investment banks to ravish.
-- The United States should be emulating China, its Belt and Road Initiative and Community of Common Destiny, as a means of revitalizing
its political culture and kicking its addiction to a neo-colonial concept of economic development and growth. Rather than relying
on militarization and its attendant wars to spark the economy, progressives should demand that the US work in conjunction with
nations such as China and Russia in building a sustainable future rather than creating one failed state after another.
Seen some good Epstein links that commenters throw up here, thought I'd add some that I read
recently:
– A literary agent named John Brockman was pushing Epstein fairly brazenly:
"Jeffrey Epstein, the billionaire science philanthropist showed up at this weekend's event
by helicopter (with his beautiful young assistant from Belarus) He also got into trouble and
spent a year in jail in Florida. If he contacts you it's probably worth your time to meet him
as he's extremely bright and interesting the cover of the NYpost had a full-page photo of
Jeffrey and Andrew walking in Central Park under the headline: 'The Prince and the Perv.'
(That was the end of Andrew's role at the UK trade ambassador.)" https://newrepublic.com/article/154826/jeffrey-epsteins-intellectual-enabler
– Two sisters reported Epstein decades ago, nothing happened, even after one got
death threats from Ghislaine Maxwell:
"Support and attend the People's Mobilization to Stop the US War Machine and Save the
Planet, September 20 through 23, in New York City. Christian liberationist intellectual
Cornel West and Omali Yeshitela, chairman of the Black Is Back Coalition for Social Justice,
Peace and Reparations will speak, and much of the Black Agenda Report team are
participating.
While we can't ascertain with enough confidence the role of mossad in 9/11, all signs shows
that they did have foreknowledge of the event. To the extent comments of UNZ reflects the
attitude of common American toward the real culprits of 9/11 it spells troubles for Israel lobby
and by extension to the state of Israel in a long run. The pendulum start moving back from high
pro-Israel point it reached during Bush administration, when neocons actually run the USA foreign
policy.
Based on the impressions of the French website Panamza and subsequently
MintPress , three of these photos -- despite the heavy redaction and poor quality --
appear damning. Since 2001, even though the photos were never released until now, it had been
known that one of the Israelis arrested -- Sivan Kurzberg -- was seen in a photo "holding a
lighted lighter in the foreground, with the smoldering wreckage [of the twin towers] in the
background," according to Steven Noah Gordon, then-lawyer for the five Israelis, as cited in
a New York Times report from November 2001.
The picture of Kurzberg with the lit lighter appears to be photo #5 in the new FOIA release.
Yet, the picture released includes a visible date of September 10, 2001, the day before the
attacks, as do two other photos -- images #7 and #8 in the collection -- whereas all other
photos with dates show only the month and the year (9 '01). The FOIA release did not provide
any information as to the apparent discrepancy in dates.
While this could be explained away as the camera in question being programmed with a
slightly inaccurate date, that doesn't seem to be the case for two reasons. First, only three
out of the 14 pictures appear to carry that date and, second, previously declassified FBI
reports report an eyewitness adamantly stating that Sivan Kurzberg had visited the
Doric Apartments on September 10, 2001 at around 3 p.m. with at least one other man, with whom
he was conversing in a foreign language, and had identified himself as a "construction worker"
to a tenant (page 61 of declassified FBI report
).
In addition, the FBI report noted that a van from Urban Moving Systems, the company that
employed the five Israelis at the time of their arrest, was present and was involved in moving
a tenant out of the complex on September 10 and that the movers all had foreign accents. Thus,
images 5, 7 and 8 may have been taken at the same complex a day before the attacks.
This raises two possibilities. First, that there are two images of Kurzberg with a lit
lighter in front of the towers, one taken before the attack and one taken at the time of the
attack, and that the FBI released only one of them. Second, that Kurzberg took the picture with
the lighter only the day before the attack and his lawyer misrepresented the contents of the
photo to the New York Times. Given that the background of the photo -- particularly the
state of the towers -- is indiscernible in the recently released photo, it is difficult to
determine which is the case.
... ... ...
One report from ABC News dated June 2002 suggests that the Bush administration
intervened in the investigation. That report
states that "Israeli and U.S. government officials worked out a deal -- and after 71 days,
the five Israelis were taken out of jail, put on a plane, and deported back home [to Israel]."
If the Bush administration had cut a deal with Israel's government to cover up the incident, it
certainly would not have been
the first time a U.S. presidential administration had done so on Israel's behalf.
Further evidence that higher-ups in the administration intervened is the fact that
then-Attorney General John Ashcroft personally
signed off on the detainees' release. Upon his entering the private sector as a lobbyist
and consultant in 2005, the Israeli government became one of Ashcroft's first clients .
A cover-up certainly seems to have happened to some extent, between the destruction of
records of the investigation and the fact that official conclusions of the investigation do not
add up. In the latter case, the FBI -- in a file dated September 24, 2001–
officially stated that they "determined that none of the Israelis were actively engaged in
clandestine intelligence activities in the United States." However, that conclusion was
directly contradicted by U.S. officials a year later and by the fact that Israel's own
government
subsequently acknowledged that the five Israelis had indeed been involved in "clandestine
intelligence activities in the United States."
In addition, the new FOIA release of the photos suggests that another FBI conclusion -- that
"none of the pictures developed from the film found inside the 35-mm camera depicted the twin
towers prior to the attack" -- was inaccurate. This may explain why the images released via the
recent FOIA request were heavily edited leaving details in the background greatly obscured,
making it impossible to determine whether the photos were taken prior to or during the attacks
based solely on the state of the towers.
... ... ...
The FBI returned to search the premises of Urban Moving Systems a month later, but by that
time found:
The building and all of its contents had been abandoned by the owner of Urban Moving
Systems. This [was] apparently being done to avoid criminal prosecution after the 09/11/2001
arrest of five of his employees and subsequent seizure of his office computer systems by
members of the FBI-NK on or around 09/13/2001."
The company's owner -- Dominik Otto Suter, an Israeli citizen --
had fled to Israel on September 14, 2001, two days after he had been questioned by the FBI.
The FBI
told ABC News that "Urban Moving may have been providing cover for an Israeli
intelligence operation." Surprisingly, since at least 2016, Suter has been living in the San Francisco Bay Area,
where he works for a contractor
for major tech companies like Google and Microsoft. According to the public records database
Intelius , in 2006 and 2007 Suter also worked for a telecommunications company --
Granite Telecommunications -- that
works for the U.S. military and several other U.S. government agencies.
In addition to Urban Moving Systems, another moving company, Classic International Movers,
became of interest in connection with the investigation into the "Dancing Israelis," which led
to the arrest and detention of four Israeli nationals who worked for this separate moving
company. The FBI's Miami Division had alerted the Newark Division that Classic International
Movers was believed to have been used by one of the 19 alleged 9/11 hijackers before the
attack, and one of the "Dancing Israelis" had the number for Classic International Movers
written in a notebook that was seized at the time of his arrest. The report further states that
one of the Israelis of Classic International Movers who was arrested "was visibly disturbed by
the Agents' questioning regarding his personal email account."
While the case of the "Dancing Israelis" has long been treated as an outlier in the
aftermath of September 11, what is often overlooked is the fact that hundreds of Israeli
nationals were arrested in the aftermath of the attacks.
According to a FOX
News report from December 2001, 60 Israelis were apprehended or detained after
September 11, with most deported, and a total of 140 Israelis were arrested and detained in all
of 2001 by federal authorities. That report claimed that the arrests, ostensibly including the
"Dancing Israelis," were in relation to an investigation of "an organized [Israeli]
intelligence gathering operation designed to 'penetrate government facilities.'"
The report also added that most of those arrested, in addition to having served in the IDF,
had "intelligence expertise" and worked for Israeli companies that specialized in wiretapping.
Some of those detained were also active members of the Israeli military; and several detainees,
including the "Dancing Israelis," had failed polygraph tests when asked if they had been
surveilling the U.S. government.
A key aspect of that report, compiled by journalist Carl Cameron, also states that federal
investigators widely suspected that Israeli intelligence had prior knowledge of the September
11 attacks. In the report, Cameron stated:
The Israelis may have gathered intelligence about the attacks in advance and not shared
it. A highly placed investigator said there are 'tie-ins' but when asked for details he
flatly refused to describe them saying: 'Evidence linking these Israelis to 9-11 is
classified. I cannot tell you about the evidence that has been gathered. It is classified
information.'"
One exchange between Cameron and host Brit Hume included in the report is particularly
telling:
HUME : "Carl, what about this question of advanced knowledge of what was going to
happen on 9/11? How clear are investigators that some Israeli agents may have known
something?"
CAMERON : "Well it's very explosive information obviously and there is a great deal
of evidence that they say they have collected. None of it necessarily conclusive. It's more
when they put it all together a big question they say is, 'How could they have not known?' --
almost a direct quote, Brit."
However, it is essential to note that Israeli intelligence did attempt to warn
the U.S. government at least twice beginning in August 2001 as did the intelligence agencies of
many other countries, including France, the UK, Egypt, Russia and Jordan. Yet, no people
connected to any other intelligence agency other than Israel were caught celebrating the
attacks as they took place in the area nor were accused by mainstream media of operating a
large spy ring within the U.S. at the time. One theory to explain this discrepancy is that the
Mossad elements of which the "Dancing Israelis" and other alleged Israeli spies could have been
part of a specific section of Israeli intelligence that were acting independently as a rogue
agency. Such a possibility is not unusual given that divisions of or groups within the CIA have
been known to "
go rogue " on several occasions.
If the "Dancing Israelis", and more broadly the Mossad and the Israeli government, had
foreknowledge of September 11, why would they remain silent and not attempt to warn the
American government or public of the coming attacks? In the case of the "Dancing Israelis," why
would Israelis celebrate such an attack?
One of the detained "Dancing Israelis," Omer Marmari, told police the following about why he
viewed the September 11 attacks in a positive light:
Israel now has hope that the world will now understand us. Americans are naïve and
America is easy to get inside. There are not a lot of checks in America. And now America will
be tougher about who gets into their country."
While Marmari's statement may suggest one reason some of the "Dancing Israelis" were so
"visibly happy" in their photographs, there are also other statements made by top Israeli
politicians that suggest why the Israeli government and its intelligence agency declined to act
on apparent foreknowledge of the attack.
When asked, on the day of the 9/11 attacks, how the attacks would affect American-Israeli
relations, Benjamin Netanyahu -- the current Israeli prime minister --
told the New York Times that "It's very good," before quickly adding "Well, not very
good, but it will generate immediate sympathy." He then predicted, much as Marmari had, that
the attacks would "strengthen the bond between our two peoples, because we've experienced
terror over so many decades, but the United States has now experienced a massive hemorrhaging
of terror."
Netanyahu, in a candid conversation recorded in 2001, also echoed Marmari's claim that
Americans are naïve. In that recording, Netanyahu said :
I know what America is. America is something that can easily be moved. Moved to the right
direction. They won't get in our way. They won't get in our way 80 percent of the Americans
support us. It's absurd."
In addition, also on the day of the September 11 attacks, Netanyahu -- who at the time was
not in political office -- held
a press conference in which he claimed that he had predicted the attacks on the World Trade
Center by "militant Islam" in his 1995 book, Fighting Terrorism: How Democracies Can Defeat
Domestic and International Terrorism. In that book, Netanyahu had posited that
Iranian-linked "militants" would set off a nuclear bomb in the basement of the World Trade
Center.
During his press conference on the day of the attacks, Netanyahu also asserted that the 9/11
attacks would be a turning point for America and compared them to the 1941 attack on Pearl
Harbor. Netanyahu's statement echoes the infamous line from the " Rebuilding America's
Defenses " document authored by the neoconservative think tank, the Project for a New
Ameican Century (PNAC). That line reads. "Further, the process of transformation [towards a
neo-Reaganite foreign policy and hyper-militarism], even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl
Harbor."
Then again, years later In 2008, the Israeli newspaper Maariv reported that Netanyahu
had stated that the September 11 attacks had greatly benefited Israel. He was quoted as saying : "We are
benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the
American struggle in Iraq."
Indeed, it goes without saying that the aftermath of 9/11 -- which involved the U.S. leading
a destructive effort throughout the Middle East -- has indeed benefited Israel. Many of the
U.S.' post-9/11 "nation-building" efforts have notably mirrored the policy paper " A
Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm ," which was authored by American
neoconservatives -- PNAC members among them -- for Netanyahu's first term as prime
minister.
That document calls for the creation of a "New Middle East" by, among other things,
"weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria" and "removing Saddam Hussein from power in
Iraq -- an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right." As is known now, both of
those main objectives have since come to pass, each withstrong
Israeli involvement .
Update |This article was updated to include and accommodate alternative
analyses of the newly released photos as well information on Israeli intelligence warnings to
the U.S. prior to September 11, 2001 that came to the attention of MintPress after initial its
publication.
Feature photo | Four of the Israeli nationals arrested for "puzzling behavior" during the
September 11 attacks are seen casually posing together in front of the Manhattan skyline while
the September 11 attacks were in progress | Photo #1
Whitney Webb is a MintPress News journalist based in Chile. She has contributed to
several independent media outlets including Global Research, EcoWatch, the Ron Paul Institute
and 21st Century Wire, among others. She has made several radio and television appearances and
is the 2019 winner of the Serena Shim Award for Uncompromised Integrity in
Journalism.
18 years later, an important question once asked by Pat Buchanan still rings true: "Cui
bono-who benefits? – is ever the question that must be asked about Middle Eastern
terror"
Without Saudi funding, 9/11 could not have occurred. Yet Trump is seeking to cover up for
the Saudis who might be implicated in an upcoming report about 9/11.
The more that time goes by, the more it's revealed the cozy relationship between Israel
and the house of Saud, the more it is seems likely that Israel participated in 9/11.
Was it a joint venture between the two countries? One funded and provided the hijackers,
and one rigged the buildings with thermite so that they'd fall? All in an effort to get
America to take out the common threats to both Israel and Saudi Arabia (ex. Saddam, Iran,
Bashar Al Assad)?
If so, some at the highest levels of our government know, and they know that there's not
much that can be done about it.
In any event, and strangely, America did not attack Saudi Arabia in the years after 9/11,
as one would have expected given their involvement in that incident.
Instead, we are providing them with weapons, and they are now seeking to acquire nuclear
energy.
Does that really make sense?
It would if the US was being cowed into it by some form of blackmail.
Such as getting away wtih gunning down untold amounts of people in a large and popular
city and having a patsy to take the fall, no video footage evidence ever provided of the
patsy going to and from his hotel room, despite it being one of the most surveiled cities in
America.
In fact, in the hours after this mass shooting, Trump met with Sheldon Adelson, staunch
Israel-supporter and campaign financier.
And then Trump within weeks declared that the US will move its embassy to Jerusalem.
Just a strange collection of events, isn't it? Almost like being told that Epstein
actually killing himself .
I always refer to 11 September as National Reichstag Fire Day. However it happened it was
certainly used opportunistically by the yankee regime (and the zionists) to bolster the
dictatorial and authoritarian elements of the regime. I am certain that the Israelis, at the
least, were aware of the conspiracy as it occurred.
" One theory to explain this discrepancy is that the Mossad elements of which the
"Dancing Israelis" and other alleged Israeli spies could have been part of a specific
section of Israeli intelligence that were acting independently as a rogue agency .
Such a possibility is not unusual given that divisions of or groups within the CIA have
been known to "go rogue" on several occasions "
Such an explanation is wholly unnecessary. Not only is the Mossad "rogue" enough, Israel
itself is a rogue state engaged in false flag terrorism all the time. Heck, the state
itself was created by terrorism. Rogue state, rogue secret service, rogue operation,
it's all par for the course.
Whenever and wherever strange murders, government problems, assassinations, and evil presents
itself there is a good chance that Israel is involved in one way or another. From the Anthrax
letters to the 9/11 attacks who benefits and follow the money are all you need to know.
There is no other group, nation, tribe, or country that has destroyed more of mankind in
one way or another than Israel. And the worst thing about all of it is they never pay for it
and just laugh in face of the weak goy.
as early as 8:00 a.m. that day, more than 40 minutes prior to the attack.
There has been some controversy about the exact time the schlomos arrived. I would think
there are ways of finding out and not depending on the one eye witness (who came forward).
The FBI almost certainly knows. It would be significant to find that out.
Either Mossad was incredibly careless in their celebration or they wanted to be
caught. I haven't made up my mind yet as to which it was. I lean towards the latter. In
either case we've never been given an adequate explanation and deserve much better. So
naturally we are not going to get it.
And it's great to know the manager of Urban Moving Systems who had fled to Israel
within 24 hours of the attack is now back in the USA working in the Bay Area. No doubt
spying, for someone?
This foreknowledge was already blatantly apparent early on, while events were just
beginning to unfold during that fateful morning in Manhattan because alleged co-conspirator
Ehud Barak was kind enough to make a personal appearance, concurrently, directly at BBC News
headquarters in London (oh so "coincidentally", for coincidence theorists), playing the role
of spontaneous "anchor", to proclaim his scripted interpretation of what this major incident
supposedly meant and suggest future policy guidelines that the US government should adopt in
response. After years of planning for the big event he just couldn't resist putting himself
into the spotlight, very eager to lay out the intended narrative – just too
revealing!
Ehud Barak interview at BBC in London during the 9-11 attack:
Basically, they botched their operation, which was far too complex to carry out without
making tell-tale mistakes, but the media, FBI, and many others zealously covered up for them,
after the fact, with a multitude of transparent lies and distortions. However, too many
people were not fooled.
"Saudi funding" is Fake News used to deflect attention away from the real perpetrator of the
crime, the Jewish State of Israel. Overwhelming evidence shows the Israelis were deeply
involved in the attacks. where as there is NO (zilch) evidence to imolicate Saudi Arabia
IMO, 9/11 was an Israeli masterminded False Flag, with help from traitors in the WH, the FBI,
CIA, NSA and Pentagon. With lots of help from the MSM, including that 'paper of record,' the
New York Times, which has a distinguished track record of lying to Americans.
The Times lied about their good friend Uncle Joe Stalin, starving millions of Ukrainians
to death and they lied about Saddam having WMD's.
Until Americans get off their lazy asses and start raising hell about 9/11, demanding the
truth be told, we'll just keep circling the bowl, right into the cesspit of
totalitarianism.
Of course, the Israelis knew of this in advance–they participated in the planning and
carrying out of the event. This was a false flag event. The Israelis after the Levon Affair
and the attack on the USS Liberty realized they can do anything because they literally own
the news media and the own the Congress of the United States. And yes, it's about the
"Benjamins"
Israel is the classic bully that is backed up by its big brother America. Both countries
need a good bloody nose to come into line with civilized society. That bloody nose will
come.
The only discussion of 9/11 should be of the evidence in the Southern District of NY NY and
the new Grand Jury. Much of the new evidence, from real professionals including nuclear
scientists has been presented. It's a Homerun, yet the corrupt judicial system has been
sitting on it for over a year. Of course , what would one expect – from the City that
financed and sent all those Trotskyites to Saint Petersburg, Russia.There should be thousands
awaiting trials by now, but we see – nothing. America will not recover until Washington
and NY is over run by the people – similiar to the Nam protests but 10xs larger. Thanks
Unz Rev.
Israel/AIPAC run the United States government. AIPAC is the most powerful lobby in
Washington. Israel got 38 billion dollars, while we get more mexicans.
Israel takes part of that money (from our taxpayers) to buy off our leaders so they
provide more support for Israel.
The company's owner -- Dominik Otto Suter, an Israeli citizen -- had fled to Israel on
September 14, 2001, two days after he had been questioned by the FBI. The FBI told ABC News
that "Urban Moving may have been providing cover for an Israeli intelligence operation."
Surprisingly, since at least 2016, Suter has been living in the San Francisco Bay Area,
where he works for a contractor for major tech companies like Google and Microsoft.
According to the public records database Intelius, in 2006 and 2007 Suter also worked for a
telecommunications company -- Granite Telecommunications -- that works for the U.S.
military and several other U.S. government agencies.
Lol! They don't even care about optics anymore. The US is a proper Banana Republic
now.
@JimDandy LOL. They're working double overtime these days. Give em a break. The clown car
got out of the blocks fast with the first comment but then went into the ditch.
This is one of the great ones: Mossad Juval Aviv: "It's easy to put a truck bomb as we did
in London" –
It would if the US was being cowed into it by some form of blackmail.
People get blackmailed, not nations.
The people in the intelligence communities of the US, Israel, Saudi, and many other
countries are all implicated in a wide variety of crimes that the others know
about–think of it as a circle of blackmail.
At some point the members in the circle internalize the reality of the situation and start
acting as allies.
If they stick around long enough they become friends.
Of course the Mossad had foreknowledge of some kind. But so did the CIA and the Brit
SIS. And probably so did the Saudi General Intelligence Presidency.
At least the first named 3, and probably the Saudis as well, were behind long range
planning to stage such an event to justify war foreign policy.
It's plainly obvious that they were foreign agents complicit in the murder of 3000 Americans.
A normal result would be their execution or lifetime imprisonment, with their
collaborators in the US administration (who covered for them, tampered with evidence and
released them) getting the same. The threads of treason are followed through US society to
the end (the office of President), carrying the same penalties.
US society is probably building up to do this, likely illegally, given the prospects for
chaos and the hopeless state of American "justice".
@ChuckOrloski Chuck, why the hell were our "good buddies" and "best friends" the Israelis
posing for pictures with cigarette lighters during the attack? My guess it's some deep
Talmudic holy practice that is too subtle and holy for the cattle to grasp.
"The five aroused attention in New Jersey after people noticed them going to unusual
lengths to photograph the World Trade Center ruins and making light of the situation. One
photograph developed by the F.B.I. showed Sivan Kurzberg holding a lighted lighter in the
foreground, with the smoldering wreckage in the background , said Steven Noah Gordon, a
lawyer for the five."
I'd love to be chosen enough to see what the other photos contained if the NY Slimes is
willing to admit this much. You have to wade thru a lot of oy veys and tears of "A Nation
Challenged" to get to the scraps of truth:
Thanks for the informative exposé of one more crime committed against America
(9/11), by the Zionist/Jewish/Rothschild & other Financial Oligarchs,' New World
Order.
We Americans have the Moral Duty and Physical Necessity of regaining our Sovereignty
and our Honor, by Restoring Our Republic
First of all, thank you, Ron Unz, for allowing this article to be published on your site.
Secondly, does anyone on this site remember the messages workers at Odigo, the Israeli
instant messaging company, received *two hours* before the attacks. These messages seem to
have warned about the attacks. Yet, even though Israeli *civilians* know the content of the
messages, this content has never been made public to the American people.
Perhaps the next FOIA request should be for these messages.
I have long suspected that a few people in Israeli intelligence, perhaps the children of
Jews from Arab lands who grew up speaking Arabic as a first language, located an al-Qaeda
cell and encouraged the attack, perhaps offering practical assistance as well.
This kind of cause means that only a few people knew about it. Perhaps most Knesset
members had no clue whatsoever. This sort of action would be easier to conceal and would have
the additional advantage of plausible deniability as the Arabs who knew would mostly be
dead.
Not convincing. If Mossad had been involved in this operation, it would have sent serious
people as masterminds or as observers. So would have done any agency worth its salt (BND,
CIA, KGB/FSB, former Bulgarian & Romanian assassins ).
And what Mossad is supposed to have done?
Sending some guys who are overwhelmed by joy because of their machinations and . dance.
High five. Yaaay
These guys, if they had been the right stuff, would have invisibly blended into the crowd
& no one would have noticed them. They wouldn't even have blinked at the sight of
collapsing towers. Or would feign horror & astonishment.
And they dance, high fiving.
You seriously want me to believe these guys were not some neurotic looneys, but Mossad
pros?
I know a couple hundred people personally and talk to them throughout the year. Though I see
many people doubting the official story of 9/11 online, none of them are brave enough to
doubt it out loud, nor do I ever hear of others doing so. I understand the fear, of course,
but c'mon. This isn't about one's personal opinion of the O.J. Simpson trial. This is far
more important.
Will the majority of Americans ever wake up and speak up? If and when they do, what will
happen to the dollar?
"However, it is essential to note that Israeli intelligence did attempt to warn the U.S.
government at least twice beginning in August 2001 as did the intelligence agencies of many
other countries, including France, the UK, Egypt, Russia and Jordan."
However, it is even more essential to note that these "warnings" were not detailed,
actionable warnings, but a calculatedly deceptive inculpation; part of a psyop whereby the
"government" could pin the blame for 9/11 on "al Qaeda" without any kind of an
investigation.
"Even if these agents were "rogue" Mossad, there was plenty of other remote angles
from which they could have documented & celebrated the evil event."
They were inexperienced and did not take into account that the woman who called the police
noticed their suspicious behavior with the aid of strong binoculars. They were there to do
more than take some pictures and celebrate, more importantly to stage another spectacular
event, namely to set off their van, filled with explosives, at the middle of the Washington
Bridge, which, like the three World Trade buildings, would have been prepared with micro
thermite, during prior work that was done there.
To say that they were documenting the event is to downplay what they were surely up to,
which can be inferred from a contemporaneous report. Note the following quote embedded in the
link referred to in Comment #4 above:
American security services overnight stopped a car bomb on the George Washington
Bridge. The van, packed with explosives, was stopped on an approach ramp to the bridge.
Authorities suspect the terrorists intended to blow up the main crossing between New Jersey
and New York, Army Radio reported. (Jerusalem Post 09/12/01)
Media in the U.S. subsequently referred merely to explosive "residue", which is
technically correct but grossly misleading. According to reports at the time, three of the
five initial dancers were in the van, dressed in Islamic garments, with plane tickets to fly
away in different directions. A likely scenario, which was thwarted by their apprehension, is
not difficult to image in light of the Jerusalem Post report, and could have played
out like this:
Perpetrators stall van at the side of the road near the double cable at its lowest point,
flip up the front hood, as if to signal engine trouble, be seen by other drivers in their
conspicuous clothing, then escape by hailing taxis driven by accomplices, leaving the Islamic
clothes in the taxis, rendezvous with the other two dancers in Manhattan driving a different
van, then head for the airport. Authorities would soon close off the bridge to traffic, based
on reports of the suspicious vehicle, possibly set to be blown up. Helicopters with TV crews
focus on the van from above, keeping viewers in suspense until dusk, and suddenly there is a
bright flash and fireball rising from the van, as the right side of the bridge is ripped
apart, assisted by the thermite charges at the cables; both halves of the roadway fall into
the water, very spectacular, right during prime time, perhaps the cables on the northern side
might remain intact. Millions of people watching live are then led to think that Arabs not
only blew up the World Trade Center buildings but also the Washington Bridge.
The time these amateur dancers spent in custody, followed by deportation, was indeed very
lenient punishment for having presumably participated in blowing up the only bridge that
connects Manhattan with New Jersey.
@Mark JamesThere are undoubtedly agents still living and documents still unshredded
that connect the dancing schlomos from Urban Moving with the dancing schlomos in the FBI,
FAA, etc. who oversaw the destruction of the evidence under Chertoff and Mueller. Virtually
everything in the massive NFPA Code 921 Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations was
disregarded without that evidence of criminal conspiracy itself being investigated. The plain
facts of the matter will also eventually prove that the elaborate efforts at concealment by
the owners of the msm provide powerful evidence of their guilt as co-conspirators complicit
from day one in pulling off 9/11.
The msm cover up of the truth I saw from watching some of the news yesterday is so absurd
that a prize should be awarded for coining a name for it. Something to neutralize the fifth
column and their wholly owned msm's combining the words "conspiracy," which best describes
themselves, and "theory," now incredibly meaning an automatic falsification of observation,
measurement, and the laws of physics if any of it disagrees with what amounts to an official
fairytale for children about naughty Arabs who magically flew airplanes into buildings
because they hate us for our freedoms.
I caught a few minutes of Fox News yesterday. Appalling that anyone with half a brain
would swallow that bilge about 19 Arabs who couldn't handle a Cessna 150, etc. They're still
using flag-waving jingoism and country music to encapsulate the Israeli-first meme as more
American than apple pie and insinuating that pointing out absurdities with the 9/11 fairytale
is tantamount to collaboration with the enemy. I had to laugh out loud watching Sean Hannity
pretend to be so genuine in his patriotism it causes him to slip into lisping baby talk, like
he's now aping Trish Regan and Shep Smith. The conservative movement's come a long way, from
political rationalism to one of their hero's talking baby talk overnight. No wonder the left
is already doing victory laps.
Isn't that the point. Whether or not 9/11 was a conspiracy or allowed to happen, the
response to it was an actual conspiracy. The response would have been the same in either
situation, that's the point, that's the conspiracy.
In the event that an attack like 9/11 could have ever been motivated by actual terrorists,
the motivation also derives from the US slavish backing of Israel.
You seriously want me to believe these guys were not some neurotic looneys, but Mossad
pros?
You raise some intelligent points for us.
I will raise a few for you.
1. The Dancing Scum behaved quite rationally & soberly during their TV interviews in
the Entity.
They displayed no nuttiness or neurosis of any kind.
Their dress & comportment in the USA – was as swarthy scruffy Semites (Arabs). On
Entity TV, they were well shaven, washed, & 'white as the driven snow.'
2. Acting neurotic & loonyish is a good cover – in itself. Apparently, only one
witness noticed them (enough) to bother to call the police.
3. They did their job. They took their pictures. Which is not to say that other (higher
definition & more Professional pictures were not taken elsewhere). That is what happened.
We have seen some of those higher definition videos, and pictures – taken by Film Crews
& other Media employees.
4. It is difficult to take photos of a Huge Tragedy/Assault & "blended into the crowd
& no one would have noticed them. " They almost succeeded in "blended into the
crowd."
5. These Dancers might have served as a distraction. Might-Might Distract from what?
6. The Dancers reception in the Entity was quite friendly. They were treated as heroes.
Why?
Yes, there is much We-The-American-People do not know about this Assault. We agree on
that.
former Bulgarian & Romanian assassins
? Are they worth their salt?
The buildings came down. One was not even hit by a bird, let alone a plane.
Dr. Alan Sabrosky, former Director of Studies at the US Army War College , on Israel's
Attack on America on 9/11 –
"Until we demand an independent, honest, and thorough investigation and accountability for
those whose action and inaction led to those events and the cover-up, our republic and our
Constitution remain in the gravest danger." – Lt. Col. Shelton F. Lankford, U.S. Marine
Corps (ret) – Retired U.S. Marine Corps fighter pilot with over 300 combat missions
flown. Decorations include the Distinguished Flying Cross and 32 awards of the Air Medal.
"The government story is total B.S. plain and simple." – Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S.
Air Force, Flew for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years. Had previously flown the actual
two United Airlines aircraft that were hijacked on 9/11. Former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot
with over 100 combat missions.
"No Arab hijacker, ever in a million years, ever flew into the World Trade Center. And if
you got 30 minutes I'll tell you exactly why Maybe if I had a couple tries to line up a few
building, I could have done it. But certainly not the first time and certainly not at 500 or
600 miles an hour." – John Lear, over 19,000+ total hours flown in over 100 different
types of planes for 10 different airlines in 60 different countries around the world. Holds
every certificate ever offered by the FAA and has 23 different FAA type ratings. Held 17
world records including speed around the world in a Lear Jet Model 24. More at
patriotsquestion911.com
Israel accused of planting spy devices near the White House.
The miniature surveillance devices, colloquially known as "StingRays," mimic regular
cell towers to fool cellphones into giving them their locations and identity information.
Formally called international mobile subscriber identity-catchers or IMSI-catchers, they
also can capture the contents of calls and data use.
Your "argument" dear (((Sean))) Your arrogance will be your undoing.
There are quite a few longtime commenters on this website whom I've always strongly
suspected of being pro-Israeli activists operating under "deep cover."
One of the more amusing aspects of articles like this one is that it has naturally drawn a
few of them out and forced them to permanently unmask and reveal themselves
@ValmMond Don't forget the Israeli kiosks selling sunglasses key rings and hair ribbons
that littered every shopping mall. Those tiny corporations were used for a lot of HI B fraud,
SBA loan fraud importation of prostitutes, money laundering mail box drops all sorts of
things useful for both spying and crime. It was as much a cliche of Israeli immigrant small
business as manicurists are for Asian women.
@Bardon Kaldian They had foreknowledge. Foreknowledge indicates complicity. It's obvious
even for the dumbest of official version supporters. That's why the incident and the
israelis' subsequent arrest were scrubbed from most mainstream news outlets.
The high-fiving dancers' exact role in the 9/11 events is irrelevant. All 5 knew on that
morning why they were on that NJ hill overlooking lower Manhattan and what was coming to the
twin towers. Conspicuous celebration must have not been part of their job description, but
hey, it was mission accomplished and the goyim were not looking. As it turned out, they were.
But in the end, it didn't really matter. They'll keep seeing the Trees for the Forest (Gump?)
and when one of these trees falls, it shall make no noise in the zionized informational
vacuum.
Ron, Pastor Chuck Baldwin, who was a confirmed Zionist until after a Damascus moment, posted
on his site this piece about a book that names names, and provides facts. It's worth reading.
It's ironic when not just Christians–real Christians–should venerate the
truth, that anyone of conscience seeking the truth is attacked and called a truther.
As Orlov wrote about conspiracies, we don't have to get to the details on how they're
done. Let those who push the fake narrative explain all the failures on 911 and why Bush,
Cheney, the Joint Chiefs, the heads of CIA and FBI didn't resign if the perpetrators were
Muslims with box-cutters.
@Durruti "Zionist/Jewish/Rothschild & other Financial Oligarchs,' New World Order."
-- Perhaps the focus should be on the "local" organizers and yes-men, beginning with
Cheney the Traitor, Bush the lesser, Rice the Mushroom Cloud, Tenant, Mueller, and the
opportunistic higherups among the US brass -- all those who put their comfort (money and
power) before the well-being of their country. They allowed the "event" to happen (some
perhaps were actively involved in preparation for the "event"), and they made the financial
killing and literal killing of great numbers of humans in the aftermath.
At least, Israelis have been destroying the US (by pushing the US resources towards the
wars of aggression in the Middle East) to protect and promote their myth-based ideological
toy of Eretz Israel. In comparison, the US government/Pentagon have solidified into a bunch
of traitors and become engaged in the pornography of betrayal at home and mass slaughter
abroad for ba$e profiteering. The US Congress of corrupt cowards has been stinking like
rotten fish.
Until the local rot and poisoning continues, the country will be open to deadly infections
and diseases.
Because people do not understand Mathematics, particularly the sciences of Physics and
Statistics & Probability, they are susceptible to believing completely improbable and
impossible explanations that are utterly false, yet widely accepted.
It appears you were/are looking for a way to exculpate the Zionist Oligarchs from one of
their many crimes against humanity (and against my Country, America), the crime of 9/11
& the attacks on the Arab Nations – that followed. You will have to debate with
Webb, Unz, and some others to effect that denial; although the New York Times, or Haaretz
might be interested and easier pickings.
Sorry, but- get a shrink. If you seriously think that "Zionist Oligarchs" exist as some
sinister organization or actual Jewish group masterminding or controlling most of US foreign
policy- there is not anything to discuss. True: a) in the US, Jews as an ethnic group are way
over-represented in the corridors of power, constituting perhaps ~20% of American power
elites; b) Zionist Jews, and by that I mean not Jewish supporters of Israel, but "Israeli
firsters" who are Jews first & Americans second (or hardly at all) are a clear minority
in that ethnic (sub)group, no more than 20% of them (and that would be, I think,
overestimate). Israeli firsters & similar ilk are well described in Walt &
Mearsheimer's book on the Israeli lobby; just, apart from Jonathan Pollard & probably a
few other spies, there is not enough evidence to pinpoint the great pro-Israeli plot and
especially anything convincing re twin towers collapse.
The article has not shown what those dancing Israelis did actually do , except for
taking pictures & behaving like neurotics under stress. Woody Allen would have been more
persuasive as an Israeli spy.
9/11 or 11/9? When someone points gleefully to the typos, it is a sure sign he has nothing
to say or argue.
These dancers were not obviously complicit in anything & much more important –
it is not obvious that it, the twin towers collapse, was something planned or executed at
higher levels than the official version says.
The whole conspiratorial mindset is, when I think of it, similar to the later phases of
German classical philosophy, Hegel in particular. These guys (Hegel, Schelling) had built
immense, gigantic philosophical superstructures (history, metaphysics, philosophy of law,
Naturphilosophie ..) based on slim empirical evidence & tried to fit those vast
structures in the Procrustean bed of their narrow world-view. For instance Hegel refused to
acknowledge that Uranus existed because that would mean that Pythagorean structures, with
sacred number 7, were inadequate as explanatory paradigms of nature.
The same goes, on a significantly lower level, with many conspiracy theories, including
9/11 truthers. There are some info, data & events that are somehow shady, dubious or hard
to explain. Also, some data are questionable- or not, I don't know.
What better than to accept some grand & all-encompassing quasi-explanation ?
@Alfred Spooks can be divided in a few classes, at least two: masterminds &
operatives. Masterminds are rare (Wild Bill Donovan, Dulles, Canaris, Schellenberg, Heydrich,
J.J. Angleton, Beria, ). Great operatives are also rare (Rudolf Abel, Richard Sorge, Sydney
Reilly, Elie Cohen the fake Syrian ). Clumsy operatives are more frequent (the Rosenberg
couple), while some are hard to classify (Klaus Fuchs) & others are numbskulls who just
got lucky for some time (Jonathan Pollard).
If Mossad (or any other agency, Israeli, American or any combination of all spooks in the
world combined) tried to to plan & execute such a vast, breathtaking operation that would
change history, far surpassing JFK assassination or nuclear weapons secrets theft -they would
have employed qualified people & not someone worse than agent Piglet.
:See for example their clumsy Dubai operation (Google : Assassination of Mahmoud
Al-Mabhouh
also see the failed 1997 assassination attempt of Khaled Mashal in Amman,Jordan. Mossad
agents put a fast acting poison into his ear. However they were soon captured. King Hussein
of Jordan demanded that Israel turn over the antidote of the poison or Jordan would cut
diplomatic relations.
PM Netanyahu at first refused but he later agreed to send the antidote and the head of
Mossad flew to Amman with it
Respectful of your presumed experience, I am unclear with your mental mechanics upon which
you concluded that, "They were there to do more than take some pictures and celebrate, more
importantly to stage another spectacular event, namely to set off their van, filled with
explosives, at the middle of the Washington Bridge ,"
So to reiterate my point, I believe the "dancing Israelis" were Mossad pros, who had they
any concern/fears for getting caught & charged with having extremely suspicious 9/11
foreknowledge, they would not have ritually celebrated & danced in public view.
Point taken: Indeed, the weird "dancing Israelis" might have been Jewish "amateur
dancers," haha, but in no way were they amateur Mossad men.
Thanks and 'dat 'gonna be my done 'dat respect, Been_there_done_that!
@Bardon Kaldian The dancing Israelis were only caught because one of the thousands
watching the destruction of the towers had binoculars and caught them. It's often tiny things
like that that catch criminals spies whatever.
Serial killer Son of Sam was caught because one of the detectives thought to check all
parking tickets issued in each neighborhood around the time of the murder. He reasoned that
the killer didn't live in the neighborhoods where he killed and had to park in the street.
Sure enough the killer got a parking ticket near the site of the killing right date right
time.
Russian spy Colonel Abel was caught because he used fake quarters and nickels to conceal
his microdot information. The coins had too and bottom sections that unscrewed. He had his
newspaper delivered. One day he paid the paper boy using one of the 2 piece nickels. The boy
noticed. He showed it to his Dad who notified the FBI.
Had Abel bought his paper from a store or newsstand it would have been difficult or
impossible to trace. But paperboys know their customers.
Jonathan Pollard was caught because he spent so much time away from his desk working for
Israel he didn't get any work done. So his supervisor decided to fire him.
Government employees aren't at will. They can only be fired for cause. So the supervisor
set about documenting causes to fire Pollard. That investigation led to the supervisor's
discovery Pollard was working for Israel.
Had Pollard worked for an at will government contractor he might have been fired, but he
wouldn't have been caught. It was only the for cause investigation that caught him.
The dancing Israelis were caught because one woman used binoculars.
They didn't manage to keep, high profile criminal, Jeffrey Epstein alive. The prime witness
to alleged crimes of many others and the key to bring them to justice. Keeping Epstein alive
was too difficult for the nation that sent men on the moon half a century ago, and spends
billions of dollars each year on intelligence.
Now, after FOIA request made by a private citizen the FBI releases few of the photos in
very bad quality and heavily redacted. Basically worthless. Is there any reasoning behind
this as to why so few, so bad and so redacted or is this just to show the FBI is beyond and
above and does what it pleases. TPTB are just mocking us. The message is clear.
It's best to forget 9/11. They want us to remember it. Let's rather remember what happened
after, there are no mysteries about that story. We even know part of it was written before
9/11. And the results speak for themselves; hundreds of thousands killed and millions on the
run, trillions wasted. A crime much worse than 9/11 ever was – and we, more or less,
know the culprits.
Good catch; you were first with that blockbuster. You know who would be a good replacement?
Tulsi Gabbard. It would please those who moan the government is too partisan, it would remove
the only real non-ideologue from the Democratic slate, and leave them with doddering Uncle
Joe and a bunch of no-ideas bobbleheads. Few would dare question her lack of foreign-policy
experience, given her actual experience of being at the sharp end of it with the military.
The American people claim to be sick of war – although not sick enough of it to do any
real protesting against it – and Gabbard is anti-war. She's easy on the eyes, but if
Trump tried his grab-'er-by-the-pussy move, he would find himself only needing one glove this
winter; her obvious toughness would appeal to feminists. I think she'd take it if asked,
because although she despises Trump and his government, she would not be able to resist the
opportunity to shape America's foreign policy. She would eat news outlets who tried to
portray her as an apologist for terror or Putin or whatever for lunch.
Well, she was not on the short list of names I saw for potential Bolton replacements. I don't
see her making president, though, her support base is just not big enough. But if the
Democrats put all their eggs in the Burnout Joe basket, he will in all probability lose to
Trump. Trump's support has eroded, but not so far that very many people want to see Joe Biden
running the country.
David Warner Mathisen definitely know what he is talking about due to his long military career... Freefall speed
is documented and is an embarrassment to the official story, because freefall is impossible for a naturally
collapsing building.
Now we need to dig into the role of Larry Silverstein in the
Building 7 collapse.
Notable quotes:
"... Below is a video showing several film sequences taken from different locations and documenting multiple angles of World Trade Center Building 7 collapsing at freefall speed eighteen years ago on September 11, 2001. ..."
"... The four words "Building Seven Freefall Speed" provide all the evidence needed to conclude that the so-called "official narrative" promoted by the mainstream media for the past eighteen years is a lie, as is the fraudulent 9/11 Commission Report of 2004. ..."
"... Earlier this month, a team of engineers at the University of Alaska published their draft findings from a five-year investigation into the collapse of Building 7 ..."
"... This damning report by a team of university engineers has received no attention from the mainstream media outlets which continue to promote the bankrupt "official" narrative of the events of September 11, 2001. ..."
"... its rate of collapse can be measured and found to be indistinguishable from freefall speed, as physics teacher David Chandler explains in an interview here (and as he eventually forced NIST to admit), beginning at around 0:43:00 in the interview. ..."
"... the collapse of the 47-story steel-beam building World Trade Center 7 into its own footprint at freefall speed is all the evidence needed to reveal extensive and deliberate premeditated criminal activity by powerful forces that had the ability to prepare pre-positioned demolition charges in that building ..."
"... Indeed, the evidence is overwhelming, to the point that no one can any longer be excused for accepting the official story. Certainly during the first few days and weeks after the attacks, or even during the first few years, men and women could be excused for accepting the official story (particularly given the level to which the mainstream media controls opinion in the united states). ..."
"... Additionally, I would also recommend the interviews which are archived at the website of Visibility 9-11 , which includes valuable interviews with Kevin Ryan but also numerous important interviews with former military officers who explain that the failure of the military to scramble fighters to intercept the hijacked airplanes, and the failure of air defense weapons to stop a jet from hitting the Pentagon (if indeed a jet did hit the Pentagon), are also completely inexplicable to anyone who knows anything at all about military operations, unless the official story is completely false and something else was going on that day. ..."
"... In addition to these interviews and the Dig Within blog of Kevin Ryan, I would also strongly recommend everybody read the article by Dr. Gary G. Kohls entitled " Why Do Good People Become Silent About the Documented Facts that Disprove the Official 9/11 Narrative? " which was published on Global Research a few days ago, on September 6, 2019. ..."
"... on some level, we already know we have been bamboozled, even if our conscious mind refuses to accept what we already know. ..."
"... Previous posts have compared this tendency of the egoic mind to the blissfully ignorant character of Michael Scott in the television series The Office (US version): see here for example, and also here . ..."
"... The imposition of a vast surveillance mechanism upon the people of this country (and of other countries) based on the fraudulent pretext of "preventing terrorism" (and the lying narrative that has been perpetuated with the full complicity of the mainstream media for the past eighteen years) is in complete violation of the human rights which are enumerated in the Bill of Rights and which declare: ..."
"... David Warner Mathisen graduated from the US Military Academy at West Point and became an Infantry officer in the 82nd Airborne Division and the 4th Infantry Division. He is a graduate of the US Army's Ranger School and the 82nd Airborne Division's Jumpmaster Course, among many other awards and decorations. He was later selected to become an instructor in the Department of English Literature and Philosophy at West Point and has a Masters degree from Texas A&M University. ..."
Below is a video showing several film sequences
taken from different locations and documenting multiple angles of World Trade Center Building 7 collapsing at freefall speed eighteen
years ago on September 11, 2001.
The four words "Building Seven Freefall Speed" provide all the evidence needed to conclude that the so-called "official narrative"
promoted by the mainstream media for the past eighteen years is a lie, as is the fraudulent 9/11 Commission Report of 2004.
Earlier this month, a team of engineers at the University of Alaska
published their draft findings from a five-year investigation into the collapse of Building 7, which was not hit by any airplane
on September 11, 2001, and concluded that fires could not possibly have caused the collapse of that 47-story steel-frame building
-- rather, the collapse seen could have only been caused by the near-simultaneous failure of every support column (43 in number).
This damning report by a team of university engineers has received no attention from the mainstream media outlets which continue
to promote the bankrupt "official" narrative of the events of September 11, 2001.
Various individuals at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) tried to argue that the collapse of Building
7 was slower than freefall speed, but its rate of collapse can be measured and found to be indistinguishable from freefall speed,
as physics teacher David Chandler explains in an
interview
here (and as he eventually forced NIST to admit), beginning at around 0:43:00 in the interview.
Although the collapse of the 47-story steel-beam building World Trade Center 7 into its own footprint at freefall speed is all
the evidence needed to reveal extensive and deliberate premeditated criminal activity by powerful forces that had the ability to
prepare pre-positioned demolition charges in that building prior to the flight of the aircraft into the Twin Towers of the World
Trade Center (Buildings One and Two), as well as the power to cover up the evidence of this criminal activity and to deflect questioning
by government agencies and suppress the story in the mainstream news, the collapse of Building 7 is by no means the only evidence
which points to the same conclusion.
Indeed, the evidence is overwhelming, to the point that no one can any longer be excused for accepting the official story. Certainly
during the first few days and weeks after the attacks, or even during the first few years, men and women could be excused for accepting
the official story (particularly given the level to which the mainstream media controls opinion in the united states).
However, eighteen years later there is simply no excuse anymore -- except for the fact that the ramifications of the admission
that the official story is a flagrant fraud and a lie are so distressing that many people cannot actually bring themselves to consciously
admit what they in fact already know subconsciously.
For additional evidence, I strongly recommend the work of the indefatigable Kevin Robert Ryan , whose blog at Dig Within should be required reading for every man and woman in the united
states -- as well as those in the rest of the world, since the ramifications of the murders of innocent men, women and children on
September 11, 2001 have led to the murders of literally millions of other innocent men, women and children around the world since
that day, and the consequences of the failure to absorb the truth of what actually took place, and the consequences of the
failure to address the lies that are built upon the fraudulent explanation of what took place on September 11, continue to
negatively impact men and women everywhere on our planet.
Additionally, I would also recommend the interviews which are archived at the website of Visibility 9-11 , which includes valuable interviews with Kevin Ryan
but also numerous important interviews with former military officers who explain that the failure of the military to scramble fighters
to intercept the hijacked airplanes, and the failure of air defense weapons to stop a jet from hitting the Pentagon (if indeed a
jet did hit the Pentagon), are also completely inexplicable to anyone who knows anything at all about military operations, unless
the official story is completely false and something else was going on that day.
I would also strongly recommend listening very carefully to the series of five interviews with Kevin Ryan on Guns and Butter with Bonnie Faulkner, which can be found in the
Guns and Butterpodcast archive here . These interviews,
from 2013, are numbered 287, 288, 289, 290, and 291 in the archive.
I would in fact recommend listening to nearly every interview in that archive of Bonnie Faulkner's show, even though I do not
of course agree with every single guest nor with every single view expressed in every single interview. Indeed, if you carefully
read Kevin Ryan's blog which was linked above, you will find a
blog post by Kevin Ryan dated June 24, 2018 in which he
explicitly names James Fetzer along with Judy Woods as likely disinformation agents working to discredit and divert the efforts of
9/11 researchers. James Fetzer appears on Guns and Butter several times in the archived interview page linked above.
That article contains a number of stunning quotations about the ongoing failure to address the now-obvious lies we are being told
about the attacks of September 11. One of these quotations, by astronomer Carl Sagan (1934 – 1996), is particularly noteworthy --
even though I certainly do not agree with everything Carl Sagan ever said or wrote. Regarding our propensity to refuse to acknowledge
what we already know deep down to be true, Carl Sagan said:
One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle.
We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It's simply too painful to acknowledge, even
to ourselves, that we've been taken.
This quotation is from Sagan's 1995 text, The Demon-Haunted World (with which I have points of disagreement, but which
is extremely valuable for that quotation alone, and which I might suggest turning around on some of the points that Sagan was arguing
as well, as a cautionary warning to those who have accepted too wholeheartedly some of Sagan's teachings and opinions).
This quotation shows that on some level, we already know we have been bamboozled, even if our conscious mind refuses to accept
what we already know. This internal division is actually addressed in the world's ancient myths, which consistently illustrate that
our egoic mind often refuses to acknowledge the higher wisdom we have available to us through the reality of our authentic self,
sometimes called our Higher Self. Previous posts have compared this tendency of the egoic mind to the blissfully ignorant character
of Michael Scott in the television series The Office (US version): see
here for example,
and also here .
The important author Peter Kingsley has noted that in ancient myth, the role of the prophet was to bring awareness and acknowledgement
of that which the egoic mind refuses to see -- which is consistent with the observation that it is through our authentic self (which
already knows) that we have access to the realm of the gods. In the Iliad, for example, Dr. Kingsley notes that Apollo sends disaster
upon the Achaean forces until the prophet Calchas reveals the source of the god's anger: Agamemnon's refusal to free the young woman
Chryseis, whom Agamemnon has seized in the course of the fighting during the Trojan War, and who is the daughter of a priest of Apollo.
Until Agamemnon atones for this insult to the god, Apollo will continue to visit destruction upon those following Agamemnon.
Until we acknowledge and correct what our Higher Self already knows to be the problem, we ourselves will be out of step with the
divine realm.
If we look the other way at the murder of thousands of innocent men, women and children on September 11, 2001, and deliberately
refuse to see the truth that we already know deep down in our subconscious, then we will face the displeasure of the Invisible Realm.
Just as we are shown in the ancient myths, the truth must be acknowledged and admitted, and then the wrong that has been done must
be corrected.
In the case of the mass murder perpetrated on September 11, eighteen years ago, that admission requires us to face the fact that
the "terrorists" who were blamed for that attack were not the actual terrorists that we need to be focusing on.
Please note that I am very careful not to say that "the government" is the source of the problem: I would argue that the government
is the lawful expression of the will of the people and that the government, rightly understood, is exactly what these criminal perpetrators
actually fear the most, if the people ever become aware of what is going on. The government, which is established by the Constitution,
forbids the perpetration of murder upon innocent men, women and children in order to initiate wars of aggression against countries
that never invaded or attacked us (under the false pretense that they did so). Those who do so are actually opposed to our government
under the Constitution and can be dealt with within the framework of the law as established by the Constitution, which establishes
a very clear penalty for treason.
When the people acknowledge and admit the complete bankruptcy of the lie we have been told about the attacks of September 11,
the correction of that lie will involve demanding the immediate repeal and dismantling of the so-called "USA PATRIOT Act" which was
enacted in the weeks immediately following September 11, 2001 and which clearly violates the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Additionally, the correction of that lie will involve demanding the immediate cessation of the military operations which were
initiated based upon the fraudulent narrative of the attacks of that day, and which have led to invasion and overthrow of the nations
that were falsely blamed as being the perpetrators of those attacks and the seizure of their natural resources.
The imposition of a vast surveillance mechanism upon the people of this country (and of other countries) based on the fraudulent
pretext of "preventing terrorism" (and the lying narrative that has been perpetuated with the full complicity of the mainstream media
for the past eighteen years) is in complete violation of the human rights which are enumerated in the Bill of Rights and which declare:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing
the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
That human right has been grievously trampled upon under the false description of what actually took place during the September
11 attacks. Numerous technology companies have been allowed and even encouraged (and paid, with public moneys) to create technologies
which flagrantly and shamelessly violate "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" and
which track their every move and even enable secret eavesdropping upon their conversation and the secret capture of video within
their homes and private settings, without any probable cause whatsoever.
When we admit and acknowledge that we have been lied to about the events of September 11, which has been falsely used as a supposed
justification for the violation of these human rights (with complete disregard for the supreme law of the land as established in
the Constitution), then we will also demand the immediate cessation of any such intrusion upon the right of the people to "be secure
in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" -- including the cessation of any business models which involve spying on men and
women.
Companies which cannot find a business model that does not violate the Bill of Rights should lose their corporate charter and
the privilege of limited liability, which are extended to them by the people (through the government of the people, by the people
and for the people) only upon the condition that their behavior as corporations do not violate the inherent rights of men and women
as acknowledged in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
It is well beyond the time when we must acknowledge and admit that we have been lied to about the events of September 11, 2001
-- and that we continue to be lied to about the events of that awful day. September 11, 2001 is in fact only one such event in a
long history which stretches back prior to 2001, to other events which should have awakened the people to the presence of a very
powerful and very dangerous criminal cabal acting in direct contravention to the Constitution long before we ever got to 2001 --
but the events of September 11 are so blatant, so violent, and so full of evidence which contradicts the fraudulent narrative that
they actually cannot be believed by anyone who spends even the slightest amount of time looking at that evidence.
Indeed, we already know deep down that we have been bamboozled by the lie of the so-called "official narrative" of September 11.
But until we admit to ourselves and acknowledge to others that we've ignored the truth that we already know, then the bamboozle
still has us .
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog
site, internet forums. etc.
David Warner Mathisen graduated from the US Military Academy at West Point and became an Infantry officer in the 82nd Airborne
Division and the 4th Infantry Division. He is a graduate of the US Army's Ranger School and the 82nd Airborne Division's Jumpmaster
Course, among many other awards and decorations. He was later selected to become an instructor in the Department of English Literature
and Philosophy at West Point and has a Masters degree from Texas A&M University.
David Warner Mathisen graduated from the US Military Academy at West Point and became an Infantry officer in the 82nd Airborne
Division and the 4th Infantry Division. He is a graduate of the US Army's Ranger School and the 82nd Airborne Division's Jumpmaster
Course, among many other awards and decorations. He was later selected to become an instructor in the Department of English Literature
and Philosophy at West Point and has a Masters degree from Texas A&M University.
If bombing is/was punishment for use chemical weapons , US would have to keep bombing itself
to this day , as punishments for what they did to Vietnam ..And elsewhere.
After the ideology is discredited, foreign policy became less coherent and more aggressive
then nessesry. That speeds the demise of the empire. Whom the gods would destroy they first make
mad
@A123
Consider that DJT himself, you'd think, would dump Bolton, Pompeo, Pence, Berkowitz, et al if
he could inasmuch as, if he'd hired them to put up a skyscraper and their performance was
like their work in foreign policy, they'd be gone. From his work in the real world building
complex stuff he'd see right off that what marks government experts from the "best schools"
isn't their expertise, but their preternaturally lousy judgment. They look and sound like
goofballs because that's what they are, not because their geniuses. Altho Boot's apparently
out of favor, consider that Israel's costumed automatons in the Pentagon allowed themselves
to be swayed by this slobberlipped moron with drool coming out of the side of his mouth, and
he's supposedly one of the neocons' finest minds.
Since the president's performance is so utterly out of character and against America's
overseas economic interests, it follows he's being handled, and if he's being handled, it can
only be by Israel. The implication is that a parasite, which also owns the public forum in
America and through its ownership of the msm the formation of men's minds, is directing our
foreign policy. It's analogous to the way certain insect parasites like Ampulex sp take
command of their much larger prey's antenna and in so doing can direct the prey to do its
bidding by processing the prey's contact with the external world.
In his Logic of Failure Dietrich Doerner cites his research that supposed experts have no
more judgment or ability to respond to unfamiliar feedback loops in scenarios of increasing
complexity than students do. Unfolding events of increasing complexity become increasingly
opaque to these block heads in the State Dept and the president's inner circle because they
continue to follow a fairytale situational model of the ME constructed for them by Israeli
intelligence and neocon "experts."
Incredibly, they assume it correctly models outcomes despite a known 100% failure rate
that'll be compounded a hundredfold if another "call walk" breaks out with a military
powerhouse like Iran. Overall I can't believe they can be that stupid, and if they're not
that stupid, it follows they are intentionally wasting and destroying both the US economy and
its military to establish Eretz Israel as the new world empire. After that the president's
good friend Netanyahu has supposedly promised he'll toss the US on the ash heap of
history.
It's the Theater of the Absurd . I'm waiting for Mr. Pompeo to come out and tell us
that our new, duly elected president is Juan Guaidó. Or maybe Juan Valdez.
The American military is advanced over both Russia and China in one sense - they have access
to endless taxpayers' dollars to fund their programs, many of which are complete failures.
Putin can offer Trump hyper-sonic missiles knowing he cannot accept. To accept
these would display the USA's technical military inferiority for all to see. The msm ,
Hollywood, etc. all sing from the same song-sheet. "USA is great", ignore all the wars they
have lost, ignore the astronomical military financial expenditure (declared and hidden).
Just
like Reagan's star-wars program public perception is everything
If bombing is/was punishment for use chemical weapons , US would have to keep bombing itself
to this day , as punishments for what they did to Vietnam ..And elsewhere.
The analogy with the USSR really holds to an amazing degree. That level of censorship (aka political correctness") are
somewhat similar. Butt he main tool in the USSR was repression (often physical repression), and in the neoliberal USA it is
ostracism and exclusion. The USA is clearly became more neo-theocratic society after crisis of 2008, which destroyed the
ideology of neoliberalism ( much like WWI destroyed ideology of Bolshvism ) where symbols of faith (especially related to
neoliberalism and "political correctness") can't be challenged. but like in the USSR iff the person does not go
into politics the government leave it alone and the society is free much freer that it was in the USSR (as well as much
richer; both in Russia and the USSR the majority of population were poor often church rat poor )
People on UNZ often practice anti-neoliberalism under mask of anti-Semitism ;-). This reminds me the atmosphere of Weimar
Germany where Jews were made guilty of crimes by financial oligarchy (in which, true, Jews were overrepresented; the same is
true about the current US financial oligarchy). But the problem is finanfial oligarchy, not Jews as a nation. Blaming Jews for the
ills committed by Financial oligarchy is a classic anti-Semitism.
Another interesting question raised by commenters is "the cost of civilization". It is true that the current civilization was
created mostly by Europeans and first on all ancient Greece and Rome. But please note that their achievements were based on many
fundamental achievements made by China (silk, china, black power, to name a few), India (chess) and Arabic world (Arabic numbers,
Damask steel, astronomy achievements, etc.)
Notable quotes:
"... What the West used to accuse the Soviet Union of, is now actually clearly detectable in the United States and the United Kingdom themselves: surveillance is at every step, these days; in New York, London, Sydney, and even in the countryside. Every move a person makes, every purchase, every computer click, is registered; somewhere, somehow. And this monitoring is, mostly, not even illegal. ..."
"... Speech is controlled by political correctness. Someone behind the scenes decides what is acceptable and what is not, what is desirable or not, and even what is permissible. You make one 'mistake' and you are out; from the teaching positions at the universities, or from the media outlets. ..."
"... In such conditions, humor cannot thrive, and satire dies. It is not unlike religious fundamentalism: you get destroyed if you 'offend'. In such circumstances, writers cannot write ground-breaking novels, because true novels offend by definition, and always push the boundaries. As a result, almost nobody reads novels, anymore. ..."
"... Only toothless, 'controlled humor' is permitted. No punches can be administered intuitively. Everything has to be calculated in advance. No 'outrageous' political fiction can pass the 'invisible censorship' in the West (and so, novels as a form have almost died). ..."
"... God forbid, you dare to criticize the pro-Western elites who are ruining their countries on behalf of London and Washington, in the Gulf, Southeast Asia or Africa – that would be 'patronizing' and 'racist'. A great arrangement for the Empire and its servants, isn't it? ..."
"... you would be made to sense it: 'you are being protected from those horrible Third World monsters, madmen, perverts.' And of course, from Putin, from the Chinese Communists, from the butcher Maduro, from Assad, or from the Iranian Shi'a fanatics. The regime is fighting for you, it cares for you, it is protecting you. ..."
"... But at least, you know that your 'wise leaders' in the White House, Congress, Pentagon and security agencies, are working day and night, protecting you from countless conspiracies, from vicious attacks from abroad, and from those evil Chinese and Russians, who are busy building progressive and egalitarian societies. Lucky you! ..."
"... But suddenly. What happened, suddenly? Because something really happened. The Empire got tired of plundering the non-Western parts of the world, exclusively. Well-conditioned, brainwashed and scared, the Western public began to get treated with the same spite, as people in the plundered and miserable parts of the world. Well, not yet, not exactly. There are still some essential differences, but the trend is definitely there. The Western public cannot do too much to protect itself, really. The regime knows everything about everybody: it spies on every citizen: where he or she walks, what he or she eats, drives, flies, watches, consumes, reads. There are no secrets, anymore. ..."
"... Arriving from China, from Russia or Cuba, the first thing that strikes me is how disciplined, obedient and scared, the Europeans and North Americans really are. They subconsciously know that they are being controlled and cannot do anything about it. ..."
"... When trains get delayed or cancelled, they sheepishly murmur half-audible curses. Their medical benefits get reduced; they accept, or quietly commit suicide. Their public infrastructure crumbles; they say nothing, remembering the 'good old days'. ..."
"... The West has fought the so-called "third world" for many, long decades; oppressing it, tormenting it, looting it, violating its people. It prevented them from choosing their own governments. Now it has gone overboard: it is attempting to control and to oppress the entire world, including its own citizens. ..."
"... The US kleptocracy is being dismantled, not by the subject population but by the outside world. The kleptocracy responds by controlling what it can – its proles. The only way Americans can contribute to the end of their regime is with solidarity. Ignore your fake democracy and go over the government's head to the outside world. ..."
"... The Third Worlders obviously haven't heard the news as they're still crowding to get into the West. ..."
"... His hypocrisy in making civilization's main contributors oppressors and those who've contributed least but benefitted anyway look "oppressed" indicates this, no? ..."
"... I agree with much of the article. However, considering Johannesburg a place that is improving is a clear mistake. Maybe his ideology is confusing his thinking? In any case, White South Africa was a much better place than the current version. As is usual, almost all the murders there are black-on-black ..."
"... Vltchek's bias is that he thinks in nations, instead of corporations. ..."
"... . Vltchek does not see this, even though John Perkins 'Economic hitmen' are known even in the mainstream https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37Dvt2EqXF4 ..."
"... From what I can tell, the only time the living standard was possibly better in the UK than it is today was a brief period in the earlier 21st century before the financial crisis in 2008 and following recession, and a lot of the ridiculous political 'correctness' is about contrived, and what seems to me, unnecessary nonsense like fake 'feminism' and disingenuous 'outrage' ..."
"... And Russia and China also used to be empires, which is why they have such a large amount of territory, but writers like this would have us not think about that ..."
"... Good point the " securistan " of airports , it is very humiliating for the customers , and I think that it doesn't contributes anything to security , it is just to exert control on normal people , to degrade normal people . ..."
"... there has been a lot of overthrowing of leaders and covert action taken by the C.I.A and American governments in the 20th century and 21st century in south and central America, which they either lied to, or didn't inform the public about, and then seem to think they can later turn around and project blame on to the ordinary public for actions taken by the C.I.A or previous governments that they deliberately lied to the public about ..."
"... Speech is controlled by political correctness. Someone behind the scenes decides what is acceptable and what is not, what is desirable or not, and even what is permissible. You make one 'mistake' and you are out; from the teaching positions at the universities, or from the media outlets. ..."
"... And what is permissible is becoming truly weird. These are comments on an article over at http://www.thecollegefix.com "Poll: 73 percent of Republican students have withheld political views in class for fear their grades would suffer". ..."
"... And Clinton, Bush or Blair weren't nasty? How about Abu Ghraib prison for a taste of US rule and administration. ..."
"... Considering the introductory photo, data suggests that homelessness in US has been declining over the past 10-15 years. ..."
"... It is unrestrained, no holds barred, capitalism that has brought us to this parlous state . ..."
"... "Why are the people of London, Paris, Long Angeles looking so concerned, so depressed? " Because they are being replaced ? ..."
"... "It is far from clear whether 'good intentions plus stupidity' or 'evil intentions plus intelligence' have wrought more harm in the world." Nothing has inflicted more damage to the people of this planet than Leftism, which we should never forget mass murdered over 60 million Russians for the unpardonable sin of being white Christians with a country of their own. ..."
"... As Pelosi said: If this capitol (US) crumbles, the one thing that would remain is our commitment to aid/ our cooperation with Israel. ..."
"... I think Russel Means said it best: "Welcome to the American Reservation Prison Camp". https://www.youtube.com/embed/aN9ssrVTkk8?feature=oembed ..."
"... I left America in 1999 and returned only once. The US has gone way downhill. The living standard of the nineties would make the living standard of today look abysmal. If someone had told me (I was born in 1974) in the nineties that anyone would have to live at home past the age of 20 or the water of Flint would be poisoned or that sober white people-entire white families-would be homeless I would scoff at such an idea. ..."
"... ...Their obscene theft and fraud via their control of the Financial System have impoverished Americans greatly, particularly the working class. Their dominance of Corporate Boards, enabled by their ill gotten wealth, enables Corporate Upper Management to earn 100's of times more than a worker, instead of 10's times the ratio of the era of real economic growth. Their takeover of the legal system (Lawyers and judges) allows them to suck wealth from the people on a monumental scale. ..."
"... Their control of Media and Hollywood allows brainwashing and false narratives on a stupendous scale. ..."
"... This article is typically one-sided: the upper-middle and upper classes in the USA are doing very, very well, with booming wealth and incomes, and the areas where they live have the best facilities and infrastructure. Their economic situation is very different from that of most of the population. ..."
"... Those upper and upper-middle classes have simple decided to let the USA middle and working classes sink. The USA middle and working classes have been made redundant by offshoring all the industries infected with worker unions or replacing their workers with illegal immigrants; mexican servants and chinese workers never disobey, never strike. ..."
"... The model chosen by the USA elites is the brasilian/"Elysium" one: favelas for the many, splendid gated communities for the few. That model is not new: it is the 19th century Dickensian London model. ..."
Many have already noticed: The U.S. really, really doesn't feel like the world leader, or even as a 'first world country'. Of
course, I write that sarcastically, as I detest expressions like 'first world', and the 'third world'. But readers know what I mean.
Bridges, subways, inner cities, everything is crumbling, falling apart. When I used to live in New York City, more than two decades
ago, returning from Japan was shocking: the US felt like a poor, deprived country, full of problems, misery, of confused and depressed
people, homeless individuals; in short – desperados. Now, I feel the same when I land in the US after spending some time in China.
And it gets much worse. What the West used to accuse the Soviet Union of, is now actually clearly detectable in the United
States and the United Kingdom themselves: surveillance is at every step, these days; in New York, London, Sydney, and even in the
countryside. Every move a person makes, every purchase, every computer click, is registered; somewhere, somehow. And this monitoring
is, mostly, not even illegal.
Speech is controlled by political correctness. Someone behind the scenes decides what is acceptable and what is not, what
is desirable or not, and even what is permissible. You make one 'mistake' and you are out; from the teaching positions at the universities,
or from the media outlets.
In such conditions, humor cannot thrive, and satire dies. It is not unlike religious fundamentalism: you get destroyed if
you 'offend'. In such circumstances, writers cannot write ground-breaking novels, because true novels offend by definition, and always
push the boundaries. As a result, almost nobody reads novels, anymore.
Only toothless, 'controlled humor' is permitted. No punches can be administered intuitively. Everything has to be calculated
in advance. No 'outrageous' political fiction can pass the 'invisible censorship' in the West (and so, novels as a form have almost
died). Those who read in Russian or Chinese languages know perfectly well, that the fiction in Russia and China, is much more
provocative and avant-garde .
In the West, poetry has died, too. And so has philosophy, which has been reduced to a boring, stale and indigestible academic
discipline.
While Hollywood and the mass media keep producing, relentlessly, all sorts of highly insulting and stereotypical racist junk (mainly
against the Chinese, Russians, Arabs, Latinos and others), great writers and filmmakers who want to ridicule the Western regime and
its structure, have already been silenced. You can only humiliate non-Westerners in a way that is approved (again: somewhere, somehow),
but God forbid, you dare to criticize the pro-Western elites who are ruining their countries on behalf of London and Washington,
in the Gulf, Southeast Asia or Africa – that would be 'patronizing' and 'racist'. A great arrangement for the Empire and its servants,
isn't it?
We all know what has happened to Julian Assange, and to Edward Snowden. In the West, people are disappearing, getting arrested,
censored. Millions are losing jobs: in the media, publishing houses, and in the film studios. The Cold War era appears to be relatively
'tolerant', compared to what is taking place now.
Social media constantly represses 'uncomfortable' individuals, 'unacceptable' media outlets, and too 'unorthodox' thoughts.
Travel has become a boot camp. This is where they break you. Move through the Western airports and you will encounter the vulgar,
insulting ' securistan '. Now, you are not just expected to pull down your pants if ordered, or take off your shoes, or throw away
all your bottles containing liquids: you are expected to smile, to grin brightly, like an idiot. You are supposed to show how eager,
how cooperative you are: to answer loudly, looking straight into the eyes of your tormentors. If you get humiliated, still, be polite.
If you want to fly, show that you are enjoying this stupid and useless humiliation, administered for one and only reason: to break
you, to make you pathetic and submissive. To teach you where you really belong. Or else. Or else! We all know what will happen if
you refuse to 'cooperate'.
Now, 'they' will use double-speak to let you know that all this is for your own good. It will not be pronounced, but you would
be made to sense it: 'you are being protected from those horrible Third World monsters, madmen, perverts.' And of course, from Putin,
from the Chinese Communists, from the butcher Maduro, from Assad, or from the Iranian Shi'a fanatics. The regime is fighting for
you, it cares for you, it is protecting you.
Sure, if you live in the UK or the US, the chances are that you are deep in debt, depressed and with no prospects for the future.
Maybe your children are hungry, maybe, in the US, you cannot afford the medical care. Most likely, you cannot afford housing in your
own city. Perhaps you are forced to have two or three jobs.
But at least, you know that your 'wise leaders' in the White House, Congress, Pentagon and security agencies, are working
day and night, protecting you from countless conspiracies, from vicious attacks from abroad, and from those evil Chinese and Russians,
who are busy building progressive and egalitarian societies. Lucky you!
Except: something does not add up here. For years and decades, you were told how free you were. And how oppressed, unfree, those
against whom you are being protected, are. You were told how rich you are, and how miserable "the others" were.
To stop those deprived and deranged hordes, some serious measures had to be applied. A right-wing death-squad in some Central
American or Southeast Asian country had to be trained in US military camps; a thoroughly absolutist and corrupt monarch had to be
supported and pampered; a military fascist coup had to be arranged. Millions raped, tens of thousands of corpses. Not pretty at all,
but you know necessary. For your own good, North American or European citizens; for your own good . Even for the good of the country
that we designated for our 'liberation'. Few dissidents in the West have been protesting, for decades. No one has been paying much
attention to them. Most of them became 'unemployable', and were silenced through misery and the inability to pay their basic bills.
But suddenly. What happened, suddenly? Because something really happened. The Empire got tired of plundering the non-Western
parts of the world, exclusively. Well-conditioned, brainwashed and scared, the Western public began to get treated with the same
spite, as people in the plundered and miserable parts of the world. Well, not yet, not exactly. There are still some essential differences,
but the trend is definitely there. The Western public cannot do too much to protect itself, really. The regime knows everything about
everybody: it spies on every citizen: where he or she walks, what he or she eats, drives, flies, watches, consumes, reads. There
are no secrets, anymore.
You are an atheist? No need to 'confess'. You are confessing every minute, with each and every computer click, by pressing the
remote control button, or by shopping on Amazon.
Is Big Brother watching? Oh no; now there is much more detailed surveillance. Big Brother is watching, recording and analyzing.
General Pinochet of Chile used to brag that without his knowledge, no leaf could ever move. The old, fascist scumbag was bragging;
exaggerating. On the other hand, Western rulers say nothing, but they clearly know what they are doing. Without their knowledge,
nothing moves and nobody moves.
Arriving from China, from Russia or Cuba, the first thing that strikes me is how disciplined, obedient and scared, the Europeans
and North Americans really are. They subconsciously know that they are being controlled and cannot do anything about it.
When trains get delayed or cancelled, they sheepishly murmur half-audible curses. Their medical benefits get reduced; they
accept, or quietly commit suicide. Their public infrastructure crumbles; they say nothing, remembering the 'good old days'.
Why is it that I feel hope, I laugh with the people, in Mexico City, Johannesburg or Beijing? Why is there so much warmth in the
geographically cold cities of Vladivostok or Petropavlovsk in Kamchatka? Why are the people of London, Paris, Long Angeles looking
so concerned, so depressed?
Some historically poor countries are on the rise. And the people there show appreciation for every tiny improvement. Nothing is
more beautiful than optimism.
The West has fought the so-called "third world" for many, long decades; oppressing it, tormenting it, looting it, violating
its people. It prevented them from choosing their own governments. Now it has gone overboard: it is attempting to control and to
oppress the entire world, including its own citizens.
As various countries all over the world are getting back onto their feet, resisting pressure from Washington, London, Paris and
Berlin, people in the West are increasingly getting treated by their governments with the spite that used to be reserved exclusively
for the "under-developed nations" (yes, another disgusting expression).
Clearly, the West has "learnt from itself".
While countries like Russia, China, Vietnam, Mexico, Iran and others are surging forward, many previously rich colonialist and
neo-colonialist empires are now beginning to resemble the "Third World".
These days, it is very sad being a writer in New York City or in London. Just as it is frightening to be poor. Or being different.
All over the world, the roles are being reversed.
[First published by NEO – New Eastern Outlook – magazine of the Russian Academy of Sciences]
Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens
of countries. Four of his latest books are
Related Pieces by Author
All it means is that nothing of importance will happen domestically. The US kleptocracy is being dismantled, not by the subject
population but by the outside world. The kleptocracy responds by controlling what it can – its proles. The only way Americans
can contribute to the end of their regime is with solidarity. Ignore your fake democracy and go over the government's head to
the outside world.
Mr Vitchek , as usual you are spot on. I enjoy your work and eagerly look forward to see your your ever honest and perspicacious
insight. Keep up the great work.
Even if the US had done NOTHING to exploit Latin America, I would think most of Latin America would be piss poor. Granted, Latin
America was exploited by Spanish whites, but it was hardly a paradise when ruled by Aztec human sacrificers.
And what would Africa be today if white man had NEVER set foot there? It'd be a land of ugabuga savages. At least with western
influences, the black savages have cell phones and plenty of food and medicine to explode their population.
@Priss Factor We will all be 'ugabuga' savages when those wonderful weapons of the white man i.e. nuclear weapons are used.
Yet, somehow, no one cares. But we are reminded how great someone's tribe is . In the meantime, nuclear weapons are in the water,
on the the land, in space, will be coming to every school yard and block . No problem. Trump and Netannazi threatening to nuke
adversaries. No problem. Anyone heard of Hiroshima and Nagasaki before? No problem.
The race warriors will be happy to see blacks going "back" to Africa, Indians to India, Chinese to China Ok you get the picture.
But "whites' will stay in the Americas , right?
@Ole C G Olesen Apparently he wants to look proud, smug is the best he can do? His hypocrisy in making civilization's main
contributors oppressors and those who've contributed least but benefitted anyway look "oppressed" indicates this, no?
The West
has given too much and demanded too little in exchange – is now reaping the "rewards" – the hordes on its doorsteps and the world's
chief swindlers running the show. The gentile West has forgotten how to say no it has accepted so many lies. Forgot charity begins
at home and most of it belongs there.
@elcid GangstaRap replacing Beethoven, blacks and browns replacing whites. Once whites are out of the way the plug will be
pulled on handouts. Globalist population culling will begin in earnest. No more food wasted on useless eaters.
@F. Fondrement You are exactly right. But the Rocket Scientists on here, and their ilk, will never agree to solidarity with
anybody, even at the risk of their lives or livelihoods, because their insane prejudices come first.
@Exile You only see what you want to see. They simultaneously push both anti-PoC/ThirdWorld and pro-PoC/ThirdWorld messages.
Don't you get it? That's the point. Keep the lower classes squabbling amongst one another. Is this kind of rather obvious truth
over the head of your ilk or something. Because you shore do have a hard time understanding it.
This article seemed like it was going to touch upon something important, but then it went off the rails early and often. The mindless
repetition of trite anarchist catchphrases is both tiresome and disappointing at this stage of the game. The status quo needs
good criticism, but this isn't it. Of particularly noteworthy awfulness was this bit:
In such circumstances, writers cannot write ground-breaking novels, because true novels offend by definition, and always
push the boundaries.
Baloney. A true novel does not offend by definition. A true novel, like all true art, uplifts. It confirms the verities of
the eternal world when the vagaries of the sublunary world are starting to get you down and coarsen your thinking. The whole "art
as revolution" thing is pure modernist materialist horseshit, as was the rest of this essay.
@Ole C G Olesen And YOU ..ANDRE VITCHEK and People of Your HYPOCRITICAL CULTURAL MARXIST ( in reality Jewish subversive
) Calibre ..have been Major Contributors to that development ! .. Are You proud ?
Stop blaming it on the Commies. It is unrestrained, no holds barred, capitalism that has brought us to this parlous state,
and the money grubbers won't let up until they have sucked the last drop of blood from us.
Neither Malcolm X nor Charles Manson managed to get the blacks to storm Beverly Hills and give the residents there
slaughter. The blacks did take Detroit but not with a fight, more like through white flight, and what good did that do them? The
whites are no better; the extremes of the more woke ones are fighting it out on the streets against each other. There doesn't
appear to be any struggle on the horizon in the US requiring any solidarity, most are just trying to survive and into whatever
for themselves.
I remember reading some left wing US website a while back that announced a particular date as the start of a nationwide revolution
and called up people to turn up in each city at a specific time and place to the start mass protests and the revolution. The appeal
was bombastic, serious, well worded, and convincing, well perhaps to the more naive. I followed the news and nothing happened.
Absolutely nothing. I doubt anybody turned up and if they did it couldn't have been more than a handful. Really funny. Sort of
like Andre here calling for international revolution but who's following, or even reading? Not many, and definitely not enough
to make it happen.
Great. Another anti-white, blame-the-victim, "you are destroying yourself" article. Fortunately, these "Why is the West Suiciding?"
articles are less effective than before, now that we realize who the leaders of global plunder are. We know who is erecting the
gay disco casino gulag -- and they aren't Western.
The West is still oppressing the third world. Pres. Obama called Ugandans "odious" for no good reason. Peter Tatchell sends his
agents to Jamaica to investigate car burnings. Robert Mugabe was excoriated for his "pigs and dogs" remark.
White nurses whine about "FGM", not just in their own countries but abroad as well. We're supposed to take in women who are
"refugees" from their traditional cultures. Photos of a Somali adulterer who was half-buried and stoned to death made the rounds
on the Internet, with nasty comments from Europe, North America, and Oceania.
That "people of color" might just look at these things differently never seems to occur to the white progressive.
Fiction is a lie that tells the truth. The author is right for the wrong reasons. A manuscript by a white male is considered garbage- unless he is sufficiently woke
or Jewish. (They seem to have a lot of publishing power). But a black transsexual from Chi-Town his crap manuscript will be acquired by HBO and he will be courted by the Ivy League.
Identity politics is the great threat to literature, as it is to everything else
Exhibit A-
Whining No Talent Punk Ass B*tch Ta- Nesi Coates.
Exhibit B- Jericho Brown- Of course he is married to a man. A "Poet" https://www.jerichobrown.com is the recipient of fellowships from the Guggenheim Foundation, the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study at Harvard, and
the National Endowment for the Arts, and he is the winner of the Whiting Writer's Award. Brown's first book, Please (New Issues
2008), won the American Book Award. His second book, The New Testament (Copper Canyon 2014), won the Anisfield-Wolf Book Award.
His third collection is The Tradition(Copper Canyon 2019). His poems have appeared in The Bennington Review, Buzzfeed, Fence,
jubilat, The New Republic, The New York Times, The New Yorker, The Paris Review, TIME magazine, and several volumes of The Best
American Poetry. He is an associate professor and the director of the Creative Writing Program at Emory University.
-just look at all his goodies- set for life. How he must laugh at how he has hustled the system
Then read his poems. It would be funny but its too alarming.
@Reg Cæsar Are you actually defending Robert Mugabe?
Which behavior- Zimbabwe's peak month of inflation when it hit 79.6 billion perce nt month-on-month or his billion of
dollars in hidey holes, stolen, while the masses ate corn cobs? May he rot with the worms.
I laugh with the people, in Mexico City, Johannesburg or Beijing
I agree with much of the article. However, considering Johannesburg a place that is improving is a clear mistake. Maybe his
ideology is confusing his thinking? In any case, White South Africa was a much better place than the current version. As is usual,
almost all the murders there are black-on-black
It will get worse until it gets better.
Until manufacturing is back in the US/the West, people will continue to suffer. Selling jobs, labors to foreigners i.e. outsourcing is selling your own country and is a losing strategy.
A general suggestion to Ron Unz would be to include captions for images such as the one at the top of this article. As for the substance of this article: the decline in American living standards isn't from oppressing the third world as much
as it is from importing the third world.
The decline in infrastructure is partly due to our highly litigious society, powered by a surfeit of lawyers, which dramatically
increases the cost and construction time for new infrastructure. It's also partly due to public sector unions, which consume so
much in resources that little is left to maintain infrastructure. When a Port Authority of NY and NJ patrolman is making
$400k for standing
on a bridge, there is less money available to renovate the bridge.
@Commentator Mike They would be the silly-billys who believe what they see on television.
They'll be coached by their handlers to game the system and still be better off than where they came from. At the expense of
the already beleaguered taxpayers, natch.
During Obama's farewell speech he caused chuckles all over when he described the US as "the envy of the world" but as long
as they can count on the Knights of Columbus, the Hebrew Immigration Society and however many more, it will continue.
But it's a sign of failure, not success, when non-oppressed foreigners help our plutocrats plunder the truly oppresseed, actual
American taxpayers with no voice and few options. Short of a solar fireball taking out this whole hemisphere, I see no solution.
Vltchek's bias is that he thinks in nations, instead of corporations. Sure, the west is bad, but that does not automatically imply
that the East is good. For example, That the West lost the war in Syria, is good for Assad, Putin, Xi maybe and others who exploit
the Iranian Gas fields in the Persian Gulf, or are happy that gas flows from Russia to the EU, instead of from Qatar to the EU.
But for the Syrian population it will hardly make a difference if the exploits are shared by Gazprom or Exxon. One can rejoice
that the bombing stopped in Syria. But the bombing was not meant for the Syrian people, it was meant for making it possible to
let some corporations interests prevail over other corporations, and the population was only useful to let one corporation win
over the other: either as cannon fodder, or (when they were lucky enough to flee to the EU) as cheap labor. Vltchek does not see
this, even though John Perkins 'Economic hitmen' are known even in the mainstream
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37Dvt2EqXF4
I agreed with most of this article, but 'the west' isn't a country. Which countries specifically is the writer talking about?
Also, from a lot of writers there is assumption and projection about what they think the situation is like in the U.K that
doesn't always seem to reflect reality.
E.g
"While countries like Russia, China, Vietnam, Mexico, Iran and others are surging forward, many previously rich colonialist
and neo-colonialist empires are now beginning to resemble the "Third World"".
From what I can tell, the only time the living standard was possibly better in the UK than it is today was a brief period
in the earlier 21st century before the financial crisis in 2008 and following recession, and a lot of the ridiculous political
'correctness' is about contrived, and what seems to me, unnecessary nonsense like fake 'feminism' and disingenuous 'outrage'
And Russia and China also used to be empires, which is why they have such a large amount of territory, but writers like this
would have us not think about that
@obwandiyag "They simultaneously push both anti-PoC/ThirdWorld and pro-PoC/ThirdWorld messages. Don't you get it? That's
the point. Keep the lower classes squabbling amongst one another"
True, they also seem to pursue whatever strategy suits their particular agenda at the particular time and expect people to
have memories like goldfish, this reminds me of what George Orwell wrote about in the book '1984'
@Willem This needs to be spoken out more.
There is an entirely cadre of West BAD, East GOOD posters here. But I think this narrative too will fall. China is moving up in the world, colonizing stuff, this will not be deniable anymore in the future.
True, suicide is an extremely effective option to stop the pain of a miserable existence. It has become an epidemic among white
males, especially in rural areas.
Unz.com is a sort of White Man's Ghost Dance as another iteration of native-born Americans gets shoved onto a reservation
too, to make way for the space GloboHomo needs. It's hard to take. Many think being dead is better off. We're all Injuns now.
Actually, they spew hatred against their government, not against their people, so that they can invite more non-white/non-asian
in, while destabilizing the enemy government so even more immigrate. It's a constant and consistent strategy.
Good point the " securistan " of airports , it is very humiliating for the customers , and I think that it
doesn't contributes
anything to security , it is just to exert control on normal people , to degrade normal people .
About 4 years ago I took a plane in Copenhague , the europeans we had to take out our belts , and answer to silly questions
, but before us was a group of arabs , all the women ( or whatever ) wore the burka just showing their eyes , arab men wore european
clothes , they were passed quickly , no questions , no searches . I was wondering it the women could have a bomb under the burka
, fortunately they took another plane .
Now I try yo avoid planes as much as possible .
The sun sets in the west , it looks like the sun is setting for the west , the Kairòs . History will tell what happened , too
many wars , taxes , freeky ideologies , toxic bureacracies , greed , arrogance , apostasy . ??
I do agree with you, but there has been a lot of overthrowing of leaders and covert action taken by the C.I.A
and American governments in the 20th century and 21st century in south and central America, which they either lied to, or didn't
inform the public about, and then seem to think they can later turn around and project blame on to the ordinary public for actions
taken by the C.I.A or previous governments that they deliberately lied to the public about
It seems that the government and mainstream media lie most of the time, except on smaller or more local issues.
They seem to be tripping themselves up more and more now though
Speech is controlled by political correctness. Someone behind the scenes decides what is acceptable and what is not, what
is desirable or not, and even what is permissible. You make one 'mistake' and you are out; from the teaching positions at the
universities, or from the media outlets.
And what is permissible is becoming truly weird. These are comments on an article over at
http://www.thecollegefix.com "Poll: 73 percent of Republican students
have withheld political views in class for fear their grades would suffer".
I'm ABD (all but dissertation) in Econometrics because my adviser was a Marxist nutcase from the London School of Economics.
I couldn't fight the communists forever not when they held all the cards.
Reply: Medina-Merino
I left my PhD program in Anthropology when on a "field trip" , my advisor and his idiotic tie-dyed moron of a wife (former
student of his) crawled into my tent on the first night of a 2 week research project in black leather bondage harnesses
and informed me it was time for me to join them in a "night of pure pleasure".
Fast forward I got up, got into my car, drove through the night back to campus, parked outside of the Dean's office, stormed
in with wide-blood-shot-eyes when he arrived in his 700-Series turbo-charged Special Edition BMW and told him I wanted to
file a complaint against Professor "Bondo" and when he (Dean Bozo) did not respond to my request in over a week, I withdrew
from my program (ABD also) before the "Drop Deadline" so I could get full refund of my hard-earned TENS OF THOUSANDS of
tuition dollars and used the money to secure an attorney (who I later learned was on-the-take for the University's own legal
counsel office of "Equity & Fairness") until I ran out of money and then left town to take a position in Scotland on a research
team studying Celtic migrations to the Northern Coast of the Iberian Peninsula, known for centuries unofficially as the
"Celtic Coast". I loved my work and worked with some amazing and HONEST and RESPECTFUL colleagues.
I learned a big lesson from this EFFIN nightmare be verrrrrrrrrrrrrrry careful of whose hands you find your career in there
are a lot of filthy, abusive, corrupt "faculty" and even more dishonest and disingenuous and despicable "administrators"
in the contemporary academy and many have brass name-plates on their doors and hold do-nothing-but-damage-to-the-lives-of
those who are often powerless against their callous and deliberate abuses.
Even today, on my sleepless nights I can still hear Mr. Chips rustling in his grave
I went on to hold positions of academic renown in Europe and Latin America and eventually returned to the US when I knew
I would be able to secure adjunct positions in the US and Canada and Puerto Rico to support myself and my family, whose
lives I was able to maintain in a stable trajectory throughout this horror!
Revenge is sweet however today when I receive requests from my former "institution of higher learning" I respond in the
SASE
"NEVER WILL I EVER GIVE YOU ONE CENT FOR NOT HAVING PROTECTED ME FROM ABUSE AT THE HANDS OF DR. "BONDO" YEARS AGO!" Even
today, he is part of campus lore and is whispered about in hushed tones.
What happened to the "prof" he died of very painful brain cancer (poetic justice) and his idiot wife went full-tilt into
drugs and is sitting in a pool of her own pee in a very dismal geriatric ward. And the "Dean"? He is likewise awaiting his
last days in his luxury condo in Santa Barbara, CA surrounded by like-minded Lutheran do-gooders holding prayer circles
and burning incense and rubbing crystals for each of their pathetic selves
When I used to live in New York City, more than two decades ago, returning from Japan was shocking: the US felt like a poor,
deprived country, full of problems, misery, of confused and depressed people, homeless individuals; in short – desperados.
Gee, and those were good days in NYC. Resist: Pay for everything with cash, wear sunglasses and a hoodie (ideally black so you'll be confused with AntiFa and therefore
left un-molested by the police), and use a flip phone with a removable battery if you have to use anything at all. No, you won't
win, but you'll drive them nuts.
"White nurses whine about "FGM", not just in their own countries but abroad as well. We're supposed to take
in women who are "refugees" from their traditional cultures. Photos of a Somali adulterer who was half-buried and stoned to death
made the rounds on the Internet, with nasty comments from Europe, North America, and Oceania.
That "people of color" might just look at these things differently never seems to occur to the white progressive"
Although I did agree with a lot of Andre Vitchek's article, people like him seem to want people to believe that the 'pervert'
and harsh treatment of women thing in certain countries is just propaganda, as if a lot of people haven't ever met people from
some of these countries or been to some of these countries themselves
Of course there has been propaganda regarding accusations against certain leaders etc, but some countries do have the social
issues that you touched on above
"The US kleptocracy is being dismantled, not by the subject population but by the outside world"
I think the establishment have done a good job that themselves
"The only way Americans can contribute to the end of their regime is with solidarity. Ignore your fake democracy and go
over the government's head to the outside world"
@TKK Ditto with Zadie Smith who the NY Jewish publishing mafia and its attendant media have anointed the reigning queen of
mulatto lit. Her books are so eminently unreadable, much less publishable. American "culture" is such a con game. There should
be a brand of bulk toilet paper called "New York Times Best Seller".
Vltchek is wrong about Johannesburg, though. Last I heard–just a couple days ago -- the natives were restless, unemployed, rioting
in the streets and looting like crazy:
He should have just abolished money and started trading in bananas. What's worth more, a kilo of bananas or a kilo of printed
paper notes that were needed to buy a kilo of bananas? Consider the resources and the work that went into manufacturing those
paper notes and into growing and picking the bananas? Which is more valuable? Hmm At least you can eat the bananas but not the
paper money. Shows how ridiculous the whole economy is. Anywhere and everywhere for that matter. And now it's just electronic
money. And if it becomes inflationary you'll just have to keep adding zeros on your keyboard when making payments and have enough
zeros after whatever number in your account. But those bankers in charge of the economy just add the zeros to their own accounts
as they please inventing money out of thin air, whether paper or electronic.
Yes Mugabe was a nasty piece of work but he had a sense of humour. And Clinton, Bush or Blair weren't nasty? How about Abu Ghraib prison for a taste of US rule and administration.
Considering the introductory photo, data suggests that homelessness in US has been declining over the past 10-15 years.
there is a downward trend. In the nine year period – which includes the economic crisis – the number of homeless in the
US fell by almost 100,000 people.
Wikipedia has a long entry for "The Hardy Boys" series of books for young boys. It tracks, in detail, the 1960 to 1980 changes,
which include switching to nonstop action, a dumbed-down writing style, and increased adherence by the boys to regulations and
laws. Commentators call the books "eviscerated." I have posted before on how higher education has "refreshed" the curriculum;
but the evisceration begins earlier than that.
Joann, do you think Conrad was himself recommending "exterminate all the brutes" or was he damning the predictable
outcome of the leftist mind? If Conrad were alive today he'd heartily agree with Dietrich Doerner, who writes in his Logic of
Failure (1997), "It is far from clear whether 'good intentions plus stupidity' or 'evil intentions plus intelligence' have wrought
more harm in the world." Nothing has inflicted more damage to the people of this planet than Leftism, which we should never forget
mass murdered over 60 million Russians for the unpardonable sin of being white Christians with a country of their own.
Have a look at Burton's Wanderings in West Africa. Burton was one of the great travelers and polymaths of the 19th century
and had no use for either the Africans or the Europeans he found interacting along Africa's west coast. Africans may have been
technologically backward, but they were more racist than the Europeans and twice as cunning when it came to exploiting the other.
I haven't read Linquist's Exterminate All the Brutes, but I have read leftist crap ironically blaming Western Civilization
for imposing on African countries -- not the art, architecture, music, philosophy, morals, ethics, science, education, technology,
medicine, and other achievements of the West -- but the lethal cultural degeneracy almost entirely attributable to the ongoing
ascendency of the racially supremacist Jewish Left, destroying the West far more than anywhere in Africa and due mainly to International
Jewry's ownership of the public forum and so the formation of men's minds throughout much of the world.
The west is going down because of its Israel first mania for the past hundred years.
Infrastructure is it good for Israel first? No, who needs that. Third world nationals fleeing nations raped of resources for Israel firster corporations to the west. It is OK as Mad Albright said about 500000 Iraqi children dying from ZUS sanctions. Israel/US do nine eleven and blame it on Muslims
a)Trillions of dollars spent in the past 18 years destroying the Middle East using that nine eleven excuse.
b)Seven Nations to Destroy theme for this destruction to create a Eretz Israel. Lovely theme comes from some 500 BC scribblings
– Deuteronomy 7.1-2
Trillions could have been used to built up the west. Destruction was more "important". It is all about the west's 500 BC values.
At least the non-western world likes to live in the present. The west is in the Zion vortex of 500 BC values.
As Pelosi said: If this capitol (US) crumbles, the one thing that would remain is our commitment to aid/ our cooperation with Israel.
She summed up why the west is falling apart in the past hundred years.
...We have plenty of money for destroying the middle east for Israel , 7 trillion and counting and plenty of money for hundreds
of billions of welfare for Israel and providing military assistance for Israel and so the money is there, but just not for America,
Israel is the chosen land, chosen to destroy America.
@Commentator Mike "The Third Worlders obviously haven't heard the news as they're still crowding to get into the West."
That's because the don't care about FREEDOM, they are coming because they want FREE SHIT. Scavengers never care how majestic the carcass they pic clean once was, they are only there to strip it to the bone.
Regarding the "security" farce at the airports – I don't think the purpose of the harassment is to "break" you, but to remind
you of "9/11" and them evil Muslim terrorists who are to blame for all of this.
@Commentator Mike The Third Worlders obviously have heard that the 1st world is just like the 3rd world now so they're going
to fit in perfectly well hence the rush to get in
@Franz When I was young in Southeast Michigan, a few Irish and English and Germans still immigrated. That was about 40 years
ago when I was five years old. Late seventies (I was born in 1974).
Nobody and I mean nobody, from Germany or Ireland would immigrate to Michigan today. People in India would not want to drink Flint's water.
I left America in 1999 and returned only once. The US has gone way downhill. The living standard of the nineties would make
the living standard of today look abysmal. If someone had told me (I was born in 1974) in the nineties that anyone would have to live at home past the age of 20 or the
water of Flint would be poisoned or that sober white people-entire white families-would be homeless I would scoff at such an idea.
At the rate we are going, India will be superior to America in the next 20 years. Russia was always poor. Always. China has improved vastly in twenty years and we can argue why. UK was probably at an economic peak 20 years ago.
...I guess many Security companies got rich with 9/11 , who are the mother companies of the thousands of " security " guards around
the globe ? ,can you imagine ? , What percentage of the plain ticket goes to this " security " guys ? . By the way most of the
airport security guards did not finish High School .
@Ole C G Olesen Andre Vitchek has a moral consensus, unlike the rest of the First World citizens, they are morally defunct,
they even don't feel guilty for the crime against humanity, crime against peace and war crime they have been committing. They
regards those crimes as White man's burden, and whatever they do it is necessary with good intention.
@Johnny Walker Read Thanks for posting, "Welcome to the American Reservation Prison Camp."
Didn't know this existed, until now. For decades while watching everything that I loved being destroyed, from wholesome communities to natural habitats, I'd catch
myself saying, "now I know what it must of felt like to be American Indian." Today in Yuma Arizona, the Mourning Doves are silent, as another hunting season takes its unnecessary toll.
Aug 16, 2019 Sunset in the Golden State – Ep 4: How the West Was Lost
Stefan Molyneux, Host of Freedomain Radio, travels to California to unravel all of the political, economic, moral and demographic
complexities of the Golden State.
Jul 6, 2014 Century of Enslavement: The History of The Federal Reserve
What is the Federal Reserve system? How did it come into existence? Is it part of the federal government? How does it create
money? Why is the public kept in the dark about these important matters?
This is a *BIG* picture view of the world in one link.
June 13, 2016 Which Corporations Control The World? A surprisingly small number of corporations control massive global market shares. How many of the brands below do you use?
@Priss Factor I would not go that far in rationalizing.
If one's teenage son use helpless old neighbor's backyard for rowdy parties, one can not just say that yard looks like shit anyway.
No I don't believe Conrad was giving direct advice here.
I do have a tendency to simplify, I have learned that in the ad business, and I'm still adapting to this platform. Getting the news media and Hollywood into their hands really was a
neoliberals stroke of genius that could only happen with the
aloofness that owning the international banking business supplies you with.
Then they owned psychology, and now all of academia.
It takes serenity to plan on such scale.
I don't see us getting out of this trap.
@wayfarer I think Russel Means is one of the most intelligent and honest human beings America ever birthed. If I had my way
this video would be required viewing in every American History class.
...Their obscene theft and fraud via their control of the Financial System have impoverished Americans greatly, particularly the
working class. Their dominance of Corporate Boards, enabled by their ill gotten wealth, enables Corporate Upper Management to earn 100's of
times more than a worker, instead of 10's times the ratio of the era of real economic growth. Their takeover of the legal system (Lawyers and judges) allows them to suck wealth from the people on a monumental scale.
Their control of Media and Hollywood allows brainwashing and false narratives on a stupendous scale.
Their control of Government through their essentially owning or being every single Congressperson or Senator means that
they control the taxation and spending that cripples workers...
This article is typically one-sided: the upper-middle and upper classes in the USA are doing very, very well, with booming wealth
and incomes, and the areas where they live have the best facilities and infrastructure. Their economic situation is very different
from that of most of the population.
Those upper and upper-middle classes have simple decided to let the USA middle and working classes sink. The USA middle and working
classes have been made redundant by offshoring all the industries infected with worker unions or replacing their workers with
illegal immigrants; mexican servants and chinese workers never disobey, never strike.
Part of this strategy has been to separate geographically, by means of property prices, lower and middle income people and upper-middle
and upper income people, by building residential estates that unlike old mixed cities are targeted explicitly at a specific income
bracket.
The model chosen by the USA elites is the brasilian/"Elysium" one: favelas for the many, splendid gated communities for the
few. That model is not new: it is the 19th century Dickensian London model.
"White Teeth". That's her pièce de résistance. Before I cancelled my New Yorker subscription, they published 2 (two) of her short stories. I read them, and thought I was
having a mild stoke. Non linear. No plot. What was her "talent?" Now, when I want to read a short story, I always go back to:
To Build a Fire, by Jack London.
This section still grabs me by the throat, every time I read it.
Following at the man's heels was a big native dog. It was a wolf dog, gray-coated and not noticeably different from its
brother, the wild wolf. The animal was worried by the great cold. It knew that this was no time for traveling. Its own feeling
was closer to the truth than the man's judgment. In reality, it was not merely colder than 50 below zero; it was colder than
60 below, than 70 below. It was 75 below zero. Because the freezing point is 32 above zero, it meant that there were 107 degrees
of frost.
The dog did not know anything about temperatures. Possibly in its brain there was no understanding of a condition of very cold,
such as was in the man's brain. But the animal sensed the danger. Its fear made it question eagerly every movement of the man
as if expecting him to go into camp or to seek shelter somewhere and build a fire. The dog had learned about fire, and it wanted
fire. Otherwise, it would dig itself into the snow and find shelter from the cold air.
Now compare this to the man:
But all this -- the distant trail, no sun in the sky, the great cold, and the strangeness of it all -- had no effect on
the man. It was not because he was long familiar with it. He was a newcomer in the land, and this was his first winter.
The trouble with him was that he was not able to imagine. He was quick and ready in the things of life, but only in the things,
and not in their meanings. Fifty degrees below zero meant 80 degrees of frost. Such facts told him that it was cold and uncomfortable,
and that was all. It did not lead him to consider his weaknesses as a creature affected by temperature. Nor did he think about
man's general weakness, able to live only within narrow limits of heat and cold. From there, it did not lead him to thoughts
of heaven and the meaning of a man's life. 50 degrees below zero meant a bite of frost that hurt and that must be guarded against
by the use of mittens, ear coverings, warm moccasins, and thick socks. 50 degrees below zero was to him nothing more than 50
degrees below zero. That it should be more important than that was a thought that never entered his head.
As he turned to go, he forced some water from his mouth as an experiment. There was a sudden noise that surprised him. He tried
it again. And again, in the air, before they could fall to the snow, the drops of water became ice that broke with a noise.
He knew that at 50 below zero water from the mouth made a noise when it hit the snow. But this had done that in the air. Undoubtedly
it was colder than 50 below. But exactly how much colder he did not know. But the tem- perature did not matter.
But I remain convinced that what we are witnessing, what we are living through is nothing short of The Pyrrhic Victory of Jewish Supremacy Inc. As one of the Tribe once told me many years ago, "We're the smartest and the dumbest people at the same time." I think all of their smarts moves in one direction – total destruction. Which, of course, eventually includes them as well.
Their single-mindedness of purpose has been their strength (if that's what you want to call it). But it's also their weakness.
As with all parasitic predators, they're good at infiltration, subversion, betrayal, disintegration, and destruction. But they're no damned good at social-management. And it shows. Everywhere. Just look around. It couldn't be more obvious. All of the social-institutions under their control are in free fall. Teaching-Learning institutions, Economic institutions, Government institutions.
All of them.
With the tunnel vision of a psychotic Dracula, they're so focused on killing their victims while they sleep and sucking all
of their blood, that they can't feel the tickling of the poisonous spider crawling up their leg. Nor do they realize that they've already poisoned the blood of their victims. Why can't they see this? Because they're pathologically self-engrossed.
Hang tight. Because things are moving so fast we might just live to see the day when their global Ponzi scheme collapses and
the cat comes out of the bag for all to see (not just us).
When that day comes people will no more fear the accusation of antisemitism than a person caught outside during a hurricane
will fear being called a burglar for taking cover in the first house they see.
I laugh with the people, in Mexico City, Johannesburg or Beijing
Virtue-signal much?
While countries like Russia, China, Vietnam, Mexico, Iran and others are surging forward, many previously rich colonialist
and neo-colonialist empires are now beginning to resemble the "Third World".
Russia didn't have colonies?
Now if you wanted to argue that those colonies only benefited a tiny handful of ((Russians)) and international elites, at the
direct expense of the Russian people, (exactly like the ZUSA today), then I'd agree.
But it seems to me that what you're tying to do is blame the average white middle and working class American (and Brits and
French and others..) for all the injustices of the world, and so as they're crushed by the burgeoning Orwellian police state and
treated as second class citizens in favor of all immigrants and non-whites, that they're getting what they deserve, huh?
Just as it is frightening to be poor. Or being different. All over the world, the roles are being reversed.
ahh, being poor and different'. (white people have never known what it's like to be poor, huh?)
So it sounds to me like you're celebrating the undercurrents of what's roiling in South Africa.
I only wish you could be there, on some remote farm outside of your lovely Johannesburg, as those who're reversing the roles
come in to exact their justice, and listen as you howl, 'No No!, I'm a good white! Do what you want to the farmer and his family,
but I'm on your side, and celebrate (with gloating snide) the roles being reversed!'.
I'd love to see your reaction when they ponder your respective 'goodness' from your white face.
I laugh with the people, in Mexico City, Johannesburg or Beijing
I agree with much of the article. However, considering Johannesburg a place that is improving is a clear mistake. Maybe
his ideology is confusing his thinking? In any case, White South Africa was a much better place than the current version. As
is usual, almost all the murders there are black-on-black
South Africa was way safer and more civilized under white rule. Just ask farmer Hans Bergmann who grows food that feeds the
very blacks trying to kill him.
The author is talking more about U.S. foreign policy e.g. United Fruit Company, the Iran coup, the Guatemala coup, CIA failed
hits on Castro, Air America, Grenada, Panama, Iran, USAID etc.
The advent of European civilization that wasn't perfect but has largely benefited browns and blacks be it health, food security,
infrastructure and technologies like the Internet.
As for the current backwardness, the American economist Michael Todaro has documented the challenges these countries face in
his book Economic Development. Todaro, however, doesn't factor IQ into the equation and instead uses coded language like 'lack
of competent manpower' (paraphrasing).
@Joe Wong Think of this this way chump, when the USA was 90% White, it fought Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan,
which you obviously support.
Now the USA is only 65% White and it invades and destroys the Middle East and Libya. So by becoming less White, is the USA becoming
a more compassionate country?
The author is talking more about U.S. foreign policy e.g. United Fruit Company, the Iran coup, the Guatemala coup, CIA failed
hits on Castro, Air America, Grenada, Panama, Iran, USAID etc.
ahh yes
It's all the American working class WHITE men who DID IT!!
Flay the skin from their bones for imposing the Shah on Iran!
Reverse the roles and see their children raped for what they did to Guatemala and Panama and South Africa!
Russia and France and Japan and England are all victims of these serial racists who continue to refuse to be gay!
It's the American working class white man who has and continues to cause all the problems of the planet. Why don't we just
castrate them all and finally, at long last live in an utopian paradise?
"... It is what all people of knowledge and conscience must prioritize accomplishing over any and all other concerns with the exception of the environment. ..."
"... literal medical necessity ..."
"... @humphrey ..."
"... My own take is that "America" is meaningless; world capital calls the shots. The US functions as a mercenary hiring hall for the owners, ever since Iraq I. You think the owners will let anybody mess with their mercs? ..."
Imagine if America had to answer for its war crimes
gjohnsit on Thu, 09/05/2019 - 5:25pm Secretary of State Mike Pompeo demonstrated what the term "ugly American" meant the
other day when he
bragged about his defeat of the International Criminal Court.
"Americanism means taking care of our own," said Pompeo.
"We stopped international courts from prosecuting our service members," Pompeo continued, adding that the potential probe "was
an outrage."
...
Pompeo confirmed earlier this year that the administration would revoke or deny visas for ICC personnel who try to investigate
or prosecute U.S. officials or key allies for potential war crimes. A month later, in April, the administration followed through
and revoked prosecutor Bensouda's visa for entry into the U.S.
Just because you defeated justice doesn't mean the crimes go away.
However, it does mean that there is no incentive to stop committing war crimes.
That brings us to today's news from Yemen .
The UK, US, France and Iran may be complicit in possible war crimes in Yemen over their support for parties to the conflict there,
UN experts say.
A new report warns the countries they could be held responsible for aiding or assisting the commission of violations.
The Western powers provide weapons and logistical support to the Saudi-led coalition backing Yemen's government, while Iran backs
the Houthi rebels.
...
The UN says the four-year conflict has claimed the lives of at least 7,290 civilians and left 80% of the population - 24 million
people - in need of humanitarian assistance or protection, including 10 million who rely on food aid to survive.
Yemen has gotten a significant amount of much needed attention in recent years, but just across the Gulf of Aden another
humanitarian disaster of gigantic size is happening in
near total silence and obscurity.
"In the absence of humanitarian assistance, up to 2.1 million people across Somalia face severe hunger through December," the
UN warned, citing the 2019 Post-Gu report's conclusion that this would bring the total number of Somalis expected to be food insecure,
to 6.3 million by year's end.
1 million children are expected to be malnourished in Somalia by year's end.
The United States may have committed war crimes as it bombed al-Shabab militants in Somalia, a new report Amnesty International
alleges...
They found that the airstrikes killed farmers, women and an eight-year-old girl, whom the group assessed had no ties to al-Shabab.
"Due to the nature of the attacks, the U.S. government is violating international humanitarian law and these violations may
amount to war crimes," Hassan said.
While the United States has been bombing Somalia for more than a decade, the Trump administration has accelerated the attacks.
The insurgency there is fueled by
Somali rage over now decades-long American interference in their country.
Why Americans cannot bring themselves to care about Somalia is something I will never understand.
Meanwhile in Libya things have gone from
bad to worse .
"Unless action is taken in the near term, it is highly likely that the current conflict will escalate into full civil war," Guterres
said on Thursday in his latest report on the UN Support Mission in Libya.
AFRICOM says that a civil war would "give existing terrorist elements in Libya oxygen."
The leading instigator of the fighting is General Khalifa Haftar.
Haftar, after the defeat of the Libyan troops he was commanding in 1987, he offered his services to
the CIA
, which backed him for years as he awaited the opportunity to topple Muammar Gaddafi.
Is it really any surprise that
Trump loves him
?
An airstrike by Khalifa Haftar's forces hit a migrant detention center east of Tripoli yesterday and killed at least 44 people
and wounded up to 130. Haftar and his forces are mainly backed by the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, and this airstrike is part
of the assault on the Libyan capital that Trump reportedly endorsed when it began. The Trump administration is now shielding Haftar
from condemnation by the Security Council by blocking the statement promoted by the U.K.
The
ICC plans to investigate these war crimes, but since the Trump Administration won't even allow a condemnation, and considering
how much Washington hates the ICC, i wouldn't count on this investigation going very far.
The idea that POMPEO is "outraged" is...well, he's a Nazi. So is anybody who thinks that way (lookin' at you, Dubya & Friends).
THEY ARE DETERMINED TO OBLITERATE THE ENTIRE 20TH CENTURY, THE CENTURY THAT MADE AMERICA GREAT PRECISELY BECAUSE, FOR A BRIEF
MOMENT IN TIME, IT CAST OFF AND STOOD AGAINST THAT VERY MENTALITY.
Men like him belong in their own torture-camps...or a short distance under them.
I've said it before, I'll say it again:
NUREMBERG II: JUDGMENT DAY.
It is what they most dread.
It is the least they deserve.
It is what the entire world - the American people most of all - NEEDS NOW. It is what all people of knowledge and conscience must prioritize accomplishing over any and all other concerns with the exception
of the environment.
FIAT JUSTICIA, RUUAT CAELUM: "Let there be Justice, though the Heavens may fall".
I believe that Justice (REAL Justice, not just the way it's been redefined by some as "goodies for my clique"), delivered in
a timely, precise, and reliable manner, is nothing short of a literal medical necessity - and the truth is, Caelum IS
Ruuating PRECISELY BECAUSE there has been no Justicia.
Our war crimes go way back and they continue to today.
Unfortunately, the US is the 800 lb gorilla on the world stage and no one is willing or courageous enough to challenge that
gorilla.
thank you. i look forward to reading it more carefully later, especially your link on somalia. i remember bill clinton's hypocritical
R2P only too well.. which precious Somalian mineral was the hegemon really after?
In the book The Ugly American, the ugly guy was actually the good guy who understood and respected local culture; he was just
ugly and unsmooth. The "pretty" Americans were the villains. IIRC, it's been over 50 years. Might be worth re-reading.
Are we surprised? This is the Pax (or Bellus?) Americana. Since the USSR folded, the UN is toothless and GodGun$Gut$ dominates
the world with endless war -- or thinks it does; after all, one in six humans is Chinese.
My own take is that "America" is meaningless; world capital calls the shots. The US functions as a mercenary hiring hall
for the owners, ever since Iraq I. You think the owners will let anybody mess with their mercs?
Giuliani is already a 9/11 suspect because he managed the entirely illegal destruction of
key evidence before investigators ever saw it. In March 2002, the U.S. House Committee on
Science reported:
"In the month that lapsed between the terrorist attacks and the deployment of the [FEMA]
BPAT team, a significant amount of steel debris -- including most of the steel from the
upper floors -- was removed from the rubble pile, cut into smaller sections, and either
melted at the recycling plant or shipped out of the U.S. Some of the critical pieces of
steel -- including the suspension trusses from the top of the towers and the internal
support columns -- were gone before the first BPAT team member ever reached the site.
Later, in October 2001, Queen Elizabeth II named Giuliani Knight Commander of the
Most Excellent Order of the British Empire for his "outstanding help and support to the
bereaved British families in New York."and gave additional honors to the former NY Police
Commissioner Bernard Kerik and Fire Commissioner Thomas Von Essen, making each a Commander of
the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire.
But sure, cough cough, none of those glorious awards could have had anything to do with
the gold , or the successful destruction of evidence, but rather were based on the
trio's service to British subjects after the 9/11 attacks.
This documentary interrogates the notion that Osama Bin Laden single-handedly runs the
pervasive Al Qaeda terrorist network by examining its inception, its links to Western
intelligence, the double agents and fictitious characters that populate its ranks, and the
fraudulent ways the Al Qaeda myth is propagated in the controlled corporate media.
Sam J.
says:
September 5, 2019 at 8:17 pm GMT 100 Words
@utu We don't need finite element analysis. The building fell roughly 108 feet where the
only thing holding it up was air. It had no support at all when it fell. Somehow all the steel
columns and concrete ceased to give the building any support. All failing within milliseconds
of each other supposedly from a few fires on four floors or so. Demo. Had to be. No other
explanation. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread
Display All Comments
@Barry Gordon Definitely not. Larry said (quoting from memory): "I was talking with the,
er fire department commander, and we were saying, you know, there has been such terrible loss
of life, maybe the best thing to do is pull it. So we made that decision to pull and we
watched the building collapse."
There were no firefighters in WTC-7. (If there had been, he wouldn't say "it," he would
say "them." But there weren't any, so the grammatical point is irrelevant.)
The "decision to pull" – "watched it collapse" statement, as all native English
speakers know, carries a close causal and chronological link. Making the decision to pull
caused the collapse, and the collapse happened shortly after the decision was made.
If there had been firefighters in the building at 11 a.m. rescuing Barry Jennings and
Michael Hess (the only reports of firefighters ever entering WTC-7) and if Larry and his
friend posing as a "er fire department commander" had "pulled" them out then, and watched the
building collapse at 5:20, six hours later, OBVIOUSLY Larry wouldn't have said it the way he
said it. He would have said "we pulled the firefighters out of the building in the morning.
Later that evening, when it collapsed, we were glad we had" or something to that effect.
Those of us researching 9/11 in 2004 made a huge stink about Larry's confession, which was
well known by then. It was only many years later when Larry finally put out his silly alibi
about "pulling firefighters."
Only a fool or someone ignorant of colloquial English could think Larry was talking about
pulling out firefighters. These people must really think we're stupid.
For instance, Silverstein is not a 'confessed participant' in the destruction of the
WTC.
ROTFL! So his life really was saved by a lucky appointment with a dermatologist; and his
kids really were saved by luckily being late; and he wasn't actually lying when he lied about
having a telephone conversation with the "fire dept. commander"; etc.?
"His statement about 'pulling it' is ambiguous."
To the extent it was ambiguous, it was *calculatedly* ambiguous; i.e., his use of the word
"pull" was a lexical ambiguity intended to imply controlled demolition, thereby assuaging the
cognitive dissonance of the masses, but allow for (implausible) deniability later based on
semantics.
@Intelligent Dasein You might be right about the meaning of Larry Silverstein's statement
"we made the decision to pull it". I have often wondered why he would have said such a thing
if he meant initiate the controlled demolition of Building 7. However, that doesn't change
the fact that Building 7 collapsed due to controlled demolition. It collapsed into its own
footprint at free fall speed. There is only one thing that can cause that – controlled
demolition. In fact Building 7 is the Achilles heel of the official narrative about 9/11. It
is the only thing one needs to know to know that the official version is pure BS. Every other
fact disproving the official narrative of 9/11 is simply icing on the cake. But nice try
anyway at your red herring.
Obvious lie, the Fire Chief is not going to ask the building owner for permission to pull
his men out.
Never mind what he meant by what he says he said. I say Silverstein was and is lying about
the whole thing, because he never said it. Only later in order to make it look like he was
more interested in the lives of firefighters than his properties did he pretend there was any
such decision on his part. So it was a attempt to burnish his reputation as a humanitarian
for who lives are more important than a healthy balance sheet.
But Barrett thinks Silverstein was virtually admitting that he murdered thousands of
people. This would be an act of self immolation if he did it and them stayed in the country;
does Barrett not understand that Silverstein would be virtually committing suicide? A queue
of self appointed judge jury and executioners would form to kill him. In no time at all there
would be the begining of attempts on his life, and finally one would work no matter what the
security. How can anyone believe the Truthers believe what they is true, if they are not even
willing to do what the Pizzagate nut did, let alone punish a mass murderer. This article of
Barrett stinks of a total lack of seriousness .
I f many people saw those planes, would you mind posting a link or two to support
your claim?
There is no credible airplane wreckage at any of the alleged 9/11 crash sites; not at the
WTC, not at the Pentagon, and not at Shanksville.
Additionally, according to Pilots for 9/11 Truth, there were automatic ACARS returns from
two of the allegedly hijacked airliners from some time after their reputed crashes.
For example, Flt. 93 was tracked to the vicinity of Champaign, Illinois well after it was
said to have crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania.
When the FBI got "Let's Roll" Todd Beamer's cell phone records from Verizon, they found
his phone had made more than a dozen calls after Flt. 93's reputed crash.
It is possible there were aircraft of some kind flying around in the vicinity of the WTC
at about the right time, in the same way that a large plane flew low over the Pentagon, but
did not crash into it. It seems there were at least a few liars operating around the
Pentagon, and nothing to rule out liars around the WTC.
Whatever anyone saw, the lack of the expected large amount of airplane debris at any of
the crash sites argues strongly that there were in fact no hijacked jetliner crashes on
9/11.
@Sparkon Very importantly, Sparkon said: "Whatever anyone saw ,"
Hey Sparkon!
Please look at the article/video (linked below) & listen to NYFD 9/11 witness &
survivor, Rudy Dent, speak & describe what he saw? Ideally many other commenters &
Kevin Barrett will tune-in & listen to every word he said? Thanks, continue sparking,
& my respect, Sparkon.
Paul Craig Roberts has a short piece dated yesterday, "The Official Story of the Collapse of
WTC Building 7 Lies in Ruins." He quotes a resolution of the Franklin Square and Munson Fire
District, and in it is this:
the overwhelming evidence presented in said petition demonstrates beyond any doubt that
pre-planted explosives and/or incendiaries -- not just airplanes and the ensuing fires --
caused the destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings,
I'm skeptical. WTC 1 & 2 collapsed starting from the top: the top floor went first,
then the next below, etc. WTC 7 collapsed from the bottom: the bottom floor went first,
lowering all the floors above, then what had been the floor above collapsed, continuing to
lower all the floors above.
WTC 1 & 2 each "melted" like a candle lit at the top. WTC 7 melted like an unlit
candle resting on a hot stove.
I think WTC 1 & 2 probably collapsed as we have been told – see the articles
here –
and that WTC 7 probably collapsed from planted explosives – the University of Alaska
research project bears it out.
It has always been clear that the official 9/11 narrative was intended for those with
i.q.'s of Stygian depth or so intellectually lazy as not to be bothered with the most
rudimentary facts and the exercise of common sense, their heads buried in the sand of
popular entertainment and sports.
Not so much. I bought and read the official 9/11 Commission Report and accepted its
account of inter agency bungling and security failures, and it's We Must Do Better message in
our fight against terrorism.
It was only years later that I came across an account of the collapse of Building 7 (that
same day), and couldn't understand why it was never mentioned in the Report.
That lead on to the technical questions that made the goverment "Collapse by Fire"
explanation impossible. Up to that point, it seemed quite straightforward that planes hit the
buildings and that they collapsed. I wasn't one of the technical people who immediately
realized that there was something wrong (like for instance Donald Trump):
@Intelligent Dasein See this interview on Dutch TV with a demolition expert, the late
Danny Jowenko. He was unaware of the story about WTC 7 but after seeing the video he was
convinced that this was a controlled demolition. What makes his analysis more convincing is
that he obviously didn't suspect foul play and believed that, timewise, it could, though very
difficult, all have been prepared after Silverstein gave the command "pull it". Anyone who is
a bit more informed about the circumstances knows that this would have been impossible.
The main point is his conviction that we were dealing here with a controlled
demolition.
He claimed that "pulling it" meant pulling the firemens' efforts to save the building.
True? Maybe, maybe not.
Having watched the video of him talking about it and his body language I'm inclined to
believe he knew beforehand it was wired for demolition. Also it was that building that was
reported to have fallen before it actually did on tv. Then you had the collapse of the
building which looked like a controlled demolition much more so than the twin towers did as
they came down.
Silverstein wasn't the mastermind though. It was probably one of the US alphabet agencies
that did the planning.
@Whitewolf Here's Silverstein's complete 'pull it' statement from Youtube:
"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not
sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said you know we've had such terrible
loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, pull it. And they made that decision to
pull, and we watched the building collapse."
Clearly Silverstein is talking about the Fire Department's personnel. He says 'you know
we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, pull it.' In other
words he is implying that pulling the 'whatever' will save lives. Now pulling the 'building'
will in fact kill more firefighters, so he is not talking about pulling the building. He is
talking about pulling the fire fighting operation.
A further clue is the next sentence. 'And they made that decision to pull'. This means
that Silverstein is saying 'the Fire Department pulled the 'whatever'. Now to say that the
Fire Department pulled the building by controlled demolition is completely insane. How are
the Fire Department going to set up a demolition job in two hours with everybody watching?
What Silverstein is saying is that the Fire Department pulled the firefighting operation from
the building.
Later, they watch the building collapse. This does not mean that the building collapsed
immediately after the Fire Department pulled the firefighting operation from the building. It
can mean at any time after this.
Its true that Silverstein's statement is poorly worded, but that's often the case in off
the cuff speech. The amount of idiocy expended on this statement of Silverstein's, including
by K Barrett, never ceases to amaze. Its a sure sign that any person who thinks Silverstein
is a "confessed participant in the controlled demolition of Building 7", is an utter
moron.
Neither Silverstein, nor the Fire Department, could ever have been in control of the
demolition of WTC7. This would have been under the total control of the 9/11 plotters,
operating from some central control room somewhere in the city. Silverstein undoubtedly would
have known that WTC7 would be demolished, obviously since this would have been part of the
deal he made with the plotters.
WTC7 was originally supposed to have been hit by Flight 93, but this flight was late
taking off and the plane re-routed. Silverstein knew therefore that the building had to be
pulled at some stage, since it was packed with explosives which might otherwise be
discovered. Perhaps this knowledge,by a process of Freudian slippage, entered into his
speech.
Apart from these sorts of stupidities, this article by K Barrett is quite good.
A child of Holocaust survivors...he was born in Tel Aviv, Israel.
She worked in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York as
Assistant U.S. Attorney before becoming Counsel to the Deputy Attorney General, where she
worked on national security and counterterrorism. She was Counselor to the Secretary of
Homeland Security before she worked in the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice
as Deputy Assistant Attorney General.
What are Sigal Mandelker' connections to this illustrious group?
Even while he was allegedly pimping girls and running heroin, Larry Silverstein served
as president for United Jewish Appeal of New York.
As for Epstein, he was the boy toy and protégé of Les Wexner, co-founder
of the Mega Group of Jewish billionaires associated with the World Jewish Congress, the
Anti-Defamation League, and other pro-Israel groups.
Reads like the best of the best among Israel-firsters: Pimps, drug-dealers, thugs from the
ADL, major mafioso-philanthropists for Israel, WJC activists with a special fondness for the
illegal settlers' terrorism against native Palestinians, and the most active promoters of the
Wars for Eretz Israel, including a war-in-making against Iran.
If you want a vision of the future, don't imagine "a boot stamping on a human face -- for
ever," as Orwell suggested in 1984 . Instead, imagine that human face staring mesmerized
into the screen of some kind of nifty futuristic device on which every word, sound, and image
has been algorithmically approved for consumption by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency ("DARPA") and its
"innovation ecosystem" of "academic, corporate, and governmental partners."
The screen of this futuristic device will offer a virtually unlimited range of
"non-divisive" and "hate-free" content, none of which will falsify or distort the "truth," or
in any way deviate from "reality." Western consumers will finally be free to enjoy an
assortment of news, opinion, entertainment, and educational content (like this Guardian
podcast about a man who
gave birth , or MSNBC's latest bombshell about
Donald Trump's secret Russian oligarch backers ) without having their enjoyment totally
ruined by discord-sowing alternative journalists like Aaron Maté or satirists like
myself.
"Fake news" will not appear on this screen. All the news will be "authentic." DARPA and its
partners will see to that. You won't have to worry about being "influenced" by Russians, Nazis,
conspiracy theorists, socialists, populists, extremists, or whomever. Such Persons of Malicious
Intent will still be able to post their content (because of "freedom of speech" and all that
stuff), but they will do so down in the sewers of the Internet where normal consumers won't
have to see it. Anyone who ventures down there looking for it (i.e., such "divisive" and
"polarizing" content) will be immediately placed on an official DARPA watchlist for "potential
extremists," or "potential white supremacists," or "potential Russians."
Once that happens, their lives will be over (i.e., the lives of the potentially extremist
fools who have logged onto whatever dark web platform will still be posting essays like this,
not the lives of the Persons of Malicious Intent, who never had any lives to begin with, and
who by that time will probably be operating out of some heavily armed, off-the-grid compound in
Idaho). Their schools, employers, and landlords will be notified. Their photos and addresses
will be published online. Anyone who ever said two words to them (or, God help them, appears in
a photograph with them) will have 24 hours to publicly denounce them, or be placed on
DARPA’s watchlist themselves.
This discussion avoids comparing society in the mid-19th century and today. It really isn't that long ago. I've lived through
almost half of it. Except for officers most of the soldiers I served with were conscripted or enlisted because of the draft. In
a war your choices are limited. If they were in the march, driving wagons, armed to the teeth, they were soldiers; no matter how
they got there.
Today's volunteer Army most of the soldiers and contractors are there because they couldn't get a better job unless they are
adrenaline junkies or psychopaths. The current neoliberal economy purposefully exploits people and the environment to make a profit.
Today's soldiers aren't too different than the slave legions of ancient Rome. Perhaps, "warriors" isn't that much of a misnomer.
"... But what happens when those "standards of excellence" lead to 20 years of fighting unwinnable wars on the peripheries of the planet? When do habits and practices turn into mental stagnation? ..."
"... You know when it comes to generals, whether they're Marines, whether they're Army, whether they're Mattis who's supposedly this "warrior monk," these guys talk tactics and then claim it's strategy. What they consider to be strategic thinking really is just tactical thinking on a broad scale . I think the biggest problem with all the four-star generals are they're "how" thinkers not "if" thinkers. ..."
"... This inability of America's elites (including its generals) to grapple with strategic concepts is a result of the United States' post-Cold War unipolar moment. When there's only one superpower, geopolitics and the need for international balancing fall by the wayside. ..."
"... Mattis, like virtually all of his four-star peers, is a reactionary, fighting every day against the forces of change in modern warfare ..."
"... "[W]hen you shave it all down, his problem with being the epitome of establishment Washington is that he sees the alliance as the end, not as a means to an end," says Davis. "The means should be to the end of improving American security and supporting our interests." ..."
"... "By clinging to unsustainable military solutions from the distant past, he has condemned future generations of soldiers and marines to repeat disasters like Pickett's Charge," says Macgregor. ..."
Last week, The Wall Street Journal published a lengthy
op-ed written by former secretary of defense James Mattis, his first public statement since
his resignation in December. The article is adopted from his forthcoming book, Call Sign
Chaos: Learning to Lead , out this week.
The former Pentagon chief opens a window into his decision making process, explaining that
accepting President Trump's nomination was part of his lifelong devotion to public service:
"When the president asks you to do something, you don't play Hamlet on the wall, wringing your
hands. So long as you are prepared, you say yes." Mattis's two years at DoD capped off 44 years
in the Marine Corps, where he gained a popular following as a tough and scholarly leader.
Mattis received widespread praise from the foreign policy establishment when he resigned in
protest over President Trump's directive for a full U.S. military withdrawal from Syria and a
partial withdrawal from Afghanistan. "When my concrete solutions and strategic advice,
especially keeping faith with our allies, no longer resonated, it was time to resign, despite
the limitless joy I felt serving alongside our troops in defense of our Constitution," he
writes.
But did Mattis really offer "concrete solutions and strategic advice" regarding America's
two decades of endless war? spoke with four military experts, all veterans, who painted a very
different picture of the man called "Mad Dog."
"I think over time, in General Mattis's case a little over 40 years, if you spend that many
years in an institution, it is extremely hard not to get institutionalized," says Gil
Barndollar, military fellow-in-residence at the Catholic University of America's Center for the
Study of Statesmanship. Barndollar served as an infantry officer in the Marine Corps and
deployed twice to Afghanistan. "In my experiences, there are not too many iconoclasts or really
outside-the-box people in the higher ranks of the U.S. military."
It's just that sort of institutionalized thinking that makes the political establishment
love Mattis. "[A] person with an institutional mind-set has a deep reverence for the
organization he has joined and how it was built by those who came before. He understands that
institutions pass down certain habits, practices and standards of excellence," wrote David
Brooks in a hagiographic New York Timescolumn .
But what happens when those "standards of excellence" lead to 20 years of fighting
unwinnable wars on the peripheries of the planet? When do habits and practices turn into mental
stagnation?
"The problem is, from at least the one-star the whole way through, for the last two decades,
you've seen them do nothing but just repeat the status quo over and over," observes Lieutenant
Colonel Daniel L. Davis, a senior fellow at Defense Priorities, who served 21 years in the U.S.
Army and deployed four times to Iraq and Afghanistan. "I mean every single general that was in
charge of Afghanistan said almost the same boilerplate thing every time they came in (which was
nearly one a year). You see the same results, nothing changed."
"And if those guys took someone from a major to a two-star general, we'd probably have a lot
of better outcomes," he adds.
Major Danny Sjursen, who served tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan, agrees:
You know when it comes to generals, whether they're Marines, whether they're Army, whether
they're Mattis who's supposedly this "warrior monk," these guys talk tactics and then claim
it's strategy. What they consider to be strategic thinking really is just tactical thinking
on a broad scale . I think the biggest problem with all the four-star generals are they're
"how" thinkers not "if" thinkers.
Barndollar says: "The vast majority of military leaders, up to and including generals at the
three-, four-star level, are not operating at the strategic level, in terms of what that word
means in military doctrine. They're not operating at the level of massive nation-state
resources and alliances and things like that. They're at the operational level or often even at
the tactical level."
This inability of America's elites (including its generals) to grapple with strategic
concepts is a result of the United States' post-Cold War unipolar moment. When there's only one
superpower, geopolitics and the need for international balancing fall by the wayside.
The only component of national security policy Mattis discusses in his op-ed is America's
system of alliances, which he believes is the key to our preeminence on the world stage.
"Returning to a strategic stance that includes the interests of as many nations as we can make
common cause with, we can better deal with this imperfect world we occupy together," he
writes.
"Mattis, like virtually all of his four-star peers, is a reactionary, fighting every day
against the forces of change in modern warfare," counters Colonel Douglas Macgregor, who served
28 years in the U.S. Army. "He lives in denial of the technological breakthroughs that make the
World War II force structure (that he as SecDef insisted on funding) an expensive tribute to
the past."
Mattis muses that the Department of Defense "budget [is] larger than the GDPs of all but two
dozen countries." Yet having acknowledged that disparity, how can such underpowered foreign
nations possibly contribute to American security?
"He has that line in there about bringing as many guns as possible to a gun fight. What are
those guns?" asked Barndollar. For example, the British Royal Navy is the United States' most
significant allied naval force. But the United Kingdom has
only seven vessels stationed in the Persian Gulf and they're "stretched to the absolute
limit to do that."
"Our problem has been double-edged," says Davis of America's reliance on others. "On the one
hand, we try to bludgeon a lot of our allies to do what we want irrespective of their interests
as an asset. And then simultaneously, especially in previous administrations, we've almost gone
too far [in] the other direction: 'we'll subordinate our interests for yours.'"
"[W]hen you shave it all down, his problem with being the epitome of establishment
Washington is that he sees the alliance as the end, not as a means to an end," says Davis. "The
means should be to the end of improving American security and supporting our interests."
Sjursen says:
Mattis's view is the old Einstein adage: "doing the same thing over and over again and
expecting a different result is the definition of insanity." Well that's all he's proposed.
He has no new or creative solutions. For him, it's stay the course, more of the same, stay in
place, fight the terrorists, maintain the illegitimate and corrupt governments that we back.
That's what he's been talking about for 18 years. It's all the same interventionist dogma
that's failed us over and over again since September 12, 2001.
"In the two years he was in office, what did he do that changed anything? He was a caretaker
of the status quo. That's the bottom line," says Davis, adding, "you need somebody in that job
especially that is willing to take some chances and some risk and is willing to honestly look
at 18 consecutive years of failure and say, 'We're not doing that anymore. We're going to do
something different.' And that just never happened."
Barndollar is more generous in his estimation of Mattis: "He needs to be lauded for standing
for his principles, ultimately walking away when he decided he could no longer execute U.S.
national security policy. I give him all the credit for that, for doing it I think in a
relatively good manner, and for trying to do his best to stay above the fray and refuse to be
dragged in at a partisan level to this point."
Mattis ends his Wall Street Journal op-ed by recounting a vignette from the 2010
Battle of Marjah, where he spoke with two soldiers on the front lines and in good cheer. But
his story didn't sit well with Sjursen, who says it encapsulates Mattis' inability to ask the
bigger questions: "He never talks about how those charming soldiers with the can-do attitude
maybe shouldn't have been there at all. Maybe the mission that they were asked to do was
ill-informed, ill-advised, and potentially unwinnable."
All this suggests that a fair evaluation of Mattis is as a soldier who is intelligent but
unoriginal. A homegrown patriot, but one who'd like to plant the Stars and Stripes in Central
Asia forever. A public servant, but one who would rather resign than serve the cause of
restraint.
"By clinging to unsustainable military solutions from the distant past, he has condemned
future generations of soldiers and marines to repeat disasters like Pickett's Charge," says
Macgregor.
Hunter DeRensis is a reporter for The National Interest .Follow him on
Twitter@HunterDeRensis
.
When
"disinformation" is redefined
to include all potentially
polarizing stories that don't conform to the establishment narrative,
reality is
discarded as so much fake news and replaced with Pentagon-approved pablum
...
... ... ...
But
perhaps the worst part about all of this is that the government itself, including the
Pentagon, has an
extensive
history of running fake social media profiles to collect data on persons of interest
,
including through the NSA's JTRIG information-war program revealed in
the
Snowden documents.
Agents regularly deploy reputational attacks against dissidents using false
information. Fake identities are used to cajole unsuspecting individuals into collaborating in fake
FBI "terror" plots, a phenomenon which might once have been called entrapment but is merely business
as usual in the post-9/11 U.S.SA.
All of this begs the question: how will DARPA determine
the "intent" behind any meme or bit of information?
Will they punish journalists who push
fakes for the political establishment? Probably not. This is where the "impact" and "intent" fields
come in handy for them: fakes from "trusted sources" will be let through, while fakes and real stories
designed to "undermine key individuals and organizations" (dissent and those who seek freedom from the
political class) will be terminated before they have an impact on the thoughts of others.
When
"disinformation" is redefined to include all potentially polarizing stories that don't conform to the
establishment narrative, reality is discarded as so much fake news and replaced with Pentagon-approved
pablum.
The Soviets tried to police thought but it was an embarrassing
failure. What makes America think they can achieve better results?
Rather than risk the embarrassment of failure, perhaps the pentagon
should simply exterminate the human population and replace us with
robots programmed to consume and obey. Consume and obey. That's all
they want from us. And in refusing to do so, the people have failed
the ruling class.
Instead, imagine that human face staring mesmerized into the screen of some kind of
nifty futuristic device on which every word, sound, and image has been algorithmically
approved for consumption by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency ("DARPA") and its
"innovation ecosystem" of "academic, corporate, and governmental partners."
I'd say we're already 80% there. The good news is that the truth can't be further
suppressed without ever increasing oppression which in turn exposes the lies of the
oppressor. Everything changes when the lies stop working on their own and the liar resorts to
force. His audience switches from being cooperative dupes to uncooperative rebels who will
have to be forced into compliance. That's a very different environment and the clock starts
ticking.
The other good news is that we already have a critical mass of people who are fairly
red-pilled and they can't be plugged back into the matrix. It doesn't work like that.
"Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been
repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered.
And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing
exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right." ― George Orwell,
1984
"Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely
for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in
power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from
the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who
resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists
came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own
motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly
and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human
beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power
with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not
establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in
order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of
torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me."
― George Orwell, 1984
but the global capitalist ruling classes need to keep everyone whipped up into a
shrieking apoplectic frenzy over anything other than global capitalism until they can win
the War on Populism and globally implement the New Normality, after which the really
serious reality policing can finally begin.
A plurality of idiots is already whipped up into " a shrieking apoplectic frenzy" over
things that are nothing but magnified trivia or worse than useless. Hymiewood and the
entertainment industrial complex, which includes but is not limited to counter-cultural
merde celebrity gossip and vacuous spectator sports, has done what no top down
totalitarian (whether soft or hard) agenda could ever hope to do.
Panem et circenses no longer require a geographically fixed venue, of course.
All the kosher vanguard of Antichrist requires is enough slack jawed infotainment
consumers to gaze in passive and somnolent wonderment at the flat screen. The screen is a
modern day temple of Moloch wherein the physical sacrificing of offspring is not necessary
(there is enough of that nowadays anyway). The only sacrifice required is that of one's
conscience and reason- to make one a better and more inclusive citizen, of course.
The author should use the word "neoliberal" instead of "debauched"
Notable quotes:
"... When talking about politics, we should be careful not to define "debauched" too narrowly. While debauchery is typically associated with over-indulgence of the sensual pleasures, a more fitting political definition is a general loss of self-control. ..."
"... In the political realm, debauchery is less characterized by the sensual vices than by an overzealous desire for power. ..."
"... The ghost of Jeffrey Epstein is all one needs to see that many elites are very debauched as regards social mores. Yet how might a debauched culture be reflected in the realms of domestic and foreign policy? ..."
"... Class warfare tends to resonate most broadly when the wealthy become self-indulgent and unworthy, and dissolute plutocracies are oft times defended by "conservatives." In the terminal phase of a democracy, this can portend domestic revolution. ..."
"... Belligerent intervention is not nationalism! It is Neocon Texas - Harvard Redneckism ..."
"... I'm not sure I agree with the author's thesis: that debauchery or gratuitous political leadership results in immoral foreign policy. Were the highly-disciplined and self-sacrificing Japanese militarists who bombed Pearl Harbor and aligned with the Axis (Hitler, Mussolini) guided by any more virtuous foreign policy than say, "debauched" Churchill and Roosevelt? I doubt it. ..."
"... The article lacks specifics on how America's leaders are debauched and how this debauchery influences foreign policy, other than to say they are "unrestrained". But is non-restraint debauchery? Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was running a gratuitous non-profit institute to shake down foreign rulers in return for promising political favors if elected. She was going to sell the country out. ..."
"... We stole Venezuela's assets in the U.S. and even denied their baseball players the ability to send money back to their families, we really love them. We have an oil embargo on Syria and we are the only reason the Saudis are able to starve Yemen. None of these countries have ever done anything to us but it feels good that we can do this and even get most of the world to support us. ..."
"... It drives me crazy that devout Protestants in govt who believe that human nature is corrupt act as if they are standing in the gap while being belligerent and never questioning their own judgment. ..."
"... The problem is that we are led by sociopaths. ..."
"... This current round of unprovoked aggression against small countries started when Clinton attacked Serbia even though he did not have authorization from the UN. He did it because he could -- Russia had collapsed by then so they were powerless to prevent NATO from attacking their ally. No one had the power to stop the hegemon so it was a short journey from the relative restraint of George W. Bush to going beserk all over the world (of course in the name of stopping genocide, ecocide, insecticide or whatever). Get absolute power, get corrupted. ..."
"... I think people like Epstein are state sponsored to use the warped values of the elites to gain political advantage for their masters. Destroying historic value sets is part of this package. ..."
TAC are no doubt familiar with the truism that "politics is downstream of culture." This maxim, which is undoubtedly true,
should not, however, only be applied to social issues. In fact, culture shapes our public policy very broadly, far more than do dispassionate
"policymakers" exercising careful reason and judgment. The nature of our governance tends to reflect the cultural and philosophical
orientation of our elites, and this orientation is increasingly debauched.
When talking about politics, we should be careful not to define "debauched" too narrowly. While debauchery is typically associated
with over-indulgence of the sensual pleasures, a more fitting political definition is a general loss of self-control.
All the great religious and philosophical traditions understood that there is a part of our nature that can get out of control
and a divine part that can exert control. A culture thus becomes debauched when elites lose the sense that they need to rein themselves
in, that "there is an immortal essence presiding like a king over" their appetites, as Walter Lippmann put it. In the political
realm, debauchery is less characterized by the sensual vices than by an overzealous desire for power.
The ghost of Jeffrey Epstein is all one needs to see that many elites are very debauched as regards social mores. Yet how
might a debauched culture be reflected in the realms of domestic and foreign policy?
Let's start with domestic policy. How would debauched elites govern a democracy at home? One might surmise, for example, that
their lack of self-control might cause them to spend federal money as a means of keeping themselves in power. They might also attempt
to bribe their constituents by promising a variety of domestic programs while also pledging that the programs will be funded out
of the pockets of others. If they were really debauched, they might even borrow money from future generations to pay for these incumbency
protection initiatives. They might run up staggering
debt for the sake of their expedient political needs and promise that "the rich" can provide for it all. In short, the hallmark
domestic policy of a debauched democracy is, and has always been, class warfare.
It should be pointed out that class warfare is not simply a creation of demagogues on the left. Class warfare tends to resonate
most broadly when the wealthy become self-indulgent and unworthy, and dissolute plutocracies are oft times defended by "conservatives."
In the terminal phase of a democracy, this can portend domestic revolution.
While most conservatives might agree about the dangers of class warfare, it is on the foreign policy front where they seem most
debauched themselves. They remain stuck in a vortex of GOP clichés, with standard references to Neville Chamberlain and Winston Churchill,
leaders who were closer in their time to the American Civil War than we are to them now. For many of these "conservatives," every
contemporary authoritarian leader is the progeny of Hitler and any attempt to establish cordial relations is a rerun of Munich 1938.
As with domestic policy, the true sign of a debauched foreign policy is a loss of self-control and an excessive will to power
reflected in attempts to exert dominion over others with no particular nexus to the national interest. A debauched foreign policy
might just look like the decision to invade Iraq -- a war whose supporters offered numerous justifications, including alleged weapons
of mass destruction, democracy promotion, and anti-terrorism. Yet in hindsight, its real cause seems to have been the simple desire
by our leaders to impose their will. In a debauched democracy, class warfare is the paradigmatic domestic policy and profligate war
making is the paradigmatic foreign policy.
Given that self-control and restraint are the hallmarks of a genuinely conservative foreign policy -- because they remain humble
about what human nature can actually achieve -- one should receive the recent conference on
national conservatism with some
skepticism . The
retinue of experts who spoke generally espoused a foreign policy that sought dominion over others -- in other words, a continuation
of the belligerent interventionism that characterized the second Bush administration. This may be nationalism, but it seems not to
be conservatism.
One hopes that the leaders of this new movement will re-consider their foreign policy orientation as they have increasingly formidable
resources to draw upon. The creation of the Quincy Institute and the rise of
an intellectually formidable network of foreign policy "restrainers" provide hope.
Given that culture is king, however, these intellectuals may want to keep top of mind that restraint is not simply a policy option
but a character trait -- a virtue -- that needs to be developed in leaders who are then elevated. Prudent policies are no doubt essential
but the most important challenge in politics is, and always will be, attracting and encouraging the best leaders to rule. Our system
often does the opposite. This is at root a cultural problem.
William S. Smith is research fellow and managing director at the Center for the Study of Statesmanship at the Catholic University
of America, and author of the new book
Democracy and Imperialism .
I'm not sure I agree with the author's thesis: that debauchery or gratuitous political leadership results in immoral foreign policy.
Were the highly-disciplined and self-sacrificing Japanese militarists who bombed Pearl Harbor and aligned with the Axis (Hitler,
Mussolini) guided by any more virtuous foreign policy than say, "debauched" Churchill and Roosevelt? I doubt it.
Moreover, has the author never heard of the concept "reasons of state"?: a purely political reason for action on the part of
a ruler or government, especially where a departure from openness, justice, or honesty is involved (e.g. "the king returned that
he had reasons of state for all he did"). In an existential emergency, would the leader of a nation be justified in using amoral
means to save his nation; but in all other circumstances should rely on conventional Christian morality as the default position?
This is what Pres. Truman apparently did when he dropped a-bombs on two Japanese cities. What Dietrich Bonhoeffer was apparently
involved with in the assassination attempt on Hitler. What Moses was embroiled with when he slayed 3,000 of his "debauched" followers
in the Exodus from Egypt.
The article lacks specifics on how America's leaders are debauched and how this debauchery influences foreign policy, other
than to say they are "unrestrained". But is non-restraint debauchery? Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was running a gratuitous
non-profit institute to shake down foreign rulers in return for promising political favors if elected. She was going to sell the
country out.
The opponent who beat her in the election promised the opposite and pretty much has delivered on his promises. Just
how is the current administration "unrestrained" other than he has not fulfilled pacifist's fantasies of pulling out of every
foreign country and conflict? Such pull outs have to be weighed on a case by case basis to determine the cost to human life and
world order. If the current administration has a policy it is that our allies have to fight and fund their own wars and conflicts
rather than rely on the U.S. to fight their wars for them.
The article is full of inflationary clichés ('politics is downstream of culture', 'class warfare', etc. And just how does the
author connect the dots between pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, who was elected to nothing and held no power over anyone, and our "debauched'
foreign policy? Correlation is not causation but there isn't even a correlation there.
The more one reads opinions of Intellectuals , and as anyone with half a brain knows, to never believe a Politician, I am always
reminded, after considerable research why I personally choose Realism . Realism is certainly not new and has some varied forms.
Realism re-surfaced leading up to and during WW 2.
"...the true sign of a debauched foreign policy is a loss of self-control and an excessive will to power reflected in attempts
to exert dominion over others"
I love this.
We stole Venezuela's assets in the U.S. and even denied their baseball players the ability to send money back to their families,
we really love them. We have an oil embargo on Syria and we are the only reason the Saudis are able to starve Yemen. None of these
countries have ever done anything to us but it feels good that we can do this and even get most of the world to support us.
This reminds me of a Nick Pemberton article when he wrote ...
"We still play the victim. And amazingly we believe it ... We believe we can take whatever we want. We believe that this world
does not contain differences to be negotiated, but foes to be defeated."
I could never get this out of my head.
It drives me crazy that devout Protestants in govt who believe that human nature is corrupt act as if they are standing in the
gap while being belligerent and never questioning their own judgment.
Trump the adulterer was the one who decided against bombing
because he did not have a taste for blood while the pious were eager for it.
"Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the Earth."
-Matthew 5:5
"Meek" is the wrong word/translation. In the original Greek, the word is "preais" and it does not mean docile and submissive.
Rather the word means gentleness blended with restrained strength/power.
The passage should read, "Blessed are those who have swords and know how to use them but keep them sheathed: for they shall
inherit the Earth."
There is a simpler explanation of what has happened to the US. When it comes to human beings, the only thing you need to remember
is Lord Acton's dictum: power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
This current round of unprovoked aggression against small countries started when Clinton attacked Serbia even though he did
not have authorization from the UN. He did it because he could -- Russia had collapsed by then so they were powerless to prevent
NATO from attacking their ally. No one had the power to stop the hegemon so it was a short journey from the relative restraint
of George W. Bush to going beserk all over the world (of course in the name of stopping genocide, ecocide, insecticide or whatever).
Get absolute power, get corrupted.
The same thing is true domestically in the US. A small ethnic minority gave 50% and 25% of the money spent by the Democrats
and Republicans in the last presidential election. That gives them huge influence over the foreign policy of the country. Best
of all, no one else can question what is going on because classic tropes etc. Give a small group absolute power, get the swamp.
I think people like Epstein are state sponsored to use the warped values of the elites to gain political advantage for their masters.
Destroying historic value sets is part of this package.
The destruction of main core Christianity has not helped stem this tide
(subtle Happy Holidays, CE, BCE, etc.) . Brave women and men must arise and sewerize (drain the swamp) this mob of miscreants
defiling our belief system. .They have a right to exist but not dictate by subterfuge and fake news our values as they have been
doing.
Remove the OP pic of the Marines NOW, and fix the rest of your whine later.
This is America, we have no "betters" and our "gov't" has never, and will never, be comprised of anything other than our idiot
ay-whole neighbors who needed a job, whose sole job it is to govern the machinations of gov't and not us, as an un-self-governed
Society is otherwise un-governable.
And [due to human nature and physics (of which neither has or will change in the entire history of humanity)] sometimes you
have to go to war at the slightest of hints of provocation in order to achieve "illimitably sustainable conflict" of "Society"
[J.M. Thomas R., TERMS, 2012] not have to haphazardly fight minute to minute of every day.
“ If when Political objects are unimportant, motives weak, the excitement of forces small, a cautious commander tries
in all kinds of ways, without great crises and bloody solutions, to twist himself skillfully into peace through the characteristic
weakness of his enemy in the field and in the cabinet, we have no right to find fault with him, if the premise on which he
acts are well founded and justified by success;
still we must require him to remember that he only travels on forbidden tracks,
where the God of War may surprise him; that he ought always to keep his eye on the enemy, in order that he may not have to defend
himself with a dress rapier if the enemy takes up a sharp sword ”.
(Clausewitz, “On War” pg. 137)
Loosely paraphrased: " peaceable resolution to conflict is only effective, and should only be sought and relied upon, when
it is certain that the other party will never resort to arms, with the implication that that is never " [J.M.Thomas R., TERMS,
2012 Pg. 80]
Weakness is provocative don't provoke your enemies. Quit whining.
Let’s start with domestic policy. How would debauched elites govern a democracy at home?
Let's see. They'd likely repeatedly cut taxes on the wealthiest and on corporations and skyrocket deficits. They'd likely increase
military spending to insane levels to the benefit of the military industrial complex. They'd likely perform wide scale deregulation
on polluting industries. They'd ignore all inconvenient science, especially that which didn't support the fossil fuel industry.
They'd likely avoid meaningful action on a healthcare system that is more broken and expensive than any other OECD nation. Then
they'd look for targets, the "others", to bash and attack in attempt to hide the real world consequences of what they were doing.
Why would they do this? They do it for campaign contributions, "a means of keeping themselves in power."
I believe we are in the hands of:
The Demons of “Democracy”
The demons of “democracy” speak of “peace”
While their selling of weapons does not cease
Hypocrites from hell who posture on the world stage
When they should be in a gigantic prison cage
Evil reprobates in positions of power Anything that’s good they devour Destroying countries and families too This is the satanic work they do
Fancy titles are given to their names
Such is the state of a system insane
Madness and filth has become “normal”
Nobody speaks or asks: “Is it moral”?
Principals and ethics, they are of them, devoid Speaking of decency and truth has them annoyed Pimping for war is their diabolical expertise Killing and bombing is the forte of this demonic sleaze
Training and supporting terrorists, they do this as well
Will nobody arrest this treacherous crew from hell?
These people are devils and full of hypocrisy
We need to be freed from these, demons of “democracy”...
If you want a vision of the future, don't imagine "a boot stamping on a human face -- for
ever," as Orwell suggested in 1984 . Instead, imagine that human face staring mesmerized
into the screen of some kind of nifty futuristic device on which every word, sound, and image
has been algorithmically approved for consumption by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency ("DARPA") and its
"innovation ecosystem" of "academic, corporate, and governmental partners."
The screen of this futuristic device will offer a virtually unlimited range of
"non-divisive" and "hate-free" content, none of which will falsify or distort the "truth," or
in any way deviate from "reality." Western consumers will finally be free to enjoy an
assortment of news, opinion, entertainment, and educational content (like this Guardian
podcast about a man who
gave birth , or MSNBC's latest bombshell about
Donald Trump's secret Russian oligarch backers ) without having their enjoyment totally
ruined by discord-sowing alternative journalists like Aaron Maté or satirists like
myself.
"Fake news" will not appear on this screen. All the news will be "authentic." DARPA and its
partners will see to that. You won't have to worry about being "influenced" by Russians, Nazis,
conspiracy theorists, socialists, populists, extremists, or whomever. Such Persons of Malicious
Intent will still be able to post their content (because of "freedom of speech" and all that
stuff), but they will do so down in the sewers of the Internet where normal consumers won't
have to see it. Anyone who ventures down there looking for it (i.e., such "divisive" and
"polarizing" content) will be immediately placed on an official DARPA watchlist for "potential
extremists," or "potential white supremacists," or "potential Russians."
Once that happens, their lives will be over (i.e., the lives of the potentially extremist
fools who have logged onto whatever dark web platform will still be posting essays like this,
not the lives of the Persons of Malicious Intent, who never had any lives to begin with, and
who by that time will probably be operating out of some heavily armed, off-the-grid compound in
Idaho). Their schools, employers, and landlords will be notified. Their photos and addresses
will be published online. Anyone who ever said two words to them (or, God help them, appears in
a photograph with them) will have 24 hours to publicly denounce them, or be placed on
DARPA’s watchlist themselves.
Come on guys can't you see how obvious it is that
Epstein DID commit suicide? Bill Barr's work under Bush Sr. was flawless and he definitely
covered up absolutely nothing for Bush Sr., so he's definitely not trying to cover up anything
here, especially not for high-profile people in Epstein's black book. What's there to cover up
anyway? Prison cameras malfunction all the time while security guards are asleep while suicidal
prisoners are taken off of suicide watch within a matter of days while they sign their will a
few days prior while their dead bodies have different noses and ears from all other photographs
of them while they commit suicide by generating enough force in a maximum security prison cell
while their cellmate was removed only a few hours prior while the prison guards are refusing to
talk about the suicide while the medical examiner is the same guy that did other high profile
deaths.
Can't you all see the pattern here? The MSM's official narrative is ALWAYS truthful! Calm
your anxiety with all these conspiracies! Don't worry, soon we'll see that his body was
cremated and witnessed only by John Brennan, James Clapper, and James Comey, who will tell us
that Epstein made his millions not by some Mossad/CIA brownstoning operation, but by learning
all the tricks of the financial trade from Ghislaine's hardworking and highly-esteemed
father!
Trust you me, the great people at the apex of the immaculate FBI will tell us that his huge
estates weren't used for orgies and entrapment and especially not child sacrifice, but that all
those cameras he had were for conducting Ivy-League-caliber studies on what politicians like to
do in their free time when the pressure is off! That whole "teenage sex slave novel" that
Barr's father wrote? It h
ad nothing to do with Epstein but everything to do with a healthy masturbatory porn habit
which we all should aspire to have under such sublimating creative control! Did he traffic
thousands of underage girls? Well of course he did, but I don't see YOU asking how old YOUR
favorite porn stars are, Mr. Saint! Did the elite politicians, scientists, royals, etc,
actually have sex with any of the ALLEGED victims under duress when they were under the age of
consent? Of course not, those "victims" are all just latecomers to the #MeToo bandwagon
desperate for their 15 minutes of fame!
Why is no one prosecuting anyone having sex with "underage" girls in the entire library of
videos that the FBI found? Because it's all deepfakes, it's all been digitally doctored with
CGI by Epstein's haters who are jealous of his easily-explainable meteoric rise to the top of
society and all the strong friendships he's made along the way!
What about Acosta "admitting" that Epstein was part of intelligence? Well that's simple:
Acosta is a fucking liar! Why do you think he resigned as Labor Secretary? Because he was too
embarrassed about the lie he told! Why did Epstein get a "slap on the wrist" back in 2008?
Because the court wanted to make his accuser feel "vindicated" knowing full well she was full
of shit but too much of a basket case to handle the truth about her being a liar!
Elite pedophile rings and devil worshippers have been around for centuries. That means they've
survived the test of time so much so that they've practically perfected their methods to keep
getting their way despite any attempts by any justice systems anywhere in the advanced world.
By its definition justice is reactive while crime is proactive, therefore they're always one
step ahead of us and always have been, which is why they're never fully eradicated, like that
1% of bacteria that survives an antibacterial cleaning and grows back.
What do you think they're doing with the size of the distance of that full step ahead? Part
of that distance is the time they spend laughing at the justice system in the form of "I can't
believe how stupid the people are that they let us get away with it again.
They must not really care about the crimes we commit, so I guess we can keep on going
because they're communicating they don't really want to punish us if this is the best they can
do." The message we send to them is just that fucking simple. Justice never learns its lesson
after all these centuries, like someone stuck in a subconscious rut and thinks it can't even
think how to escape the infinite karmic loop.
Hence why some in the Intelligence Community need to be above the law, so that they can
proactively fight crime before it's committed by people who have a record for perpetrating it.
Albeit fighting crime in this manner is difficult because the perpetrators use extreme
deception to shapeshift their stories and their identities and their residences and their
businesses and their work and their occupation and their social circles, etc, as a means of
evasion, the IC has to resort to the very same tactics and strategies the perpetrators use, as
"the more you stare into the abyss the more it stares back at you"
And some within the IC themselves get corrupted and turned over to the dark side. Evil is a
being and like all beings made of mass and energy it will always exist and to minimize its
effects it needs to be fought with unconventional methods like psychological warfare, economic
warfare, etc, outside of the world's traditional reactive justice systems. At this point in the
centuries-old game, the Information Age, it's good to spread more deep awareness so that this
evil is more easily recognizable and thus that much easier to deal with, as dark always
retreats from light.
"... Pedophilia infects both political parties , for example see "Congress's forgotten pedophile " which appeared in "The Outline" and discussed the case of former Republican Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert . The Deep State likely grooms and seeks out pedophile politicians as they are so easy to blackmail. ..."
Pedophilia infects both political parties , for example see "Congress's forgotten
pedophile " which appeared in "The Outline" and discussed the case of former Republican
Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert . The Deep State likely grooms and seeks out pedophile
politicians as they are so easy to blackmail.
More generally, which media outlets seem to be trying to brush Epstein's death under the
rug?
Not the National Enquirer:
Jeffrey Epstein Murder Cover-up Exposed! Death Scene Staged to Look Like Suicide.
Billionaire's Screams Ignored by Guards! Fatal Attack Caught on Jail Cameras!
Autopsy is Hiding the Truth!
No doubt there's a massive media coverup. You can just tell by the headlines, "Epstein died
by apparent suicide ". How did they know it was a suicide? All we could possibly know
was the cause of death -- a broken neck. No one knows for certain the hanging was done by
himself or someone else. But no detective work necessary, the media has already decided for
us.
Whitney Webb has done a ton of research on these issues: Barr, Mena airport,
Iran-Contra, guns and dope, and Clinton; he worked for Casey, CIA director under Reagan, as
they say, there are no ex-spies.
Epstein has a "history" that explains a lot. When you run through it, it's clear that the
Epstein story is about much more than young girls and political blackmail. In fact CIA
airfields, drug running, Clintons, money laundering, assassinations etc. The conclusion is
that Epstein is only the visible tip of the iceberg.
The Sott.net article is a 100% necessary article to print out and read carefully. It
explains better than anything else I've read about how and why the US is in the place it is
today.
@utu Jean-Luc Brunel is Jewish. He had a nasty reputation for drugging young women and
raping them once they became helpless. His "modeling agency" had offices in Paris, N.Y., and
Tel Aviv. He's in Israel right now, laying low.
The only other putative American conspiracy theory I'm aware of where a larger percentage of
the public does not believe the official story than does believe it is JFK's assassination .
While details on Epstein death are not interesting (he ended like a regular pimp) the corruption of high level officials his case
revealed in more troubling.
Notable quotes:
"... Epstein was released, and various lawsuits were filed against him and settled out of court, presumably in exchange for silence. The media was quiet or complimentary as Epstein worked his way back into high society. ..."
"... What would I do if I were Epstein? I'd try to get the President, the Attorney-General, or the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York to shut down the investigation before it went public. I'd have all my friends and all my money try to pressure them. If it failed and I were arrested, it would be time for the backup plan -- the Deal. I'd try to minimize my prison time, and, just as important, to be put in one of the nicer federal prisons where I could associate with financial wizards and drug lords instead of serial killers, black nationalists, and people with bad breath. ..."
"... What about the powerful people Epstein would turn in to get his deal? They aren't as smart as Epstein, but they would know the Deal was coming -- that Epstein would be quite happy to sacrifice them in exchange for a prison with a slightly better golf course. What could they do? There's only one good option -- to kill Epstein, and do it quickly, before he could start giving information samples to the U. S. Attorney. ..."
"... Trying to kill informers is absolutely routine in the mafia, or indeed, for gangs of any kind. ..."
"... Famous politicians, unlike gangsters, don't have full-time professional hit men on their staffs, but that's just common sense -- politicians rarely need hit men, so it makes more sense to hire them on a piecework basis than as full-time employees. How would they find hit men? You or I wouldn't know how to start, but it would be easy for them. Rich powerful people have bodyguards. Bodyguards are for defense, but the guys who do defense know guys who do offense. And Epstein's friends are professional networkers. One reporter said of Ghislaine Maxwell, "Her Rolodex would blow away almost anyone else's I can think of -- probably even Rupert Murdoch's." They know people who know people. Maybe I'm six degrees of separation from a mafia hit man, but not Ghislaine Maxwell. I bet she knows at least one mafioso personally who knows more than one hit man. ..."
"... Or, if you can hire a New York Times reporter for $30,000 ( as Epstein famously did a couple of years ago), you can spend $200,000 on a competent hit man to make double sure. Government incompetence does not lend support to the suicide theory; quite the opposite. ..."
"... Statutory rape is not a federal crime ..."
"... At any time from 2008 to the present, Florida and New York prosecutors could have gone after Epstein and easily convicted him. The federal nonprosecution agreement did not bind them. And, of course, it is not just Epstein who should have been prosecuted. Other culprits such as Prince Andrew are still at large. ..."
"... Why isn't anybody but Ann Coulter talking about Barry Krischer and Ric Bradshaw, the Florida state prosecutor and sheriff who went easy on Epstein, or the New York City police who let him violate the sex offender regulations? ..."
"... Krischer refused to use the evidence the Palm Beach police gave him except to file a no-jail-time prostitution charge (they eventually went to Acosta, the federal prosecutor, instead, who got a guilty plea with an 18-month sentence). Bradshaw let him spend his days at home instead of at jail. ..."
"... In New York State, the county prosecutor, Cyrus Vance, fought to prevent Epstein from being classified as a Level III sex offender. Once he was, the police didn't enforce the rule that required him to check in every 90 days. ..."
"... Trafficking is a federal offense, so it would have to involve commerce across state lines. It also must involve sale and profit, not just personal pleasure. ..."
"... Here, the publicity and investigative lead is what is most important, because these are reputable and rich offenders for whom publicity is a bigger threat than losing in court. They have very good lawyers, and probably aren't guilty of federal crimes anyway, just state crimes, in corrupt states where they can use clout more effectively. Thus, killing potential informants before they tell the public is more important than killing informants to prevent their testimony at trial, a much more leisurely task. ..."
"... Geoffrey Berman, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, is the only government official who is clearly trustworthy, because he could have stopped the 2019 Epstein indictment and he didn't. I don't think Attorney-General Barr could have blocked it, and I don't think President Trump could have except by firing Berman. ..."
"... "It was that heart-wrenching series that caught the attention of Congress. Ben Sasse, the Republican senator from Nebraska, joined with his Democratic colleagues and demanded to know how justice had been so miscarried. ..."
"... President Trump didn't have anything personally to fear from Epstein. He is too canny to have gotten involved with him, and the press has been eagerly at work to find the slightest connection between him and Epstein and have come up dry as far as anything but acquaintanceship. But we must worry about a cover-up anyway, because rich and important people would be willing to pay Trump a lot in money or, more likely, in political support, if he does a cover-up. ..."
"... he sealing was completely illegal, as the appeals court politely but devastatingly noted in 2019, and the documents were released a day or two before Epstein died. Someone should check into Judge Sweet's finance and death. He was an ultra-Establishment figure -- a Yale man, alas, like me, and Taft School -- so he might just have been protecting what he considered good people, but his decision to seal the court records was grossly improper. ..."
"... Did Epstein have any dealings in sex, favors, or investments with any Republican except Wexner? ..."
"... Dershowitz, Mitchell, Clinton, Richardson, Dubin, George Stephanopolous, Lawrence Krauss, Katie Couric, Mortimer Zuckerman, Chelsea Handler, Cyrus Vance, and Woody Allen, are all Democrats. Did Epstein ever make use of Republicans? Don't count Trump, who has not been implicated despite the media's best efforts and was probably not even a Republican back in the 90's. Don't count Ken Starr– he's just one of Epstein's lawyers. Don't count scientists who just took money gifts from him. (By the way, Epstein made very little in the way of political contributions , though that little went mostly to Democrats ( $139,000 vs. $18,000 . I bet he extracted more from politicians than he gave to them. ..."
"... What role did Israeli politician Ehud Barak play in all this? ..."
"... Remember Marc Rich? He was a billionaire who fled the country to avoid a possible 300 years prison term, and was pardoned by Bill Clinton in 2001. Ehud Barak, one of Epstein's friends, was one of the people who asked for Rich to be pardoned . Epstein, his killers, and other rich people know that as a last resort they can flee the country and wait for someone like Clinton to come to office and pardon them. ..."
"... "intelligence" is also the kind of excuse people make up so they don't have to say "political pressure." ..."
"... James Patterson and John Connolly published Filthy Rich: A Powerful Billionaire, the Sex Scandal that Undid Him , and All the Justice that Money Can Buy: The Shocking True Story of Jeffrey Epstein . Conchita Sarnoff published TrafficKing: The Jeffrey Epstein Case. I never heard of these before 2019. Did the media bury them? ..."
"... There seems to have been an orchestrated attempt to divert attention to the issue of suicides in prison. Subtle differences in phrasing might help reveal who's been paid off. National Review had an article, "The Conspiracy Theories about Jeffrey Epstein's Death Don't Make Much Sense." The article contains no evidence or argument to support the headline's assertion, just bluster about "madness" and "conspiracy theories". Who else publishes stuff like this? ..."
"... The New York Times was, to its credit, willing to embarrass other publications by 2019. But the Times itself had been part of the cover-up in previous years . Who else was? ..."
"... Not one question involving Maurene Comey, then? She was one of the SDNY prosecutors assigned to this case, and her name has been significantly played down (if at all visible) in the reportage before or after Epstein's death. That she just "happened" to be on this case at all is quite an eyebrow raiser especially with her father under the ongoing "Spygate" investigation ..."
"... As important as it is to go on asking questions about the life and death of Jeffrey Epstein, I have to admit that personally I'm just not interested. I've always found people of his social class to be vaguely repulsive even without the sordid sex allegations. Just their demanding personalities, just the thought of them hanging around in their terrycloth jogging suits, sneering at the world with their irrefrangible arrogance, is enough to make me shudder. I want nothing of their nightmare world; and when they die, I couldn't care less. ..."
"... We are supposed to have faith in this rubbish? The cameras malfunctioned. He didn't have a cellmate. The guards were tired and forced to work overtime. ..."
"... One tiny mention of Jewish magnate Les Wexner but no mention how he & the Bronfmans founded the 'Mega Group' of ultra-Zionist billionaires regularly meeting as to how they could prop up the Jewish state by any & all means, Wexner being the source of many Epstein millions, the original buyer of the NYC mansion he transferred to Epstein etc the excellent Epstein series by Whitney Webb on Mint Press covering all this https://www.mintpressnews.com/author/whitney-webb/ ..."
"... ex-OSS father Donald Barr had written a 'fantasy novel' on sex slavery with scenes of rape of underage teens, 'Space Relations', written whilst Don Barr was headmaster of the Dalton school, which gave Epstein his first job, teaching teens ..."
The Jeffrey Epstein case is notable for the ups and downs in media coverage it's gotten over the years. Everybody, it seems, in
New York society knew by 2000 that Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell were corrupting teenage girls, but the press wouldn't cover
it. Articles by New York in 2002 and
Vanity Fair in 2003 alluded to it gently,
while probing Epstein's finances more closely. In 2005, the Palm Beach police investigated. The county prosecutor, Democrat Barry
Krischer, wouldn't prosecute for more than prostitution, so they went to the federal prosecutor, Republican Alexander Acosta, and
got the FBI involved. Acosta's office prepared an indictment, but before it was filed, he made a deal: Epstein agreed to plead guilty
to a state law felony and receive a prison term of 18 months. In exchange, the federal interstate sex trafficking charges would not
be prosecuted by Acosta's office. Epstein was officially at the county jail for 13 months, where the county officials under Democratic
Sheriff Ric Bradshaw gave him scandalously
easy treatment , letting him spend his days outside, and letting him serve a year of probation in place of the last 5 months
of his sentence. Acosta's office complained, but it was a county jail, not a federal jail, so he was powerless.
Epstein was released, and various lawsuits were filed against him and settled out of court, presumably in exchange for silence.
The media was quiet or complimentary as Epstein worked his way back into high society. Two books were written about the affair, and
fell flat. The FBI became interested again around 2011 (
a little known fact
) and maybe things were happening behind the scenes, but the next big event was in 2018 when the Miami Herald published a
series of investigative articles rehashing what had happened.
In 2019 federal prosecutors indicted Epstein, he was put in jail, and
he mysteriously died. Now, after much complaining in the press about how awful jails are and how many people commit suicide, things
are quiet again, at least until the Justice Department and
the State of Florida finish their
investigation a few years from now. (For details and more links, see " Investigation: Jeffrey Epstein
"at Medium.com and " Jeffrey Epstein " at Wikipedia
.)
I'm an expert in the field of "game theory", strategic thinking. What would I do if I were Epstein? I'd try to get the President,
the Attorney-General, or the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York to shut down the investigation before it went public.
I'd have all my friends and all my money try to pressure them. If it failed and I were arrested, it would be time for the backup
plan -- the Deal. I'd try to minimize my prison time, and, just as important, to be put in one of the nicer federal prisons where
I could associate with financial wizards and drug lords instead of serial killers, black nationalists, and people with bad breath.
That's what Epstein would do. What about the powerful people Epstein would turn in to get his deal? They aren't as smart as Epstein,
but they would know the Deal was coming -- that Epstein would be quite happy to sacrifice them in exchange for a prison with a slightly
better golf course. What could they do? There's only one good option -- to kill Epstein, and do it quickly, before he could start
giving information samples to the U. S. Attorney.
Trying to kill informers is absolutely routine in the mafia, or indeed, for gangs of any kind. The reason people call such talk
"conspiracy theories" when it comes to Epstein is that his friends are WASPs and Jews, not Italians and Mexicans. But WASPs and Jews
are human too. They want to protect themselves. Famous politicians, unlike gangsters, don't have full-time professional hit men on
their staffs, but that's just common sense -- politicians rarely need hit men, so it makes more sense to hire them on a piecework
basis than as full-time employees. How would they find hit men? You or I wouldn't know how to start, but it would be easy for them.
Rich powerful people have bodyguards. Bodyguards are for defense, but the guys who do defense know guys who do offense. And Epstein's
friends are professional networkers.
One reporter said
of Ghislaine Maxwell, "Her Rolodex would blow away almost anyone else's I can think of -- probably even Rupert Murdoch's." They know
people who know people. Maybe I'm six degrees of separation from a mafia hit man, but not Ghislaine Maxwell. I bet she knows at least
one mafioso personally who knows more than one hit man.
In light of this, it would be very surprising if someone with a spare $50 million to spend to solve the Epstein problem didn't
give it a try. A lot of people can be bribed for $50 million. Thus, we should have expected to see bribery attempts. If none were
detected, it must have been because prison workers are not reporting they'd been approached.
Some
people say that government incompetence is always a better explanation than government malfeasance. That's obviously wrong --
when an undeserving business gets a contract, it's not always because the government official in charge was just not paying attention.
I can well believe that prisons often take prisoners off of suicide watch too soon, have guards who go to sleep and falsify records,
remove cellmates from prisoners at risk of suicide or murder, let the TV cameras watching their most important prisoners go on the
blink, and so forth. But that cuts both ways.
Remember, in the case of Epstein, we'd expect a murder attempt whether the warden of
the most important federal jail in the country is competent or not. If the warden is incompetent, we should expect that murder attempt
to succeed. Murder becomes all the more more plausible. Instead of spending $50 million to bribe 20 guards and the warden, you just
pay some thug $30,000 to walk in past the snoring guards, open the cell door, and strangle the sleeping prisoner, no fancy James
Bond necessary. Or, if you can hire a New York Times reporter for $30,000 (
as Epstein famously did a couple of years ago), you can spend $200,000 on a competent hit man to make double sure. Government
incompetence does not lend support to the suicide theory; quite the opposite.
Now to my questions.
Why is nobody blaming the Florida and New York state prosecutors for not prosecuting Epstein and others for statutory rape?
Statutory rape is not a federal crime, so it is not something the Justice Dept. is supposed to investigate or prosecute. They
are going after things like interstate sex trafficking. Interstate sex trafficking is generally much harder to prove than statutory
rape, which is very easy if the victims will testify.
At any time from 2008 to the present, Florida and New York prosecutors could have gone after Epstein and easily convicted him.
The federal nonprosecution agreement did not bind them. And, of course, it is not just Epstein who should have been prosecuted. Other
culprits such as Prince Andrew are still at large.
Note that if even if the evidence is just the girl's word against Ghislaine Maxwell's or Prince Andrew's, it's still quite possible
to get a jury to convict. After all, who would you believe, in a choice between Maxwell, Andrew, and Anyone Else in the World? For
an example of what can be done if the government is eager to convict, instead of eager to protect important people, see
the 2019 Cardinal
Pell case in Australia. He was convicted by the secret testimony of a former choirboy, the only complainant, who claimed Pell
had committed indecent acts during a chance encounter after Mass before Pell had even unrobed. Naturally, the only cardinal to be
convicted of anything in the Catholic Church scandals is also the one who's done the most to fight corruption. Where there's a will,
there's a way to prosecute. It's even easier to convict someone if he's actually guilty.
Why isn't anybody but Ann Coulter talking about Barry Krischer and Ric Bradshaw, the Florida state prosecutor and sheriff who went
easy on Epstein, or the New York City police who let him violate the sex offender regulations?
Krischer refused to use the evidence the Palm Beach police gave him except to file a no-jail-time prostitution charge (they eventually
went to Acosta, the federal prosecutor, instead, who got a guilty plea with an 18-month sentence). Bradshaw let him spend his days
at home instead of at jail.
In New York State, the county prosecutor, Cyrus Vance, fought to prevent Epstein from being classified
as a Level III sex offender. Once he was, the
police didn't enforce the
rule that required him to check in every 90 days.
How easy would it have been to prove in 2016 or 2019 that Epstein and his people were guilty of federal sex trafficking?
Not easy, I should think. It wouldn't be enough to prove that Epstein debauched teenagers. Trafficking is a federal offense, so
it would have to involve commerce across state lines. It also must involve sale and profit, not just personal pleasure.
The 2019 indictment
is weak on this. The "interstate commerce" looks like it's limited to Epstein making phone calls between Florida and New York. This
is why I am not completely skeptical when former U.S. Attorney Acosta says that the 2008 nonprosecution deal was reasonable. He had
strong evidence the Epstein violated Florida state law -- but that wasn't relevant. He had to prove violations of federal law.
Why didn't Epstein ask the Court, or the Justice Dept., for permission to have an unarmed guard share his cell with him?
Epstein had no chance at bail without bribing the judge, but this request would have been reasonable. That he didn't request a
guard is, I think, the strongest evidence that he wanted to die. If he didn't commit suicide himself, he was sure making it easy
for someone else to kill him.
Could Epstein have used the safeguard of leaving a trove of photos with a friend or lawyer to be published if he died an unnatural
death?
Well, think about it -- Epstein's lawyer was Alan Dershowitz. If he left photos with someone like Dershowitz, that someone could
earn a lot more by using the photos for blackmail himself than by dutifully carrying out his perverted customer's instructions. The
evidence is just too valuable, and Epstein was someone whose friends weren't the kind of people he could trust. Probably not even
his brother.
Who is in danger of dying next?
Prison workers from guard to warden should be told that if they took bribes, their lives are now in danger. Prison guards may
not be bright enough to realize this. Anybody who knows anything important about Epstein should be advised to publicize their information
immediately. That is the best way to stay alive.
This is not like a typical case where witnesses get killed so they won't testify.
It's not like with gangsters. Here, the publicity and investigative lead is what is most important, because these are reputable and
rich offenders for whom publicity is a bigger threat than losing in court. They have very good lawyers, and probably aren't guilty
of federal crimes anyway, just state crimes, in corrupt states where they can use clout more effectively. Thus, killing potential
informants before they tell the public is more important than killing informants to prevent their testimony at trial, a much more
leisurely task.
What happened to Epstein's body?
The Justice Dept. had better not have let Epstein's body be cremated. And they'd better give us convincing evidence that it's
his body. If I had $100 million to get out of jail with, acquiring a corpse and bribing a few people to switch fingerprints and DNA
wouldn't be hard. I find it worrying that the government has not released proof that Epstein is dead or a copy of the autopsy.
"Beyond its isolation, the wing is infested with rodents and cockroaches, and inmates often have to navigate standing water
-- as well as urine and fecal matter -- that spills from faulty plumbing, accounts from former inmates and lawyers said. One lawyer
said mice often eat his clients' papers."
" Often have to navigate standing water"? "Mice often eat his clients' papers?" Really? I'm skeptical. What do the
vermin eat -- do inmates leave Snickers bars open in their cells? Has anyone checked on what the prison conditions really like?
Is it just a coincidence that Epstein made a new will two days before he died?
I can answer this one. Yes, it is coincidence, though it's not a coincidence that he rewrote the will shortly after being denied
bail. The will leaves everything to a trust, and it is the trust document (which is confidential), not the will (which is public),
that determines who gets the money. Probably the only thing that Epstein changed in his will was the listing of assets, and he probably
changed that because he'd just updated his list of assets for the bail hearing anyway, so it was a convenient time to update the
will.
Did Epstein's veiled threat against DOJ officials in his bail filing backfire?
Epstein's lawyers wrote in his bail request,
"If the government is correct that the NPA does not, and never did, preclude a prosecution in this district, then the government
will likely have to explain why it purposefully delayed a prosecution of someone like Mr. Epstein, who registered as a sex offender
10 years ago and was certainly no stranger to law enforcement. There is no legitimate explanation for the delay."
I see this as a veiled threat. The threat is that Epstein would subpoena people and documents from the Justice Department relevant
to the question of why there was a ten-year delay before prosecution, to expose the illegitimate explanation for the delay. Somebody
is to blame for that delay, and court-ordered disclosure is a bigger threat than an internal federal investigation.
Who can we trust?
Geoffrey Berman, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, is the only government official who is clearly trustworthy,
because he could have stopped the 2019 Epstein indictment and he didn't. I don't think Attorney-General Barr could have blocked it,
and I don't think President Trump could have except by firing Berman. I do trust Attorney-General Barr, however, from what I've
heard of him and because he instantly and publicly said he would have not just the FBI but the Justice Dept. Inspector-General investigate
Epstein's death, and he quickly fired the federal prison head honcho. The FBI is untrustworthy, but Inspector-Generals are often
honorable.
Someone else who may be a hero in this is Senator Ben Sasse.
Vicki Ward
writes in the Daily Beast :
"It was that heart-wrenching series that caught the attention of Congress. Ben Sasse, the Republican senator from Nebraska,
joined with his Democratic colleagues and demanded to know how justice had been so miscarried.
Given the political sentiment, it's unsurprising that the FBI should feel newly emboldened to investigate Epstein -- basing
some of their work on Brown's excellent reporting."
Will President Trump Cover Up Epstein's Death in Exchange for Political Leverage?
President Trump didn't have anything personally to fear from Epstein. He is too canny to have gotten involved with him, and the
press has been eagerly at work to find the slightest connection between him and Epstein and have come up dry as far as anything but
acquaintanceship. But we must worry about a cover-up anyway, because rich and important people would be willing to pay Trump a lot
in money or, more likely, in political support, if he does a cover-up.
Why did Judge Sweet order Epstein documents sealed in 2017. Did he die naturally in 2019?
Judge Robert Sweet in 2017 ordered all documents in an Epstein-related case sealed. He died in May 2019 at age 96, at home in
Idaho. The sealing was completely illegal, as the appeals court politely but devastatingly noted in 2019, and the documents were
released a day or two before Epstein died. Someone should check into Judge Sweet's finance and death. He was an ultra-Establishment
figure -- a Yale man, alas, like me, and Taft School -- so he might just have been protecting what he considered good people, but
his decision to seal the court records was grossly improper.
Did Epstein have any dealings in sex, favors, or investments with any Republican except Wexner?
Dershowitz, Mitchell, Clinton, Richardson, Dubin, George Stephanopolous, Lawrence Krauss, Katie Couric, Mortimer Zuckerman,
Chelsea Handler, Cyrus Vance, and Woody Allen, are all Democrats. Did Epstein ever make use of Republicans? Don't count Trump, who
has not been implicated despite the media's best efforts and was probably not even a Republican back in the 90's. Don't count Ken
Starr– he's just one of Epstein's lawyers. Don't count scientists who just took money gifts from him. (By the way, Epstein made very
little in the way of
political contributions
, though that little went mostly to Democrats (
$139,000 vs. $18,000
. I bet he extracted more from politicians than he gave to them.
What role did Israeli politician Ehud Barak play in all this?
Remember Marc Rich? He was a billionaire who fled the country to avoid a possible 300 years prison term, and was pardoned
by Bill Clinton in 2001. Ehud Barak, one of Epstein's friends, was one of the people
who asked for Rich to be pardoned
. Epstein, his killers, and other rich people know that as a last resort they can flee the country and wait for someone like Clinton
to come to office and pardon them.
Acosta said that Washington Bush Administration people told him to go easy on Epstein because he was an intelligence source. That
is plausible. Epstein had info and blackmailing ability with people like Ehud Barak, leader of Israel's Labor Party. But "intelligence"
is also the kind of excuse people make up so they don't have to say "political pressure."
Why did nobody pay attention to the two 2016 books on Epstein?
James Patterson and John Connolly published Filthy Rich: A Powerful Billionaire, the Sex Scandal that Undid Him ,
and All the Justice that Money Can Buy: The Shocking True Story of Jeffrey Epstein . Conchita Sarnoff published TrafficKing:
The Jeffrey Epstein Case. I never heard of these before 2019. Did the media bury them?
Which newspapers reported Epstein's death as "suicide" and which as "apparent suicide"?
More generally, which media outlets seem to be trying to brush Epstein's death under the rug? There seems to have been an
orchestrated attempt to divert attention to the issue of suicides in prison. Subtle differences in phrasing might help reveal who's
been paid off. National Review had an article,
"The Conspiracy
Theories about Jeffrey Epstein's Death Don't Make Much Sense." The article contains no evidence or argument to support the headline's
assertion, just bluster about "madness" and "conspiracy theories". Who else publishes stuff like this?
How much did Epstein corrupt the media from 2008 to 2019?
Even outlets that generally publish good articles must be suspected of corruption. Epstein made an effort to get good publicity.
The New York Times
wrote,
"The effort led to the publication of articles describing him as a selfless and forward-thinking philanthropist with an interest
in science on websites like Forbes, National Review and HuffPost .
All three articles have been removed from their sites in recent days, after inquiries from TheNew York Times .
The National Review piece, from the same year, called him "a smart businessman" with a "passion for cutting-edge science."
Ms. Galbraith was also a publicist for Mr. Epstein, according to several news releases promoting Mr. Epstein's foundations In
the article that appeared on the National Review site, she described him as having "given thoughtfully to countless organizations
that help educate underprivileged children."
"We took down the piece, and regret publishing it," Rich Lowry, the editor of National Review since 1997, said in an email.
He added that the publication had "had a process in place for a while now to weed out such commercially self-interested pieces from
lobbyists and PR flacks.""
Eric Rasmusen is an economist who has held an endowed chair at Indiana University's Kelley School of Business and visiting
positions at Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, the Harvard Economics Department, Chicago's Booth School of Business, Nuffield
College/Oxford, and the University of Tokyo Economics Department. He is best known for his book Games and Information. He has published
extensively in law and economics, including recent articles on the burakumin outcastes in Japan, the use of game theory in jurisprudence,
and quasi-concave functions. The views expressed here are his personal views and are not intended to represent the views of the Kelley
School of Business or Indiana University. His vitae is at http://www.rasmusen.org/vita.htm
.
Not one question involving Maurene Comey, then? She was one of the SDNY prosecutors assigned to this case, and her name has
been significantly played down (if at all visible) in the reportage before or after Epstein's death. That she just "happened"
to be on this case at all is quite an eyebrow raiser especially with her father under the ongoing "Spygate" investigation
Apparently, there will always be many players on the field, and many ways to do damage control.
So the problem was finding a motivated prosecutor in case of Jewish predator with very likely links to intelligence services
of several countries. The motivation was obviously lacking.
Your "expertise" in game theory would be greatly improved if you let yourself consider the Jewish factor.
As important as it is to go on asking questions about the life and death of Jeffrey Epstein, I have to admit that personally
I'm just not interested. I've always found people of his social class to be vaguely repulsive even without the sordid sex allegations.
Just their demanding personalities, just the thought of them hanging around in their terrycloth jogging suits, sneering at the
world with their irrefrangible arrogance, is enough to make me shudder. I want nothing of their nightmare world; and when they
die, I couldn't care less.
More generally, which media outlets seem to be trying to brush Epstein's death under the rug?
Not the National Enquirer:
Jeffrey Epstein Murder Cover-up Exposed!
Death Scene Staged to Look Like Suicide
Billionaire's Screams Ignored by Guards!
Fatal Attack Caught on Jail Cameras!
Autopsy is Hiding the Truth!
I don't hold AG Barr in the high regard this piece does. While I'm not suggesting he had anything to do with Epstein's
death I do think he's corrupt. I doubt he will do anything that leads to the truth. As for him relieving the warden of
his duties, I would hope that was to be expected, wasn't it? I mean he only had two attempts on Epstein's life with the second
being a success. Apparently the first didn't jolt the warden into some kind of action as it appears he was guilty of a number
of sins including 'Sloth.'
As for the publications that don't like conspiracy theories –like the National Review
-- they are a hoot. We are supposed to have faith in this rubbish? The cameras malfunctioned. He didn't have a cellmate. The
guards were tired and forced to work overtime. There was no camera specifically in the cell with Epstein.
In the end I think Epstein probably was allowed to kill himself but I'm not confident in that scenario at all. And yes the media
should pressure Barr to hav e a look in the cell and see exactly how a suicide attempt might have succeeded or if it was a long-shot
at best, given the materiel and conditions.
19. Why is the non-prosecution agreement ambiguous ("globally" binding), when it was written by the best lawyers in the country
for a very wealthy client? Was the ambiguity bargained-for? If so, what are the implications?
20. With "globally" still being unresolved (to the bail judge's first-paragraph astonishment), why commit suicide now?
21. The "it was malfeasance" components are specified. For mere malfeasance to have been the cause, all of the components would
have to be true; it would be a multiplicative function of the several components. Is no one sufficiently quantitative to estimate
the magnitude?
22. What is the best single takeaway phrase that emerges from all of this? My nomination is: "In your face." The brazen, shameless,
unprecedented, turning-point, in-your-faceness of it.
ER the answer is easy to you list of questions .. there is no law in the world when violations are not prosecuted and fair open
for all to see trials are not held and judges do not deliver the appropriate penalties upon convictions. .. in cases involving
the CIA prosecution it is unheard of that a open for all to see trial takes place.
This is why we the governed masses need a parallel government..
such an oversight government would allow to pick out the negligent or wilful misconduct of persons in functional government
and prosecute such persons in the independent people's court.. Without a second government to oversee the first government there
is no democracy; democracy cannot stand and the governed masses will never see the light of a fair day .. unless the masses have
oversight authority on what is to be made into law, and are given without prejudice to their standing in America the right to
charge those associated to government with negligent or wilful misconduct.
There are big questions this article is not asking either
The words 'Mossad' seems not to appear above, and just a brief mention of 'Israel' with Ehud Barak
One tiny mention of Jewish magnate Les Wexner but no mention how he & the Bronfmans founded the 'Mega Group' of ultra-Zionist
billionaires regularly meeting as to how they could prop up the Jewish state by any & all means, Wexner being the source of many
Epstein millions, the original buyer of the NYC mansion he transferred to Epstein etc the excellent Epstein series by Whitney
Webb on Mint Press covering all this https://www.mintpressnews.com/author/whitney-webb/
Was escape to freedom & Israe,l the ultimate payoff for Epstein's decades of work for Mossad, grooming and abusing young teens,
filmed in flagrante delicto with prominent people for political blackmail?
Is it not likely this was a Mossad jailbreak covered by fake 'suicide', with Epstein alive now, with US gov now also in possession
of the assumed Epstein sexual blackmail video tapes?
We have the Epstein 'death in jail' under the US Attorney General Bill Barr, a former CIA officer 1973-77, the CIA supporting
him thru night law school, Bill Barr's later law firm Kirkland Ellis representing Epstein
Whose Jewish-born ex-OSS father Donald Barr had written a 'fantasy novel' on sex slavery with scenes of rape of underage
teens, 'Space Relations', written whilst Don Barr was headmaster of the Dalton school, which gave Epstein his first job, teaching
teens
So would a crypto-Jewish 'former' CIA officer who is now USA Attorney General, possibly help a Mossad political blackmailer
escape to Israel after a fake 'jail suicide'?
An intriguing 4chan post a few hours after Epstein's 'body was discovered', says Epstein was put in a wheelchair and driven
out of the jail in a van, accompanied by a man in a green military uniform – timestamp is USA Pacific on the screencap apparently,
so about 10:44 NYC time Sat.10 Aug
FWIW, drone video of Epstein's Little St James island from Friday 30 August, shows a man who could be Epstein himself, on the
left by one vehicle, talking to a black man sitting on a quad all-terrain unit
Close up of Epstein-like man between vehicles, from video note 'pale finger' match-up to archive photo Epstein
The thing that sticks out for me is that Epstein was caught, charged, and went to jail previously, but he didn't die .
The second time, it appears he was murdered. I strongly suspect that the person who murdered Epstein was someone who only met
Epstein after 2008, or was someone Epstein only procured for after 2008. Otherwise, this person would have killed Epstein
back when Epstein was charged by the cops the first time.
Either that, or the killer is someone who is an opponent of Trump, and this person was genuinely terrified that Trump would
pressure the Feds to avoid any deals and to squeeze all the important names out of Epstein and prosecute them, too.
The author professes himself "expert in the field of "game theory", strategic thinking," but he doesn't say how his 18 questions
were arrived at to the exclusion of hundreds of others. Instead, the column includes several casual assumptions and speculation.
For example:
"Probably the only thing that Epstein changed in his will was the listing of assets, and he probably changed that because
he'd just updated his list of assets for the bail hearing anyway, so it was a convenient time to update the will."
"President Trump didn't have anything personally to fear from Epstein."
"I do trust Attorney-General Barr, however, from what I've heard of him and because he instantly and publicly said he would
have not just the FBI but the Justice Dept. Inspector-General investigate Epstein's death, and he quickly fired the federal
prison head honcho. The FBI is untrustworthy, but Inspector-Generals are often honorable."
As to this last, isn't "quickly [firing] the federal prison head honcho" consistent with a failure-to-prevent-suicide deflection
strategy? And has Mr. Rasmusen not "heard" of the hiring of Mr. Epstein by Mr. Barr's father? Or of the father's own Establishment
background?
I hope to be wrong, but my own hunch is that these investigations, like the parallel investigations of the RussiaGate hoax,
will leave the elite unscathed. I also hope that in the meantime we see more rigorous columns here than this one.
...Also, subsequently, it should have been a top priority to arrest Ghislaine Maxwell but the government, justice and media
lack interest . Apparently, they don't know where she is, and they're not making any special efforts to find out.
"... A new opinion poll released by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal last Sunday shows that 70% of Americans are "angry" because our political system seems to only be working for the insiders with money and power. Both Senator Bernie Sanders and Senator Elizabeth Warren have also reflected on this sentiment during their campaigns. Sanders has said that we live in a "corrupt political system designed to protect the wealthy and the powerful." Warren said it's a "rigged system that props up the rich and powerful and kicks dirt on everyone else." ..."
A new opinion poll released by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal last Sunday shows that 70% of Americans are "angry" because
our political system seems to only be working for the insiders with money and power. Both Senator Bernie Sanders and Senator Elizabeth
Warren have also reflected on this sentiment during their campaigns. Sanders has said that we live in a "corrupt political system
designed to protect the wealthy and the powerful." Warren said it's a "rigged system that props up the rich and powerful and kicks
dirt on everyone else."
A New York Times opinion article written by the political scientist Greg Weiner felt compelled to push back on this message, writing
a column with the title, The Shallow Cynicism of 'Everything Is Rigged'. In his column, Weiner basically makes the argument that
believing everything is corrupt and rigged is a cynical attitude with which it is possible to dismiss political opponents for being
a part of the corruption. In other words, the Sanders and Warren argument is a shortcut, according to Weiner, that avoids real political
debate.
Joining me now to discuss whether it makes sense to think of a political system as rigged and corrupt, and whether the cynical
attitude is justified, is someone who should know a thing or two about corruption: Bill Black. He is a white collar criminologist,
former financial regulator, and associate professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. He's also the
author of the book, The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One. Thanks for joining us again, Bill.
BILL BLACK: Thank you.
GREG WILPERT: As I mentioned that the outset, it seems that Sanders and Warren are in effect taking an open door, at least when
it comes to the American public. That is, almost everyone already believes that our political and economic system is rigged. Would
you agree with that sentiment that the system is corrupt and rigged for the rich and against pretty much everyone else but especially
the poor? What do you think?
BILL BLACK: One of the principal things I study is elite fraud, corruption and predation. The World Bank sent me to India for
months as an anti-corruption alleged expert type. And as a financial regulator, this is what I dealt with. This is what I researched.
This is a huge chunk of my life. So I wouldn't use the word, if I was being formal in an academic system, "the system." What I would
talk about is specific systems that are rigged, and they most assuredly are rigged.
Let me give you an example. One of the most important things that has transformed the world and made it vastly more criminogenic,
much more corrupt, is modern executive compensation. This is not an unusual position. This is actually the normal position now, even
among very conservative scholars, including the person who was the intellectual godfather of modern executive compensation, Michael
Jensen. He has admitted that he spawned unintentionally a monster because CEOs have rigged the compensation system. How do they do
that? Well, it starts even before you get hired as a CEO. This is amazing stuff. The standard thing you do as a powerful CEO is you
hire this guy, and he specializes in negotiating great deals for CEOs. His first demand, which is almost always given into, is that
the corporation pay his fee, not the CEO. On the other side of the table is somebody that the CEO is going to be the boss of negotiating
the other side. How hard is he going to negotiate against the guy that's going to be his boss? That's totally rigged.
Then the compensation committee hires compensation specialists who–again, even the most conservative economists agree it is a
completely rigged system. Because the only way they get work is if they give this extraordinary compensation. Then, everybody in
economics admits that there's a clear way you should run performance pay. It should be really long term. You get the big bucks only
after like 10 years of success. In reality, they're always incredibly short term. Why? Because it's vastly easier for the CEO to
rig the short-term reported earnings. What's the result of this? Accounting profession, criminology profession, economics profession,
law profession. We've all done studies and all of them say this perverse system of compensation causes CEOs to (a) cheat and (b)
to be extraordinarily short term in their perspective because it's easier to rig the short-term reported results. Even the most conservative
economists agree that's terrible for the economy.
What I've just gone through is a whole bunch of academic literature from over 40-plus years from top scholars in four different
fields. That's not cynicism. That's just plain facts if you understand the system. People like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders,
they didn't, as you say, kick open an open door. They made the open door. It's not like Elizabeth Warren started talking about this
six months ago when she started being a potential candidate. She has been saying this and explaining in detail how individual systems
are rigged in favor of the wealthy for at least 30 years of work. Bernie Sanders has been doing it for 45 years. This is what the
right, including the author of this piece who is an ultra-far right guy, fear the most. It's precisely what they fear, that Bernie
and Elizabeth are good at explaining how particular systems are rigged. They explain it in appropriate detail, but they're also good
in making it human. They talk the way humans talk as opposed to academics.
That's what the right fear is more than anything, that people will basically get woke. In this, it's being woke to how individual
systems have been rigged by the wealthy and powerful to create a sure thing to enrich them, usually at our direct expense.
GREG WILPERT: I think those are some very good examples. They're mostly from the realm of economics. I want to look at one from
the realm of politics, which specifically Weiner makes. He cites Sanders, who says that the rich literally buy elections, and Weiner
counters this by saying that, "It is difficult to identify instances in American history of an electoral majority wanting something
specific that it has not eventually gotten." That's a pretty amazing statement actually, I think, for him to say when you look at
the actual polls of what people want and what people get. He then also adds, "That's not possible to dupe the majority with advertising
all of the time." What's your response to that argument?
BILL BLACK: Well, actually, that's where he's trying to play economist, and he's particularly bad at economics. He was even worse
at economics than he is at political science, where his pitch, by the way is–I'm not overstating this–corruption is good. The real
problem with Senator Sanders and Senator Warren is that they're against corruption.
Can you fool many people? Answer: Yes. We have good statistics from people who actually study this as opposed to write op-eds
of this kind. In the great financial crisis, one of the most notorious of the predators that targeted blacks and Latinos–we actually
have statistics from New Century. And here's a particular scam. The loan broker gets paid more money the worse the deal he gets you,
the customer, and he gets paid by the bank. If he can get you to pay more than the market rate of interest, then he gets a kickback,
a literal kickback. In almost exactly half of the cases, New Century was able to get substantially above market interest rates, again,
targeted at blacks and Latinos.
We know that this kind of predatory approach can succeed, and it can succeed brilliantly. Look at cigarettes. Cigarettes, if you
use them as intended, they make you sick and they kill you. It wasn't that very long ago until a huge effort by pushback that the
tobacco companies, through a whole series of fake science and incredible amounts of ads that basically tried to associate if you
were male, that if you smoked, you'd have a lot of sex type of thing. It was really that crude. It was enormously successful with
people in getting them to do things that almost immediately made them sick and often actually killed them.
He's simply wrong empirically. You can see it in US death rates. You can see it in Hell, I'm overweight considerably. Americans
are enormously overweight because of the way we eat, which has everything to do with how marketing works in the United States, and
it's actually gotten so bad that it's reducing life expectancy in a number of groups in America. That's how incredibly effective
predatory practices are in rigging the system. That's again, two Nobel Laureates in economics have recently written about this. George
Akerlof and Shiller, both Nobel Laureates in economics, have written about this predation in a book for a general audience. It's
called Phishing with a P-H.
GREG WILPERT: I want to turn to the last point that Weiner makes about cynicism. He says that calling the system rigged is actually
a form of cynicism. And that cynicism, the belief that everything and everyone is bad or corrupt avoids real political arguments
because it tires everyone you disagree with as being a part of that corruption. Would you say, is the belief that the system is rigged
a form of cynicism? And if it is, wouldn't Weiner be right that cynicism avoids political debate?
BILL BLACK: He creates a straw man. No one has said that everything and everyone is corrupt. No one has said that if you disagree
with me, you are automatically corrupt. What they have given in considerable detail, like I gave as the first example, was here is
exactly how the system is rigged. Here are the empirical results of that rigging. This produces vast transfers of wealth to the powerful
and wealthy, and it comes at the expense of nearly everybody else. That is factual and that needs to be said. It needs to be said
that politicians that support this, and Weiner explicitly does that, says, we need to go back to a system that is more openly corrupt
and that if we have that system, the world will be better. That has no empirical basis. It's exactly the opposite. Corruption kills.
Corruption ruins economies.
The last thing in the world you want to do is what Weiner calls for, which he says, "We've got to stop applying morality to this
form of crime." In essence, he is channeling the godfather. "Tell the Don it wasn't personal. It was just business." There's nothing
really immoral in his view about bribing people. I'm sorry. I'm a Midwesterner. It wasn't cynicism. It was morality. He says you
can't compromise with corruption. I hope not. Compromising with corruption is precisely why we're in this situation where growth
rates have been cut in half, why wage growth has been cut by four-fifths, why blacks and Latinos during the great financial crisis
lost 60% to 80% of their wealth in college-educated households. That's why 70% of the public is increasingly woke on this subject.
GREG WILPERT: Well, we're going to leave it there. I was speaking to Bill Black, associate professor of economics and law at the
University of Missouri, Kansas City. Thanks again, Bill, for having joined us today.
BILL BLACK: Thank you.
GREG WILPERT: And thank you for joining The Real News Network.
Well, Sanders certainly knows that elections are rigged. But he's not quite right when he says that money does the rigging.
It would be more accurate to say that powerful people are powerful because they're criminals, and they're rich because they're
criminals.
Money is a side effect, not the driver. Specific example: Hillary and Bernie are in the same category of net worth, but Bernie
isn't powerful. The difference is that Bernie ISN'T willing to commit murder and blackmail to gain power.
> Hillary and Bernie are in the same category of net worth
Clinton's net worth (says Google) is $45 million; Sanders $2.5 million. So, an order of magnitude difference. I guess that
puts Sanders in the 1% category, but Clinton is much closer to the 0.1% category than Sanders.
There's also a billion-dollar foundation in the mix.
We had our choice of two New York billionaires in the last presidential election. How is this not accounted for? It's like
the bond market, the sheer weight carries its own momentum.
Very similar to CEO's. I may not own a private jet, but if the company does, and I control the company, I have the benefit
of a private jet. I don't need to own the penthouse to live in it.
"We came, we saw, he died. Tee hee hee!"
"Did it have anything to do with your visit?"
"I'm sure it did."
From a non-legal perspective at least, that makes her an accessory to murder, doesn't it?
Is it fair to say the entire system is rigged when enough interconnected parts of it are rigged that no matter where one turns,
one finds evidence of corruption? Because like it or not, that's where we are as a country.
Yes. And it is also fair to say, and has been said by lots of cynics over the centuries, that both democracy and capitalism
sow the seeds of their own destruction.
Burns me to see yet another "water is not wet" argument being foisted by the NYT, hard to imagine another reason the editorial
board pushed for this line *except* to protect the current corrupt one percenters who call their shots. Once Liz The Marionette
gets appointed we might get some fluff but the rot will persist, eventually rot becomes putrefaction and the polity dies. Gore
Vidal called America and Christianity "death cults".
"Due to technical difficulties, comments are unavailable"
Pisses me off that I gave the propaganda rag of note a click and didn't even get the joy of the comments section. I'm sure
there's some cynical reason why
The other thing is that the NYT runs this pretty indefensible piece by a guy who is a visiting scholar at the American
Enterprise Institute. Just how often does NYT -- whose goal,
according to its
executive editor, "should be to understand different views" -- run a piece from anyone who is leftwing? What's the ratio of pro-establishment,
pro-Washington consensus pieces to those that are not? Glenn Greenwald
points out that the political spectrum at the NYT op-ed page "spans the small gap from establishment centrist Democrats
to establishment centrist Republicans." That, in itself, is consistent with the premise that the system is, indeed, rigged.
I think we have to drill down another level and ask ourselves a more fundamental question "why is cynicism necessarily bad
to begin with?" Black's response of parsing to individual systems as being corrupt is playing into the NYT authors trap, sort
to speak.
This NYT article is another version of the seemingly obligatory attribute of the american character; we must ultimately be
optimistic and have hope. Why is that useful? Or maybe more importantly, to whom is that useful? What is the point?
In my mind (and many a philosopher), cynicism is a very healthy, empowering response to a world whose institutional configuration
is such that it will to fuck you over whenever it is expedient to do so.
Furthermore, the act of voting lends legitimacy to an institution that is clearly not legitimate. The institution is very obviously
very corrupt. If you really want to change the "system" stop giving it legitimacy; i.e. be cynical, don't vote. The whole thing
is a ruse. Boycott it .
Some may say, in a desperate attempt to avoid being cynical, "well, the national level is corrupt but we need to increase engagement
at the community level via local elections ", or something like that. This is nothing more than rearranging the chairs on the
deck of the titanic. And collecting signature isn't going to help anymore than handing out buckets on the titanic would.
So, to answer my own rhetorical question above, "to whom is it useful to not be cynical?" It is useful to those who want things
to continue as they currently are.
So, be cynical. Don't vote. It is an empowering and healthy way to kinda say "fuck you" to the corrupt and not become corrupted
yourself by legitimizing it. The best part about it is that you don't have to do anything.
Viva la paz (Hows that for a non cynical salutation?)
Uh this sounds like the ultimate allowing things to continue as they currently are, do you really imagine the powers that be
are concerned about a low voting rate, and we have one, they don't care, they may even like it that way. Do you really imagine
they care about some phantom like perceived legitimacy? Where is the evidence of that?
Politicians do care about staying in office and will respond on some issues that will cost them enough votes to get booted
from office. But it has to be those particular issues in their own backyard; otherwise, they just kind of limp along with the
lip service collecting their paychecks.
IMO, it is sheer idiocy to not vote. If you are a voter, politicians will pay some attention to you at least. If you don't
vote, you don't even exist to them.
"I don't think it should be legal at ALL to become a corporate lobbyist if you've served in Congress," said Ocasio-Cortez.
"At minimum there should be a long wait period."
"If you are a member of Congress + leave, you shouldn't be allowed to turn right around&leverage your service for a lobbyist check.
I don't think it should be legal at ALL to become a corporate lobbyist if you've served in Congress."
–AOC, as reported by NakedCapitalism on May 31, 2019
I try to be despairing, but I can't keep up.
Attributed to a generation or two after Lily Tomlin's quote about cynicism.
Out of curiosity, would it be cynical to question that political scientist's grant funding or other sources of income? These
days, I feel inclined to look at what I'll call the Sinclair Rule* , added to Betteridge's, Godwin's and all those other, ahem,
modifications to what used to be an expectation that communication was more or less honest.
* Sinclair Rule, where you add a interpretive filter based on Upton's famous quote: It is difficult to get a man to understand
something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
It's good to look at funding sources. But it's kind of a slander to those who must work for a living when assuming it's paychecks
(which we need to live in this system) that corrupt people.
If it's applied to the average working person, maybe it's often true, maybe it has a tendency to push in that direction, but
if you think there are no workers that realize the industry they are working in might be destructive, that they may be exploited
by such systems but have little choice etc. etc., come now there are working people who are politically aware and do see a larger
picture, they just don't have a lot of power to change it much of the time. Does the average working person's salary depend on
his not understanding though? No, of course not, it merely depends on him obeying. And obeying enough to keep a job, not always
understanding, is what a paycheck buys.
With all the evidence of everyday life (airplanes, drug prices, health insurance, Wall Street, CEO pay, the workforce changes
in the past 20 years if you've been working those years etc) this Greg better be careful as he might be seen as a Witch to be
hanged and burned in Salem, Ma a few hundred years ago.
It's cynical to say it's cynical to believe the system is corrupt.
Greg Weiner is cynic, and his is using his cynicism to dismiss the political arguments of people he disagrees with.
And just this week, I found out I couldn't even buy a car unless I'd be willing to sign a mandatory binding arbitration agreement.
I was ready to pay and sign all the paperwork, and they lay a document in front of me that reserves for the dealer the right to
seek any remedy against me if I harm the dealer (pay with bad check, become delinquent on loan, fail to provide clean title on
my trade); but forces me to accept mandatory binding arbitration, with damages limited to the value of the car, for anything the
dealer might do wrong.
It is not cynical at all when even car dealers now want a permission slip for any harm they might do to me.
Okay, a few more. We are literally facing the possibility of a mass extinction in large part because of dishonesty on the par
of oil companies, politicians, and people paid to make bad arguments.
"Assad (and by implication Assad's forces alone) killed 500,000 Syrians."
"Israel is just defending itself."
I can't squeeze the dishonesty about the war in Yemen into a short slogan, but I know from personal experience that getting
liberals to care when it was Obama's war was virtually impossible. Even under Trump it was hard, until Khashoggi's murder. On
the part of politicians and think tanks this was corruption by Saudi money. With ordinary people it was the usual partisan tribal
hypocrisy.
The motivator is "
Gap Psychology
," the human desire to distance oneself from those below (on any scale), and to come nearer to those above.
The rich are rich because the Gap below them is wide, and the wider the Gap, the richer they are .
And here is the important point: There are two ways the rich widen the Gap: Either gain more for themselves or make sure
those below have less.
That is why the rich promulgate the Big Lie that the federal government (and its agencies, Social Security and Medicare) is
running short of dollars. The rich want to make sure that those below them don't gain more, as that would narrow the Gap.
Negative sum game, where one wins but the other has to lose more so the party of the first part feels even better about winning.
There is an element of sadism, sociopathy and a few other behaviors that the current systems allow to be gamed even more profitably.
If you build it, or lobby to have it built, they will come multiple times.
A successful society should be responsive to both threats and opportunities. Any major problems to that society are assessed
and changes are made, usually begrudgingly, to adapt to the new situation. And this is where corruption comes into it. It short
circuits the signals that a society receives so that it ignores serious threats and elevates ones that are relatively minor but
which benefit a small segment of that society. If you want an example of this at work, back in 2016 you had about 40,000 Americans
dying to opioids each and every year which was considered only a background issue. But a major issue about that time was who gets
to use what toilets. Seriously. If it gets bad enough, a society gets overwhelmed by the problems that were ignored or were deferred
to a later time. And I regret to say that the UK is going to learn this lesson in spades.
'Sanders has said that we live in a "corrupt political system designed to protect the wealthy and the powerful." Warren said
it's a "rigged system that props up the rich and powerful and kicks dirt on everyone else."'
Yet the rest of the article focuses almost entirely on internal US shenanigans. When it comes to protecting wealth and power,
George Kennan hit the nail on the head in 1948, with "we have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3 of its population.
This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the
object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships, which will permit us
to maintain this position of disparity." This, which has underpinned US policy ever since, may not be corrupt in the sense of
illegal, but it certainly seems corrupt in the sense of morally repugnant to me.
About Kennan's comment. That's interesting because no one questioned the word "wealth". Even tho' we had only 6.3% of the world's
population we had 50% of the wealth. The point of that comment had to be that we should "spread the wealth" and we did do just
that. Until we polluted the entire planet. I'd like some MMT person to take a long look at that attitude because it is so simplistic.
And not like George Kennan at all who was sophisticated to the bone. But that's just more proof of a bred-in-the-bone ignorance
about what money really is. In this case Kennan was talking about money, not wealth. He never asked Nepal for advice on gross
national happiness, etc. Nor did he calculate the enormous debt burden we would incur for our unregulated use and abuse of the
environment. That debt most certainly offsets any "wealth" that happened.
Approaching from the opposite direction, if someone were to say "I sincerely believe that the USA has the most open & honest
political system and the fairest economic system in human history" would you not think that person to be incredibly naive (or,
cynically, a liar)?
There has been, for at least the last couple of decades. a determined effort to do away with corruption – by defining it away.
"Citizens United" is perhaps the most glaring example but the effort is ongoing; that Weiner op-ed is a good current example.
What is cynical is everyone's response when point out that the system is corrupt. They all say " always has been, always will be so just deal with it ".
Strawmannirg has got to be the most cynical behavior in the world. Weiner is the cynic. I think Liz's "the system is rigged
" comment invites discussion. It is not a closed door at all. It is a plea for good capitalism. Which most people assume is possible.
It's time to define just what kind of capitalism will work and what it needs to continue to be, or finally become, a useful economic
ideology. High time.
Another thing. Look how irrational the world, which is now awash in money, has become over lack of liquidity. There's a big
push now to achieve an optimum flow of money by speeding up transaction time. The Fed is in the midst of designing a new real-time
digital payments system. A speedy accounting and record of everything. Which sounds like a very good idea.
But the predators are
busy keeping pace – witness the frantic grab by Facebook with Libra. Libra is cynical. To say the least. The whole thing a few
days ago on the design of Libra was frightening because Libra has not slowed down; it has filed it's private corporation papers
in Switzerland and is working toward a goal of becoming a private currency – backed by sovereign money no less! Twisted. So there's
a good discussion begging to be heard: The legitimate Federal Reserve v. Libra. The reason we are not having this discussion is
because the elite are hard-core cynics.
apenultimate on Fri, 08/30/2019 - 12:39am Even though she will not be included in the
3rd DNC debate, upon her return from Indonesia where she was training with her Hawaii National
Guard unit, Tulsi has indicated that we should not be discouraged and she has given every
indication she will continue to campaign at this point:
The USA centered global neoliberal empire falls from grace at alarming speed.
Just the discussion of this possibility would be unthinkable in 90th -- the period of triumphal advance of neoliberalism all over
the globe. So thinks did change although it is unclear what is that direction of the social change -- neo-fascism or some kind of return
to the New Del Capitalism (if so who will replace previous, forged by Great Depression political alignment between trade unions and
management against the financial oligarchy, which financial oligarchy managed to broke using neoliberalism as the Trojan horse and bribing
CEOs)
Om a was original fascist movements were also a protest against the rule of financial oligarchy. Even anti-Semitism in Germany was
a kind of perverted protest against financial oligarchy as well. They were quickly subverted and in Germany anti-Semitism degenerated
into irrational hatred and genocide, , but the fact remains. Just looks at
NSDAP program of 1920 . Now we have somewhat
similar sentiments with Wexner and Meta group in the USA. To say that they do not invoke any sympathy is an understatement.
The problem with empires that they do not only rob the "other people". They rob their own people as well, and rob them hard. The
USSR people were really robbed by Soviet military industrial complex and Soviet globalist -- to the far greater extent then the USA
people now. People were really as poor as church rats. Epidemic of alcoholism in the USA resembles the epidemic of narcoaddtion in the
USA --- both are signs of desire then there is no jobs and now chances.
Like the collapse of the USSR was the result of the collapse of bolshevism, the collapse of the USA can be the result of the collapse
of neoliberalism. Whether it will take 10 or 50 years is unclear, but the general tendency is down.
The competitors has grown much strong now and they want their place under then sub. That means squeezing the USA. Trump did agrat
job in alientaing the US and that was probably the most important step is dismantling the USA empire that was taken. Add to that trade
war with China and we have the situation that is not favorable to the USA politically in two important parts of the globe.
Add to this Brexit and we have clear tendency of states to reassert their sovereignty, which start hurting the USA based multinationals.
The only things that work in favor of the USA is that currently there is no clear alternative to neoliberalism other then some kind
of restoration of the New Deal capitalism or neo-fasist dictatorship.
Notable quotes:
"... Self-discipline, self sacrifice and self restraint are the prices which must be paid for a civilization to survive, much less flourish, and Americans are increasingly unwilling to pay up. The America of a generation or two down the road will have the social cohesion of El Salvador. ..."
"... Being that history is always written by the tyrant of the time (which in our case was definitely behind the two last empires and a big player in Rome as and Spain as well) people are also led to believe that empire is a desireable state of cicumstance. It never was. Its the ambitions and conquistador actions of the collective psychopath. They feed on the strength of civilizations and utilize it for megalomaniac ambitions over power of others and power over everything. ..."
"... Those of you hoping for the end of American Empire need to think about what would replace it. ..."
"... You are completely delusional. The world is not better off under American stewardship. We don't need and shouldn't want anything to replace it. We don't need and shouldn't want any empire ruling the world. We would be better off without any state at all, so we could finally be free people. ..."
"... And no it probably wouldn't be better off under the Chinese. Although if the world stopped respecting American IP law, that would be a huge positive step forward. ..."
Years ago, Doug Casey mentioned in a correspondence to me, "Empires fall from grace with alarming speed."
Every now and then, you receive a comment that, although it may have been stated casually, has a lasting effect, as it offers
uncommon insight. For me, this was one of those and it's one that I've kept handy at my desk since that time, as a reminder.
I'm from a British family, one that left the UK just as the British Empire was about to begin its decline. They expatriated to
the "New World" to seek promise for the future.
As I've spent most of my life centred in a British colony – the Cayman Islands – I've had the opportunity to observe many British
contract professionals who left the UK seeking advancement, which they almost invariably find in Cayman. Curiously, though, most
returned to the UK after a contract or two, in the belief that the UK would bounce back from its decline, and they wanted to be on
board when Britain "came back."
This, of course, never happened. The US replaced the UK as the world's foremost empire, and although the UK has had its ups and
downs over the ensuing decades, it hasn't returned to its former glory.
And it never will.
If we observe the empires of the world that have existed over the millennia, we see a consistent history of collapse without renewal.
Whether we're looking at the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Spanish Empire, or any other that's existed at one time, history
is remarkably consistent: The decline and fall of any empire never reverses itself; nor does the empire return, once it's fallen.
But of what importance is this to us today?
Well, today, the US is the world's undisputed leading empire and most Americans would agree that, whilst it's going through a
bad patch, it will bounce back and might even be better than ever.
Not so, I'm afraid. All empires follow the same cycle. They begin with a population that has a strong work ethic and is self-reliant.
Those people organize to form a nation of great strength, based upon high productivity.
This leads to expansion, generally based upon world trade. At some point, this gives rise to leaders who seek, not to work in
partnership with other nations, but to dominate them, and of course, this is when a great nation becomes an empire. The US began
this stage under the flamboyant and aggressive Teddy Roosevelt.
The twentieth century was the American century and the US went from victory to victory, expanding its power.
But the decline began in the 1960s, when the US started to pursue unwinnable wars, began the destruction of its currency and began
to expand its government into an all-powerful body.
Still, this process tends to be protracted and the overall decline often takes decades.
So, how does that square with the quote, "Empires fall from grace with alarming speed"?
Well, the preparation for the fall can often be seen for a generation or more, but the actual fall tends to occur quite rapidly.
What happens is very similar to what happens with a schoolyard bully.
The bully has a slow rise, based upon his strength and aggressive tendency. After a number of successful fights, he becomes
first revered, then feared. He then takes on several toadies who lack his abilities but want some of the spoils, so they do his
bidding, acting in a threatening manner to other schoolboys.
The bully then becomes hated. No one tells him so, but the other kids secretly dream of his defeat, hopefully in a shameful
manner.
Then, at some point, some boy who has a measure of strength and the requisite determination has had enough and takes on the
bully.
If he defeats him, a curious thing happens. The toadies suddenly realise that the jig is up and they head for the hills, knowing
that their source of power is gone.
Also, once the defeated bully is down, all the anger, fear and hatred that his schoolmates felt for him come out, and they
take great pleasure in his defeat.
And this, in a nutshell, is what happens with empires.
A nation that comes to the rescue in times of genuine need (such as the two World Wars) is revered. But once that nation morphs
into a bully that uses any excuse to invade countries such as Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq and Syria, its allies may continue to bow
to it but secretly fear it and wish that it could be taken down a peg.
When the empire then starts looking around for other nations to bully, such as Iran and Venezuela, its allies again say nothing
but react with fear when they see the John Boltons and Mike Pompeos beating the war drums and making reckless comments.
At present, the US is focusing primarily on economic warfare, but if this fails to get the world to bend to its dominance, the
US has repeatedly warned, regarding possible military aggression, that "no option is off the table."
The US has reached the classic stage when it has become a reckless bully, and its support structure of allies has begun to de-couple
as a result.
At the same time that allies begin to pull back and make other plans for their future, those citizens within the empire who tend
to be the creators of prosperity also begin to seek greener pastures.
History has seen this happen countless times. The "brain drain" occurs, in which the best and most productive begin to look elsewhere
for their future. Just as the most productive Europeans crossed the Pond to colonise the US when it was a new, promising country,
their present-day counterparts have begun moving offshore.
The US is presently in a state of suspended animation. It still appears to be a major force, but its buttresses are quietly disappearing.
At some point in the near future, it's likely that the US government will overplay its hand and aggress against a foe that either
is stronger or has alliances that, collectively, make it stronger.
The greatest (so called) threats to America- the Russians, Chinese, Iranians, North Koreans, ISIS, ( fill in the blank for
the latest overseas bogeyman-of-the-week ) pale into a wisp beside the ongoing disintegration of American traditional family life.
Self-discipline, self sacrifice and self restraint are the prices which must be paid for a civilization to survive, much less
flourish, and Americans are increasingly unwilling to pay up. The America of a generation or two down the road will have the social
cohesion of El Salvador.
You also cant warn people about the collapse of empire either. People notoriously go into denial about it and it shocks the
**** out of everybody. Since empires bluff and bluster at the end its all to easy for people want to believe.
Being that history is always written by the tyrant of the time (which in our case was definitely behind the two last empires
and a big player in Rome as and Spain as well) people are also led to believe that empire is a desireable state of cicumstance.
It never was. Its the ambitions and conquistador actions of the collective psychopath. They feed on the strength of civilizations
and utilize it for megalomaniac ambitions over power of others and power over everything.
Those of you hoping for the end of American Empire need to think about what would replace it. if you think that the world would
enter the age of Aquarius and peace will rule the planet you are extremely naive and stupid. If you think that the Chinese would
be more benign rulers you are mistaken. The only reason China doesn't use its military to dominate other countries is because
it is kept in check by the US.
You are completely delusional. The world is not better off under American stewardship. We don't need and shouldn't want anything
to replace it. We don't need and shouldn't want any empire ruling the world. We would be better off without any state at
all, so we could finally be free people.
And no it probably wouldn't be better off under the Chinese. Although if the world stopped respecting American IP law, that
would be a huge positive step forward.
In the real world, Chinese terrorists are just as bad as American terrorists. Despite the most popular hypnosis gripping the
American psyche, you can't have liberty or justice as long as either one is in charge. Whether the Chinese would be worse is debatable.
It's not like America has some great track record to compete against. Their reign has been a complete disaster for human rights.
If China became the new empire we wouldnt live under it. It would be at least 100 years out. This empire will screw everybody
epically first, plus we have decline weather patterns with super solar grand minimum. Also those people's who may see that next
empire will deal with whatever circumstances present themselves and they wont give one **** what we think about it.
Basically power has kept moving west. Nobody will forget the depravity of this one. If written about accurately this one will
be remembered most for the medical tyranny and intentional damage it did to human beings through injections and modified good
supply, as well as moral depravity and proxy sadistic terrorism. Remember empire backed terrorist groups trafficked children and
harvested organs. You can miss it if you want, few will.
I do not _hope_ for an end of the American Empire, and I dread what is going to replace it. Howsoever, no empire lasts forever,
and our empire is near its end. The Chinese are relentlessly cruel, and that's in their genotype. I probably won't live to see
them take over the scraps and bits and pieces of our former empire. Those who are alive and in the prime of their lives when that
happens will suffer unimaginably while they live, and their blood will cry out from the grave after they die. It makes me so heart-sick
I can't bear to think about it for long, but our progeny will be forced to live it without let or hindrance.
Lets find out the whole details of what they have done to our biology and our children's first before we say how cruel China
might be. For starters look at what US and British did in Africa compared to China and Russia's involvement there. They are doing
deals and not killing anybody, same with Venezuela.
Where else you going to go? What nation ISN'T broke? Europe is going to hell. So is South America. Africa has always been hell.
Asia? Look what's going down in Hong Kong. China's broke. Make no mistake, the USA is in decline. But so is the rest of the world...
regardless of what is printed China is not falling, they have a plan and have only advanced it. The debt side will not hurt
them because they have been poor before and they have a route to success. They do not have resources but the industrial side is
needed everywhere in the world. We are talking about a nation that literally prospered off of our garbage and resells it back
to us! Think about it we use something up and pay them to take it away, they recycle it and resell it to us again and moved a
nation 4x our population forward!
You really think debt will hurt them, especially the way the US determines debt! A huge portion of it is in the infrastructucture
in China and along the BRI which will have returns over time, just as if we in the states rebuilt all our infrastructure by living
wage employment rather than MIC investment!
Yes, all are broke. Assisted suicides of countries all over the world. Emphasise on "assisted".
Nations have been demoralized (the US most certainly, check Yuri Bezmenov) we are in destabilization phase already, collapse
has to be next, it is unavoidable now. This will not end well, ignore at your own risk!
I am not talking about countries, just some Life Hedge Regions left in the world. People with brains and resources, you don
need a Life Hedge Property! Away from Northern Hemisphere, away from Ring of Fire, etc... Get in touch. lifehedge(at)
protonmail.com
What got America into trouble was when Americans who thought of themselves as being "exceptional" became exceptionally stupid.
The best and the brightest have already left America. Any wonder why we now depend on Russia to send our astronauts up on their
rockets into space, or depend on China, South Korea, and Japan for our electronic products, or why better health care is found
in other places outside the U.S., why our educational system has become poorer than what it was 60 years ago, etc.,?
When we decided to financialize everything and make nothing but investments we crippled our advancement.
When we decided to take the brightest minds in the world and recruit them into the US and then rather than advance the world
with true science, we offer them lucrative money to enter financial markets to use their knowledge in that field.
We take the ones with morals and principles that choose to actually remain in science and then corrupt them over time with
money/fame to regurgetate whatever their contractor chooses or lose funding for their projects.
We have corrupted every aspect of advancement and now just use our fake printed money to force the desperate to bend to our
will.
Good read on the subject of empires Sir John Glubb - The fate of empires and Search for survival.
We are probably near the end of the American Empire. And a fascinating by product of the HK protests is that we may well be near the end of Chinese Communism.
Nothing moves forward in a straight line. They move up and down. Empires are no exception. The Romans had their ups and downs
throughout the course of their empire. You never know when a down cycle is the end but people who want it to end will always write
articles like this.
American dominance might be drawing to an end....or it might be gearing up to go another 200 years. Nobody knows so it's a
waste of time to speculate.
The only other putative American conspiracy theory I'm aware of where a larger percentage of
the public does not believe the official story than does believe it is JFK's assassination .
@Jeff Stryker You
keep posting this question,but the premise is most doubtful. One would quickly be arrested
and quite possibly be shot and/or beaten half to death before the police arrived if you tried
approaching little girls in a trailer park offering money for sex .
Maxwell never had any contact with the schoolgirls, none of them said she met them.
Epstein's co conspirators getting him schoolgirls from Palm Beach High were other schoolgirls
who he paid a commission for bringing him girls, The main one was the 14 year old we hear so
much about and she recruited mainly her friends and relatives. It did not last long because
she got into a fight about it and then blabbed to the school psychologist about the whole
thing. The police found out from her who all the girls were and Epstein was arrested. Really
sophisticated intelligence operation.
Virginia Giuffre (nee Roberts), now in her thirties, was 17 and already studying to become
a masseuse when she met Maxwell at Trump's resort where she and her father both worked, and
was offered a job to start with Einstein in that capacity. Her father knew of Epstein as did
everyone in Palm Beach back then, and drove her to Epstein's house for the interview being
quite happy with the whole thing.
Guess that's why the largest percentage #MeToo offenders are Jews.
Yes, and they can't all be working for Mossad. Are Weinstein's female assistants being
assumed to be his accomplices in the rape of multiple women. Rape is what he is about to
stand trial for. I would say that rape is a much more serious offence than having consensual
sexual contact with a under age girl and paying her. There are several accounts of
Weinstein's assistants (who all knew what he was like) suddenly disappearing and leaving
young actresses alone with him. Was that a Mossad plot too? Or, do Weinstein's factotums get
a pass because they were Gentiles?
Weinstein's crimes are "predatory sexual assault," which carry a potential life sentence.
If Epstein was not prosecuted to the full extent of the laws it might have something to do
with those laws getting a little out of balance with the seriousness of the crime Epstein
committed. when compared with non prostitution offences. A 14 year old who hears she get big
money for giving a super rich old (to her) guy a massage and goes along to his house knowing
sexual contact short of full intercourse is part of the deal and leaves with several hundred
of dollars is in a very different category to a woman who is forcibly assaulted when a young
adult by a big shot movie producer.The Sopranos's Annabella Sciorra is saying Weinstein raped
her in 1993-94. H cannot be prosecuted for it now as too much time has passed. Mossad
plot?
@Jeff Stryker You
can't blame the victims or their parents all the time. The network of sex trafficking is so
powerful because it has no scruples at all.
This article explains how an young 22 year old English native Caucasian woman was sex
trafficked in London. She was walking down a street, when approached by photographer for
casting work. She went along with it. It soon went downhill very quickly. She ended up as a
slave in London. Lucky, she got out. Many girls probably could not get out and live to tell
about it.
Peter Harris continently forget that the USA is imperial power with expansionist, imperial
goals in the Middle East (Iraq war was about oil) and unrelenting support of Israel. Which in
turn is a destabilizing force in the Middle East. The only state with not no accepted borders
which recently annexed Holland heights.
recenthistory of
engineering the downfall of foreign regimes. Second, the U.S. military's top priority should be
to eliminate terrorist groups such as ISIS and Al Qaeda. From these two premises, a third
foundation of Gabbard's foreign policy can be inferred: that the United States must sometimes
tolerate the existence of brutal foreign governments, especially if they share a common
interest in fighting the same terrorist groups as America.
None of these are radical assumptions about American foreign policy. Indeed, Gabbard's
anti-interventionism is tightly aligned with the prevailing zeitgeist in U.S. politics.
According to polling data, voters today are opposed to U.S. involvement in
Yemen , supportive of a withdrawal from
Afghanistan , and roughly
evenly split on the question of whether the United States should cease operations in Syria.
Military veterans are among those
most critical of the so-called "forever wars" in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere.
Gabbard's insistence that the U.S. military should focus on counterterrorism rather than
regime change is also well within the mainstream of political opinion. In this regard, Gabbard
is
not unlike the last Democratic occupant of the Oval Office. After all, it was Barack Obama
who, as a candidate for the presidency, explicitly coupled his headline promises to end the
Iraq War and shrink America's overall military footprint with a commitment to ramp up the fight
against Al Qaeda and their Taliban enablers in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
... ... ..
Peter Harris is an assistant professor of political science at Colorado State
University. You can follow him on Twitter: @ipeterharris .
I vote for taking Tulsi seriously. Pres Trump should consider her as Sec Defense or
head of the DNI. We've ruined the lives of the Syrian people with our intervention and
who the f decided we have a say? The U.S. needs to stop being interventionist for the
most part and in the event another country invades us, then and only then should be blow
them the F up!
Working with Assad and Russia to rid Syria of the remaining terrorists makes sense. It
would stop the "cleansing" of Idlib from Kurds, Christians and moderate Muslims by Al
Qaeda/ex-ISIS forces supported by Turkey. It would force Turkey to withdraw its forces
from Syria, and isolate Turkey from Russian influence. Iranian proxy militias would no
longer be needed in Syria to fight Al Qaeda. Finally, it would facilitate return of
Syrian refugees. The US should also remove existing sanctions on Syria which are
preventing economic reconstruction of the country.
Tulsi Gabbard is our only chance to beat Trump, and yet the media refuses to print
much about her, or her policies. I don't get it?
Anyway, thank you for this article you posted.
You can find all that on YouTube, where she has posted dozens of her campaign chats.
See also Joe Rogan interviews. The connection between foreign and domestic policy is that
trillions wasted on endless wars make health, education, infrastructure, etc.
unaffordable and therefore pie-in-the-sky until we come to our senses. She seems to offer
more detailed positions and more practical proposals on most of those issues -- and more
-- than the rest of the candidates put together. Is she too good to be true? Perhaps. Is
she a candidate we need in coming debates? Definitely. Could she beat Trump? In debates,
easily and decisively; in November 2020, not sure, but I think she has better odds than
the rest. What sort of president would she be? The wildest of wild cards, possibly one of
the greatest, possibly something else. At the rate things are going, it might be a lot
riskier NOT to take a chance on her.
The US administration shifted its policy to "no boots on the ground" during Pres.
Obama. Russia exploited the opportunity to reinstate its "boots" in the region and even
put a wedge between NATO and Turkey. To me it looks that this policy is detrimental to
the US hegemony in the region. Besides, I scream:'the King is naked' and claim that
people's interest or wellbeing in this region comes last, if at all, in the list of
priorities of all the regional and global superpowers, including the US administration.
Finally, collaborating with thugs like current rulers of Syria, Iran and similar was
proved a wrong policy by their infamous predecessor, 'Mr.' Adolf H., how respectfully Mr.
Chamberlain called him.
Most politicians don't learn from history.
Lots of Historians say that Stalin was as bad as Hitler, arguably even worse, in terms
of body counts. But if Churchill and Roosevelt had not engaged with Stalin, defeating the
Third Reich might have taken the rest of the 20th century. The crucial difference is
between Chamberlain and Churchill. It not how evil our negotiating partners are but how
strong and clear-sighted we are that determines the outcome.
https://www.youtube.com/wat... Until you listen to this by Col Lawrence Wilkerson
whose Truth-Telling is never carried on MSM then you can fall for this Drivel Propaganda
about Assad and him being a brutal dictator who in fact DID NOT Gas his people. This is
all Israeli Likud extremists who have been trying to illegally seize land in Syria, steal
oil, and destabilize it for 65 yrs. The Zionist White Helments are using human shields.
Assad is a sovereign and if you think Iran, Russia, and their other allies are going to
let them fail with US-sponsored Terrorists then you are wrong. Wilkerson says he wishes
he could slap Clinton, Pelosi, and all the hysterical pundits screamin about pulling out
of Syria in the face. He goes on to say there are 50 Air, Naval, & Army bases
surrounding Iran and Syria, the largest on Earth, and that the only solution is Diplomacy
or Nuclear War.
israel shoots up civilians in gaza not a problem, saudis behead homosexuals not a big
deal, assad fights against alqaeda and isis omg he is worst than hitler this cannot be
happening >.<
Wow, just came across two pro-Tulsi articles in a row on my Google feed. What is going
on? Varitas got Google shook, or Dems finally realizing Tulsi the only chance they have
against Trump. No, Dems will never forgive her for defecting to Bernie, they bite their
own nose off first. Must be the Varitas stuff. Things will get back to hate Tulsi normal
soon I'm sure
The worst by far are the Saudis. But they our ally so can't talk about them. They buy
billions worth of US weaponry, keep economy going, yippie. I remember when Saddam was a
rock star, on USA magazine covers, hailed as progressive. Kadahfy too. Kadahfy was a
actually a pretty decent guy. He truly was progressive. It is strange world when you
realize up is down and down is up , 2+2=5
"... If you enjoyed this original article please consider making a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this one. ..."
"... Before commenting please read Robert Parry's ..."
"... . Allegations unsupported by facts, gross or misleading factual errors and ad hominem attacks, and abusive language toward other commenters or our writers will be removed. If your comment does not immediately appear, please be patient as it is manually reviewed. ..."
Film 'Official Secrets' is the Tip of a Mammoth Iceberg August 29, 2019 •
37 Comments
A new film depicting the whistleblower Katherine Gun, who tried to stop the Iraq invasion,
is largely accurate, but the story is not over, says Sam Husseini.
T wo-time Oscar nominee Keira Knightley is known for being in "period pieces" such as "Pride
and Prejudice," so her playing the lead in the new film "Official Secrets," scheduled to be
released in the U.S. on Friday, may seem odd at first. That is until one considers that the
time span being depicted -- the early 2003 run-up to the invasion of Iraq -- is one of the most
dramatic and consequential periods of modern human history.
It is also one of the most poorly understood, in part because the story of Katharine Gun,
played by Knightley, is so little known. Having followed this story from the start, I find this
film to be, by Hollywood standards, a remarkably accurate account of what has happened to
date–"to date" because the wider story still isn't over.
Katharine Gun
worked as an analyst for Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), the British equivalent
of the secretive U.S. National Security Agency. She tried to stop the impending invasion of
Iraq in early 2003 by exposing the deceit of George W. Bush and Tony Blair in their claims
about that country. For doing that she was prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act -- a
juiced up version of the U.S. Espionage Act, which in recent years has been used repeatedly by
the Obama administration against whistleblowers and now by the Trump administration against
WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange.
Gun was charged for exposing -- around the time of
Colin Powell's infamous testimony to the UN about Iraq's alleged WMDs – a top secret
U.S. government memo showing it was mounting an illegal spying "surge" against other U.N.
Security Council delegations in an effort to manipulate them into voting for an Iraq invasion
resolution. The U.S. and Britain had successfully
forced through a trumped
up resolution, 1441 in November 2002. In early 2003, they were poised to threaten, bribe or
blackmail their way to get formal United Nations authorization for the invasion. [See
recent interview with Gun .]
Katherine Gun The leaked memo, published by the British Observer , was big news in
parts of the world, especially the targeted countries on the Security Council, and helped
prevent Bush and Blair from getting the second UN Security Council resolution they said they
wanted. Veto powers Russia, China and France were opposed as well as U.S. ally Germany.
'Most Courageous Leak' It was the executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy,
where I work ( accuracy.org ), Norman
Solomon, as well as Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg who in the U.S. most
immediately saw the importance of what Gun had done. Ellsberg would later comment: "No one else
-- including myself -- has ever done what Katharine Gun did: Tell secret truths at personal
risk, before an imminent war, in time, possibly, to avert it. Hers was the most important --
and courageous -- leak I've ever seen, more timely and potentially more effective than the
Pentagon Papers."
Daniel Ellsberg on the cover of Time after leaking the Pentagon Papers
Gun said: "I went to the local bookshop, and I went into the political section. I found two
books, which had apparently been rushed into publication, one was by Norman Solomon and Reese
Erlich, and it was called Target Iraq . And the
other one was by Milan Rai. It was called War
Plan Iraq . And I bought both of them. And I read them cover to cover that weekend, and
it basically convinced me that there was no real evidence for this war. So I think from that
point onward, I was very critical and scrutinizing everything that was being said in the
media." Thus, we see Gun in "Official Secrets" shouting at the TV to Tony Blair that he's not
entitled to make up facts. The film may be jarring to some consumers of major media who might
think that Donald Trump invented lying in 2017. Gun's immediate action after reading critiques
of U.S. policy and media coverage makes a strong case for trying to reach government workers by
handing out fliers and books and putting up
billboards outside government offices to encourage them to be more critically minded.
Solomon and Ellsberg had debunked Bush administration propaganda in real time. But Gun's
revelation showed that the U.S. and British governments were not only lying to invade Iraq,
they were violating international law to blackmail whole nations to get in line.
Mainstream reviews of "Official Secrets" still seem to not fully grasp the importance of
what they just saw. The trendy AV
Club review leads : "Virtually everyone now agrees that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was a
colossal mistake based on faulty (at best) or fabricated (at worst) intelligence." "Mistake" is
a serious understatement even with "colossal" attached to it when the movie details the
diabolical, illegal lengths to which the U.S. and British governments went to get other
governments to go along with it.
Gun's revelations showed before the invasion that people on the inside, whose livelihood
depends on following the party line, were willing to risk jail time to out the lies and
threats.
Portrayal of The Observer
Other than Gun herself, the film focuses on a dramatization of what happened at her work; as
well as her relationship with her husband, a Kurd from Turkey who the British government
attempted to have deported to get at Gun. The film also portrays the work of her lawyers who
helped get the Official Secrets charge against her dropped, as well as the drama at The
Observer , which published the NSA document after much internal debate.
Observer reporter Martin Bright, whose strong work on the original Gun story was
strangely followed by an ill-fated stint at the Tony Blair Faith Foundation, has recently noted
that very little
additional work has been done on Gun's case. We know virtually nothing about the apparent
author of the NSA document that she leaked -- one "Frank Koza." Other questions persist, such
is prevalent is this sort of U.S. blackmail of foreign governments to get UN votes or for other
purposes? How is it leveraged? Does it fit in with allegations made by former NSA analyst
Russ
Tice about the NSA having massive files on political people?
Observer reporter Ed Vulliamy is energetically depicted getting tips from former CIA
man Mel Goodman. There do seem to be subtle but potentially serious deviations from reality in
the film. Vulliamy is depicted as actually speaking with "Frank Koza," but that's not what he
originally
reported :
"The NSA main switchboard put The Observer through to extension 6727 at the agency
which was answered by an assistant, who confirmed it was Koza's office. However, when The
Observer asked to talk to Koza about the surveillance of diplomatic missions at the
United Nations, it was then told 'You have reached the wrong number'. On protesting that the
assistant had just said this was Koza's extension, the assistant repeated that it was an
erroneous extension, and hung up."
There must doubtlessly be many aspects of the film that have been simplified or altered
regarding Gun's personal experience. A compelling part of the film -- apparently fictitious or
exaggerated -- is a GCHQ apparatchik questioning Gun to see if she was the source.
Little is known about the reaction inside the governments of Security Council members that
the U.S. spied on. After the invasion, Mexican Ambassador Adolfo Aguilar Zinser spoke in blunt
terms about U.S. bullying -- saying it viewed Mexico as its patio trasero , or back yard
-- and was Zinser was compelled to resign by President Vicente Fox. He then,
in 2004 , gave details about some aspects of U.S. surveillance sabotaging the efforts of
the other members of the Security Council to hammer out a compromise to avert the invasion of
Iraq, saying the U.S. was "violating the U.N. headquarters covenant." In 2005, he tragically
died in a car crash
.
Documents
leaked by Edward Snowden and published by The Intercept in 2016 boasted of how the NSA
"during the wind-up to the Iraq War 'played a critical role' in the adoption of U.N. Security
Council resolutions. The work with that customer was a resounding success." The relevant
document specifically cites resolutions 1441 and 1472 and quotes John Negroponte ,
then the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations: "I can't imagine better intelligence support
for a diplomatic mission." (Notably, The Intercept has never published a word on "
Katharine Gun ." )
Nor were the UN Security Council members the only ones on the U.S. hit list to pave the way
for the Iraq invasion. Brazilian Jose Bustani, the director-general of the international
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. was ousted in an effective coup by John
Bolton in April of 2002 . Bolton is now national security adviser.
"Official Secrets" director Gavin Hood is perhaps more right than he realizes when he says
that his depiction of the Gun case is like the "tip of an iceberg," pointing to other deceits
surrounding the Iraq war. His record with political films has been uneven until now. Peace
activist David Swanson, for instance, derided his film on drones, " Eye in the Sky ." At a D.C. showing of "Official Secrets,"
Hood depicted those who backed the Iraq war as being discredited. But that's simply untrue.
Keira Knightley appears as Katherine Gun in Official Secrets (Courtesy of Sundance
Institute.)
Leading presidential candidate Joe Biden -- who not only voted for the Iraq invasion, but
presided over rigged
hearings on in 2002 – has recently falsified
his record repeatedly on Iraq
at presidential debates with hardly a murmur. Nor is he alone. Those refusing to be held
accountable for their Iraq war lies include not just Bush and Cheney, but John Kerry and
Nancy
Pelosi .
Biden has actually faulted Bush for not doing enough to get United Nations approval for the
Iraq invasion. But as the Gun case helps show, there was no legitimate case for invasion and
the Bush administration had done virtually everything, both legal and illegal, to get UN
authorization.
Many who supported the invasion try to distance themselves from it. But the repercussions of
that illegal act are enormous: It led directly or indirectly to the rise of ISIS, the civil war
in Iraq and the war in Syria. Journalists who pushed for the Iraq invasion are prosperous and
atop major news organizations, such as Washington Post editorial page editor
Fred Hiatt. The
editor who argued most strongly against publication of the NSA document at The
Observer , Kamal Ahmed, is now editorial director of BBC News.
After Gun's identity became known, the Institute for Public Accuracy brought on Jeff Cohen,
the founder of FAIR, to work with program director Hollie Ainbinder to get prominent
individuals to support
Gun . The film -- quite plausibly -- depicts the charges being dropped against Gun for the
simple reason that the British government feared that a high profile proceeding would
effectively put the war on trial, which to them would be have been a nightmare.
Sam Husseini is an independent journalist, senior analyst at the Institute for Public
Accuracy and founder of VotePact.org .
Follow him on twitter: @samhusseini .
If you enjoyed this original article please consider
making a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this
one.
Before commenting please read Robert Parry'sComment Policy.
Allegations unsupported by facts, gross or misleading factual errors and ad hominem attacks,
and abusive language toward other commenters or our writers will be removed. If your comment
does not immediately appear, please be patient as it is manually reviewed.
David G , August 31, 2019 at 19:49
Saw the film today. Solid work; recommended.
Did her ultimate court appearance really go down in such a dramatic fashion? I suppose I
shouldn't be surprised if it did: English courtroom proceedings may not deliver better
justice than U.S. ones, but they're definitely more entertaining.
William , August 31, 2019 at 19:06
U.S. Government officials should be indicted for war crimes. It is quite clear that U.S.
officials conspired to ensure that an invasion
of Iraq would take place. The U.S. and Britain -- George Bush and Tony Blair -- initiated a
war of aggression against Iraq, and under
international law should be tried for war crimes, just as numerous German officials were
tried and convicted of war crimes.
No U.S. politician has called for investigation, and the main stream media has not touched
this topic. It is unquestionably clear that
the U.S. congress is a collection of spineless, cowardly, corrupt, greedy men and women. They
have allowed the U.S. to become a rogue,
criminal nation.
Katherine Gun is awesome! I heard her speak as part of a panel of whistleblowers –
wish there were many more like her
michael , August 31, 2019 at 08:15
Inequality.org reports that the majority of our top 1% are corporate executives. Finance,
which reportedly accounted for 3% of our economy in 1980, now accounts for 30%. Many of the
US's 585 billionaires have monopolies in their business domain, no different from the Robber
Barons of the late 19th and early 20th century. "Stability is more important than democracy",
the market hates uncertainty, and our foreign policies, determined by think tanks staffed and
funded by our "allies" Israel and Saudi Arabia, will continue to push for the greed of our
Richest. "Democracy" is a just a hypocritical bon mot for stealing and destroying.
The Republicans have always supported these people. What is worrisome is that the Democrats
have come to the same place as the GOP, since donations– pay-to-play- lead to
re-elections. The Democrats have deserted the Poor and working class, since they have no
money for pay-to-play. Our 17 technologically advanced Stasis work in concert with Congress,
our entitled government bureaucrats, and their lapdog main stream media to "make things
happen" for our Richest. How long before people like Assange, Katherine Gunn, Chelsea
Manning, Edward Snowden, Binney, Kiriakou etc learn that it pays to keep their mouths shut?
Transparency and whistleblowing is punished. Maybe other approaches are needed?
Tony , August 31, 2019 at 07:26
Very interesting to see what inspired her to act the way that she did.
Of course, the supporters of the war had various motives.
But one motive behind President Bush's plan was revealed by Russ Baker in his book 'Family of
Secrets' page 423.
He recalls a conversation with Bush family friend and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. He
says that he told him:
"He (George W. Bush) was thinking about invading in 1999."
Bush apparently said:
"If I have a chance to invade if I had that much (political) capital, I'm not going to
waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed, and I'm going to have
a successful presidency."
So there we have it, he thought that a war would boost his presidency.
David G , August 31, 2019 at 05:16
"The editor who argued most strongly against publication of the NSA document at The
Observer, Kamal Ahmed, is now editorial director of BBC News."
That's a repulsive little nugget I would never have known otherwise.
Thanks to Sam Husseini for this account. The film is playing in my town, at least for this
coming week; I plan to get to it.
RomeoCharlie29 , August 30, 2019 at 19:24
This is a really interesting story and one I knew nothing about, although I was one who
opposed the Iraq war because to me it was obvious the whole WMD issue was bullshit. Now I
understand the perception that that war was an American/ Brit thing but you might recall that
America's deputy Sheriff in the Pacific, the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, was Gung
ho for the war and committed Australian troops to the ill-fated endeavour with the result
that our country has subsequently become a target for ISIS inspired terrorism. Australia's
Opposition Leader at the time, Simon Crean led a vocal opposition to the war but "Little
Johnny" as we called him was not to be denied. Incidentally I don't think he has ever
admitted being wrong on this.
Xander Arena , August 30, 2019 at 18:15
Tip of an iceberg is right. Iraq was the second big lie of the 21st century. I wonder how
the world will react to the University of Alaska Fairbanks report which proves fraud at NIST,
and arguably reveals aiding and abetting of treason by the contractors who wrote NIST's
analysis of the WTC7 destruction. The UAF report drops Tuesday 9/3/19, and chisels away at
the big lie that preceded all the related Iraq deceit. BTW great article :)
Dan Anderson , August 30, 2019 at 16:49
I enjoyed the article and learned some things, but it does seem a bit of Hollywood
promotion at the same time.
If only Gun's sacrifice had stopped the invasion it would have been a sensation. As is,
the UN did not sanction the invasion, making that effort a bit moot, and since the reveal of
NSA bugging the world under Obama that dulls the sensibilities of those who might today have
otherwise been shocked, shocked like the Gary Powers U-2 spy plane downing over the USSR and
Ike being caught in a lie on TV.
But overall, knowing the downhill Gun's livelihood has taken over the 15 years makes the
story more of a warning for whistle blowers than inspiration. Maybe Gun will be well
compensated by the movie makers!
Neil E Mac , August 30, 2019 at 15:54
En fin!
bevin , August 30, 2019 at 14:13
One thing is certain: The Observer of 2019 would not publish a story like this. That is
one of the major changes since 2003: the capitalist media has tightened up. There are no
longer papers competing to attract readers at risk of cozy relations with the State. The
Observer/Guardian today – since the Snowden revelations- does what it is told.
Litchfield , August 30, 2019 at 13:16
"In 2005, he tragically died in a car crash."
Unfortunately -- or fortunately? -- this no longer seems to be credible when it comes to
those who have gone ouit on a limb to challenge the Deep State, or the US version of the Deep
State.
Can Bush and Blair be charged with crimes? In connection with the Third Reich there is
AFAIK no statute of limitations on crimes against humanity. Well, Iraq was also full of
'humanity." These guys belong in The Hague. Or in Iraq, doing community service.
In connection with Ellsberg's reviewing the evidence and concluding there was no
evidentiary justification for invading Iraq -- I wanna say, you didn't need to be Ellsberg or
any kind of expert to see clearly that there was no evidence that justified invading Iraq.
Millions of common folk could see this clearly. That is why over 14 million people worldwide
demonstrated against the planned illegal invasion. That is why people like me when to NYC, to
Washington, and also the front our local US Post Office in small towns all over the country
to protest the country's being lied into war. And were greeted mostly with thumbs-up from the
passers- and drivers-by.
The people knew it was all a pack of lies. It was the gullible PRESS that ginned up this
show. Remember Judith what's her name at the NYT? These people also should be indicted as war
criminals.
Dan Anderson , August 30, 2019 at 16:19
Judith Miller, the NYTimes reporter who did maybe the most to make the invasion of Iraq,
is the last name you were seeking.
SteveF , August 30, 2019 at 12:22
The timescales are interesting, we have the alleged US blackmail to get this illegal war
'approved' by the UN and in the same timescale we have the Jeffery Epstein story unfolding
and the corresponding allegations that he was a CIA/Mossad agent operating honey traps to
entangle the rich and famous.
The evil machinations of our governments are indeed breathtaking.
As we can see from so very many modern instances, it matters not at all that truth is on
your side, if what you are doing is attacking those with money and power.
And there's an entire American establishment dedicated to keeping it just that way.
America's history of the last half century, at least so far as foreign relations and
control of an empire, is almost entirely an artificial construct.
Absolutely no truth in everything from John Kennedy's assassination, which was intimately
concerned with America's relationship with Cuba, and the despicable Vietnam War to 9/11 and
the despicable Neocon Wars in the Middle East.
From hundreds of millions of printed newspapers and television broadcasts to speeches from
prominent American politicians, you have tissue of lies not unlike that that was constantly
being created by Oceania's Inner Party in 1984.
That's not even the slightest exaggeration, but, truly, are Americans in general the least
concerned or bothered?
We have no evidence of significant concern. None.
The Democratic Party just weeded out the only candidate it had, brave and informed enough
to speak to truth in some of these matters.
The ten left just represent varying degrees of hopelessness. On and on with weaving dreams
about this or that creative social program while the resources and close attention dedicated
to destruction in a dozen lands make them all impossible.
At the sae time, there is an almost complete lack of information and courage about
anything that is happening in Syria, in Iraq, in Libya, in Israel, and in such massively
important countries as China, Russia, and Iran.
Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning are brave contemporary examples of the American
establishment's methods for shutting down truth and punishing severely those who reveal it.
While they have followers and supporters, I am always amazed at how relatively small their
numbers are.
And we have remarkably few individuals like Manning or Assange, especially when you
consider the scale and scope of America's many dark works. Mostly, we see only "willing
helpers" carrying on with their sensitive, secretive careers in government.
In the Democratic nomination contest, the "star" liberals, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth
Warren, are virtually no different in these absolutely critical matters than a confirmed old
puke of a war criminal like Joe Biden, someone who probably deserves recognition as father of
Obama's industrial-scale extrajudicial killing project with drones and Hellfire missiles
making legally-innocent people in a dozen countries just disappear. Biden has a long record
of smarmy deeds and lack of courage and principles. He is, of course, most likely to get the
nomination too.
Act, from America's CIA, no different in principle and in law to those of the old
Argentine military junta's massive efforts at dragging people off the streets, drugging them,
and throwing them out of planes over the ocean, something they did to thousands. Oh, and
during that wonderful project there were no objections from America, only silence.
Aimee , August 30, 2019 at 22:31
Excellent post. Agree completely. Tulsi was our only hope and she never had a chance. We
are doomed.
Coleen Rowley , August 30, 2019 at 23:29
Here are some of the reasons for the ever lessening concern over US-NATO-Israel-Saudi's
(aka our current Empire's) wars: https://consortiumnews.com/2018/02/04/recipe-concocted-for-perpetual-war-is-a-bitter-one/
By the way my co-author and I tried unsuccessfully to get this published in about 15
different US papers before Robert Parry posted it on Consortiumnews.
Robert Edwards , August 30, 2019 at 11:17
It's time these liers and war criminals are brought to Justice – I know that's
wishful , but sometimes wishes come true America must get back to a country run on integrity
and honesty, otherwise all will be lost in the spiral of evil
Sorry, but, oh please, America is lost. Has been so for a very long time.
Only tremendous outside influences like depression or war and the growth of competing
states and the loss of the dollar's privileged status, are going to change the reality.
America's feeble democratic system is capable of changing almost nothing. After all, it
was constructed with just that in mind.
john wilson , August 31, 2019 at 05:07
I think think the real worry is that these days they don't even bother to lie anymore and
they just do what they want. Think Venezuela.
Guy , August 30, 2019 at 10:42
"Other questions persist, such is prevalent is this sort of U.S. blackmail of foreign
governments to get UN votes or for other purposes? How is it leveraged? Does it fit in with
allegations made by former NSA analyst Russ Tice about the NSA having massive files on
political people?"
This also stands out , as given what we now know is standard modus opendi of CIA / Mossad
operations ,due to the Epstein arrest and ensuing information , who knows what is used to
leverage other nations to follow along with US and in this case UK demands.Birds of a feather
fly together.
Very good report by Sam Husseini.
Litchfield , August 30, 2019 at 13:32
Absolutely. It is an obvious avenue now to investigate: How did the Epstein operation
impact on the decision to invade Iraq? How were teh votes wrung out for the war authorization
in October 2002?
Regarding Kerry, as a resident of Mass. I couldn't believe that Vietnam vet Kerry would
vote Yes on the war authorization act. I called his office a number of time to beg him to
vote no. Rumors emanated from within his office in Boston or wherever that phone calls from
constituents were running 180 to 1 urging him to vote NO. But he voted YES anyhow.
I simply believe that Yalie Kerry didn't see what was up with the obvious lying that drove
the runup to an illegal invasion. This is the kind of scenario where one now has to wonder --
and ask openly -- whether Kerry had been compromised in some way that made him vulnerable to
blackmail. Why the hell else would he vote so stupidly?
Recall that Scott Ritter ran afoul of some kind of sex trap and so he, one of the most
knowledgeable and outspoken critics of the fake WMD narrative, was effectively muzzled.
Did Kerry have a little skeleton in the closet somewhere?
The same could be asked of all the esp. Democratic legislators who voted YES. Because we
now understand which state in the EAstern Med wanted the war most and profited the most from
it. We now know how deep and how wide the tentacles of that state's intelligence service
intrude into our own national sphere, our Congress, our own intelligence services, our media,
and, most likely, our military. Epstein seems to been part f this web of pressure and
blackmail.
Epstein is gone, but Ghislaine Maxwell apparently still runs free.
Let's bring her in for questioning specifically about pressure applied on the Oct. 2002 vote.
(Although some speculate that she, too, is already dead.)
Guy , August 30, 2019 at 10:23
At a time when despair in political affairs is very depressing ,it is very refreshing to
see that the voices of reason are being vindicated.
I really want to see this film as this is the first time that I hear of the voice of
Katherine Gun .Bless her heart for standing up and her efforts to warn of deception . Does
the film make any mention of Dr.David Kelly's so-called suicide / murder ? Will have to wait
ans see.
Thank you CN for once again coming through for your excellent report.
Pablo , August 30, 2019 at 10:15
Lawrence Wilkerson (Powell's Chief of Staff?) told me that Collin knew Bush was
fabricating, but went to the U.N. as a "loyal foot soldier".
AnneR , August 30, 2019 at 08:25
Thank you, Sam Husseini, for this overview of the background – real story – to
the film Official Secrets.
To be frank, I'd not heard of Katherine Gun's revelations at the time – not
surprising because I don't think that the US MSM gave the leak any oxygen. They were all too
gung-ho for the war.
While the film undoubtedly soft-pedals some of the story and likely doesn't reveal or make
explicit as much as we'd all hope, I really do hope that it receives at least as much
publicity (good) and viewing as that execrable film Zero dark Thirty which basically
supported the CIA and its torturers. But somehow I doubt that.
TomR , August 31, 2019 at 06:19
Zero Dark Thirty is just about the worst bullshit fake narrative put out by the CIA that
I've ever seen. I watched it but cringed with the dramatized fake narrative that the CIA is
famous for – think the bullshit 9/11 US govt. narrative – if you or anyone else
believes that totally bunkum govt. narrative – well, I feel sorry for you.
Druid , August 31, 2019 at 17:28
Im a good- movie buff. I avoided Zero Dark Thirty. Not a farthing for those lies
Sylvia Bennet , August 30, 2019 at 07:51
I applaud Keira Knightley and all who were involved in bringing this story to the public.
It is vital that more people who have the eyes and ears of the public speak out on these
issues. Sadly, most of them keep their heads below the parapet. With the Main Stream Media
colluding with corrupt corporations and governments to lie or distort the truth, we need
decent people with influence to step up before it is too late.
Toxik , August 30, 2019 at 02:42
Looked at my local theaters and Official Secrets will not be shown.
jmg , August 29, 2019 at 18:39
Katharine Gun's case can also be very relevant for Julian Assange's defense:
"Within half an hour, the case was dropped because the prosecution declined to offer
evidence. . . . The day before the trial, Gun's defence team had asked the government for any
records of advice about the legality of the war that it had received during the run-up to the
war. A full trial might have exposed any such documents to public scrutiny as the defence
were expected to argue that trying to stop an illegal act (that of an illegal war of
aggression) trumped Gun's obligations under the Official Secrets Act 1989. . . . In 2019 The
Guardian stated the case was dropped 'when the prosecution realised that evidence would
emerge that even British government lawyers believed the invasion was unlawful.'"
So Katharine Gun, like Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange, etc., by revealing corruption and
crimes, maybe didn't obey the code of silence of organized crime, government sector, but
that's not a law.
For example, the US Executive Order 13526, Classified National Security Information,
explicitly outlaws any classification that covers up crimes or embarrassing information.
This means that whistleblowers like Katharine Gun or Chelsea Manning, and investigative
journalists like Julian Assange are the ones defending the law here, while the US and UK
governments are the criminals.
lindaj , August 29, 2019 at 22:10
Hear, Hear!
Me Myself , August 30, 2019 at 12:11
The espionage act has and would protect those who were responsible for the war I
believe.
If we could Abrogate the espionage act it would make are representatives more
accountable.
I was unaware of Katherine Gun she is clearly a standout person and will join the ranks of
are most respected truthers.
WTF Burkie , August 31, 2019 at 14:05
Our not are.b.c. burkhart
evelync , August 30, 2019 at 13:34
And the secrecy, apparently, is required in the name of "national security" .that's what I
was told by a Harvard JFK School of Government associate when I emailed 200+ of 'em to
express my outrage over their withdrawal of Chelsea Manning's honorary degree when Pompeo and
Morrell bullied them. I responded with – that's INSTITUTIONAL FAILURE at Harvard
– as a "respected" educational institution you should be front and center critiquing
foreign policy instead of helping to bury the wrongdoing ..no wonder voters didn't trust the
establishment candidates in 2016 but the DNC was too much a part of it all to see or care
what was going on. Except for Tulsi Gabbard who resigned at DNC VP in protest for what was
being done to the Sanders campaign and to endorse Sanders instead of Clinton. The DNC knee
capped the campaign of the one person who had won peoples' trust for his honesty.
We have incompetent people with no moral fiber making terrible decisions and burying the
mistakes under secrecy, a fear based "code of silence", as you say.
Biden touts his being chosen by Obama for VP; therefore "he's qualified".
Since Clinton and Biden were the most dangerously ambitious critics of Obama, I think he may
have chosen to add them to his administration as VP and Sec of State to practice "keep your
friends close and your enemies closer" .but his decision was very costly to the lives of
people around the world including the Caribbean and South American countries whose wealth our
oligarchs coveted.
And as far as Honduras is concerned those political choices by Obama sadly explains refugees
fleeing from that violent country even now ..thanks to our failing to declare the 2009 Coup a
"military coup". One of Clinton's "hard choices". Obama and Biden went along with that of
course.
Daniel Immerwahr's "How to Hide an Empire" tells the sordid tale of how waterboarding was
used long before Bush II – used on the freedom fighters for their independence in the
Philippines after the Spanish American War and we took over as imperialists ..
Most people, I think, don't know all the gruesome details of our aggression but they now know
enough to be troubled by it. Few political candidates have the backbone to criticize
wrongheaded foreign policy.
I'm disappointed that Tulsi Gabbard won't be permitted to join Bernie Sanders at the
September 12 2019 "debate" as the only ones who speak out on how wrong for this country and
the world our foreign policies have been. This courageous woman should be heard.
When Bernie was challenged in the 2016 Miami debate on his enlightened views on Cuba and
other Caribbean and South American countries, Clinton used Cold War rhetoric to attack him.
She was shocked, I tell you, shocked that he would not grind his heel on the Cuban people. I
wondered at the time whether she really believed the crap she was selling or just put on a
good political show for the national security state.
We so need transparency if we want to be a real democracy.
Sam F , August 30, 2019 at 21:06
Very true that transparency is essential to democracy. That also requires lifelong
monitoring of officials and their relatives for paybacks and other influence. But (for
example) Florida has an Sunshine Act that merely moves the bribes into other channels, and
may be the most corrupt state. I am investigating extensive racketeering there involving
state officials stealing conservation funds. They can be quire careless because their party
runs the entire state including state and federal judiciary, and instantly approves whatever
their rich "donors" want to steal. But the FBI and DOJ refuse to take action when given the
evidence on a silver platter – no doubt because they are appointed by the same party.
Theft is their sacred right and duty, to protect their country from its people.
michael , August 31, 2019 at 07:30
Florida's Sunshine laws were on display at Epstein's only trial, much of it still sealed
from public view.
"Assad (and by implication Assad's forces alone) killed 500,000 Syrians."
"Israel is just defending itself."
I can't squeeze the dishonesty about the war in Yemen into a short slogan, but I know from
personal experience that getting liberals to care when it was Obama's war was virtually
impossible. Even under Trump it was hard, until Khashoggi's murder. On the part of
politicians and think tanks this was corruption by Saudi money. With ordinary people it was
the usual partisan tribal hypocrisy.
"... This is not an unusual position. This is actually the normal position now, even among very conservative scholars, including the person who was the intellectual godfather of modern executive compensation, Michael Jensen. He has admitted that he spawned unintentionally a monster because CEOs have rigged the compensation system. How do they do that? Well, it starts even before you get hired as a CEO. This is amazing stuff. The standard thing you do as a powerful CEO is you hire this guy, and he specializes in negotiating great deals for CEOs. His first demand, which is almost always given into, is that the corporation pay his fee, not the CEO. On the other side of the table is somebody that the CEO is going to be the boss of negotiating the other side. How hard is he going to negotiate against the guy that's going to be his boss? That's totally rigged. ..."
"... Then the compensation committee hires compensation specialists who–again, even the most conservative economists agree it is a completely rigged system. Because the only way they get work is if they give this extraordinary compensation. Then, everybody in economics admits that there's a clear way you should run performance pay. It should be really long term. You get the big bucks only after like 10 years of success. In reality, they're always incredibly short term. Why? Because it's vastly easier for the CEO to rig the short-term reported earnings. What's the result of this? Accounting profession, criminology profession, economics profession, law profession. We've all done studies and all of them say this perverse system of compensation causes CEOs to (a) cheat and (b) to be extraordinarily short term in their perspective because it's easier to rig the short-term reported results. Even the most conservative economists agree that's terrible for the economy. ..."
"... That's what the right fear is more than anything, that people will basically get woke. In this, it's being woke to how individual systems have been rigged by the wealthy and powerful to create a sure thing to enrich them, usually at our direct expense. ..."
BILL BLACK: One of the principal things I study is elite fraud, corruption and predation.
The World Bank sent me to India for months as an anti-corruption alleged expert type. And as a
financial regulator, this is what I dealt with. This is what I researched. This is a huge chunk
of my life. So I wouldn't use the word, if I was being formal in an academic system, "the
system." What I would talk about is specific systems that are rigged, and they most assuredly
are rigged.
Let me give you an example. One of the most important things that has transformed the world
and made it vastly more criminogenic, much more corrupt, is modern executive compensation. This
is not an unusual position. This is actually the normal position now, even among very
conservative scholars, including the person who was the intellectual godfather of modern
executive compensation, Michael Jensen. He has admitted that he spawned unintentionally a
monster because CEOs have rigged the compensation system. How do they do that? Well, it starts
even before you get hired as a CEO. This is amazing stuff. The standard thing you do as a
powerful CEO is you hire this guy, and he specializes in negotiating great deals for CEOs. His
first demand, which is almost always given into, is that the corporation pay his fee, not the
CEO. On the other side of the table is somebody that the CEO is going to be the boss of
negotiating the other side. How hard is he going to negotiate against the guy that's going to
be his boss? That's totally rigged.
Then the compensation committee hires compensation specialists who–again, even the
most conservative economists agree it is a completely rigged system. Because the only way they
get work is if they give this extraordinary compensation. Then, everybody in economics admits
that there's a clear way you should run performance pay. It should be really long term. You get
the big bucks only after like 10 years of success. In reality, they're always incredibly short
term. Why? Because it's vastly easier for the CEO to rig the short-term reported earnings.
What's the result of this? Accounting profession, criminology profession, economics profession,
law profession. We've all done studies and all of them say this perverse system of compensation
causes CEOs to (a) cheat and (b) to be extraordinarily short term in their perspective because
it's easier to rig the short-term reported results. Even the most conservative economists agree
that's terrible for the economy.
What I've just gone through is a whole bunch of academic literature from over 40-plus years
from top scholars in four different fields. That's not cynicism. That's just plain facts if you
understand the system. People like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, they didn't, as you
say, kick open an open door. They made the open door. It's not like Elizabeth Warren started
talking about this six months ago when she started being a potential candidate. She has been
saying this and explaining in detail how individual systems are rigged in favor of the wealthy
for at least 30 years of work. Bernie Sanders has been doing it for 45 years. This is what the
right, including the author of this piece who is an ultra-far right guy, fear the most. It's
precisely what they fear, that Bernie and Elizabeth are good at explaining how particular
systems are rigged. They explain it in appropriate detail, but they're also good in making it
human. They talk the way humans talk as opposed to academics.
That's what the right fear is more than anything, that people will basically get woke. In
this, it's being woke to how individual systems have been rigged by the wealthy and powerful to
create a sure thing to enrich them, usually at our direct expense.
Donald Trump will be remembered as a humorous yet sad 4-year blip in the history of
America, where the People regrettably admit that this "entertainment age" was responsible for
their lack of judgement in 2016, and they learned that they shouldn't play games with
something as important to our country's honor and integrity as the office of the Presidency.
Fool me twice, shame on me.....
https://c.deployads.com/sync?f=html&s=2343&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nakedcapitalism.com%2F2019%2F08%2Freminder-dnc-lawyers-to-court-we-do-not-owe-voters-an-impartial-or-evenhanded-primary-election.html
<img src="http://b.scorecardresearch.com/p?c1=2&c2=16807273&cv=2.0&cj=1" />
Yves here. The DNC position on elections does much to explain the 2016 California primary,
which featured numerous reports by poll workers of dirty practices. Oddly, I saw two separate
videos with many detailed first person accounts of a range of abuses which now seem to be not
findable on Google. Oh, and there were no exit polls. Convenient, that.
As Jimmy Breslin wrote in his blurb, this is the best book ever written about legendary
Democratic Party boss Richard J. Daley, king of the smoke-filled back room deal. (Fun fact:
John Belushi played a character closely based on Royko in an early Lawrence Kasden film,
Continental Divide, that's well worth watching.)
This is your periodic reminder that the "Democratic Party" is not an organization that
Democratic voters belong to or have any right to control. The Democratic Party is instead a
private organization, much like a club, that non-members support by giving it their money,
their time and their votes. (The same is true of the "Republican Party.) All other "rights" and
promises offered by the Party to its supporters, including those obligations described in the
DNC charter, are not obligations at all, but voluntary gifts that can be withdrawn at any
time.
At least, that's how the DNC sees it.
Consider this report
of a 2017 court filing , one that almost no one noticed, in which Sanders supporters sued
the DNC for violating the section of its charter that requires DNC-run elections to be
"impartial" and "evenhanded." The DNC's defense was, in essence, "So what?" (emphasis added
below):
DNC Lawyers Argue DNC Has Right to Pick Candidates in Back Rooms
Attorneys claim the words 'impartial' and 'evenhanded' -- as used in the DNC Charter --
can't be interpreted by a court of law
On April 28 the transcript [pdf] was released
from the most recent
hearing at a federal court in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., on the
lawsuit filed on behalf of Bernie Sanders supporters against the Democratic National
Committee and former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz for rigging the Democratic primaries
for Hillary Clinton. Throughout the hearing, lawyers representing the DNC
and Debbie Wasserman Schultz double[d] down on arguments confirming the disdain the
Democratic establishment has toward Bernie
Sanders supporters and any entity challenging the party's status quo.
Shortly into the hearing, DNC attorneys claim Article V, Section 4 of the DNC Charter
-- stipulating that the DNC chair and their staff must ensure
neutrality in the Democratic presidential primaries -- is "a discretionary rule that it
didn't need to adopt to begin with." Based on this assumption, DNC
attorneys assert that the court cannot interpret, claim, or rule on anything associated with
whether the DNC remains neutral
in their presidential primaries.
The attorneys representing the
DNC have previously argued that Sanders
supporters knew the primaries were rigged, therefore annulling any potential accountability
the DNC may have . In the latest hearing, they doubled down on this argument: "The Court
would have to find that people who fervently supported Bernie
Sanders and who purportedly didn't know that this favoritism was going on would have not
given to Mr. Sanders, to Senator Sanders
, if they had known that there was this purported favoritism."
"People paid money in reliance on the understanding that the primary elections for the
Democratic nominee -- nominating process in 2016 were fair and impartial," [Jared] Beck [the
attorney representing Sanders supporters in the class action lawsuit] said. "And that's not
just a bedrock assumption that we would assume just by virtue of the fact that we live in a
democracy, and we assume that our elections are run in a fair and impartial manner. But
that's what the Democratic National Committee's own charter says . It says it in black
and white. And they can't deny that." He added, " Not only is it in the charter, but it
was stated over and over again in the media by the Democratic National Committee's
employees , including Congresswoman Wassermann
Schultz , that they were, in fact, acting in compliance with the charter . And
they said it again and again, and we've cited several instances of that in the case."
According to this report, attorneys for the DNC argued that the DNC was not liable to
Sanders supporters if they threw the primary race to Clinton, or tilted it toward her,
because:
(a) Sanders supporters already knew the primary was rigged (did DNC lawyers really
say that?), and
(b) the DNC charter requirement that elections be "impartial" and "evenhanded" is
discretionary and not a requirement.
Shorter DNC lawyers: "We don't have to run an evenhanded primary, even if we say we're going
to."
About the second point , let's look at the court transcript itself. In this section,
the court asks: If Sanders supporters give money to an election run by the DNC, and if the DNC
violates its charter and runs an election that unfairly disadvantages Sanders, do Sanders
supporters have standing to sue?
DNC's response is below. "Mr. Spiva" is Bruce Spiva, one of the DNC's defense lawyers
(emphasis mine):
THE COURT: All right. Let me ask the defense -- we're going to go into the issue of
standing now at this point.
Let me ask counsel. If a person is fraudulently induced to donate to a charitable
organization, does he have standing to sue the person who induced the donation?
MR. SPIVA: I think, your Honor, if the circumstance were such that the [charitable]
organization promised that it was going to abide by some general principle, and the donee --
or donor, rather, ultimately sued, because they said, Well, we don't think you're living up
to that general principle, we don't think you're, you know, serving kids adequately, we think
your program is -- the way you're running your program is not adequate, you know, you're not
doing it well enough, that that -- that they would not have standing in that
circumstance .
[On the other hand] I think if somebody -- a charitable organization were to solicit funds
and say, Hey, we're gonna spend this money on after-school programs for kids, and the
executive director actually put the money in their pocket and went down the street and bought
a Mercedes-Benz, I think in that circumstance, they would have standing.
I think this circumstance is even one step further towards the no standing side of that,
because here we're talking about a political party and political principles and debate. And
that's an area where there's a wealth of doctrine and case law about how that -- just
simply giving money does not give one standing to direct how the party conducts its
affairs, or to complain about the outcomes, or whether or not the party is abiding by its own
internal rules .
And I should say, your Honor, I just want to be clear, because I know it may sometimes
sound like I am somehow suggesting that I think the party did not -- you know, the party's
position is that it has not violated in the least this provision of its charter.
THE COURT: I understand.
MR. SPIVA: So I just want to get that out there. But to even determine -- to make
that determination would require the Court to wade into this political thicket. And -- you
know, which would invade its First Amendment interests, and also, I think, would raise issues
-- standing issues along all three prongs of the standing test.
After a legal discussion of the "three prongs," the court asks this:
THE COURT: And then one other question on the issue of standing for the defense. Is
there a difference between a campaign promise made by a political candidate and a promise
that pertains to the integrity of the primary process itself? In other words, President
George H.W. Bush's --
MR. SPIVA: "Read my lips."
THE COURT: -- promise -- "read my lips, no new taxes," and then he raised taxes.
Well, he could not be sued for raising taxes. But with respect to the DNC charter ,
Article V, Section 4, is there a difference between the two?
MR. SPIVA:Not one -- there's obviously a difference in degree. I think your
Honor -- I'm not gonna -- I don't want to overreach and say that there's no difference. But I
don't think there's a difference that's material in terms of how the Court should decide the
question before it in terms of standing, in that this, again, goes to how the party runs
itself, how it decides who it's going to associate with, how it decides how it's going to
choose its standard bearer ultimately. In case after case, from O'Brien , to
Wymbs , to Wisconsin v. LaFollette , Cousins v. Wigoda , the Supreme
Court and other courts have affirmed the party's right to make that determination. Those
are internal issues that the party gets to decide basically without interference from the
courts .
[ ]
You know, again, if you had a charity where somebody said, Hey, I'm gonna take this money
and use it for a specific purpose, X, and they pocketed it and stole the money, of course
that's different.
But here, where you have a party that's saying, We're gonna, you know, choose our standard
bearer, and we're gonna follow these general rules of the road, which we are voluntarily
deciding, we could have -- and we could have voluntarily decided that, Look, we're gonna
go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way.
That's not the way it was done. But they could have. And that would have also been their
right , and it would drag the Court well into party politics, internal party politics to
answer those questions.
To this day the DNC believes that if it wanted to "go into back rooms" and "pick the
[presidential] candidate," this would "have been their right," and no one outside the
organization would have any right to enforce the DNC charter or interfere in any other way.
Good to know as we watch the 2020 machinations (for example,
this one ) unfold before us.
They actually do not care much about the victory. Being stooges of MIC and thesecond war
party means that they will be well fed anyway. Even without goverment positions.
Notable quotes:
"... Why doesn't the DNC want Gabbard in the debates? Two reasons come to mind. ..."
"... Firstly, her marquee issue is foreign policy. She thinks the US should be less militarily adventurous abroad, and as an army veteran of the post-9/11 round of American military interventions in the Middle East and Central Asia, she's got the credentials to make her points stick. ..."
"... Foreign policy is a weak spot for the increasingly hawkish Democratic establishment in general and the front-runner and current establishment pick, former vice-president Joe Biden, in particular. As a Senator, Biden voted to approve the ill-fated US invasion of Iraq. As vice-president, he supported President Barack Obama's extension of the war in Afghanistan and Obama's ham-handed interventions in Libya, Syria, and other countries where the US had no business meddling. The party's leaders would rather not talk about foreign policy at all and if they have to talk about it they don't want candidates coloring outside simplistic "Russia and China bad" lines. ..."
"... Gabbard damaged -- probably fatally -- the establishment's pre-Biden pick, US Senator Kamala Harris, by pointing out Harris's disgusting authoritarian record as California's attorney general. Gabbard knows how to land a punch, and the DNC doesn't want any more surprises. They're looking for a coronation, not a contest. ..."
President Donald Trump faces an exceedingly narrow path to
re-election in 2020. In order to beat him, the Democratic nominee only needs to pick up 38
electoral votes. With more than 100 electoral votes in play in states that Trump won narrowly
in 2016 -- especially Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Florida -- all the Democrats have
to do is pick a nominee ever so slightly more popular than Hillary Clinton.
That's a low bar that the Democratic National Committee seems determined, once again, to not
get over. As in 2016, the DNC is putting its finger on the scale in favor of "establishment"
candidates, the sentiments of the rank and file be damned.
Last time, the main victim was Bernie Sanders. This time, it's Tulsi Gabbard.
Michael Tracey delivers the gory details in a column at RealClearPolitics. Here's the short
version:
By selectively disqualifying polls in which Gabbard (a US Representative from Hawaii)
performs above the 2% threshold for inclusion in the next round of primary debates, the DNC is
trying to exclude her while including candidates with much lower polling and fundraising
numbers.
Why doesn't the DNC want Gabbard in the debates? Two reasons come to mind.
Firstly, her marquee issue is foreign policy. She thinks the US should be less
militarily adventurous abroad, and as an army veteran of the post-9/11 round of American
military interventions in the Middle East and Central Asia, she's got the credentials to make
her points stick.
Foreign policy is a weak spot for the increasingly hawkish Democratic establishment in
general and the front-runner and current establishment pick, former vice-president Joe Biden,
in particular. As a Senator, Biden voted to approve the ill-fated US invasion of Iraq. As
vice-president, he supported President Barack Obama's extension of the war in Afghanistan and
Obama's ham-handed interventions in Libya, Syria, and other countries where the US had no
business meddling. The party's leaders would rather not talk about foreign policy at all and if
they have to talk about it they don't want candidates coloring outside simplistic "Russia and
China bad" lines.
Secondly, Gabbard damaged -- probably fatally -- the establishment's pre-Biden pick, US
Senator Kamala Harris, by pointing out Harris's disgusting authoritarian record as California's
attorney general. Gabbard knows how to land a punch, and the DNC doesn't want any more
surprises. They're looking for a coronation, not a contest.
If the DNC has its way, next year's primaries will simply ratify the establishment pick,
probably a Joe Biden / Elizabeth Warren ticket, without a bunch of fuss and argument.
And if that happens, the Democratic Party will face the same problem it faced in 2016: The
rank and file may not be very motivated to turn off their televisions and go vote.
Whatever their failings, rank and file Democrats seem to like well, democracy. They want to
pick their party's nominees, not have those nominees picked for them in advance. Can't say I
blame them.
Nor will I blame them for not voting -- or voting Libertarian -- if the DNC ignores them and
limits their choices yet again. Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: Thomas KnappThomas L. Knapp is
director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy
Journalism ( thegarrisoncenter.org
). He lives and works in north central Florida.
@anonymous The Christian Zionists, exemplified by John Hagee and his "Christians United
for Israel." for years, from the pulpi has pleaded for the bombing of Iran. He is Netanyahu's
Useful Idiot.
The 60-70 million strong Christian Zionists are Trump's base. He has no hope of being
re-elected without them. Thus, Trump is just as beholden to these dispensationalists as he is
to Adelson and Netanyahu. The same can be said for the entire republican party.
Images removed... See the original with full set of pictures
Notable quotes:
"... Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, who gave up her DNC career to back Bernie Sanders in 2016 is the candidate the establishment most fears. Tulsi has more than met the debate criteria in the number of unique donations and in poll numbers in 26 of the most respected national polls, but the DNC, fearing she will take down another Establishment candidate, is refusing to let Tulsi into the third debate against candidates who have lower polling numbers in most polls and significantly fewer unique contributions than Tulsi has. The problem (or maybe plan) is that the smaller "DNC approved" polls have mostly been avoiding polling over the last month as a block to allowing Tulsi into the third debate. ..."
"... People fed up with the Democratic Party have encouraged both Tulsi and Bernie to run together as independent candidates. Tulsi especially has cross-party appeal for independents. Bernie is popular across the board as well and many view them as an unbeatable ticket, no matter what their political affiliation. Most Americans are independents or third party members by almost a two to one margin over the registrants of either of the major parties. However, because their Congressional seats are considered critical to fighting the military industrial complex and Wall Street, it is doubtful either Tulsi or Bernie will run as an independent. ..."
Tom Perez, Nancy Pelosi and Rusty Hicks
(
Image by Henry Samson) DetailsDMCA
This is the question that was asked by a great many DNC/CDP members last weekend as they
tried to understand the scheduling debacle that pitted the Democratic National Committee
Meeting in San Francisco against the California Democratic Party meeting in San Jose (one to
three hours away, depending on traffic). On the two main days for both events, August 23rd and
24 th , attendees had to choose which to attend and which to miss. It turned out
that the CDP did better on overall attendance than the DNC. When Tom Perez spoke, there were
about a hundred delegates in the DNC ballroom. The crowd significantly increased when Bernie
spoke. At the CDP meeting, the crowd in the general sessions ranged between about 300 and
500.
Empty Seats at DNC during Perez's Speech
(
Image by Henry Samson) DetailsDMCA
As Bernie was about to speak at the DNC Friday afternoon meeting, Kamala Harris's supporters
loudly walked out of the hall and continued to make noise outside in a seeming attempt to drown
out Bernie. One might think this would create disfavor with the DNC. However, most party
leaders said they were supporting a Harris/Warren ticket, leading some progressives to wonder
if this was an officially- -sanctioned affront against Bernie. The DNC was in charge of the
microphone volume and there no lack of security to handle the problem.
Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, who gave up her DNC career to back Bernie Sanders in 2016 is
the candidate the establishment most fears. Tulsi has more than met the debate criteria in the
number of unique donations and in poll numbers in 26 of the most respected national polls, but
the DNC, fearing she will take down another Establishment candidate, is refusing to let Tulsi
into the third debate against candidates who have lower polling numbers in most polls and
significantly fewer unique contributions than Tulsi has. The problem (or maybe plan) is that
the smaller "DNC approved" polls have mostly been avoiding polling over the last month as a
block to allowing Tulsi into the third debate.
Bernie activists who have reportedly learned that the DNC plans to go after him, once Tulsi
was out of the way, chose not to take things lying down. Tulsi is the only candidate with a
history of having Bernie's back. Several activists went to party leaders and asked point blank
whether blocking popular candidates like Tulsi Gabbard and Bernie Sanders from being nominated
would be worth a second term for Donald Trump. To the surprise of the activists, leaders spoken
to were clear that holding Bernie and Tulsi to the contract they were forced to sign before the
first debate was more important than fairness and beating Donald Trump. Some leaders talked
about which candidates they planned run in 2024 if Trump was re-elected. An assistant to one of
the party bosses, who asked not to be identified for fear of losing his job, pointed out that
the DNC actually makes more money as a result of anger about Donald Trump's Presidency than
they would if a popular progressive, such as Bernie Sanders or Tulsi Gabbard, became President.
One person pointed out that a ticket with Warren and Harris would be labeled progressive and
the expected loss would be used to McGovern or kill the progressive movement within the
party.
Tulsi Gabbard on Video at DNC Meeting
( Image
by Henry Samson) DetailsDMCA
Tulsi Gabbard had been re-deployed prior to the DNC meeting and was only able to attend by
pre-recorded video. Interestingly, at the DNC meeting, her table was placed in a corner away
from everyone. The supporters at her table were told to sit there like good little children.
One Tulsi supporter broke the mold and handed out copies of Senator Mike Gravel's endorsement
letter of Tulsi Gabbard inside the DNC meeting. The letter on Gravel's stationary called Tulsi
"the most qualified and prepared candidate." At the CDP event, the Gabbard supporters weren't
sitting in a corner. Everyone who attended the larger CDP meeting received a copy of Gravel's
endorsement letter and other literature in support of Gabbard. It was reported that over one
thousand pieces of Tulsi literature were distributed to Democrats attending the CDP Executive
Board meetings and caucuses. The attendees there were greeted by a giant volunteer-printed
banner at the ballroom door at both general sessions. Top-behind-the-scenes DNC leader Bob
Mulhulland was seen studying Tulsi's military picture on the banner.
Tulsi Banner Outside CDP General Assembly Room
( Image
by Henry Samson) DetailsDMCA
The treatment of the press at the DNC event was rather interesting. The ballroom there was
divided into two sections with the press at the back. DNC members could just walk in and out of
their section of the room but the press section had metal detectors with guards searching bags
and repeatedly running wands over reporters as if they were terrorists. The CDP meetings were
significantly more relaxed. No metal detectors, wands or searches.
Taking considerable floor time at the final CDP floor session was the issue of whether it
was OK for Israelis to detain and torture Palestinian children. The fact that there was an
argument between two sides to this issue on the floor shows how far the Democratic Party has
fallen. At one time, the Democratic Party was seen as the party of peace. Now it is generally
viewed as the party of war, pitting peaceniks Tulsi and Bernie at odds with the Democratic
Establishment
At the CDP meeting, there was a great deal of dissatisfaction. According to past and current
officials, the standing committee membership is less diverse than ever before. To fake
diversity, a single individual fitting multiple categories was treated as multiple people. Most
disabled people were cut from the standing committees. Supporters of one of Chairman Rusty
Hick's opponents were summarily thrown off any committees that could make a difference in the
party's positions on in the election. Five of the supporters of Berniecrat Daraka
Larimore-Hall, who had been long-standing members of the Voter Services Committee, reported
being suddenly removed without explanation. These were the most active Voting Services
Committee members in terms of trying to improve voter integrity and protect the rights of
voters. When questioned about the removals, Committee Chairman Jess Durfee said it was Rusty
who had thrown these Berniecrats off the committee and that there was nothing he could do about
it.
The priorities of the Voters Services Committee have changed as well. Removed from the goals
were diversity and integrity of the vote (as in making sure all registered voters could vote
regular ballots). Removed as a lead subcommittee chairman was a party delegate who had pushed
through a call for expanding voting rights to felon prisoners and ensuring that registered
voters were not disenfranchised due to election oddities. Instead, that subcommittee chairman
was relegated to being a secondary assistant below the subcommittee assistant chairman on the
subcommittee to which he was assigned this year.
There was some talk of a lawsuit over the committee assignment questionnaire. There were two
sex-related questions, one of which demanded to know the sexual orientation of the applicants.
All those who refused to answer on the grounds that it violated their privacy were denied
committee positions. Also denied standing committee positions were all civil rights attorneys
and all criminal defense attorneys.
People fed up with the Democratic Party have encouraged both Tulsi and Bernie to run
together as independent candidates. Tulsi especially has cross-party appeal for independents.
Bernie is popular across the board as well and many view them as an unbeatable ticket, no
matter what their political affiliation. Most Americans are independents or third party members
by almost a two to one margin over the registrants of either of the major parties. However,
because their Congressional seats are considered critical to fighting the military industrial
complex and Wall Street, it is doubtful either Tulsi or Bernie will run as an independent.
Henry Samson has been a professor of political science and legal ethics and an advisor to many successful candidates
for public office. He is currently working on a book about the inequality crisis in America
"... The true third rail of US politics is empire. Any candidate that is publicly against the empire is the enemy of not only the state, it's quislings in the media, the corporations who profit from it and the party machines of both the GOP and the DNC. ..."
"... That is Gabbard's crime. And it's the only crime that matters. ..."
"... When the Empire is on the line, left and right in the US close ranks and unite against the threat. The good news is that all they have is their pathetic Russia bashing and appeals to their authority on foreign policy. ..."
"... One person, a DNC official to be precise, pointed out that: a ticket with Warren and Harris would be labeled progressive and the expected loss would be used to McGovern or kill the progressive movement within the party. ..."
"... So, there we have it. The war mongering neo cons and neo liberals are welcome in the Democratic (sic) Party, but us peace loving, non-imperialist progressives are not. Which explains, among a lot of more important things, why a pushy Dem. operative thinks she can come to my house without notice or invitation and insult me because I don't like her gal Hillary. ..."
I'm sure most people here are no strangers to the realization that the DNC is an abusive,
anti-democratic, tyrannical, Establishment organization that has its head up its own orifice
(that is, when it isn't busy burying its nose way up that of the crooked Clintons ).
Presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard has met and exceeded the stated qualifying
criteria necessary to participate in the 3rd and 4th Democratic Party debates by any
objective measurement -- by having over 165,000 independent donors, and by polling over 2%
in 26 separate polls -- including those in early Primary States such as New Hampshire and
South Carolina.
But according to the DNC there are " qualifying polls " and non-qualifying polls --
to which they, and they alone, are the sole determinant and arbitrator of.
Thus by the authority of the DNC (and not the actual voters themselves) she only has just
two " qualifying polls " (less than the 4 threshold number) -- all those 24 other
independent polls do not count - and no explanation is given (or needed apparently) as to
why.
So they will declare her unfit, and deem her to be excluded from the Debate Stage, as they
seek to drive the only Anti-War, Pro-American, Anti-Globalist, progressive candidate out of the
race (who also attracts support from both the left and the right, and has the distinction of
being the most Google-Searched Democratic candidate following both of the earlier
Democratic Debates).
This outrage tells you everything about how the process of running for President in this
Country is totally controlled like .. i dunno an Iron Curtain . Anti-War, Anti-Establishment
candidates must be made invisible by any means necessary (no matter how much of the entire
process is exposed as a total farce to accomplish that end).
Jimmy Dore helps to illustrate just how totally arbitrary and absurdly unfair this is -- not
just to Tulsi Gabbard, but unfair for the American public trying to evaluate their potential
voting options and take control of their future .
So the question then is, what
should Tulsi Gabbard do now?
Create a new, live Internet Debate Stream that might possibly draw more viewership than
the dying "Fake News" Cable TV shows.
Run as an Independent candidate (but how does she get on the State ballots?)
Sue the DNC?
I'm not sure what the most effective strategy is. This is an open discussion. But this whole
process needs to be publicly discredited and shown for the tyranny and political repression
that it is. The DNC is the enemy of the people.
I don't have that much faith in Bernie anymore. His full-throated support for Hillary
Clinton in 2016, and rejection of Jill Stein -- along with him giving multiple Clinton
corruptions and scandals a complete pass (nothing to see folks), and covering up the
DNC's efforts to defeat his own campaign -- turned him into a hypocrite, and a false
messenger. You can't talk about the need for "Revolution", and then run straight into the
arms of the Establishment -- kissing their feet and protecting them.
Meanwhile Sanders has bought several lavish Lake Houses in Vermont (as his payoff?) while
he complains about the lifestyles of the rich, and has become preoccupied with useless "
Identity Politics " divisiveness, boring, mindless
Racism/White-Supremacist/Homophobe narratives, and the dishonest Russia-gate
fear mongering (created by the Deep State). It is hard to take Sanders seriously anymore.
Tulsi Gabbard was different . She wasn't playing into any of the false
divisions , and the false narratives. She never wasted a moment on "Impeachment", or
chasing phony Deep-State setups. She knows what is real, and what is not real.
But as Jimmy Dore pointed out in the Video, Bernie Sanders now won't even come to the
defense of Tulsi Gabbard, even though she put her neck on the line for him (back in
2016). Instead Sanders covers up for the likes of the crooked Clintons . That tells
you something about Sanders real character. I'm no longer impressed with him.
Tulsi Gabbard or bust for me.
I've long liked Tulsi's courage, contributed a few bucks to get her on the debate
stage, and have faith she will do what's right when the time comes.
Edit/add: Unless she endorses anybody aside from Bernie.
. . . has written some really great articles opposed to identity politics. You might
consider googling them. I don't think Bernie is at all a proponent of the primacy of identity
politics. He is constantly being criticized by IdPol proponents for placing an overriding
emphasis on class.
While his takes on Russia are a bit off kilter, misguided and unwise in my estimation, I
would not call them "fear mongering."
I wound up voting Green in 2016. Bernie lived to run another day by doing what he did.
Most of his supporters have forgiven him or haven't given it a second thought. But if his
endorsing her bothers you that much, it's certainly your right to object to it. For me, his
campaigning alone has made socialism an issue. That's something in and of itself and pretty,
pretty dang good in my estimation.
And whatever will you do if Tulsi endorses Bernie? Consign her to the depths of hell for
evermore? And what if she endorses WARren or Biden et al or gawdforbid Hillary? Aside from
Bernie, I don't think any of the other candidates would want her campaigning for them. If
Bernie gets nominated, I hope she's ensured of a prominent spot in his administration.
She might be able to turn a negative (DNC) into a positive and exploit the situation. She
could do some Internet events, and Tucker Carlson would put her on TV again, and she might be
able to create some public outrage, build some momentum .. and force, by public sentiment, to
allow her back in some later Debates.
And if she supports Bernie, Bernie might just ignore or dismiss it. I don't think he has
any real loyalty to her.
Tulsi is a uniquely courageous person and a wonderful presidential candidate. If there was
ranked voting, she'd definitely be my #2. Aside from Bernie, she's the only presidential
candidate for whom I'd even consider voting.
I'm not going to suggest she drop out but if she does, I hope she endorses Bernie.
If Bernie is the nominee, I'm sure she will endorse him, just as I'm pretty darn sure she
will endorse any other nominee given that she signed off on exactly that to become a
candidate herself.
I'd say I hope you don't give up on her come those circumstances, but if it gets to that
point, I'm giving up on politics period.
Meanwhile Sanders has bought several lavish Lake Houses in Vermont (as his payoff?)
Please provide evidence for this claim.
Bernie and Jane bought one (repeat one ) vacation property situated on the shore of Lake
Champlain. They bought it before 2016, using money Jane inherited from her parents. The
purchase price was around $600K, if I recall, which is pretty darn cheap for a vacation home.
I've seen pictures of it. It's far from "lavish". Looks more like a middle-class vacation
cabin.
You know, there are arguments you could make about Bernie that would be worth discussion.
His dropping out of the race before Philly, for instance. This crap about "Bernie's rich, he
owns a lot of fancy houses and flaunts his ill-gotten wealth" isn't one of them.
Tulsi's in it for the long haul. I don't think she expects to become POTUS this time
around. At present, she seems to be positioning herself, making herself known to the public,
building a base of support, and no doubt exploring alliances. I'm looking forward to seeing
what she does. Warrior Tulsi.
@Centaurea in my humble opinion. There are a couple of things to note here. The main
thing that spurs Tulsi to run is not for being the first anything or for self glorification.
Her campaign is based upon her own strong beliefs against regime change wars, using those
monies here in the US to help the people, and her belief in environmental stewardship.
Whether or not people like or support Tulsi Gabbard, no one can question her courage to go
against the MIC and other powers that be. She is not ready to quit yet. I have felt from the
beginning that Tulsi is running now for the future. My personal belief is that she will be a
great President due to her courage, intelligence and leadership skills. I am hoping that if
Bernie becomes President, he will appoint Tulsi as Secretary of State where her skills will
be very valuable.
Yeah, I can dream, but if you are going to dream, dream big.
Tulsi's in it for the long haul. I don't think she expects to become POTUS this time
around. At present, she seems to be positioning herself, making herself known to the
public, building a base of support, and no doubt exploring alliances. I'm looking forward
to seeing what she does. Warrior Tulsi.
The true third rail of US politics is empire. Any candidate that is publicly against the
empire is the enemy of not only the state, it's quislings in the media, the corporations
who profit from it and the party machines of both the GOP and the DNC.
That is Gabbard's crime. And it's the only crime that matters.
When the Empire is on the line, left and right in the US close ranks and unite against
the threat. The good news is that all they have is their pathetic Russia bashing and
appeals to their authority on foreign policy.
Foreign policy, by the way, that most people in America, frankly, despise.
Every word of that is so true it makes me want to weep. I don't cry easily.
Thanks for posting that link! It will be shared, several times.
that the DNC would rather lose with a "centrist" than win with Bernie or Tulsi:
Bernie activists who have reportedly learned that the DNC plans to go after him, once
Tulsi was out of the way, chose not to take things lying down. Tulsi is the only candidate
with a history of having Bernie's back. Several activists went to party leaders and asked
point blank whether blocking popular candidates like Tulsi Gabbard and Bernie Sanders from
being nominated would be worth a second term for Donald Trump. To the surprise of the
activists, leaders spoken to were clear that holding Bernie and Tulsi to the contract they
were forced to sign before the first debate was more important than fairness and beating
Donald Trump. Some leaders talked about which candidates they planned run in 2024 if Trump
was re-elected. An assistant to one of the party bosses, who asked not to be identified for
fear of losing his job, pointed out that the DNC actually makes more money as a result of
anger about Donald Trump's Presidency than they would if a popular progressive, such as
Bernie Sanders or Tulsi Gabbard, became President. One person pointed out that a ticket with
Warren and Harris would be labeled progressive and the expected loss would be used to
McGovern or kill the progressive movement within the party.
The report is at open democracy.com and is worth reading in its' entirety. It seems that
the Democrats scheduled a meeting of the DNC in SF and meetings of the California Democratic
Party in San Jose (abt. 2-3hrs. away, best is to ride the BART) the same day. Party hack Tom
Perez drew about 100 to his speech at the DNC.
a ticket with Warren and Harris would be labeled progressive and the expected loss would
be used to McGovern or kill the progressive movement within the party
Yet a loss by Hillary isn't blamed on centrists but is, instead, somehow, used to McGovern
or kill....
that the DNC would rather lose with a "centrist" than win with Bernie or Tulsi:
Bernie activists who have reportedly learned that the DNC plans to go after him, once
Tulsi was out of the way, chose not to take things lying down. Tulsi is the only
candidate with a history of having Bernie's back. Several activists went to party leaders
and asked point blank whether blocking popular candidates like Tulsi Gabbard and Bernie
Sanders from being nominated would be worth a second term for Donald Trump. To the
surprise of the activists, leaders spoken to were clear that holding Bernie and Tulsi to
the contract they were forced to sign before the first debate was more important than
fairness and beating Donald Trump. Some leaders talked about which candidates they
planned run in 2024 if Trump was re-elected. An assistant to one of the party bosses, who
asked not to be identified for fear of losing his job, pointed out that the DNC actually
makes more money as a result of anger about Donald Trump's Presidency than they would if
a popular progressive, such as Bernie Sanders or Tulsi Gabbard, became President. One
person pointed out that a ticket with Warren and Harris would be labeled progressive and
the expected loss would be used to McGovern or kill the progressive movement within the
party.
The report is at open democracy.com and is worth reading in its' entirety. It seems
that the Democrats scheduled a meeting of the DNC in SF and meetings of the California
Democratic Party in San Jose (abt. 2-3hrs. away, best is to ride the BART) the same day.
Party hack Tom Perez drew about 100 to his speech at the DNC.
@Nastarana
I went to opendemocracy.net and couldn't find this content.
that the DNC would rather lose with a "centrist" than win with Bernie or Tulsi:
Bernie activists who have reportedly learned that the DNC plans to go after him, once
Tulsi was out of the way, chose not to take things lying down. Tulsi is the only
candidate with a history of having Bernie's back. Several activists went to party leaders
and asked point blank whether blocking popular candidates like Tulsi Gabbard and Bernie
Sanders from being nominated would be worth a second term for Donald Trump. To the
surprise of the activists, leaders spoken to were clear that holding Bernie and Tulsi to
the contract they were forced to sign before the first debate was more important than
fairness and beating Donald Trump. Some leaders talked about which candidates they
planned run in 2024 if Trump was re-elected. An assistant to one of the party bosses, who
asked not to be identified for fear of losing his job, pointed out that the DNC actually
makes more money as a result of anger about Donald Trump's Presidency than they would if
a popular progressive, such as Bernie Sanders or Tulsi Gabbard, became President. One
person pointed out that a ticket with Warren and Harris would be labeled progressive and
the expected loss would be used to McGovern or kill the progressive movement within the
party.
The report is at open democracy.com and is worth reading in its' entirety. It seems
that the Democrats scheduled a meeting of the DNC in SF and meetings of the California
Democratic Party in San Jose (abt. 2-3hrs. away, best is to ride the BART) the same day.
Party hack Tom Perez drew about 100 to his speech at the DNC.
One person, a DNC official to be precise, pointed out that:
a ticket with Warren and Harris would be labeled progressive and the expected loss would
be used to McGovern or kill the progressive movement within the party.
So, there we have it. The war mongering neo cons and neo liberals are welcome in the
Democratic (sic) Party, but us peace loving, non-imperialist progressives are not. Which
explains, among a lot of more important things, why a pushy Dem. operative thinks she can
come to my house without notice or invitation and insult me because I don't like her gal
Hillary.
@Nastarana Harris has been plunging in the polls. I think Tulsi finished her off.
Why would any nominee want to have an unpopular pol on the ticket? Not much of a chance of
that, so no need to worry about any Harris presence on the ticket or threat in any way.
As for the DNC possibly preferring Trump b/c it leads to better fundraising, the RNC is
currently outraising the DNC by 2-to-1. Apparently Ds just aren't that angry. Or are
channeling their anger in other ways.
One person, a DNC official to be precise, pointed out that:
a ticket with Warren and Harris would be labeled progressive and the expected loss
would be used to McGovern or kill the progressive movement within the party.
So, there we have it. The war mongering neo cons and neo liberals are welcome in the
Democratic (sic) Party, but us peace loving, non-imperialist progressives are not. Which
explains, among a lot of more important things, why a pushy Dem. operative thinks she can
come to my house without notice or invitation and insult me because I don't like her gal
Hillary.
Tulsi did finish her off, but the DNC is trying to prop her back up again by removing
Tulsi from the picture.
I don't think Bernie is principled enough, or bold enough (based on his handling of 2016
and the Clintons/DNC) to ever select Tulsi Gabbard as his V.P.
But I do see him selecting someone (corrupt) like K. Harris just to check-off the "woman
box". So Harris may have life after all due to the DNC rigging of things.
#7
Harris has been plunging in the polls. I think Tulsi finished her off.
Why would any nominee want to have an unpopular pol on the ticket? Not much of a
chance of that, so no need to worry about any Harris presence on the ticket or threat in
any way.
As for the DNC possibly preferring Trump b/c it leads to better fundraising, the RNC
is currently outraising the DNC by 2-to-1. Apparently Ds just aren't that angry. Or are
channeling their anger in other ways.
with a link at the very least. So if you have one, please share it.
Some guy said that he heard this and he told someone who told me . . . .
One person, a DNC official to be precise, pointed out that: a ticket with Warren and Harris would be labeled progressive and the expected loss
would be used to McGovern or kill the progressive movement within the party.
So, there we have it. The war mongering neo cons and neo liberals are welcome in the
Democratic (sic) Party, but us peace loving, non-imperialist progressives are not. Which
explains, among a lot of more important things, why a pushy Dem. operative thinks she can
come to my house without notice or invitation and insult me because I don't like her gal
Hillary.
tossed out the suit against the DNC filed by Jared Beck, Elizabeth Beck, and Niko House,
the DNC doesn't have single worry about how they conduct their political business. The
declined prosecution against the DNC established the DNC's legal rights to make whatever
decisions they want in smoke-filled rooms. There should be no doubt the DNC gets what Killary
wants. This is why H. Rodent Clinton enters the race, erupting with all the subtlety of lava
flowing down the slopes of Mauna Loa (or Karatoa, etc.)
7 polls that were supposed to be qualifying have not and are not going to be taken.
Seems to me, the DNC needs to include 7 of the polls that were taken, which would put Tulsi
in.
but they won't. There's a reason they only took 10 of the 17 polls. It's rigged again.
Please remember that many people voted for Trump just because they can't vote for warmonger
Hillary and/or to show middle finger to the Washington neoliberal establishment.
Everybody understand that he is just another billionaire with very shady past and
questionable connection in NYC, but some people hoped that like FDR he can be the traitor of his
own class. They were severely disappointed.
Voting is severely screwed in the USA as you are allowed to select out of two usually
pre-selected by the elite candidates (Pepsi-Cola choice) but that all we have.
With all her warts, Tulsi foreign policy agenda is the most realistic and anti-war among all
Democratic Candidates. And that's something to vote for.
Just rewatched your appearance on "CrossTalk on Tulsi Gabbard: Peace Candidate." I've been
somewhat manic about championing her, generally sharing her anti-war message, but
periodically suffering some sucker-punch. Her supporters point to the smear campaign launched
at her by neocons and neolibs as evidence of her threat to the MIC and establishment. There's
a disconnect in that assertion. I wonder if either side realizes how conventional her
positions are in general. Is there any real evidence that her understanding (lack of same) on
Israel or Iran has change since she made this dreadful speech in 2015 to the CUFI conference?
Frightening.
Tulsi Gabbard Speaks to Right-Wing Christians United for Israel Conference 2015
@anon
True, her views on Iran and Syria (even after she visited and met with Bashar al-Assad) are
dreadful and she is careful to say the right things about Israel. But she is at the same time
the only candidate seriously talking about ending all the wars so she deserves support at
least for that message, if only because it might force some others to confront the issue.
Let's face it, our search for a truly acceptable candidate will not find one in either major
party.
Does Israel Interfere in American Elections? Ask Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib Philip Giraldi August 27, 2019
1,800 Words 89
CommentsReply
Email This Page to Someone
Remember My Information
=>
List of Bookmarks
◄►◄►▲▼ Remove
from Library B Show Comment
Next New Comment Next New Reply Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This
Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public
Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to
recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information'
checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour. Email Comment Ignore Commenter Follow
Commenter
Bookmark Toggle All ToC ▲▼
Add to Library Search Text Case Sensitive Exact Words Include Comments
Search Clear Cancel
Does anyone remember what the Mueller investigation was all about? It was to determine
whether the team surrounding candidate and then president-elect Donald Trump had colluded with
a foreign power, presumed to be Russia. It did not discover any such collaboration to get Trump
elected president, but it did discover a foreign nation that had directly intervened with key
players surrounding president-elect Trump to get them to do it a favor. That country was
Israel, but somehow the media never quite managed to pull it all together even if leading
public intellectual Noam Chomsky was able to,
saying " if you're interested in foreign interference in our elections, whatever the
Russians may have done barely counts or weighs in the balance as compared with what another
state does, openly, brazenly and with enormous support. Israeli intervention in US elections
vastly overwhelms anything the Russians may have done, I mean, even to the point where the
prime minister of Israel, Netanyahu, goes directly to Congress, without even informing the
president, and speaks to Congress, with overwhelming applause, to try to undermine the
president's policies "
This is how Jewish power works on behalf of the Jewish state. It is done right out in the
open, at least if one knows where to look, and it operates by what the intelligence community
would refer to as misdirection. That means that you never talk about Israel itself, except in a
positive, laudatory fashion, you never mention Jewish power in America, and, finally, you have
in reserve some fabricated threats that can be surfaced to dominate discussion and render
Israel's malign activity invisible.
Currently, the Russian threat is the enemy du jour . Even though we now know that
"Russiagate" never existed in any serious form, it continues to be hyped by both the Democratic
Party and by the accommodating media as the over-the-horizon threat to American democracy. It
is now being claimed, minus any real evidence, that the Kremlin has a plan to ruin the upcoming
2020 election by way of nationwide tampering with the voting machines and the electronic
tallying procedures. Oddly enough, the states, where the voting actually takes place,
have not noticed any attempted Russian interference. As the story goes, if the Russians are
successful, no one will have any confidence in the results and the American republican
experiment will collapse in ruins.
No one is, of course, asking why Moscow would want to change a United States that, for all
its power, is so politically inept and corrupt from top to bottom that it found itself unable
to stage a coup in Venezuela. If the U.S. government collapses, it might well be replaced by
something more authoritarian and, dare I say, more efficient, that would certainly pose a
greater threat to Russia, so why would Putin want that?
Nevertheless, many people who should know better are hyping the threat. I sometimes peruse
the Defense One website, a warmhearted place funded by defense contractors where all
those people who want to blow up the world can share bon mots and grin about all the
money they are making.
Last week I noted a
particularly loathesome article on the site "Here's what foreign interference will look
like in 2020," written by one Uri Friedman, who I presume to be – inevitably – an
Israeli. Uri is very upset about all those evil countries that will be/might be interfering in
the election, to include Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela, Syria, North Korea and
the United Arab Emirates – though he does exclude the one country that is most likely to
interfere, which is, of course, Israel. Uri is described as a "a senior associate editor at The
Atlantic, where he oversees the Global Channel." The Atlantic is in fact a media black hole,
where all semi-literate journos of a globalist persuasion go to die.
Uri begins with the sub-headline, "The incentives for foreign countries to meddle are much
greater than in 2016, and the tactics could look dramatically different" followed by:
"Russia is 'doing it as we sit here.' This stray line, buried in seven hours of
testimony on Capitol Hill, wasn't just Robert Mueller's way of rebutting the charge that
his investigation into the Kremlin's interference in the 2016 presidential election amounted to
a two-year, $32 million witch hunt. It was also a blunt message to the lawmakers arrayed before
him, the journalists hunting for a bombshell, and the millions of Americans monitoring the
proceedings: We're all here fighting the last war, when we really should be bracing ourselves
for the coming one. The Russians 'expect to do it during the next campaign,' the special
counsel continued, and 'many more countries are developing capability to replicate' Moscow's
model."
Friedman states that "It's unclear whether the Russian government will reprise most infamous
and innovative act in 2016: the hacking and leaking of emails from the Democratic Party and
Hillary Clinton's campaign" before moving on to the details of Moscow's alleged subversion. He
considers all allegations about Russia to be truthful even when they were never proven. The
Democratic National Committee never cooperated with the FBI after their supposed hack, but
instead used their own very suspect firm to do the investigation. And the Mueller investigation
took that report at face value in spite of the company's very clear conflict of interest.
That about sums up Friedman's rather lengthy and convoluted argument, though he does omit
any consideration of how many foreign elections the United States government acting through its
intelligence agencies interferes in each year. Or indeed how much CIA Director John Brennan and
the FBI's James Comey themselves interfered in the 2016 election on behalf of Hillary Clinton.
But he does speculate that "This is the shoe that didn't drop in 2016. A Senate Intelligence
Committee
report released in July found that while there's no evidence that votes were altered or
vote tallies manipulated during the past U.S. presidential election, the Russians likely
targeted election systems in all 50 U.S. states, including research on 'election-related web
pages, voter ID information, election system software, and election service companies.' In a
couple of cases, the Russians succeeded in breaching state election infrastructure. Among the
theories aired in the report about Moscow's motivations is that it was cataloging 'options or
clandestine actions, holding them for use at a later date.'"
In other words, Friedman actually concedes that Russia didn't do anything and the evidence
that it is planning an attack for 2020 is thin to non-existent. But here in the United States,
other foreign agents are hard at work to remove the two Muslim women elected to the House of
Representatives in 2018 "for Jewish reasons."
Philip Weiss of Mondoweiss reports how the tale
of powerful Detroit region-based Jews raising money and pulling in political markers to try to
defeat Rep. Rashida Tlaib has been circulating on the web. Per Weiss, Ron Kampeas of the Jewish
Telegraphic Agency
reported on a gathering of Jewish power brokers in Detroit three weeks ago, arranged by a
leading Jewish organization, at which they vowed to raise money to get rid of Tlaib because she
supports a boycott of Israel. Tlaib is a Muslim woman and is a U.S. born and raised
Palestinian-American.
Tlaib responded to the story on twitter: "This type of hate
never succeeds when the truth is on our side. Palestinians *are* dehumanized. Those who want to
suppress the truth by trying to discredit me can #bringit . My sidy [grandmother in
Palestine] taught me of the days where everyone lived side by side in peace & that is what
I will fight for."
The meeting was held at Bloomfield Hills Michigan branch office of the Jewish Federation,
the largest Jewish group in the United States. It included many local Jewish leaders and
potential political donors who are clearly not bothered by dual loyalty, but it did not appear
to include anyone who actually lives in Tlaib's district. Nevertheless, consensus was quickly
established that "the Palestinian-American freshman in the 13th District [Tlaib] has got to
go."
One participant declared "We in this community will go against Rashida Tlaib" while another
described how there had already been an approach to Brenda Jones, the Detroit City Council
president, who had been defeated in 2018 by Tlaib. Money was being raised for her campaign,
according to another participant.
The thinking in the room was that the African-American community in the 13th Congressional
District would support a single black candidate -- likely Jones -- and that candidate would
also be able to draw on considerable pro-Israel support for funding and favorable media
coverage.
There was some pushback, with a rabbi telling Kampeas that a Jewish organized effort to
remove Tlaib would be "catastrophic." He observed that it would be such an open and blatant
demonstration of Jewish power that it would be a major setback to the effort to keep younger,
more liberal Jews, who are suspicious of power politics, engaged.
The rabbi was being naïve. Removing politicians who are not fully on board with the
Israel agenda is normal practice and has been for many years. Just ask Senators William
Fulbright and Chuck Percy or Congressmen Paul Findley, Pete McCloskey, and Cynthia McKinney.
Criticizing Israel means not being reelected to Congress next time around, and it is not
because Israel is greatly loved by voters. It is because Jewish-American citizens who are
protective of Israel are willing to organize and collect money to support alternative
candidates in any congressional district in the country, even where they do not reside, just as
they plan on doing to Tlaib. Their goal is to defeat anyone who dares to say anything against
Benjamin Netanyahu and his gang of war criminals or, even worse, suggest that Palestinians just
might be human beings and might actually have rights.
Israel has the most powerful foreign policy lobby in Washington but it operates as freely as
it does by pretending that it has no power at all, that American involvement in the Middle East
is driven by U.S. interests. That is complete nonsense and has been so for over fifty years as
the Lobby has tightened its grip. Until more congressmen like Rashida Tlaib get elected and
begin to speak out, the corrupt status quo will, unfortunately, continue to prevail.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest,
a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a
more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its
email is[email protected] .
As much as I despise Tlaib and Omar's politics, they are doing the USA a valuable service by
exposing the "elephant in the room" and the loyalty oaths to israel that most of their
compatriot congress critters sign. Being "people of color" they can get away with offending
our jewish zionist masters.
Signing ANY "loyalty oath" to a foreign country should be grounds for immediate loss of
united States citizenship and mandatory permanent deportation. This should also apply to any
united States citizen who serves in a foreign country's military
I don't know enough about Tlaib's politics –which I would think are pretty much
standard Dem– to worry about her career as a Rep. I would imagine she's Israel's #1
target for defeat for obvious reasons. It may be poor strategy in MI for Ms Tlaib to mention
this. But she may have no choice.
It appears to me that Trump –not Tlaib– will be the cause of Israeli
participation in the 2020 election with the Pres making it clear that (Jewish) support for
Democrats demonstrates disloyalty towards Israel. Likud will be happy to take up that
charge from Trump. Even though they probably understand it would look bad. I don't think they
can resist.
Can you imagine Netanyahu making a case for attacking Iran to Liz Warren (ha)? I don't
think so.
Does Israel interfere in American elections? This is an important question, though seldom
(publicly) asked.
This steady omission goes to demonstrate the distorting influence enjoyed by Israel and
its domestic lobbies. Americans are simply not free to ask questions that make Jews feel
uncomfortable or 'threatened'.
For those who dare to look however, 'Israeli influence' in America is very tangible,
extremely vast, and highly destructive. It must therefore be examined. Here are four
additional reasons why:
1) Jews of the world are not only spread out far and wide, but they are all
automatically eligible for Israeli citizenship. This is the Israel's 'Law of Return'.
This Zionist pact imparts every Jew with dual-loyalties.
Meanwhile, non-Jews born inside Israel have a lower status there and fewer rights. These
official disparities speak volumes about how Jews see themselves in relation to non-Jews.
It's a warning to us all.
2) Israeli-Americans also tend to be highly-placed as well as exceptionally active, both
politically and culturally. Often they coalesce as a distinct and separate group
inside host nations around the advancement of specifically Jewish objectives. This
includes the elevation of Israel over all other concerns.
3) Jews openly and shamelessly use their positions of power inside America to harness US
military, diplomatic, and economic power for the benefit of Israel. This is dual loyalty in
action. Zionist nepotism has caused numerous and unnecessary foreign wars, a stream of
American fatalities, and immense civilian suffering.
Israel has the most powerful foreign policy lobby in Washington but it operates as
freely as it does by pretending that it has no power at all, that American involvement in
the Middle East is driven by U.S. interests. That is complete nonsense and has been so for
over fifty years as the Lobby has tightened its grip. Until more congressmen like Rashida
Tlaib get elected and begin to speak out, the corrupt status quo will, unfortunately,
continue to prevail.
@Mark
James Obama team did Libya. Biden worked on coups in Ukraine and Brazil.
Hillary worked on the coup in Honduras in 2009. Obama's got soft coups in Argentina and
Paraguay.
If Obama's team could do all this in his Dem time. No doubt Liz Warren if elected could do
the same.
She might get away with it more than Trump would, since with her in "power" the "free"
Zion press could twist words easier to make it look "good" to attack Iran.
It is harder to "twist" words for attacks on Iran or any place with Trump in "power".
Trump is "hated" by our Zion free press yet he does all can for Israel uber alles.
Israel through AIPAC certainly influences Congress . Eric Gallagher , a top official with
AIPAC from 2010 to 2015 is said to have informed a reporter that " Getting $38 billion in
security aid matters to Israel, which is what AIPAC just did."
Who owns the computers which count the votes ?
I think "Jewish State" is a misnomer. Israel is a Zionist state, which has nothing to do with
Judaism. Zionism is the antithesis to Judaism and an insult to Jewish believers. There are
hundreds of thousands of Jews who despise the Zionist regime; for them, its anathema.
It's an open secret that the Zionist control the US Congress, the Trump administration,
the Media, what have you (Ariel Sharon). The Russian hoax was made up by the
Zionist-controlled New York Times, CNN, MSNBC and the rest of mainstream media-crowd. Not
Russia colluded, but the Zionist regime and their lobbies run the show by intervening openly
in US elections and the American political process. I remember the disgraceful behavior of
both Houses of Congress jumping from their seats 29 times listening to Netanyahu's rant
against President Obama. What a shame, but these bought representatives thought they acted
usually. Just recently, the Freshmen in Congress came back from a brainwashing mission to
Israel. Now they are all for the Zionist regime.
I'm still wondering why even Phil Geraldi repeats the same old story about meddling and
collusion again and again. Right from the start, it has been a conspiracy by crooks such as
Brennan, Clapper, Comey and a bunch of subordinate Hillary Clinton sycophants to topple a
sitting US President. Thank God, the senile Robert Mueller testified before Congress to clear
Trump finally from all that smear. Firstly the New York Times realizes that with the Russian
hoax nobody could be drawn from the woodwork any longer; they quickly switched Trump's
apparent racism.
Rashida Tlaib's freshman-term in the House may also be her last one if she further
"insults" US Zionists with the truth about the Zionist regime and their power in the US. The
way of the Zionist lobby is paved with political dead. A prominent one was the just deceased
courageous and exceptional Paul Findley.
@Wizard
of Oz None of what you cite is actually a crime but Congress has chosen to believe that
Trump's alleged collusion with Russia is sufficient grounds for impeachment when combined
with allegations of obstruction of justice and violation of the emoluments issue. Note that
all those issues are alleged, not demonstrated, except possibly for the emoluments .
There seems to be no lack of U.S. DOD money concerning the perpetual wars for Israel, but
there sure is a shocking shortage of U.S. HUD funds for a growing number of indigent
Americans seeking some affordable housing.
On the Gabbard Story-- Real Clear Politics did an excellent job of explaining the
point-at-issue: the unknown criteria for the polls DNC hasn't told anyone which they are
using or why. RT, in a more condensed article cited
"Andrew Yang, who has since qualified, slammed the DNC in July for excluding one of two NBC
polls he said had reached the 2 percent threshold in, [saying] ' It is frustrating to see
the rules be changed mid-game .' The article also cites "Colorado Senator Michael Bennet
[who] criticized the process in front of DNC Chair Tom Perez on Friday, saying it was
'stifling debate at a time when we need it most.'
These two important critiques when added to the information provided by the RCP article
clearly show DNC manipulating the debate criteria in order to manage who
participates.
I tried to find updated relevant polling data over the past week knowing the deadline was
approaching and its importance to all the candidates, not just Gabbard, but is was very
difficult to find just one poll let alone at least 4.
IMO, if she's excluded from the next round of debates because the DNC favored polls
with tiny sample sizes versus far more relevant polls, then we will again know the Fix is
In--Again--but for whom this time.
"... I've always wondered if the whole MeToo movement was orchestrated by a hidden hand ..."
"... It seemed like the MeToo was weaponized ..."
"... Back then Allyssa Milano and others were telling us that we must believe all women (so now guilty until proven innocent), but those same women have been completely silent when one of Epstein's accusers said she was forced to have sex with Bill Richardson (D) and George Mitchell (D), both of whom denied the allegation ..."
I've always wondered if the whole MeToo movement was orchestrated by a hidden
hand – same for those horrible pussy hats they came out with after Trump was elected.
It seemed like the MeToo was weaponized and ready to go when Kavanaugh was nominated (and
I'm not a fan–he's connected to Bush and the Patriot Act). They brought out Dr. Chrissy
Fraud and Julie Swetnick (who seemed quite mentally unstable with her accusations that
Kavanaugh was connected to gang rape parties).
Back then Allyssa Milano and others were
telling us that we must believe all women (so now guilty until proven innocent), but those
same women have been completely silent when one of Epstein's accusers said she was forced to
have sex with Bill Richardson (D) and George Mitchell (D), both of whom denied the
allegations.
And, of course, such accusations were barely mentioned in the MSM.
@renfro That mixture
of grandeur and victimhood has always reeked of sociopathy to me.
The sociopath believes he's above other men: God, history or fate has chosen him, and
others are beneath him and exist for his benefit, their wants, desires, hopes and dreams
being of trivial consequence. Plus, the sociopath, when caught in the aftermath of his
crimes, blames other and refuses to accept responsibility for his actions.
"... I've always wondered if the whole MeToo movement was orchestrated by a hidden hand ..."
"... It seemed like the MeToo was weaponized ..."
"... Back then Allyssa Milano and others were telling us that we must believe all women (so now guilty until proven innocent), but those same women have been completely silent when one of Epstein's accusers said she was forced to have sex with Bill Richardson (D) and George Mitchell (D), both of whom denied the allegation ..."
I've always wondered if the whole MeToo movement was orchestrated by a hidden
hand – same for those horrible pussy hats they came out with after Trump was elected.
It seemed like the MeToo was weaponized and ready to go when Kavanaugh was nominated (and
I'm not a fan–he's connected to Bush and the Patriot Act). They brought out Dr. Chrissy
Fraud and Julie Swetnick (who seemed quite mentally unstable with her accusations that
Kavanaugh was connected to gang rape parties).
Back then Allyssa Milano and others were
telling us that we must believe all women (so now guilty until proven innocent), but those
same women have been completely silent when one of Epstein's accusers said she was forced to
have sex with Bill Richardson (D) and George Mitchell (D), both of whom denied the
allegations.
And, of course, such accusations were barely mentioned in the MSM.
"It is virtually impossible to think of any country, powerful or weak ..that exercises such
complete control over any other country, powerful or weak, rich or poor as Zionist Israel
does over our country, the US of A."
Much of this has to do with American Capitalism. If the US was NOT oligarchic, or mired in
trillions of $$ for The Elite, you wouldn't have these Zionist Jews obviscating, manipulating
and "pulling the wool over our eyes" the way they do now.
Frankly, I am sickened by folks like Alan Dershowitz & most of the MEDIA Jewish bosses
that run Hollywood and MSM.
I know, personally, there are wonderfully creative, intelligent, insightful Jewish people
out there. I want all the Giliad Atzmon's, Max Blumenthal's, Norman Finklestein's and
thousands more to radiate their special gifts upon this sordid, illiterate and greedy nation
called America.
It's likely G-Max spent the spring in Manchester BTS, Ma. She left and where she is this
summer isn't public (yet). It does make sense in some minds that she is an informant.
And for that reason, private but not on the run from law enforcement.
After Epstein's death you would have thought that she would have moved to the top of the
list of people to be charged with related crimes to JE? If she has it's been very quiet.
@Tony Ryals Don't
forget that Maxwell's publishing empire started by getting publishing rights to much of
Germany's scientific papers.
As a British intelligence officer in Occupied Germany, he was in an excellent position to
blackmail or threaten any number of people in order to get his way. Shooting people himself
is not the easiest way of doing things. There are better ways in a country where people are
starving.
Curiously, Isabel followed in the family tradition of filing for bankruptcy in December 2015
despite having been a multi-millionaire. That move may have been related to the untimely demise
at age 56 of her third husband, the infamous con man Al Seckel who, she later found out, was
not legally her husband since he was still married to his first wife. In 2015, when he
reportedly died, he was potentially on the hook for millions
Seckel befriended and bewitched the Nobel Prize-winning physicists Richard Feynman and
Murray Gell-Mann among other neuroscientists, as well as academics and even magicians like
James Randi.
Seckel then used those contacts to sell rare books to prestigious customers who were often
hoodwinked out of thousands in bad deals. He moved on to co-opt the burgeoning field of optical
illusion, popularizing the art of manipulating images by using research from others in books he
wrote.
(His daughter, Elizabeth Seckel, has built on her father's work in optical illusion by
pioneering something called "mirror box therapy." Seckel brought her method, sponsored by the
Clinton Global Initiative, to Haiti after the earthquake in 2012 to help recent amputees with
their phantom limb pain.)
In 2010, Seckel hosted a scientific conference on Jeffrey Epstein's infamous private island
with Gell-Mann, Leonard Mlodinow, who was Stephen Hawking's co-author, and MIT's Gerald
Sussman.
Oppenheimer told The Daily Beast this week that there was "no evidence" that Seckel or any
of the scientists at the island party were involved in any sexual activity with young
girls.
In 2004 Seckel gave a TED talk that's been viewed almost 2.5 million times about "perceptual
illusions that fool our brains."
Because of Seckel's shady past, it was not surprising that vague reports of his death -- a
perceptual illusion perhaps? -- began popping up just weeks after Oppenheimer's July 2015 story
exposed him to hordes of creditors.
A paid obituary was published on Legacy.com, supposedly after appearing in the San Gabriel
Valley Tribune, but it does not appear on the paper's website. One report has circulated around
various Seckel-obsessed corners of the internet that his body was found at the bottom of a
cliff near the home in France where he had moved with Isabel.
But The Daily Beast could not locate any officials in the town where Seckel was last known
to live who had any report of his death. Oppenheimer and others said they have not yet found
proof, either. The Daily Beast was unable to reach Isabel Maxwell or Elizabeth Secker for
comment.
"High school is never over" explains in part the Epstein compulsive following. It was, in
H.S., important to get invited to cool parties. Lolita Island was the cool party, where you
could finally make it with H.S.-age icy, perfunctory, uninteresting girls -- it doesn't get
any cooler than that. It's not just an Epstein phenomenon; Kim and his inner circle had/have
100 personal cheerleaders.
@Jeff Stryker You
keep posting this question, but the premise is most doubtful. One would quickly be arrested
and quite possibly be shot and/or beaten half to death before the police arrived if you tried
approaching little girls in a trailer park offering money for sex .
Maxwell never had any contact with the schoolgirls, none of them said she met them.
Epstein's co conspirators getting him schoolgirls from Palm Beach High were other schoolgirls
who he paid a commission for bringing him girls, The main one was the 14 year old we hear
so much about and she recruited mainly her friends and relatives. It did not last long
because she got into a fight about it and then blabbed to the school psychologist about the
whole thing. The police found out from her who all the girls were and Epstein was
arrested. Really sophisticated intelligence operation.
Virginia Giuffre (nee Roberts), now in her thirties, was 17 and already studying to become
a masseuse when she met Maxwell at Trump's resort where she and her father both worked, and
was offered a job to start with Einstein in that capacity. Her father knew of Epstein as did
everyone in Palm Beach back then, and drove her to Epstein's house for the interview being
quite happy with the whole thing.
Guess that's why the largest percentage #MeToo offenders are Jews.
Yes, and they can't all be working for Mossad. Are Weinstein's female assistants being
assumed to be his accomplices in the rape of multiple women. Rape is what he is about to
stand trial for. I would say that rape is a much more serious offence than having consensual
sexual contact with a under age girl and paying her. There are several accounts of
Weinstein's assistants (who all knew what he was like) suddenly disappearing and leaving
young actresses alone with him. Was that a Mossad plot too? Or, do Weinstein's factotums get
a pass because they were Gentiles?
Weinstein's crimes are "predatory sexual assault," which carry a potential life sentence.
If Epstein was not prosecuted to the full extent of the laws it might have something to do
with those laws getting a little out of balance with the seriousness of the crime Epstein
committed. when compared with non prostitution offences. A 14 year old who hears she get big
money for giving a super rich old (to her) guy a massage and goes along to his house knowing
sexual contact short of full intercourse is part of the deal and leaves with several hundred
of dollars is in a very different category to a woman who is forcibly assaulted when a young
adult by a big shot movie producer.The Sopranos's Annabella Sciorra is saying Weinstein raped
her in 1993-94. H cannot be prosecuted for it now as too much time has passed. Mossad
plot?
Wexner, owner of Bath and Body Works, Victorias Secret and The Limited, heads a group of
politically active Jewish billionaires intent on solving Israel's issues with American military
lives.
@Sean Good questions.
Answer: Chutzpah? Alternate answer: Dersh didn't find it radioactive when he went down to
Palm Springs and started digging up dirt on Epstein's accusers. At what point would he find
it radioactive?
After all, Jeff and Jizzaline were on a free pass for the next 15 years scooting about on
a magic carpet– ie.– they were accepted. Also, the recent Labor Secretary openly
stated he, as a prosecutor, was told to leave it alone– 'Epstein belonged to
intelligence.' What's not to like?
The only real surprise was the recent indictment. Why now? (needs research) NOW Dersh
finds it radioactive.
Comment on Wexner– Can you really take Wexner's excuses at face value? We recently
found out from Whitney Webb that Wexler installed monitoring equipment throughout the Upper
East Side mansion he then 'gave' to Epstein. There's evidently more to this case than Epstein
himself. Webb then connects Wexler to organized crime and well-heeled organized
Zionism– both sponsors of multi-farious sex/blackmail schemes stretching back decades
(as in Meyer Lansky and Roy Cohn). Jizzaline wasn't considered radioactive at Chelsea
Clinton's wedding. Looks like pedophilia is as Zio-American as apple pie.
While this is a Russian site with specific audience, comments show that people reject the USA policy which might creates problems
for the USA in the future. Not the USA neoliberal/neocon elite cares.
This decisions just had shown to the whole would that Trump is a clown capable of twitting, not much more. Other people make key
decisions for the county.
The deep state that controls the US are lying criminal psychopaths. Any agreements and treaties negotiated with them aren't
worth the time or paper they are written on.
all.putin wants world peace but the Americans whats to tell everyone what to do and start wars what.they.sould buid a wall.around
america stop them getting out
le"> We can certainly expect Poland and Romania to be targeted with Nuclear munitions at the very least. There will likely
be an official Russian announcement of this fact as well. In the event of a breakout of hostilities with Nato then Russia will
target the military infrastructure in both countries and vaporise them immediately. Unfortunately a very large number of Polish
and Romanian civilians will be caught in the blasts. That will be tragic of course.
I live in the Netherlands and I am on the side of Russia. Europe is disgusting for not condemning the USA intentions. Eu will
regret it. When bombs fall on Europe because of these incompetent leaders we will not forget.
icle"> The Western public MUST, MUST become very familiar pronto with the few intellectuals, scholars, journalists, writers
and authors who have been at the forefront for global peace and world justice for decades! It's our only hope! Right now the only
sane voice on the national stage is Tulsi Gabbard. People must start reading: John Pilger, James Petras, Diana Johnstone, Stephen
Lendman, Ray McGovern, Finian Cunningham, Andre Vltchek, Michael Parenti, Stephen Cohen, The Saker, Caitlin Johnstone, Paul Craig
Roberts.
USA a decadent nation run by global mafia . Cannot trust what they say , is proven by their actions Sold their soul to the
devil for money and power. Yet they will fail God is in charge!
e"> The double standard in the West is breathtaking. It's as simple as the Golden Rule: merely try to imagine the reaction
in New York, London, Washington, Paris, Chicago, Boston if Russia or China were to do the exact same thing in southern Canada
or the Caribbean. The Washington military empire builders could possibly destroy humanity with their reckless and imperial behavior.
They simply cannot accept any sovereign nation-states that 1.) give the finger to Wall Street or the idea of the uni-polar world
Washington's intent on establishing, or 2.) gives diplomatic support to the Palestinians or is even a mild thorn in the side of
Israel. For further reading, see the following scholars, intellectuals, journalists and writers: James Petras, Diana Johnstone,
John Pilger, Stephen Lendman, Michael Parenti, Finian Cunningham, Andre Vltchek and a few others I'm forgetting at the moment.
e"> Under Trump the USA are rapidly steering towards an open dictatorship, something they've been doing for years but more
covertly. The USA have always been shouting the loudest about democracy and freedom but that's just a façade while they bully
the world and their own people into submission. The curtain is falling faster and faster now. Oh, and ask the American Natives
what the Americans do with treaties...
The US does not want friendship with Russia, it seeks to either control it or destroy it. Since the first option isn't going
to happen, it's obvious what's next and it'll start with more sanctions, expanding NATO into Georgia and Ukraine and placing nuclear
missiles on Russia's Eastern and Western border.
"comment-renderer-text-content expanded"> All it takes, is 1 single warhead fired from ex. Poland to reach Moscow. How many
launchers do USA have placed in these countries near Russia? Is Moscow more than 500 KM away from any NATO border? If the enemy
sets up catapults outside your city walls, isn't that a clear sign the enemy intend to fire those catapults against your walls?
So what do you do? Do you sit and wait? Or do you take out the catapults before they break down your walls? As far as any strategist
see this, it can be only one solution for survival.
omment-renderer-text-content expanded"> During FDR's 'Pearl Harbor' speech he said, "It will be recorded that the distance
of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago." There are echoes
of this speech in Putin's words (
02:18 ) and the
type of treachery referred to by Roosevelt applies to the American exit from the INF. America has become a nation holding "a big
stick" and loudly shouting about it (contrary to an earlier Roosevelt's advice). The White House acknowledged (and the NYT reported)
that we are involved in seven wars right now (Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Niger). We have 38 "named" foreign
military bases as well as upwards of 600 overseas military installations of some sort including "lily pads," i.e., "cooperative
security locations" and an undisclosed number of "black" locations. Our military budget is pushing towards a trillion dollars
per year ($717 billion this year). We are threatening small countries such as Venezuela with military action (and yes, something
needs to be done for the good of the people there but that should not include an American military attack which President Trump,
our Secretary of State ("and his colleague") have said is "on the table." And now, we are dumping nuclear weapons treaties. We
have truly become a country which "lives by the sword." Good luck to us all.
Okay , so this is a broadcast of the President of Russia speaking to his security council right , this is official researched
factual intel ....has to be on that level ...right . Now to the few negative responses I have come across ,what intel do you have
and where did you get it...
Instead of addressing and trying to ameliorate this most dangerous development, let's instead focus on Trump's idiotic and
diversionary comments and tweets about buying Greenland or some such other nonsense.
This so-called mutual 'defense alliance' pact is not only extremely dangerous, but it
clearly serves only one of the parties.
Notable quotes:
"... As the old joke goes: Israel would never want to become the 51st state because then it would only have 1 senator instead of controlling all 100. ..."
"... It is painfully clear that the US is a jewish-controlled oligarchy in all but name and no other explanation can sufficiently explain the fact that Israel can do almost whatever it wants without ever having to face any pushback, instead it just gets more. This includes middle-eastern wars for which the goyim should sacrifice their sons. ..."
"... Mossad must have some serious dirt on Graham, maybe videos of him with little boys. ..."
"... SC politicians are the best to coerce/blackmail because they are a one party state. Any idiot with an (R) after his name is sure to get elected and re-elected no matter what they do. ..."
"... Now its true Israel could not 'occupy' Iran but that does not mean Israel could not destroy Iranian military capability but the cost could be higher than in 67 or 73 unless Israel has some way to neutralize Hebollah's missile arsenal in Lebanon. ..."
"... The Democraps support the Iranian People? Traitor Sen. Shumer will give up his Zionist Entity citizenship and become a loyal American? Ms Pelosi, Biden, Booker, Ms. Maxwell ..."
"... Casino Trump this. Casino Trump that! He is an Actor/crook. He is part of that Hologram/Matrix/make believe/Professional 'Wrestling' entertainment for an imprisoned and daily looted Nation. A Nation that once was Free. ..."
"... Casino Trump is another of the post (un) constitutional Hollywood Presidents. Trump, Hollywood Obomber, Bill (that wasn't sex) Clinton ..."
"... None of these have/had any power. They are actors, and crooks. Do not look for power here. The power that controls us is hidden from our view. ..."
"... According to the Times of Israel, Graham says that the [proposed] pact would show the international community that "an attack against Israel would be considered an attack against the United States." ..."
As the agreement between the two countries would be a treaty ratified by the Senate, it
would be much more difficult to scrap by subsequent administrations than was the Iran nuclear
deal, which was an executive action by President Obama. And clearly the statements by Graham,
Makovsky and Ruhe reveal this treaty would serve as a green light for an Israeli attack on
Iran, should they opt to do so, while also serving as a red light to Tehran vis-à-vis an
ironclad US commitment to "defend" Israel that would serve to discourage any serious Iranian
retaliation. Given that dynamic, the treaty would be little more than a one-way security
guarantee from Washington to Jerusalem.
Furthermore, in outlining what circumstances would trigger US intervention on Israel's
behalf, the JINSA/Graham document cites, inter alia , "the threat or use of weapons of
mass destruction." It also allows Netanyahu to call for assistance after defining as
threatening any incident or development "that gives rise to an urgent request from the
Government of Israel." It appears then that Netanyahu could demand that the US attack Iran
should he only perceive a threat, however vague that threat might in reality be.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been claiming Iran is "
three to five years " and "possibly weeks" away from a nuclear weapons capability since
1992 and pushing Washington to attack Iran so he obviously would welcome such a treaty for
strategic reasons as well as to shore up his upcoming re-election bid. President Trump, with
whom Graham has discussed how the agreement would work, has a similar interest in appearing
strong for Israel to help his own campaign in 2020.
It is worth noting that in 2010 Netanyahu ordered the Israel Defense Force (IDF) to prepare
to strike Iran but 'Israel's security chiefs refused: Gabi Ashkenazi, the head of the IDF, and
Meir Dagan, the head of the Mossad at the time, believed that Netanyahu and the Defense
Minister Ehud Barak were trying to "steal a war" and the order was not carried out. The attacks
were also rejected by two ministers, Moshe Yaalon and Yuval Steinitz, which left Netanyahu
without the necessary majority to proceed.
Ashkenazi claimed in a 2012 interview about the episode that he was convinced that an attack
would be have been a major strategic mistake. Meir Dagan said in 2012, after leaving his role
as Mossad chief, that a strike
would be "a stupid thing" as the entire region would undoubtedly be destabilized, requiring
repeated Israeli and American interventions.
And there are other issues arising from a "defense treaty." Defense means just that and
treaties are generally designed to protect a country within its own borders. Israel has no
defined borders as it is both expansionistic and illegally occupying Palestinian land, so the
United States would in effect be obligated to defend space that Israel defines as its own. That
could mean almost anything. Israel is currently bombing Syria almost daily even though it is
not at war with Damascus. If Syria were to strike back and Graham's treaty were in place,
Washington would technically be obligated to come to Israel's assistance. A similar situation
prevails with Lebanon and there are
also reports that Israel is bombing alleged Iranian supply lines in Iraq, where the US has
5,000 troops stationed.
The real problem is that the Trump administration is obsessed with regime change in Iran,
but it has so far been unable to provoke Iran into starting a conflict. Graham's proposed
treaty just might be part of a White House plan to end-run Congress and public opinion by
enabling Israel to start the desired war, whereupon the US would quickly follow in to "defend
Israel," obliged by treaty to do so. What could possibly go wrong? The correct answer is
"everything."
Two world wars began because of unconditional pledges made by one country to come to
assistance of another. On July 5, 1914, Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany
pledged his country's complete support for whatever response Austria-Hungary would choose to
make against Serbia after the June 28 th assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand
of Austria by a Serbian nationalist during an official visit to Sarajevo, Bosnia. This fatal
error went down in history as Germany's carte blanche or "blank check," assurance to
Austria that led directly to WW I.
In September 1939, World War II began when Great Britain and France came to the assistance
of Poland after the German Army invaded, fulfilling a "guarantee" made in March of that year.
What was a regional war, and one that might have been resolved through diplomacy, became
global.
One would think that after such commitments were assessed by historians as the immediate
causes of two world wars, no one would ever consider going down that road again. But that would
be reckoning without Republican Senator Lindsey Graham who has been calling for a "defense
treaty" with Israel since last April. In his most recent foray, Graham announced late in
July that
he is seeking bipartisan support for providing "blank check" assurances to Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and is hoping to be able to push a complete defense treaty through
the Senate by next year.
In making his several announcements on the subject, Graham has been acting as a
front man for both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and also for The Jewish
Institute for the National Security of America (JINSA), which wrote the basic document that
is being used to promote the treaty and then enlisted Graham to obtain congressional
support.
Speaking to the press on a JINSA conference call, Graham said the proposed agreement would
be a treaty that would protect Israel in case of an attack that constituted an "existential
threat". Citing Iran as an example, Graham said the pact would be an attempt to deter hostile
neighbors like the Iranians who might use weapons of mass destruction against Israel. JINSA
President Michael Makovsky elaborated on this, saying, "A mutual defense pact has a value in
not only deterring but might also mitigate a retaliatory strike by an adversary of Israel, so
it might mitigate an Iranian response (to an attack on its nuclear facilities)."
JINSA director of foreign policy Jonathan Ruhe added that "An Israeli strike on Iran's
nuclear program would not activate this pact, but a major Iranian retaliation might. – An
Israeli unilateral attack is not what the treaty covers, but rather massive Iranian retaliation
is what we are addressing."
Israel has long been reluctant to enter into any actual treaty arrangement with the United
States because it might limit its options and restrain its aggressive pattern of military
incursions. In that regard, the Graham-JINSA proposal is particularly dangerous as it
effectively permits Israel to be interventionist with a guarantee that Washington will not seek
to limit Netanyahu's "options." And, even though the treaty is reciprocal, there is no chance
that Israel will ever be called upon to do anything to defend the United States, so it is as
one-sided as most arrangements with the Jewish state tend to be.
The treaty talk is just more psychological warfare on Iran . Iran is too big for Israel to
start a fight that the US might not join in. If the Israeli armed forces can refuse (although
I don't believe that actually happened) so could the US. No, Israel is going to have to put
up with an Iranian bomb. Nothing is going to happen.
As the old joke goes: Israel would never want to become the 51st state because then it would
only have 1 senator instead of controlling all 100.
It is painfully clear that the US is a jewish-controlled oligarchy in all but name and no
other explanation can sufficiently explain the fact that Israel can do almost whatever it
wants without ever having to face any pushback, instead it just gets more. This includes
middle-eastern wars for which the goyim should sacrifice their sons.
Sadly it would not surprise me at all if they go through with this.
What a complete abomination America has become. Shameful.
I wonder what the american population of the 1760s would have done were they alive today?
However, the so-called patriots of today are so easily duped that they believe the utter joke
of a creature currently occupying The White House actually has any interest other than his
own in mind every time he opens his mouth
Lets see, you have an Administration, a Senate, a Congress, a Supreme Court that all, for
decades, obviously have been completely compromised. Your two political party system works
like a charm controlling you all.
Any time something a little too fishy is going down, something that just might be a little
too obvious and there is a chance a few too many might actually react in some meaningful way,
well, then they won`t even break a sweat distracting you throwing some trivial Right vs. Left
stick that quickly becomes The Only Issue in your whole world. Man the cannons, for Christ`s
sake! It`s The Stick! The Stick!
It is kind of funny, but only when one forgets what is actually at stake.
People today have become so stupid, so easily manipulated, so emasculated that the traitorous
vermin that are supposed to represent you don`t even bother coming up with a half-decent
excuse anymore whenever they feel like penetrating you.
This mutual defense treaty is just one more up the collective behind of "we the people."
Mossad must have some serious dirt on Graham, maybe videos of him with little boys.
SC politicians are the best to coerce/blackmail because they are a one party state. Any
idiot with an (R) after his name is sure to get elected and re-elected no matter what they
do.
As most one party states it produces the most idiotic/corrupt politicians, like Mark
Sanford. Nikki Haley the Zionist moron was greatly compromised with her known affairs and
today tweeted a rumor no one has heard of but her about her alleged affair with Mike Pence --
a tweet to end a rumor started by herself, such is her idiocy.
Other one party states are mostly (D) and they are protected by a colluding media, no
matter how idiotic or corrupt.
Mutual defense? Sure, like Israel is going to defend the US.
Any idiot who votes for this bill doesn't just need to be voted out of office, they need to
be hung from the nearest lamp-post; preferably in their district or home state.
Iran is no bigger than Egypt and Israel took on Egypt in 1967 and 1973 and
prevailed despite Egypt then being a client state of the USSR. Egypt was also able to bring
the full strength of its army to bear on Israel in the Sinai something Iran could not
possibly do for the foreseeable future.
Now its true Israel could not 'occupy' Iran but that does not mean Israel could not
destroy Iranian military capability but the cost could be higher than in 67 or 73 unless
Israel has some way to neutralize Hebollah's missile arsenal in Lebanon.
Despite all efforts of the MSM and our government to align the USA with Israel, Trump would
be making a major mistake to support such a treacherous alliance.
Many of us do not want an alliance with Israel and see those who seek such alliances as
our enemy.
Graham may be able to get away with his treachery down in South Carolina, filled as it is
with brain-dead evangelical Christians, but I am hoping that there are enough patriotic
Americans left with an ounce of brains who would not support this perfidious alliance and any
supporting politician such as Trump.
The pro-Israel crowd in the USA is large but among the alt right crowd I would think they
would comprise a distinct and deluded minority.
Iran is a big place that has been given time to hide the nuclear facilities
(which is what I presume we are talking about) and duplicate them. The Israeli Air Force are
not going to to get landed with such a difficult mission by exaggerating the odds for
success.
I suspect their supposed 'refusal' was merely saying not having the element of
surprise an air strike on Iran's nuclear facilities might well not work And why would the
current Israeli PM take the risk of ordering it knowing if there was a failure those generals
would loudly proclaim they told him it would not work? I wonder if Israel does not wonder if
Saudi Arabian leadership with its lack of political constraints is behind a lot of this
agitation against Iran.
The real problem is that the Trump administration is obsessed with regime change in
Iran,
And the Democrap Gang no longer exists? You do not mention them in your entire
article.
The Democraps support the Iranian People? Traitor Sen. Shumer will give up his Zionist
Entity citizenship and become a loyal American? Ms Pelosi, Biden, Booker, Ms. Maxwell, some
Gay Transvestite? eh!I wish I could make the Democrap gang disappear. Nicely done. I get it;
you are concentrating on the Repub gang.
What's up? Have you been given a different assignment? A threat? Were you the recipient of
a Massage in one of Epstein's Pleasure Palaces? Now you pump for the Democraps?
Casino Trump this. Casino Trump that! He is an Actor/crook. He is part of that
Hologram/Matrix/make believe/Professional 'Wrestling' entertainment for an imprisoned and
daily looted Nation. A Nation that once was Free.
Think Power. Think how a Puppet -Nation and its people are controlled.
Most likely Jeffrey Epstein has been controlling the United States for the last 30 years.
There has been a Regime Change; Epstein is Retired (one way or other), and you direct
attention to Casino Trump, as if he makes any decisions in America, or anywhere else.
Concluding Repetition:
Casino Trump is another of the post (un) constitutional Hollywood Presidents.
Trump, Hollywood Obomber, Bill (that wasn't sex) Clinton – Do I need a verb? None of
these have/had any power. They are actors, and crooks. Do not look for power here. The power
that controls us is hidden from our view.
We know who our rulers are: they are our enemy: They murdered JFK and many other
Americans. They are coming for us!
When Jews served Wasps, they were merely playing a game to gain more power for themselves.
When Wasps serve Jews, they are total dogs in their subservience.
Jews have stronger identities and personalities than Wasps. For Jews, the dominant power
must ultimately be Jewish. For Anglos, the dominance of power matters most, and ultimately it
doesn't matter who holds it. Anglos will suck up to any group with the most power. Since Jews
now have the most power, Anglos are total toadies their servility to Jews.
Jews vs Wasps:
Jews: WE must have the power.
Wasps: We must serve the POWER.
Thus, even when Jews didn't have top power, they did everything to get it. In contrast,
once top power went over to Jews, Anglos were perfectly content to serve Jews as the new
boss.
@lavoisier CUFI (Christians United for Israel ) alone claims 7 million members, roughly equal to total number of Jews in
U.S., and by definition Hagee's flock is more pro-Israel than the average Jew.
In defense of the Kaiser, Germany had had a long defensive alliance with Austria-Hungary.
Many Germans lived there and German was a major language spoken there as well. The two
countries shared a border that ran for hundreds of miles across central Europe. The Kaiser
was close personal friends with both the Archduke and his wife. He had just returned from a
visit to them when he heard of the cruel assignation. Eye-witnesses said he turned as white as
a ghost. The Kaiser envisioned swift action against Serbia and never imagined a wider war. In
any case he had a real and large army to back up his pledge.
Chamberlain in contrast was an idiot. The pledge to Poland was sheer insanity. There was
absolutely nothing Britain could have done in 1939 to have saved Poland from German
(and also Soviet) invasion.
The Poles were – incredibly – even more stupid in believing in the pledge and
actually expecting serious military aid. Dumb and dumber.
According to the Times of Israel, Graham says that the [proposed] pact would show the
international community that "an attack against Israel would be considered an attack against
the United States."
This so-called mutual 'defense alliance' pact is not only extremely dangerous, but it
clearly serves only one of the parties.
We don't need tiny, distant, belligerent Israel to defend Empire America. How utterly
absurd.
The US is already a far-flung, rogue, military colossus. It's Zio-Washington that needs to
be restained–not burdened with additional, extra-national obligations that serve a
rogue, supremacist state.
As crazy as they are, Graham's unbalanced, pro-Israel bona fides are now
mainstream. This bizarre political zeitgeist speaks volumes.
Virtually all of Congress, as well as America's vaunted Fourth Estate, have been captured.
And the zombie majority who live amongst us have barely noticed.
What Americans need desperately is a viable defence against the malign and overpowering
influence of Israel and its army of highly-placed, pro-Zionist influencers. Their domestic
impact is the core problem that we are facing.
Waterboy Graham is merely one contaminated mind-body among countess others. He is infected
with a disease without a name. It continues to spread.
The US has lost its independence. We have fallen low. We are still dropping.
In other words, if, say Israel actually goes ahead and openly attacks Iran (as opposed to
merely conducting assassinations and terrorist bombings there as she does now) and Iran does
the unthinkable and retaliates, then we would attack Iran.
Isn't this a great idea? We can let Israel decide if we should go to war with Iran.
@unit472 Egypt is 386,662 sq mi and except for the Sinai is mostly flat with its
population centers close to Israel. Iran is 636,374 square miles of mostly mountain ranges
and deep valleys with its major population center Tehran remote from Israel or the sea.
Tehran is also close to Russia. Egypt was easy to attack with tanks while Iran would need to
be hit with aircraft only. Getting an aircraft carrier near Iran would be a nightmare as Iran
has Russian Sunburn missiles which could hit any American ship from hundreds of miles away
and they travel so close to water they can't be detected on radar.
@Just a thought without being compromised one cannot access to "significant" political
representation in the USA: the hidden "conditionality" of the Judeo-Zionist master. the
latter should be sure to "pilot" every step of the eventual political action of the former.
just have a look around you.
Israel is said to have about 150 nukes ready to go and a good percentage of that arsenal is
pointed towards Iran. I guess this isn't enough for them. They want the certainty of a US
threat of overwhelming force to intimidate Iran into non-action should the IDF hit
them with a surgical strike of bunker-buster bombs to hit underground facilities.
So would the signing of a mutual defense pact work? Maybe. I just don't think Sen. Graham is
representative of his fellow members of congress no matter how allied they are with
AIPAC. I think this goes to far even for them. I don't think it would be approved of,
it's a fantasy.
* Phil I noticed Iran did some pr work last week on NBC news (with L.Holt). They should do
more of it and stay away from the International shipping lanes. I doubt the country will ever
be thought well of by Americans –nor should they really– but that doesn't mean
they should be treated like the next likely targets of the US military.
They may be to proud to beg not to be attacked but sending some rep out in front of a TV
camera to say that they really don't want it to happen, I think can work well when done
correctly. Smile a bit and say 'let's not do this.'
"An Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear program would not activate this pact, but a major
Iranian retaliation might".
Ah yes – the usual Western attitude.
For us to attack them is normal and quite justified (even with nuclear weapons, even if we
kill literally millions of them and destroy their infrastructure).
But for them to defend themselves is wicked aggression.
"Cet animal est tres mechant.
Quand on l'attaque, il se defend".
On July 5, 1914, Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany pledged his country's complete support for
whatever response Austria-Hungary would choose to make against Serbia after the June 28th
assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria by a Serbian nationalist during an
official visit to Sarajevo, Bosnia. This fatal error went down in history as Germany's carte
blanche or "blank check," assurance to Austria that led directly to WW I.
An often overlooked treaty was the one between Belgium and the United Kingdom. Without
that treaty WW I would have remained a fire in the backyard. Belgium would never have engaged
the fight against Germany without Britain's assurances. The skirmish between the Germans and
the French would have lasted for less than two months.
The situation with Israel is however different. The US can't do anything without pulling
of a greater war that they will finally loose. Personally, I can't wait to see the American
fleet reduced like the Russian one in the war of 1904-1905. (The grudge is not against
Americans but against their war hawks with their jingoism and imperialism.) Actually I think
that this would be the event that splits the world in pro and anti Zionism.
y idiot who votes for this bill doesn't just need to be voted out of office, they need
to be hung from the nearest lamp-post; preferably in their district or home state.
Agreed, but who is going to vote them out? Many Americans are idiots too. Most Americans
would rather watch America's Got Talent or Dancing With The Stars than be informed about
important issues.
Graham may be able to get away with his treachery down in South Carolina, filled as it
is with brain-dead evangelical Christians, but I am hoping that there are enough patriotic
Americans left with an ounce of brains who would not support this perfidious alliance and
any supporting politician such as Trump.
I doubt there are enough Americans that are not brain dead.
The pro-Israel crowd in the USA is large but among the alt right crowd I would think
they would comprise a distinct and deluded minority.
But the alt-right crowd is a minority of a minority not going to happen. This countries
problems will not be solved with elections.
One od these days Mexico is going to make an offer to Trump to buy Texas ,New Mexico ,
Arizona and California . And Cuba will make an offer for Florida .
Sounds like some of the more realistic military guys, told the Jewboys in Congress , that
Hezbollah can do some serious damage to Israel. Especially when they get some help from the
Iranians and others – sitting in Syria. Might even even take back " TrumpLand in the
Golan. Israel could be in deep shit if everyone gets POd and fed up. If we see this as
informed commenters – they have seen it – even longer. Thanks Unz Rev.
Before i really began researching the issue the historical persecution of Jews used to be a
source of amazement to me as the small number of them I knew were fine. A bit grasping and
pushy but smart and humourous as well. What emerged from my research could be summarised as
'they never know when to stop pushing irrespective of the wealth and control they achieve'.
Eventually the goyim
revolt and we know the rest.
I get a sense that we're seeing the beginnings of this in the West today but instead of
pulling back 'our' Jews are rubbing salt in the wound. In many ways Jews would be better off
if their proportion of the host population were minuscule even though this would result in
less tribal power. Chaim Weizman identified this when he said "[w]henever the quantity of
Jews in any country reaches the saturation point, that country reacts against them. [This]
reaction cannot be looked upon as anti-Semitism in the ordinary or vulgar sense of that word;
it is a universal social and economic concomitant of Jewish immigration, and we cannot shake
it off."
All you anti-Christian Unz commenters need to realize that the Jews, being Chosen by God,
have a monopoly on spiritual blessings. No American is capable of conjuring his own spiritual
blessings, they must come from the Jews. And in gratitude for those spiritual blessings,
Christian America owes it to the Jews to give them material wealth in return.
"For if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews' spiritual blessings, they owe it to the
Jews to share with them their material blessings." (Romans 15:27)
Right there, in plain and simple terms, is God's Will for America's foreign policy.
"Gentiles owe it to the Jews." Cough up that cash or burn in hell! DEUS VULT!
You anti-Christian heathen are going to burn in hell because you can't accept that God has
made the Jews his Chosen ones to market Salvation services to Whites who cannot provide
Salvation for themselves.
" We worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews ." John
4:22
Sure, if Whites could find another Salvation provider, then they wouldn't have to worship
the Jews. But until then, you're risking your eternal life if you don't worship God's will
that the Jews are Supreme. "The Jew First!" (Romans 1:16) DEUS VULT!
The USA and all western countries, which all have good relations with Israel and many
strongly support Israel, all pay a heavy price for that. According to the US gov't., Osama
Bin Laden led Al-Qaeda's attack on the USA in September 2001. As is typical with the USA's
media, it didn't want the US public to know why Osama Bin Laden did this, so it's hard to
find his communication with the US where he laid out his complaints. He had several,
including US troops in Saudi Arabia and US strong support for Israel against Arabs. I
remember the first "terrorist attack". I put it in quotes only because the US is only opposed
to terrorism when it or one of its allies is attacked. It was the 1972 attack on Israeli
athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972. From that point on, there were several other attacks
against Israel including a hijacked Israeli airline at Entebbe and there were allegations
against various Arab countries, including Libya of conducting terrorist attacks against
"American interests". Reagan bombed Libya (and killed Gaddafi's daughter) to retaliate
against Libya's supposed attack on a Berlin disco and I believe he was accused of other
attacks as well. I doubt the accuracy of those claims, but it's unmistakable that the US and
the west were soon Arab targets for their strong support of Israel. At some point Israel may
have carried out, or at least supported attacks on the west so Arabs could be blamed. That is
where the idea Israel carried out the Sept. 11 attacks comes from.
As someone on a podcast commented a while back, years ago travel was such a pleasure,
until probably September 2001 when the US began the heavy security precautions every time you
take a flight. Stripping down (belt, shoes, watch, and anything else necessary to pass the
security checks) as well as unpacking your luggage to pass their test. These checks are all
necessary because of the west's strong support of Israel. East European and Asian countries
have no such terrorism problem, but they are probably pulled into the airport mess because
travel is international. Airline travel used to be a pleasure, but its now very unpleasant
thanks to our ties to Israel. Until around September 2001, we had to listen to the constant
backslapping of Israel by our Jewish media about their great security precautions and their
glorious military (that's new for the Jews who for centuries had a poor reputation as
soldiers) with the often repeated "let the Israelis do it" when the US was contemplating
revenge for something the Arabs supposedly did.
As with air travel, any alliance with Israel is no benefit to anyone except Israel. No
Arab country likes them and would only ally with them if they are useful. Meanwhile, the
world is made miserable with things like travel, high gas prices and other discomforts for
its support of Israel. Most people don't even know the world's oil prices took a huge jump in
1973 for the US support for Israel in the 1973 Arab-Israeli war when OPEC announced its
worldwide embargo against the USA and its allies for the USA's interference in that war on
Israel's behalf. Oil prices never went back to their normal level after that.
"Speaking to the press on a JINSA conference call, Graham said the proposed agreement would
be a treaty that would protect Israel in case of an attack that constituted an "existential
threat".
We already provide this level of support.
Signing onto something as fluid as "existentialist threat" sounds a tad dicey. And just to
be clear, I think the US should exercise caution on these types of treaties. The agreements
with the Phillipines and Japan may already be causing some tension.
An often overlooked treaty was the one between Belgium and the United Kingdom. Without
that treaty WW I would have remained a fire in the backyard. Belgium would never have
engaged the fight against Germany without Britain's assurances. The skirmish between the
Germans and the French would have lasted for less than two months.
I don't know from what planet you hail, but Belgium did NOT "engage a fight against
Germany", rather the other way around. And the Germans were nasty fuckers too, not all of the
"atrocity stories" were fake news.
Also, that treaty could either be interpreted as "The British Empire will not attack
Belgium in the case of an European War" (likely) or "The British Empire will defend Belgium
in case it is attacked" (unlikely). The second interpretation was upheld in parliament by a
tiny margin – the political goal was to uphold continental balance of power and the
secret and privately made assurances about French/Imperial mutual support.
@Nik Here you go Nik, straight from the horses ass. Bolshevism was founded by the "Cabal"
for the purpose of enslaving the entire world in a one world government communist
dictatorship.
"Nobody knows that Zionism
appeared as a Marxist movement,
a socialist one Zionism is actually a revolution."
Sergei Lezov, scientist at the Soviet Academy of Science,
Institute for Scientific Information.
Strana i Mir magazine (Munich), No. 3, 1988, p. 94.
"The ideals of Bolshevism
at many points are consonant with
the finest ideals of Judaism."
Jewish Chronicle, 4th April 1919 (London).
Graham proves once again that congress is the lower house of the knesset and that they will
do anything that zionists that rule the zio/US want and by the way the zionists have had the
zio/US in a virtual mutual defense agreement since JFK's assassination, when the zionists had
JFK shot in front of America and sealed the deal about who was really running the country!
Read these books to see who runs America, JFK the CIA and Vietnam by Col. L. Fletcher
Prouty and Blood in the Water by Joan Mellen and The Secret Team by Col. L. Fletcher Prouty ,
and The Committee of 300 by John Coleman, all can be had on amazon.
@anon Hagee has seven million followers? We should call his and his followers' religion
something like CUFI-ism because of its radical departure from anything resembling
Christianity, and not least because CUFI-ism has no sixth or seventh commandments. With a
wife and two little kids at home, Reverend Hagee was apparently in church snortin' his
alleluias between the legs of another woman who he then married, mocking sin with brazen
scandal.
I gather these delusional CUFI's cheer when Israel and its American surrogate mass murder
hundreds of thousands of God's innocent children in Arab lands by aerial incineration and
point-blank shooting on street patrols. Such are America's "heroes in uniform," who,
incredibly, just yesterday were being labeled baby killers by the kosher msm, back when their
chief objective was overthrowing the government of the United States. As a Vietnam combat vet
I can vouch for the seething, almost spluttering hatred spewed in my and my wife's face in
the early 70's at a Jewish party we attended in our building in NYC. Now that the Army is
doing International Jewry's bidding, its flacks like Sean Hannity tell us you're all of a
sudden a hero for being in uniform in service to Israel.
If America's culture and so its destiny is essentially a reflection of its religion, we
can reasonably judge our prospects by the CUFI's and their evangelical preachers who've
turned Christianity into a mass-murdering cult that'd make Moloch blush, where God's favor is
judged by the SUV or pick up you drive to the Sunday rock concert at some modernistic temple
of statolatry. The pride and smugness of these CUFI's and evangelicals is by itself enough to
ensure we're doomed, assuming there's any cosmic justice left. If you haven't seen it, I
recommend having a look at the video of Kenneth Copeland and Jesse Duplantis defending their
private jets. As Brother Copeland put it, they can't fly on commercial airlines because they
can't talk to God in them tubes filled with demons.
@A.R A.R. piqued my interest when having commented: "What a complete abomination America
has become. Shameful. I wonder what the american population of the 1760s would have done were
they alive today?"
Apparently, the percentage of colonial settler Jews in "The New World" Injun' lands was
small.
Nonetheless, and according to
Norman H. Finkelstein's short article, (linked down below), "The Revolutionary War & The
Jews," a sizeable majority of Jews favored the "Patriot" vision of a new & free Homeland,
but ambitious Jew businessmen had mixed feelings, given the advantageous mercantile freedoms
they enjoyed under British rule.
Haha. Today's Shabbos goy, Senator Lindsey Graham, would have been the Moneychanger Jews
main-Southern Man spokesman. (Zigh)
Would not surprise me had sneaky pro-King George Jews lobbied London to do a False Flag
attack upon Independence Hall, & blame the terror attack on extremist French "Yellow
& Black Robed Vests."
Even without this blank-check Treaty, the Jewish State has been a disaster for America and
the world. "Brain dead" Carolinians who keep Graham in the Senate? How about brain dead New
Yorkers who keep Israel-first Chuck Schumer there? Or our brain dead servile Congressmen, who
jumped to their feet 26 times to give the liar Netanyahu standing ovations? Who vote for
every Neocon war-for-Israel in the Middle East? Or brain dead Boobus Americanus, who has been
lobotomized by Zionist control of Congress, White House, Supreme Court, CIA, FBI, the Justice
Department, Media, Pentagon, Academe, NPR, daily newspapers and monthly magazines?
This defense contract will most definitely be Trump's "excuse" for war with Iran. Iran was
slated for war back in 2001.
The author is incredibly astute.
Trump is sounding more unhinged as the days go on. Imagine telling Jews that they are bad
Jews if they don't support Israel.
Some Jews disagreed with the statement and called him "anti-semetic". I frankly don't know
how they got to "anti-semetic" with that statement, but they managed. It was convoluted
reasoning. Notice that while they called it "anti-semetic", appearing to take issue with it
on that basis, none of them disagreed that they are "loyal" to Israel.
I personally feel no loyalty to Ireland or France because of my background and have no
problem at all saying it.
@Mark James I beg to differ on your assertion that israel has "delivery systems" for its
nuclear weapons.
I hope I am wrong, BUT fear that I am right
If a nuclear device is "lit off" in an American or European city, it will have Israel's
fingerprints all over it. Israel is desperate to keep the American money spigot running, as
well as sabotaging the Palestinian "peace process" that the world wants it to take
seriously.
In fact, if a nuclear device is "lit off" anywhere in the world, it will have come from
Israel's secret nuclear "stockpile".
The "power outage" in Atlanta was a convenient excuse for Israel to perform a logistical
"sleight of hand", as an Israeli plane was allowed to land and take off during the "power
outage" without receiving customs clearance or inspection. This is one of many Israeli
companies that possesses a "special exemption" granted by the U S government that frees it
from customs inspections.
Just maybe another one of Israel's nukes was just being pre-positioned or nuclear triggers
(tritium) were being renewed, getting ready for "the big one".
As most Americans are tired of all of the foreign wars being fought for Israel's benefit,
another "incident" on American soil would be enough to galvanize the American public, once
again, (just like WTC 9-11) to support another war for Israel's benefit. Israel's "samson
option" is a real threat to "light one off" in a European or American city, if Israel's
interests are not taken seriously.
Israel refuses to abide by IAEA guidelines concerning its nukes as they are already
distributed around the world. Israel would not be able to produce all of them as most of them
are not in Israel, proper.
No "delivery systems" are needed as Israel's nukes are already in place. Look for another
false flag operation with the blame being put on Iran or Syria. You can bet that some Iranian
or Syrian passports will be found in the rubble.
Israel has also threatened to detonate nuclear devices in several US cities. Talk about
total INSANITY; the so-called Samson Option is it.
Well!
Jews! Jews! and again Jews!
Anywhere you turn your head you will see ONLY Jews and .what is best for israel.
Former Malaysian Prime Minister, Mohamed Mahathir said:
"The Europeans killed six????? million Jews out of 12 million. But today the Jews rule this
world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them."
Of course they rule the world by proxy.
They are capable to murder a barefoot Palestinian kid and nothing else. Which they are doing
it daily.
And then we have this traitor Lindsey Graham. I remember him a few years ago, walking in
arms with lunatic John McCain and the other guy, jew Joe Lieberman.
Remember this trio?
Now this flaming faggot [Patti LuPone ask Lindsey Graham to "come out"] wants American kids
to go fight and die for israel. Why he does not do it by himself?
The Revolutionary Guard Corps of Iran will take care of him.
Finally Mr. Giraldi is missing something in his article.
How about ..if Iran has the same defense agreement, with Mr. Putin?
Then what?
@anastasia The MSM in the zio/US and in zio/Britain and zio/Europe is controlled by
zionists and so Israel is the golden calf and can bomb the hell out of Syria and Iraq and
Yemen and Palestine and shoot Palestinian men, women and children almost daily and not a word
is heard!
However when Israel and the zio/US finally attack Iran , that will be a bridge too far,
and Russia will come in on the side of Iran, and finally these satanic zionists will have the
nuclear hell they have been wanting!
I have a feeling that the Zionist are going to get their Iran war.
The US public are idiotic enough to vote for Graham, and Trump is a turncoat with his "No
ME wars " pledge. And they're both probably being blackmailed. The Russians aren't going to
get into a war with the US over Iran, and Europe won't do anything as usual.
There is however, a question mark over the Chinese. Iran is their main source of oil
imports and they have been making big investments in the country. Also they're very irritated
by the ongoing Hong Kong colour revolution (the US trying to do to China what they did to
Russia with the Ukraine) and the arrest in Canada of a top Huawei executive (on a US
warrant).
The Chinese in combination with the Russians, are trying to exit from the US dollar, so
between them they would likely make an Iran war very messy, even without being directly
involved. The Iraq war was vastly expensive for the US and an Iran war could be more of the
same, especially when oil traffic through the Gulf is halted.
So this "defence" agreement with Israel could turn out very badly for the US public.
@Patrikios Stetsonis The overwhelming question, Patrikios Stetsonis asked: "What bout
..if Iran has the same defense agreement, with Mr. Putin? Then what?"
Then the American-Israeli must hesitate and hope for President Putin's government to
change & ideally throw the Islamic Republic "under the bus."
Thanks for projecting such intelligent foresight into Supremacist Jew planning, Patrikios!
Maybe even the pathetic Lindsey Graham, is party to the obstacle?
Rich: Abundant possessions, especially material wealth.
Selfish: Unquiet with one's own well-being without regard for others.
Beggar: One who lives by asking for gifts or charity.
Backlash to neoliberalism fuels interest in national socialism ideology... and netional
socialist critique of financial oligarchy controlled "democratic states" was often poignant and
up to a point. Which doesn't means that the ideology itself was right.
However, as the people cannot spontaneously make and express their opinion on a mass scale,
the media comes to play a critical role in shaping public opinion: "The decisive question is:
Who enlightens the people? Who educates the people?" The answer is, of course,
the media. In this, Hitler's assessment is an exaggerated version of what Alexis de Tocqueville had
observed a century earlier in his classic work, Democracy in America :
When a large number of press organs manage to march along the same path, their influence
in the long run becomes almost irresistible, and public opinion, always struck upon the same
side, ends up giving way under their blows.
In Western democracies, Hitler claims: "Capital actually rules in these countries, that is,
nothing more than a clique of a few hundred men who possess untold wealth." Furthermore
"freedom" refers primarily to "economic freedom," which means the oligarchs' "freedom
from national control." In a classic self-reinforcing cycle, the rich and powerful get
richer and more powerful through influence over the political process. Today, this has
culminated in the existence of the notorious "1%" so demonized by Occupy Wall Street.
The oligarchs, according to Hitler, establish and control the media:
These capitalists create their own press and then speak of "freedom of the press." In
reality, every newspaper has a master and in every case this master is the capitalist, the
owner. This master, not the editor, is the one who directs the policy of the paper. If the
editor tries to write something other than what suits the master, he is outed the next day.
This press, which is the absolutely submissive and character slave of its owners, molds
public opinions.
Hitler also emphasizes the incestuous relations and purely cosmetic differences between
mainstream democratic political parties:
The difference between these parties is small, as it formerly was in Germany. You know
them of course, the old parties. They were always one and the same. In Britain matters are
usually so arranged so that families are divided up, one member being conservative, another
liberal, and a third belonging to the Labour Party. Actually all three sit together as
members of the family and decide upon their common attitude.
This cliquishness means that "on all essential matters . . . the parties are always in
agreement" and the difference between "Government" and "Opposition" is largely election-time
theatrics. This critique will resonate with those who fault the "Republicrats," the
"Westminster village," or indeed the various pro-EU parties for being largely
indistinguishable. This is often especially the case on foreign policy, Chomsky's area of
predilection.
Hitler goes on, with brutally effective sarcasm, to describe how it was in these democracies
where the people supposedly rule that there was the most inequality: "You might think that in
these countries of freedom and wealth, the people must have an unlimited degree of prosperity.
But no!" Britain not only controlled "one-sixth of the world" and the impoverished millions of
India, but itself had notoriously deep class divisions and suffering working classes. There was
a similar situation in France and the United States: "There is poverty – incredible
poverty – on one side and equally incredible wealth on the other." These democracies had
furthermore been unable to combat unemployment during the Great Depression, in contrast to
Germany's innovative economic policies.
Hitler then goes on to mock the Labour Party, which was participating in the government for
the duration of the war, for promising social welfare and holidays for the poor after the war:
"It is is remarkable that they should at last hit upon the idea that traveling should not be
something for millionaires alone, but for the people too." Hitlerite Germany, along with
Fascist Italy, had long pioneered the organization of mass tourism to the benefit of working
people. (Something which traditionalists like the Italian aristocrat Julius Evola bitterly
criticized them for.)
Ultimately, in the Western democracies "as is shown by their whole economic structure, the
selfishness of a relatively small stratum rules under the mask of democracy; the egoism of a
very small social class." Hitler concludes: "It is self-evident that where this democracy
rules, the people as such are not taken into consideration at all. The only thing that matters
is the existence a few hundred gigantic capitalists who own all the factories and their stock
and, through them, control the people."
... ... ...
In practice, Western liberal regimes' democratic pretensions are exaggerated. Various
studies have found that when elite and majority opinion clash, the American elite is over time
able to impose its policies onto the majority (examples of this include U.S. intervention in
both World Wars and mass Third World immigration since the 1960s, opposed by the people and
promoted by the elite)
... ... ...
In fact, all regimes have different elite factions and bureaucracies competing for power.
All regimes have a limited ideological spectrum of authorized opinion, a limited spectrum of
what can and cannot be discussed, criticized, or politically represented. This isn't to say
that liberal-democratic and openly authoritarian regimes are identical, but the distinction has
been exaggerated. I have known plenty of Westerners who, frothing at the mouth at any mention
of the "authoritarian" Donald Trump or Marine Le Pen, were quite happy to visit, do business,
or work in China, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates, or Israel (the latter being a perfect
Jewish democracy but highly authoritarian towards the Palestinians). Westerners really are sick
in the head.
The liberals' claim to uphold freedom of thought and democracy will ring hollow to many: to
the Trump supporters and academics (such as Charles Murray) who were physically assaulted for
attending public events and to those fired or punished for their scientific beliefs (James
Watson, James Damore, Noah Carl).
What the ideal regime is surely depends on time and place. Jean-Baptiste Duchasseint, a
politician of the French Third Republic, had a point when he said: "I prefer a parliamentary
chamber than the antechamber of a dictator." Liberal-democracies allow for regular changeovers
of power, transparent feedback between society and government, and the cultivation of a habit
of give-and-take between citizens. But it would be equally dishonest to deny
liberal-democracy's leveling tendency, its unconscious (and thereby, dangerous) elitism and
authoritarianism (dangerous because unconscious), its difficulty in enforcing values, its
promotion of division among the citizenry, or, frequently, its failure to act in times of
emergency. The democrats claim they are entitled to undermine and destroy, whether by peaceful
or violent methods, every government on this Earth which they consider "undemocratic." This
strikes me as, at best, unwise and dangerous.
The question is not whether a society "really has" free speech or democracy. In the
absolute, these are impossible. The question is whether the particular spectrum of free
discussion and the particular values promoted by the society are, in fact, salutary for that
society. In China, unlike the West, you are not allowed to attack the government. Yet, I
understand that in China one is freer to discuss issues concerning Jews, race, and eugenics
than in the West. These issues, in fact, may be far more important to promoting a healthy
future for the human race than the superficial and divisive mudslinging of the West's
reality-TV democracies.W
Nice well written & researched thought provoking article by Guillaume Durocher.
Hitler most likely served the Zionist Bankers, as his "Night of the Longknives" –
1934, rid the Nazi movement of its anti-capitalist element.
Hitler did not effectively criticize Zionism or the ruinous financial system. He blamed
the Versailles Treaty for most of Germany's ills.
Noam Chomsky has had more serious political and economic analysis to offer over the
decades, than most any other American. He has authored more than 100 books.
Hitler and his movement led the German people into the trap (perhaps a Zionist trap), of
ruinous (to Europe), Imperialist Conflict, and in that, and in his racialist approach,
resembles Churchill, and the British Royal Family more than he could ever admit.
Strikingly, Hitler does not mention Jewish media ownership or influence at all,
At 3:21 in the archive.org video he refers to "das auserwählte Volk" (the chosen
people) which supposedly controls and directs all parties for its own interests.
Anyway, do you really think it's a good idea for modern nationalists to link themselves to
Hitler and the 3rd Reich (because many of your articles could be interpreted that way, as if
Hitler was some profound thinker who has to be read by every nationalist today)?
Yes, the man wasn't as stupid as is often claimed today, and some elements of Nazism are
certainly attractive if seen in isolation but the fact remains that Hitler, without any
really compelling necessity, initiated one of the most destructive wars in history and then
had his followers commit some of the worst mass murders ever.
The "revisionists" posting on UR may be able to ignore that, but most people won't.
In practice, Western liberal regimes' democratic pretensions are exaggerated. Various
studies have found that when elite and majority opinion clash, the American elite is over
time able to impose its policies onto the majority (examples of this include U.S.
intervention in both World Wars and mass Third World immigration since the 1960s, opposed
by the people and promoted by the elite).
That's it? "Western liberal regimes' democratic pretensions are exaggerated"?
There are differences in _every_ society between different groups, which include different
income levels. In the Western liberal regimes of the 1950s and 1960s, daily life was more or
less left alone, and it was quite possible to over-rule the rich. There was a 90% tax on
income over a fairly modest amount of income! As for the "American elite is over time able to
impose its policies onto the majority" it wasn't the rich who do that back then, nor is it
the rich who do it now. It's the Left, acquiesced to by the rich. The difference is that the
rich now rich with political sufferance, or perhaps because of politics, which was much less
the case back then.
In other words, the article as a deception from start to end. Minerva's owl flies at dusk
(you understand things when they're ending), and the deception becomes more obvious as our
current system fails.
Another one whitewashing Fascism to make it an acceptable ideology to save the white race.
The first edition killed 12 million Germans, twice as many Russians and many more millions of
other Europeans. What for? To make America great, perhaps
The author is unfurling his full colours; maybe grateful for Hitler's mercy on France?
Agree that the article is a very good one. Clever idea to compare Hitler with Chomsky,
"bien étonnés de se trouver ensemble." However, Hitler was certainly not
alone in his lucid criticism of "western democracy," nor is Chomsky the only lucid
post-Hitlerian critic of what is called democracy. Who does not recall Michael Parenti's
wonderful Democracy for the Few, from 1974?
As for Hitler being genuine, or intellectually honest in his criticism, better not even
ask. Like all major politicians, including FDR, the repulsive Churchill, Stalin e tutti
quanti, Hitler was a psychopath and a murderer. Anyone still nurturing romantic thoughts
on Hitler better read Guido Giacomo Preparata, Conjuring Hitler. How Britain and America
Made the Third Reich (2005). Best proof that Preparata was absolutely right with his
richly documented book is the fact that his academic career was abruptly ended: no tenure for
dissidents, especially when they write books containing uncomfortable truths.
The only people allowed to tell "uncomfortable truths" are used-car salesmen and swindlers
such as Al Gore.
Adolf Hitler Speech: Löwenbräukeller Munich November 8 1940
When I came to power, I took over from a nation that was a democracy. Indeed, it is now
sometimes shown to the world as if one would be automatically ready to give everything to
the German nation if it were only a democracy. Yes, the German people was at that time a
democracy before us, and it has been plundered and squeezed dry. No. what does democracy or
authoritarian state mean for these international hyenas! That they are not at all
interested in. They are only interested in one thing: Is anyone willing to let themselves
be plundered? Yes or no? Is anyone stupid enough to keep quiet in the process? Yes or no?
And when a democracy is stupid enough to keep quiet, then it is good. And when an
authoritarian government declares: "You do not plunder our people any longer, neither from
inside nor from outside," then that is bad. If we, as a so-called authoritarian state,
which differs from the democracies by having the masses of the people behind it; if we as
an authoritarian state had also complied with all the sacrifices that the international
plutocrats encumbered us with; if I had said in 1933, "Esteemed Sirs in Geneva" or
"Esteemed Sirs," as far as I am concerned, somewhere else, "what would you have do? Aha, we
will immediately write it on the slate: 6 billion for 1933, 1934, 1935, all right we will
deliver. Is there anything else you would like? Yes, Sir we will also deliver that" Then
they would have said: "At last a sensible regime in Germany."
Western media is not "cooperative", they are owned.
JP Morgan famously bought up controlling interest in major newspapers in 1917 to prevent
significant media opposition to the US entering WWI. The Counsel on Foreign Relations was
created in the early 1920s to maintain control over the national dialog and they have ever
since. The CIA Project Mockingbird tightened control. Every presidential cabinet since is
saturated with CFR members. As a result most Americans are disastrously misinformed about
just about everything. 1984 happened decades before 1984.
@Hans Vogel Parenti's book is one of the few assigned college textbooks I still have on
my shelf. A classic that I rarely hear spoken of; I guess my liberal arts education wasn't
entirely wasted.
Extolling Hitler and/or the Nazis is, apart from anything else, totally counter-productive.
We can argue about the rewriting of history but the simple fact is that any association with
him/them is poisonous to the public mind.
What I took from the piece was that Hitler, despite being an evil bastard, was right about
some things. This shouldn't be surprising and isn't a defense of Nazism (which as a Christian
I have to regard as evil.) The fact that Hitler and Chomsky agree shows this isn't a defense
of Nazism.
@German_reader So called revisionists are bunch of morons. Hitler was, without lapsing
into moralizing, a very specific product of a very specific time, a charismatic leader of a
great humiliated nation during a deep crisis in all Western civilization (this includes
Russia, too).
Now, Europe & Europe-derived peoples face a completely different crisis (or various
crises), so that what Hitler was or wasn't is utterly irrelevant to our contemporary
condition & its challenges.
It does no good to try to defend Hitler, regardless of the many correct observations he made
over the years of his public life. He was as important a commentator as, say, Paul Krugman,
but his opinions will never overcome his actions. Comparing him to Krugman or Chomsky makes
an interesting debating point, but ultimately fails for lack of context.
If you are trying to argue that capitalist democracy, Anglo-American style, has grievous
flaws, you're going to have to show what they are and why they will lead to calamity. I'd say
we need a real discussion on federal budgeting insanity, for one, which threatens the
economic downfall of the West and, probably, of the universe, except maybe for Russia, which
has already suffered through its great downfall. How that connects to Anglo-American
democracy is simple: the British borrowed and made war around the world to its virtual
collapse and then had the great insight to be able, via FDR, to tie the prosperity of the
United States to its failures, until the great engine of prosperity that we once were comes
clanking to pieces.
The fascists weren't wrong on policy during peacetime, but were too optimistic about being
able to take over the world by war.
Both the liberal (Democratic) and conservative (Republican) wings of the U.S.
aristocracy hate and want to conquer Russia's Government. The real question now is whether
that fact will cause the book on this matter to be closed as being unprofitable for both
sides of the U.S. aristocracy; or, alternatively, which of those two sides will succeed in
skewering the other over this matter.
At the present stage, the Republican billionaires seem likelier to win if this internal
battle between the two teams of billionaires' political agents continues on. If they do,
and Trump wins re-election by having exposed the scandal of the Obama Administration's
having manufactured the fake Russiagate-Trump scandal, then Obama himself could end up
being convicted. However, if Trump loses -- as is widely expected -- then Obama is safe,
and Trump will likely be prosecuted on unassociated criminal charges.
To be President of the United States is now exceedingly dangerous. Of course,
assassination is the bigger danger; but, now, there will also be the danger of
imprisonment. A politician's selling out to billionaires in order to reach the top can
become especially risky when billionaires are at war against each other -- and not merely
against some foreign ('enemy') aristocracy. At this stage of American 'democracy', the
public are irrelevant. But the political battle might be even hotter than ever, without the
gloves, than when the public were the gloves.
"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of
acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum -- even encourage the
more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking
going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the
limits put on the range of the debate."
Yes that quotation by Chomsky is exactly correct, and Chomsky is an expert in that
area.
He is a loyal servant of the oligarchs, the MIT intellectual who has devoted his life
to keeping the lid on acceptable debate but is silent on the most important event of the 21st
Century in order to serve his Zionist masters.
Any person who goes beyond that accepted level of debate is either ostracized, imprisoned
or assassinated.
Liberal-democracies allow for regular changeovers of power, transparent feedback between
society and government, and the cultivation of a habit of give-and-take between
citizens.
Except that is not true at all. All major Western countries today, UK, France, USA and
Germany, are ruled by an effective one-party state, stabilized and its agenda multiplied by
its media companies, often state owned, the agenda enforced by apparatschiks, secured by the
police force and internationalized physically with the military and with great propaganda by
the media-entertainment complex – today even effectively monopolized by US companies
like Google/YouTube and Facebook.
Whether you look at BREXIT, votes on an EU constitution, or the Donald Trump presidency:
what the majority of the people want is not important to the permanent ruling and owning
class.
The politicians and sanctioned talking-heads are there to deceive us. Obama und Trump are
two sides of the same coin: carefully crafted advertisement campaigns to secure the interests
and goals of the elite in the long run.
Progressiv interests first with Obama and now reactionary interests have been encorporated
as messages and propaganda to neuter both. Now the left talks about gender neutral toilets,
trans kids and pronouns, instead of stagnant wages for decades and a predatory elite. Just
like the right talks about Trump's tweets, Q and is lost in the media skinner-box and his
personality cult, while Trump himself broke every single point he campaigned on (Except those
that serve the 1% and Israel.) and is owned by the same lobby which produces the artificial
reality Trump cultists bought into.
Political-media theater was and is orchestrated, so the true core of power stays untouched
and stable: the very small capitalist class who owns 90% of the net wealth in the USA (it's
getting increasingly similar in Europe as it is being Americanized in the process of
globalization); the superordinate megacompanies; the military-industrial complex; Wall Street
and (Central) Banking; special interests and lobbies of which the Israeli-Jewish Lobby is the
strongest.
And the cultural totalitarianism of today and its artifical reality is superior to
that of the old physical dictatorships, because in mass-media democracy not only does the
subject believe himself to be free, because the tools of his own enslavement are not visible;
only in it the subject gives his own concession to his own subjugation by his vote. While all
paths to real change, revolution or revolt are as cut off from him as under Stalin or
Mao.
Well, if the idea is to spread the message, any mention or reference to Hitler will be
totally devastating in the public arena. It's like participating in a marathon run and start
off by cutting off your legs.
Just recently I saw some posts on facebook from someone local to me preaching about Nordic
brotherhood. He posted few pictures and all of them had Hitlers face somewhere in the
background. FB shut it down within hours
What's interesting is the same message could have been presented differently without much
effort. Sliding past FB filters for days or even weeks and possibly influenced some people in
the meantime. So I wonder who was actually behind it – my guess is either a complete
idiot or someone eager to vilify nationalism and people concerned with racial issues.
@Exile " . . . [I]f sources as divergent as Hitler and Chomsky agree on the flaws of
capitalism/neo=liberal democracy, it lends credibility to those criticisms . . .".
Exile, that's exactly how I read it.
Our political problems aren't that difficult to understand:
Democrats – Sell-out to crony capitalism and global capitalism. Offers an Identity
Politics Plantation for rent-seekers and legitimacy-seekers as political camouflage.
Republicans – Sell-out to crony capitalism and global capitalism. Offers a Freedom
and Opportunity Plantation as political camouflage.
As far as I can tell, we really don't have an American or Americanist politics that tells
me I ought to give a meaninful damn about my fellow citizens in the 'hood, the gated 'burbs,
and everywhere else because, fuckin' 'ey, they're my fellow Americans.
Durocher's not romanticizing or white-washing here, he's making a serious point: if
sources as divergent as Hitler and Chomsky agree on the flaws of capitalism/neo=liberal
democracy, it lends credibility to those criticisms and makes it harder to refute them by
ad hominem or accusations of bias on the part of the critics.
Lordy. _That_ is your argument? The big loser in WW II and an academic agree that US
society should be reorganized? Add in Pol Pot, Stalin, Marx, Trotsky, Putin, Mussolini, and
BLM, not to mention the Wobblies, if you like. The argument remains unconvincing. Peterson's
"first, demonstrate your competence by cleaning and organizing your room and then your home
and your affairs, _then_ try to re-make the world. None of the above, except perhaps Putin,
could have passed that test.
Q: Is Marxism a science or a philosophy?
A: Philosophy. If it were a science they'd have tried it out on dogs first.
@Miggle And how can there be "checks" when everything is "classified", and when Julian
Assange has to be murdered in a US prison but it will be made to look like suicide?
"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of
acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum -- even encourage the
more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking
going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the
limits put on the range of the debate. – Noam Chomsky"
COMMENT: Chomsky is talking about the Overton window: the range of ideas that "The Powers
That Be" (TPTB) will allow in public discussion.
EXAMPLES:
(1) Tucker Carson recently went outside the Overton window, when he said "white supremacy is
a hoax", then TPTB immediately "vacationed" him for political reeducation, and now he is
safely back within the window, rattling his cage on issues harmless to TPTB.
(2) The Controlled Protest Press (CPP) will often blame economic problems on the
Federal-Reserve making wrong moves, and suggest the right moves the Fed should make instead,
as the correct solution. But the CPP will never suggest that the correct solution is to end
the Fed and the private currency they issue, and to return the currency-issuing power to the
government, as required by the constitution (Article I Section 8). Because that's outside the
Overton window.
(3) The CPP will often complain about the government ignoring warning signs before the
9/11 attack, and botching their response after it happened. But the CPP will never suggest
the whole thing was an inside job to garner public support for bankers oil wars in the middle
east. Because that's outside the Overton window.
when elite and majority opinion clash, the American elite is over time able to impose
its policies onto the majority (examples of this include U.S. intervention in both World
Wars and mass Third World immigration since the 1960s, opposed by the people and promoted
by the elite).
@Professional Stranger CHOMSKY himself always stays within the Overton window, and makes
a show of it:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZrEDo9ChSdQ?feature=oembed
Chomsky goes beyond maintaining a strategic silence on 9/11, to inciting smear-campaigns
against skeptics of the official narrative of 9/11. He demeans "truthers": "Their lives are
no good Their lives are collapsing They are people at a loss Nothing makes any sense They
don't understand what an explanation is They think they are experts in physics and civil
engineering on the basis of one hour on the Internet."
I think you should ask the Slavic untermenschen; Poles, Czechs, Serbs, Byelorussians &
Ukranians what their experience of occupation by the Wehrmacht was like. Poland alone lost 5
million civilians with Ukraine losing a similar number.
To be President of the United States is now exceedingly dangerous. Of course,
assassination is the bigger danger; but, now, there will also be the danger of
imprisonment. A politician's selling out to billionaires in order to reach the top can
become especially risky when billionaires are at war against each other -- and not merely
against some foreign ('enemy') aristocracy.
Interesting concept. When the elites go after each other; that is when you know empire is
in rapid decline.
Other powers may just simply wait it out.
@JackOH You summed up very well the nature of the duopoly ruling the US for donkey's
years. Representative democracy is a licence for political power by a small clique over the
people. Obviously, both Fascism (Hitler) and Socialism (Marx) agree on that, but for
different reasons. And so does anyone with some basic understanding of how the political
process works.
But the article goes further than stating the obvious: the intention – in my mind
– is to show that, because Hitler and Chomsky are in agreement about the deception of
"democracy", then Fascism is a reputable ideology, so much so that Chomsky, by association,
gives his imprimatur to that perception. Durocher (a self-declared racist) is just another
purveyor of the Nazis' lies attempting to dress that ideology with respectable robes.
Nothing new there. Afterall Hitler also called his political party "Socialism", the term
stolen from the party he infiltrated for its popular appeal. As soon as he grabbed
dictatorial power he imprisoned the socialists.
@Biff Roman elites started to attack each other in 133 B.C., and the civil wars lasted a
century. The Roman Empire survived several centuries after that.
@Mikemikev Why not stick to discussing the ideas in the essay?
It is pathetic to fall back on the ad hominem "Hitler!" excuse for not engaging with the
ideas.
Perhaps Durocher is wrong in the ideas he attributes to Hitler.
For myself I have always found it interesting that the basic concept of "national"
"socialism" (let's just look at those words separately) seems to bear thinking over: A
socialism that is not a international system but is based on a nation. Obviously how you
define a nation is pretty important.
Interestingly, now the Jews/Zionists have defined themselves as a nation (whether or not
the citizens of this nation actually live in Israel). And the point of this nation certainly
appears to be to confer all of the benefits of citizenship in the nation only on that
nation's citizens and on no others. Many of the benefits of citizenship seem to be of a
socialist nature: quite a few freebies such as education, health care, vacations at the
seashore in special hotels, free housing (on land stolen from the natives), etc. etc. So,
this Jewish nation certainly seems to espouse a version of socialism that is nation-based.
I.e., national socialism.
@The_seventh_shape We'll see. Stalin asked "how many divisions does the Pope have?" The
Chair is still there, the Soviet Union is gone – God works in mysterious ways.
TURTLE in COMMENT 169: There is. or at least was, a professor in the Department of
Materials Science & Engineering at MIT, where Chomsky is Professor Emeritus of
Linguistics, who spoke out publicly regarding certain anomalies found in the debris of the
twin towers (not Building 7). Prof. Chomsky could have simply walked across campus and, no
doubt, gotten an audience with his fellow faculty member, had he chosen to do so.
Ridiculing the public statements of someone with actual expertise in a relevant field by
implying that none who have spoken out are qualified to do so is intellectually dishonest
in the extreme.
Chomsky is a fraud.
STRANGER: Agreed! There are also the 1500 architects and engineers at "Architects &
Engineers for 9/11 Truth" https://www.ae911truth.org/ who have spoken out, and who
are well qualified to do so. Same goes for Pilots for 9/11 Truth http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ .
Fascinating! I'm reminded of Noam Chomsky's Manufactured Consent quite a bit lately
due to the reckless deplatforming. As a "recovering anarchist," I sometimes wonder have I
moved right? Or has the left moved left? Thank you for writing!
Chomsky has valid critiques of US power and its use. He points out the evil done in the name
of the people re: capitalism (which benefits those who live off their capital. These people
travel the world in search of people to screw over and drop like bad habits. See – wood
and coal industries in West Virginia, USA.
That Israel is a ethno state is no coincidence, it is exactly the belonging to the group
which makes for a strong nation. All of "us" against all of "them". That Israel doesn't have
the mass influx of aliens as white European nations must suffer should be instructive. They
learned this from the NDSP as evidenced by the tactics of ghettoization on the Palestinians.
They even have the strange belief that walls work.
Civic nationalism makes a lotta sense, but one must feel connection to the land, the
people and the overarching nation of which they are a part. What multicultural gubbamint has
lasted without friction between its peoples and for how long? Most western nations are the
only ones with the multiculti death wish. Why do people migrate to hideous racist white
nations? Do they can gripe about whatever they want while living high on the hog, of
course!
Why don't people migrate to Israel, Japan, Cape Verde or Burundi? Because they either
don't let many "others" in by defacto law or nobody wants to go because of dejure common
sense.
survey
shows that most Americans don't want war with Iran. Only 18% of all American adults favor
military action against Iran, and even among Republicans that number is just 25%. 78% favor
economic and diplomatic efforts. That's fine as far as it goes, and it shows that there is very
little support for a new war at this time. The framing of the question is the bigger problem
and makes the results from the poll much less useful.
The poll asks, "What do you think the United States should do to get Iran to shut down its
nuclear program -- take military action against Iran, or rely mainly on economic and diplomatic
efforts?" The question assumes that it is within our government's power to "get Iran to shut
down its nuclear program," when the experience of the last twenty years tells us that it is
not. The nuclear negotiations that produced the JCPOA show beyond any doubt that there are
limits to what Iran is willing to concede on this point. It is good that most Americans prefer
non-military options to pursue this fantastical goal, but the assumption that Iran will one day
"shut down" its nuclear program is completely unrealistic. On the contrary, the more pressure
that the U.S. puts on Iran in an attempt to force such a shutdown, the more inclined Iran's
government is to build up its program.
If Iran's nuclear program remains peaceful, there is no need for them to shut it down. The
long-term goal of the JCPOA has been to demonstrate to the satisfaction of all parties that
Iran's nuclear program is and will remain peaceful, and then at that point Iran will be treated
like any other member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The U.S. doesn't need to do
anything to "get" Iran to do this because the goal of shutting down the program is a foolish
and impossible one. Perceiving Iran's possession of a peaceful nuclear program as a problem to
be solved is one of the reasons why our debate over Iran policy is so warped and biased in
favor of coercive measures. The idea that Iran has to "shut down" a program that it is legally
entitled to have under the NPT is bizarre, but it is obviously a common view here in the
U.S.
The question is misleading in another way, since it suggests that military action could be
effective in forcing Iran to "shut down" the program. In reality, attacking Iran's nuclear
facilities would at most set back the program, but it would give the Iranian government a
strong incentive to develop and build a deterrent that would discourage the U.S. from launching
more attacks in the future. Attacking a country when it doesn't have nuclear weapons is a good
way to encourage them to acquire those weapons as quickly as possible.
That makes the results to the follow-up question all the more dispiriting. The poll also
asks, "Suppose U.S. economic and diplomatic efforts do not work. If that happens, do you think
the United States should -- or should not -- take military action against Iran?" Once again,
the question assumes that getting Iran to "shut down" its nuclear program is both a legitimate
and realistic goal. If non-military measures "do not work," there is additional support for
military action from a depressing 42% of those who initially favored "economic and diplomatic
efforts." Put them together with the initial supporters of military action, and you have a
narrow majority of all American adults that thinks the U.S. should take military action:
The 42% of those who favor military action if nonmilitary efforts fail translates to 35%
of all U.S. adults. Combining that group with the 18% who favor military action outright
means a slim majority of Americans, 53%, would support military action against Iran if
diplomatic and economic efforts are unsuccessful.
There is a disturbingly high level of support for launching an illegal attack on another
country for something it is legally permitted to have. The assumption that "economic and
diplomatic efforts" will be "unsuccessful" if they don't force Iran to abandon its nuclear
program helps to push respondents to give that answer, but they wouldn't endorse a military
option if they hadn't been led to think that Iran's nuclear program is an intolerable danger.
That is partly because of the bad framing of the questions, but it is also a product of decades
of relentless propagandizing about a supposed threat from Iran's nuclear program that is
completely divorced from reality. We need better poll questions on this subject, but we also
need better, more informed debate about Iran and we have to stamp out the threat inflation that
poisons and distorts the public's perceptions of threats from other states.
If the neoliberal ruling classes expect to keep the American masses worked up into a
white-eyed hysteria over "fascism" until November 2020, they're going to need to get some
better Nazis. The current Nazis are just not going to cut it. They are neither scary nor Nazi
enough. OK, the militia ones look kind of scary, and that "Based Spartan" guy looks kind of uh,
weird, but most of them just look like regular old rednecks. How hard would it be to get them
some brown shirts, or those khaki pants like they wore in Charlottesville, or some other type
of Nazi-like uniform?
And some jackboots. People love those jackboots.
Seriously, the Resistance need to get their official narrative optics in order, and they
need to do it without delay. Millions of liberals are standing by to be brainwashed into a
year-long frenzy of manufactured mass "fascism" hysteria, but they are going to need some
halfway convincing Nazis to spastically freak out over. A few hundred bozos in MAGA hats
parading around with American flags does not exactly a Sturmabteilung make.
If the neoliberal ruling classes expect to keep the American masses worked up into a
white-eyed hysteria over "fascism" until November 2020, they're going to need to get some
better Nazis. The current Nazis are just not going to cut it. They are neither scary nor Nazi
enough. OK, the militia ones look kind of scary, and that "Based Spartan" guy looks kind of uh,
weird, but most of them just look like regular old rednecks. How hard would it be to get them
some brown shirts, or those khaki pants like they wore in Charlottesville, or some other type
of Nazi-like uniform?
And some jackboots. People love those jackboots.
Seriously, the Resistance need to get their official narrative optics in order, and they
need to do it without delay. Millions of liberals are standing by to be brainwashed into a
year-long frenzy of manufactured mass "fascism" hysteria, but they are going to need some
halfway convincing Nazis to spastically freak out over. A few hundred bozos in MAGA hats
parading around with American flags does not exactly a Sturmabteilung make.
Trump is like the old story of the bottle of whiskey which the southern planter gave to his
slave as a present. When the planter asked the slave what he thought of the whiskey, the
slave replied, "perfect." The planter then asked the slave what he meant by saying the
whiskey was perfect.
The slave said, "if it was any better, you wouldn't have given it to me, and if it was any
worse, I couldn't have drunk it."
That is Trump in a nutshell. He is certainly a "perfect" president, as he is palatable to
both the Zionists and the kosher conservatives who are, at present, not attempting to
accelerate the collapse of Euro-Christian heritage America, and totally odious to those who
are attempting to do so.
Trump is no great statesman, as he has a very limited perspicacity in a world historical
context. His only virtue is that he is not his Democratic rivals. The bar of American
politics is set abysmally low in any case.
1)Draft the Chickenhawk-Warhawk Coward Sean Hannity into the US Army Combat Engineer .Sean
gets to do IED locating and defusing duty
2) Draft every White Male sitting in every SEC Football Stadium this fall screaming:"WHAT
A STUD TYRONE!!!" No Draft deferments ..US Army .Combat Engineer duty locating and defusing
road IEDs in Afghanistan .
3) Draft the homosexual PEDERAST writers for The Nation Review Into the US Army Combat
Engineer duty searching for locating defusing .road IEDs in Afghanistan
all neocon scum instantly had risen to the surface to defend the neoliberal empire and its wars...
Notable quotes:
"... In the race to determine who will serve as commander in chief of the most powerful military force in the history of civilization, night two of the CNN Democratic presidential debates saw less than six minutes dedicated to discussing U.S. military policy during the 180-minute event. ..."
"... That's six, as in the number before seven. Not 60. Not 16. Six. From the moment Jake Tapper said "I want to turn to foreign policy" to the moment Don Lemon interrupted Rep. Tulsi Gabbard just as she was preparing to correctly explain how President Donald Trump is supporting Al-Qaeda in Idlib , approximately five minutes and 50 seconds had elapsed. The questions then turned toward the Mueller report on Russian interference in the 2016 elections and impeachment proceedings. ..."
"... But the near-absence of foreign policy discussion didn't stop the Hawaii lawmaker from getting in some unauthorized truth-telling anyway. Attacking the authoritarian prosecutorial record of Sen. Kamala Harris to thunderous applause from the audience, Gabbard criticized the way her opponent "put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana violations and then laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana;" "blocked evidence that would have freed an innocent man from death row until the court's forced her to do so;" "kept people in prisons beyond their sentences to use them as cheap labor for the state of California;" and "fought to keep the cash bail system in place that impacts poor people in the worst kind of way." ..."
"... That was all it took. Harris's press secretary Ian Sams unleashed a string of tweets about Gabbard being an "Assad apologist," which were followed by a deluge of establishment narrative managers who sent the word "Assad" trending on Twitter, at times when Gabbard's name somehow failed to trend despite being the top-searched candidate on Google after the debate. ..."
"... "Somehow I have a hard time believing that 'Assad' is the top trending item in the United States but 'Tulsi' is nowhere to be found," tweeted journalist Michael Tracey. ..."
"... It really is interesting how aggressively the narrative managers thrust this line into mainstream consciousness all at the same time. ..."
"... The Washington Post 's Josh Rogin went on a frantic, lie-filled Twitter storm as soon as he saw an opportunity, claiming with no evidence whatsoever that Gabbard lied when she said she met with Assad for purposes of diplomacy and that she "helped Assad whitewash a mass atrocity," and falsely claiming that " she praised Russian bombing of Syrian civilians ." ..."
"... War is the glue that holds the empire together . A politician can get away with opposing some aspects of the status quo when it comes to healthcare or education, but war as a strategy for maintaining global dominance is strictly off limits. This is how you tell the difference between someone who actually wants to change things and someone who's just going through the motions for show; the real rebels forcefully oppose the actual pillars of empire by calling for an end to military bloodshed, while the performers just stick to the safe subjects. ..."
"... The shrill, hysterical pushback that Gabbard received last night was very encouraging, because it means she's forcing them to fight back. In a media environment where the war propaganda machine normally coasts along almost entirely unhindered in mainstream attention, the fact that someone has positioned themselves to move the needle like this says good things for our future. If our society is to have any chance of ever throwing off the omnicidal, ecocidal power establishment which keeps us in a state of endless war and soul-crushing oppression, the first step is punching a hole in the narrative matrix which keeps us hypnotized into believing that this is all normal and acceptable. ..."
"... Her immediate response to the first question directed to her, regardless of topic, should be prefaced with something like "I would appreciate the media and the opposition please refrain from deliberately misrepresenting my policies and remarks, most notably trying to tar me with more of the fallacious war propaganda they both dispense so freely and without any foundation. ..."
"... Gabbard has any chance to be elected only if she starts vigorously throwing over the tables of the money-lenders in the temple, so to speak. ..."
"... Hide the empire in plain sight, that way no one will notice it. Then someone like Tulsi Gabbard goes and talks about it on national TV. Can't have that, can we? People might begin to see it if we do that ..."
"... Pro war democrats are now using the Russian ruse to go after anti war candidates like Gabbard. It's despicable to even insinuate Gabbard is working for Putin or had any other rationale for going to Syria than seeking peace. This alone proved Harris unfit for the presidency. Her awful record speaks for itself. ..."
"... And she has courage. She quit the DNC to support Bernie and went to Syria to seek the truth and peace. ..."
"... She is unique. The media is trying Ron-Paul-Type-Blackout on her, lest the public catches on to the fact that she is exactly what the country needs. ..."
"... Warmonger candidates had better reconsider their positions if they believe that voters will back their stance. Just ask Hillary Clinton how that worked out for her and her warrior mentality in 2016. ..."
"... she has cross over appeal with republicans who want out of the wars. People like Tucker Carson and Paul Craig Roberts support her. Thats why the DNC hate her.. ..."
"... There's an obvious effort to Jane Fodarize Tulsi before she threatens the favorites. She seems to keep a cool head, so much of it is likely to backfire and bring the narrative back where it belongs. ..."
"... In contrast to Gabbard, a service member with extensive middle east combat experience, Cooper is a chickenhawk and a naif to murder and torture; ..."
"... "Whoever controls the narrative controls the world. Whoever disrupts that narrative control is doing the real work." ..."
"... I read "narrative control" as brainwashing. ..."
Establishment narrative managers distracted attention from a notable antiwar contender, seizing instead the chance to marshal
an old smear against her, writes Caitlin Johnstone.
In the race to determine who will serve as commander in chief of the most powerful military force in the history of civilization,
night two of the CNN Democratic presidential debates saw less than six minutes dedicated to discussing U.S. military policy during
the 180-minute event.
That's six, as in the number before seven. Not 60. Not 16. Six. From
the moment Jake Tapper said "I want to turn to foreign policy"
to the moment Don Lemon interrupted Rep. Tulsi Gabbard just as
she was preparing to correctly explain how President Donald Trump
is supporting Al-Qaeda in
Idlib , approximately five minutes and
50 seconds had elapsed. The questions then turned toward the Mueller report on Russian interference in the 2016 elections and impeachment
proceedings.
Night one of the CNN debates saw almost twice as much time, with
a whole 11 minutes by my count dedicated to questions of war and peace for the leadership of the most warlike nation on the planet.
This discrepancy could very well be due to the fact that night two was the slot allotted to Gabbard, whose campaign largely revolves
around the platform of ending U.S. warmongering.
CNN is a virulent establishment propaganda firm with an extensive history of promoting
lies and
brazen psyops in facilitation of U.S. imperialism, so it would make sense that they would try to avoid a subject which would
inevitably lead to unauthorized truth-telling on the matter.
But the near-absence of foreign policy discussion didn't stop the Hawaii lawmaker from getting in some unauthorized truth-telling
anyway. Attacking the authoritarian prosecutorial record
of Sen. Kamala Harris to thunderous applause from the audience, Gabbard criticized the way her opponent "put over 1,500 people in
jail for marijuana violations and then laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana;" "blocked evidence that
would have freed an innocent man from death row until the court's forced her to do so;" "kept people in prisons beyond their sentences
to use them as cheap labor for the state of California;" and "fought to keep the cash bail system in place that impacts poor people
in the worst kind of way."
Harris Folded Under Pressure
Harris, who it turns out
fights very well
when advancing but folds under pressure, had no answer for Gabbard's attack, preferring to focus on attacking former Vice President
Joe Biden instead.
Later, when she was a nice safe distance out of Gabbard's earshot, she uncorked a
long-debunked but still effective smear that establishment narrative managers have been dying for an excuse to run wild with.
"This, coming from someone who has been an apologist for an individual, Assad, who has murdered the people of his country
like cockroaches," Harris
told Anderson
Cooper after the debate, referring to the president of Syria. "She who has embraced and been an apologist for him in a way
that she refuses to call him a war criminal. I can only take what she says and her opinion so seriously and so I'm prepared to
move on."
That was all it took. Harris's press secretary Ian Sams unleashed
a string of tweets about Gabbard being
an "Assad apologist," which were followed by a deluge of establishment narrative managers who sent the word "Assad" trending on Twitter,
at times when Gabbard's name somehow failed to trend despite being
the
top-searched candidate on Google after the debate.
"Somehow I have a hard time believing that 'Assad' is the top trending item in the United States but 'Tulsi' is nowhere
to be found," tweeted journalist Michael
Tracey.
It really is interesting how aggressively the narrative managers thrust this line into mainstream consciousness all at the
same time.
The Washington Post 's Josh Rogin went on a
frantic, lie-filled Twitter storm as
soon as he saw an opportunity, claiming
with no evidence whatsoever that Gabbard lied when she said she met with Assad for purposes of diplomacy and that she "helped Assad
whitewash a mass atrocity," and falsely claiming that "
she praised Russian bombing of Syrian civilians
."
... ... ...
War is
the glue that
holds the empire together . A politician can get away with opposing some aspects of the status quo when it comes to healthcare
or education, but war as a strategy for maintaining global dominance is strictly off limits. This is how you tell the difference
between someone who actually wants to change things and someone who's just going through the motions for show; the real rebels forcefully
oppose the actual pillars of empire by calling for an end to military bloodshed, while the performers just stick to the safe subjects.
The shrill, hysterical pushback that Gabbard received last night was very encouraging, because it means she's forcing them
to fight back. In a media environment where the war propaganda machine normally coasts along almost entirely unhindered in mainstream
attention, the fact that someone has positioned themselves to move the needle like this says good things for our future. If our society
is to have any chance of ever throwing off the omnicidal, ecocidal power establishment which keeps us in a state of endless war and
soul-crushing oppression, the first step is punching a hole in
the narrative matrix which keeps us hypnotized into believing that this is all normal and acceptable.
Whoever controls the narrative controls the world. Whoever disrupts that narrative control is doing the real work.
I'm going to venture a guess and say that the media fixers for the Deep State's political song and dance show are not going
to allow Tulsi back on that stage for the next installation of "Killer Klowns on Parade." Just as she had the right to skewer
Harris for her sweeping dishonesty and hypocrisy in public office, she has just as much right to proactively respond to the smears
and slanders directed against her by both the party establishment and its media colluders.
Her immediate response to the first question directed to her, regardless of topic, should be prefaced with something like
"I would appreciate the media and the opposition please refrain from deliberately misrepresenting my policies and remarks, most
notably trying to tar me with more of the fallacious war propaganda they both dispense so freely and without any foundation.
It is beneath all dignity to attempt to win elections with lies and deceptions, just as it is to use them as pretexts for wars
of choice that bring no benefit to either America or the countries being attacked. As I've repeatedly made clear, I only want
to stop the wasteful destruction and carnage, but you deceitfully try to imply that I'm aligned with one of the several foreign
governments that our leaders have needlessly and foolishly chosen to make war upon. You've done so on this stage and you've continued
this misrepresentation throughout the American media. Please stop it. Play fair. Confine your remarks only to the truth."
That would raise a kerfuffle, but one that is distinctly called for. Going gently towards exit stage right consequent to their
unanswered lies will accomplish nothing. If the Dems choose to excommunicate her for such effrontery, she should run as a Green,
or an independent. This is a danger the Dem power structure dare not allow to happen. They don't even want the particulars of
the actual history of these wars discussed in public. Thus, they will not even give her the chance to offer a rejoinder such as
I outlined above. They will simply rule that she does not qualify for any further debates based on her polling numbers (which
can be faked) and/or her financial support numbers. That is nominally how they've already decided to winnow down the field to
the few who are acceptable to the Deep State–preferably Harris, Biden or Booker. Someone high profile but owned entirely by the
insider elites. Yes, this rules out Bernie and maybe even Warren unless she secretly signed a blood pact with Wall Street to walk
away from her platform if elected.
Gabbard has any chance to be elected only if she starts vigorously throwing over the tables of the money-lenders in the
temple, so to speak.
Tom Kath , August 2, 2019 at 20:05
There is a big difference between "PRINCIPLES" and "POLICY". Principles should never change, but policy must. This is where
I believe Tulsi can not only make a big difference, but ultimately even win. – Not this time around perhaps, she is young and
this difference will take time to reveal itself.
Hide the empire in plain sight, that way no one will notice it. Then someone like Tulsi Gabbard goes and talks about it
on national TV. Can't have that, can we? People might begin to see it if we do that
What is happening to Tulsi (the extraordinary spate of lies about her relationship with Assad coming from all directions) provides
a good explanation why Bernie and Elizabeth have been smart not to make many comments about foreign policy.
The few Bernie has made indicate to me that he is sympathetic to the Palestinian problem, but smart enough to keep quiet on
the subject until, God willing, he is in a position to actually do something about it. It will be interesting to see if debate
questions force them to be more forthcoming about their opinions.
Pro war democrats are now using the Russian ruse to go after anti war candidates like Gabbard. It's despicable to even
insinuate Gabbard is working for Putin or had any other rationale for going to Syria than seeking peace. This alone proved Harris
unfit for the presidency. Her awful record speaks for itself.
Tulsi is the most original and interesting candidate to come along in many years. She's authentic, something not true of most
of that pack.
And not true of most of the House and Senate with their oh-so-predictable statements on most matters and all those crinkly-faced
servants of plutocracy. She has courage too, a rare quality in Washington where, indeed, cowards often do well. Witness Trump,
Biden, Clinton, Bush, Johnson, et al.
If there's ever going to be any change in a that huge country which has become a force for darkness and fear in much of the
world, it's going to come from the likes of Tulsi. But I'm not holding my breath. It's clear from many signals, the establishment
very much dislikes her. So, the odds are, they'll make sure she doesn't win.
Still, I admire a valiant try. Just as I admire honesty, something almost unheard of in Washington, but she has it, in spades.
Warmonger candidates had better reconsider their positions if they believe that voters will back their stance. Just ask
Hillary Clinton how that worked out for her and her warrior mentality in 2016.
Robert , August 2, 2019 at 14:49
Tulsi is the most promising candidate to successfully run against Trump for 2 reasons. 1. She has a sane, knowledgeable foreign/military
policy promoting peace and non-intervention. 2) She understands the disastrous consequences of the WTO and "free" trade deals
on the US economy. No other Democratic candidate has these 2 policies. Unfortunately, these policies are so dangerous to the real
rulers of the world, her message is already being shut down and distorted.
And she has cross over appeal with republicans who want out of the wars. People like Tucker Carson and Paul Craig Roberts
support her. Thats why the DNC hate her..
Skip Scott , August 2, 2019 at 14:05
I read this article over on Medium this morning. Thanks for re-printing it here. I made the following comment there as well.
I was a somewhat enthusiastic supporter of Tulsi until just recently when she voted for the anti-BDS resolution. I guess "speaking
truth to power" has its limits. What I fear is that the war machine will manipulate her if she ever gets elected. Once you accept
any of the Empire's propaganda narrative, it is a slippery slope to being fully co-opted. Tulsi has said she is a "hawk" when
it comes to fighting terrorists. All the MIC would have to do is another false flag operation, blame it on the "terrorists", and
tell Tulsi it's time to get tough. Just as they manipulated the neo-liberals with the R2P line of bullshit, and Trump with the
"evil Assad gasses his own people" bullshit, Tulsi could be brought to heel as well.
I will probably continue to send small donations to Tulsi just to keep her on the debate stage. But I've taken off the rose
colored glasses.
Well said, Caitlin! There's an obvious effort to Jane Fodarize Tulsi before she threatens the favorites. She seems to keep
a cool head, so much of it is likely to backfire and bring the narrative back where it belongs.
P. Michael Garber , August 2, 2019 at 13:42
Great article! Anderson Cooper in his post-debate interview with Gabbard appeared to be demanding a loyalty oath from her:
"Will you say the words 'Bashar Assad is a murderer and torturer'?" In contrast to Gabbard, a service member with extensive
middle east combat experience, Cooper is a chickenhawk and a naif to murder and torture; in that context his attack was inappropriate
and disrespectful, and as he kept pressing it I thought he appeared unhinged. Gabbard could have done more to call out Cooper's
craven attack (personally I think she could have decked him and been well within her rights), but she handled it with her customary
grace and poise.
hetro , August 2, 2019 at 13:09
Seems to me Caitlin is right on, and her final statement is worth emphasizing: "Whoever controls the narrative controls
the world. Whoever disrupts that narrative control is doing the real work."
I read "narrative control" as brainwashing.
Note also that Caitlin is careful to qualify she does not fully agree with Gabbard, in context with year after year of demonizing
Assad amidst the murk of US supported type militants, emphasis on barrel bombs, etc etc, all in the "controlling the narrative/propaganda"
sphere.
Another interesting piece to consider on the smearing of Gabbard:
"... Obviously, a large fraction of everything described by our government leaders or presented in the pages of our most respectable newspapers -- from the 9/11 attacks to the most insignificant local case of petty urban corruption -- could objectively be categorized as a "conspiracy theory" but such words are never applied. ..."
"... Put another way, there are good "conspiracy theories" and bad "conspiracy theories," with the former being the ones promoted by pundits on mainstream television shows and hence never described as such ..."
"... by the time we attacked Iraq in 2003, polls revealed that some 70% of the American public believed that Saddam was personally involved in the destruction of our World Trade Center. By that date I don't doubt that many millions of patriotic but low-information Americans would have angrily denounced and vilified as a "crazy conspiracy theorist" anyone with the temerity to suggest that Saddam had not been behind 9/11, despite almost no one in authority having ever explicitly made such a fallacious claim. ..."
"... Based on an important FOIA disclosure, the book's headline revelation was that the CIA was very likely responsible for the widespread introduction of "conspiracy theory" as a term of political abuse, having orchestrated that development as a deliberate means of influencing public opinion. ..."
"... So as a means of damage control, the CIA distributed a secret memo to all its field offices requesting that they enlist their media assets in efforts to ridicule and attack such critics as irrational supporters of "conspiracy theories." Soon afterward, there suddenly appeared statements in the media making those exact points, with some of the wording, arguments, and patterns of usage closely matching those CIA guidelines. The result was a huge spike in the pejorative use of the phrase, which spread throughout the American media, with the residual impact continueing right down to the present day. Thus, there is considerable evidence in support of this particular "conspiracy theory" explaining the widespread appearance of attacks on "conspiracy theories" in the public media. ..."
"... But although the CIA appears to have effectively manipulated public opinion in order to transform the phrase "conspiracy theory" into a powerful weapon of ideological combat, the author also describes how the necessary philosophical ground had actually been prepared a couple of decades earlier. Around the time of the Second World War, an important shift in political theory caused a huge decline in the respectability of any "conspiratorial" explanation of historical events. ..."
"... Meanwhile, Strauss, a founding figure in modern neo-conservative thought, was equally harsh in his attacks upon conspiracy analysis, but for polar-opposite reasons. In his mind, elite conspiracies were absolutely necessary and beneficial, a crucial social defense against anarchy or totalitarianism, but their effectiveness obviously depended upon keeping them hidden from the prying eyes of the ignorant masses. His main problem with "conspiracy theories" was not that they were always false, but they might often be true, and therefore their spread was potentially disruptive to the smooth functioning of society. So as a matter of self-defense, elites needed to actively suppress or otherwise undercut the unauthorized investigation of suspected conspiracies. ..."
"... This argument may be more than purely hypothetical. A crucial turning point in America's renewed Cold War against Russia was the passage of the 2012 Magnitsky Act by Congress, punitively targeting various supposedly corrupt Russian officials for their alleged involvement in the illegal persecution and death of an employee of Bill Browder, an American hedge-fund manager with large Russian holdings. However, there's actually quite a bit of evidence that it was Browder himself who was actually the mastermind and beneficiary of the gigantic corruption scheme, while his employee was planning to testify against him and was therefore fearful of his life for that reason. Naturally, the American media has provided scarcely a single mention of these remarkable revelations regarding what might amount to a gigantic Magnitsky Hoax of geopolitical significance. ..."
"... To some extent the creation of the Internet and the vast proliferation of alternative media outlets, including my own small webzine , have somewhat altered this depressing picture. So it is hardly surprising that a very substantial fraction of the discussion dominating these Samizdat-like publications concerns exactly those subjects regularly condemned as "crazy conspiracy theories" by our mainstream media organs. ..."
"... Such unfiltered speculation must surely be a source of considerable irritation and worry to government officials who have long relied upon the complicity of their tame media organs to allow their serious misdeeds to pass unnoticed and unpunished. Indeed, several years ago a senior Obama Administration official argued that the free discussion of various "conspiracy theories" on the Internet was so potentially harmful that government agents should be recruited to "cognitively infiltrate" and disrupt them, essentially proposing a high-tech version of the highly controversial Cointelpro operations undertaken by J. Edgar Hoover's FBI. ..."
A year or two ago, I saw the much-touted science fiction film Interstellar , and
although the plot wasn't any good, one early scene was quite amusing. For various reasons, the
American government of the future claimed that our Moon Landings of the late 1960s had been
faked, a trick aimed at winning the Cold War by bankrupting Russia into fruitless space efforts
of its own. This inversion of historical reality was accepted as true by nearly everyone, and
those few people who claimed that Neil Armstrong had indeed set foot on the Moon were
universally ridiculed as "crazy conspiracy theorists." This seems a realistic portrayal of
human nature to me.
Obviously, a large fraction of everything described by our government leaders or presented
in the pages of our most respectable newspapers -- from the 9/11 attacks to the most
insignificant local case of petty urban corruption -- could objectively be categorized as a
"conspiracy theory" but such words are never applied. Instead, use of that highly loaded phrase
is reserved for those theories, whether plausible or fanciful, that do not possess the
endorsement stamp of establishmentarian approval.
Put another way, there are good "conspiracy theories" and bad "conspiracy theories," with
the former being the ones promoted by pundits on mainstream television shows and hence never
described as such. I've sometimes joked with people that if ownership and control of our
television stations and other major media outlets suddenly changed, the new information regime
would require only a few weeks of concerted effort to totally invert all of our most famous
"conspiracy theories" in the minds of the gullible American public. The notion that nineteen
Arabs armed with box-cutters hijacked several jetliners, easily evaded our NORAD air defenses,
and reduced several landmark buildings to rubble would soon be universally ridiculed as the
most preposterous "conspiracy theory" ever to have gone straight from the comic books into the
minds of the mentally ill, easily surpassing the absurd "lone gunman" theory of the JFK
assassination.
Even without such changes in media control, huge shifts in American public beliefs have
frequently occurred in the recent past, merely on the basis of implied association. In the
initial weeks and months following the 2001 attacks, every American media organ was enlisted to
denounce and vilify Osama Bin Laden, the purported Islamicist master-mind, as our greatest
national enemy, with his bearded visage endlessly appearing on television and in print, soon
becoming one of the most recognizable faces in the world. But as the Bush Administration and
its key media allies prepared a war against Iraq, the images of the Burning Towers were instead
regularly juxtaposed with mustachioed photos of dictator Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden's
arch-enemy. As a consequence, by the time we attacked Iraq in 2003, polls revealed that some
70% of the American
public believed that Saddam was personally involved in the destruction of our World Trade
Center. By that date I don't doubt that many millions of patriotic but low-information
Americans would have angrily denounced and vilified as a "crazy conspiracy theorist" anyone
with the temerity to suggest that Saddam had not been behind 9/11, despite almost no one
in authority having ever explicitly made such a fallacious claim.
These factors of media manipulation were very much in my mind a couple of years ago
when I stumbled across a short but fascinating book published by the University of Texas
academic press. The author of Conspiracy Theory in Americawas Prof. Lance deHaven-Smith, a former president of
the Florida Political Science Association.
Based on an important FOIA disclosure, the book's headline revelation was that the CIA was
very likely responsible for the widespread introduction of "conspiracy theory" as a term of
political abuse, having orchestrated that development as a deliberate means of influencing
public opinion.
During the mid-1960s there had been increasing public skepticism about the Warren Commission
findings that a lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald, had been solely responsible for President
Kennedy's assassination, and growing suspicions that top-ranking American leaders had also been
involved. So as a means of damage control, the CIA distributed a secret memo to all its field
offices requesting that they enlist their media assets in efforts to ridicule and attack such
critics as irrational supporters of "conspiracy theories." Soon afterward, there suddenly
appeared statements in the media making those exact points, with some of the wording,
arguments, and patterns of usage closely matching those CIA guidelines. The result was a huge
spike in the pejorative use of the phrase, which spread throughout the American media, with the
residual impact continueing right down to the present day. Thus, there is considerable evidence
in support of this particular "conspiracy theory" explaining the widespread appearance of
attacks on "conspiracy theories" in the public media.
But although the CIA appears to have effectively manipulated public opinion in order to
transform the phrase "conspiracy theory" into a powerful weapon of ideological combat, the
author also describes how the necessary philosophical ground had actually been prepared a
couple of decades earlier. Around the time of the Second World War, an important shift in
political theory caused a huge decline in the respectability of any "conspiratorial"
explanation of historical events.
For decades prior to that conflict, one of our most prominent scholars and public
intellectuals had been historian Charles Beard , whose influential writings
had heavily focused on the harmful role of various elite conspiracies in shaping American
policy for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many, with his examples ranging from
the earliest history of the United States down to the nation's entry into WWI. Obviously,
researchers never claimed that all major historical events had hidden causes, but it was widely
accepted that some of them did, and attempting to investigate those possibilities was deemed a
perfectly acceptable academic enterprise.
However, Beard was a strong opponent of American entry into the Second World War, and he was
marginalized in the years that followed, even prior to his death in 1948. Many younger public
intellectuals of a similar bent also suffered the same fate, or were even purged from
respectability and denied any access to the mainstream media. At the same time, the totally
contrary perspectives of two European political philosophers, Karl Popper and Leo Strauss , gradually gained ascendancy in
American intellectual circles, and their ideas became dominant in public life.
Popper, the more widely influential, presented broad, largely theoretical objections to the
very possibility of important conspiracies ever existing, suggesting that these would be
implausibly difficult to implement given the fallibility of human agents; what might appear a
conspiracy actually amounted to individual actors pursuing their narrow aims. Even more
importantly, he regarded "conspiratorial beliefs" as an extremely dangerous social malady, a
major contributing factor to the rise of Nazism and other deadly totalitarian ideologies. His
own background as an individual of Jewish ancestry who had fled Austria in 1937 surely
contributed to the depth of his feelings on these philosophical matters.
Meanwhile, Strauss, a founding figure in modern neo-conservative thought, was equally harsh
in his attacks upon conspiracy analysis, but for polar-opposite reasons. In his mind, elite
conspiracies were absolutely necessary and beneficial, a crucial social defense against anarchy
or totalitarianism, but their effectiveness obviously depended upon keeping them hidden from
the prying eyes of the ignorant masses. His main problem with "conspiracy theories" was not
that they were always false, but they might often be true, and therefore their spread was
potentially disruptive to the smooth functioning of society. So as a matter of self-defense,
elites needed to actively suppress or otherwise undercut the unauthorized investigation of
suspected conspiracies.
Even for most educated Americans, theorists such as Beard, Popper, and Strauss are probably
no more than vague names mentioned in textbooks, and that was certainly true in my own case.
But while the influence of Beard seems to have largely disappeared in elite circles, the same
is hardly true of his rivals. Popper probably ranks as one of the founders of modern liberal
thought, with an individual as politically influential as left-liberal financier George Soros claiming to
be his intellectual disciple . Meanwhile, the neo-conservative
thinkers who have totally dominated the Republican Party and the Conservative Movement for
the last couple of decades often proudly trace their ideas back to Strauss.
So, through a mixture of Popperian and Straussian thinking, the traditional American
tendency to regard elite conspiracies as a real but harmful aspect of our society was gradually
stigmatized as either paranoid or politically dangerous, laying the conditions for its
exclusion from respectable discourse.
By 1964, this intellectual revolution had largely been completed, as indicated by the
overwhelmingly positive reaction to the famous article by political scientist Richard
Hofstadter critiquing the so-called "paranoid
style" in American politics , which he denounced as the underlying cause of widespread
popular belief in implausible conspiracy theories. To a considerable extent, he seemed to be
attacking straw men, recounting and ridiculing the most outlandish conspiratorial beliefs,
while seeming to ignore the ones that had been proven correct. For example, he described how
some of the more hysterical anti-Communists claimed that tens of thousands of Red Chinese
troops were hidden in Mexico, preparing an attack on San Diego, while he failed to even
acknowledge that for years Communist spies had indeed served near the very top of the U.S.
government. Not even the most conspiratorially minded individual suggests that all alleged
conspiracies are true, merely that some of them might be.
Most of these shifts in public sentiment occurred before I was born or when I was a very
young child, and my own views were shaped by the rather conventional media narratives that I
absorbed. Hence, for nearly my entire life, I always automatically dismissed all of the
so-called "conspiracy theories" as ridiculous, never once even considering that any of them
might possibly be true.
To the extent that I ever thought about the matter, my reasoning was simple and based on
what seemed like good, solid common sense. Any conspiracy responsible for some important public
event must surely have many separate "moving parts" to it, whether actors or actions taken, let
us say numbering at least 100 or more. Now given the imperfect nature of all attempts at
concealment, it would surely be impossible for all of these to be kept entirely hidden. So even
if a conspiracy were initially 95% successful in remaining undetected, five major clues would
still be left in plain sight for investigators to find. And once the buzzing cloud of
journalists noticed these, such blatant evidence of conspiracy would certainly attract an
additional swarm of energetic investigators, tracing those items back to their origins, with
more pieces gradually being uncovered until the entire cover-up likely collapsed. Even if not
all the crucial facts were ever determined, at least the simple conclusion that there had
indeed been some sort of conspiracy would quickly become established.
However, there was a tacit assumption in my reasoning, one that I have since decided was
entirely false. Obviously, many potential conspiracies either involve powerful governmental
officials or situations in which their disclosure would represent a source of considerable
embarrassment to such individuals. But I had always assumed that even if government failed in
its investigatory role, the dedicated bloodhounds of the Fourth Estate would invariably come
through, tirelessly seeking truth, ratings, and Pulitzers. However, once I gradually began
realizing that the media was merely "Our American Pravda" and perhaps had
been so for decades, I suddenly recognized the flaw in my logic. If those five -- or ten or
twenty or fifty -- initial clues were simply ignored by the media, whether through laziness,
incompetence, or much less venial sins, then there would be absolutely nothing to prevent
successful conspiracies from taking place and remaining undetected, perhaps even the most
blatant and careless ones.
In fact, I would extend this notion to a general principle. Substantial control of the media
is almost always an absolute prerequisite for any successful conspiracy, the greater the degree
of control the better. So when weighing the plausibility of any conspiracy, the first matter to
investigate is who controls the local media and to what extent.
Let us consider a simple thought-experiment. For various reasons these days, the entire
American media is extraordinarily hostile to Russia, certainly much more so than it ever was
toward the Communist Soviet Union during the 1970s and 1980s. Hence I would argue that the
likelihood of any large-scale Russian conspiracy taking place within the operative zone of
those media organs is virtually nil. Indeed, we are constantly bombarded with stories of
alleged Russian conspiracies that appear to be "false positives," dire allegations seemingly
having little factual basis or actually being totally ridiculous. Meanwhile, even the crudest
sort of anti-Russian conspiracy might easily occur without receiving any serious
mainstream media notice or investigation.
This argument may be more than purely hypothetical. A crucial turning point in America's
renewed Cold War against Russia was the passage of the 2012 Magnitsky Act by Congress,
punitively targeting various supposedly corrupt Russian officials for their alleged involvement
in the illegal persecution and death of an employee of Bill Browder, an American hedge-fund
manager with large Russian holdings. However, there's actually quite a bit of evidence that
it was Browder himself who was actually the mastermind and beneficiary of the gigantic
corruption scheme, while his employee was planning to testify against him and was therefore
fearful of his life for that reason. Naturally, the American media has provided scarcely a
single mention of these remarkable revelations regarding what might amount to a gigantic
Magnitsky Hoax of
geopolitical significance.
To some extent the creation of the Internet and the vast proliferation of alternative media
outlets, including my
own small webzine , have somewhat altered this depressing picture. So it is hardly
surprising that a very substantial fraction of the discussion dominating these Samizdat-like
publications concerns exactly those subjects regularly condemned as "crazy conspiracy theories"
by our mainstream media organs.
Such unfiltered speculation must surely be a source of
considerable irritation and worry to government officials who have long relied upon the
complicity of their tame media organs to allow their serious misdeeds to pass unnoticed and
unpunished. Indeed, several years ago a senior Obama Administration official argued
that the free discussion of various "conspiracy theories" on the Internet was so potentially
harmful that government agents should be recruited to "cognitively infiltrate" and disrupt
them, essentially proposing a high-tech version of the highly controversial Cointelpro operations
undertaken by J. Edgar Hoover's FBI.
Until just a few years ago I'd scarcely even heard of Charles Beard, once ranked among the towering figures of
20th century American intellectual life . But the more I've discovered the number of
serious crimes and disasters that have completely escaped substantial media scrutiny, the more
I wonder what other matters may still remain hidden. So perhaps Beard was correct all along in
recognizing the respectability of "conspiracy theories," and we should return to his
traditional American way of thinking, notwithstanding endless conspiratorial propaganda
campaigns by the CIA and others to persuade us that we should dismiss such notions without any
serious consideration.
Pat lost its touch with reality " Around the world, America is involved in quarrels, clashes
and confrontations with almost too many nations to count." That's what empires do. Why he can't
understand this simple fact?
Friday, President Donald Trump met in New Jersey with his national security advisers and
envoy Zalmay Khalilzad, who is negotiating with the Taliban to bring about peace, and a U.S.
withdrawal from America's longest war.
U.S. troops have been fighting in Afghanistan since 2001, in a war that has cost 2,400
American lives.
Following the meeting, Trump tweeted, "Many on the opposite sides of this 19 year war, and
us, are looking to make a deal -- if possible!"
Some, however, want no deal; they are fighting for absolute power.
Saturday, a wedding in Kabul with a thousand guests was hit by a suicide bomber who,
igniting his vest, massacred 63 people and wounded 200 in one of the greatest atrocities of the
war. ISIS claimed responsibility.
Monday, 10 bombs exploded in restaurants and public squares in the eastern city of
Jalalabad, wounding 66.
Trump is pressing Khalilzad to negotiate drawdowns of U.S. troop levels from the present
14,000, and to bring about a near-term end to U.S. involvement in a war that began after we
overthrew the old Taliban regime for giving sanctuary to Osama bin Laden.
Is it too soon to ask: What have we gained from our longest war? Was all the blood and
treasure invested worth it? And what does the future hold?
If the Taliban could not be defeated by an Afghan army, built up by the U.S. for a decade
and backed by 100,000 U.S. troops in 2010-2011, then are the Taliban likely to give up the
struggle when the U.S. is drawing down the last 14,000 troops and heading home?
The Taliban control more of the country than they have at any time since being overthrown in
2001. And time now seems to be on their side.
Why have they persevered, and prevailed in parts of the country?
Motivated by a fanatic faith, tribalism and nationalism, they have shown a willingness to
die for a cause that seems more compelling to them than what the U.S.-backed Afghan government
has on offer.
They also have the guerrillas' advantage of being able to attack at times and places of
their own choosing, without the government's burden of having to defend towns and cities.
Will these Taliban, who have lost many battles but not the war, retire from the field and
abide by democratic elections once the Americans go home? Why should they?
The probability: When the Americans depart, the war breaks out anew, and the Taliban
ultimately prevail.
And Afghanistan is but one of the clashes and conflicts in which America is engaged.
Severe U.S. sanctions on Venezuela have failed to bring down the Nicholas Maduro regime in
Caracas but have contributed to the immiseration of that people, 10% of whom have left the
country. Trump now says he is considering a quarantine or blockade to force Maduro out.
Eight years after we helped to overthrow Col. Moammar Gadhafi, Libya is still mired in civil
war, with its capital, Tripoli, under siege.
Yemen, among the world's humanitarian disasters, has seen the UAE break with its Saudi
interventionist allies, and secessionists split off southern Yemen from the Houthi-dominated
north. Yet, still, Congress has been unable to force the Trump administration to end all
support of the Saudi war.
Two thousand U.S. troops remain in Syria. The northern unit is deployed between our Syrian
Kurd allies and the Turkish army. In the south, they are positioned to prevent Iran and
Iranian-backed militias from creating a secure land bridge from Tehran to Baghdad to Damascus
to Beirut.
In our confrontation with Iran, we have few allies.
The Brits released the Iranian tanker they seized at Gibraltar, which had been carrying oil
to Syria. But when the Americans sought to prevent its departure, a Gibraltar court ruled
against the United States.
Iran presents no clear or present danger to U.S. vital interests, but the Saudis and
Israelis see Iran as a mortal enemy, and want the U.S. military rid them of the menace.
Hong Kong protesters wave American flags and seek U.S. support of their demands for greater
autonomy and freedom in their clash with their Beijing-backed authorities. The Taiwanese want
us to support them and sell them the weapons to maintain their independence. The Philippines
wants us to take their side in the dispute with China over tiny islets in the South China
Sea.
We are still committed to go to war to defend South Korea. And the North has lately
test-fired a series of ballistic missiles, none of which could hit the USA, but all of which
could hit South Korea.
Around the world, America is involved in quarrels, clashes and confrontations with almost
too many nations to count.
In how many of these are U.S. vital interests imperiled? And in how many are we facing
potential wars on behalf of other nations, while they hold our coat and egg us on?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and
Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
This is a very weak article full of emotion but does not clarifing anything. Zionisn is just
far right Jewish nationalism colored by the occupation of Palestine. Nothing special about it and
in a sense critique of Israel for Zionism falls short. whether Zionists control the USA via fifth
column or the USA elite thinks that Zionist policies in Middle East are perfectly compatible with
the USA geopolitical goals in the region remains to be seen. I suspect the latter.
In this case calling Trump Zionist puppet completely misses the point. The USA and Israel
currently are fellow travelers. That might change in the future.
Incident with Representative [Ilhan] Omar and Representative [Rashida] Tlaib is just a minor
insident and should be trated as such.
Notable quotes:
"... The likelihood that Donald Trump will be impeached (and it's the House of Representatives that impeaches, not the Senate) for any action that pleases Israel is zero. ..."
"... "Why not just support a Gabbard campaign?" Because we've been swindled by two "antiwar" candidates in a row already. We don't want to be slow learners, do we? ..."
"... If the Zionist Enterprise and Uncle Sam (and their apologists) are resentful about the strategic depth Iran has created in Syria they should not have supported a bunch of whack job head choppers like HTS, Al Qaeda, ISIL, etc., etc. Blow back pure and simple like 9/11 and US intervention in Afghanistan. ..."
"... On November 22, 1963, our last Constitutional Government was overthrown in a Coup D'état, with our last Constitutional President, John F. Kennedy , assassinated in a hail of bullets. ..."
"... You really have to have a lot of chutzpah to claim that Trump isn't presidential. After 32 years of Clinton, Bush II, Obama? What is wrong with you, Phil? ..."
"... I like Giraldi generally, that said the whole "acting Presidential" thing is way, way overrated -- that's what we've had for decades an "actor" reading a teleprompter, part of the Uniparty team selected to screw average normal Americans of all races ..."
"... As though the ziostate is a separate country from the Imperialist States of Amerikastan, instead of a parasitic twin. And as though the Imperialist States of Amerikastan is in any way innocent of the crimes of the ziostate. ..."
"... Old pensioners , even younger are political, pathetic amateurs.. Amateurs or worse. Daily declarations of never ending and growing up and up "Uber Love" for Israel means what ? Emptiness , absence of any ability ? ..."
"... Looks like President and administrations become more and more lost and lost their way in our world ? Can not USA acts and even understand, on its own, what is going on around?? ..."
"... They push Iran and Russia together,after they did the same with China, Venezuela /with 6 millions of Columbians in there/, and Turkey, before.. USA lost Syria ..."
"... And if you need a good reason to not impeach Trump here it is: Mike Pence would become President. ..."
"... Mega Group, Maxwells and Mossad: The Spy Story at the Heart of the Jeffrey Epstein Scandal ..."
"... The picture painted by the evidence is not a direct Epstein tie to a single intelligence agency but a web linking key members of the Mega Group, politicians, and officials in both the U.S. and Israel, and an organized-crime network with deep business and intelligence ties in both nations. ..."
"... "Hey, let's buy Greenland!", "Let's send a guy to Mars!". Swear to God, every day's a new adventure with this guy. ..."
"... Ignoring someone is the strongest form of bullying. BDS is this stupid path that will lead to violence just like picking up a stick in the first place. The way to deal with Israel and the Empire is by demanding the declassification of all historical secrets, and having an open conversation. We haven't done this for a century as a society. ..."
"... When that happens, it will become clear Israel has always been a colonial project of European and Jewish elites (at the top the %es warrant the statement), that human rights interventions have been designed with neo-colonial intentions in mind from the get-go (after all the creation of Israel was the first such neo-colony), and that the only way to solve this issue is through full on decolonisation. ..."
"... Trump is an idiot and a puppet of Israel. Our Congress is controlled by Israel. Trump isn't Presidential is true. But Giraldi once again seems to be clueless of all the underhanded foreign policy games Obama played. Obama is a cool Crime Lord if there ever was one. ..."
"... The CIA and the other Intelligence agencies protected Obama because he let them do whatever they wanted. Obama's fiasco in Libya was covered up and according to my friends in the CIA is one the greatest foreign policy failures in American history. But Giraldi once again ignores this type of stuff. ..."
"... Pence is also an idiot and nutbag ZioChristian. What Giraldi doesn't seem to understand is that even though Trump is an idiot etc. look at the Democrats and what does the populace see? For many they see that he is less evil than all the Democrats running. ..."
"... First I was glad to see Tlaib had the smarts to tell the Likudniks to pound sand with their new invitation. It would to me, quickly evolve into a fiasco (probably as soon as she got off her flight). Good move by the Rep. If this is a zero-sum game, she wins not Trump/Netanyahu. ..."
"... I see no stomach for impeachment during the election cycle. As well as no chance for a senate conviction. Vile crook that he is, he was elected. Now it's up to voters to make that decision again. Yes on a personal level he's terrible but if we are lucky he won't do catastrophic damage. Like Bush. ..."
"... I agree with Mr. Giraldi entirely on this matter. Unfortunately, given that the Democratic Party is determined to present voters with less than reasonable alternatives, I am fully confident that we will be enjoying another four-year term with this imbecilic, Zionist bootlick as our head-of-state ..."
"... But it is true that Trump -- like every President since LBJ -- has become an obsequious waterboy for the Zionist mafia. For me, this marks Trump's greatest failure. Wasn't he going to 'Make America Great Again'? How can a nation be great if it is not sovereign? ..."
"... A guy with interesting views about the end of the world probably shouldn't be put in a position where he could actually end it. ..."
"... Business as usual for US Presidents for at least 70 years, perhaps at least 120 years. Under the principles of equity, these would not justify impeachment. ..."
"... I really hate to admit this but you may be correct. I do think Trump is anti-war. But he's too erratic and nobody should trust him. Netanyahu is gaming him but I don't think he trusts Trump either. ..."
"... Impeachment is inherently political and there are plenty of good reasons to impeach Trump as there were to impeach Obama, Bush II, Clinton and for that matter such all time greats as Lincoln and FDR. There are better reasons not to impeach him. If impeachment fails it paves the way for a backlash that would lead to Trump's re-election by a landslide and more subservience to Israel than ever. ..."
"... If it succeeds, he is followed by Pence and more subservience to Israel than ever. And if a Democrat other than Tulsi Gabbard gets elected in 2020, keep in mind that the Democratic establishment is solidly pro-Israel as well. Only among some of the Democratic rank-and-file is there any opposition to doing the bidding of the Israeli government. ..."
"... Haven't you Bush-Cheney-Trump Republicans noticed that every four years Americans rent a pig in a poke for the next four years. ..."
It is astonishing to observe some Americans twisting themselves into pretzels so they can
continue to make excuses to explain the bizarre behavior of President Donald Trump on the world
stage. The line most commonly heard is that he has "kept us out of new wars." The reality is
somewhat different. He has kept us in old wars in Afghanistan and Syria that he could have
ended while also needlessly ratcheting up tension with countries like Russia, Venezuela, Iran
and China that could easily escalate into armed conflict. The situation with Moscow is
particularly dangerous as President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly warned that his country's
defense doctrine includes going nuclear if there is an attack on Russia by a superior
force.
But the most frightening aspect of the current situation is the feeling that the man whose
finger is on America's nuclear trigger is not quite sane. The steady stream of insulting and
vulgar tweets that seem to serve as a substitute for more substantial mental activity reveals a
man who is profoundly ignorant, completely narcissistic and hopelessly insecure. To say the
least, Trump is not presidential. He is not even rational except in a conniving, manipulative
fashion intended to embarrass his adversaries and place them on the defensive. And his enemies
list appears to include all Americans who are not "with him."
The Constitution of the United States in Articles I and II details the procedure for
impeachment by the Senate of a president who commits "treason, bribery, or other high crimes
and misdemeanors." I believe that threshold has finally been crossed. It was crossed last
Thursday when
President Trump telephoned either Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or some other senior
Israeli government official before, one hour later, tweeting the following: "It would show
great weakness if Israel allowed Representative [Ilhan] Omar and Representative [Rashida] Tlaib
to visit. They hate Israel and all Jewish people. And there is nothing that can be said or done
to change their minds. Minnesota and Michigan will have a hard time putting them back in
office. They are a disgrace!"
Netanyahu then followed Trump's lead with a series of tweets of his own,
banning the visit of the two congresswomen because "Only a few days ago, we received their
itinerary for their visit in Israel, which revealed that they planned a visit whose sole
objective is to strengthen the boycott against us and deny Israel's legitimacy. For instance:
they listed the destination of their trip as Palestine and not Israel the itinerary of the two
Congresswomen reveals that the sole purpose of their visit is to harm Israel and increase
incitement against it."
The two women are in fact the only two congressional supporters of the non-violent Boycott,
Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement that seeks to use economic pressure to convince Israel
to end its brutal occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, meaning that the other 533
members of congress are not so inclined. BDS supporters have been blocked from travel to Israel
under an anti-boycott law passed by the Knesset in March 2017, suggesting that free speech in
Israel is conditional.
Even though BDS is a non-violent protest movement, it has been condemned by the U.S.
Congress and also by nearly all Jewish groups in America, quite possibly because it is having a
real impact in an environment where legitimate criticism of Israel is effectively forbidden.
There is considerable irony in the fact that Jewish groups have in the past used boycotts to
advance their own tribal interests while condemning the use of the same tactic when it is
employed against Israeli oppression.
The Israeli ban was subsequently partially lifted to allow Tlaib to travel to the occupied
West Bank to visit her 90 year old grandmother, but the congresswoman indicated that
she has refused the offer as she is being treated "like a criminal." Clearly, Netanyahu and
Trump saw political benefit coming out of the exchange. Netanyahu is facing re-election in two
weeks and will be able to boast of his demonstrated ability as a "strong leader" to obtain
maximum support for anything he does from the White House. Trump is also already running for
re-election next year and is working hard to make Israel an issue, labeling the Democrats as
the party that is anti-Israel and anti-Semitic. He will also expect Netanyahu to do him favors
as appropriate closer to the actual U.S. election.
So much for the view from the two heads of government. The other perspective, and why the
president should be impeached, is that Trump's decision was, as usual, to propagate a
disgusting and deliberate lie that is also extremely damaging to actual United States interests
as well as to our form of government.
To put it in simplest terms, President Trump is conniving with a foreign government headed
by a war criminal to block the entry of and also demonize two congresswomen whose political
views differ from his own. He is endangering the women, who have already received death
threats, by expanding on the lies that are being circulated about them due to their criticism
of Israel's appalling human rights record.
Netanyahu, for his part, would prefer that prominent observers not be able to report on the
actual conditions prevailing on the West Bank and in Gaza. Indeed, Israel's occupation of much
of the West Bank is an ongoing crime that is carefully hidden from most foreign visitors.
Netanyahu's government already carefully manages the summer recess annual pilgrimage by members
of Congress, such as the one that ended last week where 31 Republicans and 41 Democrats made
the journey to kiss the prime minister's ring. And it should be noted that as Omar and Tlaib
are only two of a handful of Democratic lawmakers who dare to criticize Israel, their impact on
party policy is decidedly limited, rendering even more incomprehensible the panic over their
travels.
There are a number of other things wrong with what took place between Trump and Netanyahu
vis-à-vis the two congresswomen. First of all, Israel is the top recipient of U.S.
military aid at more than $3 billion each year. It also profits from trade arrangements,
co-production projects and charitable contributions from American Jews and Christian Zionists
that amount to an estimated three times that much annually. That members of Congress should
have the right, even the obligation, to visit Israel to see where all that money goes should be
unquestioned and it has, indeed, been unchallenged prior to this incident. Tlaib and Omar are
the first congressmen to be denied entry to Israel. That Trump apparently orchestrated the
entire incident in connivance with a foreign government in support of his own political
ambitions and that foreign power's narrow interests is a clear abuse of executive power.
To be sure, numerous Democrats have decried the Israeli decision, but they have tended to
frame it in such a way as to praise Israel while also slamming Trump. They note, in a friendly
way, that it will hurt Israel's otherwise pristine image as an upstanding democracy and close
ally, both of which assertions are in any event demonstrably false. Speaker of the House Nancy
Pelosi issued a statement
that was typical, saying "As one who loves Israel, I am deeply saddened by the news that Israel
has decided to prevent Members of Congress from entering the country. Last month, Israeli
Ambassador Dermer stated that, 'Out of respect for the U.S. Congress and the great alliance
between Israel and America, we would not deny entry to any Member of Congress into Israel.'
This is a sad reversal and is deeply disappointing. I pray that the Government of Israel will
reverse that denial. Israel's denial of entry to Congresswomen Tlaib and Omar is a sign of
weakness, and beneath the dignity of the great State of Israel. The President's statements
about the Congresswomen are a sign of ignorance and disrespect, and beneath the dignity of the
Office of the President."
Senator Bernie Sanders was one of the few legislators to actually approach the heart of the
matter,
saying "The idea that a member of the United States Congress cannot visit a nation which,
by the way, we support to the tune of billions and billions of dollars is clearly an outrage.
And if Israel doesn't want members of the United States Congress to visit their country to get
a firsthand look at what's going on -- and I've been there many, many times -- but if he
doesn't want members to visit, maybe [Netanyahu] can respectfully decline the billions of
dollars that we give to Israel."
Even the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) disapproved of the decision,
stating in a tweet that "We disagree with Reps. Omar and Tlaib's support for the
anti-Israel and anti-peace BDS movement, along with Rep. Tlaib's calls for a one-state
solution. We also believe every member of Congress should be able to visit and experience our
democratic ally Israel firsthand."
One of the few Republicans to enter into the discussion was Senator Marco Rubio of Florida,
who
characteristically tweeted what amounted to an attack on the congresswomen, stating that it
was a mistake for the Israeli government to deny them entry because "Being blocked is what they
really hoped for all along in order to bolster their attacks against the Jewish state."
Trump's attack on the two congresswomen comes on top of another bizarre foreign policy
related intervention. It involved
sending his official hostage negotiator Robert O'Brien to Stockholm on the taxpayers' dime
to obtain freedom for an American rap musician ASAP Rocky who was in jail after having gotten
into a fight with some local boys. Trump did not actually know Rocky, but he was vouched for by
the likes of Kim Kardashian and Kanye West, both of whom have had nice things to say about the
president. Trump also exercised his usual disregard for standard diplomatic courtesy by
tweeting
furiously against Sweden's prime minister, Stefan Lofven, over Rocky's detention. The
negotiator was instructed to threaten Sweden that if they did not release Rocky there would be
"negative consequences" for the bilateral relationship.
And if you need more good reasons to impeach Donald Trump, here they are:
Trump has twice
attacked Syria with cruise missiles based on flawed intelligence without a declaration of war
and without Damascus representing an actual threat. That is a war crime and the stationing of
American soldiers in Syria without the consent of that country's government is also illegal.
The Trump administration's "Justice" Department is seeking to extradite truth-teller Julian
Assange of WikiLeaks so he can be locked up for life or killed in prison like Jeffrey Epstein.
America's Secretary of State and National Security Advisors are implementing policies that
impose punitive sanctions that have served to starve or otherwise kill thousands of
Venezuelans, Iranians and Yemenis. Far from being Russian President Vladimir Putin's patsy,
Trump has unnecessarily escalated tensions with Moscow more than any American president since
the end of the cold war by moving NATO troops up to the Russian border and arming Ukraine,
putting our nation and much of the world at risk of a nuclear exchange whether by accident or
design. Trump has unnecessarily withdrawn from an Iranian nuclear agreement and from two arms
treaties with Russia, all of which enhanced the national security of the United States. The
Trump administration has continued to lavish support on the Middle East's two kleptocracies
Saudi Arabia and Israel, endorsing everything they do. The tilt towards Israel, including U.S.
recognition of sovereignty over illegally occupied East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, has
been particularly unfortunate as it could lead to a major war in the region with the U.S.
placed right in the middle of the conflict.
Finally, there are certainly some who oppose getting rid of Trump because it would give us
Mike Pence as acting president. True enough, and Mike certainly has some interesting Christian
Zionist views about the end of the world, but how could he possibly be worse than Donald
Trump?
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that
seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its
email is [email protected] .
Let me help. What you are actually advocating is better represented by this:
GIRALDI Endorses MIKE PENCE for President
Did you forget that the VP takes the Presidency if the sitting President is impeached?
Do you really believe that PENCE would be better than Trump on foreign policy?
__________
He has kept us in old wars in Afghanistan and Syria that he could have ended
Trump has drawn down troops from Afghanistan.
The primary issue with pulling troops out of Syria is Iran, although Turkey and the deep
state bureaucracy are also complicating factors. Hopefully, Iran's impending exit from Syria
will allow Trump to also exit.
Iranian troops are in conflict with Assad and they are rapidly wearing out its welcome in
Syria (1):
the Iranian Revolutionary Guards "took over the al-Nurain Mosque and houses around it on
Korniche Street in the city, where they prevented civilians, members of regime forces, and
NDF from entering or passing through the area, without orders from the command forces
located in al-Mayadin."
Iran is also intentionally provoking Russia and undermining Putin's credibility (2):
due to the permanent infiltration efforts conducted by Iran and Hizbullah, a very unique
situation has unfolded on the ground. Hizbullah and pro-Iranian proxies' checkpoints,
coordinated by the regime's Fourth Division deployed in the area, have been erected almost
adjacent to the Russian checkpoints. Pro-Iranian patrols have been patrolling the area in
the very same axis patrolled by the Russians. As a result, frictions between the Russian
and the pro-Iranian proxies occur from time to time, creating tensions between Moscow and
Tehran.
It is now a test of wills between Ayatollah Khamenei and Putin, and it is pretty clear
that Putin is going to win.
It's not saying much but Trump seems to be the sanest of the bunch. Even Sanders wants more
militarism. His support for Israel, though less overtly obnoxious, achieves the same end
result. I could possibly exclude Gabbard. Why not just support a Gabbard campaign?
The likelihood that Donald Trump will be impeached (and it's the House of Representatives
that impeaches, not the Senate) for any action that pleases Israel is zero.
Tulsi Gabbard should embrace the BDS movement and move ahead of the other candidates. This is
in spite of her ill-advised vote recently to condemn BDS. It would be a dramatic about face
-- she will be vilified no matter what she does, but she will please a large and growing
segment of the electorate, not unlike Ross Perot's Independence Party.
"Mike certainly has some interesting Christian Zionist views about the end of the world, but
how could he possibly be worse than Donald Trump?"
Mike Pence could be worse than Hillary Clinton without half trying. For that matter, he
could be worse than GW Bush without breaking a sweat. You underestimate him, Phil.
"Why not just support a Gabbard campaign?" Because we've been swindled by two
"antiwar" candidates in a row already. We don't want to be slow learners, do we?
If the Zionist Enterprise and Uncle Sam (and their apologists) are resentful about the
strategic depth Iran has created in Syria they should not have supported a bunch of whack job
head choppers like HTS, Al Qaeda, ISIL, etc., etc. Blow back pure and simple like 9/11 and US
intervention in Afghanistan.
Yes, The entire post November 22, 1963 American Government, with only a few exceptions
should be Impeached.
On November 22, 1963, our last Constitutional Government was overthrown in a Coup
D'état, with our last Constitutional President, John F. Kennedy , assassinated in a
hail of bullets.
If you (Giraldi), read Unz' article on the subject of the Coup, and just who performed the
Coup, or a dozen other articles to the point, you should understand that our
post-constitutional government has been increasingly controlled by Foreign Zionist Banking
Oligarchs. Our so-called 'elected Representatives' function as bought Minions of the
Rothschilds , and live in fear of their MOSSAD and puppet CIA police.
I assume you have read your own articles on the subject of just who controls the USA. Or
do I have to cite them for you?
You advocate an Impeachment Process to be brought against Casino Trump . And who,
pray tell, will do the impeaching? You are advocating an effort that lends a certain
Legitimacy to a pathetic Puppet government, long at the service of the Zionist World Order.
Do you dream that the pathetic band of almost 537 Traitors are up to the task?
You expect a Congress, perhaps led by the Democrap Gangers, to begin the process of
removing the current Hollywood actor ("You're Fired"), in a pretend Constitutional Process
performed by a Pretend Constitutional Government.
Ron Unz -- er. Philip Giraldi, our Yellow Brick Road to Liberty involves, of
necessity, a Restoration of Our Republic, with a restoration of our Constitution, with a
restoration of our honor, and a restoration of our Beloved Nation's Sovereignty.
But I will deal with you as a well meaning and brave American, a friend. If you have a way
to trigger, or begin the process of impeachment of Casino Trump, even in the Pretend World we
will have to live in to swallow the Show, I and my friends will do all we can to follow your
lead.
This is your article and your lead. Hell! We might get lucky. On with the show. You will
not fight alone.
Now. if your article is just an intellectual appeal to the powers that be (whomever they
are), to advance an impeachment show for us to passively observe, a show where nothing
essential will change, and nothing will be learned, then our Citizens will have no option but
to continue following the Foreign Zionist controlled Democrap & Republicant Gangs to
Hell.
You really have to have a lot of chutzpah to claim that Trump isn't presidential. After
32 years of Clinton, Bush II, Obama? What is wrong with you, Phil?
You evidently are a one-issue guy with a hitherto serious case of Trump Derangement
Syndrome.
You've know joined the ranks of The Mooch and that lunatic Kristol.
I like Giraldi generally, that said the whole "acting Presidential" thing is way, way
overrated -- that's what we've had for decades an "actor" reading a teleprompter, part of the
Uniparty team selected to screw average normal Americans of all races
Ppersonally not having been a Trump fan ever -- I like the fact that he doesn't act like
an actor teleprompter reading robot and that he swings back at the lying Propagandist
Mainslime Media and Dems who are complete insane lunatics at this point (I was a Dem myself
for 40 years and even voted for Obama the first time -- no more.
They are actively plotting to destroy the country by importing "replacement" illegal
aliens to vote for them as sane people won't and Identity "hate whitey" politics -- why would
any sane "white" person vote for them?).
Do I like all Trump is doing? No. His Israel "love" and Javanka etc .But who exactly would
Mr. Giraldi recommend we support/vote for that has any possible chance of getting elected who
is not a pre-selected Uniparty stooge/traitor? Trump is all we got, and by his wide range of
obvious enemies we can tell he is also obviously not fully "on board" with the cretins of the
Deep State -- and those who "run" things view him as a threat, gotta like that .
If I have to choose between Trump and those two harpies then Trump is in. Those two women are
fake Americans who should go back to where they came from.
As though the ziostate is a separate country from the Imperialist States of Amerikastan,
instead of a parasitic twin. And as though the Imperialist States of Amerikastan is in any
way innocent of the crimes of the ziostate.
@getaclue Elites do not
let anybody from the younger generation up , through filter. Old pensioners , even
younger are political, pathetic amateurs.. Amateurs or worse. Daily declarations of never
ending and growing up and up "Uber Love" for Israel means what ? Emptiness , absence of any
ability ?
Looks like President and administrations become more and more lost and lost their way
in our world ? Can not USA acts and even understand, on its own, what is going on
around??
They push Iran and Russia together,after they did the same with China, Venezuela /with
6 millions of Columbians in there/, and Turkey, before.. USA lost Syria ..And what about
Yemen ? At the same time they expose Israel, towards many dangerous developments in that area
around .And in the whole world.. Negativity against Israel is growing..
They/together/ never solve and end, this horrible situation with Palestine.. Sanction are
deadly weapon against all children and their future everywhere..Are the they blind ? As well
? Have They declared sanctions on their own sights ??
Your ridiculous, TDS-fueled list of President Trump's alleged sins does not include a
single high crime or misdemeanor. It merely states your despicable preference for a world run
by Mohammedans and a country run by the likes of those Mohammedan Congress-snakes.
Repeat these words in front of your local imam -- hopefully as the blood spurts from a
camel's throat on Eid; it earns you extra points and a delicious camel steak.
"There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet."
Until you do that, we will know that you lack the courage of your convictions.
Would changing potus or any puppet make any real difference, at all, when the clear
cancerous origin of the decline of the usa, and in fact, the entire western world is not
completely eliminated?
With US Liberty, JFK, and 911 in mind, here is an opportunity to expose and eliminate.
Mega Group, Maxwells and Mossad: The Spy Story at the Heart of the Jeffrey Epstein
Scandal
The picture painted by the evidence is not a direct Epstein tie to a single
intelligence agency but a web linking key members of the Mega Group, politicians, and
officials in both the U.S. and Israel, and an organized-crime network with deep business and
intelligence ties in both nations.
"Hey, let's buy Greenland!", "Let's send a guy to Mars!". Swear to God, every day's a new
adventure with this guy. The Gonzo Presidency, like going to Vegas with Hunter S.
Thompson.
Ignoring someone is the strongest form of bullying. BDS is this stupid path that will
lead to violence just like picking up a stick in the first place. The way to deal with Israel
and the Empire is by demanding the declassification of all historical secrets, and having an
open conversation. We haven't done this for a century as a society.
When that happens, it will become clear Israel has always been a colonial project of
European and Jewish elites (at the top the %es warrant the statement), that human rights
interventions have been designed with neo-colonial intentions in mind from the get-go (after
all the creation of Israel was the first such neo-colony), and that the only way to solve
this issue is through full on decolonisation.
Trump is an idiot and a puppet of Israel. Our Congress is controlled by Israel. Trump
isn't Presidential is true. But Giraldi once again seems to be clueless of all the
underhanded foreign policy games Obama played. Obama is a cool Crime Lord if there ever was
one.
He is most likely a product of his mother and other relatives being in the CIA chain if
you investigate thoroughly. The CIA and the other Intelligence agencies protected Obama
because he let them do whatever they wanted. Obama's fiasco in Libya was covered up and
according to my friends in the CIA is one the greatest foreign policy failures in American
history. But Giraldi once again ignores this type of stuff.
America is a Military Industrial-Intelligence Police State. Our leaders are just players
in the game. Trump realizes he is not in charge of the foreign policy and most of the
Intelligence Agencies have gone rogue. They answer to the Corporations of the World not to
Nations. Just look at the debacle of the FBI and the Trump investigation. Who was in charge
and what were they trying to do? They were trying to prevent Trump from becoming president
and the NSA who were monitoring everything did what? Just like William Binney former NSA
intelligence officer stated how far they have gone in their own game plan against the
citizens of the USA.
Pence is also an idiot and nutbag ZioChristian. What Giraldi doesn't seem to
understand is that even though Trump is an idiot etc. look at the Democrats and what does the
populace see? For many they see that he is less evil than all the Democrats running.
Once again this seems like a rather naive analysis from someone with the credentials of
Giraldi.
@obwandiyag I wonder why
Obama, the Clintons, Bush 1&2, etc. get no "good reasons to impeach" list.
Trump is small beer in comparison. Generally you do good work, Phil Giraldi, but this time
your avoiding the big picture . while you ignore the 2016 alternative, Hillary.
First I was glad to see Tlaib had the smarts to tell the Likudniks to pound sand with
their new invitation. It would to me, quickly evolve into a fiasco (probably as soon as she
got off her flight). Good move by the Rep. If this is a zero-sum game, she wins not
Trump/Netanyahu.
I see no stomach for impeachment during the election cycle. As well as no chance for a
senate conviction. Vile crook that he is, he was elected. Now it's up to voters to make that
decision again. Yes on a personal level he's terrible but if we are lucky he won't do
catastrophic damage. Like Bush.
# As an aside just a note on Sen. Gillibrand calling for forgiveness in the cases of Al
Franken and Mark Halperin. The NY'er is a skilled politician but this is a bit too obvious.
Would she be calling for second chances if their surnames were Smith and Jones? I don't think
so. Not in the current atmosphere of 'me to.'
She was doing this to make amends for damage done to her among liberals and Jews. Not
because she has second thoughts, about whether she was wrong about them initially.
I agree with Mr. Giraldi entirely on this matter. Unfortunately, given that the
Democratic Party is determined to present voters with less than reasonable alternatives, I am
fully confident that we will be enjoying another four-year term with this imbecilic, Zionist
bootlick as our head-of-state .
My take on Trump is that he knows something that not every politician knows: to bring down
those who are the greatest threat to your country, you sometimes have to give them all they
want and more, after which you'll shed crocodile tears at the news of their demise. Just give
them more rope!
Interesting article (as usual) by Philip Giraldi. I'm not sure that I'm ready to throw in the
towel on Trump however -- though I'm getting close.
As for Trump, he is far more of a leader and independent thinker than his VP, so the idea
of having Zio-devout, 'end-of-times' Pence take over for Trump seems rash.
But it is true that Trump -- like every President since LBJ -- has become an
obsequious waterboy for the Zionist mafia. For me, this marks Trump's greatest failure.
Wasn't he going to 'Make America Great Again'? How can a nation be great if it is not
sovereign?
Trump is manifesting some of the usual, toxic symptoms and embracing some of the bizarre,
extra-national 'values' that make a politician 'mainstream' in America.
These values include 1) eager capitulation to the Zionist community involving all 'matters
of concern' to World Jewry, and 2) don't forget the first part.
These crypto-Zionist 'values' however cause immense and toxic distortions in US policies,
our nation's intellectual climate, and American culture in general. This is no small matter.
As a consequence, the issue of oversized Jewish influence in the West is not supposed to be
addressed -- much less critically examined and dealt with.
If a problem cannot be addressed, how can it be understood and contained?
It can't.
... ... ...
Exhibiting a 'hostility' towards Israel or discharging a virulent 'whiff' of anti-Semitism
can easily become a political death sentence. This is power. This is Jewish-Israeli
power.
Americans exist in a heavily monitored, strategically censored, post-Holocaust,
pro-Zionist, white-guilt-tripping, fabricated kosher wonderland. Therefore, do say the
right thing. Never say the wrong thing. Never. Indelicate speech has how been
criminalized. That's BAD.
Preemptive bombing and wholesale annihilation on the other hand has been sanctified.
Democracy! It's all very strange and twisted. But perfectly normal now.
If nothing else, 'reckless and insane' Trump's steady and deliberate subservience
to the Zionist establishment proves how astonishingly powerful they are.
Mike certainly has some interesting Christian Zionist views about the end of the world,
but how could he possibly be worse than Donald Trump?
You've answered your own question. A guy with interesting views about the end of the
world probably shouldn't be put in a position where he could actually end it.
I believe that threshold has finally been crossed. It was crossed last Thursday when
President Trump telephoned either Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or some other senior
Israeli government official before, one hour later, tweeting the following .
Not a crime, not an impeachable offence.
The other perspective, and why the president should be impeached, is that Trump's
decision was, as usual, to propagate a disgusting and deliberate lie
Impeaching a politician for lying; now that's rich!
that is also extremely damaging to actual United States interests as well as to our form
of government.
Trump would be at the end of a very long line if you are talking about his collaboration
with Israel.
beneath the dignity of the Office of the President.
Still no crime or impeachable offence there. Dignity of the Office of the President? The
Rubicon was crossed a long time ago.
And if you need more good reasons to impeach Donald Trump, here they are .
Business as usual for US Presidents for at least 70 years, perhaps at least 120 years.
Under the principles of equity, these would not justify impeachment.
I must disagree with Mr. Giraldi on this one. Trump is smart like a fox. He KNOWS the
machinations and dirty dealings of the jews as he has had to deal with jews all of his life.
There is a saying: "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer". It is possible that
Trump is doing just that.
Trump KNOWS that the "deep state" is real and has "eliminated" those who do not "toe the
line" and is smart enough to know that. Trump's "weak spot" is the appointment of his
son-in-law Kushner to handle his "foreign policy" arrangements. All in all, Trump IS "getting
things done".
With any other president but Trump, you would be doing Israel's fighting
I really hate to admit this but you may be correct. I do think Trump is anti-war. But
he's too erratic and nobody should trust him. Netanyahu is gaming him but I don't think he
trusts Trump either. Bottom line is Trump doesn't think spending the money is worth it
and not even the Israel lobby can convince him (we hope). Bottom line is everyone who deals
with him thinks he's nuts. Sooner or later that's going to catch up and bite us.
@Olifant So that's how
44D chess is played? You give the enemy so much support and resources that they just seize up
from all the goodies? Sounds legit.
Man, I wish I was smart enough to play on that level.
@Rich Yes I agree, it's
all about the Benjamin's. Neither of the two women are anti-white or anti-American but it
sounds like you in fact are a racist, just like Trump.
Holy smokes is there a lot of MAGA boomers railing in defence of Trump. The orange clown
should have been booted out of office on the very day he invited the swamp to infest his
government.
@Olifant It is this
idiotic hope that puts you on equal footing with any Clintonista, Bushie, Obama Maniac or
Drumpfter.
They are all the same idiotic "believers". No. Trump is owned lock, stock and barrel by
Chabad sect. To suggest anything different is foolish or obvious deception.
-- France wants cooperation with Russia.
-- Germany wants cooperation with Russia.
-- Russia should rejoin G8, according to these European countries.
-- American's hubris is now plain to see for everyone.
-- Israel's hubris is now plain to see for everyone.
-- We are not going to buy expensive American LNG.
-- Our gas will not flow through Ukraine.
Before Trump this was unthinkable! I don't know how that would work out with Pence.
Changing foolishness for pure evil is risky. Please let us hate Trump but don't get rid of
him!
@Wally What is the point
of giving reasons to impeach the Clintons and Bushes, when it is Trump who is the incumbent
of the White House? Your post makes absolutely no sense and seems little more than a feeble
attempt at giving cover in regard to Trump's erratic behaviour.
Trump letting the neocons back into the White House, particularly giving the egregious Bolton
the NSA chair, was a much more momentous event than mean tweets or interference in the Squad
Qwainz travel plans. Syria and Iran sabre-rattling and ham-fisted destabilization efforts in
Venezuela and Hong Kong are a lot worse than this as well. None of it is impeachment-worthy.
Phil's venting here. No one's more critical of Trump's Zio-cucking than I am, but talking
about impeachment over this or any of the other aggregate offenses he lists isn't serious.
Phil's not writing a Hopkins Russiagate /sarc piece but it comes across like one.
The entire US Congress is Israeli-occupied territory (h/t Pat Buchanan). Mossad's latest
blackmailer of America's Davos-tier was just strangled to death in custody. If Zio-cuckery is
impeachable, we might as well call a new constitutional convention and send all three
branches packing. That's the ugly truth and worrying over the Qwainz is just a trivial
sideshow distraction for the cucks and anti-cucks alike.
November 2020 is roughly 15 months away. I watched a Trump rally on Fox the other night. He
was sharp as a razor. Even when speaking impromptu on a few subjects, he didn't misspeak or
struggle for or with words. One might not like a great deal of what he does, but he is quite
in control of his faculties.
@Kelso Agreed. Tulsi
needs to get off the fence and make a clear statement regarding Israel and her own plans, if
any, to deal with Zionist influence on the US gov.
It's not President Trump that needs impeaching, it's the entire Federal Government that
should be excised from the planet. It's the system, not any particular individual that's the
real problem. It's the concentration of power and the usurpation of control by unelected
bureaucrats commonly referred to as the 'deep state' that threatens the entire world.
"The way to get rid of corruption in high places is to get rid of high places." -- Frank
Chodorov
Get rid of Trump and a new moron will take his place. We need to get rid of the Nancy
Pelosi's and the Chuck Shumer's along with the monstrosities like the NSA, CIA, Air Force,
Army, Raytheon, etc so the people of the 50 states can separately decide on how they want to
proceed. It is the monopoly of the Fed Gov that's the real problem not any particular
pinhead.
Impeachment is inherently political and there are plenty of good reasons to impeach Trump
as there were to impeach Obama, Bush II, Clinton and for that matter such all time greats as
Lincoln and FDR. There are better reasons not to impeach him. If impeachment fails it paves
the way for a backlash that would lead to Trump's re-election by a landslide and more
subservience to Israel than ever.
If it succeeds, he is followed by Pence and more subservience to Israel than ever. And
if a Democrat other than Tulsi Gabbard gets elected in 2020, keep in mind that the Democratic
establishment is solidly pro-Israel as well. Only among some of the Democratic rank-and-file
is there any opposition to doing the bidding of the Israeli government.
Pence could be much worse than Trump; he could be Trump unleashed to do what Trump only
threatened. Trump is just the tail of the dog anyway. It is the power of the deep state that
needs to be diminished, and there are many peaceful ways to accomplish that.
Trump is a wholly owned promoter of zionism and a puppet of the zionists who has sold out
America and Americans who thought they were getting a change from the warmongers and the MIC
and the zionist control over the zio/US government only to find they elected a Trojan Horse
of zionism who will do anything his zionist overlords tell him to do.
JFK was the last patriot POTUS and that is why he was shot in full view of the American
people, shot as an example that the satanic overlords of America were still in charge!
If interested read the book JFK, the CIA and Vietnam by Col. L. Fletcher Prouty, can be
had on amazon.
@Lot Attacking Israel
involves attacking the system which supports Israel. It is 1 pragmatic . It is 2 moral and 3
ethical to do so when it is found out that these forces have been lassoed roped penned and
put into serving parasitic Israel 24/7 . At least the offspring of the skates will have a
better future .
@Charles Martel I told
you not to read that Scofield Bible again but you didn't listen . Not only that you also sat
down bowed head listening to fat misshaped Hagee in your local CUFI outlet . Don't do that .
Get some crayons and start drawing Star of David on your viagra worked dick . There is
Canadian nurse who I knew in Detroit , used to talk a lot about My Brothers Keeper . May be
she also knew the real keeper Epstein . Lot of kept .
No one (who I ever hear or read) who claims Trump should be impeached knows what that even
means. Similarly to being indicted, being impeached means a political figure stands trial.
Being impeached guarantees nothing -- Bill Clinton was impeached and naturally it turned into
a farce, whether he was provably guilty of what he was accused or not. Even more importantly
there's the little matter of having a REASON to impeach. Hating an individual -- even when
that person is an oddball, as is certainly the case with Trump -- because that person behaves
eccentrically in your eyes is not and never will be "impeachable".
Phil, here's the thing: on the evil scale of 1 to 10 Trump is a 9.5, but everyone else around
him is a 9.9 or 10. So we are stuck with the fool for now.
Accidental war is possible but the trend is towards more shouting and screaming followed by
climb down. Unless Pompeo fat or Bolton walrus drown accidentally or intentionally in some
Israeli supplied water , war remains a possibility , Even the frowning might not help . It
can be blamed on Iran . Israel might supply the water if it feels Pomeo might get tired of
being told what to do and start telling the truth behind war against Iran .
The real concern is recession . If that hurts Trump's re-election , he might do something
stupid . He might buy the water from Israel with trillions of dollars ( just the advice on
how to initiate the war against Iran but AIPAC-Likud charges for that ) and drown the USA .
There is no climbdown. Iran will be in ruins . Trump will be the president . America has seen
it's last president .
Another ' Richard Pearle ' will say to Americans "Pompeo and Bolton didn't do the job and
Neither Trump did as was told . They didn't listen . We tried to help but they couldn't carry
out . They are not Roosevelt Churchill or Reagan . We were mistaken , "
Trump has not broken any laws, even though his behavior is inappropriate. Even if he colluded
with Russia during the 2016 presidential campaign, he did not break any laws in doing so.
Even though his collaboration with Israel is inappropriate, he did not break any laws in
collaborating. Neither in the case of collaborating with Russia nor with Israel did he commit
treason against the USA or accept illegal campaign contributions from their governments,
which would be the only way the collaboration would be illegal. So there is no legal basis on
which to impeach him. Additionally, there is a principle of sovereign immunity that, in fact
if not in theory, has some limited application to the president, it would not be possible to
successfully remove a president from office, even if he was guilty of a crime, unless it was
an extremely serious one. So trying to impeach Trump would be a complete waste of time.
Impeaching Trump would be even more ridiculous than impeaching Clinton was.
And the CANNON FODDER occupation of the shithole Afghanistan will continue apace during the
reign of the OLD FARTING BOOMER GRANNY POTUS Elizabeth Warren .on the advice of Irish Skank
Samantha Powers and the midget mulato negro Susan Rice .
Sorry you Goys are all doomed. The next president ,Democrat or the orangegutan will continue
to bow before the real emperor, Netanyahu.
The only way to get rid of virus of Zionism is to implement a real American constitutional
government where loyalty will be 100% to the US and not to foriegn governments. Best of luck
to all of you Goys.
@Wally I concur, Wally,
exept for your use of the term "small beer." Love him or hate him, there's nothing small beer
about Mr. Trump.
It seems to me that those advocating for Trump's impeachment could, unwittingly, guarantee
his re-election. Most, I think, don't like a legally elected president to be impeached over
policy differences. Using that criteria, every president could be impeached.
Mr. Giraldi asks if VP Pence could "possibly be worse than Donald Trump." Emphatically I
say that he not only COULD be, but quite likely WOULD be. One example: Trump should have
never sent such a huge naval presence into the Persian Gulf, but, who knows, Pence may have
done so even sooner. And, after that Iranian shoot down of the US drone, would Pence, an
Israel-first neocon in good standing, have held back from retaliating?
Lastly, I find it a little odd that Mr. Giraldi uses the Omar/Tlaib incident as grounds
for impeachment. Trump was ill-advised to say what he did (sadly a nearly daily occurrence),
but that seems like a minor incident, similar in severity to the republicans ridiculous
attempt to impeach Clinton over lying about Lewinsky's semen stained blue dress. The easy way
to get rid of Trump is the way this country usually does it -- vote him out of office at the
ballot box, not make him a martyr by trying to get rid of him a few months before next
November's election. Besides, the Senate will never convict.
In regards to impeachment, we patriots are screwed, Pence is just as bad as Trump , and in
regards to the elections for POTUS , the demon-rats and the republi-cons are the same zionist
controlled bullshit, until Americans wake up to that fact, nothing will change. The
demon-rats are the zio/US version of the bolsheviks and the republi-cons are a farce!
rich: abundant possessions, especially material wealth.
selfish: unquiet with one's own well-being without regard for others.
beggar: one who lives by asking for gifts or charity.
Now Trump has done more for Israel as per request of Israel, US media and some in Israeli
media are blaming Trump for wrecking"bipartisan support" to Israel and for endangering
"special relationship"
Thats the way Zionist work . They prod they force they bribe or blackmail and get the
things done .Then they blame the perpetrator for doing what Israel has been asking them them
do.
Iran war will be another example of 'wrecking bipartisan relationship" or "special
relationship being endangered " by the Zionist media because of the danger of Israel would be
pointed out correctly to be the mastermind to be the payer to be the controller to be the
open and only figure forcing some corrupt lawmakers do it
@anon Warning: prions in
camel steaks have an adverse effect on peoples' brains to the extent that they can't frame a
coherent thought. Lay off the steaks!
Haven't you Bush-Cheney-Trump Republicans noticed that every four years Americans rent a
pig in a poke for the next four years.
Four years later, the voters can extend the rental or rent a new pig.
No accountability, other than impeachment, which like the presidential election, is
political.
By impeaching Sheldon Adelson's pet pig, Americans hold the Bitter Twitter accountable for
risking an accidental or insane nuclear exchange with Russia. Hold him accountable for
exploding the national debt to create an asset bubble for the finance racket. And hold him
accountable for flooding the country with legal and illegal immigrants and prisoners released
to keep up with the Kardashians.
That's why Philip Giraldi is right about impeachment. Where his critics show their
ignorance is their certainty that the process automatically leads to Pence. It could easily
lead to the Nixon alternative. The bipartisan impeachment of Nixon was the last step of a
negotiated deal as Watergate unfolded. First Agnew resigned. Then Nixon and the House made
Gerald Ford vice president. "We gave Nixon no choice but Ford," House Speaker Carl Albert
recalled later (Ford's Wikipedia page).
In the last act, Tricky Dick resigned in return for a pardon. The danger of Pence begs for
a similar outcome.
-- Comparatively speaking, Trump is indeed small beer next to the warmongering of Hillary
'forcefully ending the Russian presense in Syria' Clinton, for example.
-- And while Trump blusters about places like Iran, he's nowhere close to McCain school of
'attack now, ask questions later'.
-- Trump's "sending" of naval forces is hardly the same as actually attacking with those
forces.
-- BTW, the impeachment of Clinton was based upon his lying under oath concerning his
sexual abuse of Gennifer Flowers, not about his semen on Lewinsky.
-- Trump's re-election is guaranteed. Hell, he now has a +50% rating with Hispanics and
there are more & more some blacks who are tired of being on the neo-Marxist plantation
and are seeing through their game.
Well Doc Giraldi, as an outsider, I understand your disgust and change of tack. However,
although I don't know about Tlaib, she seems rather sensible, unlike her three insane allies.
Also, Omar is a multiple violator of your U.S. immigration law. That is a fact. Easy to
ascertain. It is only by many others of the same stripe being dumped in the same area, many
also liars, and I would not doubt, many voters intimidated by people with whom she is
conected (the large Somali population dumped there and/or brainwashing, from mainly Jewish
sources) other voters had no say in her election.
So. impeach Trump on the grounds you state, it would be great for your USA. It would never
be permitted. He is the greatest dupe of your colonial masters in Israel to date. You would
know that. Likewise, ejection of Omar from her seat and deportation for immigration fraud are
perfectly legal and sane, and will never happen.
I must have missed the part where Giraldi offered up a list of replacement politicians who,
as President, who could be relied upon to put illegal immigration on the front burner (until
Trump, that was a grand total of ZERO) ..rework the insane, suicidal sweetheart deal we had
previously arranged with China .and could credibly give Israel and its countless agents,
apologists and apparatchiks throughout the West, what-for.
All things considered, two out of three ain't bad.
Hey, nobody (except the neverTrumpers who intend to shit all over him and his family the
very moment he's out of office, the same as any michaelmoore would) is happy about
Trump's kowtowing to Team Shmuel certainly nobody in his "base" is crazy about this setup
.but I have the oddest feeling that Trump assiduously licks those Hebraic hindquarters as the
Cost of Doing Business (ie, the only reliable Assassination Insurance an American President
can hope to purchase).
In the end, it's all about the art of the deal; and from Robert Maxwell to Jeffrey Epstein
and all points between, history tells us that the greatest ability any power-broker can
demonstrate is survivability . Ask Bubba.
Trump and his opponents are all scum. Trump is a 'racist' in the sense that he favors Zionist
supremacism over the much-oppressed Palestinians. He also praises criminal blacks while
having done nothing for whites. But of course, NYT is okay with Trump's pro-Zionist bigotry.
@Buzz
Baldrin As I type this I am listening to Mike Pence lead an all-star cast to discuss the
Trump-PENCE space initiative (s), including the 6th branch of DoD, the Space Force.
It should be excitin g but it is terrifying: DoD is "unified" with the intelligence
agencies & space force -- to ensure a total, space-based surveillance state.
US will collaborate "with its allies" -- i.e. Israel. Pence's quasi-religious delusions,
and the broadly shared Abrahamic ideology: that Abrahamics possess the RIGHT idea, and have
not only the RIGHT but the obligation to impose that ideology on all mankind -- will have at
his ready access the most powerful & intrusive technology.
Those technologies will be militarized.
It would be a mistake to misunderestimate the ambition, cunning, and delusional vision of
Mike Pence.
@Realist "Trump
like most elected officials serves at the pleasure of the Deep State." If that were true,
there would have been no Spygate coup. The Deep State doesn't quite have the lock on US
elections you think it does.
I am actually thinking, Trump is a true gift. He keeps showing the US unmasked, raw, vile and
criminal as it is, and in good company with the criminal jewish entity.
What has been done for decades, masked and filtered away as democracy BS, freedom defending
BS, "american values" aka corruption, intimidation and threats, is becoming under Trump just
blatantly obvious for every one to see. The US administration are a mafia, a crime syndicate
that spreads tumors with its military.
With television cameras rolling, on February 12, 1999 the whole world watched as the
senators stood up to vote inside the chamber. 55 Senators voted "not guilty" on the charge
of perjury. The Senate split 50/50 against Clinton when it came to the charge of
obstruction of justice. This meant that the 2/3 majority was not achieved, the President
was acquitted and allowed to serve out the rest of his term of office up until January
2001.
A month later and twelve days after his get of Dodge card was given to him, the war on
Yugoslavia was put in place.
Twenty years ago in the early hours of March 24, 1999, NATO began the bombing of the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. "The operation was code-named "Allied Force " -- a cold,
uninspired and perfectly descriptive moniker" according to Nebosja Malic.
Impeachment is the branding rode for Z Puppet Presidents by the our warmongering ZUS
rulers. Our "presidents" are treated like cattle too, just like us little people.
Trump is like the old story of the bottle of whiskey which the southern planter gave to his
slave as a present. When the planter asked the slave what he thought of the whiskey, the
slave replied, "perfect." The planter then asked the slave what he meant by saying the
whiskey was perfect.
The slave said, "if it was any better, you wouldn't have given it to me, and if it was any
worse, I couldn't have drunk it."
That is Trump in a nutshell. He is certainly a "perfect" president, as he is palatable to
both the Zionists and the kosher conservatives who are, at present, not attempting to
accelerate the collapse of Euro-Christian heritage America, and totally odious to those who
are attempting to do so.
Trump is no great statesman, as he has a very limited perspicacity in a world historical
context. His only virtue is that he is not his Democratic rivals. The bar of American
politics is set abysmally low in any case.
1)Draft the Chickenhawk-Warhawk Coward Sean Hannity into the US Army Combat Engineer .Sean
gets to do IED locating and defusing duty
2) Draft every White Male sitting in every SEC Football Stadium this fall screaming:"WHAT
A STUD TYRONE!!!" No Draft deferments ..US Army .Combat Engineer duty locating and defusing
road IEDs in Afghanistan .
3) Draft the homosexual PEDERAST writers for The Nation Review Into the US Army Combat
Engineer duty searching for locating defusing .road IEDs in Afghanistan
"... Gabbard calls out the betrayers; Dems try to forget their heroes Mueller and Biden are among them. ..."
"... The gains of war in Iraq remain elusive, especially considering that the justifications for invasion -- weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein's connection to al-Qaeda, the ambition to create a Western-style democracy at gunpoint -- remain "murky at best." That's a quote from the 9/11 Commission's conclusion on the so-called evidence linking Iraq to Osama bin Laden's group, which actually did carry out the worst terrorist attack in American history. ..."
"... As far as stupid and barbarous decisions are concerned, it is difficult to top the war in Iraq. It is also difficult to match its price tag, which, according to a recent Brown University study, amounts to $1.1 trillion. ..."
"... Gore Vidal once christened his country the "United States of Amnesia," explaining that Americans live in a perpetual state of a hangover: "Every morning we wake up having forgotten what happened the night before." ..."
"... The war in Iraq ended only nine years ago, but it might as well have never taken place, given the curious lack of acknowledgement in our press and political debates. As families mourn their children, babies are born with irreversible deformities, and veterans dread trying to sleep through the night, America's political class, many of whom sold the war to the public, have moved on. When they address Iraq at all, they act as though they have committed a minor error, as though large-scale death and destruction are the equivalent of a poor shot in golf when the course rules allow for mulligans. ..."
"... As the Robert Mueller fiasco smolders out, it is damning that the Democratic Party, in its zest and zeal to welcome any critical assessment of Trump's unethical behavior, has barely mentioned that Mueller, in his previous role as director of the FBI, played a small but significant role in convincing the country to go to war in Iraq. ..."
"... Mueller testified to Congress that "Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program poses a clear threat to our national security." He also warned that Saddam could "supply terrorists with radiological material" for the purposes of devising a nuclear bomb. Leaving aside any speculation about Mueller's intentions and assuming he had only the best of motives, it is quite bizarre, even dangerous, to treat as oracular someone who was wrong on such a life-or-death question. ..."
"... The former vice president now claims that his "only mistake was trusting the Bush administration," implying he was tricked into supporting the war. This line is not as persuasive as he imagines. First, it raises the question -- can't we nominate someone who wasn't tricked? Second, its logic crumbles in the face of Biden's recent decision to hire Nicholas Burns, former U.S. ambassador to NATO, as his campaign's foreign policy advisor. Burns was also a vociferous supporter of the war. An enterprising reporter should ask Biden whether Burns was also tricked. Is the Biden campaign an assembly of rubes? ..."
"... Instead, the press is likelier to interrogate Biden over his holding hands and giving hugs to women at public events. Criticism of Biden's "inappropriate touching" has become so strident that the candidate had to record a video to explain his behavior. The moral standards of America's political culture seem to rate kissing a woman on the back of the head as a graver offense than catastrophic war. ..."
Gabbard calls out the betrayers; Dems try to forget their heroes Mueller and Biden are among them.
Estimates of the number of civilians who died during the war in Iraq range from 151,000 to 655,000. An additional 4,491 American
military personnel perished in the war. Mozhgan Savabieasfahani, toxicologist at the University of Michigan, has organized several
research expeditions to Iraq to measure the contamination and pollution still poisoning the air and water supply from the tons of
munitions dropped during the war. It does not require any expertise to assume what the studies confirm: disease is still widespread
and birth defects are gruesomely common. Back home, it is difficult to measure just how many struggle with critical injuries and
post-traumatic stress disorder.
The gains of war in Iraq remain elusive, especially considering that the justifications for invasion -- weapons of mass destruction,
Saddam Hussein's connection to al-Qaeda, the ambition to create a Western-style democracy at gunpoint -- remain "murky at best."
That's a quote from the 9/11 Commission's conclusion on the so-called evidence linking Iraq to Osama bin Laden's group, which actually
did carry out the worst terrorist attack in American history.
As far as stupid and barbarous decisions are concerned, it is difficult to top the war in Iraq. It is also difficult to match
its price tag, which, according to a recent Brown University study, amounts to $1.1 trillion.
Gore Vidal once christened his country the "United States of Amnesia," explaining that Americans live in a perpetual state
of a hangover: "Every morning we wake up having forgotten what happened the night before."
The war in Iraq ended only nine years ago, but it might as well have never taken place, given the curious lack of acknowledgement
in our press and political debates. As families mourn their children, babies are born with irreversible deformities, and veterans
dread trying to sleep through the night, America's political class, many of whom sold the war to the public, have moved on. When
they address Iraq at all, they act as though they have committed a minor error, as though large-scale death and destruction are the
equivalent of a poor shot in golf when the course rules allow for mulligans.
As the Robert Mueller fiasco smolders out, it is damning that the Democratic Party, in its zest and zeal to welcome any critical
assessment of Trump's unethical behavior, has barely mentioned that Mueller, in his previous role as director of the FBI, played
a small but significant role in convincing the country to go to war in Iraq.
Mueller testified to Congress that "Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program poses a clear threat to our national security."
He also warned that Saddam could "supply terrorists with radiological material" for the purposes of devising a nuclear bomb. Leaving
aside any speculation about Mueller's intentions and assuming he had only the best of motives, it is quite bizarre, even dangerous,
to treat as oracular someone who was wrong on such a life-or-death question.
Far worse than the worship of Mueller is the refusal to scrutinize the abysmal foreign policy record of Joe Biden, currently the
frontrunner in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. Of the Democrats in the Senate at that time, Biden was the most
enthusiastic of the cheerleaders for war, waving his pompoms and cartwheeling in rhythm to Dick Cheney's music. Biden said repeatedly
that America had "no choice but to eliminate the threat" posed by Saddam Hussein. As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
his blustering was uniquely influential.
The former vice president now claims that his "only mistake was trusting the Bush administration," implying he was tricked
into supporting the war. This line is not as persuasive as he imagines. First, it raises the question -- can't we nominate someone
who wasn't tricked? Second, its logic crumbles in the face of Biden's recent decision to hire Nicholas Burns, former U.S. ambassador
to NATO, as his campaign's foreign policy advisor. Burns was also a vociferous supporter of the war. An enterprising reporter should
ask Biden whether Burns was also tricked. Is the Biden campaign an assembly of rubes?
Instead, the press is likelier to interrogate Biden over his holding hands and giving hugs to women at public events. Criticism
of Biden's "inappropriate touching" has become so strident that the candidate had to record a video to explain his behavior. The
moral standards of America's political culture seem to rate kissing a woman on the back of the head as a graver offense than catastrophic
war.
Polling well below Biden in the race is the congresswoman from Hawaii, Tulsi Gabbard. She alone on the Democratic stage has made
criticism of American militarism central to her candidacy. A veteran of the Iraq war and a highly decorated major in the Hawaii Army
National Guard, Gabbard offers an intelligent and humane perspective on foreign affairs. She's called the regime change philosophy
"disastrous," advocated for negotiation with hostile foreign powers, and backed a reduction in drone strikes. She pledges if she
becomes president to end American involvement in Afghanistan.
When Chris Matthews asked Gabbard about Biden's support for the Iraq war, she said, "It was the wrong vote. People like myself,
who enlisted after 9/11 because of the terrorist attacks, were lied to. We were betrayed."
Her moral clarity is rare in the political fog of the presidential circus. She cautions against accepting the "guise of humanitarian
justification for war," and notes that rarely does the American government bomb and invade a country to actually advance freedom
or protect human rights.
Gabbard's positions are vastly superior to that of the other young veteran in the race, Pete Buttigieg. The mayor of South Bend
recently told New York that one of his favorite novels is The Quiet American , saying that its author, Graham Greene,
"points out the dangers of well-intentioned interventions."
Buttigieg's chances of winning the nomination seem low, and his prospects of becoming a literary critic appear even lower.
The Quiet American does much more than raise questions about interventions: it is a merciless condemnation of American exceptionalism
and its attendant indifference to Vietnamese suffering.
Americans hoping for peace won't find much comfort in the current White House either. President Trump has made the world more
dangerous by trashing the Iran nuclear deal, and his appointment of John Bolton, a man who makes Donald Rumsfeld look like Mahatma
Gandhi, as national security advisor is certainly alarming.
America's willful ignorance when it comes to the use of its own military exposes the moral bankruptcy at the heart of its political
culture. Even worse, it makes future wars all but inevitable.
If no one can remember a war that ended merely nine years ago, and there's little room for Tulsi Gabbard in the Democratic primary,
how will the country react the next time a president, and the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, declare that they
have no choice but to remove a threat?
Norman Solomon, journalist and founder of the Institute for Public Accuracy, knows the answer to that question. He provides it
in the title of his book on how the media treats American foreign policy decisions: War Made Easy .
Where ae the people who told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? Should they be tried for lying to the American public?
4500 troops killed and over $1.1 TRILLION wasted with no good results .With hundreds of thousands of Iraq's killed. .
Where are they, indeed? They are still running US foreign policy; that's where they are. They are pundits in all the major media;
that's where they are.
I cannot even imagine what historians will say about the uncanny persistence of these charlatans' influence in this era after
a consistent record of disastrous, abysmal misadventures.
You don't have to look too hard to find them. Bolton, Pompeo, and other neocons are hiding in plain sight. The Military Industrial
Complex is embedded in our foreign policy like a tick on a dog.
Because you'd be knocking out a storm trooper instead of the emperor, at least as far as Bush goes. Same for why the focus is
on Bolton rather than simply Trump.
I CAN see an argument that Trump/Bush knew what they were doing when they brought those people in though. f you feel that way
and see it more of an owner of a hostile attack dog then yeah, you'd want to include those two too.
Here stands Tulsi. A woman, who, unlike their conventional troupe, can win this election. They reject her because... what? Moar
war? She's not the member of the Cult? Or it's simply some sort of collective political death wish?
They reject her because she had the temerity to speak truth to power and supported Bernie Sanders in the 2016 race. She stepped
down from her position as Vice Chair of the DNC to endorse Sanders. She has real courage, and earned their wrath. She's not perfect
but she's braver and stronger than almost the entire field. Only Bernie is on par.
And Bernie is the one they also hate, maybe a little bit less openly. Thus they reject those who can win the election. It's either
a self-destructiveness or they think that it's better to keep on losing than to rebuild the party into what it needs to be.
Democrats and the Republican establishment, both, love war. It wasn't a coincidence that Hillary Clinton chose Madeleine Albright
to be a keynote speaker at "her" party convention ("we think the deaths of a half million children are worth it"). Liberals know
that there isn't really any "free" free, and that taxing the rich won't match their dreams -- it is the blood and bones of innocent
foreigners that must pay for their lust. Establishment Republicans are more straightforward: they simply profit off the death
and destruction.
This is why Trump is being destroyed, and why Tulsi is attacked. If only "she" (the one who gloated over Khameni's murder)
had been elected, we'd be in a proxy war with Russia now! A real war with Iran! This is what the American people want, and what
they'll likely get when they vote another chicken-hawk in come 2020.
Tulsi, like Sanders is a 'danger' to everything Israel wants.
So, all...all the main 'news' networks and online sites don't like them and give more coverage to the same old Dem bull peddlers
like ignorant Booker and the lousy opportunist low IQ Kamala Harris and Gillibrand.
Manafort and his ilk can be tried and convicted for their lies. I guess if the lie is big enough we grant a pass on any need for
prosecution. Justice for all? I don't think so.
Max Blumenthal posted a powerful piece at Consortium News (7/31/2019) about Biden's central and south American mis-adventures.
Biden still extols his own policies however disastrous. The hubris of the man is worse than nauseating.
Whether one thinks Gabbard has a shot at the nomination or not, it's important to keep her on the stage in the next round of debates.
Go to Tulsi2020.com
and give her just one dollar (or more if you can)
so she has enough unique contributors to make the next round. And if you get polled,early on give her your vote.
The total US costs related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are expected to be considerably larger than $1.1 trillion, according
to this study:
https://www.hks.harvard.edu...
Try $4-$6 trillion, according to the author of the study.
Long after I, Andrew Bacevitch and Hillary Clinton have gone to our reward, there will still be thousands of wounded warriors
from these US Middle East adventures dependent on VA benefits for their survival and competing with civilian seniors for government
handouts. A war with Iran would make the US fiscal situation that much worse.
The religious folks who were so anxious to protect family values only a few years ago seem to have their heads in the sand
when it comes to the financial future of today's young Americans.
A few weeks ago, I made a token contribution to Tulsi Gabbard's campaign to help her qualify for the July Democratic debates.
She will need more new contributors to qualify for the next round of debates.
Tulsi hasn't a chance of the nomination, but she's exposing things and maybe more people will get a clue about what's really going
on with American lives and taxes being squandered for the profit of the few who benefit from these atrocities and wars abroad,
done in the name of all Americans.
Being a supporter of Tulsi Gabbard for the very reasons that the author writes, has me agreeing with everything he has promoted
in his piece.
However, to answer his own question as to why Americans are lured into commenting on such innocuous and foolish things in such
an important election such as Biden's touching of women, is answered by the author's own prose.
He states that Americans are only provided such nonsense from the press that is monitoring the election process. What else
can people talk about? And even if many Americans are clearheaded enough to understand the charade of the current Democratic debates,
what or who will actually provide legitimate coverage with the exception of online sites as the American Conservative, among others?
If most Americans were actually thinking individuals, Tulsi Gabbard would be a shoo-in for the presidency in 2020. However,
given the two factors of a highly corrupted mainstream press and too many Americans not studying enough civics to understand what
is going on around them, it is highly unlikely that Tulsi Gabbard will even get close to the possibility of being nominated...
Cheney, mentioned in the article, was pure evil. I voted for GB2 for two reasons. 1) He was a very good Texas governor. He actually
got anti-tax Texas to raise taxes dedicated to support education, in return for stricter standards for teachers. A good trade
since Texas public schools were awful. 2) Dick Cheney. I thought he was the adult in the room that would provide steady and reliable
guidance for Bush.
Boy was I wrong about Cheney. "Deficits don't matter". Just watch the movie Vice. Christian Bale does an incredible job portraying
the pure evil of Cheney and the Military Industrial Complex. The movie is chilling to watch. And it is basically true. Politifact
does a good job of scoring the accuracy of Cheney's role in the Bush administration as portrayed in the movie.
'Conspiracy theory' is how the mainstream media characterizes any narrative that differs
from their reporting of the official line. What is a conspiracy theory? Can it be defined in
categorical terms? Can a conspiracy theory be validated forensically or refuted by similar
means? What criteria can be used to differentiate between a conspiracy theory and theoretical
musings?
The labelling of a theory as 'conspiratorial' is an attempt to discredit its author/authors
and deny its validity. A 'conspiracy theory' usually involves an explanatory thesis that points
to a malevolent plot often involving a secretive interested party. The term 'conspiracy theory'
has a pejorative connotation: its use suggests that the theory appeals to prejudice and/or
involves a farfetched, unsubstantiated narrative built on insufficient evidence.
Those who oppose conspiracy theories argue that such theories resist falsification and are
reinforced by circular reasoning, that such theories are primarily based on beliefs, as opposed
to academic or scientific reasoning.
But this critique is also not exactly based on valid scholarly principles. It isn't just
'conspiracy theories' that resist falsification or are reinforced by circular reasoning. The
philosopher Karl Popper, who defined the principle of falsifiability, would categorically
maintain that Freudian psychoanalysis and Marxism fail for the same reasons. The Oedipal
complex, for instance, has never been scientifically proven and can't be scientifically
falsified or validated. Marxism also resists falsification. Despite Marx's 'scientific'
predictions, the proletarian revolution never occurred. I have personally never come across
anyone who refers to Marx or Freud as 'conspiracy theorists.' 'Resisting falsification' and
"reinforced by circular reasoning," are traits of non-scientific theories and do not apply only
to 'conspiracy theories.'
The Oxford English Dictionary defines conspiracy theory as "the theory that an event or
phenomenon occurs as a result of a conspiracy between interested parties; spec. a belief
that some covert but influential agency (typically political in motivation and oppressive in
intent) is responsible for an unexplained event".
The Oxford dictionary does not set forth the criteria that define a conspiracy theory in
categorical terms. The history of mankind is saturated with references to hidden plots led by
influential parties.
The problem with refuting conspiracy theories is that they are often more elegant and
explanatory than the official competing narratives. Such theories have a tendency to ascribe
blame to hegemonic powers. In the past, conspiracy theories were popular mostly amongst fringe
circles, they are now becoming commonplace in mass media. Alternative narratives are widely
disseminated through social media. In some cases, they have been disseminated by official news
outlets and even by the current American president. It is possible that the rapid rise in
popularity of alternative explanatory theories is an indication of a growing mistrust of the
current ruling class, its ideals, its interests and its demography.
The response to the story of Jeffrey Epstein's suicide is illustrative. The official
narrative provoked a reaction that was a mixture of disbelief expressed in satire and inspired
a plethora of theories that attempted to explain the saga that had escalated into the biggest
sex scandal in the history of America and beyond.
The obvious question is what has led to the increase in popularity of so called 'conspiracy
theories'? I would push it further and ask, why is a society that claims to be 'free' is
threatened by the rise of alternative explanatory narratives?
In truth, the question is itself misleading. No one is really afraid of 'conspiracy
theories' per se. You will not be arrested or lose your job for being a 'climate change
denier.' You may speculate on and even deny the moon landing as much as you like. You are free
to speculate about Kennedy's assassination as long as you don't mention the Mossad . You can even
survive being a 911 truther and espouse as many alternative narratives as you like, however,
the suggestion that ' Israel did 911' will get you
into serious trouble. Examining 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' as a fictional,
however
prophetic , piece of literature can lead to imprisonment in some countries. Digging into
the true origin of Bolshevism and the demographics of the Soviet revolution is practically a
suicidal act. Telling the truth about Hitler's agreement with the Zionist agency
will definitely result in your expulsion from the British Labour party and you will be accused
of being
at the least, theoretically conspiratorial .
"... Liberal use of the word "conspiracy" simply distorts reality. For instance, were founding fathers of America conspirators? They certainly worked against the established order; they must have been secretive, at least in the beginning-otherwise they would have been hanged; British crown surely looked on their activities as something malign, from their perspective. ..."
"... In American jurisprudence a "conspiracy" is a common felony charge, legally defined as collusion between at least two people to commit a criminal act – which could in itself merely constitute a misdemeanor. Just because people may openly indulge in such actions, presumably because they feel immune to prosecution, does not mean that they are not engaging in conspiratorial behavior. ..."
"... "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." – Voltaire ..."
The 'Enemy Outside' could be a legitimate American patriotic/nationalist reaction to foreign
domination of American foreign policy. This kind of argument is supported by well-researched
academic studies such as that of Mearshehimer and Walt as well as that of
James Petras who studied the Israel Lobby and its impact. Such hostile foreign domination
has been explored by various media outlets including Al Jazeera's exposé of the Israel
Lobby in both Britain and the USA . The current American
administration and its biased policy in favour of Israeli positions gives credence to those who
see Israel as the 'enemy outside.' Yet, none of the above has 'conspired' behind the scenes.
All is done in the open. You just can't discuss it in the open.
... ... ...
In my recent book Being in Time
, I argue that Jews tend to dominate the discourses that are relevant to their existence and
interests. I refer to it as Jewish survival instinct. Jewish activists and intellectuals also
tend to dominate the dissent to problematic symptoms associated with their group identity: Jews
are often, for instance, associated with capitalism, banking and wealth in general, and Jews
are also equated with Marxist and socialist opposition to capitalism, banking and wealth.
Obviously, many Jews are associated with the Jewish State and the Zionist project but it is no
secret that Leftist Jews also dominate the anti Zionist discourse and politics. Jews, at least
in the eyes of some, are leading pro immigration advocates. But some of the most vocal anti
immigration and anti Muslim campaigners are also
Jewish. In Being in Time I argue that the fact that Jews dominate both polls of pretty much
every topic relevant to their existence isn't necessarily 'conspiratorial.' It is only natural
for ethical and humanist Jews to oppose Zionism, or Wall Street. It is also natural based on
their history, for Jews as a group to simultaneously oppose and support immigration. Natural as
it may be, the presence of Jews in key ideological, political, cultural and financial positions
is undeniable. It is more than likely that their domination on both sides of so many crucial
political debates invites conspiratorial thoughts.
Jewish economist Murray Rothbard contrasts "deep" conspiracy theories with "shallow" ones.
According to Rothbard, a shallow theorist observes an event and asks, who benefits? He or she
then jumps to the conclusion that the posited beneficiary is responsible for covertly
influencing events. Under this theory, Israel benefiting from the events of 9/11 made it into a
prime suspect. This is often a completely legitimate strategy and is exactly how detective and
investigative researchers operate. In order to identify the culprit, they may well ask who
would benefit from the crime. Of course this is only a first step towards substantiation.
According to Rothbard the "deep" conspiracy theorist begins with a hunch and then seeks out
evidence. Rothbard describes deep conspiracy theory as the result of confirming whether certain
facts actual fit one's initial 'paranoia.' This explanation pretty much describes a lot of how
science works. Any given scientific theory defines the realm of facts that may support or
refute its validity. Science is a deductive reasoning process, so that in science, it is the
theory that defines the relevance of the evidence. Would Rothbard describe Newtonian physics as
'deeply conspiratorial'? I doubt it. My guess is that, bearing Rothbard in mind, attributing a
'conspiratorial nature' to a theory is an attempt the deny the relevance of the evidence it
brings to light.
If for instance, the theory that Epstein was a Mossad agent is 'conspiratorial,' then the
facts that he was a business partner of Ehud Barak and
involved in a company that uses Israeli military intelligence tactics become irrelevant. The
same applies to former Federal Prosecutor Alex Acosta's admission that Epstein belonged to
intelligence and that was why he was the beneficiary of a laughable plea deal. If, for
example, the theory that it was the Jews who led the 1917 Bolshevik revolution is
'conspiratorial,' then the facts regarding the demography that led
the revolution and its criminal nature are of no
consequence. The labelling of a theory as conspiratorial is an attempt to erase uncomfortable
evidence by reprioritising the relevance of certain facts.
It seems that Rothbard and others have failed to produce categorical criteria to identify or
define Conspiracy Theories. We may have to accept that as of now, there is no categorical
standard to define a conspiracy theory. We may have to learn to live with the fact that some
theories are superior; simpler and more elegant than others. We will have to accept that some
of these theories make a few people pretty uncomfortable and they will explore every avenue to
discredit such theories and their authors. Attributing a conspiratorial nature to an
explanatory theory is just one of these methods.
Another great article by Gilad which shines a much-needed light on why people who question
the official version of reality must be demonized. Group think must be imposed on all the
wayward sheep if they are to be herded off to market.
Reminds me of a quip "The Jews definitely don't run the media, banking system, or dominate
politics; and don't you dare argue they do or they'll deplatform you, lock you out of payment
systems, and get legislation passed against you."
It is only natural for ethical and humanist Jews to oppose Zionism, or Wall Street.
How are Zionism and the Wall Street banker Jews connected? Does the author understand that
Zionism is the opposite to internationalism? That Zionism is the call to resettle all Jews in
Palestine?
All these neo-Nazi thinkers using the word Zionism for something else disturb me. Zionism
is a natural ally to White supremacy, can't you see? Zionists literally support cleansing
White countries out of all Jews!
Another boon to that strategy is that it would be incredibly easy to enact the Final
Solution when their entire race lives on a few square kilometres of a far-away desert. Just
choose the appropriate weather conditions when the wind blows to another desert.
Disclaimer: I use the words "neo-Nazi", "racism" and "White supremacy" with an obviously
positive meaning. Modern kids understand far more things than in the late previous century,
but these words (including "Zionism") still scare and escape them.
Zionism is the call to resettle all Jews in Palestine
Wrong on several accounts. Zionism is the political wing of international finance. That is
why the Jewish embezzlers send all of the money there, and flee there.
Zionism is not about Palestine, it is about Eretz Israel – from the Nile to the
Euphrates, and South into Jordan and Saudi Arabia. It is about controlling the oil reserves
in that area, which, at the time Zionism was formed, was the world's largest known oil
reserves. That is why Israel has never declared its borders, and refuses to do so.
Gilad, surely you know that the "theory conspiracy" is the most sinister conspiracy of them
all. Once consigned to theory, an explanation of events becomes an easy target for any party
threatened by its potential influence.
Last I checked, the CIA doesn't hold any copyright for it.
@j2 I hope you realize that when Jewish people read your post they are thinking you are
from another planet, that is the conspiracy. They scratch their collective heads.
Most Jews are trying to get thru the day like you, figuring out how to earn a living and
maybe go on vacation. Personally I have not been on one in 15 years I am so stressed about
supporting myself in the arts.
You do realize you are mentally ill? Jews do not have time to conspirer against anyone. Would
you have time to create intentional chaos in the world to take it over?
I like the Neo Nazis more then the conspiracy crazies, they just hate Jews for no reason. Not
like you with your invasion of the body snatchers scenario.
@Gilad Atzmon The mentioned Murray Rothbard said of Revisonism:
"Revisionism has the general function of bringing historical truth to a public that had
been drugged by wartime lies and propaganda.
Now revisionism teaches us that this entire myth, so prevalent then and even now about
Hitler, and about the Japanese, is a tissue of fallacies from beginning to end. Every plank
in this nightmare evidence is either completely untrue or not entirely the truth. If people
should learn this intellectual fraud about Hitler's Germany, then they will begin to ask
questions, and searching questions, about the current World War III version of the same
myth. Nothing would stop the current headlong flight to war faster, or more surely cause
people to begin to reason about foreign affairs once again, after a long orgy of emotion
and cliché.
For the same myth is now based on the same old fallacies. And this is seen by the
increasing use that the Cold Warriors have been making of the "Munich myth": the
continually repeated charge that it was the "appeasement" of the "aggressor" at Munich that
"fed" his "aggression" (again, the Fu Manchu, or Wild Beast, comparison), and that caused
the "aggressor," drunk with his conquests, to launch World War II. This Munich myth has
been used as one of the leading arguments against any sort of rational negotiations with
the Communist nations, and the stigmatizing of even the most harmless search for agreement
as "appeasement." It is for this reason that A.J.P. Taylor's magnificent Origins of the
Second World War received probably its most distorted and frenetic review in the pages of
National Review.
The task of revisionism has been to penetrate beneath these superficialities and
appearances to the stark realities underneath -- realities which show, certainly in this
century, the United States, Great Britain, and France -- the three great "democracies" --
to be worse than any other three countries in fomenting and waging aggressive war.
Realization of this truth would be of incalculable importance on the current scene.
For revisionism, in the final analysis, is based on truth and rationality. Truth and
rationality are always the first victims in any war frenzy; and they are, therefore, once
again an extremely rare commodity on today's "market." Revisionism brings to the artificial
frenzy of daily events and day-to-day propaganda, the cool but in the last analysis
glorious light of historical truth. Such truth is almost desperately needed in today's
world."
– Righteous Jew, Murray Rothbard, Review of The Origins of the Second World War,
1966 http://mises.org/daily/2592
Yes, there's considerable truth to your point. But, I it ignores the issue
of "organised jewry/zionism". This minority within a minority basically exists to push the
Israel/Jewish interest.
AIPAC is a good example. Soros, the gambling billionaire & the
Power Rangers guy are also examples.
"Average" Jew's may or may not give support to such entities.
@Adûnâi "That Zionism is the call to resettle all Jews in Palestine?"
The goals of zionism included the establishment of a nation, but it doesn't follow that
resettling all jews there is another goal. The primary goal is the establishment of control
over all other nations by this one nation established supposedly as a homeland for jews.
That would seem to involve keeping the diaspora jews in place in other countries.
I hate the word "conspire." It only takes people acting in consensus to
cause harm, and while acting only in consensus, instead of conspiracy, may remove moral
culpability, harm may still be inflicted.
The angry wasps who sting you are not conspiring, only acting in consensus to fulfill the
biologic imperative to protect the nest, but they can nonetheless cause harm.
As usual, interesting, but not quite satisfactory article.
I don't find Walker's 5 points convincing at all. Simply, this is a bad model. As for
Rothbard's "deep conspiracy"- this is a word-juggling, nothing more. It is better to stick to
usual definitions one can find in ordinary media, for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
To be a conspiracy, you have to have:
* small group of conspirators, some kind of secret society (whether an individual would
qualify?)
* their activity being illegal or against the law
* sinister motives & goals
Liberal use of the word "conspiracy" simply distorts reality. For instance, were founding
fathers of America conspirators? They certainly worked against the established order; they
must have been secretive, at least in the beginning-otherwise they would have been hanged;
British crown surely looked on their activities as something malign, from their
perspective.
But all revolutionary movements & most social activities share these traits simply
because such are human nature & societies.
Hardcore conspiratorial world-view is something else. It posits at least two dogmas: a)
everything is not as it looks like, the consensus social reality is, somehow, appearance, b)
everything that happens has a cause, nothing is coincidental, random etc.
GA has enumerated many so called conspiracies (fake Moon landing, 9/11, Protocols of
Elders, Jewish activism in human rights era ..). I doubt those historical (non)events have
much in common.
So was Epstein's case some kind of conspiracy?
Secrecy? Well, he was quite open about many things, but evidently Lolita express was not
publicized. The fact is that he had hidden those underage prostitution activity, not to speak
about possible money laundering & perhaps Mossad connection. So- check.
Against the law & illegal ? Check.
Sinister? Check.
So, I would say that Epstein case, as is usual with prostitution rings & shady
financial deals & all other dirt was a conspiracy. But it is not a conspiracy theory yet.
Such sleazeball activity has been with us from the beginning. It would be much bigger if it
really involved spying, intelligence, blackmail or something similar.
Most so called conspiracy theories are nothing like "conspiracy", but reflect trends in
societies which ruling classes, from their own interests, try to manipulate with. Unz has
written extensively about that (McCain & Vietnam prisoners silence; FBI & Sibel
Edmonds,..)- see http://www.unz.com/article/our-american-pravda/
I think we need a more precise term, otherwise it is not more than a world-view of an
obscurantist paranoiac.
For obvious reasons Jews are alarmed by theories that focus on their politics, culture,
religion, folklore etc. It seems that Jewish bodies have been sufficiently forceful to
silence most attempts to criticise Jewish and Israeli politics. That leads to the question
of why Jews, Zionism, Judaism and Jewishness are so often the subject of conspiratorial
theories.
Not very obvious to someone like you, who fits every concoction you can think of, then
wraps it into a philosophy or mathematical theorem to help you sell it to the pseudo
intelligent Jew haters, allowing you to escape the Neo Nazi racists. You use your
intellectual prowess to hide your sadistic joy at watching the destruction of the Jewish
people, which proves your theory:
Behold the set up of the world and its non Jews (by the Jews) for their own gain thru an
elaborate plot created by their god who chose them. Everything in the world is set in motion
by this plot of the chosen.
The Jews were involved in the greatest conspiracy the world has ever known. The killing
of the savior of the world, the son of god . I think you can cut to the chase scene by
saying that all conspiracy theories from that time on involving the Jews were based on a
version of that plot, which also involved the Romans as co conspirators.
So the conspiracy is baked into the cake of the Jewish story. That is why it is forbidden
to discuss Jewish conspiracy theories. It took Vatican 2 to finally let go of the Roman
Catholic conspiracy of the Jews killing Christ, and put the blame on the Romans.
Zionism was an attempt to center the Jewish existence to a land and their own political
universe, so as to be able to control their own narrative, removing them from Christian
Europe.
Your conspiracy is hyper conspiratorial as only Jewish conspiracies interest you, nothing
tangential or counter conspiratorial to the Jews will ever work. You manipulate to come to
the same conclusion over and over. Ever wonder what an Islamic conspiracy theory would look
like?
Your one conspiracy theory regarding the Jews is tainted with craziness.
I suspect that one is allowed to deviate from the official narrative and speculate on
hidden plots on any given topic except probably the Jewish related ones.
Hello that is all anyone talks about!!. This site is dedicated to Jewish conspiracy
theories.
What fucking planet do you live on?
It is all a locked and loaded emotional story for you. Your writings contain no logic like
your Athens model. To me you are a total nut job.
Even us little nobodies have to be careful regarding "conspiracies". When i started my
current job 3 yrs ago i made the mistake of taking a book on 9/11 out of my bag and it was
sitting on my desk. The little jerk who sat in front of me saw it and immediately typed the
author and title into a search engine .and BaMB! There it was the author was a hollowcost
denier, he informed me!! After that he was colder than he had been before and other
co-workers gave me dirty looks so I know the little jerk went off and gossiped on me. The guy
is christian zionist although he looks jewish and has a jewish last name.
Needless to say, I had a rocky first year and didn't quite fit in, which actually makes me
feel good. Who'd want to fit in with a place like that. Luckily, my stats were good enough to
qualify to work at home so I at least escaped that little butcher market of a workplace.
You never know how quickly you can be accused of being a Conspiracy theorist or worse. It
sneaks up on you when you least expect it.
@Wally Back in 1966 many Jews saw revisionism as a valid and even necessary outlook,,,
this changed when holocaust revisionism pointed at cracks in the Zionist H narrative .
@animalogic This is why I recommend to differentiate between Jews (the ppl), Judaism (the
religion) and Jewishness (ideology, politics and culture) I made a conscious choice not to
talk about 'the Jews' as I do not posses the means to study them as a group. I hardly speak
about Judaism as I am not an expert but i do criticise Jewishness: the culture, the politics,
the identity, the ideology Once we pass this stage we can also move forward and look into
'self identifying Jews' and examine what this means i.e. what exactly they identify with
however, the suggestion that 'Israel did 911' will get you
the following message at the link you provided:
" This account has been terminated due to multiple or severe violations of YouTube's
policy prohibiting hate speech. "
He operated in the open. I am afraid that there is not much evidence of Jewish
conspiracies.
In American jurisprudence a "conspiracy" is a common felony charge, legally defined as
collusion between at least two people to commit a criminal act – which could in itself
merely constitute a misdemeanor. Just because people may openly indulge in such actions,
presumably because they feel immune to prosecution, does not mean that they are not engaging
in conspiratorial behavior.
Maybe you could expand your limited (circular) definition of " Jewish Power "
– paraphrasing: the ability to prevent open discussion of Jewish power – to
include the ability to openly engage in conspiratorial acts without fear of legal
retribution.
"The Jews were involved in the greatest conspiracy the world has ever known. The killing of
the savior of the world, the son of god. I think you can cut to the chase scene by saying
that all conspiracy theories from that time on involving the Jews were based on a version of
that plot, which also involved the Romans as co conspirators. "
and concerning Atzmon:
"Your one conspiracy theory regarding the Jews is tainted with craziness."
You are sadly ignorant of the history of Jewish messianism. If you want to find crazy
people, you should study them and see how mentally ill some of your own people were. I give
you another lesson of the history of Jewish messianism, you will see that killing Jesus has
not been the source of the conspiracy theories of Jews.
Jews conspired against Rome for 600 years. Three times they started a war (66, 115 and
132), once they tried to build a temple (363) and once they joined Parsians in a war (614),
later they helped Muslims to conquer Spain in a conspiratoral manner, and also Levant. But
after they had lost to Heracleios, Jewish leaders considered having made a pact with gentile
kings (not only the Emperor of Byzantium) that Jews will not rebel against the king before
the time the Messiah comes. To justify this pact they referred to the Song of Songs, a
messianic text of the love of the Messiah and Israel, to the verse that the bride must not
wake up love before it is its time. That is, Jews never made any permanent promise to be
loyal to the king, it was just for the time. But there was to be the end of the times, the
time when the Messiah arrives. Many Messiah aspirants arrived, but none got wide support,
most were either magicians (David Alroy) or kabbalists (Abraham ben Abulafia). So up to the
time when British puritans got the crazy idea that American Indians are a Lost Tribe of
Israel. Finding the lost tribes meant the end of the times. Manesseh ben Israel supported
this interpretation and under British and Dutch Jewish influence Shabbatai Zevi started
preaching that he is the Messiah, the year was 1648. Over half of Jews believed in him, but
the mission failed. But it did not stop, it continued in two fronts. The less important was
Donmeh. Jacob Frank got his crazy idea of being the Messiah from Donmeh. The important front
was that European occultists, later to be Fremasons, accepted this idea. Some Jews joined
Freemasons. Some were converted Frankists, some were assimilated Jews. Some were powerful,
like Cremieux and Rothschild. This started the pre-Zionist conspiracy for creating Israel and
gaining world power.
I perfectly well understand that a secular Jew, who has rudimentary understanding of
Kabbalah and no knowledge of the history of Jewish messianism, like you, Fran Taubman, does
not know anything about this. But why do you write your nonsense comments and accuse other
people of crazyness when it is you who are remarkably ignorant of the religion and history of
your people?
My dear Fran, try to concentrate. I actually argue repeatedly in the piece above and through
my entire body of work that there are NO Jewish conspiracies! All is done in the open, from
AIPAC, to ADL, to Israeli criminality, to Epstein and the organised crime apparatus he was
part of the only thing we see evidence of is an orchestrated relentless attempts to suppress
the discussion of these topics. Far from being a great surprise, all you do on this thread
and others is just that, desperately trying to supress the discussion the J political,
cultural and identitarian symptoms
The impression one gets after watching the routine interviewing and watching the targeted
questions by the interviewers of those potentially guilty of a crime either in a police head
quarter or in s court are nothing but a conspiracy theory built around loose connections ,
possibilities, absence of better explanations and presence of reasons of economic, religious,
identity -based reasons , or based on emotions .
Often those who deride the ' conspiracy theorist' use the argument that no direct evidence
is seen or shown to exist .
With that argument a killer can also challenge the accuser "did you see me killing "
Conspiracy theory is also a theory that explains entirely or partly certain crimes .
Dismissing them is the best defense the criminal minds and their apologist can unfortunately
can employ often successfully.
@Gilad Atzmon Politely & patiently, and to Fran Taubman, Gilad Atzmon tried to (in
futility) explain:
" there are NO Jewish conspiracies! All is done in the open, from AIPAC, to ADL, to Israeli
criminality, to Epstein and the organised crime apparatus he was part of the only thing we
see evidence of is an orchestrated relentless attempts to suppress the discussion of these
topics."
Dear Gilad Atzmon,
Re; above, In my Amerika, the only example of Israeli accountability for evident
commitment of high (political) espionage crimes was Jonathan Pollard's arrest &
imprisonment.
Of course, contemporary Jewish lesser criminals, for examples, the (temporarily punished)
Marc Rich, Bernie Madoff, and Harvey Weinstein were held accountable to flexible & unjust
US law. Haha. Jeffrey Epstein almost had his day in US court.
The great elite Jewish advantage in western nations is unaccountability for their
crimes.
In my "Homeland," those routinely committed by AIPAC & the ADL are enshrined as
virtues.
Unaccountable to conscience, the ideologically blind & evangelical Fran Taubman, has
no need to "concentrate" on what intellectual advantage you try to give her.
Very sad because ever objective international Elders of Zion even recognize the fact of
prized-Jewish unaccountablity for the worst crimes ever committed against mankind. They are
likely grateful for having such "Crime & Punishment" exemption
The issue is the Jewish mind's 'unwillingness to consider criticism'. I
dated a woman like that. It was an impossible task to come to consensus. In her case it was
narcissism, in the Jewish case it is the Avodah Zarah of chosenness. After all – if you
are God chosen, why look inside for fault? All fault naturally is external to your blessed
self.
This is the problem. And this is where the downfall of the Jewish faith will come from.
After all, the only reform Judaism recognises is prophetic or messianic – entities
external to current Judaism that would force change on the unwilling. And given Christ's end,
and the prophets before – not sure many want to try this predictable path!
Most Jews I have ever met have been profoundly profoundly paranoid people
driven to bizzare behaviours by their covert animus against the people they live in the same
country with. They also without exception viewed the world as being us against them and this
was a world view over time that they were decidedly not capable of hiding even with their
best efforts.
By the way hasbara when you are going to point out that you are an ordinary Jewish person
who is so financially stressed she does not have the time to go on vacation you might want to
consider the fact that you have all the time in the world to get into paragraphs long
arguments in the comment section of *every single Gilad Atzmon article* . Kind of makes a
nonsense of your pretentions of being poor and stressed no? (An ordinary Jew lol-what even is
that, you yourself admit that they "scratch their collective heads' i.e that they are a
collective).
Anyway you should reconsider your piss poor defence of Jews. Just look at the comment
sections on Unz to see rampant Jewish ethnocentrism.
It is my belief that Epstein is alive and is in Israel, and since the zio/US is under the
control of zionists this fits the picture, and since the zionists got away with the attack on
the WTC on 911, they can get away with anything!
Zionism is not about Palestine, it is about Eretz Israel – from the Nile to the
Euphrates, and South into Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
I'd go one further, and state that Zionism is an agenda of global domination. Not just the Greater Levant, but N. America and Europe and everything else.
Whom, if not Zionists, are in control of the ZUSA in actual terms? Does the world's
remaining 'super-power' bomb nations all over the globe, sending myriad nations reeling into
the stone age, on behalf of Americans, or Zionists?
Ditto England and France and all the 'Five Eyes' nations.
Whom, if not Zionists, are the ones demanding that Germans (and many others) be imprisoned
for questioning any idiotic trope about WWII?
Is the West saber-rattling at Iran because Iran threatens the West? Or because Zionists
consider Iran to be inconvenient to their global hegemony and rapine?
One of the things that has amused me of late, is the hysteria over 'climate change'.
(((They)) soooo wanted their 'carbon tax', because that would have given them the
pretext to tax every last backwater on the planet. Power over everyone –
everywhere (in order to "save" the planet!)
Anyone who defied ((their)) power, would come under the global police force NATO (for the
sake of the planet!) and by force would be reminded who's in charge.
Who can doubt such is what happened to Gadhafi? He, (like Saddam) tried to defy their
power with his Gold Dinar, and was made an example of.
Such is the nefarious force (fiend) that Putin and Assad and the few remaining free
nations face daily.
They don't want to define their borders, because as they see it, the planet belongs
to them.
Very interesting. But take an example : Unz article on meritocracy showed how Jewish game the
system by having a strong over-représentation compared to merit and flooding the place
with ethnic so that at the end, they represent half of the whites.
But the reaction to that was far from " wide in the open ". They both tried to reduce
drastically the number of people counted as Jews – thanks to the polymorphic definition
of a jew – while reminding everyone they are just white.
And Harvard crimson has statistics about freshman about everything – SAT by race,
sexual orientation, being an athlete or being a legacy, but there is nothing about Jewish.
Wich is really not very " operating in the open " when you know the crowd there .
So Jews are perfectly able to operate in secret and distill theories to advance their
genetic interest while pretending it is done for other noble purposes. Take Ginsburg as a
paroxistic example : all life on minorities business. Only 1 black clerk out of 150 and two
third or more Jewish. She hasn't being bragging about that either .
I read an amusing Sorbonne master thesis from the 1910' written by a Jewish guy who
explained how The Jews – because of their universalism, kindness, and open heart
– helped the Indian during the far west against the Whites in all matters related to
trade and peace treaties. The Indian trusted them because they were amazed at their ability
to speak so many Indian languages (more than the Indian did) and understand their culture and
even make jokes and pronounce very profound and sacred sentences that would touch their
Indian heart and soul.
It didn't end well for them. I don't believe their were that stupid that the Jewish could
have tell them what was going to happen
One of the more interesting ironies is Fox News' and Conservatism Inc's use of "conspiracy
theory" to neutralize evidence revealing the deep state conspiracies that both Fox News and
Conservatism Inc claim to oppose.
They rule out unassailable evidence, regarding 911 for example, solely because it points
directly to Israeli and American deep state complicity, and in so doing they overturn Western
Civilization's thousand years' advance in reaching correct conclusions based on the evidence.
So much for their "conservatism."
They also constantly "poison the well," tarring unfavorable evidence by associating it
with with fringe insanity. And, not least, their elaborate efforts at concealing the truth of
911 provide powerful evidence of their guilt as co-conspirators of the deep state they
pretend to oppose.
The little jerk who sat in front of me saw it and immediately typed the author and title
into a search engine .and BaMB! There it was the author was a hollowcost denier, he
informed me!!..You never know how quickly you can be accused of being a Conspiracy theorist
or worse. It sneaks up on you when you least expect it.
Sorry to hear that happened to you.
Gotta wonder what the response might of been like if you'd had Orwell's 1984 openly
sitting on your desk instead.
Seriously, I wouldn't be half surprised if we don't see 1984 banned someday as hate
literature, ie 'hate lit', as it strikes too close to home.
'Thoughtcrime is a dreadful thing, old man,' he said sententiously. 'It's insidious. It
can get hold of you without your even knowing it..'
'Of course I'm guilty!' cried Parsons with a servile glance at the telescreen. 'You
don't think the Party would arrest an innocent man, do you?' His frog-like face grew
calmer, and even took on a slightly sanctimonious expression.
'Thoughtcrime is a dreadful thing, old man,' he said sententiously. 'It's insidious. It
can get hold of you without your even knowing it. Do you know how it got hold of me? In my
sleep! Yes, that's a fact. There I was, working away, trying to do my bit -- never knew I
had any bad stuff in my mind at all. And then I started talking in my sleep. Do you know
what they heard me saying?'
He sank his voice, like someone who is obliged for medical reasons to utter an
obscenity.
"Down with Big Brother!" Yes, I said that! Said it over and over again, it seems.
Between you and me, old man, I'm glad they got me before it went any further. Do you know
what I'm going to say to them when I go up before the tribunal? "Thank you," I'm going to
say, "thank you for saving me before it was too late."
@Sean McBride This may be obvious, but don't forget that the "official" narrative of 911
was itself a conspiracy theory.
In such cases it is the job of the intelligence community to provide "evidence" to support
_their_ conspiracy theory and to attack any other analysis as a "crazy conspiracy
theory".
Another example is the Oklahoma City bombing. The "official" theory was supported by the
intelligence community and their Mockingbird media. Anyone who attempted to question the
official narrative was denounced as a kook.
The intelligence community uses "events" to brainwash the public to accept their narrative
and accuse those who question it as conspiracy nuts.
I was personally involved in a close look at the Vince Foster "suicide" many years ago and
it fit the pattern. Witnesses were ridiculed and intimidated, researchers were attacked by
the major media, and the official narrative was passed into the history books.
The big picture "conspiracy" is simply intelligence community tradecraft. They have a
template and they use it over and over again:
–Create the "event" to eliminate enemies (or for other objectives like increasing
their budget and/or power)
–Use agents in the federal, state and local government, the law enforcement and
judicial agencies to control the "investigation"
–Use the mass media to disseminate the official narrative
–Use intimidation of non-official investigators (harassment to start, murder if
necessary)
–Use slander and arguments from authority to suppress dissenting views
Other examples of "events" include:
–Assassinations of JFK, RFK, MLK, attempted assassination of Reagan
–Mass shootings (including school shootings)
"I'd go one further, and state that Zionism is an agenda of global domination. Not
just the Greater Levant, but N. America and Europe and everything else."
Assuming it to be true,
Sounds like a concession to me. Well done. You're improving with your time spent here,
which lead us to this:
what are you doing to actively stop it other than commenting on a blog? Do you not have
a patriotic duty to head it off at the pass, even if it means making sacrifices? Is it not
about the cause? Are you not a true believer?
You see Corvy, I'm convinced that I've already done a great deal to heal your wounded
soul, and foster in you a newfound introspection that you've been sorely lacking.
So even tho I'm not Him, and willing to sacrifice myself to save humanity, I am
willing to do my part to be a light unto the world, so that, like a lighthouse in the storm,
lost souls like yourself can navigate their way to truth, which means beauty, which brings
meaning and love to a persons otherwise wretched and self-loathing existence.
Just seeing your progress here, is all the proof I need to know that I'm not wasting my
time here, and have done good works.
Soon you will be like a disciple, and go forth and spread the truth yourself. The
beautiful, often enigmatic, but always wondrous and miraculous.. truth.
And given Christ's end, and the prophets before – not sure many want to try this
predictable path!
In The
Poppy War R F Kuang explores power from numerous perspectives; in one insightful
conversation Rin is forced to realize that there is no power without pain.
In The Wondering Who, Atzmon focused on Esther as the model zionist. The Esther story
touches -- or introduces! -- several characteristics of Jewish power in USA / the world
today:
– alleged or pre-emptive victimhood
– working in secret to spy- controlling information in and information out : :
knowledge is power– Mordecai was able to insert Esther into the royal household based
on information gained by spying/snooping
– use of sexual activity in a perverted way, i.e. Esther used sexual attraction to gain
power but not to procreate (Rin had herself sterilized in order to become the perfect
'soldier'– gain power, which meant avoiding her fate if she did not acquire power:
marriage & sexual relations with an unpleasant man, in order to bear his children)
– decapitating the leadership of the Target and destroying their population, ability to
reproduce, and their culture
– religious or spiritual sentiments and even demands are cast aside in the pursuit of
political power
The Seth Rich story is coming back to life. A fellow named Butowski is exposing things.
He claims that Ellen Ratner of Fox News told him that Seth Rich and his brother Aaron gave
Wikileaks Hillary's emails. Julian Assange is said to have told Ellen Ratner.
The story is that the cover-up came down from now disgraced FBI agent, Andrew McCabe, to
the Mayor of DC and on down to the police. They were told to sit on the case.
The Seth Rich story tells us how corruption spreads. The Mayor of DC, Muriel Bowser, tells
Peter Newsham, the guy in charge of the Seth Rich investigation, to shut it down.
Then, a year later she promotes him to Chief of Police.
Eminent forensics Professor Cyril Wecht, a respected and courageous expert who played a
important role in debunking the lies and cover up surrounding the JFK assassination, does not
buy up Jeffrey Epstein's hanging himself just by leaning off his bed:
Re the Epstein story, the Occupied Media is focusing on the means rather than at the end. The
means: provide under-age sex to the so-called elite.
The end: blackmail the "elite" clients on behalf of a foreign intelligence service.
The Occupied Media is pretending the Caribbean island, the money, the connections, and the
organization were to provide sex for the so-called elite. It doesn't want to probe further as
to the reason for the existence of Epstein's monster.
There's nothing new here. From 1947 to 1961 the Mossad had a superspy in Lebanon who ran
half-a-dozen brothels in various parts of Beirut which specialized in servicing the elite.
The superspy, born in Argentina, was Shulamit Cohen. She had four or five fake names. For
fourteen years she extracted Lebanese and Syrian government secrets from her
government/military clients. Assisting her were a number of Jewish prostitutes (Rachel,
Marcella, Ronit, etc.) and several Arabs who received money and were provided with free
access to the prostitutes. Her primary Lebanese agent was Mahmoud Awad, a big wheel in the
government. Cohen was so well connected that in the early s she arranged a secret
meeting between a Syrian colonel and a Mossad agent. The colonel later became president of
Syria.
The Mossad provided her with secret cameras and other paraphernalia for blackmail
purposes.
Pioneering what Epstein did, Mrs. Cohen (she was married to a Jewish businessman) offered
a beautiful 14-year-old Lebanese girl to her top clients. Cohen also ran the Rambo "Pub" in
the affluent Hamra district to provide sexual services to government and military people. She
also installed sleepers in the army. Together with a French Jew she almost wrecked the
Lebanese banking system through an embezzlement scheme. In the late s, a Syrian
military officer told the Lebanese that Cohen was an Israeli spy. The nonchalant Lebanese
said Shula was above suspicion. But eventually (1961), Cohen was arrested along with some of
her associates. Awad conveniently died of a heart attack in jail a month after his arrest.
Cohen was condemned to death but the sentence was commuted to twenty years. In 1967, she was
handed to Israel in a prisoner exchange. She was hailed as a national hero there. Cohen lived
in Jerusalem for many years. There's a similar story about another Mossad madame in Egypt in
the pre-Nasser days.
Jeffrey Epstein interpretation options, from comments on the web:
Epstein's end -- 3 choices -- Suicide, murder, or in Israel?
Maybe ordered like this --
Broke -- Official story -- 'suicide' ?
Woke -- 'Murder' story -- distraction ?
Bespoke -- Real story -- extraction ? Jeffrey Epstein now lives in Israel ?
Was escape to Israel the ultimate payoff for Epstein's decades of work for Mossad,
grooming and abusing young teens, filmed in flagrante delicto with prominent people for
political blackmail?
As financed by the Mossad-supporting Mega group of a score of Jewish billionaires,
started in the 1990s by the ultra-ZIonist Bronfmans, & Jewish underwear mogul Les
Wexner, who gave Epstein tens of millions & let Epstein have the NYC mansion Wexner
bought?
With the Epstein 'death in jail' under the US Attorney General Bill Barr, whose
Jewish-born ex-OSS father Donald Barr had written a 'fantasy novel' on sex slavery with
scenes of rape of underage teens, 'Space Relations', written whilst Don Barr was headmaster
of the Dalton school, which gave Epstein his first job, teaching teens And Barr asking for an
'investigation' by also-Jewish DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz --
And Epstein's Jewish lawyers hiring 85-year-old Jewish forensic pathologist Dr Michael
Baden to review Epstein's autopsy, Baden infamous for his 1970s US Congress report supporting
the weird 'single magic bullet' argument in the JFK assassination, Baden helping to deflect
from any Israeli-Mossad involvement in President Kennedy's death --
Hence, Attorney General 'Butterball' Bill Barr, having been a CIA officer in youth
1973-77, the CIA supporting Barr thru night law school, as well as Barr having a Jewish-born
father will be hot on the trail of any Mossad links in the case, given the long-standing
CIA-Mossad connections?
QAnon had already laid it out for everyone to see.
William Barr's father hired Epstein in the early 1970's to work as a teacher at an
exclusive prep school. The father had worked in intelligence during World War II. Epstein was
groomed to work for Mossad. Interestingly enough, Barr's father wrote a science fiction novel
with a sexual slavery theme. Prominent men including Trump were pulled into Epstein's lair.
One such man is a famous Harvard lawyer, who used his White House connections to ensure
Epstein's untimely demise.
Go to NeonRevolt's site. He has further details. Sells merchandise, too.
Epstein dropped out of Cooper Union and NYU at age 20, but mysteriously got a job teaching
calculus and physics at the prestigious Dalton school in NYC. He was hired by then headmaster
Donald Barr (born Jewish converted to Catholicism), father of current AG William Barr. A year
later Donald Barr was forced out by a group of Dalton parents for not being "progressive"
enough and replaced by a guy named Dunnan, who was later accused of having an affair with a
teacher and also sexually molesting a 14 year old.
While at Dalton, Epstein taught the son of Bear Sterns CEO Ace Greenberg, and ended up
working at Bear Sterns. Five years later in 1981 he was fired from Bear Sterns for helping
Edgar Bronfman in an insider trading scandal, which Bronfman blamed on his (phantom) Italian
partner.
Bronfman' and his two daughters have been embroiled in the NXIVM sex scandal case.
Meanwhile, Epstein somehow got his start thanks to one major "investor", billionaire Les
Wexner, founder of the Limited, Abercombie & Fitch, Victoria's Secret etc. Bronfman and
Wexner co-founded mega, a Jewish organization that promotes Israel.
Epstein-Bronfman smells like a giant international Jew crime network that involves
blackmailing of wealthy people, celebrities and politicians for having sex with underage
girls. It's how Epstein gained his wealth. He had no money to start out. His "hedge fund" is
nothing but a fake front for billionaires to wire their ransom money, which is why it is
established offshore and so secretive. There has been two huge fires at his private island in
BVI btwn 2018 and Jan. 2019. Speculation is that lots of incriminating video footage was
burnt, but of course Epstein kept copies, and Mossad most likely has them as well. Got to
keep the blackmailing of our political and economic elites going. Israhell has a right to
exist.
miscalculation that the rotten West will help them instead of use them to create a
festering sore on Russian border for just a few billion dollars in loans.
A possibly a fatal miscalculation for Ukraine, but there is also an ideology involved. In
Maidan-Ukrainians case that ideology is Ukrainian nationalism combined with a servile Western
worship of almost cargo-cult level. An odd combination that has led to odd result.
West wanted Zelensky to win, the question is why. Tactically, Zelensky neutralized large
Russia-leaning block of voters: the 70% vote would have gone somewhere and they were not going
to vote for Poroshenko or Tymoshenko. So that misdirection was successful. But what was the
point? Let's look at what Zelensky is actually doing (not the throw-away comedy and rhetoric):
he is trying to allow sale of Ukrainian land to foreign investors. My guess is that he will
push it through and that will his main legacy. Buying up Ukrainian arable land has been a wet
dream for many in the West since 1991. Zelensky could deliver on it, and then move on.
In 3-5 years we could have an interesting scenario in Ukraine with land (its main wealth)
owned by foreign investors and a large % of population with Russian or Polish and other EU
passports. As always with ideology, the result is the exact opposite of what that ideology
claims: the dictatorship of proletariat impoverished and killed proletariat, Nazis dramatically
shrunk German lebensraum, liberals obsession with ' liberty and universal brotherhood '
is leading to censorship, suppression and group hostilities. But here we are and the
ideological idiocy that Maidan-Ukrainians embraced might not be reversible. This is not good
for anybody.
EU might decide to send its US overlords to Hell and pay Russia to take the hand
grenade away from the monkey.
How would EU go against its overlord? Even if EU would try, the existential
nihilism in Kiev will prevent compromise. Ideologues can't admit that their 'idea' didn't work,
they prefer destroying everything around. West is also at this point incapable of admitting an
error – they literally can't do it, the lying has to go on. That means that even
groundwork for any possible compromise can't be put in place. This is all the way down with
fireworks and it won't be pretty.
There is such a thing as a catastrophic error and the last 5 years in Ukraine comes
pretty close to it. That is not really fixable. The monkey night as well use the
grenade.
"The other significant force in the Ukraine is the West Ukrainian (Galician) Nazi
death-squads and mobs."
Where are death camps for the Jews? Where are racial laws that expel non-Ukrainians? Where
is the propaganda of eugenics and healthy lifestyle? Where are construction projects bringing
in jobs, and state-subsidized recreation tours?
Ukraine is a Jew-driven shithole that has nothing to do with National Socialism. They
don't even honour the sacrifice of the SS Galizien.
"but what they are genuinely fantasizing about is the territory, and only the territory.
As for the 2 million-plus virulently anti-Nazi people currently living on these lands, they
simply want them either dead or expelled)."
A lie. Currently, more than a half of those "expelled" have migrated inside Ukraine. A
stark contrast to Croatia where the Serbs were driven out of the country, and their land
given to Croats.
Again, Ukraine is suicidal and full of civic nationalism, nothing about it is
blood-based.
"They and their Polish supporters want Russia to break apart in numerous small state-lets
which they (or, in their delusional dreams, the Chinese) could dominate."
Why do you consider this as a negative for the Russian people? The current Russian state
is in its death throes as much as the US and France – the ethnic Russians are dying
out, fleeing and being replaced. Any alternative might prove out more hopeful.
"In contrast, the LDNR forces seem to be doing pretty well, and their morale appears to be
as strong as ever (which is unsurprising since their military ethos is based in 1000 years of
Russian military history)."
I have to remind you that the Donbass was colonized far more recently than Ukraine –
in the 18-19th centuries. What "ancient" traditions?
"but Novorussia also is a never healing wound in the side of Nazi-occupied Ukraine"
The Donbass has never been part of Novorussia which is to the west, from Dniepropetrovsk
to Odessa. Admittedly, Novorussia's colonists were mostly from Ukraine – it is clearly
seen on the language maps.
"The problem with this slogan is that there is simply no way the (relatively small)
Galician population can ever succeed in permanently defeating their much bigger (and,
frankly, much smarter) Jewish, Polish or Russian neighbors."
Khmelnitsky managed to do just that – 100k dead Jews. And he's on the Ukrainian
currency. Too bad modern "Nazi" Ukrainians have elected a Jew President. This is not the
Khmelnitsky uprising, this is Kiev under the Khazar Khaganate before Oleg came from the
North.
We all know the Hypocrisy of that War. Clinton had to distract the masses from MonicaGate
and Hillary had to prove to the MIC that she could be beneficial to them.
Result : Those Kosovo Albanians had a state handed to them, and instead of building
it(with uncle Sam's and EU help) as prosperous country, they used their weapons and
"expertise" in becoming the low level gangsters of Europe. Every Europol analysis points to
the direction of Kosovo Albanians as the criminal thugs in prostitution and drug trade and
protection rackets. The largest percentage of a single ethnic group in European jails is that
of Albanians.
The most unjust and illegal of wars in the late 20c.
There was only one reason to bomb white Christian brothers in Serbia thereby aiding the
Muslim of Kosovo and Albania, and that was Russia, which by that stage had got its act
together and dealt with the traitorous oligarchs who had sold their country out to the
west.
Hillary and her cronies no doubt lost a lot of money when the Russians shut their rat
lines down.
I hope I live long enough to see those fuckers swing, and Tony Blair, Alistair Campnell
and Peter Mandelson as well.
Again, your Muslims are to blame for everything. Muslims are all different. And it is
necessary to separate the faithful Muslims from the bandits who are only covered by Muslim
slogans.
NATO and your godless government are to blame!
An Afghan Freedom Fighter in Donbass - ENG SUBTITLE
It happened at the time of the Lewinsky affair and the possible impeachment of Clinton.
They needed a distraction.
Milosevic btw. agreed to all conditions imposed on the FR of Yugoslavia except for one
condition that nobody would accept: the full and unhindered access to the territory of FRY by
NATO troops. That effectively meant an occupation. Nobody would agree to that. NATO and
Albright deliberately came up with that condition for they knew it was unacceptable. Even
Kissinger said that condition was over the top. NATO and Albright wanted that war. Serbia
btw. saved Albright twice when she was still a little Slovakian Jewish girl whose family
found refuge twice in Serbia. Once they escaped the Nazis that way and the second time the
communists.
NATO thought they would need 48 hours but they needed 78 days and Milosevic only gave in
after NATO switched from hitting military targets to civilian targets: Hospitals, commuter
trains, civilian industry, an open market, random houses in random villages. After Milosevic
pulled out his troops out of Kosovo, the KLA started killing Serbs and moderate Albanians,
not to mention engage in organ trafficking (...). As the article said, well over 200k Serbs,
moderate Albanians, Roma and other minorities were ethnically cleansed from Kosovo.
The US also used cluster bombs and DU weapons. Of the 4000 Italian KFOR troops that went
into Kosovo after the bombing, 700 are dead from cancer and leukemia with several hundreds
more seriously ill. The American KFOR troops wore hazmat suits. The Italians did not have
them and were not warned. Today, many people in southern Serbia, Montenegro and Kosovo itself
are sick and dying.
yes just like USA tried to help Vietnam against communists... by killing 2 million
Vietnamese. and tried to help Korea by killing 20 % of the population. and by helping Iraq
get rid of "bad" Saddam Hussein by killing 2 million Iraqies.
Not disagreeing with you but lets remember that communists were killing a lot of people in
other areas not long before those wars in SE Asia. May have been a wash in the end.
Bring back the draft. On the whole Americans have no idea what the carnage of combat
produces. Combat vets do. And the ones that aren't natural psychopaths never want to
experience it again. This volunteer army we have is over loaded with a them. A military draft
will actually bring some sort civilian control.
Such ********. Do the millions we kill have any human rights? It's been going on for 4000
years. Ruthless pursuit of empire and fabricating phony justifications.
Hillary seems to enjoy killing people. If it wasn't Gaddaffi, it was all the people on her
body bag count, and now it's known she encouraged killing people in Serbia. Someone needs to
take that old cow out into the center of the town and burn her at the stake.
Partially true, otherwise as usually excellent Dr. Paul, ... The Pandora's box situation
was opened years before Clinton's bombing of Serbia, which was part of a larger scheme
started nearly a decade before.
That was when the US armed the religious extremists in Bosnia, in order to bring war,
"civil war" and chaos, and disintegration, the way they more recently tried to do with Syria,
or "succeeded" in doing in Libya, bringing chaos and open-air slave markets in a country that
was one of the most developed on the African continent under Gaddafi (a truth that was so
easily erased by propaganda).
And the whole neocon scheme started two decades before, with the Zbigniew Brzezinski
doctrine, when the US started arming the mujahedin in Afghanistan, provoking the trap for the
Soviet invasion of 1979, which was the real opening of US neocon's Pandora's box we are
regrettably so familiar with by now. We've all fallen in that old
neocon/military-industrial-congressional-complex trap by now. And there seems to be no end in
sight to those eternal wars "for civilization" (the old colonial trope dressed under new
fatigues). Unless serious societal and political changes take place in the US to put an end
to the US "imperial" death drive.
By all measures Clinton is a war criminal... Hilary is a female sociopath or worse.
Notable quotes:
"... Hillary Clinton revealed to an interviewer in the summer of 1999, "I urged him to bomb. You cannot let this go on at the end
of a century that has seen the major holocaust of our time. What do we have NATO for if not to defend our way of life?" ..."
"... The Kosovo Liberation Army's savage nature was well known before the Clinton administration formally christened them "freedom
fighters" in 1999. ..."
"... Sen. Joe Lieberman whooped that the United States and the KLA "stand for the same values and principles. Fighting for the KLA
is fighting for human rights and American values." ..."
"... Clinton administration officials justified killing civilians because, it alleged the Serbs were committing genocide in Kosovo.
After the bombing ended, no evidence of genocide was found, but Clinton and Britain's Tony Blair continued boasting as if their war
had stopped a new Hitler in his tracks. ..."
Twenty years ago, President Bill Clinton commenced bombing Serbia in the name of human rights, justice, and ethnic tolerance.
Approximately 1,500 Serb civilians were killed by NATO bombing in one of the biggest sham morality plays of the modern era. As British
professor Philip Hammond recently noted, the 78-day bombing campaign "was not a purely military operation: NATO also destroyed what
it called 'dual-use' targets, such as factories, city bridges, and even the main television building in downtown Belgrade, in an
attempt to terrorise the country into surrender."
Clinton's unprovoked attack on Serbia, intended to help ethnic Albanians seize control of Kosovo, set a precedent for "humanitarian"
warring that was invoked by supporters of George W. Bush's unprovoked attack on Iraq, Barack Oba-ma's bombing of Libya, and Donald
Trump's bombing of Syria.
Clinton remains a hero in Kosovo, and there is an 11-foot statue of him standing in the capitol, Pristina, on Bill Clinton Boulevard.
A commentator in the United Kingdom's Guardian newspaper noted that the statue showed Clinton "with a left hand raised, a
typical gesture of a leader greeting the masses. In his right hand he is holding documents engraved with the date when NATO started
the bombardment of Serbia, 24 March 1999." It would have been a more accurate representation if Clinton was shown standing on the
corpses of the women, children, and others killed in the U.S. bombing campaign.
Bombing Serbia was a family affair in the Clinton White House. Hillary Clinton revealed to an interviewer in the summer of
1999, "I urged him to bomb. You cannot let this go on at the end of a century that has seen the major holocaust of our time. What
do we have NATO for if not to defend our way of life?" A biography of Hillary Clinton, written by Gail Sheehy and published
in late 1999, stated that Mrs. Clinton had refused to talk to the president for eight months after the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke.
She resumed talking to her husband only when she phoned him and urged him in the strongest terms to begin bombing Serbia; the president
began bombing within 24 hours. Alexander Cockburn observed in the Los Angeles Times,
It's scarcely surprising that Hillary would have urged President Clinton to drop cluster bombs on the Serbs to defend "our
way of life." The first lady is a social engineer. She believes in therapeutic policing and the duty of the state to impose
such policing. War is more social engineering, "fixitry" via high explosive, social therapy via cruise missile . As a tough therapeutic
cop, she does not shy away from the most abrupt expression of the therapy: the death penalty.
I followed the war closely from the start, but selling articles to editors bashing the bombing was as easy as pitching paeans
to Scientology. Instead of breaking into newsprint, my venting occurred instead in my journal:
April 7, 1999: Much of the media and most of the American public are evaluating Clinton's Serbian policy based on
the pictures of the bomb damage -- rather than by asking whether there is any coherent purpose or justification for bombing.
The ultimate triumph of photo opportunities . What a travesty and national disgrace for this country.
April 17: My bottom line on the Kosovo conflict: I hate holy wars. And this is a holy war for American good deeds
-- or for America's saintly self-image? Sen. John McCain said the war is necessary to "uphold American values." Make me barf!
Just another Hitler-of-the-month attack.
May 13: This damn Serbian war is a symbol of all that is wrong with the righteous approach to the world and to problems
within this nation.
The KLA
The Kosovo Liberation Army's savage nature was well known before the Clinton administration formally christened them "freedom
fighters" in 1999. The previous year, the State Department condemned "terrorist action by the so-called Kosovo Liberation Army."
The KLA was heavily involved in drug trafficking and had close to ties to Osama bin Laden. Arming the KLA helped Clinton portray
himself as a crusader against injustice and shift public attention after his impeachment trial. Clinton was aided by many congressmen
eager to portray U.S. bombing as an engine of righteousness. Sen. Joe Lieberman whooped that the United States and the KLA "stand
for the same values and principles. Fighting for the KLA is fighting for human rights and American values."
In early June 1999, the Washington Post reported that "some presidential aides and friends are describing [bombing] Kosovo
in Churchillian tones, as Clinton's 'finest hour.'" Clinton administration officials justified killing civilians because, it
alleged the Serbs were committing genocide in Kosovo. After the bombing ended, no evidence of genocide was found, but Clinton and
Britain's Tony Blair continued boasting as if their war had stopped a new Hitler in his tracks.
In a speech to American troops in a Thanksgiving 1999 visit, Clinton declared that the Kosovar children "love the United States
because we gave them their freedom back." Perhaps Clinton saw freedom as nothing more than being tyrannized by people of the same
ethnicity. As the Serbs were driven out of Kosovo, Kosovar Albanians became increasingly oppressed by the KLA, which ignored its
commitment to disarm. The Los Angeles Times reported on November 20, 1999,
As a postwar power struggle heats up in Kosovo Albanian politics, extremists are trying to silence moderate leaders with a
terror campaign of kidnappings, beatings, bombings, and at least one killing. The intensified attacks against members of the moderate
Democratic League of Kosovo, or LDK, have raised concerns that radical ethnic Albanians are turning against their own out of fear
of losing power in a democratic Kosovo.
American and NATO forces stood by as the KLA resumed its ethnic cleansing, slaughtering Serbian civilians, bombing Serbian
churches, and oppressing non-Muslims. Almost a quarter million Serbs, Gypsies, Jews, and other minorities fled Kosovo after Clinton
promised to protect them. In March 2000 renewed fighting broke out when the KLA launched attacks into Serbia, trying to seize
territory that it claimed historically belonged to ethnic Albanians. UN Human Rights Envoy Jiri Dienstbier reported that "the [NATO]
bombing hasn't solved any problems. It only multiplied the existing problems and created new ones. The Yugoslav economy was destroyed.
Kosovo is destroyed. There are hundreds of thousands of people unemployed now."
U.S. complicity in atrocities
Prior to the NATO bombing, American citizens had no responsibility for atrocities committed by either Serbs or ethnic Albanians.
However, after American planes bombed much of Serbia into rubble to drive the Serbian military out of Kosovo, Clinton effectively
made the United States responsible for the safety of the remaining Serbs in Kosovo. That was equivalent to forcibly disarming a group
of people, and then standing by, whistling and looking at the ground, while they are slaughtered. Since the United States promised
to bring peace to Kosovo, Clinton bears some responsibility for every burnt church, every murdered Serbian grandmother, every new
refugee column streaming north out of Kosovo. Despite those problems, Clinton bragged at a December 8, 1999, press conference that
he was "very, very proud" of what the United States had done in Kosovo.
I had a chapter on the Serbian bombing campaign titled "Moralizing with Cluster Bombs" in Feeling Your Pain: The Explosion
and Abuse of Government Power in the Clinton–Gore Years (St. Martin's Press, 2000), which sufficed to spur at least one or two
reviewers to attack the book. Norman Provizer, the director of the Golda Meir Center for Political Leadership, scoffed in the
Denver Rocky Mountain News, "Bovard chastises Clinton for an illegal, undeclared war in Kosovo without ever bothering to mention
that, during the entire run of American history, there have been but four official declarations of war by Congress."
As the chaotic situation in post-war Kosovo became stark, it was easier to work in jibes against the debacle. In an October 2002
USA Today article ("Moral High Ground Not Won on Battlefield") bashing the Bush administration's push for war against Iraq,
I pointed out, "A desire to spread freedom does not automatically confer a license to kill . Operation Allied Force in 1999 bombed
Belgrade, Yugoslavia, into submission purportedly to liberate Kosovo. Though Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic raised the white flag,
ethnic cleansing continued -- with the minority Serbs being slaughtered and their churches burned to the ground in the same way the
Serbs previously oppressed the ethnic Albanians."
In a 2011 review for The American Conservative, I scoffed, "After NATO planes killed hundreds if not thousands of Serb
and ethnic Albanian civilians, Bill Clinton could pirouette as a savior. Once the bombing ended, many of the Serbs remaining in Kosovo
were slaughtered and their churches burned to the ground. NATO's 'peace' produced a quarter million Serbian, Jewish, and Gypsy refugees."
In 2014, a European Union task force confirmed that the ruthless cabal that Clinton empowered by bombing Serbia committed atrocities
that included murdering persons to extract and sell their kidneys, livers, and other body parts. Clint Williamson, the chief prosecutor
of a special European Union task force, declared in 2014 that senior members of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) had engaged in "unlawful
killings, abductions, enforced disappearances, illegal detentions in camps in Kosovo and Albania, sexual violence, forced displacements
of individuals from their homes and communities, and desecration and destruction of churches and other religious sites."
The New York Times reported that the trials of Kosovo body snatchers may be stymied by cover-ups and stonewalling: "Past
investigations of reports of organ trafficking in Kosovo have been undermined by witnesses' fears of testifying in a small country
where clan ties run deep and former members of the KLA are still feted as heroes. Former leaders of the KLA occupy high posts in
the government." American politicians almost entirely ignored the scandal. Vice President Joe Biden hailed former KLA leader and
Kosovo Prime Minister Hashim Thaci in 2010 as "the George Washington of Kosovo." A few months later, a Council of Europe investigative
report tagged Thaci as an accomplice to the body-trafficking operation.
Clinton's war on Serbia opened a Pandora's box from which the world still suffers. Because politicians and pundits portrayed that
war as a moral triumph, it was easier for subsequent presidents to portray U.S. bombing as the self-evident triumph of good over
evil. Honest assessments of wrongful killings remain few and far between in media coverage.
This article was originally published in the July 2019 edition ofFuture of Freedom .
James Bovard is a policy adviser to The Future of Freedom Foundation. He is a USA Today columnist and has written
for The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, New Republic, Reader's Digest, Playboy, American Spectator,
Investors Business Daily, and many other publications. He is the author of Freedom Frauds: Hard Lessons in American Liberty
(2017, published by FFF); Public Policy Hooligan (2012); Attention Deficit Democracy (2006); The Bush Betrayal
(2004); Terrorism and Tyranny (2003); Feeling Your Pain (2000); Freedom in Chains (1999); Shakedown (1995);
Lost Rights (1994); The Fair Trade Fraud (1991); and The Farm Fiasco (1989). He was the 1995 co-recipient of
the Thomas Szasz Award for Civil Liberties work, awarded by the Center for Independent Thought, and the recipient of the 1996 Freedom
Fund Award from the Firearms Civil Rights Defense Fund of the National Rifle Association. His book Lost Rights received the
Mencken Award as Book of the Year from the Free Press Association. His Terrorism and Tyranny won Laissez Faire Book's Lysander
Spooner award for the Best Book on Liberty in 2003. Read his blog . Send
him email .
At this point who cares? Tweets aside Trump has turned into the corporate/donor class
Republican he ran against in 2016 and in some cases even worse with his recent about face on
the second amendment which I've been predicting since he banned bump stocks. He's now bought
the lie that as long as the U.S. enjoys sustained economic growth the multiracial madhouse
that is contemporary murica won't ever derail.
Trump the candidate promised:
* A strong economy which he's partially delivered on
* A wall on our Southern border
* A drastic reduction in H1B and other work visas that allow American elites to displace
Americans from the work force
* Decreases in legal immigration
* Unwavering support for the 2nd amendment
* Law and order
Trump the president has given us:
* More moral, material and financial support to Israel than ever
* Moved the embassy to Jerusalem
* Forcing foreign nations to decriminalize homosexual sodomy
* Letting Antifa and other assorted left wing crazies run wild and attack people in the
streets while prosecuting his right of center supporters for fighting back
* Early prison release for violent black and other felons
* Potentially the largest influx of legal immigrants and illegal aliens in U.S. history
coupled with the lowest number of deportations
* No wall (yet)
* Formally condemned white nationalism and so called white supremacy but not black and brown
supremacy or left wing terrorism
* Potentially infringing upon the 2nd amendment even more than Bill Clinton and far more than
Barack Obama
At this rate Trump will probably give us the green new deal, black slave reparations, a
white privilege tax and deny "anti-semites" first and second amendment rights should he win a
second term. History has shown that the radical left makes some of its greatest political
gains under Republican presidents and Trump has done nothing to buck that trend.
America was and is looted by wealthy Americans looking for a quick buck. Globalization and
offshoring in the 19080's was all about greedy wealthy Westerners, especially Americans,
wanting to make more money. To blame the looting in others just demonstrates Buchanan's
stupidity.
@Hanrahan Notice the
continued exclusion of Representative Gabbard and her criticism of the destructive Empire --
despite focusing on Beltway politics, he hasn't typed her name since June 28. He wants the
"Elizabeth Warren-Bernie Sanders-AOC Democrats" to go even kookier because this website's
"Mr. Paleoconservative" has become a Beltway fixture, cheerleading for Team Red in the next
Most Important Election Ever.
"the Great Arsenal of Democracy was looted by" the military-industrial complex Arsenal &
it's unending wars & nothing short of nuclear annihilation is going to change that. There
is no Democrat who is willing to bet their chance at the presidency on pulling it down. And
the American public, by and large, is put to sleep by lengthy discussions of the intricacies
of trade policy. The election will be waged, like the primaries, around race-baiting. Biden
will be the first victim. The other white candidates are running scared & becoming more
shrill in their denunciations of whites in general by the hour. There's no telling where it
all may lead but it's becoming clearer day by day that the hostility will outlast the
primaries & the general election will be a very ugly affair. There's no turning back to
the soothing center now, it will be an us-vs.-them type election & hopefully, Pat
Buchanan, still America's shrewdest pundit, will keep us fully apprised.
@Charles Pewitt
Basically I agree with Erebus's comment.
What you don't seem to get is that the China situation is of the US's own making. US Co's in
the 90's & naughtier literally salivated at getting there production into China (or
Mexico) Then -- they were happy to accept Chinese conditions, as was the US government.
So, your ridiculous, punitive tariffs are going to HURT the thousands of US companies who
happily moved production to China. Nor will US Co's move home (unless the government acts
aggressively) -- they'll move to Vietnam or where ever.
Of course such punitive tarrifs will justify the Chinese into further devaluing their
currency.
Would be interesting to see the affects on US inflation were your program followed.
Implied in your comment is the apparent fact that you do not understand this US/China
issue.(which is OK, because Trump & CO certainly don't understand the imperatives
here)
You seem to think it's about trade. Actually it about China's sovereignty. The US position is
that China NOT become a leading economy such as the US, Japan & Germany are. The US
demands China cease it's drive to lead in high tech'. The Chinese simply can not give-in. US
demands amount to China becoming a second rate power, essentially a US vassal.
How could any country, let alone China with its humiliating history of being a victim of
western imperialism, do anything else but fight?
President Donald Trump's reelection hopes hinge on two things: the state of the economy
in 2020 and the identity of the Democratic nominee.
That's the first sentence and that's where I should have stopped reading. This is the kind
of out of touch political insider horse trading irradiated bullshittery that no one should
waste their time on anymore.
Trump's is finished if he doesn't fulfil his US immigration promises from 2016. He's also
finished if he doesn't stop channelling his Jewish handlers with embarrassingly stupid
anti-white rhetoric. That's it. That's where "reelection hopes" should focus on.
@Hanrahan Notice the
continued exclusion of Representative Gabbard and her criticism of the destructive Empire --
despite focusing on Beltway politics, he hasn't typed her name since June 28. He wants the
"Elizabeth Warren-Bernie Sanders-AOC Democrats" to go even kookier because this website's "Mr.
Paleoconservative" has become a Beltway fixture, cheerleading for Team Red in the next Most
Important Election Ever
"... The election will be waged, like the primaries, around race-baiting. Biden will be the first victim. The other white candidates are running scared & becoming more shrill in their denunciations of whites in general by the hour. ..."
"the Great Arsenal of Democracy was looted by" the military-industrial complex Arsenal &
it's unending wars & nothing short of nuclear annihilation is going to change that. There
is no Democrat who is willing to bet their chance at the presidency on pulling it down.
And the American public, by and large, is put to sleep by lengthy discussions of the
intricacies of trade policy.
The election will be waged, like the primaries, around race-baiting. Biden will be the
first victim. The other white candidates are running scared & becoming more shrill in
their denunciations of whites in general by the hour.
There's no telling where it all may lead but it's becoming clearer day by day that the
hostility will outlast the primaries & the general election will be a very ugly affair.
There's no turning back to the soothing center now, it will be an us-vs.-them type election
& hopefully, Pat Buchanan, still America's shrewdest pundit, will keep us fully
apprised.
The verbal flubs of Joe Biden reached critical mass. They are now so numerous and egregious
they have begun to call into question whether Biden, who turns 77 in November, is really up to
a year of campaigning, followed by four years of leading the nation in the world.
Nor is it only Trump saying this now.
The Biden staff appears to be agonizing over the endless reruns of Joe's gaffes on cable TV.
And a media that sees Biden as the best hope of bringing down Trump is showing signs of
alarm.
A valid question arises, not only for Democrats:
Does the Biden we have lately seen in debate and on the stump look like a focused leader who
could be confidently entrusted with the most powerful office on earth until January 2025, which
would be the end of his first term?
What are the odds that, if he won the presidency, Biden could be a two-term president, until
2029, and not a visibly lame duck from Day One?
Yet, if Biden stumbles and falls before next spring, which seems more of a possibility than
two months ago, it is almost certain the Democratic candidate and party platform will be
outside the American mainstream.
@Hanrahan It is so
clear that Biden is no longer all there mentally that I can't believe that anyone who is half
paying attention doesn't see it. It's really sad and painful to watch. His wife, Jill, who is
the same age as I (68), seems to be a very smart woman. She's been a college professor and
has a PhD in literature. Why doesn't she take Joe aside and tell him, honey, it's time to
rest now and pass the torch, (as little known congressman Eric Swallwell, in his moment of
fame, told him in the first debate)?
Maybe she has, but Joe won't listen. The problem with senile people is that they never
realize that they are.
For those awake and observant it has become cristal clear that the world is witnessing the
demise of the American Empire. All the hallmarks of this happening are clearly present.
@animalogic The US
Companies make tons of money from China. Nike, Boeing, Starbucks, Apple, the list goes on. GM
sells more cars in China than in the US; KFC is huge in China and generates more revenue than
in any other countries; China is the second largest market for Hollywood movies; Four
American accounting firms grab more than 50% of market shares; last time I walked in a
convenient store in Shanghai, I noticed that every brand of toothpaste is American brand
(with one exception which is South Korean). These companies aren't stupid. If they don't do
business in China their market shares would be filled by companies from Japan, Europe and
others.
The question is how do you distribute these wealth generated from China? The current US
political system is tilted in favor of the rich. If 2008 financial market meltdown or its
aftermath is any indication, there is no accountability for the rich and the powerful. Anyone
who pins his hopes on Trump will be sorely disappointed. Trade war or any kind of wars with
China won't solve the problem.
Overall, CEO compensation has increased by 1,007.5 percent (or more conservatively, 940.3
percent) since 1978, according to the report.
Meanwhile, the typical American worker has only seen their wages grow by about 11.9
percent, the EPI said.
Back in 1965, the CEO-to-worker pay ratio was 20-to-1 for options realized and 16-to-1 for
options granted. By 1978, the ratio was 30-to-1 for options realized and 23-to-1 for options
granted.
@d dan What people
have to understand is the the 2.1% GDP growth is "paper" growth. Every stock bought or sold
is a "service" for the purposes of GDP growth. Trumps corporate tax cuts were supposed to
allow companies to invest in R&D, and re-open manufacturing plants. What has happened is
a massive stock buyback by corporations, which artificially inflates stock value, as well as
artificially increases the GDP. This is not to say that China's 6.1% growth does not include
a sizeable chunk of "paper" GDP growth. Even if it were equal to the US's entire 2.1% GDP
growth, it would still be 3times as large.
Need to investigate the role , if any , of Dr. Michael Baden in the Epstein and JFK autopsy
cover-ups .
According to Dr.Crenshaw who treated JFK at the Parkland Hospital Kennedy was shot once or
twice from the front and , therefore, Oswald could not possibly have been the killer. See "
Trauma Room One , the JFK Medical Coverup Exposed . " By Dr. Michael Crenshaw .
@ChuckOrloski Deja vu
– the Pentagon on 9/11 where are the tapes ? New York Metropolitan Correctional Center
on 8/11 where are the tapes ? Political Vel Craft has an excellent article entitled "
Rothschild's Media ." The problem is that most people get their news from the mainstream
media and as a result when they are confronted by evidence such as on 9/11 the building 7 at
the World Trade Center was demolished by pre-planted explosives they suffer from cognitive
dissonance and are unable to process the information.
In my eyes the NWO has lost its stamina in its fight to conquer the world. They started
with the dismemberment of Yugoslavia during degenerate Clinton times and continued with the
so called Color Revolutions. That imitation of human being, General Clark, told us it will be
7 countries in 7 years. That would take care of the M.E. After two successes, Libya and Irak,
the Russians gave their ass in their hands in Syria.
Let's take a look at South America. In Brazil they deposed Rousef and installed that
nincampoop Bolsonaro. To me that victory has all the characteristics of Disney cartoon.
Venezouela now. It was January 2018 they told us they are going to invade to restore
democracy (here we laugh) and human rights (more laughter) and they are still invading. They
know if they ever dare the whole South America will be up in arms and that is too big of a
bite to chew.
Add to this a 24 trillion debt economy with 15% of the Americans homeless and their dream
just fizzled.
Mexico is humanistic and civilised and when something dear to them is threatened THEY RUN
AS ONE TO RING THE CHURCH BELLS. They will not only survive they will come out
victorious.
Some other time we will take a look at this monstrous attack against the white race in
Europe through engineered invasion of Afroasians. Planning and management of Soros. The scum
of the earth.
This book by a University of Chicago Jewish Economist who is married to a black woman
professor at the same University argues that black slaves were actually much better off than
after Emancipation when they would be employed at wage slave Levels.
Slaves in the South, because they were a large investment to the owners, were provided with
housing clothing and Medical Care. None of this was available to them after they journeyed to
the North after the Civil War ended and lived in horrible ghettos.
The rich want to turn the world into a borderless economy where all workers can be employed
at the same destitute levels &the rich can Control everyone.
Ethnic racial &class conflict is a smokescreen for the rich to distract us from their
pillaging the economy Exactly as Paul Krugman argues.
Former senior FBI official Ted Gunderson used to claim that the FBI was covering up
pedophilia ... among US government officials and others quite a while back
@Commentator Mike Ted
Gunderson was a real American hero! He investigated the daycare in California that had
tunnels, the Franklin Coverup and other crimes involving children. The FBI covered up the
Boystown drug dealing and child prostitution ring, and probably had something to do with the
airplane that blew up in midair, killing the investigator and his son. I liked Ted Gunderson,
he reminded me of what a real cop should be
There was another guy he was the LA Cop that broke the news of CIA and cocaine in Los
Angeles. I can't think of his name right now .They both died under mysterious circumstances.
Funny how those things continue to happen
But why Wexner and Maxwell were involved ? Wexner gave the power of attorney to Epstein, so
he essentially controlled Wexner fortune... Why such a level of trust ? Was later claims of abuse
on the part of Epstein of his privileges and stolen money 40 million of which was supposed return
to Wexner charity a part of cover-up
Philip Giralid's theory that Jeffrey Epstein was running his prostitution ring as a honeypot
operation that had his child prostitutes sexually seduce politicians so he could film the
politicians having sex with children so he could blackmail them into supporting Israel and
giving espionage information to the Mossad is ridiculous, to put it politely.
There is not only no evidence for this theory, there is also no reasonable or practical
motive for the alleged behavior, and the alleged behavior would not make sense because it is
very unlikely that any substantial number of politicians are pedophiles.
There is no reasonable or practical motive for the behavior because the Jewish political
establishment already owns our political leaders as its puppets, so it does not need to
blackmail them. T
he way it has establishment this amount of control is through forming a social network
where Jews recruit Non-Jews to do their bidding, Jews created Freemasonry as their political
agency to help them do this. Freemasonry is a political agency of Jewry, it allows Non-Jews
to join it in order to help increase Jewish political power in Non-Jewish societies, Non-Jews
who join it have to swear a loyalty oath to the organization and then form an in group
preference for other members of the Jewish led organization. Jews also use their control of
finance and banking to have this kind of political power. They do not need child prostitution
ring to sexually seduce politicians so they can blackmail them to achieve political power,
because they already control the political establishment.
Additionally, even if the Jewish political elites wanted or needed to blackmail our
political leaders, this would be a very stupid way to do it. Filming sex between an adult and
a child is a very serious crime, it actually in some cases is more serious than an adult
having sex with a child, the person threatening blackmail against the person with the film
would unless he had a very stupid victim have someone who would realize the person himself
would go to prison if he showed anyone the film, so it would not be a good way to blackmail
someone. There are much better ways to blackmail political leaders, such as finding out if
they committed financial or political crimes or if they murdered someone, that would not
involve such risks.
It is not plausible that any substantial number of politicians are pedophiles because
pedophiles usually have very limited intellectual ability, and are perhaps even borderline
mentally retarded, and pedophiles usually are mentally ill.
Dr. James Cantor, an expert on sexual perversion generally and pedophilia particularly,
stated in a YouTube video titled "The Pedophile's Brain" published on the YouTube channel
"TEDI BEAR Children's Advocacy Center" on July 19, 2015, that pedophiles on average, score
10-15 points below average on Intelligence Quotient tests.
That means that only between 16-25 percent of pedophiles are equally intelligent or more
intelligent than the average person in western countries like Britain and America. Cantor
also stated that pedophiles tend to have less white matter in their brains than the general
population does, white matter is responsible for a lot of the social understanding of the
brain and also for connecting brain regions to enable reasoning that requires connected
understanding of different topics together. He also said that 30% of pedophiles are left
handed while only 12% of the general population is left handed, this is what Darwin called a
"correlation of growth" when two phenotypic traits appear very frequently together in
biological organisms, another example cited by Darwin was that blue eyed cats are usually
deaf.
Cantor said that the only other population groups with this high rates of left handed are
autistics, schizophrenics and bipolars. Cantor concluded that what causes pedophilia is that
pedophiles have a mental problem that causes their brain to be cross wired, so that the
sexual responses are inappropriately connected with children whereas most people have a moral
inhibition against sexual attraction to children. There are two peer reviewed articles by
scientists I have read that discuss evidence autism is correlated in a causal way with
pedophilia.
They are "Paraphilic Disorder in a Male Patient with Autism Spectrum Disorder: Incidence
or Coincidence," by B. Kolta and G. Rossi, edited by A. Muocivic and J.R. Adler Cureus May
2018 and "Sexuality in autism: hypersexual and paraphilic behavior in women and men with
high-functioning autism spectrum disorder," by Daniel Schottle, Peer Briken, Oliver Tuscher
and Daniel Turner published in "Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience," in December 2017 In the
second article, the authors stated: ""Altogether, paraphilic sexual fantasies and behaviors
were reported more frequently in male patients with ASD than in male HCs [Health Controls;
that is people who are mentally healthy and do not have autism or another mental illness].
After correcting for multiple testing, significant differences were still present in the
number of individuals reporting masochistic fantasies, sadistic fantasies, voyeuristic
fantasies and behaviors, frotteuristic fantasies and behaviors, and pedophilic fantasies with
female children"
The authors of the first article wrote: "Fernandes et al. were able to demonstrate that
30% of the low-functioning ASD patients showed some kind of inappropriate sexual behaviors,
most frequently public masturbation, indecent exposure, and inappropriate heterosexual
behaviors .
When looking at higher functioning patients with autism spectrum disorder they reported
10% demonstrated inappropriate sexual behaviors . The study also revealed that 24% of
high-functioning individuals with ASD engaged in paraphilic sexual fantasies or behaviors
including classic presentations of paraphilic disorder such as pedophilia, voyeurism, and
sadomasochism " So pedophilia is linked to both low intellectual ability, and to mental
illness.
A person needs to be highly intelligent to be a political leader, George W Bush was on the
dumb side for a political leader and his Intelligence Quotient was 124, that is the 94th
percentile, that means George W Bush is more intelligent than 94 percent of other people.
During the Nuremberg Trials all of the Nazis leaders who did anything of real importance
scored at least 120 on the Intelligence Quotient test, which means they were smarter than 90%
of other people, and the Nazis were also known for being on the dumb side for political
leaders. The idea that any substantial number of politicians are pedophiles is ridiculous
because of this, so this makes Giraldi's claim obviously ridiculous.
@Ron Unz The suicide
of Epstein when life as he had played it was over is less surprising than that Madoff hasn't
committed suicide. And incompetence or cynical negligence in the prison service is less
surprising than your admission of familiarity with the popular culture of film and TV!
On a more constructive note let me proffer the following as a source containing some
possibly relevant information about Epstein and his mysterious wealth.
"The relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and Jewish philanthropist Leslie Wexner,
explained – Jewish Telegraphic Agency
The intelligence connection seems plausible and Mossad as the key agency but possibly
having side deals with the CIA and FBI the most plausible. But, if so, Wexner's connection to
Israeli causes is well worth examining.
And the classic, LatAm 'banana republics' were owned by the CIA.
Or at least the latter had 'veto power' over the former.
It feels like we are the new banana republic, in that we don't seem to have control
over our own affairs, and an outside force intervenes to keep us on the intended path.
Always.
Trump also bears all the hallmarks of the classic banana-republic demagogue, frankly, and
we all knew it going in. It turns out he was kind of an elaborate political con artist
(perhaps moreso than the usual 'demagogue,' but still). There are lots of parallels, and this
without even mentioning "banana republic demographics "
And even if he did really commit suicide, it just shows what a third world sh*t hole we are. The most high profile prisoner
in the country, in a federal jail, in our largest city, on "suicide watch" commits suicide? At best – at best – we are beyond
pathetic.
I have written something similar in another thread, but I have some experience of working in prisons, and from my experience
suicidal prisoners are placed on and taken suicide precautions only on the written order of a psychiatrist, who may be a contract
employee, and a lot of the assessment of the mental state of inmates is done by psychologists or "psych specialists".
So this assessment is done more on clinical signs and symptoms, mood level, and what the inmate says, and not so much on an
existential assessment of the hopelessness of the situation facing the prisoner, what losing his liberty means to him, and so
on.
Also this is a clinical (medical) decision made by medical staff rather than a decision made by the Chief of Security.
It is not unusual for suicidal observations to be discontinued before a weekend on the say-so of the inmate saying he feels
he would be OK. part of the reason being the massive costs in overtime of having an extra officer assigned to keep this inmate
in line of sight at all times 24 hours a day. This is not supposed to affect the decisions of psychiatric or psychological staff,
but there are subtle pressures.
A small point of interest is that Epstein kept asking for a lot of toilet paper (by reports). It is possible to make a rope
that you can hang yourself with if you have enough toilet paper to weave it. I have not yet seen any reports on what he hanged
himself with.
I think it is entirely possible that Epstein made the decision to kill himself and plotted his way out of suicidal observations,
made a plan, and killed himself rather than spend the rest of his life in prison. Probably he had no faith in any plan his attorneys
had to have him found innocent. The gaff was blown.
To me this is the Occam's Razor and there is no need to believe in conspiracy theories, such as that someone got into his cell
and killed him. There are usually plenty of cameras watching the hallways and lobbies in prisons, and he was apparently locked
in his cell when he was found.
If there is a weakness in the system, it is that psychiatrists are just medical practitioners with a medical education and
they do what their discipline demands of them.
Maybe a 68 year old used to a life of extreme luxury facing life in prison for child molestation killed himself.
He was in a federal jail. He was charged by the feds. If they wanted to kill him, seems easier to do so without the publicity
of first charging him.
The list of the accused is pretty unimpressive. Dersh, Prince Andrew, Bill Richardson, and George Mitchell. Two have been out
of power for 20 years, the other two never had any.
The list of people who took a free ride on the private jet is more impressive, but that doesn't mean much.
If Epstein was killed it would have been by a group of people who don't have to live in the USA. It would have been done by people
who don't give a damn about burning bridges or getting an FBI raid at 4 AM when their co-conspirators go bad. I'd say it was the
Mossad but thinking in those nation-state terms is probably laughably old fashioned.
@Clifford Brown Yeah, common sense, pedos
in jail have an extremely high rate of suicide, something the feds noted and were pretending to care about ten years ago.
Besides the additional shame, they are softer/older/less violent than the normal criminal population, and also have a larger
fall in status.
Odd stat in the link: 70% of federal child sex abuse (not porn or trafficking) defendants are American Indian. Some sort of
strange jurisdiction issue?
@Jonathan Mason Unless you worked at this
particular prison and know the policies, this is nonsense at best and active disinfo at worst.
At my old state prison, a lowly CO could make a recommendation to the watch commander that "so and so said he was going to
kill himself" or give them reasons why he needed to be placed on suicide watch.
This by no means a "massive cost". It consists of your inmate being placed in a hold cell and taking one of your on duty rovers
or junior COs and sitting him in front of the door to stare at homeboy.
The idea that a 24 hour prison needs the say so of a clinician that works 8 hours a day is laughable.
"Maybe a 68 year old used to a life of extreme luxury facing life in prison for child molestation killed himself. "
Your Devil's Advocate shtick would carry more water if there was any pattern established among enormously rich and powerful
narcissistic men committing suicide after arrest and or conviction for sex crimes.
I'm mean, at this point he was more likely to request a sex change based on Sailer's theory about rich powerful Alphas going
tranny post middle age.
But if anything he probably believed that he could beat the case just based on who he was.
Based on what we are seeing already in the immediate reactions on SM, there's a serious effort to (((circle the wagons))) from
all sides.
You'd be wise to pick a better battle to fight. There's no believable way he killed himself.
"Most of the American people have learned today that their "elites" are unaccountable. They also know, on some level, what
it will take to fix this problem, and what they believe their country to be is very, very wrong. All three of these ideas make
Americans uncomfortable."
I'm not one for conspiracy theories of any sort, and even in this case I'm leaning more towards "not a conspiracy theory," but
I find myself having doubts. That said, there are a few things that I can't really reconcile:
1. He had attempted suicide before very recently, and this is a high profile case, so he should be under constant surveillance.
He's so high-value (both financially and criminally) that no matter the cost, he would be constantly under surveillance. There
should be no way that this guy just slips through the cracks and offs himself. The level of incompetence required to make this
happen might only be seen in the most corrupt African countries.
2. He had attempted suicide before very recently, so why would someone else attempt to assist him or kill him? This is one
of those "if you're going to kill the king, don't miss" type situations. Had he died in the first attempt, it would be plausible
that it was suicide; but a second attempt in such close succession? This would make it obvious that someone was out to kill him,
and ruin the entire clandestine nature of it. Chances of the assassin (and assassination plot) being found out are much greater.
I don't quite know what to make of this. 1 makes it highly unlikely he did this himself, but 2 makes it highly unlikely someone
else did it.
Pedophiles typically have many accomplices. It's a well known fact a considerable number of powerful men participate in these
pedophile rings. When one guy gets caught, he becomes the fall guy and takes the blame. If it looks like he might turn, he gets
"suicided" before he can talk.
Given what happened to Epstein today, is it really so implausible that other molesters could've been killed in jail by assassins?
Given how low-profile most of those cases are in general, it'd be so much easier to get away with assassinations.
I find it breathtaking that even with all this public attention, Epstein couldn't have been prevented from committing "suicide."
@Flip Did the intelligence agency that was
running Epstein really believe that he'd never be arrested and pressured to squeal?
Didn't they have a back-up plan in case he was sent to jail? After all, Epstein was dodging serious charges for years, so the
possibility of getting picked up again was not that remote.
Would Epstein have been "suicided" if his handlers were sure he wouldn't talk/rat them out?
Or, was Epstein threatening to tell all, and did his handlers decide to use "extreme prejudice"?
If he did hint at anything to his lawyers, they are dead men walking . . .
This is the historical moment when the politically engaged slice of society gets a sense of just how rigged the game really is.
I might like to think of myself as clever but I bet I have no clue just how bad it really is.
Dear Deep State,
I believe Vince Foster committed suicide.
I believe Seth Rich died in a bungled street robbery.
I believe Whitey Bulger's death was just another ordinary case of prisoner-on-prisoner violence.
I believe it was the autopsy of Stephen Paddock, the body found in the hotel room.
I believe Hillary's deleted emails were all about yoga and weddings.
I believe Bill and Loretta talked about golf and grandkids on the plane on the tarmac.
I believe
in Credere, Obbedire, Combattere
@Cagey Beast One of the interesting revelations
to come out recently is that Zorro Trust, the entity that owns Epstein's New Mexico ranch won an $85,000,000 lottery in 2008.
The winning ticket was sold at a convenience store in Altus, Oklahoma, hardly a place where someone like Epstein would be hobnobbing.
If true, it either means the man was incredibly lucky (although I think his luck has run out) or the game was fixed. My guess
is that it is the latter. At any rate, I hope that Barr gets to the bottom of this.
@Lot "Yeah, common sense, pedos in jail
have an extremely high rate of suicide"
There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in Epstein's personality that would suggest suicidal behavior. Like Jack D, certain things
just bring out the Jew in you, and Epstein is one of them. You're trying to cover for him for ethnic nepotism reasons, and it's
so deeply felt you don't even understand it yourself, but it's utterly obvious to those outside you.
I am not a believer in conspiracy theories. Never attribute government action to evil when mere incompetence will suffice.
It's my feeling that Epstein killed himself even though he should have been on suicide watch and he was not on suicide watch
due to bureaucratic incompetence. As Jonathan said, some low bidder contract employee (a lot of the gov. employee psychiatrists
in NY are like Koreans who don't even speak Engrish that well) who was under instructions never to put anyone on suicide watch
because it leads to expensive overtime signed off on Epstein as if he was any other disposable piece of trash prisoner as 99%
of prisoners are. The bureaucracy is really very democratic and treats everyone like shit (except for their own, who are treated
like royalty). The bureaucracy exists for itself and not to take care of prisoners. They don't want them all to kill themselves
because then they wouldn't have jobs but a few now and then are no big deal.
Maybe, maybe maybe if the instruction had come from on high to really, really treat Epstein as extra special then they would
have done it, but it never came. Epstein had ample intelligence and reason to want to kill himself and the bureaucracy didn't
have ample reason or intelligence to stop him so he won
The most baffling ( or perhaps not) thing about Epstein's death was the curious lack of curiousity by the media. Last week when
a gunman opened fire in the El Paso Walmart the media went to wall to wall coverage despite not having any real information to
impart, not even a body count! That did not stop the networks from bringing on their retired Law Enforcement 'experts' to bloviate
for hour after hour.
Contrast that with today. With the public desperate to know how a marked man in federal custody could somehow kill himself
or be killed the media only ran an obligatory segment at the top of the each hour and then resumed their planned coverage about
gun control.
@R.G. Camara Trump using Epstein to take
down the Clintons. That was Tom Luongo's first impression and he wrote a couple of columns about it a month or so ago:
In this day and age, the only way to get an honest death penalty for a monster like Epstein is to have it be self-inflicted. I'm
very pleased he hung himself. He saved us a lot of taxpayer money
To be honest, I think Epstein could have gotten off lightly if he'd turned state's evidence and ratted on his high profile friends.
He could have gone into a witness protection program afterwards. But I suspect he held assets that could not be explained by normal
means, and he didn't want all that dug up.
He has an interesting history. He was dismissed as a teacher, and was asked to leave Bear Stearns. Finally, he decided to leave
this life. Nothing but a history of being kicked out or checking out.He knew and gave tax advice to Edgar Bronfman, father of
Clare Bronfman of the NXIVM sex cult. I wonder if Epstein had any connection to the cult? If he gave tax advice to Edgar, why
not his daughter? He was also an adviser to Adnan Khashoggi,
In the jail in which Epstein is held, there has only been 1 other suicide in the last 21 years. The jail has been described
as a facility in which suicide is "nearly impossible" due to the elaborate security procedures.
In those 21 years, nearly 40,000 inmates have passed through the jail facility. So the facility has a suicide rate of 2 per
40,000. Coincidentally, 1 of those 2 was Epstein.
What a huge coincidence.
By the way, your lifetime odds of being struck by lightning are roughly 1 per 9,000.
So Epstein's chances of being struck by lightning were more than twice his odds of "committing suicide" while imprisoned in
that jail.
My analysis: Rare coincidence. Nothing to see, folks. Move along. Don't be a "conspiracy theorist."
Never been a huge fan of the 'obvious' conspiracies (JFK etc.). I still say the odds are on a real suicide. Older man, no more
of his girls or decent food or anything he likes forever. The idea of a life in a little cell is probably far more difficult to
get used to than most of us know. And we're dealing with a spoiled rich guy here too. More than a few much tougher guys have been
broken by the whole thing.
Despite all that, I'd still only put it at 70 percent that it's a real suicide. Maybe he was 'strongly encouraged' to do it.
Perhaps much more abuse was in the offing if he didn't and that was intimated to him in clear terms.
If I were going to kill Epstein, you can bet that I would shut down 8chan first. Oh, that happened on August 5? You don't say?
Just before the release of the court records? Really?
Poor Jeff, the guilt must have really gotten to him. When he commissioned that painting of himself in a prison yard, he
thought he could make it, but with guilt and prison life, etc etc he just could not go another day without a massage. What
a shame, what a damn shame
In Epstein's bio at Wikipedia, he is described as advising Bear Stearns' wealthiest clients on "tax mitigation", i.e. pay as little
tax as possible (Bear Stearns, a giant investment bank, was a casualty of the 2008 financial crisis.) Edgar Bronfman is specifically
mentioned as one such client, a billionaire who was also an extremely influential international lobbyist regarding Jewish issues,
above all within the late Soviet Union. Among Bronfman's children are two daughters who provided financial, legal, and material
support to NXIVM, a psychological cult which served as cover for a growing circle of sex slaves. And recall that Epstein was assisted
by a daughter of Robert Maxwell, another tycoon who after his death was eulogized for his service to Israel
And the 2 guards on his corridor were told to leave because of middle of the night maintenance. Must be an easy job 11 pm to
7 am shift electricians and plumbers on duty every night in case of sudden electric fire or flood Night shift differential too.
Probably need at least 2 people at all times because most jobs need 2 pairs of hands
I bet this was the first middle of the night maintenance since the building was finished.
And why would the guards have to leave? Who did this middle of the night maintenance?
If they do exist they died in auto crashes at 7/30 Saturday morning after they left work.
The absent guards are not liable because they followed procedure and obeyed the order to leave their post.
Who gave the order? " Oh, it came over the intercom. He said it was my superior, Captain so and so." " and did you indeed give
the order?" Captain so and so?"
" no I did not"
@Cagey Beast I had to switch back temporarily
to establishment media to see how this was being presented to the masses. With wry cynicism, it seems to me, even from the hairstyled
mediabots reading the autocue.
There's not even the "plausible" deniability they had with Seth Rich, God bless his soul.
"Most of the American people have learned today that their "elites" are unaccountable. They also know, on some level, what
it will take to fix this problem, and what they believe their country to be is very, very wrong. All three of these ideas make
Americans uncomfortable.
Covington, at the end, used to say that the problem was not that people didn't know what would be required to save their freedom
and their continued existence as a people, but rather that they knew full well, and the thought was unbearable to most people.
@JohnnyWalker123 The Post article said they
looked for media reports of suicide and found only one other. How many didn't become news? Is it normally newsworthy when a criminal
offs himself in jail?
And even if there were brief reports, they may not mention the name of the jail.
The other reported suicide was a "drug kingpin." Would a mid level dealer or random child porn downloader suicide really make
the news? I have actually never once read an article in my local paper about a local jail/prison suicide, though I am sure it
happens.
It's my feeling that Epstein killed himself even though he should have been on suicide watch and he was not on suicide watch
due to bureaucratic incompetence.
You and I quite often see the world in the same way, but many of the others who post comments here have a different weltanschauung.
All I can say is that it is interesting to get different perspectives and learn how other people think and all opinions are welcome,
even if they are diametrically opposed to mine.
I agree Epstein wouldn't seemingly have much sense of shame. Likely a hit. Duh.
Do you have any idea how difficult it is to hang an unwilling participant, string him up from some ceiling fixture, leave him
hanging, and do it really quietly so that you don't wake anyone else up?
We really can't know if it was suicide or murder. But we do know:
1. If it was a murder it is quite brazen and shows how confident the killers are that they can control the narrative on the story
in the world (not just US) media. It would be a sign that we live under totalitarian rule.
2. The fact that we can't know if our governmnet is this corrupt or not, because so much of what our government does is secret,
is a sign that we don't have a democracy or republic worthy of the name. If we lived in a democracy or a republic we wouldn't
have to worry about this.
3. "Consipiracy theories" are no longer the province of kooks. Reasonable people now have to be conspiracy theorists to avoid
being fooled by offical lies (Iraq's non-existent weapons of mass destruction).
4. No good man can tolerate this condition. Something must change.
@Charles Erwin Wilson 3 Bill's body is degenerating
at a rapid pace as is Hillary's – they look like death. They are not even fuckable anymore, yet they will fight to the death of
them to defend some imaginary image they have of themselves. I hate these slimey, truly trashy low-lives, since 1991. I want them
tied to Epstein and rung under the keel of a ship, back & forth, until they can no longer speak.
At my old state prison, a lowly CO could make a recommendation to the watch commander that "so and so said he was going
to kill himself" or give them reasons why he needed to be placed on suicide watch.
This by no means a "massive cost". It consists of your inmate being placed in a hold cell and taking one of your on duty
rovers or junior COs and sitting him in front of the door to stare at homeboy.
The idea that a 24 hour prison needs the say so of a clinician that works 8 hours a day is laughable.
It could be very different where you live from the processes I have seen in Florida.
Certainly any CO could START the process of placing someone on suicide watch as you describe as an emergency procedure, but
they would still have to be assessed by psych as soon as reasonably possible, and certainly within 24 hours for that process to
continue for more than 24 hours, and they could only be released from suicidal watch on the with the approval of the psychiatrist.
If the process started at night, the inmate would still have to be taken to the medical department and seen by the nurse who
would evaluate the inmate and make a call to the on-call doctor for a verbal order to start SHOS protocols, pending a more detailed
psych eval the next day.
Since Epstein had been on suicide watch and released from it, it is unlikely that he was showing signs of suicidal intent that
a CO would recognize as an emergency on Friday evening. In fact it is most likely that he would have wanted to hide any such indications.
Your assumption is that there are plenty of hallway rovers available at the weekend, or junior COs available to sit in front
of the door flap and that overtime work would not be required, and neither you nor I can know what the staffing situation was
like in that facility last night. In the prison I worked at, staffing was extremely tight at weekends, especially if a CO got
injured or sick and had to leave, and there was constant pressure to reduce overtime which could easily be needed if someone was
to remain on SHOS over the weekend.
I hear this a lot. But is it really true? Honestly, I'm just not buying the notion that hardened criminals have such a strong
sense of justice. In any event, the crimes Epstein was accused of was having sexual relations (perhaps coercive or semi-coercive)
with young teen-aged girls. Probably a lot of guys in prison have done the same thing and bragged about it often.
If there is some truth to the trope about pedophiles getting beat-up and/or murdered in prison, I tend to think it has less
to do with some kind of noble prison honor-code, and more to do with thinking along the lines of: "That guy victimized kids? He
must be a p ** sy. Maybe I'll beat him up and take his cigarettes."
I think it is entirely possible that Epstein made the decision to kill himself and plotted his way out of suicidal observations,
made a plan, and killed himself rather than spend the rest of his life in prison. Probably he had no faith in any plan his
attorneys had to have him found innocent. The gaff was blown.
I believe he was awaiting an appeal of his bail decision. He might have had the expectation of release and house-arrest, at
least for a time. A slim possibility, but real none-the-less. He had not even been tried, let alone convicted. And he did beat
this rap before. If he wanted to kill himself, he would have any number of opportunities after he was convicted, when things truly
would be hopeless for him.
Assuming TPTB didn't kill him, i'd say Epstein realized for all his financial success, he'd wasted his life.
Epstein was obviously a talented guy. He could have lived a meaningful life–committed to his tribe, made aliyah, found a nice
girl, raised a family, been part of Israel's lineage and future or thrown in with America, found a girl and done the same here.
But to Epstein, America was nothing but a marketplace–for him to peddle whatever he could sell–and his legacy is as transient
and empty. He heeded the siren call of the dark side and so got his just deserts.
But the sad fact is that in the modern West under minoritarianism so many normal people waste their lives as well. Minoritarianism
breaks the bonds of neighborhood and nation, history and heritage. It corrodes culture and casts people adrift without connection
. It's step-sister feminism tells impressionable women deep lies and destroy lives. It's bitter fruit is spinsterhood, childlessness,
missing children, damaged families, divorce and death.
Epstein is the personification of a truth. A nation reduced to being a marketplace is nothing at all -- a suicidal path to
emptiness, despair and death.
@Cagey Beast Every 70 or so years the U.S.
goes through a major restructuring. Encrusted systems of injustice make people sufficiently angry that they are willing to forgo
short- and medium-term comfort in order to reorganize the systems
@AnotherDad I'm sorry, sorry, sorry, but
pimps are just evil. More evil than rapists in some ways. That's more than 2o years dealing with sex crimes speaking.
And the money? 85 million winning lottery ticket? 20 million house in Manhattan. Private planes so he could take minors out
of the country? His pimp partner the daughter of Maxwell the Mossad and KGB spy who stole the pension funds of dozens of companies.
That's just one of Maxwell's financial crimes.
Epstein's money came from Wexler. He owned an investment company but he never did any buying selling trades anything. NYC financial
folk gossiped about him for years about where his money cane from as his company did little investing had few clients or employees
He didn't even finish college. He was a 105 IQ White pimp and came to a bad end as most pimps do
psychopaths do not kill themselves never crosses their mind.
Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ed Kemper, David Berkowitz, Richard Ramirez, Charles Manson – all of them did worse things than
Epstein is accused of doing. Pretty shameful things too – to anybody who has a sense of shame – murder, cannibalism, necrophilia.
And yet, none of them ever tried to commit suicide. They all clung to life until it was taken from them, if they are not still
alive.
I don't think Epstein had a single milliliter of shame in him. If he did, he wouldn't have lived his life the way he did.
I'm reading that the camera in Epstein's cell "malfunctioned."
Riiiiight.
K let's just cut right to the chase: everyone who doesn't believe that the Jewish Mafia (AKA international Jewry) had Epstein
murdered, plz raise ur hand.
Plz include explanation as to why someone who has half a billion dollars, has displayed no capability for shame or guilt, and
the maximum amount of chutzpah humanly possible, and who has beat the system over and over and over for most of his life, would
kill himself.
@Lawyer Guy Yep. It will be interesting
to see how much of a coverup follows. The murder scene? Court documents? Evidence gathered? (((Ghislaine Maxwell))) skates?
One complication is that the victims' lawyers are going after his estate. Speaking of, it'll be interesting to discover who
is going to get Epstein's stuff (AFAIK he has no kids).
Wouldn't be surprised if the victims' lawyers go after (((Madam Maxwell))) and try to take all her shit, too.
@Hopscotch The orange faggot could have
drained half the swamp the day after he was inaugurated, by firing anyone who smelled funny at CIA, NSA, FBI, etc., etc., etc;
they have pretty much no legal protection from firing, because Cold War Taken Seriously.
He's fired nobody.
He sure as fuck isn't going to bother with investigations if he's too lazy or cowardly to even fire people.
One of the interesting revelations to come out recently is that Zorro Trust, the entity that owns Epstein's New Mexico ranch
won an $85,000,000 lottery in 2008.
Very interesting. Thanks for posting.
Maybe Epstein was struck by lightning while in prison. He is .just .that .lucky.
No fixtures, nothing but a flat ceiling with recessed lights in those federal detention centers. Even if they managed to
make a rope out of torn up underwear what would they attach it to?
In the two jailhouse suicides I reporter on (city jails, but probably similar to a fed clink), both of them used the thin blanket
provided to them, waited for the hourly check to happen, then tied one end around their neck and the other to the top bunk.
The thing is that means you still had contact with the floor and had to consciously keep as much weight on your neck until
you passed out. A neurologist I contacted after one of them told me that since a blanket would be much thicker than a rope, it's
conceivable death occurred in 7-8 minutes, but probably more like 10-20, and could have been as much as 30 to 45 minutes.
In both cases the two prisoners (one was caught with child porn) were extremely depressed about their circumstances, which
would explain the extraordinary lengths they went through to off themselves. Epstein struck me as an arrogant asshole, and not
the suicidal type, but that's just a guess on my part.
@Lot Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell
first dated, then later operated a prostitution ring in South Florida. Ghislaine's father was a very valuable Mossad agent (as
confirmed by Israeli leaders and journalist Seymour Hersh). So valuable that various Israeli leaders and intelligence figures
attended his funeral.
Epstein was given a huge amount of money to manage by super pro-Israel Leslie Wexner (owner of L Brands and Victoria's Secret)
and then "misappropriated it." Epstein was even given a free (!!!) multimillion dollar house by Wexner.
For his crimes, Epstein got a super easy deal from Acosta in 2008. Later, Acosta claimed that someone told him that Epstein
was "intelligence" and therefore he should back down, which was Acosta's explanation for offering the easy deal. Acosta was later
fired for this.
Even before that, Epstein had a charmed existence for decades. Despite being a college dropout, he got a teaching job at super
prestigious Dalton. He later went to work on Wall Street and made partner at Bear Stearns. In what normal country does a college
dropout get all those cool jobs?
Even after his brief sentence for sex crimes in 2008, he continued to be accepted in elite circles. He seems to have surrounded
himself with a very high proportion of Jewish individuals.
I have no idea why Epstein was rearrested recently, but I suppose someone powerful must've had their hand forced. Jews may
not be all-powerful, but there's no way to understand Epstein's rise and his decades of untouchability without mentioning the
role of influential Jewish ethnic networks. If these networks can't protect their members 100% of the time, it doesn't mean they
don't exist.
The Epstein story is just too strange for real life.
@Mr. Anon Right. Epstein molested a lot
of teen girls, which is extremely common behavior for criminals. A huge fraction of them are involved in teen prostitution, either
as pimps or "johns." I really doubt any of them felt strongly about what Epstein did.
The reality is that pedophiles often operate with huge networks of co-abusers, with many of the abusers sometimes coming from
elite circles in government, entertainment, and business. So silencing these pedophiles before they talk is a priority. There
are lots of criminals who are willing to take a payment (or let their family take a payment) in return for whacking the convicted
pedophile in jail.
@Mr. Anon Yes it's true pedophiles get beat
up in prison. I think it because the prisoners want to feel morally superior in some way. Also because there's nothing to do in
prison, and it seems to me that prisoners recreate this bizzare culture of what they see in television and movies because they
have nothing better to do. So they form racial gangs and barter honey buns for cigarettes and kick newbies asses. Talking to them
I also get the sense that half of what they say isn't true, they're just embellishing the few things that did happen because mostly
nothing happened. Telling badass prison stories is cooler than admitting that you're a looser who spent two years of his life
locked up doing nothing. The one thing they all agree on is that nobody gets raped in the shower.
August 11, 2019 at 9:11 am GMT
200 Words @Mr. Anon Having spent time myself
in prison, I can state that it's categorically true that almost any kind of sex offender is a pariah whose safety is in danger
at any regular prison. As soon as you arrive at a facility someone from your race will enter your cell and demand to see your
official court papers. Just about any charge is fine as long as it doesn't have to do with sex or children. One cellmate I had
had shot his step-father in the head execution-style, which was considered perfectly acceptable. If your charges are considered
"bad" however, you will almost certainly be beaten on the spot and forced out of the unit. Many, probably most, states have separate
facilities dedicated to housing sex offenders because it is too difficult to keep them safe in any other setting. They are called
"chomos" and "Chesters".
Why do prisoners do this? I think it probably comes down mostly to two things. One, many prisoners themselves were
abused as children and genuinely hate abusers. Two, the entire world looks down on felons as beneath contempt, yet this is one
group they get to look down upon in the same way. Nobody wants to feel as if they are at the very bottom of the social hierarchy.
Otto von Bismark supposedly commented, at one point, "Never believe any rumor you may hear until it has been officially
denied." [1] It's an old idea, but it was always half joke before.
Counterinsurgency
If Epstein was killed it would have been by a group of people who don't have to live in the USA. It would have
been done by people who don't give a damn about burning bridges or getting an FBI raid at 4 AM when their co-conspirators go
bad. I'd say it was the Mossad but thinking in those nation-state terms is probably laughably old fashioned.
Whoever it was, the mission was so very risky that it would only have been approved if the damage from a live Epstein
would have had to exceed the damage from a blown mission cover. And that's saying something.
August 11, 2019 at 12:12 pm GMT
100 Words @Helo Look, you didn't have to
be Nostradamus to guess that Epstein might kill himself (or "kill himself"). The question is why something that was so obvious
to everyone else was not obvious to the Bureau of Prisons. I'd be skeptical too, but something not dissimilar happened to Whitey
Bulger. In his case, the answer was not even bureaucratic incompetence but that Bulger had threatened a BoP employee, so the system
decided to take revenge on him.
The point is that the priorities of everyone else in America, possibly up to and including the POTUS and the priorities
of the lower reaches of the bureaucracy, the actual boots on the ground who had custody of Epstein, are not the same thing and
it is the latter that really counts. And these priorities are not necessarily grand and conspiratorial – they can be mundane and
petty.
Has any reader heard of someone hanging himself with toilet paper?
Obviously there are a few Unz readers who have had such sheltered lives that they have never been in a prison.
You make several strands of paper rope as shown in the photo below, and then plait several strands together. It can
be surprisingly strong if done right. Prisoners can also use such ropes in escape attempts.
No word at this time on whether Epstein was a macrame hobbyist.
@Jonathan Mason I was a CO for about two
years. Your primary responsibility is security and you are taught to never leave inmates unsupervised. Inmates in their cells
have a certain amount of privacy, but you are supposed to make regular rounds. Modern prisons are engineered to take things like
fire into account-for instance, the prison where I worked had huge fans in the ceiling that are supposed to suck smoke out in
the event of fire. From the control booth there is a switch that can "pop" every door on a cell block and there are fire doors
that can be opened from there to allow inmates to evacuate to the yard. The prison where I worked had medical staff to respond
to medical emergencies, but some prisons may not. I can't see officers leaving an entire unit unsupervised (who was in the control
booth?) for any reason, so none of this makes any sense.
The point is that the priorities of everyone else in America, possibly up to and including the POTUS and the priorities
of the lower reaches of the bureaucracy, the actual boots on the ground who had custody of Epstein, are not the same thing
and it is the latter that really counts. And these priorities are not necessarily grand and conspiratorial – they can be mundane
and petty.
This. Most people here are acting as if this prison was some sort of elite, specially-formed project designed for the sole
purpose of keeping Jeffrey Epstein, verified MOST IMPORTANT PRISONER IN THE WORLD, alive until trial. When in actuality I'm pretty
sure it's just another prison, and Epstein was mostly just another prisoner. One who probably actually warranted less attention
than most, as he was just an old man sitting by himself in his own cell.
I'm open to possibilities. But I'm gonna need actual evidence, not mere innuendo.
@TWS They were SUPPOSED to be checking on
him every half hour. But, and I know this is shocking, sometimes prison guards don't do their jobs. Maybe you have another job
during the day so you use your night shift job to get some well deserved rest. Just because there is some high profile Jew prisoner
that the Internet is all excited about doesn't mean that you should disrupt your usual sleep routine for that POS.
Everyone is looking at this from a top-down, how glad Bill Clinton is today perspective when the right way to look at these
things is from the bottom up – not what were the motives and incentives of the Establishment but what were the motives and incentives
of the poor schmuck whose job it was to watch Epstein. Of course, I think he misjudged – everyone from DJT to AOC is calling for
investigations and he's going to come into the crosshairs. But the union will defend him and he probably has enough seniority
to retire and take a pension so he'll be OK.
@Counterinsurgency The organizing principle
of highly identified Jewish actors is fear . Fear underlies every hatred.
Peoples who are afraid can be very effective in the short term due to their ferocity. If they can't rein it in over the long
term, they anger their allies and have to face their chosen opponents, and experience a backlash just as ferocious as they are
Was he? Even the MSM has been speculating recently as to where his money came from, given that he seemed to do nothing and
have no discernible talents or skills.
Clarification–for you, Alden, anyone else: I'm not particularly up to speed on the whole Epstein story. Don't know anything
about his background. But when i wrote "talented", i'm certainly not saying the guy was going to give us a breakthrough battery
technology or help develop the thorium cycle.
My take is that the skills to be pimp to movers and shakers, and run an operation like this Lolita express to the Caribbean
are not unlike those for selling cars or real estate or medical devices, or being a drug rep, or a lobbyist, or hawking financial
investments, etc. etc. etc. I.e. a schmoozer. As a grandson of the soil, i tend to have a low opinion of the middle man types.
My default thought is "parasite." But there's no doubt the sales guys can make a decent living in America. Enough to afford a
wife, some kids, the four bedroom house (in a neighborhood with 'good schools'). He could have been organizing the local little
league and been "a pillar of the community". Most importantly a father, with a family, a legacy, a stake in the future. But he
chose the dark side and lo and behold at 60 something realizes his life is a big zero.
This thread ("Epstein Dead") was buried under six new blog posts not long after it was posted, and therefore relatively less likely
get lots of views for the many who interact with the iSteve blog via either the main Unz.com page or
http://www.unz.com/isteve/ (as opposed to
http://www.unz.com/author/steve-sailer/ , showing all posts
in 'Teaser' versions).
Even so, this post, "Epstein Dead," has become the eighth-most-commented-thread this summer (so far) here at iSteve
. Two other Epstein posts from the period right after his arrest (July 6) are in the top 10, and another one on the list is from
after Epstein's first alleged 'injury' in prison (July 24), making a total of four Epstein posts in the Top 20.
______________________
Below I list/link to the most-commented iSteve posts for June 1 to Aug. 11, 2019
There were 337 iSteve blog posts in that period, so the below 25 posts are the top 7.5% most-commented-on posts of summer
2019 thru Aug. 11. This thread, "Epstein Dead," is at the 98th percentile in comment-count (and may rise further) in summer 2019.
19- " I am Not Making This Op-Ed Up
" [a Muslim-Canadian celebrating Toronto Raptors' winning NBA Finals as a victory of diversity] (June 17, 2019): 328 comments
Since the government is hopelessly corrupt and goes around "suiciding" people, why not demand that the NSA release every phone
call, email, or text message Epstein ever sent or received. The 4th Amendment is a dead letter anyway; might as well put some
of that NSA data to good use.
@Sean Good points and the Salon article
is very interesting.
This is my last comment on the fascinating Epstein story, but it does seem to be that nearly all the allegations against Epstein
come back to Virginia Roberts, who seems like a chronologically unreliabe witness when it comes to dates, and no one seems to
be able to explain how she, as a minor, obtained a passport and traveled all over the US and internationally with Epstein if she
did not have the collusion of her parents.
For a minor to obtain a US passport BOTH parents have to sign a consent and documentation regarding guardianship, etc. has
to be presented at immigration control for a minor to enter the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the company
of someone she is not related to , as she is alleged to have done with Epstein to visit Maxwell's London home.
@Lot'Unproved zero-evidence assumptions:
Epstein was working for Israel, and Israel has compromised many people at just the right parts of the BoP '
Perhaps unproven, but hardly 'zero evidence.'
We have a former premier of Israel photographed slipping into Epstein's mansion, and we have the fact that Epstein himself
was closely associated with Zionist figures such as Wexler, Dershowitz, and Ghislane Maxwell. We have repeated evidence of powerful
friends intervening on Epstein's behalf -- from the interference in the initial investigations back in 2008 to Acosta being told
to back off. Finally, we have the fact that every known Zionist at Unz Review is very concerned to dismiss any possibility of
a connection between Epstein and Israel.
Epstein had access to enormous financial assets -- and only the vaguest explanation of how he came by them. If it wasn't because
he was serving the Zionists, who would you suggest he was serving? Everyone involved is either Jewish, a Zionist, a major advocate
for Israel, or all three. Looking at the evidence, what's your guess
@Colin Wright That Ehud Barak the former
Prime Minister and most decorated soldier in Israel and former head of military intelligence as well is too important in Israel
and its image in American politics for Mossad to allow him to be compromised in way he has been.
Ditto Wexler and especially Dershowitz, who are are not the sort of people who would be involved in actually running a covert
operation anyway. And it was not covert, Epstein himself seems to be the origin of the stories that he was gathering compromising
material on VIPs for the purpose of blackmail . He was a smooth talking trickster, but also a narcissist who wanted the world
to know how clever he was. He was on Edge and hanging out with scientists and Harvard professors, an entre he thought worth
donating six million bucks for. Read his wisdom http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/07/the-wisdom-of-jeffrey-epsteins-edge-foundation-answers.html
He wanted to be Doc Savage
Doc was physically and mentally trained from birth by his father and a team of scientists to become the perfect human specimen
with a genius level intellect. His heightened senses are beyond comprehension. He can identify a woman's perfume from half
a mile away. He is literally the master of everything.
A year ago Epstein was had got so desperate that rather than be ignored he was dipping in the Kool Aid (a prison slang term
meaning intruding into others' interactions) and willing to be known as a blackmailer of VIPs rather that just a rich guy living
the 24 hour party life dream in his Manhattan mansion.
During our conversation, Mr. Epstein made no secret of his own scandalous past -- he'd pleaded guilty to state charges of
soliciting prostitution from underage girls and was a registered sex offender -- and acknowledged to me that he was a pariah
in polite society. At the same time, he seemed unapologetic. His very notoriety, he said, was what made so many people willing
to confide in him. Everyone, he suggested, has secrets and, he added, compared with his own, they seemed innocuous. People
confided in him without feeling awkward or embarrassed, he claimed.
Stewart said he arranged the meeting to discuss Elon Musk's troubled position at Tesla. The company was facing a scandal
over one of the founder's tweets, and Musk was supposedly consulting with Epstein about the matter; Tesla denies this claim
and Epstein reportedly offered no proof. Epstein also claimed, according to Stewart, that "he'd witnessed prominent tech figures
taking drugs and arranging for sex."
Even if Dershowitz was hanging about for the sex, a Mossad controlled Epstein would not have been allowed to have him there.
Dershowitz was too valuable to Israel as a media pundit for risking him in this. And don't tell me a the Israel Lobby could not
have chilled the story in Miami newspaper (Jewish advertisers) about the deal that got all this blowback on Dershowitz. Trump
has given Israel its most sought after diplomatic coups, and Dershowitz is solid rock solid with Trump and Israel. They would
have protected him. In fact they would have smashed the story to protect Trump because he is being mentioned in every story about
Epstein's activities.
Dershowitz says he has never even met Roberts: 'This is a zero sum game. One of us is committing perjury. I'm going to swear
under oath that I never met her.' . A woman who has sex for money is capable of lying for the same reason. Ransome, the other
woman accusing Dershwitz has now admitted lying about having a sex tape of Trump.
We have repeated evidence of powerful friends intervening on Epstein's behalf
There is no denying that Epstein had the ability to win the confidence of important men and get them to do things for him,
but Wexner and Dershowitz got took by Jeremy. The more evidence comes out, the more convinced I am that he was a confidence trickster
with a smooth line in self aggrandizing bullcrap. When it came down to it he did not have the Israel lobby behind him He got taken
down by a the other year by a reporter for a Miami newspaper , and last month he was crying on the floor of a cockroach
infested jail cell while the correctional officers laughed at him.
Epstein had access to enormous financial assets -- and only the vaguest explanation of how he came by them. If it wasn't
because he was serving the Zionists, who would you suggest he was serving?
Himself. An embezzler not using his ill gotten gains for corrupting young girls would be giving grifters a bad name!
The emails in the court file shows Churcher responded: "Don't forget Alan Dershowitz J.E.'s buddy and lawyer good name for
your pitch." Giuffre's reply [2011] contained no reference to Dershowitz, just a simple, "Thanks again Shazza, I'm bringing
down the house with this book!!"
Jeffery Epstein was not the only one with "intelligence connections" pimping underage girls to the rich and powerful.
The new book by Tom O'Neill, "CHAOS: Charles Manson, the CIA, and the Secret History of the Sixties" , details Manson's
connections to the CIA. Manson's specialty was pimping underage girls to celebrities on the Hollywood party circuit. In spite
of being on federal parole and being repeatedly arrested for egregious violations of the law (sex with underage girls, pimping
underage girls, firearms violations, car theft, drug abuse, drug trafficking), Manson was systematically protected by his CIA
controllers. He and his "family" were often back on the street within hours of being arrested.
CHAOS was an illegal CIA program targeting the American people from 1967 to 1974. (It had counterparts in the FBI COINTELPRO
and the NATO GLADIO programs.) CHAOS was intended to identify, disrupt, and neutralize possible foreign influence on domestic
race, anti-war, and other protest movements. Evidently, Charles Manson played a role in the CIA's attempts to penetrate influential
Hollywood circles opposed to the Vietnam War and/or supporting black radical movements such as the Black Panthers.
Seen in this light, the Tate and LaBianca murders were effective as a "false flag" that discredited the Hippie movement.
As some commentators have concluded:
"The Manson murders sounded the death knell for hippies and all they symbolically represented They closed an era. The 60s,
the decade of love, ended on that night, on 9 August 1969." -- Vincent Bugliosi, 2009
@Steve Sailer Hmm, I have to admit that
is pretty good explanation of Epstein's methods. He pretended to be engaged in regulatory arbitrage (offshore tax dodging) but
he was actually all about social arbitrage (mediating between spheres and apparently establishing a basis for mutual advantage).
He was enabling leadership to span the difference between retail, academicia, law, politics, and punditry, while and introducing
these top people to other big shots gave him extra credibility because they met on his ground. It was all mutually reinforcing,
but the thing was none of these people were qualified to assess him for what he was because he was a finance guy and they were
not. The Wall St people were very suspicious of Epstein because to make serious money in investing you have to be a workaholic
and he never seemed to do anything but party.
I suppose the moral of the story is that when someone has an area of expertise you should trust their gut feeling about any
relevant issue even if they cannot give a logical reason for it. Gigerenzer writes about this and also how formal due diligence
is not a substitute.
Barak: I'm here to find help in solving the Palestinian problem, but I'm cold
@HA I see you are lazy enough to rely on
the doctored Wikipedia and then ask me for links later. Do your own work. Start with Boystown, so you can understand that trafficking
children is common, then Google for Gunderson and McMartin case.
@Steve Sailer Interesting article that shows
why they call it general intelligence, Jewish businessmen not all being sharks that know only balance sheets, some succeed through
being empathetic.
"He didn't understand the numbers," Lewis said. "He's never understood numbers. This is not his strength. This man is a
genius at dressing women. This is a guy who feels what they feel. That's his strength. And I figured that out when I first
met him and I don't know how he got that set up in his brain but in his soul, he has a sense of how people feel when they wear
his clothing. And that's a gift. That's just what it is. Some guys write music, this guy knows how to dress women. He's very,
very talented."
One of the Selachii persuasion. Sandy Lewis gave Wexner a talk that sounds like Stanley Hoff's rant from The Big Knife,
The conversation had been very frank, and at the end, Wexner asked if there was anything else Lewis wanted to say. In fact,
there was, Lewis recalled. "Get your mother out of her office across the hall," Lewis told him. "Why is she there? Does she
help you run this business or is she just a pain in the ass? I'm pretty direct. And I said, Les, I don't have a good feeling
about this, and your sister too . I was being direct. And he knew what I was saying . You're a good guy, I like you. I don't
sense you as a troubled individual but if you keep your mother around here, God knows what that's doing to you. Get her out
of here. Just forget it."
Bill Clinton sent political advisers like James Carville to Israel in 1999 to assist in Ehud Barak's ultimately successful election
campaign. Perhaps the fact that Barak and Clinton were both Epstein's buddies was significant there.
@Sean If Epstein is affiliated with "intelligence",
it would be two intelligence organizations from two different countries, one of which would be the US and the other Israel. Both
work together. No jail hierarchy could compete with that. If they wanted him out and wanted his escape from jail covered up, it
would be no problem. No problem at all. Very few had to know.
They say that where Epstein got his money is a mystery. Steven Hoffenberg said that Epstein was a
"currency manipulator" for the CIA. Lynn Forester (Rothchild) wrote Clinton a letter while he was President, and praised the work
of Epstein in "currency stabilization". Epstein was in fact a math genius. His abilities in this regard would not surprise me.
It is clear that Epstein had powerful friends who were able to strong arm a state and federal prosecutor, and get him out of
an otherwise very long jail sentence, at least 20 years. The Florida case was solid, according to the police who complained bitterly
about what the state prosecutor had done and later the federal prosecutor.. There is no way those prosecutors acted within their
own discretion in doing what they did. NO WAY.
Not to see the hidden hand in all this is ridiculous. This Epstein story being played out in the media is "in your face" contemptuous
of all of us.
"Pedophiles facing federal criminal charges are at high risk for suicide. It happened in several of my Maryland cases when defendants
were released on bail. Detained pedophiles require special attention. Stopping people from harming themselves is difficult.
https://t.co/YK4buPXmR9"
-- Rod Rosenstein (@RodRosenstein) August 10, 2019
A former inmate in that prison said it was impossible for someone to kill himself considering the layout of the cell. In the
past 20 years (and 20k+ prisoners), only one other person has successfully committed suicide in that prison. The only way I could
see it happening is if the cell for suicide watch inmates was different from the one for ordinary inmates (did the latter have
a window or a bunkbed?).
Further, Epstein only possessed pornographic materials relating to other – powerful – people. He was not a pedophile himself.
There was every expectation that he could have cut a deal in exchange for handing over more information on powerful people.
"Pro-tip: if the word "Mossad" is mentioned, it's a conspiracy theory."
-- Ron Bassilian (R) (@Ron4California) August 10, 2019
Mossad has a long history of assassination, including by suffocation. That is not a conspiracy theory:
"Mahmoud al-Mabhouh was an assassination that took place on 19 January 2010, in a hotel room in Dubai. Al-Mabhouh -- a co-founder
of the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, the military wing of Hamas -- was wanted by the Israeli government for the kidnapping and
murder of two Israeli soldiers in 1989 as well as purchasing arms from Iran for use in Gaza; these have been cited as a possible
motive for the assassination His assassination attracted international attention in part due to allegations that it was ordered
by the Israeli government and carried out by Mossad agents holding fake or fraudulently obtained passports from several European
countries and Australia. In March 2010, the British foreign secretary, David Miliband, expelled an Israeli diplomat after the
UK's Serious Organised Crime Agency discovered that Israel had forged copies of British passports. On 24 May, the Australian government
expelled an Israeli diplomat after concluding that there was "no doubt Israel was behind the forgery of four Australian passports"
related to the assassination. Similar action was taken by Ireland. Israel has refused to comment on the accusations that its security
forces were behind the assassination."
"psychopaths do not kill themselves never crosses their mind."
Not always true: "Johann 'Jack' Unterweger was an Austrian serial killer who committed murder in several countries After being
convicted of an additional nine murders in 1994, he committed suicide in prison by hanging himself."
Although in Unterweger's case, he only killed himself AFTER conviction. Smooth-talking charismatic psychopaths usually think
they can beat the system until it becomes obvious they cannot. In that light, I'd say Epstein's death is suspicious.
"The Post article said they looked for media reports of suicide and found only one other. How many didn't become news?"
Probably very few if they couldn't find any evidence of them. The is a NYC newspaper in the heart of the nation's largest city
with impressive access compared to most sources in nearly any red state.
"Unproved zero-evidence assumptions: Epstein was working for Israel, and Israel has compromised many people at just the right
parts of the BoP."
The weight of the evidence certainly suggests that he was working for Israel. He had ties to the daughter of a famous Mossad
agent, he met with former Israeli PM Ehud Barak (whom he also had business dealings with in Israel – perfect front to launder
money beyond the reach of American regulators), he was pals with a prominent and deeply-connected Israel-first billionaire Les
Wexner (who is now claiming Epstein swindled him out of up to $500 million – pure BS), his source of income was mysterious and
ill-defined, he had lots of dirt on lots of powerful people in a scam eerily reminiscent of your classic honeypot operation and
former labor secretary Alexander Acosta directly stated that he was told to lay off because Epstein was "intelligence" etc etc
etc.
"But this hyper-competent group lacked the competence to stop him from being charged, or to at least get a heads up and bump
him off outside before he was arrested, or to get him to disappear to Brazil or Paraguay."
Well, they succeeded the first time. If Acosta hadn't personally intervened, the Florida attorneys would have let him off with
nothing. That's why Acosta's office got involved in the first place. Paraphrasing "they wanted no charges [Florida state] and
we thought that was unacceptable". By all accounts, Epstein's interment was unusually light, to the point where one official has
stated that he was surprised they made Epstein do any time at all; Epstein slept there at night and was allowed to leave during
the day to go to his job. Further, Acosta himself was accused of breaking the law in his effort to let Epstein skate – after he
was told to lay off because he's "intelligence" that is. That intelligence is most likely Mossad. There was an obvious cover up
here, and it very nearly succeeded.
@BB753"I see you are lazy enough to
rely on the doctored Wikipedia"
It's at least something. You're so lazy you can't even be bothered to do that -- what does that tell you?To the extent all
this was doctored, it's curious that they had to wait five years while Buckey sat in prison as convicted Satanist pedophile. That
must have been some picnic, but hey, who cares about that, right? We have to think of the children, after all.
"you can understand that trafficking children is common"
What? I don't need convincing that trafficking children happens in shocking numbers, and if you have to start putting words
in my mouth to make your case, what does that tell you about how stupid your case was to begin with? But guess what? -- murder
is common, too. That still doesn't mean that every accused person is guilty, especially if the main witness is mentally ill and
claims the defendant can fly through the air. Are you saying people flying through the air and getting flushed down magical toilets
are a common occurrence too? If so, that would explain the rest of your posts.
If you look at, say, "Operation Cathedral/Wonderland/The Orchid Club", involving over a hundred pedophiles in over a dozen
countries and 1200 victims (there's a plenty long wikipedia page on that, too) you'll find plenty of actual evidence that no one
has since bothered to deny or retract, i.e. evidence that doesn't defy the basic laws of physics. How is it that Wikipedia managed
to keep that up without the Illuminati or the lizard people or Mossad shutting (or whoever) shutting that down?
Lastly, if you actually bothered to read the wikipedia page I linked to, they do have an extensive section on the archaeologist
that the parents hired to try and find the "secret tunnels". He did claim to find something, but the subsequent excavation found
a sewer pipe with stuff dating from the 60's, on top of an undisturbed concrete slab, if I'm reading that correctly. Another source
says that Stickel and Gunderson worked together:
Parents hired former FBI agent Ted L. Gunderson, who worked as a private investigator, and archeologist Gary Stickel to
aid in the dig. Gunderson claimed he found a "subterranean opening, " under one classroom, and another underneath a bathroom.
Gunderson said that the "tunnel" may have been dug by a utility company, according to the news service UPI Investigators had
used sonar trying to detect "soft spots" under the building's foundation, which possibly could indicate hollow areas, according
to the Los Angeles Times. However, no conclusive evidence was ever found at the site. On Aug. 1, 1990, all charges against
Ray Buckey were dismissed after a second jury become deadlocked on eight counts of child molestation against him.
Yeah, real slam dunk argument you got going there. I'm sure in another week or two they would have likewise found the magic
flush-toilets and the secret underground lair where Chuck Norris keeps his pedophile dungeons right next to the records of how
he and Bigfoot killed the Kennedys.
If Trump were interested in "winning", as he likes to claim, he would push the DOJ to view
this as a RICO case, not one about a single rich pedophile. There was a criminal organization
at work here, with multiple conspirators and enablers. They should be indicted. Additionally,
there are enough people on the periphery -- ex-presidents, financiers, professors, etc --
that deserve to be dragged in front of a jury, where they can publicly plead the 5th.
This should have been the approach from Day 1, and hopefully, Epstein's suspicious death
will be a catalyst for it.
If our country wasn't a joke, there would be a Mueller level probe into Epstein's
"suicide" that included extensive investigations into whether he was involved with a
foreign intelligence agency -- and which one.
If our country wasn't a joke, there would be a Mueller level probe into Epstein's
"suicide" that included extensive investigations into whether he was involved with a
foreign intelligence agency -- and which one.
The Jeffrey Epstein
saga goes on even though convicted pedophile Epstein himself has been found hanged in his
jail cell in Manhattan. One has to wonder how he managed to kill himself, if that is indeed the
case, as he was reportedly on suicide watch at the prison and it is to be presumed that he had
been stripped of any clothing or accoutrements that would have been usable to that end. So, he
is dead but did he do it himself or was he helped? There are many prominent individuals and
powerful government agencies that will be very pleased that he is gone as most of his secrets
will have gone to the grave with him.
There was certainly a warning that something might happen. Two weeks ago, he was reportedly
found unconscious in his jail cell with marks around his neck. It was suggested that he
might have tried to kill himself or, alternatively, had been beaten up by another inmate. There
was also considerable speculation that some aggrieved part of the Deep State was trying to kill
him to silence him.
The subsequent press reports revealed that Epstein had been taken to a hospital, but there
has been no follow-up about his condition or status apart from
a brief note that he had been returned to the same jail under suicide watch. In any event,
the story had pretty much died, which is precisely what a lot of the high rollers and
politicians who became involved with Epstein would have liked to see happen. Nevertheless,
investigations of the "Affair Epstein" reportedly were continuing at the federal level as well
as in New York State and Florida.
The most recent elaboration of the Epstein saga prior to his death came from his former
patron Leslie Wexner, the canny Jewish business tycoon who built an Ohio based fashion empire
called L Brands from scratch. L Brands, by the way, includes Victoria's Secret, which features
young women strutting around in their underwear. The 81 year old Wexner claimed in a 564 word
letter that the wily Epstein "misappropriated vast sums of
money" from him. In the letter Wexner admitted to having lost at least $46 million from his
family money, but some media accounts are suggesting that the fraud amounted to much more,
possibly as much as $500 million. And the alleged theft also extended to property, to include
the series of transactions that left Epstein possessing the Upper East Side mansion where he
resided and did his filming of celebrities having sex with young girls, estimated to be worth
$56 million, as well as the commercial airliner that became the Lolita Express and a
yacht.
(Leslie Wexner. Credit: American Academy of Achievement/ YouTube)
Now, either sum of purloined money is not exactly pocket change even for multi-billionaire
Wexner, even if rag trade magnate was enamored of the massages he was getting at Epstein's
house. It would take an extremely poor businessman to be unaware of losing that kind of money
and that much property unless his name were Donald Trump.
Wexler claimed that he began to sever ties with Epstein in 2007, after Florida authorities
charged Jeffrey in early 2006 with multiple counts of molestation and unlawful sexual activity
with a minor. In 2008, Epstein pleaded guilty to state charges of solicitation of prostitution
from a minor and was required to register as a sex offender, but he received an astonishingly
mild jail sentence of eighteen months with a private cell, unlimited visitors including young
women, and daily release so he could be picked up by his driver to go to work in his Palm Beach
office, a bit of incomprehensible leniency that is currently being subjected to criminal
investigation by the state of Florida. After the sentence was handed down the county sheriff
observed that "He was astonished that [Epstein] had to go to prison at all."
Indeed, the entire Florida side of the Epstein story seems to have disappeared down some
memory hole. Epstein was convicted for his involvement with prostitution, but the only
remaining issue was the consequences that he faced. That is where other players stepped in,
including Harvard Law Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz, Palm Beach county state attorney
Barry Krischer, and the Miami office U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta.
My belief that Jeffrey Epstein was an intelligence agent is based principally on Acosta's
comments when being cleared by the Trump transition team. He was asked "Is the Epstein case
going to cause a problem [for confirmation hearings]?" "Acosta testified that he'd had just one
meeting on the Epstein case. He'd cut the non-prosecution deal with one of Epstein's attorneys
because he had 'been told' to back off, that Epstein was above his pay grade. 'I was told
Epstein belonged to intelligence and to leave it alone.'"
The questions about Epstein remain even though he is gone, but one fears that the
authorities will be disinclined to further investigate a dead man. It appears that no one in
the various investigative agencies or the mainstream media has been interested in what Acosta
meant, even though it would be simple enough to ask him. Who told him to back off? And how did
they explain it? And then there is Epstein's Austrian passport. Was it fake or real, with a
real name and photo substitution or alternation of both picture and name? How did he get it?
Austrian passports are highly desirable in intelligence circles because the country is neutral
and its holders can travel just about everywhere without a visa.
And there's more. As a former intelligence officer myself, there is little doubt in my mind
that what Epstein did and how he did it was an intelligence operation. There is no other viable
explanation for his filming of prominent politicians and celebrities having sex with young
girls. And as for the question of whom Epstein might have been working for, the
most likely answer is Mossad . The CIA would have had no interest in compiling dossiers on
prominent Americans, but American movers and shakers like Bill Clinton, with his 26 trips on
the Lolita Express , former Governor Bill Richardson, or former Senator George Mitchell
are
precisely the types of "agents of influence" that the Mossad would seek to coerce or even
blackmail into cooperation.
Other compelling evidence for a Mossad connection came from Epstein's relationship with
Ghislaine Maxwell, who reportedly served as his key procurer of young girls. Ghislaine is the
daughter of Robert
Maxwell , who died or possibly was assassinated in mysterious circumstances in 1991.
Maxwell was an Anglo-Jewish businessman, very cosmopolitan in profile, like Epstein, a
multi-millionaire who was very controversial with what were regarded as ongoing ties to Mossad.
After his death, he was given a state funeral by Israel in which six serving and former heads
of Israeli intelligence listened while Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir eulogized : "He has
done more for Israel than can today be said."
Israel and high-profile Jewish players also have
continued to turn up like bad pennies in the Epstein case, but no one seems to be
interested in pursuing that angle. Epstein clearly had contact with former Israeli Prime
Minister Shimon Peres and Ehud Barak and Wexner also had
close ties to the Jewish state and its government. Barry Krischer, who may have been the
source of the comments to Acosta, has received the Anti-Defamation
League (ADL) award . Evidence also suggests that Krischer, cooperating with rabidly
pro-Israel Epstein lawyer Alan Dershowitz, played a key role in the failure to adequately
punish Epstein for his conviction for pedophilia. According to a recent New
Yorker story , the police investigators of the Epstein case observed that "the tone and
tenor of the discussions of this case with Krischer changed completely" after his meetings with
Dershowitz. At that point, the two detectives most involved in the case found themselves under
extreme pressure. They were surveilled constantly by private investigators and they even had
their household trash snatched and searched. And the resulting plea agreement with Krischer "
was due to the efforts of Dershowitz, who had proceeded to attack and smear the victims."
Krischer
claims that his office "subpoenaed witnesses took evidence to a Grand Jury, which returned
a single felony count indictment against Epstein of soliciting prostitution," but the reality
appears to be that he worked with the defense to get Epstein off. There was plenty of evidence
based on more than forty interviews with victims to convict Epstein, but instead of having him
arrested, Krischer instead set up the Grand Jury with no mention of underage victims to
mitigate the possible consequences. He also did not inform the victims of what he had arranged
so they could challenge the verdict and penalty, a violation of Crime Victims Rights Act.
The Palm Beach police who worked the case at the time told The Miami Herald as
part of an investigation published in November that they felt pressured by Krischer to
downgrade Epstein's case to a misdemeanor, or to drop it entirely. They said "the fix was in."
Acosta, more recently, did not refer to Krischer by name during an early July news conference,
but spoke of the Palm Beach County state's attorney. He described his own office as stepping in
to ensure Epstein faced some form of punishment. "Simply put, the Palm Beach State Attorney's
Office was willing to let Epstein walk free. No jail time. Nothing," Acosta said. "Prosecutors
in my former office found this to be completely unacceptable, and we became involved."
After thirteen months in country club jail in Palm Beach, Epstein was released. At his
mansion in New York City, he subsequent had an artist paint a mural of himself in jail,
evidently as an insider joke for those who knew about his time behind bars. End of story? Not
exactly, even though Epstein is now dead. But the key questions go unanswered including was he
a spy for Israel? And what about the Krischer-Dershowitz connection that kept him from being
punished commensurate with his crimes? Did those instructions also come from Israel or from its
friends in the U.S. Justice Department? Will the three simultaneous investigations currently
taking place even continue and ask the right questions now that the target of the investigation
is gone? Given the high stakes in the game, quite likely, there will be a cover-up both of how
Epstein lived and how he died. We the public will never know what Epstein was all about.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest,
a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a
more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its
email is[email protected]
We the public will never know what Epstein was all about.
Astute observation, which means of course that we can endlessly speculate with little fear
of contradiction.
Question: If I film a person having sex with an underage girl I have committed a major
felony. How many people would use that film as blackmail knowing that its release will land
him in prison?
For too many people, it's the ideal outcome. Bill Clinton, Alan Dershowitz, Prince Andrew
those are the ones we spotted.
Moreover, it's possible the pool was about to expand a lot. Drawn by the scent of
that supposed five hundred million dollar fortune, a law firm was searching for more of
Epstein's victims. Who knows who they would have named?
There would have been a welter of civil suits, All the beans could have been
spilled.
And gee now we'll never know. I doubt if much trace of that supposed fortune is ever going
to be found. It never was clear how Epstein made money, or even who he made it from, and yet
he had multiple fabulous estates -- including his own private island -- and a private Boeing
727. Whoever supplied the funds for all this is going to go away, leaving no trail behind
them.
I'm reminded of the considerably more obscure Zygier case.
Zygier was an Australian Jew who followed that familiar path for idealistic young Jews
from the diaspora : get smitten with Israel, make aliyah , and serve in
Israel's noble armed forces.
In Zygier's case, his service took the form of joining the Mossad. Evidently, he saw
something there that offended his refined ethical sensibilities; he was locked up and held
incommunicado pending trial. Sadly, he 'committed suicide' -- in a cell under
twenty-four hour suicide watch -- before he could appear in court.
@Colin Wright "a law
firm was searching for more of Epstein's victims. Who knows who they would have named?"
They can still sue his estate. Not like it matters much for civil suits if he is dead. His
testimony would not have been credible or helpful for either side.
I can't even understand why he came back to the states to be arrested. With all his
contacts he must have known that if he came here that would be the outcome. If the powers
that be wanted to get rid of him he would have had an accident ages ago. Maybe it was more
important to have him arrested and instill fear in all the people caught up by his honey trap
it certainly would help to exert pressure if there was a particular agenda that needed to be
accomplished. My feeling is that he has been whisked off to a new life with his awesome
retirement package.
TPTBs really, REALLY, don't care what the rest think or feel. Well, except for one thing,
maybe: "Look what we can do to one of us. Now .think a bit, what can we do to YOU?".
The "rest", at the same time, also don't care much. Most people won't simply register
this. So much for "informing/educating people to create a positive social change".
The very mechanisms of society which are supposed to prevent this, let alone investigate
and punish the perpetrators, obviously, won't do it. Independent ..hahahaha ..media.
Judiciary. Police. Famed security services.
If this had happened anywhere else in the world the USA media/public would've been shitting,
with reason, all over it. Not in the land of free. Well, that does prove that American
society is exceptional.
This is really "in your face". Scary, actually, how "they" really don't care. Not because
"they" are what they are. Because "we" are what "we" are.
It would be interesting to see what's going to happen to the plebs involved. My take: some
disciplinary action now. And, perhaps, the same guy(s) employed somewhere with much better
pay and perks.
"If I film a person having sex with an underage girl I have committed a major felony. How
many people would use that film as blackmail knowing that its release will land him in
prison?"
For the same reason people build nuclear weapons but don't ever use them: the potential
for MAD is there should anyone get out of line and attack so there is never an attack. The
money keeps flowing to Israel and no administration votes against them in the UN.* Besides,
if Epstein were contracted by Mossad, they presumably would have copies of this dirt and they
could easily release it through a third party. That's certainly a calculation the victims
would have made. We already know a former Israeli PM with high level contacts in the IDF and,
possibly, Mossad not only had personal contact with Epstein but also had a business
relationship with him through a company based in Israel. Wexner could have funneled money
through that company to conceal the operation's finances, which would have been beyond the
ability of US regulators to examine.
Personally, I find it incredulous that Wexner would have been unaware of missing $500
million. That's an extraordinary sum. We know Wenxer is an ardent Israeli nationalist who has
in the past organized fellow Jewish billionaires (Study Group / Mega Group) for the purposes
of promoting "Jewish charity" the perfect front to run an operation. Study this man's ties
and you will almost certainly find Mossad. Wexner was the perfect means to fund Epstein's
operation: wealthy, ethnocentric, and highly connected to other big time players in finance,
politics, and the entertainment industries (great for recruiting) – the perfect cover
to shield Israel from blow back in the unlikely event the operation became public. This was
Mossad. Count on it. it's what I would do.
*Sorta funny how American administrations stopped voting against Israeli interests around
the time when video cameras became widespread, isn't it? Further, has anyone ever wondered
what happens when all those freshly minted democrats join leadership in their freshmen luxury
tours of Israel? Seems like the perfect time to gather some dirt. I wonder if their hotel
rooms get special visits from young women? If I were honest CIA, I might have a problem with
this activity if I were honestly working for this country and not a certain other one, that
is.
So many questions and we are supposed to have confidence in the same FBI and DOJ that created
Russiagate to investigate another stinking pile of corruption? Why not appoint James Comey as
a special counsel to investigate the Epstein affair? That will keep everything hidden for a
few years.
Here's what bothers me. George Mitchell, Bill Richardson even Bill Clinton are has beens
and, let's face it, to a septuagenarian lecher the difference between an 16 year old and an
18 year old girl is a distinction without a difference. Epstein could have run his version of
the Playboy Mansion unhindered for the rest of his life had he just made sure his 'pleasure
units' had drivers licenses that said they were 18. Hell, Monica Lewinsky was 21 and Bill
Clinton risked his presidency to conceal that affair. If blackmail is your game you don't
need teenyboppers to ruin a political career. Ask Gary Hart or John Edwards!
There is something missing in this Epstein drama. Something so devastating that it goes
beyond any single person's survival. Something that would bring down an agency ( like the FBI
) were it to be revealed.
@peterAUS With all the
dystopian bills and laws passed in the last two years, with the current attack on the 1st and
2nd amendment, with the effective neutering of congress and its politicians reduction to
puppets for special interests and the lobby, finally with the attack on the internet, you
knew the West is moving into totalitarian mode. But the murder-suicide of Epstein outright
confirms it. Welcome to the USSA. It's a big club and YOU ain't in it!
Unless you are a billionaire, Zionist or top level agent useful to them of course.
But it does make you wonder what Americans will do. If the British crown had done a 1/10th
of what the current elite does You have to wonder if Ernst Zundel's prophecy will come true
in the end. Or if the people will really just go quietly into the night and slumber away
consuming superhero movies, junk food and second-hand memories of a time long passed and
dreams of a fake utopia that will never be and was a lie to begin with.
@Lot' They can
still sue his estate. Not like it matters much for civil suits if he is dead. His testimony
would not have been credible or helpful for either side.'
You assume they can find his estate. I imagine that -- the title to the plane, the island,
the imaginary stock portfolio -- is all going to prove remarkably evanescent.
Whoever was funding Epstein is going to roll up the carpet behind them as they go.
There'll be nothing to take.
@Muggles Both of those
deaths lead back to Mueller. Likewise the wrist slap for major kiddie porn distributor David
Asimov ( son of Isaac ). If you venture farther back you find Mueller butt deep in the BCCI
scandal.
As to how Epstein got his fake passport, it's highly likely he got it from Ronald Lauder, son
of Estée Lauder and currently President of the World Jewish Congress. At the time
Epstein received his fake Austrian passport, Lauder was US ambassador to Austria.
It's time Wexner's shady past received more scrutiny, as it would reveal everything about
the true nature and extent of Epstein's operation. Wexner has had both ties to the mob and
the CIA. He shared the same very private terminal for fueling and customs inspections at
Rickenbacker Airport with the CIA's Southern Air Transport airline (later Evergreen
Aviation), known for its "Torture Taxi" rendition flights and drug trafficking. Wexner used
Southern Air Transport to fly clothing in from Hong Kong, which back in the day was the main
heroin hub. It may be that Wexner received a cut of the CIA's drug money for serving as a
front, at a time when Epstein was doing the book keeping for Wexner.
One of Wexner's brands is called Express, which started out as Limited Express. No doubt
"Lolita Express" is a play on that, as there was a habit of using variations of the Limited
name. Wexner had a super yacht called "Limitless" that Epstein used.
Personally, I find it incredulous that Wexner would have been unaware of missing $500
million.
Wexner knew it , he just didn't do anything about it which begs the question why? There is
also the question of why Wexner gave Epstein a 'power of attorney' over his family charity
fund. A man in his position would have a dozen attorneys who would have told him not to do
that.
There were billions of dollars at risk on what Epstein could tell.
"Besides Lex Wexner of L Brands who now (15 years after the fact) says Epstein stole $45
million from him which he made no effort to get back there was Leon Black.
"Leon D. Black, head of Apollo Global Management one of the world's largest private equity
firms
Black's links to Epstein have become a source of concern to some Apollo employees and
investors, including the California Public Employees' Retirement System, which has committed
more than $5 billion to 11 Apollo funds and is its second-largest shareholder.
"Calpers takes this issue very seriously," Wayne Davis, a spokesman for the Sacramento-based
pension,"
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-31/jeffrey-epstein-had-a-door-into-apollo-his-deep-ties-with-black
Black and Apollo would have been ruined forever if Calpers had withdrawn their pension
money because of links to Epstein sexcapades.
There are likely more WS and other financial figures linked to Epstein and there may have
been crimes beyond underage girls such as actual sex trafficking and money laundering .his
travel records included countries compatible with those activities.
@Lot' Maybe his
money isn't as well hidden as we imagine. After all, he kept a big child porn stash right in
NYC, and didn't move to a no-extradition country. So he was either expecting to get away with
his crimes or just really sloppy '
Intentionally or not, you seem to be determinedly missing my point.
Maybe the money never was Epstein's. Maybe it was given to him to run the operations he
ran. Epstein wasn't an independent operator so much as an employee.
Watch and see. If I'm right, everything will turn out to be in somebody else's name. There
won't be an estate to sue.
I read that Epstein had been taken off suicide watch, that the video camera surveilling him
had developed a technical malfunction, and that the guards assigned to him had been removed
for 3 hours related to some maintenance chore. If this is so, there will be some explaining
to do, and the internet will see to it that there is a lot of justified speculation. Even
minor prisoners are under video-surveillance 24-7 in more modern facilities.
Since Epstein had hundreds or thousands of videos of prominent people having sex with
minors, the state has a duty to the victims and the public to go through this material and
prosecute the clients where possible. This will naturally open up the discussion of a
possible blackmailing operation.
In a manner of speaking, God has done his part and the ball's in our court. If we don't do
what we can to get this investigated properly we have ourselves to blame. This is a golden
opportunity to expose the deep state. Don't be content to whine or listen to Hannity whine.
Whiners are losers.
Since Epstein appears to have no wife or children it will be interesting to see if he left
a will or if, like Howard Hughes, some Melvin Dummar type emerges claiming Epstein's estate.
Worth a try I suppose if you can get a lawyer to work on a contingency basis.
@iffen The point is
that this man was on suicide watch not for his own sake so much as because the investigation
and prosecution of his crimes and related ones were so important to the country.
I've recently been doing quite a lot of reading about the Syndicate gangsters of the
1930s-1940s, and another interesting historical parallel comes to mind
In 1941, Abe "Kid Twist" Reles, a senior figure in Brooklyn's Murder Inc. agreed to
testify against America's top Syndicate bosses, providing detailed evidence about the 1,000
or so nationwide killings that his organization had performed on their behalf.
Obviously, the federal prosecutors were concerned about his safety in any ordinary jail,
and stashed him in a suite of top-floor hotel rooms, where he was guarded 24-hours per day by
rotating groups of six specially-selected police officers, who would keep him under constant
surveillance. The doors were steel-plated and the rooms selected to preclude any long-range
sniper.
Oops! Poor "Kid Twist" somehow decided to jump out the 5th story window and kill himself
when all six of the on-duty guards happened to simultaneously doze off.
The Captain in command of the unit argued that it was accident rather than suicide, and
the poor fellow had deliberately climbed out the window, intending to rappel down to the
floor below, then walk back up the stairs and knock on the front door, thereby surprising his
erstwhile guards with a amusing practical joke.
Syndicate killers planning to implicate their bosses should definitely avoid playing such
"practical jokes"
@Ron Unz What is so
striking about the Epstein murder/suicide is not that high level witnesses like him would be
targeted and taken out to protect the powerful people implied in his testimony. But that even
the most casually informed observer of the case equipped with basic common knowledge would
know and anticipate in advance with certainty that he would be targeted.
The fact that Epstein could be killed in the prison which protected El Chapo and where,
allegedly, not a single inmate had comitted suicide under watch, with the dire warnings of
many voices and red flags in advance, and a "suicide attempt" just shortly before, which
already implied assault in his cell, can only mean two things:
That the US justice system is as inept and dysfunctional as that of a banana republic
– which is unlikely.
Or that the US political system from the presidents, over state attorneys down to the
common prison guard is so thoroughly corrupted to the point of evil that it was possible to
have Epstein assassinated.
Similar cases you have reported have been going on for almost a century now. And what was
speculative has now become iron certainty: that blackmail, assassination, human trafficking,
child abuse and pedophile-rings are an integral part of the true ruling elite of the USA.
Likely that of Europe aswell. And of South America. And the destinction between the ruling
elite and the mob it used and uses, is at best grey in nature. We are talking about people
who can destroy entire nations, have hundreds of thousands of people massacred as a
consequence and laugh about it, like Hillary Clinton did.
Yet the uncomfortable, undeniable certainty of this reality does still come somewhat as a
shock to me.
What was so special about the Epstein case was that it happened under the watchful and
anticipating eye of the public. The assasination, as described earlier, was a show of force
and smug mocking of the audience by the ruling elite. It almost felt like a bait to violent
retaliation. Like the true establishment had thrown down the gauntlet.
My pessimism leads me to believe that the Epstein assassination and implication with
Mossad and Ehud Barak as well as Benjamin Netanyahu will be memory-holed and drown in the
swamp of total apathy that rules post-historic, rootless, post-modern western man. But it is
hard to believe the potentially most esxplosive case in post-WW2 US history could just end
like a forgotten footnote.
@MLK I would import
everyone half-intelligent to ignore Giraldi's distraction arm-waving about the Jews. Apply
some common sense.
Whomever was powerful enough to resuscitate the "Epstein saga," surely could have quietly
suicided him in the many years before he was back in federal custody. Ergo, that wasn't the
plan.
According to the (sketchy) official story, Epstein recklessly flew back to Teterboro
Airport right when his malefactions were again in the spotlight and the subject of
litigation. Apparently all of his powerful protectors low these many years must have all been
on summer vacation, including Mossad to hear Giraldi tell it.
What makes a whole lot more sense is that he was, in a word, renditioned. We even got
the post-arrest photo of him looking much like Saddam (purportedly) pulled from his hiding
hole by some garden-variety US soldiers.
@TKK Except she was
not 15, but two years older, and was with him until 19, which is a difficult mistake to make
honestly. And once your testimony is proven to be unreliable in one detail about judge must
tell the jury all your evidence is tainted. She also had a druggie boyfriend at the time. And
she was a lot tighter with her family and deceived them a lot more than anyone would
understand from her account. She lied to her father and was taking money for sex as a 19 year
old. Her character not her consent would be the issue. The jury would be led to understand
that they were making her a millionaire by convicting Epstein. Epstein's acquittal would not
have been unprecedented, Michael Jackson's acquittal was probabally due to just such a
defence strategy. Both had a lot of money, and the criminal justice system is not designed to
cope with super rich defendants.
@Grizaby Evidently you
can't read. It said Clinton and the rest of his clients. Trump is owned by Israel but that
doesn't mean he was part of Epstein's inner circle like the Clintons were. You have no clue
to what you are talking about. If Trump was part of it he will be had. Look at the bull they
tried to run by the American people with Mueller investigation.
Epstein was a major player in the espionage industry which consisted of Israel running the
system with likes of British Intelligence along with the CIA. This stuff is as old as warfare
itself. Epstein survived because all these agencies and the Magic Jews with their money
protected him. The US court system protected him as well as the FBI and Mueller. The Mueller
investigation was just another smoke and mirror diversion for Israel and the CIA to use ISIS
as a proxy army to expand Israel's borders while for two years the Jew Controlled Media ran
24 hours a day the Russians influenced our election. Unfortunately, some of us know that
Jews, Soros and Adelson own both the Democrats and the Republicans and control our
elections.
There is nothing partisan here. If you knew anything about Israel you would know that they
have been "importing" girls from the Balkins and other places for their sex industry for
years which has been covered up. Whenever there is human trafficking, porn, sex slavery,
organ harvesting, and espionage using such domains you will find Israel. For some reason
Giraldi seems ignorant of such things.
@Sean Oh, poor
victimized Jeff and these bad-bad girls. Sean comes to rescue!
Well, if Sean is so mindful about the age of the girls, here is a morsel of information to
provide food for Sean's thoughts: "Jeffrey Epstein searched for two EIGHT-YEAR-OLD girls to
sexually abuse after enlisting the help of fixer pal, court docs suggest" https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9622107/jeffrey-epstein-eight-year-old-girls-sexually-abuse/
Messages left for the billionaire and convicted paedophile [Jeffrey Epstein] by friend
Jean-Luc Brunel, himself the subject of abuse allegations, describe a female "2 x 8 years
old" willing to give "Russian lessons".
Both had a lot of money, and the criminal justice system is not designed to cope with
super rich defendants.
with ties to Ehud Barak (of 9/11 fame).
US Attorney Acosta was told to "back off, that Epstein was above his pay grade." "I was
told Epstein 'belonged to intelligence'.
Which begs the question.. who told him that?
We can always discover where the rot meets the road by the thunderous silence when it
comes to asking certain questions.
Who provided the script to Fox News and the BBC for the story of building seven's
collapse?
Nobody has any interest in knowing -- this is where the rot meets the road.
Who told Acosta to lay off of Epstein? -- this is where the rot meets the road.
It's always the crickets who inform us, more than a thousand "journalists" and "reporters"
who know where the rot meets the road, and when to stop asking questions.
For instance, how did Epstein hang himself?
By what means was he able to do this? How was he found?
The only thing they're telling us is that " Epstein was found unresponsive in his
cell.."
And that he had been taken off suicide watch.
And so the rest of us, by dint of the avalanche of unasked questions, are supposed to have
trust in the authorities to get to the bottom of it. If we're told he hanged himself,
it's not up to us, and certainly not the job of 'journalists or reporters' to worry about
things like – how, exactly did he hang himself?
How was he found? I guess asking such questions would be 'beyond the Pale'.
He was found 'unresponsive in his cell. Oh, Ok. Wasn't he on suicide watch? No, he had
been taken off suicide watch. Oh, what about cameras? 'The cameras malfunctioned during his
'suicide'.
Ok, we have no more questions. We're satisfied that the FBI is going to "investigate".
Reminds me of the Las Vegas shooting, and how they couldn't discover a motive. The length
and breath of our vaunted FBI and all that NSA surveillance that knows when you're going to
fart before even you do, but they can't discover a motive for Las Vegas.
Michael Hastings was simply driving too fast. Case closed.
Jorg Haider was simply driving too fast.
Seth Rich died in a 'robbery' (where his wallet and expensive watch were not taken).
Gary Webb committed suicide by shooting himself in the head – twice.
If you're a professional whornalist, you're satisfied with these conclusions.
@annamaria Typical
female ad hominem fantasy projection.
For what is worth- there is no reliable Mossad connection (not that they are "good/evil
guys" or anything similar), but simply no proof for any interference on their side. It would
be interesting to see if they were- for instance, they certainly are behind assassination of
a Palestinian rocket scientist somewhere in the east (Indonesia? Malaysia?) a few months ago.
But with Epstein- there is no serious case for their involvement.
@Bardon Kaldian
Epstein was charged and had sexual contact with under age girls who could be more easily
numbered than named. Not a single one of the allegedly existent customers of Epstein were
charged. In fact the accusation by the girls is he gave them to his friends and even random
visitors to his mansion. The prosecutors charged Epstein with trafficking because that would
get him life, NOT because he was actually guilty of that by being any kind of pimp. Don't
take everything so literally.
@Bardon Kaldian I know
all about black street pimps and the teen girls they torture and murder.
You're just trying to obfuscate the issue which is
Procuring is against the law and Epstein was a procurer.
Like many, you probably have the fantasy of pampered happy escort girls making a lot of
money and living happily ever after don't you?
A lot of the escort girls get only cash tips from the customers. Some of the agencies keep
all the fees paid for with credit cards. Almost all the escort agencies cheat the girls when
it's time to pay them. The credit card companies haven't paid the escort agency yet. The 60
40 split is suddenly 70 for the agency 30 for the girls.
Suddenly the agency closes phones canceled and the girls who are owed a months pay are out
of luck as the pimps go off with all the money.
Some agencies don't really screen clients or provide body guards and the girls get beaten
and robbed . Many of the drivers and appointment makers sell drugs to the escort girls.
Hard to figure exactly your point. It appears you're claiming Epstein treated his
prostitutes better than the blacks do. True
But his blackmail financial fraud money laundering his financial services firm that did no
trading buying selling and investing are far worse crimes than running an escort service.
Even worse are the retard idiots who keep claiming that Epstein and his customers were
pedophiles.
Sex with 13 to 17 year olds for money or lust is not pedophilia.
Sex with children 12 and under is pedophilia
Wrong. Pedophiles seek sex with underage children whether 'paid for' or 'not'.
'Underage' varies by state statutes. 15 is the usual age.
Being sexually attracted to a 13 year old prostitute as opposed to 18 year old prostitute is
pedophilia.
Pedophilia is classified as a mental disease .and its not curable. It is treated in most
cases with drugs that erase the sex drive. If a pedophile stops taking the drug he will
resume preying on children.
So says my sister in law who is a psychiatrist on staff with a major hospital who has seen
a few although she treats mainly children, among whom have been a few victims of
pedophiles..
Pedophiles, like mentally deranged serial killers do know 'right from wrong' ,that is
why they hide it .they should be treated criminally the same way other offenders are.
In fact the accusation by the girls is he gave them to his friends and even random
visitors to his mansion.
Weird. Who they were, his zombie personal property so he could "give them"? No personal
will on their side?
As I see it, they were girls, both above & below 18, who were seduced by lavish
life-style & were not bound by any personal strict morality, family ties or anything
similar. Are we to believe that 15 or 16 years old girls were so clueless about life they
would not even think they live, eat, sleep in a grown man's mansions without even a hint of
giving, eh, something "in exchange"?
Are we to believe that those 15, 16, 17..years old girls were not human females, with
female sexual desires, ideas, projections & plans? That these girls did not have sexual
feelings or were totally clueless about them, like, say, about quantum algebra? That there
was not a suspicion on their side that something of a sexual nature was bound to happen,
sooner or later?
Sources familiar with the correctional facility in question tell TMZ, there are
cameras in the Special Housing Unit -- the SHU -- but SOP is that cameras do not point into
the cells. We're told cameras capture, among other things, the doors to each cell to
determine if anyone walks in or out, but they don't point inside.
One source familiar with the facility says the drill is for guards to pass by each cell
in intervals ranging from 15 to 30 minutes depending on the circumstances.
Unless there's a one-off cell with a camera pointing inside -- and we're told there have
been rare situations where this is the case -- the time and manner of his death may
never be captured . TMZ
So rather than actually guard a suicidal prominent prisoner and make sure there is never
another attempt, NYC fed' prison just goofs off AND fails to record anything going on inside
the cell. That's just great.
But because there was no camera and because they took him off of suicide watch so quickly,
an *encouraged* suicide is a big possibility. Who had control over those things? Not holding
my breath for a thorough investigation.
@YetAnotherAnon Just
read in a review of a Maxwell bio that it is thought that Maxwell thought he was headed for a
pickup of some cash he needed to cure his financial woes (that is the speculation of the
bio's authors, Gordon Thomas and someone else). Instead some Israeli ninjas boarded his
vessel, gave him a shot of something hehind the ear that took him out, and dumped him
overboard. This story, if true -- even if not true -- lends a certain piquance to the grand
guignol of the state funeral. Ghislaine may have known or suspected the truth. She hit the
grits for NY -- that is, left Israel. If I understand the story correctly. In one sense this
all sounds kind of weirdly sad, because that girl is obviously effed up bad from the get-go,
and one can't help wondering on what terms Zion owns her.
"Tulsi Gabbard to report for active duty in Indonesia for 2 weeks"
by Brian Pascus...CBS News...1 hr ago
"Tulsi Gabbard, Democrat from Hawaii and presidential candidate, will be taking a two-week
absence from her campaign Monday to report for active duty with the Hawaiian Army National
Guard in Indonesia, she said in an interview with CBSN's Caitlin Huey-Burns.
"I'm stepping off of the campaign trail for a couple of weeks and putting on my army
uniform to go on a joint training exercise mission in Indonesia," she said. Gabbard has also
taken two weeks off to report for active service in 2017."...
https://reason.com/2019/06/03/kamala-harris-is-a-cop-who-wants-to-be-president/Harris’
; attitude on these issues seems to stem from early in her career. In the '90s, she worked
closely with nonprofits and fellow city officials on several anti–domestic violence
campaigns. In 2003, when she was first running for D.A., coalitions "built up around issues
of domestic violence and juvenile prostitution" were "central to the Harris campaign
effort," the San Francisco Examiner noted at the time.
In the late '90s and early '00s, many groups concerned about domestic violence began
shifting their focus to "human trafficking." Soon, Harris started pushing for a law to make
human trafficking a crime in California. This was largely redundant: Forcing others into
labor or sex was already illegal under a host of state laws. Still, the new legislation,
enacted in 2006, was at least nominally concerned with coerced labor. When it passed,
"detectives dramatically stepped up their investigations, helped by f ederal grants
aimed at finding trafficking rings ," the Los Angeles Times noted in 2006. Police
forces received money for training officers, buying "sophisticated surveillance equipment,"
and paying informants.
These federal-local police partnerships to "fight trafficking" were mainly used in
undercover prostitution stings, with the bulk of arrests focused on sex workers themselves
or their customers. Contrary to the stated purpose of the law, prosecutions and convictions
for actual human trafficking were rare. But as the moral panic around what Harris
called "modern slavery" heated up, she would join a coalition demanding that Craigslist,
Backpage, and other classified-advertising sites and web forums that host user-generated
ads be blamed and punished.
Harris was sworn in as state attorney general in 2011, just as calls to "end demand" for
prostitution were getting a turbocharge from celebrity campaigns, federal funding, and a
few motivated ideologues. In 2013, Harris joined 46 other state attorneys general in asking
Congress to amend Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a measure the Electronic
Frontier Foundation calls "the most important law protecting free speech on the
Internet.".
Prosecutors originally tried to charge Epstein with one of these new crimes, "grooming",
but he had not used the internet. You don't know cops and prosecutors if you don't understand
that Epstein could be charged with trafficking while still being just a John. And he could
get out of it because he had money, although his money had been embezzled from a slightly
senile billionaire. Epstein was just a con man and degenerate. Nothing to see here.
What might appear to some to be a insignificant fact makes me uneasy about William Barr's
ability to investigate Epstein.
Barr's father Donald was once headmaster of probably America's toniest non residential
school: The Dalton School in New York city.
Epstein was given a teaching position there by William Barr's father despite having
dropped out of college. For those who don't know, Dalton usually insists on at least a
master's degree for employment and many of its employees have doctorates. (It follows because
Dalton pays its teachers better than many universities do their profressors) The very few
exception that have been made to this requirement have only applied to "artistic types".
(Epstein taught only mathmatics and physics).
It would have been inconceivable for Barr's father to have given the academically
unqualified Epstein his teaching position under normal situation. Someone must have contacted
Barr's father Donald and insisted that Epstein be given the position despite his notable lack
of qualifications. Epstein, the college dropout, couldn't even have qualified for a
credential to teach in the lowiest of NYC's ghetto public school without a state credential
which would have required that an applicant at a minimum have graduated from college.
Barr's father went very much out on a limb with this appointment of Epstein and it must
have been done either without the board of directors' knowledge or someone must claimed that
Epstein did in fact have a college degree (Donald Barr?). Schools like Dalton always VERY
carefully check a potential employee's educational record but this apparently wasn't done in
this case. Why did Donald Barr take this risk and cover for Epstein?
The request for Epstein to be employed as a teacher at Dalton had to have come from
someone VERY high up in the foodchain. There is no other reason why Barr's father would have
made the very risky decision to hire such an unqualified individual.
Then check out this other very odd student pedo placement at Dalton:
The wikipedia entry for Donald Barr has been scrubbed and doesn't even mention his
employment at Dalton. It does however mention that he was in the OSS during the War. (the OSS
was the predecessor to the CIA).
@schrub When I read
Donald Barr was firmer OSS I assumed that was why he hired the non credentialed college
dropout Epstein. Teaching, especially in a private school with normal children and no black
thugs is a perfect thing for an operative to get a regular paycheck apply for credit cards ,
pay rent and utility bills and wait till he's called on for more important things.
If I were Len Deighton or John Le Carre. I'd write a book about the 1955 Soviet spy
trained in perfect English, who arrived on a train from Montreal and established
respectability by teaching for a few years before establishing a financial services firm
Despite strong evidence that he too participated in Epstein sex crimes, Alan Dershowitz
was allowed to lead the best legal dream team Mossad blackmail money could buy. Despite all
the proven facts surrounding this case, the Dershowitz dream team successfully "convinced"
the US Attorney for the Southern District of Florida to neither charge Epstein nor any of his
pimp co-conspirators with sex trafficking underage girls across state lines, and of course
nor dare prosecute any of the other frequent flying VIP child molester
The pit-bullish Dershowitz gang included Kenneth Starr, chief investigator from the
Clinton-Lewinsky soap opera who never fails to evoke the religious high moral ground yet in
the next breath claims he's more than happy to have gotten a pedophile-trafficker off.
Other hotshot aces in the hole were Florida trial lawyer Roy Black and star attorney
Gerald Lefcourt among others. Dershowitz and Lefcourt's letter to Acosta's office prior to
their successful plea bargain emphasized Epstein's super close ties to Bill and Hillary
Clinton, touting how the billionaire pedophile "co-founded" the infamous Clinton Foundation,
accused by philanthropy law expert Charles Ortel of being "the largest unprosecuted fraud in
history." Speaking of which, a whistleblower at a Swiss bank has revealed that Jeffrey
Epstein used his Swiss bank account to send Bill Clinton $3.5 million shortly after his
pedophilia probe began in 2005.
I'm hoping that an element within our intelligence services did the right thing and
Offed him to send a loud and clear message to the rest of the tribal members involved in
false flags against USA and world. Obviously, JE was a very high ranking mossad agent who
had strong ties with ALL the Israelis and Americans who did 9/11.
The primary mission of intelligence agencies is self-preservation, and that means
co-operation with other nation's intelligence agencies whenever possible.
As a practical matter it is highly likely that both Israeli and US Intelligence agencies
had access to the Epstein blackmail materials to use as they wish.
( and, as a practical matter it is highly likely that both Israeli and US Intelligence
agencies were behind 911, the Kennedy assassinations, etc etc etc)
They are on one team, and those outside the intelligence "community" are on the other
team.
Ever consider a rogue upper echelon CIA faction may have ran Epstein, hoping it looked
optically like the Mossad ran him?
Epstein was probably a sex criminal from his early adulthood, but knew a few people. Hell,
his handlers could have told him they were Mossad. I think our CIA/NSA has some brass who
wouldnt mind calling America's foreign policy shots from behind the scenes via blackmail info
on influential company leaders and corporate officers/assorted congresscritters. Epstein
could privide this while appearing to be Mossad.
Its hard to believ CIA would let the Mossad get kompramat on our politicians so they could
boss them around. Turf concerns and a bruised ego would lead me to believe the CIA would at
least brief new members of congress about this anyway. I think it could have been them. "He
belongs to intelligence".
@Anon Interesting
idea, but aren't the CIA and Mossad joined at the hip at this stage? How likely is it that
rogue elements within the CIA haven't been purged by now?
Ever consider a rogue upper echelon CIA faction may have ran Epstein, hoping it looked
optically like the Mossad ran him?
No. For simple reasons: "What's there for me" and "Unless having THAT clearance I'll never
know".
Re the former: if they can pull this to him what can they pull on me (or people I care
for) if/when they want it.
Gets worse.
What if they pull that just to get a kick of out of it? Like aristocrats/nobles of Rome
would pull it on a gladiator/slave? Or Middle Age noble on a serf?
I remember when Milosevic died and I'd mention that over lunch in white-collar/corporate
environment. He WAS a head of state, European, White. I remember the jokes. And I was
thinking (stupid, I know) the same: if they can do this to him, what can they do to me?
Nobody else was, of course, at least where I was moving around (senior corporate management,
that is .or so I say).
Then, there was a S.A.S. guy. Quote from Wikipedia:
He was a lance corporal in 1980, serving in Pagoda Troop, 'B' Squadron, 22 SAS Regiment,
when he led "Blue Team" in the storming of the Iranian Embassy in London during a hostage
siege on 5 May 1980. McAleese fought in the Falklands War in 1982, and in Ulster. He was
awarded the Military Medal for gallantry in action at the Loughgall ambush in Armagh on 8
May 1987,[4] and was present at the Drumnakilly ambush in County Tyrone in August 1988.[5]
He also served as a bodyguard for three Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom.
The last sentence could be interesting.
And, then ..
Four days after his son's funeral John McAleese was arrested by officers from West
Mercia Police on charges of accessing indecent images of juveniles on the internet via a
home computer.
So, again, if they can do that to this fellow, what can they do to me?
Etc.
Hehehe ..now the funny part: how many people reading this knew about Mr. McAleese? No need
to state it here.
Oh, BTW, how many people you know are paying attention to this? Real attention, I
mean?
Funny too.
I've recently been doing quite a lot of reading about the Syndicate gangsters of the
1930s-1940s, and another interesting historical parallel comes to mind
In 1941, Abe "Kid Twist" Reles, a senior figure in Brooklyn's Murder Inc. agreed to
testify against America's top Syndicate bosses, providing detailed evidence about the 1,000
or so nationwide killings that his organization had performed on their behalf.
Obviously, the federal prosecutors were concerned about his safety in any ordinary jail,
and stashed him in a suite of top-floor hotel rooms, where he was guarded 24-hours per day by
rotating groups of six specially-selected police officers, who would keep him under constant
surveillance. The doors were steel-plated and the rooms selected to preclude any long-range
sniper.
Oops! Poor "Kid Twist" somehow decided to jump out the 5th story window and kill himself
when all six of the on-duty guards happened to simultaneously doze off.
The Captain in command of the unit argued that it was accident rather than suicide, and
the poor fellow had deliberately climbed out the window, intending to rappel down to the
floor below, then walk back up the stairs and knock on the front door, thereby surprising his
erstwhile guards with a amusing practical joke.
Syndicate killers planning to implicate their bosses should definitely avoid playing such
"practical jokes"
This reminds me a little of a almost forgotten incident from the 1960s
Some government inspector in Texas had agreed to testify about the details of a gigantic
corruption ring that was closely connected with LBJ. I can't remember the exact details, but
not long afterward, he was found dead, shot seven times.
The local Texas court ruled it an apparent suicide and that's exactly how it was reported
in the Washington Post and the other national newspapers ;
Gabbard (D)(1): "Tulsi Gabbard's daredevil act" [ Politico
]. "Gabbard delivered a piercing, if inaccurate, appraisal of Kamala Harris' law enforcement
record -- then turned it into a misleading, yet effective, online ad push." • That's all
Politico says. I heard what Gabbard said, when she said it, and could have backed up every line
of it with links. Gabbard was even nicer than she could have been, because she left out
Mnuchin. I wish I could say this article was shocking, but it isn't.
"... Joe Biden is both sadly demented and deeply compromised to the Chinese Communist Party through his use of his office as VP to fund his son's investment fund with money from China's government owned and run central bank. His condition and his compromised state will keep him from the WH. ..."
"... Gabbart is the only person that seems rational and slightly honest. Harris traded sex for political advancement I understand why she would be a favorite. No moral or ethical standards willing to do anything for what she wants. Perfect useful idiot. ..."
Tulsi Gabbard is an exception to the subject of my title, but she is not going to be
nominated. I am currently contributing to her campaign as a tribute to a gallant lady.
Joe Biden is both sadly demented and deeply compromised to the Chinese Communist Party
through his use of his office as VP to fund his son's investment fund with money from China's
government owned and run central bank. His condition and his compromised state will keep him
from the WH.
They will both be irrelevant in the 2020 election as will as the Zombie candidates like
Bullock, Delaney, etc. i.e. the "moderates."
The rest of the pastiche of 2020 "Democrat" candidates are essentially Globalist advocates
of reduced US sovereignty as a step toward their "ideal" of a world socialist state in which
they will be part of the new Nomenklatura and will enjoy exemptions from the inevitable
shortages of everything resulting from universal "sharing" with the unfortunate masses who will
be proletarians engaged in slave labor or doing the gardening at the dachas of people like
Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Beto O'Roarke and the like.
The barely hidden opposition by the leftist Democrats to border control is telling. The
leftist Democrats want to take down the SW border of the US until it is nothing but a line on
the map. They want to do that that in order to flood the country with illegals who can be voted
for Democrat majorities in states where they control the state governments. Remember, the
states run federal elections.
California is an example of dirty dealing intended to further rig election outcomes. Gavin
Newsom, the apparent present leader of the Sacramento cabal, has signed into law a statute
seeking to bar Trump from the ballot if he will not surrender his federal tax returns for
public inspection. Was the possibility of illegally voting millions of non-citizens by driver
licensing of illegals and their simultaneous voter-registration at the DMV not enough to ensure
victory? Thank god that a change in the number of presidential electors allotted to California
is not within the capability of the Sacramento cabal.
Americans and other people who will vote in 2020 will have a stark choice. Do you wish to
remain living in a sovereign state or do you wish to become a building bloc in a world
socialist empire?
Unfortunately the only choice available to the US sovereignty side will be Donald Trump, the
real estate hustler from New York City. Weld is not a serious candidate. pl
Both parties seem inclined to bring about "paradise on earth". To understand these
internationalists, I cite Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor conversation with Christ:
..."'So that, in truth, Thou didst Thyself lay the foundation for the destruction of Thy
kingdom, and no one is more to blame for it. Yet what was offered Thee? There are three
powers, three powers alone, able to conquer and to hold captive for ever the conscience of
these impotent rebels for their happiness those forces are miracle, mystery and authority.
Thou hast rejected all three and hast set the example for doing so. When the wise and dread
spirit set Thee on the pinnacle of the temple and said to Thee, "If Thou wouldst know whether
Thou art the Son of God then cast Thyself down, for it is written: the angels shall hold him
up lest he fall and bruise himself, and Thou shalt know then whether Thou art the Son of God
and shalt prove then how great is Thy faith in Thy Father." But Thou didst refuse and wouldst
not cast Thyself down. Oh, of course, Thou didst proudly and well, like God; but the weak,
unruly race of men, are they gods? Oh, Thou didst know then that in taking one step, in
making one movement to cast Thyself down, Thou wouldst be tempting God and have lost all Thy
faith in Him, and wouldst have been dashed to pieces against that earth which Thou didst come
to save. And the wise spirit that tempted Thee would have rejoiced. But I ask again, are
there many like Thee? And couldst Thou believe for one moment that men, too, could face such
a temptation? Is the nature of men such, that they can reject miracle, and at the great
moments of their life, the moments of their deepest, most agonising spiritual difficulties,
cling only to the free verdict of the heart? Oh, Thou didst know that Thy deed would be
recorded in books, would be handed down to remote times and the utmost ends of the earth, and
Thou didst hope that man, following Thee, would cling to God and not ask for a miracle. But
Thou didst not know that when man rejects miracle he rejects God too; for man seeks not so
much God as the miraculous. And as man cannot bear to be without the miraculous, he will
create new miracles of his own for himself, and will worship deeds of sorcery and witchcraft,
though he might be a hundred times over a rebel, heretic and infidel. Thou didst not come
down from the Cross when they shouted to Thee, mocking and reviling Thee, "Come down from the
cross and we will believe that Thou art He." Thou didst not come down, for again Thou wouldst
not enslave man by a miracle, and didst crave faith given freely, not based on miracle. Thou
didst crave for free love and not the base raptures of the slave before the might that has
overawed him for ever. But Thou didst think too highly of men therein, for they are slaves,
of course, though rebellious by nature. Look round and judge; fifteen centuries have passed,
look upon them. Whom hast Thou raised up to Thyself? I swear, man is weaker and baser by
nature than Thou hast believed him! Can he, can he do what Thou didst? By showing him so much
respect, Thou didst, as it were, cease to feel for him, for Thou didst ask far too much from
him- Thou who hast loved him more than Thyself! Respecting him less, Thou wouldst have asked
less of him. That would have been more like love, for his burden would have been lighter. He
is weak and vile. What though he is everywhere now rebelling against our power, and proud of
his rebellion? It is the pride of a child and a schoolboy. They are little children rioting
and barring out the teacher at school. But their childish delight will end; it will cost them
dear. Mankind as a whole has always striven to organise a universal state. There have been
many great nations with great histories, but the more highly they were developed the more
unhappy they were, for they felt more acutely than other people the craving for world-wide
union. The great conquerors, Timours and Ghenghis-Khans, whirled like hurricanes over the
face of the earth striving to subdue its people, and they too were but the unconscious
expression of the same craving for universal unity. Hadst Thou taken the world and Caesar's
purple, Thou wouldst have founded the universal state and have given universal peace. For who
can rule men if not he who holds their conscience and their bread in his hands? We have taken
the sword of Caesar, and in taking it, of course, have rejected Thee and followed him. Oh,
ages are yet to come of the confusion of free thought, of their science and cannibalism. For
having begun to build their tower of Babel without us, they will end, of course, with
cannibalism. But then the beast will crawl to us and lick our feet and spatter them with
tears of blood. And we shall sit upon the beast and raise the cup, and on it will be written,
"Mystery." But then, and only then, the reign of peace and happiness will come for men. Thou
art proud of Thine elect, but Thou hast only the elect, while we give rest to all. And
besides, how many of those elect, those mighty ones who could become elect, have grown weary
waiting for Thee, and have transferred and will transfer the powers of their spirit and the
warmth of their heart to the other camp, and end by raising their free banner against Thee.
Thou didst Thyself lift up that banner. But with us all will be happy and will no more rebel
nor destroy one another as under Thy freedom. Oh, we shall persuade them that they will only
become free when they renounce their freedom to us and submit to us. And shall we be right or
shall we be lying? They will be convinced that we are right, for they will remember the
horrors of slavery and confusion to which Thy freedom brought them. Freedom, free thought,
and science will lead them into such straits and will bring them face to face with such
marvels and insoluble mysteries, that some of them, the fierce and rebellious, will destroy
themselves, others, rebellious but weak, will destroy one another, while the rest, weak and
unhappy, will crawl fawning to our feet and whine to us: "Yes, you were right, you alone
possess His mystery, and we come back to you, save us from ourselves!"
"'Receiving bread from us, they will see clearly that we take the bread made by their
hands from them, to give it to them, without any miracle. They will see that we do not change
the stones to bread, but in truth they will be more thankful for taking it from our hands
than for the bread itself! For they will remember only too well that in old days, without our
help, even the bread they made turned to stones in their hands, while since they have come
back to us, the very stones have turned to bread in their hands. Too, too well will they know
the value of complete submission! And until men know that, they will be unhappy. Who is most
to blame for their not knowing it?-speak! Who scattered the flock and sent it astray on
unknown paths? But the flock will come together again and will submit once more, and then it
will be once for all. Then we shall give them the quiet humble happiness of weak creatures
such as they are by nature. Oh, we shall persuade them at last not to be proud, for Thou
didst lift them up and thereby taught them to be proud. We shall show them that they are
weak, that they are only pitiful children, but that childlike happiness is the sweetest of
all. They will become timid and will look to us and huddle close to us in fear, as chicks to
the hen. They will marvel at us and will be awe-stricken before us, and will be proud at our
being so powerful and clever that we have been able to subdue such a turbulent flock of
thousands of millions. They will tremble impotently before our wrath, their minds will grow
fearful, they will be quick to shed tears like women and children, but they will be just as
ready at a sign from us to pass to laughter and rejoicing, to happy mirth and childish song.
Yes, we shall set them to work, but in their leisure hours we shall make their life like a
child's game, with children's songs and innocent dance. Oh, we shall allow them even sin,
they are weak and helpless, and they will love us like children because we allow them to sin.
We shall tell them that every sin will be expiated, if it is done with our permission, that
we allow them to sin because we love them, and the punishment for these sins we take upon
ourselves. And we shall take it upon ourselves, and they will adore us as their saviours who
have taken on themselves their sins before God. And they will have no secrets from us. We
shall allow or forbid them to live with their wives and mistresses, to have or not to have
children according to whether they have been obedient or disobedient- and they will submit to
us gladly and cheerfully. The most painful secrets of their conscience, all, all they will
bring to us, and we shall have an answer for all. And they will be glad to believe our
answer, for it will save them from the great anxiety and terrible agony they endure at
present in making a free decision for themselves. And all will be happy, all the millions of
creatures except the hundred thousand who rule over them. For only we, we who guard the
mystery, shall be unhappy. There will be thousands of millions of happy babes, and a hundred
thousand sufferers who have taken upon themselves the curse of the knowledge of good and
evil. Peacefully they will die, peacefully they will expire in Thy name, and beyond the grave
they will find nothing but death. But we shall keep the secret, and for their happiness we
shall allure them with the reward of heaven and eternity. Though if there were anything in
the other world, it certainly would not be for such as they. It is prophesied that Thou wilt
come again in victory, Thou wilt come with Thy chosen, the proud and strong, but we will say
that they have only saved themselves, but we have saved all. We are told that the harlot who
sits upon the beast, and holds in her hands the mystery, shall be put to shame, that the weak
will rise up again, and will rend her royal purple and will strip naked her loathsome body.
But then I will stand up and point out to Thee the thousand millions of happy children who
have known no sin. And we who have taken their sins upon us for their happiness will stand up
before Thee and say: "Judge us if Thou canst and darest." Know that I fear Thee not. Know
that I too have been in the wilderness, I too have lived on roots and locusts, I too prized
the freedom with which Thou hast blessed men, and I too was striving to stand among Thy
elect, among the strong and powerful, thirsting "to make up the number." But I awakened and
would not serve madness. I turned back and joined the ranks of those who have corrected Thy
work. I left the proud and went back to the humble, for the happiness of the humble. What I
say to Thee will come to pass, and our dominion will be built up. I repeat, to-morrow Thou
shalt see that obedient flock who at a sign from me will hasten to heap up the hot cinders
about the pile on which I shall burn Thee for coming to hinder us. For if anyone has ever
deserved our fires, it is Thou. To-morrow I shall burn Thee. Dixi.'"*...
Dem candidate clown car is every bit as vile as the Gop clown car in 16.
Gabbart is the only person that seems rational and slightly honest. Harris traded sex for
political advancement I understand why she would be a favorite. No moral or ethical standards
willing to do anything for what she wants. Perfect useful idiot.
Given the overwhelming evidence of Mr. Epstein's connection to powerful US leaders as well
as, quite possibly, a foreign intelligence service, isn't it time for the American People to
demand a hard hitting, "leave no stone unturned" special prosecutor investigation ?
If this does not have all the earmarks of influence peddling in both our democracy and our
policy decisions , I cannot imagine what would.
I've recently been doing quite a lot of reading about the Syndicate gangsters of the
1930s-1940s, and another interesting historical parallel comes to mind
In 1941, Abe "Kid Twist" Reles, a senior figure in Brooklyn's Murder Inc. agreed to
testify against America's top Syndicate bosses, providing detailed evidence about the 1,000
or so nationwide killings that his organization had performed on their behalf.
Obviously, the federal prosecutors were concerned about his safety in any ordinary jail,
and stashed him in a suite of top-floor hotel rooms, where he was guarded 24-hours per day by
rotating groups of six specially-selected police officers, who would keep him under constant
surveillance. The doors were steel-plated and the rooms selected to preclude any long-range
sniper.
Oops! Poor "Kid Twist" somehow decided to jump out the 5th story window and kill himself
when all six of the on-duty guards happened to simultaneously doze off.
The Captain in command of the unit argued that it was accident rather than suicide, and
the poor fellow had deliberately climbed out the window, intending to rappel down to the
floor below, then walk back up the stairs and knock on the front door, thereby surprising his
erstwhile guards with a amusing practical joke.
Syndicate killers planning to implicate their bosses should definitely avoid playing such
"practical jokes"
This reminds me a little of a almost forgotten incident from the 1960s
Some government inspector in Texas had agreed to testify about the details of a gigantic
corruption ring that was closely connected with LBJ. I can't remember the exact details, but
not long afterward, he was found dead, shot seven times.
The local Texas court ruled it an apparent suicide and that's exactly how it was reported
in the Washington Post and the other national newspapers ;
I respect the fact that Marianne Williamson is a sorta-kinda truther. But let me be honest
with you, Kevin: it would take a hell of a lot trutherism to make up for her zionism
@c matt 9-11 was a wonderful boon to the demolition industry. The demolition experts no
longer use explosives, as WTC 7 proved that a building can be demolished in its own footprint
much more cheaply with simple office garbage can fires and maybe a little bit of petroleum
fuel to accelerate the process of melting steel beams as perfectly even as a Weber grill
charbroils steaks. Demolition explosives have gone the way of buggy whips, totally obsolete.
President Donald Trump saw the same day that bombs must have been used on the WTC towers on
9/11/2001.
From his experience building steel sky scrapers, he knew they were built to be strong,
even against a jet. He stated to the reporter that bombs must also have been involved.
What I have yet to see satisfactorily explained is how a huge (or even yuuuge) skyscraper can
fall – within its footprint – when subjected to asymmetrical forces.
Put aside whether the jets had enough fuel, burned hot or long enough, etc. Taking the
footage at face value, the buildings were SLAMMED from one direction. There is no way that
could have caused symmetrical damage. Any structural component closer to impact received
orders of magnitude of force more than those on the opposite side, resulting in unequal
weakening. Yet what everyone saw was a symmetrical collapse within footprint, as though all
structural components were equally and simultaneously weakened.
Who you gonna believe, the gubmint, or your own lying eyes?
"... Ms. Gabbard, a congresswoman from Hawaii, has railed against "regime change wars" and warned of a nuclear arms race ..."
"... Ms. Gabbard has focused on ending what she calls "regime change wars ..."
"... She has introduced legislation in Congress that would prohibit the use of taxpayer dollars for weapons that violate a 1987 nuclear arms-control pact. ..."
Ms. Gabbard, a congresswoman from Hawaii, has railed against "regime change wars" and
warned of a nuclear arms race
Ms. Gabbard has focused on ending what she calls "regime change wars ," the "new
Cold War" and the nuclear arms race.
She has
introduced legislation in Congress that would prohibit the use of taxpayer dollars for
weapons that violate a 1987 nuclear arms-control pact.
And she has spoken out forcefully in opposition to President Trump's Iran strategy and
North
Korean policy , and what she sees as a general culture of warmongering.
"... The Saker also strongly criticized Milosevic for seeking an accommodation with the West after sustaining a brutal 70+ day all-out aerial assault by NATO and ground assault by Albania. He was silent on Russia's cowardly abandonment of Serbia leaving it to face the West utterly alone. ..."
"... The Saker can deliver a good analysis from time to time but can fail spectacularly as well. IIRC, he predicted that no one in Ukraine would lift a finger to stop Western domination (wrong), completely missed Crimea (just about everyone missed that in his defense) and that Russia would never intervene in Syria as it had no compelling national interest to protect (wrong again). He is right just enough to remain interesting. ..."
The Saker is back on his high horse – criticizing Gabbard for not going down in flames
as she tries to navigate the myriad of traps laid out the the US Government and MSM.
The Saker also strongly criticized Milosevic for seeking an accommodation with the West
after sustaining a brutal 70+ day all-out aerial assault by NATO and ground assault by
Albania. He was silent on Russia's cowardly abandonment of Serbia leaving it to face the West
utterly alone.
The Saker can deliver a good analysis from time to time but can fail spectacularly as
well. IIRC, he predicted that no one in Ukraine would lift a finger to stop Western
domination (wrong), completely missed Crimea (just about everyone missed that in his defense)
and that Russia would never intervene in Syria as it had no compelling national interest to
protect (wrong again). He is right just enough to remain interesting.
On September 13, 2018, Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard took to the floor of the House
to rebuke the administration, accusing President Trump and Vice President Mike Pence of
protecting "al-Qaeda and other jihadist forces in Syria," all the while "threatening Russia,
Syria, and Iran, with military force if they dare attack these terrorists."
####
In under a minute, Gabbard shredded Harris to pieces for jailing more than 1,500
nonviolent marijuana offenders while admitting in a radio interview that she had smoked
marijuana in college, and for her "tough-on-crime" stances. "She blocked evidence that would
have freed an innocent man from death row she kept people in prison beyond their sentences to
use them as cheap labor and she fought to keep the cash bail system in place," Gabbard
continued, leaving Harris unable to counter.
The MSM is having a difficult time ignoring her. She may have a chance. I will make
another donation to her campaign.
She beat Harris like a red-headed stepchild. Her monotonous reiteration "I'm proud of my
record" reminded me of the Breakfast Moment in Happy Gilmour, when Shooter McGavin mocks
Happy for daring to challenge him in golf.
Shooter: "Oh, you're on. But you're in big trouble, pal. I eat pieces of shit like you for
breakfast."
thern Star
August 2, 2019 at 4:31 am Very cogent..
A lot of the crucial but easily overlooked put on the table.
Never underestimate the significance of the obvious!
Like
Reply
August 2, 2019 at 4:44 pm I think a lot of people DID see that coming, to the extent that the
only behavior acceptable today in the American political milieu is a rehash of that sophomore's
question, "Can you say in one sentence or less what makes America the Greatest Country In The
World?" The American media typically pleats that 'the system is broken', but not during election
season. Then, America is the greatest and running on all cylinders, and the successful candidate
is the one who will convince voters that, rather than fix the whatever system, he/she/ze/zir
(it's only a matter of time) will take a system that is the best in the world and make itr
squeeze out even more happiness and satisfaction for Americans. Anyway, if you go off-message
with that, you are under the soulless influence of the Russians.
Anyway, it looks as if the democrats have gone to the well too often with that Russian
bullshit, and people are starting to get impatient with the cop-out – it's just an excuse
for having no good answer. You can always say, "X is because Russia". I think Harris just bit the
dust, and will lose a lot of support over this and gradually drop out. I got a kick out of the
"Gabbard is a non-issue, and won't even make the second debates" or something to that effect.
Whoever smugly said that was apparently asleep when a Ukrainian comedian who plays a president on
TV won the presidency in a landslide. The incumbent once thought it was safe to laugh politely at
him, because he was a non-issue, too.
I saw this story also on the same site, although it was not necessary to click on it, for
obvious reasons.
"A salute to the bravery of Olga Misik, 17, who during recent bloody protests for free
Moscow elections sat before Putin's armed-to-the-teeth goons and calmly read aloud the Russian
constitution, including Article 31 affirming the right to peaceful political assembly. She was
later arrested and allegedly beaten. "Injustice always concerns everyone," said Olga, who takes
the long view of repression. "Today the Moscow City Duma, tomorrow the governor of the region It
is only a matter of time."
'Bloody protests for free Moscow elections'?? They were bloody? Really? and the issue was free
Moscow elections? Not candidates being allowed to run despite having been disqualified for not
reaching the signatory threshold? The game of coming up with enough signatures to demonstrate a
valid support base is an old one, trawling the obituaries and all manner of dodges to come up
with enough for people who don't really have any support, but want a soapbox from which to squawk
their message and then say they were cheated of victory by the Kremlin. Putin's
armed-to-the-teeth goons? Really? American police called to control demonstrations are unarmed?
Since when? Does arming them make them goons? I can't see their teeth – how does the
reporter know they are armed to the teeth? Olga takes the long view of repression, does she? From
the jaded pinnacle of 17? I'm surprised they did not ask her views on gay sex – she's old
enough. Just.
Embarrassing western hyperbole – a Russian review of the PISA tests that descended to
the same level might read, "A salute to the simple-mindedness of the Amerikantsi 'students', who
must have gone to school at a mental institution, or been taught by the homeless lunatics that
abound in and around Amerikantsi cities. Once again they managed to score so poorly that one
might reasonably wonder if they arrived at the testing institution by accident, thinking instead
that they were being taken to see one of the violence-and-profanity-riddled Amerikantsi movies
that pollute the television and cause the Amerikantsi schoolchildren to shoot each other as if
they lived inside a video game where it is not real blood. It's difficult to imagine a sensible
explanation for such a dismal performance, in which they finished below the OECD average in every
category."
But you won't see anything like that in a Russian newspaper, or hear it on a Russian news
program. Because they don't act like the country is run by hysterical 12-year-olds. However, if
the Americans want to pin their new hopes for Putin's political immolation on some 17-year-old
attention-junkie bint, they should knock themselves out. They are merely hardening Russian
opinion against them, and they may not care but some day they will. And then they will wail, "Why
do they hate us? It must be because of our freedom!"
I was particularly intrigued by the mention of the Democrats getting caught fabricating fake
Russian troll accounts to pretend the Russians were trying to influence some state election or
other, I forget what, supposedly reported in the Times. I didn't see that, and I don't recall
anyone mentioning it here.
Like
ReplyMark Chapman
August 2, 2019 at 3:10 pm A very cogent argument for (a) keeping the debates agenda-free and
independently managed, and (2) a less-insane democratic party.
@c matt 9-11 was a wonderful boon to the demolition industry. The demolition experts no
longer use explosives, as WTC 7 proved that a building can be demolished in its own footprint
much more cheaply with simple office garbage can fires and maybe a little bit of petroleum
fuel to accelerate the process of melting steel beams as perfectly even as a Weber grill
charbroils steaks. Demolition explosives have gone the way of buggy whips, totally obsolete.
I respect the fact that Marianne Williamson is a sorta-kinda truther. But let me be honest
with you, Kevin: it would take a hell of a lot trutherism to make up for her zionism
It's mostly about the control of Mid East oil and Israel status in the region ...
And despite all those positive things mentioned bellow Iran is still a theocratic state. It
is definitely not Saudi Arabia but still..
Notable quotes:
"... Despite the embargos and terrible intimidation from the West, it still sits at the threshold of the "Very high human development", defined by UNDP; well above such darlings of the West as Ukraine, Colombia or Thailand. ..."
"... Trump is President of the US. He is responsible for the actions of the US in foreign affairs. Trump is a willing sycophant of the Deep State. ..."
"... Yet another article, pointing out that there is no reason for the US to attack Iran. Yes, there is. Iran is an enemy of Israel (although with the US behind them, there isn’t much they can actually do), and Israel wants Iran destroyed. The influence of Israel in American politics is enormous. THAT is the reason. Please stop the head-scratching over why oh why the US would want to destroy Israel. Everyone knows why. ..."
"... Iran’s real “crime” is twofold: 1) It sells oil in denomiations other than the US dollar; and 2) If allowed its rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it would be producing vast amounts of low cost molybdenum and/or technetium which are used in medical testing, which would cut into the lucrative US market. ..."
"... There is some truth to claims about Iran’s belligerence…the Russians aren’t thrilled about everything they’re doing in Syria, which includes Shia colonizing in regions they’ve seized, which is a sign of attempting to entrench their agenda in that suffering country…and hence the continuing Israeli attacks, which nobody appreciates… ..."
"... In Iran, sources confirm that “…Russia offered to sell one million barrels daily for Iran, and to replace the European financial system with another if needed. ..."
"... There is also the issue of the illegality of Trump tearing up the deal…which was adopted [unanimously] by the UN Security Council Resolution 2231… ..."
"... The US signed that resolution…and let us remember that UNSC resolutions are INTERNATIONAL LAW…they are LEGALLY BINDING on all UN member states… ..."
"... So the US is breaking international law…the sanctions are illegal also, since only the UNSC had the legal authority to impose sanctions… ..."
"... The US’ disregard for the supreme international legal order…along with Israel similarly flouting UNSC resolutions for 50 years to pull out of the occupied territories…is simply unacceptable… ..."
As I pen this short essay, Iran is standing against the mightiest nation on earth. It is
facing tremendous danger; of annihilation even, if the world does not wake up fast, and rush to
its rescue.
Stunning Iranian cities are in danger, but above all, its people: proud and beautiful,
creative, formed by one of the oldest and deepest cultures on earth.
This is a reminder to the world: Iran may be bombed, devastated and injured terribly, for
absolutely no reason. I repeat: there is zero rational reason for attacking Iran.
Iran has never attacked anyone. It has done nothing bad to the United States, to the United
Kingdom, or even to those countries that want to destroy it immediately: Saudi Arabia and
Israel.
Its only 'crime' is that it helped devastated Syria. And that it seriously stands by
Palestine. And that it came to the rescue of many far away nations, like Cuba and Venezuela,
when they were in awful need.
I am trying to choose the simplest words. No need for pirouettes and intellectual
exercises.
Thousands, millions of Iranians may soon die, simply because a psychopath who is currently
occupying the White House wants to humiliate his predecessor, who signed the nuclear deal. This
information was leaked by his own staff. This is not about who is a bigger gangster. It is
about the horrible fact that antagonizing Iran has absolutely nothing to do with Iran
itself.
Which brings the question to my mind: in what world are we really living? Could this be
tolerable? Can the world just stand by, idly, and watch how one of the greatest countries on
earth gets violated by aggressive, brutal forces, without any justification?
I love Iran! I love its cinema, poetry, food. I love Teheran. And I love the Iranian people
with their polite, educated flair. I love their thinkers. I don't want anything bad to happen
to them.
You know, you were of course never told by the Western media, but Iran is a socialist
country. It professes a system that could be defined as "socialism with Iranian
characteristics". Like China, Iran is one of the most ancient nations on earth, and it is
perfectly capable of creating and developing its own economic and social system.
Iran is an extremely successful nation. Despite the embargos and terrible intimidation
from the West, it still sits at the threshold of the "Very high human development", defined by
UNDP; well above such darlings of the West as Ukraine, Colombia or Thailand.
It clearly has an internationalist spirit: it shows great solidarity with the countries that
are being battered by Western imperialism, including those in Latin America.
I have no religion. In Iran, most of the people do. They are Shi'a Muslims. So what? I do
not insist that everyone thinks like me. And my Iranian friends, comrades, brothers and sisters
have never insisted that I feel or think the same way as they do. They are not fanatics, and
they do not make people who are not like them, feel excluded. We are different and yet so
similar. We fight for a better world. We are internationalists. We respect each other. We
respect others.
Iran does not want to conquer anyone. But when its friends are attacked, it offers a helping
hand. Like to Syria.
In the past, it was colonized by the West, and its democratic government was overthrown, in
1953, simply because it wanted to use its natural resources for improving the lives of its
people. The morbid dictatorship of Shah Pahlavi was installed from abroad. And then, later,
again, a terrible war unleashed against Iran by Iraq, with the full and candid support of the
West.
I promised to make this essay short. There is no time for long litanies. And in fact, this
is not really an essay at all: it is an appeal.
As this goes to print, many people in Iran are anxious. They do not understand what they
have done to deserve this; the sanctions, the US aircraft carriers sailing near their shores,
and deadly B-52s deployed only dozens of miles away.
Iranians are brave, proud people. If confronted, if attacked, they will fight. And they will
die with dignity, if there is no other alternative.
But why? Why should they fight and why should they die?
Those of you, my readers, living in the West: Study; study quickly. Then ask this question
to your government: "What is the reason for this terrible scenario?"
Rent Iranian films; they are everywhere, winning all festivals. Read Iranian poets. Go eat
Iranian food. Search for images of both historic and modern Iranian cities. Look at the faces
of the people. Do not allow this to happen. Do not permit psychopathic reasoning to ruin
millions of lives.
There was no real reason for the wars against Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria. The West
perpetrated the most terrible imperialist interventions, ruining entire nations.
But Iran -- it all goes one step further. It's a total lack of logic and accountability on
the part of the West.
Here, I declare my full support to the people of Iran, and to the country that has been
giving countless cultural treasures to the world, for millennia.
It is because I have doubts that if Iran is destroyed, the human race could survive.
[First published by NEO -- New Eastern Outlook]
Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has
covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Four of his latest books are ...
Thousands, millions of Iranians may soon die, simply because a psychopath who is
currently occupying the White House wants to humiliate his predecessor, who signed the
nuclear deal.
Certainly war with Iran is not because Trump wants to humiliate Obama. There is very
serious pressure on Trump to go to war with Iran, and that pressure comes from sources
including Sheldon Adelson, Netanyahu, John Bolton, and elements within the military
industrial complex and oil industries both of which would be able to capitalize on such a
misadventure. It is very possibly Trump’s misgivings about a war with Iran (in spite of
the idiotic rhetoric) that is keeping the US from attacking Iran.
While I agree with your sentiment in this article, it is unfortunate to make
over-simplifications that cheerlead a false narrative that one person is to blame for a
complex problem that spans party lines and presidencies. It was much to Obama’s credit
to enter into the agreement with Iran, and the opposition to doing so obviously runs much
deeper than Trump’s desire to make Obama look bad.
@Andre
Vltchek Yes, you can’t say everything in every piece that you write, and for
expediency there is simplification. You can get away with it by saying “among other
things, Trump’s desire to humiliate Obama may lead us into a devastating war.”
But the way you wrote it certainly insinuates that it is in fact Trump and his personal
psychopathy driving the country towards war. In that, I think you are mistaken. The jury is
not out on this one yet, and Trump’s resistance to war with Iran is a thread of hope
keeping it from happening. I am not trying to split hairs. It is important because there is a
tendency to focus on the face in the white house and not on the forces that are behind the
mischief. It also probably gets more likes among a broader audience who want to blame Trump
or Obama when they are more like two leaves being blown by a strong wind than the leader of
the free world or any other nonsensical title given to the president. Take it for a slight
literary critique and not for any disagreement with the overall sentiment or quality of the
article.
It was at that point I knew this wasn’t an intellectually honest essay. You
don’t even need to go back six months to see what a peaceful little lamb Iran is, as
it attacked merchant ships in the Straight of Hormuz. Perhaps your intended audience is
ignorant to facts, but Iran is, by no means, a country of innocent intent.
What would USA do if Iranian or any other non-friendly nation surrounded USA, including
sending heavily armed ships into its harbors?
This map from Democratic Underground puts a star on every U.S. military base in the
region, and aside from the Caspian area to the North, American forces pretty much have
Tehran surrounded (via Informed Comment).
[Non-violent resistance is not necessarily futile, but a feint]: We cannot delude
ourselves.
People ask, What about nonviolent, peaceful forms of resistance? And you know, the answer
is, There is no such thing as nonviolence.
Nonviolence is a form of disruption and only works if you are facing those who are
constrained in their use of violence, or works best if you can use your enemy’s
violence against them.
Take for example, Dr. Martin Luther King . . . [he learned from Gandhi and others that]
nonviolence is a mechanism of goading your opponent into being violent.
Once they become violent, you can call on your friends to be even more violent against
them. And he knew he could goad the sheriff into behaving violently and stupidly, and then
the FBI would descend on them.
You know, we always want to delude ourselves that war is not the answer. It would be good
if that were true, but unfortunately it is very often the key answer, the only answer.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?323264-1/the-worth-war&start=599
USA is being deliberately provocative, goading Iran to throw the first punch, whereupon
USA will “descend on them.”
It’s not the first time USA & its allies have used the tactic.
I dunno … If the West was going to attack, it should have happened several weeks ago,
if not earlier. Do you think Trump’s stand-down of an attack allegedly in progress was
to save a couple hundred Iranian lives, or might it make more sense that it became clear a
couple hundreds or thousands of coalition lives were at serious risk? The leadership knows
this will be far messier than Iraq if it goes kinetic, and they would prefer to continue to
starve Iran into submission while making a lot of noise about the ‘evil and suicidal
death-cult’ regime in Tehran.
Andre Vltchek gives a passionate defence of Iran, and the reasons for not attacking it. I
agree there are ‘doubts that if Iran is destroyed, the human race could survive.’
If the US, and its allies, were to destabilize Iran to such an extent as to threaten regime
change China and Russia would have to intervene. The world should avoid war on Iran, even if
it is for selfish reasons. All the indications point to world war. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
@anonymous
Because the JIDF/Zionist has the modus operandi of falsifying consensus. Large numbers of
seemingly reasonable people all pushing the same view point has the unconscious effect of
making an unwary reader adopt that same viewpoint. Of course, they’re hoping you dont
go trawling through their comment history or else the whole thing blows up.
While I agree with your sentiment in this article, it is unfortunate to make
over-simplifications that cheerlead a false narrative that one person is to blame for a
complex problem that spans party lines and presidencies.
Trump is President of the US. He is responsible for the actions of the US in foreign
affairs. Trump is a willing sycophant of the Deep State.
People need to realize that it’s been a RedBlue puppet show of the same empire
since – for purposes of Iran – 1953. Blaming one politician as opposed to the
other plays right into the hands of those who want to run the world from Washington.
The past can not be changed. Trump is responsible for the here and now.
Yet another article, pointing out that there is no reason for the US to attack Iran. Yes,
there is. Iran is an enemy of Israel (although with the US behind them, there isn’t
much they can actually do), and Israel wants Iran destroyed. The influence of Israel in
American politics is enormous. THAT is the reason. Please stop the head-scratching over why
oh why the US would want to destroy Israel. Everyone knows why.
The Iran never attacked anyone narrative has long been a favourite. What is buried somewhere
in cyberspace, is an article written over 20 years ago about the causes of the Iraq –
Iran war. The article laid out several instances of Iranian revolutionaries attacking several
Iraqi border towns. It also pointed out that Iraq’s original invasion into Iran stopped
about 8 miles into Iran, apparently understanding that it was never going to defeat Iran
territorially. The article also stated that Iraq was egged on by the US to attack, in hopes
to dislodge the new regime. However, it was the Shah who attacked Iraq in the 70s over the
Shat al Arab waterway. The subsequent peace agreement settled the issue.
https://www.nytimes.com/1975/03/07/archives/iraq-and-iran-sign-accord-to-settle-border-conflicts-iraq-and-iran.html
One reason given by Iraq for its invasion of Iran, post revolution, was that it viewed the
border attacks by Iranian revolutionaries, as a refutation of the treaty.
Iran’s real “crime” is twofold:
1) It sells oil in denomiations other than the US dollar; and
2) If allowed its rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it would be producing
vast amounts of low cost molybdenum and/or technetium which are used in medical testing,
which would cut into the lucrative US market.
The USA-Israel-Nato menaces to Iran are criminal horseshite BUT –
Iran is horrifyingly brutal toward its own citizens, one of the most savage of all
countries in per capita executions of its own people, sometimes hanging 100 people or so in a
month, typically done by slow-torture hanging, often in groups of 6 or 8 people in public
squares.
It seems that usually, Iran does not even try to break the neck of its hanging victims
with a long drop, which can induce a merciful coma before the victim dies, typically some 15
minutes to an hour later. As is often observed in Iran, smaller people such as women
typically die more slowly, their lighter weight leading to a longer period of torturous
choking.
And Iran has a bunch of other Islamic barbarisms … Iran burying women alive up to
their necks, only their veiled heads above the ground, and stoning them to death; the
floggings and amputations, sometimes the victim marked for death is flogged bloody before
being hanged from a crane etc
But André Vltchek thinks Iran is a great place …
Iran is also a bizarre social experiment in extreme social dysfunctionality, with the
‘temporary marriage’ provision in Shia religious practice that is essentially
legalised prostitution. Not only can Iranians have 4 wives as the Sunnis do, one of those can
be a ‘wife for the weekend’, legally, provided you go to the imam to be
officially ‘married’ … you can then divorce Monday morning, e.g., by
saying the word ‘talaq’ 3 times. Iranian women sometimes advertise themselves as
‘temporary wives’ (not ‘prostitutes’ of course!) for a small marital
‘gift’ of € 60 or so.
Between temporary marriage, and Iran’s practice of educating its women – often
‘bad’ for Muslim fertility – Iran’s birth rate has collapsed even
more than in much of Europe.
A great shame the US CIA overthrew the secular socialist Iranian government in 1953. May
the Iranian people be soon free of both Western-Israeli menace, and their own mad
mullahs.
…‘temporary marriage’ provision in Shia religious practice that is
essentially legalised prostitution. Not only can Iranians have 4 wives as the Sunnis do,
one of those can be a ‘wife for the weekend’, legally, provided you go to the
imam to be officially ‘married’ … you can then divorce Monday morning,
e.g., by saying the word ‘talaq’ 3 times. Iranian women sometimes advertise
themselves as ‘temporary wives’ (not ‘prostitutes’ of course!) for
a small marital ‘gift’ of € 60 or so.
May the Iranian people be soon free of both Western-Israeli menace, and their own mad
mullahs.
Well, the price for the later is the former, apparently.
Yes, you can’t say everything in every piece that you write, and for expediency
there is simplification. You can get away with it by saying “among other things,
Trump’s desire to humiliate Obama may lead us into a devastating war.” But the
way you wrote it certainly insinuates that it is in fact Trump and his personal psychopathy
driving the country towards war. In that, I think you are mistaken.
I don’t see it that way…..Vltchek has been around unz for a while…..so
it would not be wrong for him to assume most of unz knows the real forces behind Trump
and the Iran war push.
@Brabantian
You come off sounding like a Soros acolyte by parroting ‘human rights porn’ that
is largely fabricated bullshit…and disseminated by the usual NGO suspects and their
MSM partners…
That’s not to say there is no merit to your basic beef…Iran is a
theocracy…religious fanaticism has been a curse on humanity over the
ages…religion in general really…
Iran does execute a lot of people…Vltchek is overly enthusiastic about
Iran…I would say probably because he sympathizes a lot with their essentially
‘socialist’ approach [as do I]…but Iran is no angel…
But then who is…?…US cops gun down 1,000 people a year…
Also some mitigating facts to consider…a lot of the criminals Iran executes are
drug traffickers…Afghanistan next-door is heroin central…run by the CIA with
help from their ISIS private army…
This is nothing new…the deep state of empire has been running the global drug
racket for a couple of centuries now…and using it as a geopolitical weapon against
perceived ‘enemies’…going back to the opium wars that were used by the
British to ‘crack open’ China…and today aimed against Russia, Central Asia
and Iran…not to mention ‘neutralizing’ large swaths of the domestic
population by turning them into drug zombies…
Iran’s drug laws are not nearly as draconian as in other jurisdictions in the Muslim
world…capital punishment goes only for those caught with over 30 grams of hard drugs
like heroin…which is far bigger than user amounts…the death sentence is not
applied for first offenders, or even for repeat offenders of 30 to 100 grams…so really
it is the hardcore traffickers that are getting offed…I have no problem with
that…[neither do leaders like the Philippines’ Duterte who is much less tolerant
than Iran…]
There is some truth to claims about Iran’s belligerence…the Russians
aren’t thrilled about everything they’re doing in Syria, which includes Shia
colonizing in regions they’ve seized, which is a sign of attempting to entrench their
agenda in that suffering country…and hence the continuing Israeli attacks, which
nobody appreciates…
They are also spurning Russian offers of help…
In Iran, sources confirm that “…Russia offered to sell one million
barrels daily for Iran, and to replace the European financial system with another if
needed.
[Probably because they resent Russia for pressuring them to reign in their activities in
Syria…it just shows the all or nothing mentality of religious fanatics…]
All in all it is crazy to think that religious zealotry can lead to anything
good…it never has…
But there is a bigger principle here… it’s their country…
Nobody gives us the right to tell them how to live their lives…certainly compared
to Saudi Barbaria and the other gulf theocracies…not to mention serial criminal
Israel…nobody has good cause to be pointing fingers at Iran…
The US signed that resolution…and let us remember that UNSC resolutions are
INTERNATIONAL LAW…they are LEGALLY BINDING on all UN member states…
So the US is breaking international law…the sanctions are illegal also, since
only the UNSC had the legal authority to impose sanctions…
The US’ disregard for the supreme international legal order…along with
Israel similarly flouting UNSC resolutions for 50 years to pull out of the occupied
territories…is simply unacceptable…
So let’s not lose sight of the ball…this has nothing to do with Iran’s
domestic behavior…and everything to do with serial criminal USA…
@SteveK9
Yes, SteveK9, but you meant, of course, to say “why oh why the US would want to destroy
Iran”–not Israel. Israel has been trying to maneuver Uncle Sam into a shooting
war with Iran for a decade or more. Israel’s American neocons have succeeded in getting
America to destroy Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Iran is the last country standing in the
way of Israel’s total dominance of the Middle East. No Israel, no war, it’s as
simple as that.
@Brabantian
Standard muslim stuff. It’s their country so up to them what they do. But Iran was
cooperating with Al Qaida in Bosnia in the 1990s chopping heads of Christians and atheists.
In fact they were aligned with USA and NATO there but now US is using that involvement
against them as proof of “terrorism” activity.
And here’s Andre praising them. It was well known that they were supplying weapons
disguised as humanitarian aid but US and NATO did nothing to stop them at the time.
@Commentator
Mike There was an embargo on any weapons getting through to Bosnia at the time. The
Bosnians were massively outgunned by the Serbs that had possession of almost all the serious
hardware after the break up of Yugoslavia. The Muslim world was not about to let this
discrepancy go unanswered.
AQ at that stage was still mostly the “foreign legion” global defense
initiative that was the initial vision of Shaykh Abdullah Azzam so it’s not surprising
the Iranians were cooperating with them at the time. It would later progressively warp into
the terrorism outfit over time in the 90’s especially with the African embassy
bombings.
@Commentator
Mike Maybe you could take a look at what is going on there as we speak.
As European, you could do it. Americans and the rest of colonists can’t.
Let’s just say there is a significant Iranian presence in Bosnia.
Serbs and Croats in the region won’t be displeased should the regime in Tehran get
smashed into pieces. Really small pieces.
The problem with the Balkans is that there is so much hatred and animosity between the
various white ethnicities, because of historical reasons, that they have a blind spot for the
much greater danger posed to them all by the massive demographic changes taking place in the
world. And if that kind of intra-white hatred were to spread to the rest of Europe it will be
even harder to salvage anything of the white European sovereignty.
Actually one can work even within those hatreds unless they’re given a chance to
flare up, and obviously certain forces work on doing just that, as we have seen in Ukraine.
Oh yes, and the Muslims aren’t helping much to bring peace about in that region.
Thanks but no thanks. Since Supreme Commander Al Baghdadi ordered muslims to get us by any
and every means I strictly avoid eating anywhere muslims work, cook, or serve, despite liking
their food. Didn’t you hear of the three Albanian Kosovars who were arrested in Italy
plotting a bombing campaign? They worked as waiters in Venice, Italy’s tourist hub. I
pity those tourists who went through their restaurant before the Kosovars decided to move
onto bigger actions. And he did mention poison, whatever, even spitting.
The problem with the Balkans is that there is so much hatred and animosity between the
various white ethnicities, because of historical reasons, that they have a blind spot for
the much greater danger posed to them all by the massive demographic changes taking place
in the world.
As for this:
And if that kind of intra-white hatred were to spread to the rest of Europe it will be
even harder to salvage anything of the white European sovereignty.
Some biographic trivia: Marianne Williamson told New York Jewish Week late last year that "had she received a better Jewish education
she might have become a rabbi." Williamson majored in theater and philosophy at California's
Pomona College, but dropped out in her junior year, 1973, moving to New York
City to pursue a career as a nightclub singer. By the mid 1980s, Williamson was preaching in
Los Angeles, and attracting an audience among Hollywood's gay community, which was attempting to
cope with the burgeoning AIDS crisis
"... India is allied with America and Israel and shares with these fascist "democracies" a national hatred of Muslims--well, at least those Muslims who are not stupid enough to act as American/Israeli jihadist/terrorist assets around the world like in Libya or Syria. ..."
"... Moreover, India is a Hindu fundamentalist nation that has made common religious cause with the Zionist fundamentalist state of Israel and the Christian fundamentalist state of America. ..."
"... America's Future Is with India and Israel: https://nationalinterest.org/feature/americas-future-india-israel-21629 ..."
Imperial divide and conquer strategy. Global strife aids imperialists. Russia, China, Iran unity threatens global Anglo Zionists.
Consequently, the logical progression is to welcome India into Anglo Zionist alliance with more aid to their extremists (Modi)
Emboldening extremists is always the way to war.
It is not that simple as Saudi sells oil to China, and India, Saudi plus Israel are on speaking terms with Russia plus Saudi
bankrolls Pakistan and US policies might change completely if Trump loses 2020.
Of course all bets are off should Modi manage to provoke a Hindu-Moslim civil war involving Pakistan.
Since I was at the age of having a political opinion, Jammu and Kashmir were part of a collection of areas under constant
conflict.
...
Posted by: Sunny Runny Burger | Aug 5 2019 18:13 utc | 44
Thanks for the reminder. Your use of the term 'constant conflict' reminded me of a military doctrine I stumbled upon in the
early Noughties which was called Constant Conflict. The only thing I could remember about it, today, was that it was written by
a psychopath and I did NOT like what the author was proposing.
It's dated 16.04.2016 and names the author as Retired Lieutenant Colonel of United States Army Ralph Peters and summarises
the crux of Peters' thesis and and his background/mission statement. It also provides enough info to find the original 1997 article
here... https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pubs/parameters/articles/97summer/peters.htm
The article concludes thus and there's a footnote...
...
"The next century will indeed be American, but it will also be troubled. We will find ourselves in constant conflict, much of
it violent. The United States Army is going to add a lot of battle streamers to its flag. We will wage information warfare, but
we will fight with infantry. And we will always surprise those critics, domestic and foreign, who predict our decline."
--- Major (P) Ralph Peters is assigned to the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, where he is responsible for
future warfare. Prior to becoming a Foreign Area Officer for Eurasia, he served exclusively at the tactical level. He is a graduate
of the US Army Command and General Staff College and holds a master's degree in international relations. Over the past several
years, his professional and personal research travels have taken Major Peters to Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, Ossetia, Abkhazia,
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Croatia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, Hungary,
the Czech Republic, Pakistan, Turkey, Burma, Laos, Thailand, and Mexico, as well as the countries of the Andean Ridge. He has
published widely on military and international concerns. His sixth novel, Twilight of Heroes, was recently released by Avon Books.
This is his eighth article for Parameters. The author wishes to acknowledge the importance to this essay of discussions with Lieutenant
Colonels Gordon Thompson and Lonnie Henley, both US Army officers.
India is allied with America and Israel and shares with these fascist "democracies" a national hatred of Muslims--well, at
least those Muslims who are not stupid enough to act as American/Israeli jihadist/terrorist assets around the world like in Libya
or Syria.
Moreover, India is a Hindu fundamentalist nation that has made common religious cause with the Zionist fundamentalist state
of Israel and the Christian fundamentalist state of America.
So perhaps India should emulate its fellow "democratic" ally of America and adopt the same ethnic cleansing tactics in Kashmir
that the Land of the Free has deployed against Native tribes throughout the Indigenous lands that America currently occupies--from
the Trail of Tears of the past to the DAPL pipeline protests today.
"... Tensions were then focused on Syria , where a mercenary army of at least 200,000 men, armed and trained by the US, UK, Israel, France, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, almost managed to completely topple the country. ..."
"... As the Americans, British, French and Israelis conducted their bombing missions in Syria, the danger of a deliberate attack on Russian positions always remained, something that would have had devastating consequences for the region and beyond. It is no secret that US military planners have repeatedly argued for a direct conflict with Moscow in a contained regional theater. (Clinton called for the downing of Russian jets over Syria, and former US officials claimed that some Russians had to " pay a little price ".) ..."
"... Trump's dramatic U-turn following his historic meeting with Kim Jong-un (a public relations/photo opportunity) began to paint a fairly comical and unreliable picture of US power, revealing to the world the new US president's strategy. The president threatens to nuke a country, but only as a negotiating tactic to bring his opponent to the negotiating table and thereby clinch a deal. He then presents himself to his domestic audience as the "great" deal-maker. ..."
"... With Iran, the recent target of the US administration, the bargaining method is the same, though with decidedly different results. In the cases of Ukraine and North Korea, the two most powerful lobbies in Washington, the Israeli and Saudi lobbies, have had little to say. Of course the neocons and the arms lobbyists are always gunning for war, but these two powerful state-backed lobbies were notably silent with regard to these countries, less towards Syria obviously. As distinguished political scientist John J. Mearsheimer has repeatedly explained , the Israel and Saudi lobbies have unlimited funds for corrupting Democrats and Republicans in order to push their foreign-policy goals. ..."
"... These two lobbies (together with their neocon allies) have for years been pushing to have a few hundred thousand young Americans sent to Iran to sacrifice themselves for the purposes of destroying Iran and her people. Such geopolitical games are played at the cost of US taxpayers, the lives of their children sent to war, and the lives of the people of the Middle East, who have been devastated by decades of conflict. ..."
"... The reasons vary with each case, and I have previously explained extensively why the possibilities for conflict are unthinkable. With Ukraine, a conflict on European soil between Russia and NATO was unthinkable , bringing to mind the type of devastation that was seen during the Second World War. Good sense prevailed, and even NATO somewhat refused to fully arm the Ukrainian army with weapons that would have given them an overwhelming advantage over the Donbass militias. ..."
"... In Syria, any involvement with ground troops would have been collective suicide, given the overwhelming air power deployed in the country by Russia. Recall that since the Second World War, the US has never fought a war in an airspace that was seriously contested (in Vietnam, US air losses were only elevated because of Sino-Soviet help), allowing for ground troops to receive air cover and protection . A ground assault in Syria would have therefore been catastrophic without the requisite control of Syria's skies. ..."
"... Because a war with Iran would be difficult to de-escalate, we can conclude that the possibility of war being waged against the country is unlikely if not impossible. The level of damage the belligerents would inflict on each other would make any diplomatic resolution of the conflict difficult. While the powerful Israeli and Saudi lobbies in the US may be beating the war drums, an indication of what would happen if war followed can be seen in Yemen. Egypt and the UAE were forced to withdraw from the coalition fighting the Houthis after the UAE suffered considerable damage from legitimate retaliatory missile strikes from the Yemen's Army Missile Forces. ..."
"... An open war against Iran continues to be a red line that the ruling financial elites in the US, Israelis and Saudis don't want to cross, having so much at stake. ..."
"... With an election looming, Trump cannot risk triggering a new conflict and betraying one of his most important electoral promises. The Western elite does not seem to have any intention of destroying the petrodollar-based world economy with which it generates its own profits and controls global finance. ..."
"... Even if we consider the possibility of Netanyahu and Bin Salman being mentally unstable, someone within the royal palace in Riyadh or the government in Tel Aviv would have counseled them on the political and personal consequences of an attack on Iran. ..."
In 2014 we were almost at the point of no return in Ukraine following the coup d'etat supported and funded by NATO and involving
extremist right-wing Ukrainian nationalists. The conflict in the Donbass risked escalating into a conflict between NATO and the Russian
Federation, every day in the summer and autumn of 2014 threatening to be doomsday. Rather than respond to the understandable impulse
to send Russian troops into Ukraine to defend the population of Donbass, Putin had the presense of mind to pursue the less direct
and more sensible strategy of supporting the material capacity of the residents of Donbass to resist the depredations of the Ukrainian
army and their neo-Nazi Banderite thugs. Meanwhile, Europe's inept leaders initially egged on Ukraine's destabilization, only to
get cold feet after reflecting on the possibility of having a conflict between Moscow and Washington fought on European soil.
With the resistance in Donbass managing to successfully hold back Ukrainian assaults, the conflict began to freeze, almost to
the point of a complete ceasefire, even as Ukrainian provocations continue to this day.
Tensions were then focused on Syria , where a mercenary army of at least 200,000 men, armed and trained by the US, UK, Israel,
France, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, almost managed to completely topple the country. Russian
intervention in 2015 managed to save the country with no time to spare, destroying large numbers of terrorists and reorganizing the
Syrian armed forces and training and equipping them with the necessary means to beat back the jihadi waves. The Russians also ensured
control of the skies through their network of Pantsir-S1, Pantsir-S2, S-300 and S-400 air-defence systems, together with their
impressive jamming (Krasukha-4), command and control
information management system (Strelets C4ISR System) and electronic-warfare technologies (1RL257 Krasukha-4).
As the Americans, British, French and Israelis conducted their bombing missions in Syria, the danger of a deliberate attack
on Russian positions always remained, something that would have had devastating consequences for the region and beyond. It is no
secret that US military planners have repeatedly argued for a direct conflict with Moscow in a contained regional theater. (Clinton
called
for the downing of Russian jets over Syria, and former US officials claimed that some Russians had to "
pay a little price ".)
Since Trump became president, the rhetoric of war has soared considerably, even as the awareness remains that any new conflict
would sink Trump's chances of re-election. Despite this, Trump's bombings in Syria were real and potentially very harmful to the
Syrian state. Nevertheless, they were
foiled by Russia's electronic-warfare capability, which was able to send veering away from their intended target more than 70%
of the latest-generation missiles launched by the British, French, Americans and Israelis.
One of the most terrifying moments for the future of humanity came a few months later when Trump started hurling threats and abuses
at Kim Jong-un , threatening to reduce Pyongyang to ashes. Trump, moreover, delivered his fiery threats in a speech at the United
Nations General Assembly.
Trump's dramatic U-turn following his historic meeting with Kim Jong-un (a public relations/photo opportunity) began to paint
a fairly comical and unreliable picture of US power, revealing to the world the new US president's strategy. The president threatens
to nuke a country, but only as a negotiating tactic to bring his opponent to the negotiating table and thereby clinch a deal. He
then presents himself to his domestic audience as the "great" deal-maker.
With Iran, the recent target of the US administration, the bargaining method is the same, though with decidedly different
results. In the cases of Ukraine and North Korea, the two most powerful lobbies in Washington, the Israeli and Saudi lobbies, have
had little to say. Of course the neocons and the arms lobbyists are always gunning for war, but these two powerful state-backed lobbies
were notably silent with regard to these countries, less towards Syria obviously. As distinguished political scientist John J. Mearsheimer
has repeatedly explained , the Israel and Saudi lobbies
have unlimited funds for corrupting Democrats and Republicans in order to push their foreign-policy goals.
The difference between the case of Iran and the aforementioned cases of Ukraine, Syria and North Korea is precisely the direct
involvement of these two lobbies in the decision-making process underway in the US.
These two lobbies (together with their neocon allies) have for years been pushing to have a few hundred thousand young Americans
sent to Iran to sacrifice themselves for the purposes of destroying Iran and her people. Such geopolitical games are played at the
cost of US taxpayers, the lives of their children sent to war, and the lives of the people of the Middle East, who have been devastated
by decades of conflict.
What readers can be assured of is that in the cases of Ukraine, Syria, North Korea and Iran, the US is unable to militarily impose
its geopolitical or economic will.
The reasons vary with each case, and I have previously explained
extensively
why the possibilities for conflict are unthinkable. With Ukraine, a conflict on European soil between Russia and NATO was
unthinkable
, bringing to mind the type of devastation that was seen during the Second World War. Good sense prevailed, and even NATO
somewhat refused
to fully arm the Ukrainian army with weapons that would have given them an overwhelming advantage over the Donbass militias.
In Syria, any involvement with ground troops would have been collective suicide, given the overwhelming air power deployed
in the country by Russia. Recall that since the Second World War, the US has never fought a war in an airspace that was seriously
contested (in Vietnam, US air losses were only elevated because of Sino-Soviet help), allowing for ground troops to receive air cover
and protection . A ground assault in Syria would have therefore been catastrophic without the requisite control of Syria's skies.
In North Korea, the country's tactical and strategic nuclear and conventional deterrence discourages any missile attack. Any overland
attack is out of the question, given the high number of active as well as reserve personnel in the DPRK army. If the US struggled
to control a completely defeated Iraq in 2003, how much more difficult would be to deal with a country with a resilient population
that is indisposed to bowing to the US? The 2003 Iraq campaign would really be a "cakewalk" in comparison. Another reason why a missile
attack on North Korea is impossible is because of the conventional power that Pyongyang possesses in the form of tens of thousands
of missiles and artillery pieces that could easily reduce Seoul to rubble in a matter of minutes. This would then lead to a war between
the US and the DPRK being fought on the Korean Peninsula. Moon Jae-in, like Merkel and Sarkozy in the case of Ukraine, did everything
in his power to prevent such a devastating conflict.
Concerning tensions between the US and Iran and the resulting threats of war, these should be taken as bluster and bluff. America's
European allies are heavily involved in Iran and depend on the Middle East for their oil and gas imports. A US war against Iran would
have devastating consequences for the world economy, with the Europeans seeing their imports halved or reduced. As Professor Chossudovsky
of the strategic think tank Global Research has so ably
argued , an attack on Iran is unsustainable, as the oil sectors of the UAE and Saudi Arabia would be hit and shut down. Exports
would instantly end after the pipelines going West are bombed by the Houthis and the Strait of Hormuz closed. The economies of these
two countries would implode and their ruling class wiped out by internal revolts. The state of Israel as well as US bases in the
region would see themselves overwhelmed with missiles coming from Syria, Lebanon, the Golan Heights and Iran. The Tel Aviv government
would last a few hours before capitulating under the pressure of its own citizens, who, like the Europeans, are unused to suffering
war at home.
Because a war with Iran would be difficult to de-escalate, we can conclude that the possibility of war being waged against
the country is unlikely if not impossible. The level of damage the belligerents would inflict on each other would make any diplomatic
resolution of the conflict difficult. While the powerful Israeli and Saudi lobbies in the US may be beating the war drums, an indication
of what would happen if war followed can be seen in Yemen. Egypt and the UAE were forced to
withdraw from the
coalition fighting the Houthis after the UAE suffered considerable
damage from legitimate retaliatory missile strikes from the Yemen's Army Missile Forces.
An open war against Iran continues to be a red line that the ruling financial elites in the US, Israelis and Saudis don't
want to cross, having so much at stake.
With an election looming, Trump cannot risk triggering a new conflict and betraying one of his most important electoral promises.
The Western elite does not seem to have any intention of destroying the petrodollar-based world economy with which it generates its
own profits and controls global finance. And finally, US military planners do not intend to suffer a humiliating defeat in Iran
that would reveal the extent to which US military power is based on propaganda built over the years through Hollywood movies and
wars successfully executed against relatively defenceless countries. Even if we consider the possibility of Netanyahu and Bin
Salman being mentally unstable, someone within the royal palace in Riyadh or the government in Tel Aviv would have counseled them
on the political and personal consequences of an attack on Iran.
It is telling that Washington, London, Tel Aviv and Riyadh have to resort to numerous but ultimately useless
provocations against Iran, as they
can only rely on hybrid attacks in order to economically isolate it from the rest of the world.
Paradoxically, this strategy has had devastating consequences for the role of the US dollar as a reserve currency together with
the SWIFT system. In today's multipolar environment, acting in such an imperious manner leads to the acceleration of de-dollarization
as a way of circumventing sanctions and bans imposed by the US.
A reserve currency is used to facilitate transactions. If the disadvantages come to exceed the benefits, it will progressively
be used less and less, until it is replaced by a basket of currencies that more closely reflect the multipolar geopolitical reality.
The warmongers in Washington are exasperated by their continuing inability to curb the resilience and resistance of the people
in Venezuela, Iran, Syria, North Korea and Donbass, countries and regions understood by the healthy part of the globe as representing
the axis of resistance to US Imperialism.
America must always threaten someone with war. Syria, Iran, Venezuela, China, Russia, so many to choose from.
Conflicts must never be resolved; they must always kept simmering, so a hot war can be triggered quickly. All Presidents are
turned in the first three months after sworn in.
It's what happens as empires mature. Governance becomes bloated, corrupt and inept (often leading to wars). Maturity time has
become significantly reduced due to the rate of information technology advance. America is five years away from going insolvent
according to most models and forecasts. All new debt after 2024 will be used to pay the interest on existing debts and liabilities.
There is simply no stopping it. The US already pays close to 500 billion in annual interest on debts and liabilities. Factor in
a 600 billion or 700 billion dollar annual military budget, and unrestrained deficit spending clocking in at over a trillion,
and, well, it isn't going to work for long. Considering most new well paying jobs are government jobs... The end is either full
socialism / fascism (folks still don't get how similar these are), a currency crisis and panic, depression and institutional deterioration.
The only good news to libertarians I guess - if you can call it good - is that the blotted government along with the crony corporations
will mostly and eventually collapse. Libertarian governance might not be a choice by an electorate, it might simply become fact
in the aftermath.
I guess Trump eventually will understand this lesson in politics that friendship, mutual respect and helping each other accomplishes
way way more then threatening countries to be bombed back into the stoneage.
Noone likes to do a cutthroat deal enforced upon them by thuggery. Trump's got to learn that you can't run politics like you do
your bussinesses, it's not working unles that was his plan all this time, to destroy America.
"The Israel and Saudi lobbies have unlimited funds for corrupting Democrats and Republicans in order to push their foreign-policy
goals.
These two lobbies (together with their neocon allies) have for years been pushing to have a few hundred thousand young Americans
sent to Iran to sacrifice themselves for the purposes of destroying Iran and her people. Such geopolitical games are played at
the cost of US taxpayers, the lives of their children sent to war, and the lives of the people of the Middle East, who have been
devastated by decades of conflict."
America is increasingly looking like Ancient Rome towards the end. It is overstretched, nearly insolvent, fewer allies want
to be allies, it's population is sick, physically and mentally. Obesity, diabetes, drug use/addiction make it impossible for the
Pentagon to meet recruitment goal. Mental illness causes daily mass killing. The education system is so broken/broke that there
is little real education being done. Americans are among the most ignorant, least educated and least educate-able people in the
developed world.
Militarily, the USA can bomb but that's about it... defeats upon defeats over the past two decades demonstrate the US military
is a paper tiger of astonishing incompetence.
Boeing can't make planes anymore. Lockheed is not much better. Parts of the F-35 are made by Chinese subsidiaries. The most
recently built aircraft carrier cannot launch fighter jets.
Recent estimates indicate that more than 550,000 people experience homelessness in the US on any given night, with about two-thirds
ending up in emergency shelters or transitional housing programs, and one-third finding their way to unsheltered locations like
parks, vehicles, and metro stations. According to the Urban Institute, about 25% of homeless people have jobs.
I find that it is difficult for me to wrap my head around pain and suffering on such an immense scale. Americans often think
of the homeless as drug-addicted men that don't want to work, but the truth is that about a quarter of the homeless population
is made up of children.
Seriously, why would Iran want to hijack a German ship? Iran took the UK one in retaliation for the Brits seizing the one at
Gibraltar. Had that not happened, no Brit ships in the Persian Gulf would have been touched. This is all a carefully engineered
USA provocation designed to, inter alia, increase tension in the Persian Gulf, put more nails in coffin of JCPOA...and most importantly
give UK an excuse, as remaining signatory, to call for the original UN sanctions on Iran to be snapped-back.
Federico, let me explain it simply: the U.S. is allied with Israel, and Iran hates Israel. Why, I don't know (nor do I care),
but that's why the U.S. needs to keep Iran in check.
Yet CONGRESS just passed the largest defense bill in history. The WAR industry is bankrupting us financially spiritually and
morally.
A war is coming. But upon whom this time (or STILL?), because with President Bolton and Vice President Adelson in power, China
Iran or Russia or maybe all three, are open options.
Interview with a Russian I saw 2 years ago "USA wants to create local conflicts on foreign shores, ...on our borders, we will
not allow that to happen and make the war international" I will translate: Russia will not be pulled in to some stupid small war
draining their resources while the US sits comfortable, they will throw their missiles around - no escape from nuclear winter.
If spending has reached the limit now, during peacetime....what will happen during a protracted war? Even if it stays conventional,
it would appear that a huge war effort, comparable to WWII, just won't be possible. The US seems to be in a pre-war Britain position,
but there isn't a friendly giant across the water to bail them out with both cash and resources.
Either things become insane in fairly short order, or wiser heads will prevail and the US will step back from the brink. Do
we have any wiser heads at the moment?
I keep seeing John Bolton's moustache, Andi am not filled with confidence.
I would not call this article decent. At best it is half-decent ;-) This is a typical NYT anti-Tulsi propaganda but it does make
several relent observation buried in the sea of anti-Tulsi crapola.
Notable quotes:
"... “We should be coming to other leaders in other countries with respect, building a relationship based on cooperation rather than with, you know, a police baton,” she says. ..."
"... While she is the embodiment of this anti-interventionist message onstage, there is a much larger movement brewing. There is big money in peace. Two billionaire philanthropists from opposite ends of the political spectrum — George Soros and Charles Koch — came together this summer to fund the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, a think tank to argue against American intervention abroad. ..."
Tulsi Gabbard Thinks We're Doomed by Nellie Bowles
Tulsi Gabbard is running for president of a country that she believes has wrought horror on the world, and she wants its
citizens to remember that.
She is from Hawaii, and she spends each morning surfing. But that is not what she talks about in this unlikely campaign.
She talks about the horror.
She lists countries: Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Cuba, Vietnam, Iraq. Failure after failure, she says. To drive the point
home, she wants to meet on a Sioux tribe reservation in North Dakota, where, she explains, the United States government committed
its original atrocity.
“These Indigenous people have been disrespected, mistreated with broken promises and desecrated lands,” Ms. Gabbard says.
... ... ...
But her run, and the unusual cross-section of voters she appeals to — Howard Zinn fans, anti-drug-war libertarians, Russia-gate
skeptics, and conservatives suspicious of Big Tech — signifies just how much both parties have shifted, not just on foreign
policy. It could end up being a sign that President Trump’s isolationism is not the aberration many believed, but rather a
harbinger of a growing national sentiment that America should stand alone.
To Ms. Gabbard, it is the United States that has been the cruel and destabilizing force.
... ... ...
“We should be coming to other leaders in other countries with respect, building a relationship based on cooperation rather
than with, you know, a police baton,” she says.
... ... ...
While she is the embodiment of this anti-interventionist message onstage, there is a much larger movement brewing. There
is big money in peace. Two billionaire philanthropists from opposite ends of the political spectrum — George Soros and Charles
Koch — came together this summer to fund the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, a think tank to argue against American
intervention abroad.
... ... ...
Ms. Gabbard says she is driven by the feeling that death could come at any moment, which she realized at age 10 but which
became more intense in Iraq.
“My first deployment was at the height of the war in 2005. We were 40 miles north of Baghdad. And there was a huge sign
by one of the main gates that just read: ‘Is today the day?’” she says. “It was such a stark reminder that my time could come
at any moment. That any day could be my last.”
She is not sure who put the sign up or why. But it was this message of potentially imminent doom that she wanted to leave
the audience with at the second Democratic debate.
“As we stand here tonight,” she told the crowd. “There are thousands of nuclear missiles pointing right at us, and if we
were to get an attack, we would have 30 minutes, 30 minutes, before we were hit.”
Ms. Gabbard continued.
“There is no shelter. This is the warmonger’s hoax. There is no shelter. It’s all a lie.”
Nellie Bowles covers tech and internet culture. Follow her on Twitter:
@nelliebowles
"A seat or family seat was the principal manor of a medieval lord, which was normally an
elegant country mansion and usually denoted that the family held political and economic
influences in the area. In some cases, the family seat was a manor house."
She is descended from "to the manor born", thus qualified to be POTUS.
Other trivia is that Tulsi was a martial arts instructor in 2002. Similar to Justin
Trudeau's part time drama teacher and ski instructor qualifications to be PM of Canada.
Politics is a drity business. The last think any aspiring politician wants is to
fight on two fronts. For example against forign wars and Isreal lobby. that's creates Doublespeak
situation for candidates like Tulsi...
Notable quotes:
"... But the Empire is taking no chances. The Empire has sicced its Presstitute Battalion on her. Josh Rogin (Washington Post), Joy Reid (MSNBC), Wajahat Ali (New York Times and CNN), and, of course the Twitter trolls paid to slander and misrepresent public figures that the Empire targets. Google added its weight to the obfuscation of Gabbard. ..."
It is unfortunate that Tulsi Gabbard succumbed to the Israel Lobby. The forces of the Empire
saw it as a sign of weakness and have set about destroying her.
The ruling elite see Gabbard as a threat just as they saw Trump as a threat. A threat is an
attractive political candidate who questions the Empire's agenda. Trump questioned the
hostility toward Russia orchestrated by the military/security complex. Gabbard questions the
Empire's wars in the Middle East. This is questioning that encroaches on the agendas of the
military/security complex and Israel Lobby. If fear of Israel is what caused Gabbard to vote
the AIPAC line on the bill forbidding criticism of Israel, she won't be able to stick to her
line against Washington's aggression in the Middle East. Israel is behind that aggression as it
serves Israeli interests.
But the Empire is taking no chances. The Empire has sicced its Presstitute Battalion on
her. Josh Rogin (Washington Post), Joy Reid (MSNBC), Wajahat Ali (New York Times and CNN), and,
of course the Twitter trolls paid to slander and misrepresent public figures that the Empire
targets. Google added its weight to the obfuscation of Gabbard.
Wars in the Middle East against Israel's enemies and preparation for major wars against
Iran, Russia, and China are the bread and butter for the powerful US military/security complex
lobby. All that is important to the military/security complex is their profits, not whether
they get all of us killed. In other words, their propaganda about protecting America is a
lie. They endanger us all in order to have enemies in order to justify their massive budget
and power.
Those of us who actually know, such as myself and Stephen Cohen, have been warning for years
that the orchestrated hostility against Russia is producing a far more dangerous Cold War than
the original one. Indeed, beginning with the criminal George W. Bush regime, the arms control
treaties achieved at great political expense by US and Soviet leaders have been abandoned by
Washington. The lastest treaty to be discarded by Washington in service to the
military/security lobby is the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) negotiated by
President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbechev. This treaty banned missiles that
Washington could place in Europe on Russia's border with which to attack Russia with little or
no reaction time, and Russian missiles that could be used to attack Washington's NATO puppet
states in Europe and UK. The treaty resulted in the elimination of 2,692 missiles and a decade
of verification inspections that satisfied both parties to the agreement. But suddenly
Washington has pulled out of the treaty. The main purpose of pulling out of the treaty is to
enable the military/security complex to develop and produce new missiles at the taxpayers'
expense, but Washington also sees a military advantage in withdrawing from the INF treaty.
Washington, of course, blames the US withdrawal on Russia, just as Washington blames every
country that Washington intends to attack. But it is completely obvious even to a moron that
Russia has no interest whatsoever in abandoning the treaty. Russian intermediate-range
missiles cannot reach the United States. Russia has no reason to attack Europe, which has
no military forces of any consequence. It is the American nuclear missiles on European soil
that are the problem
Washington, however, does gain by tearing up the INF treaty. At Europe's risk, not
America's, Washington's intermediate-range nuclear misslies stationed in Europe on Russia's
borders permit a preemptive nuclear attack on Russia. Because of proximity, the warning time is
only a couple of minutes. Washington's crazed war planners believe that so much of the Russian
retaliatory capacity would be destroyed, that Russia would surrender rather than retaliate with
diminished forces and risk a second attack.
Putin stresses this danger as does the Russian military. US missiles on Russia's border puts
the world on a hair trigger. Aside from the fact that a nuclear attack on Russia is the likely
intent of the criminal neoconservatives, nuclear warning systems are notorious for false
alarms. During Cold War I, both sides worked to build trust, but since the criminal Clinton
regime Washington has worked to destroy all trust between the two dominant nuclear powers. All
that is required to obliterate life on earth, thanks entirely to the crazed fools in
Washington, is one false alarm received by the Russians. Unlike past false alarms, next time
the Russians will have no choice but to believe it.
Intermediate-range nuclear missiles leave no time for a phone call between Putin and Trump.
The Russian leader who has suffered hundreds of diplomatic insults, demonization of his person
and his country, illegal sanctions, endless false accusations, and endless threats cannot
assume that the warning is false.
The idiots in Washington and the presstitutes have programmed the end of the world. When the
alarm goes off, the Russian leader has no choice but to push the button.
Any remaining doubt in the Russian government of Washington's hostile intentions toward
Russia has been dispelled by Trump's National Security Advisor, the neocon warmonger John
Bolton. Bolton recently announced that the last remaining arms control agreement, START, will
not be renewed by Washington in 2021.
Thus, the trust built between the nuclear powers that began with President John F. Kennedy
and reached its greatest success with Reagan and Gorbachev has been erased. It will be lucky if
the world survives the destruction of trust between the two major nuclear powers.
ORDER IT NOW
The American government in Washington has been made so utterly stupid by its arrogant hubris
that it has no comprehension of the dangerous situation that it, and it alone, has created. We
are all at risk every minute of our lives because of the power, of which President Eisenhower
warned us more than a half century ago to no avail, of the US military/security complex, an
organized powerful force determined and able to destroy any American president who would
threaten their budget and power by making peace.
Donald Trump is a strong personality, but he has been cowed by the Israel Lobby and the
military/security complex. As reigning president, Trump sat there Twittering while an attack
orchestrated by the military/security complex and the Democratic Party, with 100% cooperation
from the American media, tried to portray him as a Russian agent as grounds for his
impeachment.
A strong personality in what is allegedly the most powerful office in the world who allows
his entire first term to be wasted by his opponents in an attempt to frame him and drive him
from office is all we need to know about the likely fate of Tulsi Gabbard.
"... it turned out that the very people who were up in arms about "fake news" were the ones propagating their own version of it. WikiLeaks did much to expose their game by publicizing the key role played by the Legacy Media in acting as an extension of the Clinton campaign. However, the real unmasking came after the November election, when the rage of the liberal elites became so manifest that "reporters" who would normally be loath to reveal their politics came out of the closet, so to speak, and started telling us that the old journalistic standard of objectivity no longer applied. The election of Trump, they averred, meant that the old standards must be abandoned and a new, and openly partisan bias must take its place. In honor of this new credo, the Washington Post has adopted a new slogan: " Democracy dies in darkness "! ..."
"... Rep. Gabbard's "crime" was to challenge the US-funded effort to overthrow the regime of Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad as contrary to our interests and the prospects for peace in the region. For that she has been demonized in the media – and, not coincidentally, the very same media that is now an instrument in the hands of our "intelligence community." For ..."
"... And of course it's not just the Washington Post : the entire "mainstream" media is now colluding with the "intelligence community" in an effort to discredit and derail any efforts at a rapprochement with Russia. We haven't seen this kind of hysteria since the frigid winter of the cold war. ..."
"... My longtime readers will not be shocked by any of this: during the run up to the Iraq war, the media was chock full of fake news about Saddam Hussein's fabled weapons of mass destruction, which all the "experts" told us were certainly there and ready to rain death and destruction at any minute. Who can forget the series of articles by Judith Miller that adorned the front page of the New York Times – which were merely Bush administration talking points reiterated by Donald Rumsfeld & Co. on the Sunday talk shows? Miller has now become synonymous with the very concept of fake news – and yet how quickly we forget the lesson we should have learned from that shameful episode in the history of American journalism . ..."
"... Blinded by partisan bias, all too willing to be used as an instrument of the Deep State -- and determined to "control exactly what people think," which is, as Mika Brzezinski put it the other day, " our job " – the English-speaking media has become increasingly unreliable. This has become a big problem for us here at Antiwar.com: we now have to check and re-check everything that they report as fact. Not that we didn't do that anyway, but the difference is that, these days, we have to be more careful than ever before linking to it, or citing it as factual. ..."
"... The day of the "alternative media" has passed. We are simply part of the media, period: the increasingly tiny portion of it that doesn't fall for war propaganda, that doesn't have a partisan agenda, and that harkens back to the "old" journalistic standards of yesteryear – objective reporting of facts. That doesn't mean we don't have opinions, or an agenda – far from it! However, we base those opinions on what, to the best of our ability, we can discern as the facts. ..."
"... And we have a pretty good record in this regard. Back when everyone who was anyone was telling us that those "weapons of mass destruction" were lurking in the Iraqi shadows, we said it was nonsense – and we were right. As the "experts" said that war with Iraq would "solve" the problem of terrorism and bring enlightenment to the Middle East, we said the war would usher in the reign of chaos – and we were right. We warned that NATO expansion would trigger an unnecessary conflict with Russia, and we were proved right about that, too. The Kosovo war was hailed as a "humanitarian" act – and we rightly predicted it would come back to haunt us in the form of a gangster state riven by conflict. ..."
"... There's one way in which we are significantly different from the rest of the media – we depend on our readers for the financial support we need to keep going. The Washington Post has Jeff Bezos, one of the wealthiest men in the world – not to mention a multi-million dollar contract with the "intelligence community." The New York Times has Carlos Slim, another billionaire with seemingly bottomless pockets. We, on the other hand, just have you. ..."
We're not the alternative media – we're the best media you've got!
Posted on
August 06, 2019 August 4, 2019The more things change, the more they stay the same: the
sun comes up in the morning; another Hitler arises in the fantasies of the foreign-policy
establishment; and Josh Rogin writes
another column attacking Tusli Gabbard, the most pro-peace candidate in the Democratic
lineup. Justin blasted Rogin the first time he tried this, back in February of 2017, proving
that the whole story was "fake news". We think it's important to revisit Justin's analysis of
the media-enhanced demand for war. As Justin notes, the only real alternative to this, the only
real "alternative media," are sites like Antiwar. com and WikiLeaks.
If we look at the phrase itself, it seems to mean the media that presents itself as the
alternative to what we call the "corporate media," i.e. the New York Times , the
Washington Post , your local rag – in short, the Legacy Media that predominated in
those bygone days before the Internet. And yet this whole arrangement seems outdated, to say
the least. The Internet has long since been colonized by the corporate giants: BuzzFeed, for
example, is regularly fed huge dollops of cash from its corporate owners. And the Legacy Media
has adapted to the primacy of online media, however reluctantly and ineptly. So the alternative
media isn't defined by how they deliver the news, but rather by 1) what they judge to be news,
and 2) how they report it.
And that's the problem.
There's been much talk of "fake news," a concept first defined by the "mainstream" media
types as an insidious scheme by the Russians and/or supporters of Donald Trump to deny Hillary
Clinton her rightful place in the Oval Office. Or it was
Macedonian teenagers out to fool us into giving them clicks. Or something. Facebook and
Google announced a campaign to eliminate this Dire Threat, and the mandarins of the
"mainstream" reared up in righteous anger, lecturing us that journalistic standards were being
traduced.
Yet it turned out that the very people who were up in arms about "fake news" were the ones propagating
their own version of it.
WikiLeaks did much to expose their game by publicizing the
key role played by the Legacy Media in acting as an
extension of the Clinton campaign. However, the real unmasking came after the November
election, when the rage of the liberal elites became so manifest that "reporters" who would
normally be loath to reveal their politics came out of the closet, so to speak, and started
telling us that the old journalistic standard of objectivity no longer applied. The election of
Trump, they averred, meant that the old standards must be abandoned and a new, and openly
partisan bias
must take its place. In honor of this new credo, the Washington Post has adopted a new slogan:
"
Democracy dies in darkness "!
This from the newspaper that ran a front page story citing the anonymous trolls at
PropOrNot.com as credible sources for an account of alleged
"Russian agents of influence" in the media – a story that slimed Matt Drudge and
Antiwar.com, among others.
This from the newspaper that regularly publishes "news" accounts citing anonymous
"intelligence officials" claiming the Trump administration is rife with Russian "agents."
This from the newspaper that published
a piece by foreign affairs columnist Josh Rogin that falsely claimed Rep. Tulsi Gabbard's
trip to Syria was funded by a group that is "nonexistent" and strongly implied she was in the
pay of the Syrian government or some other foreign entity. Well after the smear circulated far
and wide, the paper posted the following correction:
" An earlier version of this op-ed misspelled the name of AACCESS Ohio and incorrectly
stated that the organization no longer exists. AACCESS Ohio is an independent non-profit
organization that is a member of the ACCESS National Network of Arab American Community
organizations but is currently on probation due to inactivity. The op-ed also incorrectly
stated that Bassam Khawam is Syrian American. He is Lebanese American. This version has been
corrected."
Rep. Gabbard's "crime" was to challenge the US-funded effort to overthrow the regime of
Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad as contrary to our interests and the prospects for peace in
the region. For that she has been demonized in the media – and, not coincidentally, the
very same media that is now an instrument in the hands of our "intelligence community." For it
is these spooks who, for years, have been canoodling with the Saudis in an effort to rid the
region of the last secular obstacle to the Sunni-ization of the Middle East. That they have
Tulsi Gabbard in their sights is no surprise.
And of course it's not just the Washington Post : the entire "mainstream" media is
now colluding with the "intelligence community" in an effort to discredit and derail any
efforts at a rapprochement with Russia. We haven't seen this kind of hysteria since the frigid
winter of the cold war.
My longtime readers will not be shocked by any of this: during the run up to the Iraq war,
the media was chock full of fake news about Saddam Hussein's fabled weapons of mass
destruction, which all the "experts" told us were certainly there and ready to rain death and
destruction at any minute. Who can forget the series of articles by Judith Miller that adorned
the front page of the New York Times – which were merely Bush administration
talking points reiterated by Donald Rumsfeld & Co. on the Sunday talk shows? Miller has now
become synonymous with the very concept of fake news – and yet how quickly we forget the
lesson we should have learned from that shameful episode in the history of American
journalism.
So fake news is nothing new, nor is the concept of the "mainstream" media as a megaphone for
war propaganda. What's different today is that many are waking up to this fact – and
turning to the "alternative." I've been struck by this rising phenomenon over the past year or
so: Matt Drudge gave Antiwar.com a permanent link. Our audience has increased by many
thousands. And I've been getting a steady stream of interview requests. I was quite pleased to
read the following in
a recent piece in The Nation about the media's fit of Russophobia and the key role
played by the journalist I. F. Stone during the 1950s:
"To conclude where I began, think for a moment about I.F. Stone during his haunted 1950s.
While he was well-regarded by a lot of rank-and-file reporters, few would say so openly. He was
PNG [persona non grata] among people such as [ New York Times publisher Arthur]
Sulzberger – an outcast .
"Now think about now.
"A few reporters and commentators advise us that the name of the game these days is to
sink the single most constructive policy the Trump administration has announced. The rest is
subterfuge, rubbish. This isprima faciethe case, though you can read it nowhere
in theTimesor any of the other corporate media. A few have asserted that we may
now be witnessing a coup operation against the Trump White House. This is a possibility, in my
view. We cannot flick it off the table. With the utmost purpose, I post
here one of
these pieces. "A Win for the Deep State" came out just after Flynn was forced from office. It
is by a writer named Justin Raimondo and appeared in a wholly out-of-bounds web publication
called Antiwar.com. I know nothing about either, but it is a thought-provoking piece."
Well, we aren't quite "wholly out of bounds," except in certain circles, but all in all this
is a great compliment – and it's illustrative of author Patrick Lawrence's point, which
is that
"We, readers and viewers, must discriminate among all that is put before us so as to make
the best judgments we can and, not least, protect our minds. The other side of the coin, what
we customarily call 'alternative media,' assumes an important responsibility. They must get
done, as best they can, what better-endowed media now shirk. To put this simply and briefly,
they and we must learn that they are not 'alternative' to anything. In the end there is no such
thing as 'alternative media,' as I often argue. There are only media, and most of ours have
turned irretrievably bad."
We here at Antiwar.com take our responsibility to you, our readers and supporters, very
seriously. We're working day and night, 24/7, to separate fact from fiction, knee-jerk
"analysis" from intelligent critique, partisan bullshit from truth. And we've had to work much
harder lately because the profession of journalism has fallen on hard times.
Blinded by partisan bias, all too willing to be used as an instrument of the Deep State --
and determined to "control exactly what people think," which is, as Mika Brzezinski put it the
other day, " our job " – the
English-speaking media has become increasingly unreliable. This has become a big problem for us
here at Antiwar.com: we now have to check and re-check everything that they report as
fact. Not that we didn't do that anyway, but the difference is that, these days, we have to be
more careful than ever before linking to it, or citing it as factual.
The day of the "alternative media" has passed. We are simply part of the media, period: the
increasingly tiny portion of it that doesn't fall for war propaganda, that doesn't have a
partisan agenda, and that harkens back to the "old" journalistic standards of yesteryear
– objective reporting of facts. That doesn't mean we don't have opinions, or an agenda
– far from it! However, we base those opinions on what, to the best of our ability, we
can discern as the facts.
And we have a pretty good record in this regard. Back when everyone who was anyone was
telling us that those "weapons of mass destruction" were lurking in the Iraqi shadows, we said
it was nonsense – and we were right. As the "experts" said that war with Iraq would
"solve" the problem of terrorism and bring enlightenment to the Middle East, we said the war
would usher in the reign of chaos – and we were right. We warned that NATO expansion
would trigger an unnecessary conflict with Russia, and we were proved right about that, too.
The Kosovo war was hailed as a "humanitarian" act – and we rightly predicted it would
come back to haunt us in the form of a gangster state riven by conflict.
I could spend several paragraphs boasting about how right we were, but you get the idea. Our
record is a good one. And we intend to make it even better. But we can't do it – we
can't do our job – without your help.
There's one way in which we are significantly different from the rest of the media
– we depend on our readers for the financial support we need to keep going. The
Washington Post has Jeff Bezos, one of the wealthiest men in the world – not to
mention a multi-million
dollar contract with the "intelligence community." The New York Times has Carlos
Slim, another billionaire with seemingly bottomless pockets. We, on the other hand, just have
you.
Okay, I'll cut to the chase: we've come to a crucial point in our current fundraising
campaign, and now it's make it or break it time for Antiwar.com.
A group of our most generous supporters has pledged $40,000 in matching funds – but
that pledge is strictly conditional . What this means is that we must match that
amount in the short time left in our campaign in order to get the entire $40,000.
Some biographic trivia: Marianne Williamson told New York Jewish Week late last year that "had she received a better Jewish education
she might have become a rabbi." Williamson majored in theater and philosophy at California's
Pomona College, but dropped out in her junior year, 1973, moving to New York
City to pursue a career as a nightclub singer. By the mid 1980s, Williamson was preaching in
Los Angeles, and attracting an audience among Hollywood's gay community, which was attempting to
cope with the burgeoning AIDS crisis
Our policies are to do, mostly, with Republicans.
Our failure to convince voters, in a democracy, that there are alternatives to the gradual
rot of the last two generations -- that is to do, mostly, with Democrats.
Sure, undermining the party after it's made its choice of nominee is stupid and
counterproductive. But strengthening the party and fighting for its message are not mutually
exclusive. That is where we are now; Sarandonism is, for the moment, irrelevant.
I asked you a long time ago if you supported democracy, and you took offense. How then am
I supposed to interpret "blame the American voters"?
If fear of Israel is what caused Gabbard to vote the AIPAC line on the bill forbidding
criticism of Israel, she won't be able to stick to her line against Washington's aggression
in the Middle East. Israel is behind that aggression as it serves Israeli interests.
***
A strong personality .who allows his entire first term to be wasted by his opponents in an
attempt to frame him and drive him from office is all we need to know about the likely fate
of Tulsi Gabbard.
This piece, "Tulsi Gabbard: R.I.P.," is a good example of why I don't normally read PCR.
He blogs for his loyal followers, but says nothing we don't know, with little or no value
added. And then his analysis is weak. Perhaps he thinks this jab will stiffen Tulsi's spine,
(he's been a fan) and improve her platform. But she might just blow off his criticism as
irrelevant, which it may be.
PCR assumes that Tulsi voted against BDS out of fear. I believe that's wrong. She voted
out of idealism. That's what her Aloha movement is about. It may be naïve to think you
can make everybody happy, but if the Israel she supports turns out to be one state of equal
rights, that's fine.
"All we need to know" is one of my least favorite phrases. It's almost never true,
certainly not in this case. Trump's example (and he hasn't been as cowed as his detractors
make him out) doesn't foretell Tulsi's behavior. He's overflowing with bombast. She's calm,
with a core of steel.
PCR assumes that Tulsi voted against BDS out of fear. I believe that’s wrong. She
voted out of idealism. That’s what her Aloha movement is about. It may be naïve
to think you can make everybody happy, but if the Israel she supports turns out to be one
state of equal rights, that’s fine.
RobinG,
There are many good Dems who support the Palestinians. To get into the next debate, Tulsi
is looking for 4 polls who give her 2% support. To gain the support of those good people, she
must show sympathy for the Palestinians.
No empathy for the obvious plight of the Palestinians is a turn off among people of good
heart – something that Gabbard does not need.
Tulsi needs to be explicit concerning Israel/Palestine – it is unbecoming not to
be.
If you have been wondering when the twenty Democratic aspirants for the presidency will
begin a serious discussion of American foreign policy in the Middle East, where Washington has
been bogged down in both current and impending wars, you are not alone. With the honorable
exception of Tulsi Gabbard, no one seems keen to touch that particular live wire.
Part of the problem is the journalists who are asking the questions in the debates. To be
sure, the publication of "The Israel Lobby and
U.S. Foreign Policy" by professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt back in 2007
opened the door to a frank discussion of why the United States is involved in unresolvable
conflicts on behalf of a tiny client state. But unfortunately, while it is now possible to find
in the mainstream media some honest analysis of Israel's ability to corrupt policy formulation
in Washington, in general the Jewish state continues to get a pass from both the press and
politicians on all issues that matter.
And then there is the problem of Congress itself, which is precisely the institution that
has been most corrupted by Israel and Jewish money. Almost thirty years ago, American
politician Pat Buchanan described Congress as "Israeli occupied territory." As a result, he was
viciously attacked by the mainstream media and the political leadership of both parties,
demonstrating beyond all doubt that he was correct in his observation. Today the Israel Lobby
in the United States is far more powerful than it was in 1990, so much so that Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu actually boasts to his voters that he directs U.S. policy.
The hypocrisy inherent in the Israel-philia of America's political leadership is such that
it sometimes produces comic results. The whiney head of the House Intelligence Committee
Congressman Adam Schiff, Democrat of California, was beside himself prior to the Robert Mueller
testimony before Congress on July 24 th , denouncing Russia and President Donald
Trump,
saying that the president's actions amounted to "Disloyalty to country Those are strong
words But disloyalty to country violates the very obligation of citizenship, our devotion to a
core principle on which our nation was founded, that we, the people, not some foreign power
that wishes us ill, we decide, who shall govern, us."
Strong words indeed, but Adam Schiff knows perfectly well that Moscow's alleged involvement
in the 2016 election, which was relatively insignificant, had no measurable impact on the
result. And both he and Mueller have been coy about presenting any real evidence that Russia is
gearing up to do major damage in 2020, which is what they claim to be the case. By way of
contrast, everyone in Washington knows very clearly but will never admit that Israel has
seriously corrupted the United States government and its elected officials at all levels. But
Schiff did not mention Israel, nor did he express concern that Israel's clearly unsavory
involvement with Trump transition team members General Michael Flynn and Jared Kushner was
never thoroughly investigated or included in the final Mueller report. One might assume that a
deliberate decision was made by some parties in power to avoid embarrassing Israel. Those
parties almost certainly included Schiff.
Schiff, who is Jewish, frequently tells audiences about his love for Israel, sometimes
complaining that it is treated unfairly. It might be suggested that if anyone in the
government is partial to a foreign power it is Schiff, and that foreign power is Israel, not
Russia.
Unfortunately, Schiff is far from unique. Perhaps he and a number of other Congressmen
should register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as required by law.
Congressmen are not exempt when they work to benefit a foreign nation, though they frequently
believe themselves to be not subject to the very laws that they pass. In May
a letter was sent to the White House with the signatures of 400 congressmen, purely to
express America's legislature's solidarity with Israel and to give it a green light to do
whatever it wishes vis-à-vis its neighbors. The letter cites some questionable American
interests relating to Syria, but it also mentions Israel no less than 13 times.
If that does not convince one that Congress has always been and continues to be Israeli
occupied territory, check out some bills that have been working their way through the
legislature. The House
voted overwhelmingly on July 23 rd to formally oppose the Palestinian-backed
nonviolent movement to boycott Israel. The measure,
H.Res.246 opposes "efforts to delegitimize the State of Israel and the Global Boycott,
Divestment, and Sanctions Movement [BDS] targeting Israel." The bill had 349 co-sponsors and
passed by a 398–17 vote. Sixteen Democrats and only one Republican opposed the bill. The
bill is not a law but is rather intended to express the will of congress, which is perhaps the
only good thing to say about it.
Other bills have not yet been voted on, presumably because friends of the Jewish state are
looking for more goodies to add in. The pending legislative action includes the aid to Israel
bill
H.R.1837 the "United States-Israel Cooperation Enhancement and Regional Security Act" ,
which has
279 cosponsors . When the bill is approved, which it will be, it will increase the amount
of aid given to Israel over ten years to $38 billion, though this is now regarded as a minimum
figure which will be supplemented to meet the Jewish state's expressed needs. And the
aid is now unconditional, meaning that Israel will receive the money no matter how it
behaves, while the Jewish state will also be able to use the U.S. taxpayer provided money to
buy weapons from its own arms industry, cutting American defense contractors out of the loop
and costing jobs in the United States.
Another bill to benefit Israel is also pending:
H.R. 1850 , the "Palestinian International Terrorism Support Prevention Act of 2019," a law
that would authorize and encourage financially sanctioning any foreign organization or
individual that provides "support" to any group, organization or individual considered to be
part of the Palestinian resistance. Interestingly, the bill does not even pretend to be based
on U.S. national security: it is all about and for Israel. It could mean that foreign
supporters of BDS, which is now considered a hostile entity by "the will of" Congress, could be
subject to sanctions even though they are non-violent and threaten no one.
One final bit of bipartisan legislation best described as a pander to both Israel and the
Jewish community is a bill that has appeared
recently in the Senate that will prioritize and pay for health care and nutrition services
for those who claim to be holocaust survivors. The bill is entitled the "Trauma-Informed
Modernization of Eldercare for Holocaust Survivors Act" or "TIME for Holocaust Survivors Act."
It is intended to "increase the chances that survivors could age in their own homes" and also
"to ensure that holocaust survivors have care and services tailored to their needs."
Sponsor Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland, who is of course Jewish, elaborated: "Holocaust
survivors came to the United States seeking refuge from unimaginable horrors. They have lived
their lives here and enriched our nation. With an average age of 85, we have an obligation to
provide Holocaust survivors the community support and special services they need to live out
their final days,"
WE have an obligation? How about you and your co-religionists Ben as you seem to have
a lot of money to spend on lobbying for Israel and corrupting our government? Special services?
Why do they need help? Because, the bill states, "institutionalized settings, with confined
spaces or restrictions on food, can induce panic, anxiety, and re-traumatization due to their
holocaust experiences."
What about other elderly American who have problems with "institutionalized settings" or
"confined spaces" or "restrictions on food?" How the Senate will justify special benefits for a
small group of self-described victims drawn from the wealthiest demographic in the U.S. remains
to be seen. If there is anyone who actually needs help, it is the U.S. taxpayer, who has to
bear the burden of this utter nonsense, which sets up Jews as a special privileged group within
our social services network. So-called holocaust survivors are identified in the bill's "Findings"
as "(2) More than 200,000 Jews fleeing from Nazi occupied territory found refuge in the
United States from 1933 through 1945, and approximately 137,000 additional Jewish refugees
settled in the United States from 1945 through 1952. (3) Hundreds of thousands of additional
Jewish refugees continued to immigrate to the United States from Europe and countries of the
former Soviet Union during the subsequent decades. (4) The number of Holocaust survivors living
in the United States at the end of 2018 was approximately 80,000 individuals, down from an
estimated 13 127,000 in 2010."
Thus, holocaust survivors who will benefit from the bill are inevitably and by intention
only Jews – no Christians who went through 1933-1945 in Europe need apply. That one
highly privileged group should deserve special benefits from government that other retirees
cannot have is a disgrace. So, is the United States Congress Israeli and also, by extension,
Jewish occupied territory? I think the question answers itself.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest,
a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a
more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its
email is[email protected]
' To be sure, the publication of "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" by professors
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt back in 2007 opened the door to a frank discussion of why
the United States is involved in unresolvable conflicts on behalf of a tiny client state. But
unfortunately '
But unfortunately, the door was firmly slammed shut again.
@Dan Hayes I
remember years ago seeing annoying ads on cable TV (particularly on FoxNews) by Rabbi Yechiel
Eckstein (who died earlier this year) begging and pleading to donate money to his
"International Fellowship of Christians and Jews" so he and his daughter Yael could get
"Emergency Food Boxes" to elderly Russian Jews living in poverty that had survived living in
concentration camps.
Christian evangelist goyim suckers
Eckstein's trademark – tapping poor evangelical Christians in America's South by
showing them tear-jerking videos about poverty in Israel – is well-known. What is
less well-known is that Eckstein himself is well compensated by the fund, taking in about a
million dollars a year, including pension provisions.
That Israel gets a credit line for purchasing weapons from the US is nothing more than pork
barrel politics from Congress.
The billions in weapon aid is part of the Camp David Peace Agreement between Israel and
Egypt, but I hear no whinging about Egypt having the same deal and getting the same amount of
weapons as Israel does.
Why in the heck the US should furnish these two countries with a lot of weapons? Bringing
the pork back to the local constituencies is it. Pork barrel.
@Colin Wright'To be a Zionist, you have to either believe in the racial supremacy of Jews, be a liar,
or be very badly misinformed, since Israel is otherwise indefensible.'
Whoops. Missed one.
It's possible to be a Zionist if you're a really rabid Islamophobe. This last seems to
motivate some of our gentile Israel-lovers.
I wonder how many of our resident Zionists can actually be bothered to live in Israel
themselves?
It's one of the things that irritates me about Zionists. For most of them, Israel is
ultimately a hobby; I mean, Jews in general should go there, but not them. Too much
trouble.
But for their victims, the suffering is real. It's not a hobby.
If US leaders were being truly Machiavellian, they would double down on their support for
Netanyahu, while simultaneously arming Israel with conventional weapons.
Netanyahu gets a large portion of his support from backward, ultra orthodox Jews, who have
exceptionally high birth rates (around 7 children per woman) and are extremely politically
active. They are expected to be around 1/4th of the Israeli population in twenty years. If
this continues, it will turn Israel into a 3rd world country by mid-century, since secular
Jews only have slightly-above-replacement birth rates and the ultra orthodox do not have the
human capital to support a modern economy.
By arming Israel, it allows their leadership to procrastinate on the issue of Orthodox
Jews (who do not serve in the military), allowing the problem to metastasize demographically.
Israel has around 30 years to solve the issue before it's too late, and they are reduced to a
regional, third world nation.
Thank you, Philip. The Jewish-Israeli takeover of the US Congress is not only a flat out
disgrace, it is an organized attack on US sovereignty.
In America, pro-Zionist organizations are generally in charge of manufacturing news,
headlines, 'history', and dubious information (hasbara) for national consumption....
@Bubba I saw that
ad today on television. Him and his wife still being used for funds for
non-existent"survivors" in Russia. It's so obviously a scam. I wouldn't buy a car from that
scumbag
With a national debt approaching $23 trillion and a trillion dollar deficit for this year
alone, Congress last week decided to double down on suicidal spending, passing a two year
budget that has the United States careening toward catastrophe. While we cannot say precisely
when the economic crash will occur, we do know that it is coming. And last week Congress
pounded down on the accelerator.
We are told that the US economy is experiencing unprecedented growth, while at the same time
the Fed is behaving as it does when we are in recession by cutting rates and dodging insults
from the President because it's not cutting fast enough. This is not economic policy –
it's schizophrenia!
But that's only the beginning.
Take what they call "national defense" spending. This is the misnomer they use to try and
convince us that pumping trillions into the military-industrial complex will make us safe and
free. Nothing could be further from the truth: probably ninety percent of the "defense" budget
is aggressive militarism and welfare for the rich.
Under this budget deal the military budget would increase to nearly $1.4 trillion for two
years. Of course that's only a fraction of real military spending, which is, all told, well
over one trillion dollars per year.
What do we get for this money? Are we safer? Not at all. We are more vulnerable than ever.
We spend billions fighting "terrorism" in Africa while terrorism has actually increased since
the creation of the US Africa Command – "AFRICOM" – in 2007. Meanwhile we continue
to spend to maintain our illegal military occupation of a large section of Syria – which
benefits terrorist groups seeking to overthrow Assad.
We're sending thousands more troops to the Middle East including basing US troops in Saudi
Arabia for the first time since 2003. Back then, even neocon Paul Wolfowitz praised our
departure from Saudi Arabia because, as he rightly stated, US troops on Saudi soil was a great
recruiting tool for al-Qaeda.
Now we've pulled out of the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty so that we can
deploy once-forbidden missiles on China's front door. A new arms race with China will mean a
new boon for our new Defense Secretary's former colleagues at Raytheon!
"... As Aguinaldo hoped, the Philippine War tapped a rich vein of anti-imperialism. Even the Democratic Party–hardly a radical organization in the age of Jim Crow–could go a little spittle-flecked on this issue. The war was "criminal aggression," the Democratic platform charged in 1900, born of "greedy commercialism" and sure to ruin the country. "No nation can long endure half republic and half empire," it warned. "Imperialism abroad will lead quickly and inevitably to despotism at home." (p. 95) ..."
"... Now, with that spotlight switched off, MacArthur just wanted it over. He issued a new set of orders. Captured insurgents could be killed. Towns supporting them could be destroyed. The preferred method was burning, and since nearly every town in the north of the Philippines was aiding the rebels in some way, every one was potentially kindling. ..."
"... The men needed little encouragement to carry out these orders. As MacArthur well knew, his soldiers regarded Filipinos not at fellow Americans, but as irksome "natives." (p. 96) ..."
Andrew Bacevich
calls for
reckoning with the consequences of American colonial empire in the Philippines:
Yet the Philippines represented an altogether different case. By no stretch of the imagination did the archipelago fall within
"our backyard." Furthermore, the Filipinos had no desire to trade Spanish rule for American rule and violently resisted occupation
by U.S. forces. The notably dirty Philippine-American War that followed from 1899 to 1902 -- a conflict almost entirely expunged
from American memory today -- resulted in something like 200,000 Filipino deaths and ended in a U.S. victory not yet memorialized
on the National Mall in Washington.
Bacevich is right when he says that the Philippine War has been "almost entirely expunged from American memory today." It is significant
that one of the only times in recent years that the Philippine War was remembered was so that it could provide fodder for the counterinsurgency
fad among pro-war pundits. Max Boot was one of the chief advocates for counterinsurgency warfare, and he has cited the brutal occupation
campaign in the Philippines as an example of how to win such wars. Greg Bankoff counted the costs of the "small war" in the Philippines
that Boot praised in his book The Savage Wars of Peace , and he
described them in this response to a positive review of the book back in 2002:
Start with the description of the war itself as "small." Granted, the United States suffered only some 7,000 casualties, dead
and wounded. But estimates of Filipino mortality range from 200,000 persons upward. This is hardly small, especially considering
that the total Filipino population at the time was around seven million. Nor is it accurate to say the war ended in 1902, unless
one accepts the terms of President Theodore Roosevelt's November 1902 Brigandage Act, which redefined any band of more than three
men as bandits and subjected them to 20 years imprisonment or the death penalty. In fact, guerrilla warfare continued until 1907,
waged by popular revolutionary leaders who refused to accept the colonial yoke anew -- men such as Luciano San Miguel (who died
on the battlefield of Corral-na-Bato in March 1903), Macario Sakay (who was hanged on September 13, 1907) and Julian Montalan
(who was sentenced to life imprisonment and exiled to Palawan until 1921). No, the war did not actually end in 1902, but the U.S.
colonial authorities conveniently branded everything subsequent to that as ladronism, simple thievery.
Bankoff warned later in the same piece that "a distorted reconstruction of that past is likely to preview an equally distorted
future." Looking back seventeen years later at our multiple protracted wars, all of them enthusiastically supported by Boot and fellow
neo-imperialists, we have to conclude that the future was horribly distorted in part by this willingness to lionize and whitewash
the Philippine War as a model for U.S. foreign policy. Like that war, our ongoing wars have inflicted horrific losses on the local
populations, they are completely divorced from the security of the United States, and the people we are fighting are fighting us
because our forces are in their country.
If Boot's distorted history has contributed to the distortion of our foreign policy, we could do worse than to begin by finding
better reconstructions of the past. Daniel Immerwahr has done some important work in studying the consequences of our colonial empire
on the people in the territories that our government took over in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. His book
How to Hide an Empire recounts the history of how the U.S. obtained its overseas territories, how it abused them, and how
it has created a very different kind of empire over the last seventy years.
Immerwahr recounts some of the opposition to the Philippine War from members of the Anti-Imperialist League:
As Aguinaldo hoped, the Philippine War tapped a rich vein of anti-imperialism. Even the Democratic Party–hardly a radical
organization in the age of Jim Crow–could go a little spittle-flecked on this issue. The war was "criminal aggression," the Democratic
platform charged in 1900, born of "greedy commercialism" and sure to ruin the country. "No nation can long endure half republic
and half empire," it warned. "Imperialism abroad will lead quickly and inevitably to despotism at home." (p. 95)
He also describes the tactics that U.S. forces used in the war:
Now, with that spotlight switched off, MacArthur just wanted it over. He issued a new set of orders. Captured insurgents
could be killed. Towns supporting them could be destroyed. The preferred method was burning, and since nearly every town in the
north of the Philippines was aiding the rebels in some way, every one was potentially kindling.
The men needed little encouragement to carry out these orders. As MacArthur well knew, his soldiers regarded Filipinos
not at fellow Americans, but as irksome "natives." (p. 96)
If we hope to change U.S. foreign policy and repudiate empire, we have to remember first how we acquired it and the Americans
that organized to oppose it.
P.S. Another similarity between the Philippine War and the wars of the last two decades is the length of the actual fighting.
Immerwahr writes:
Stretching from the outbreak of hostilities in 1899 to the end of military rule in Moroland in 1913, it is, after the war in
Afghanistan, the longest war the United States has ever fought. (p. 107)
Wow!! Honesty in reporting!! I must applaud Caitlin Johnstone's boldfaced honesty in her
"Propagandists Freak Out Over Gabbard's Destruction of Harris: Establishment narrative
managers distracted attention from a notable antiwar contender, seizing instead the chance to
marshal an old smear against her, writes Caitlin Johnstone."
I stopped reading after this passage and had to come her and post a comment about the most
honest description of CNN I've ever read:
"CNN is a virulent establishment propaganda firm with an extensive history of promoting
lies and brazen psyops in facilitation of U.S. imperialism, so it would make sense that they
would try to avoid a subject which would inevitably lead to unauthorized truth-telling on the
matter."
Johnstone then recites the smearing attacks alluded to @46 but also tells us why:
"Gabbard just publicly eviscerated a charming, ambitious and completely amoral centrist
who would excel at putting a friendly humanitarian face on future wars if elected, and that's
why the narrative managers are flipping out so hard right now."
Harris and Michelle Obama I see as one and the same--both equally putrid. I know I dropped
by unequivocal support for Gabbard, but that doesn't mean I'm 100% against her and her
efforts. I wholeheartedly support Caitlin's conclusion:
"The shrill, hysterical pushback that Gabbard received last night was very encouraging,
because it means she's forcing them to fight back. In a media environment where the war
propaganda machine normally coasts along almost entirely unhindered in mainstream attention,
the fact that someone has positioned themselves to move the needle like this says good things
for our future. If our society is to have any chance of ever throwing off the omnicidal,
ecocidal power establishment which keeps us in a state of endless war and soul-crushing
oppression, the first step is punching a hole in the narrative matrix which keeps us
hypnotized into believing that this is all normal and acceptable.
"Whoever controls the narrative controls the world. Whoever disrupts that narrative
control is doing the real work."
Gabbard must poll 2% or more in at least 4 different polls between 6/28 & 8/28 to
qualify for the 3rd debate; she's received enough donations to qualify. She needs to be on
the podium!
Proven
Propagandist Bellingcat joins D-Party talking-point hit parade attacking Gabbard for
being "Assad Apologist." Interesting how she's getting the similar sort of negative publicity
Trump got quite a lot of at the outset of his campaign, which only serves to increase her
national exposure. Her retorts are forceful and having success; and as Trump proved, smear
campaigns no longer are assured of success. Clearly, the Current Oligarchy and their D-Party
allies are convinced that the massive propaganda smearing of Assad was successful; but, was
it really?
Media: Tulsi is New Darling of 'Russia's Propaganda Machine'
Remember when Red-baiting was considered dogmatic and passé by the left-wing hive?
By
Barbara Boland
•
August 5, 2019
Tulsi Gabbard in Amherst, New Hampshire, July 4, 2019..
( Andrew
Cline/Shutterstock)
What do Hawaii Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard and billionaire real estate heir Donald J. Trump have in common?
According to MSNBC, Gabbard is part of the Russian scheme that "Moscow used when it interfered in the 2016" election.
The
establishment loathes any candidate
who seeks an end to U.S. military adventurism abroad -- so much so that they are
willing to make the logically incoherent claim that Russian bots elected Trump. Now they're apparently also attempting to
elect his 2020 Democratic rival.
The mind-bending MSNBC
article
resurfaced on social media after Gabbard became the most Googled candidate thanks to several viral moments
during the debates.
Advertisement
NBC News rests its
claim
that "Russia's propaganda machine" has "discovered" Tulsi Gabbard on the fact that "there have been at least 20
Gabbard stories on three major Moscow-based English-language websites affiliated with or supportive of the Russian
government: RT, the Russian-owned TV outlet; Sputnik News, a radio outlet; and Russia Insider, a blog that experts say
closely follows the Kremlin line. The coverage devoted to Gabbard, both in news and commentary, exceeds that afforded to
any of the declared or rumored Democratic candidates despite Gabbard's lack of voter recognition."
Because Russian media reports on Gabbard, that means they're seeking to elect her. How sneaky.
A more obvious explanation for the increased coverage is that as a member of Congress, Gabbard has made many statements
regarding the war in Syria and America's and Russia's involvement, and because as a presidential candidate, she's made
foreign policy the centerpiece of her campaign.
Or it could be because -- Russian bots.
MSNBC says that "negative coverage and fabricated stories about Hillary Clinton" in 2016 were
"amplified by a huge network of fake social media accounts and bots" and that "experts who track inauthentic social media
accounts have already found some extolling Gabbard's positions since she declared."
It continues: "Within a few days of Gabbard announcing her presidential bid,
DisInfo 2018
, part of the
cybersecurity firm New Knowledge, found that three of the top 15 URLs shared by the 800 social media accounts affiliated
with known and
suspected
Russian propaganda operations
directed at U.S. citizens were about Gabbard."
New Knowledge is the company the Senate Intelligence Committee used to track Russian activities
in the 2016 election. Apparently they've told NBC News that they spotted "chatter" about Gabbard "in anonymous online
message boards, including those known for fomenting right-wing troll campaigns. The chatter discussed Gabbard's
usefulness."
Further, "Josh Russell, a researcher and 'troll hunter' known for identifying fake accounts,
similarly told NBC News he recently spotted a few clusters of suspicious accounts that retweeted the same exact text about
Gabbard, mostly neutral or slightly positive headlines."
"A few clusters" of "mostly neutral or slightly positive headlines." Scary stuff.
I'm old enough to remember when Democrats mocked the very idea of Russians being a threat.
Remember Obama's famous
comeback
:
"Governor Romney, I'm glad you recognize that al-Qaeda is a threat, because a couple of months ago when you were asked
what's the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia. And the 1980s are now calling to ask for their
foreign policy back."
Romney is a "Cold War holdover" with an "apparent determination to take U.S.-Russian relations back to the 1950s,"
chided
Joe Biden, Obama's running mate, at an April campaign event.
Romney "acts like he thinks the Cold War is still on, Russia is still our major adversary. I don't know where he has
been," Biden said in an
interview
with Bob Schieffer on
Face the Nation
. "We have disagreements with Russia, but they're united with us. This is
not 1956. He just seems to be uninformed or stuck in a Cold War mentality."
This all feels so long ago. Ever since the Democrats lost the 2016 election to Trump, there's been endless fear
mongering about how Russians are hiding behind every candidate. Now, if a Democratic candidate dares to defy the
establishment line on foreign interventionism, she must be aided by the Russians.
Because that's the only reason someone might
say
,
"I will not apologize to you, or to anyone for doing all that I can to prevent our country from continuing to make these
perpetual wrong decisions that have taken a toll on the lives of my brothers and sisters in uniform. I will continue to do
all that I can to make sure that we end these wasteful regime change wars."
Barbara Boland is
's foreign policy and national security reporter. Follow her on
Twitter
@BBatDC.
Tulsi Gabbard is the
only
-- and I do mean
only
-- Democratic candidate for
President worth taking a serious look at.
Not that a serious look means actually voting for
the candidate of that diseased and corrupt Party. To my mind, in fact, a "D" next to the name
on the ballot is disqualifying.
Still, Tulsi appears to be the only one of the sorry lot deserving of some attention and
respect on the part of intelligent people.
This would account for why the Democratic Party Public Relations Machine (aka: Mainstream
Media) has trained its guns on her as a Russian dupe (or worse).
Seriously, it is to laugh: how this pathetic collection of tools, who spent the entire
Cold War as Soviet apologists, have in a generation converted wholesale to McCarthyite
Russia-bashers. All because Vlad doesn't cotton to gays.
Anyway, one might think that all of them, the lib-Dem-media tools, deserve the nuclear
incineration they're so casually inviting, which would mess up their privileged lives
big-time.
Unfortunately, the rest of us would end up taking the hit with them. Therefore, our only
recourse is to call them out for the witless idiots they are and pray their witless idiocy
does not end in a catastrophe.
Caitlyn Johnstone teaches us that all
anti-imperialists will necessarily be accused of Russian sympathies, solely because Russia,
for its own reasons, is the main opposition to western imperialism.
When this happens, demand to know what kind of war opposition would not be labeled
"Russian". They won't be able to provide a coherent answer.
"The establishment loathes any candidate who seeks an end to U.S. military adventurism
abroad -- so much so that they are willing to make the logically incoherent claim that Russian
bots elected Trump."
How "effective" Russian interference in our elections was in 2016 is a
question that political scientists and statisticians will be arguing about for years if not
decades.
What is logically incoherent is the idea that President Trump opposes US "military
adventurism." Tell that to the Iranians, the North Koreans, the Yemenis. And he certainly
does not oppose Russian "military adventurism" in Crimea and Syria.
More divisive talk, it doesn't matter if it's coming from the left or right. They'll say
whatever they can to deflect attention from our outrageous military budget. Finally we have a
candidate that is capable of uniting Americans across the entire political spectrum under a
single cause...end all of these useless foreign conflicts and redirect that money back into
programs and services that improve the quality of life for all Americans. So it comes as no
surprise to me that this journalist claiming to speak on behalf of American Conservatives
would claim Tulsi Gabbard is the Russian Candidate in an attempt to halt her momentum. 21st
Century McCarthyism won't work on us anymore. Conservatives, moderates, and liberals are
united behind Tulsi.
The mind-bending MSNBC article resurfaced on social media after Gabbard became the most
Googled candidate thanks to several viral moments during the debates.
the MSM hacks have enough stupidity to talk about
Gabbard's lack of voter recognition.
Seriously? I know that the MSM propaganda is oxymoronic to its core, but now I'm not sure
about "oxy".
Josh Russell, a researcher and 'troll hunter'
Really? That's his profession? I've always thought that "troll-hunting" is a form of what
medics may call either paranoid schizophrenia, querulous paranoia or paraphrenia, depending
on further symptoms.
Just give the wacko a fantasy video game, where he can literally hunt trolls.
Oh, and this:
Ever since the Democrats lost the 2016 election to Trump, there's been endless fear
mongering about how Russians are hiding behind every candidate.
Hopefully, they ain't gonna start hiding behind every fridge in a year.
If one is prohibited for religious reasons from blaming the Democratic Party then the only
scapegoat left is the white working class voter. Racism is part and parcel to white working
class anger, but it is not the whole enchilada by a long shot. Perhaps the romanticism
surrounding "The Cause" and related notorious individuals such as formed the James Gang is
inappropriate, but that romanticism owes more to Bacon's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion
than to the landing of the Isabella in Philadelphia in 1684. Not many of the Southern lads
that fought in the Civil War were even able to afford to have slaves. Even more ironically
many of those first slaves on the Isabella were bought by Quakers, later leading advocates of
emancipation after machines had made slaves obsolete for their purposes.
...As for Tulsi Gabbard, her foreign policy views are a clear and present danger to Israel's
and Washington's grand strategy to secure permanent military hegemony in the Middle East. If
the PNAC grand strategy succeeds, there will never be any justice or sovereignty for the
Palestinian people. I think she was being strategic with the BDS vote (as with her defense of
Joe Biden, a head-fake which opened up the opportunity for her to take down Kamala Harris).
Gabbard's mission faces long enough odds without her publicly confirming the worst
paranoid Zionist fears about her. She's already being denounced as an "Assad apologist" and
"Putin puppet" (don't you love the sub literary assonance and alliteration?); she can dispel
the outrageous slanders, but if she were on the record in support of BDS, it would have been
the nail in the coffin of her campaign. Gabbard strikes me as radically pragmatic.
We will need her remarkable leadership skills to avoid civil war as the empire collapses.
Please don't throw in the towel yet or give up on the one hope that remains.
The entire point of the Ukraine conflict was to drive a wedge between natural allies in
Europe: Russia and Germany. Together they would form the most powerful economic block on earth.
This is USA greatest fear. Luckily for USA, they succeeded in blocking this alliance...
It all began during what I think of as the " Kristallnacht of international law," 30
August September 1995, when the Empire attacked the Bosnian-Serbs in a direct and total
violation of all the most fundamental principles of international law. Then there was 9/11,
which gave the Neocons the "right" (or so they claimed) to threaten, attack, bomb, kill, maim,
kidnap, assassinate, torture, blackmail and otherwise mistreat any person, group or nation on
the planet simply because " we are the indispensable nation " and " you either are
with the terroristsor with us ". During these same years, we saw Europe become a
third-rate US colony incapable of defending even fundamental European geopolitical interests
while the US became a third-rate colony of Israel equally incapable of defending even
fundamental US geopolitical interests. Most interestingly looking back, while the US and the EU
were collapsing under the weight of their own mistakes, Russia and China were clearly on the
ascend; Russia mostly in military terms (see here and here
) and China mostly economically. Most crucially, Russia
and China gradually agreed to become symbionts which, I would argue, is even stronger
and more meaningful than if these two countries were united by some kind of formal alliance:
alliances can be broken (especially when a western nation is involved), but symbiotic
relationships usually last forever (well, nothing lasts forever, of course, but when a lifespan
is measured in decades, it is the functional equivalent of "forever", at least in geostrategic
analytical terms). The Chinese have now developed an official, special, and unique
expression to characterize that relationship with Russia. They speak of a "Strategic,
comprehensive partnership of coordination for the new era."
... ... ...
Empires cannot only trade. Trade alone is simply not enough to remain a viable empire.
Empires also need military force, and not just any military force, but the kind of military
force which makes resistance futile. The truth is that NO modern country has anywhere near the
capabilities needed to replace the US in the role of World Hegemon: not even uniting the
Russian and Chinese militaries would achieve that result since these two countries do not
have:
1) a worldwide network of bases (which the US have, between 700-1000 depending on how you
count)
2) a major strategic air-lift and sea-lift power projection capability
3) a network of so-called "allies" (colonial puppets, really) which will assist in any
deployment of military force
...
neither China nor Russia have any interests in policing the planet or imposing some regime
change on other countries. All they really want is to be safe from the US, that's it.
This new reality is particularly visible in the Middle-East where countries like the United
States, Israel or Saudi Arabia (this is the so-called "Axis of Kindness") are currently only
capable of deploying a military capable of massacring civilians or destroy the infrastructure
of a country, but which cannot be used effectively against the two real regional powers with a
modern military: Iran and Turkey.
But the most revealing litmus test was the US attempt to bully Venezuela back into
submission. For all the fire and brimstone threats coming out of DC, the entire "Bolton
plan(s?)" for Venezuela has/have resulted in a truly embarrassing failure: if the Sole
"Hyperpower" on the planet cannot even overpower a tremendously weakened country right in its
backyard, a country undergoing a major crisis, then indeed the US military should stick to the
invasion of small countries like Monaco, Micronesia or maybe the Vatican (assuming the Swiss
guard will not want to take a shot at the armed reps of the "indispensable nation"). The fact
is that an increasing number of medium-sized "average" countries are now gradually acquiring
the means to resist a US attack.
So if the writing is on the wall for the AngloZionist Empire, and if no country can replace
the US as imperial world hegemon, what does that mean?
It means the following: 1000 years of European imperialism is coming to an end
!
This time around, neither Spain nor the UK nor Austria will take the place of the US and try
to become a world hegemon. In fact, there is not a single European nation which has a military
even remotely capable of engaging the kind of "colony pacification" operations needed to keep
your colonies in a suitable state of despair and terror. The French had their very last hurray
in Algeria, the UK in the Falklands, Spain can't even get Gibraltar back, and Holland has no
real navy worth speaking about. As for central European countries, they are too busy
brown-nosing the current empire to even think of becoming an empire (well, except Poland, of
course, which dreams of some kind of Polish Empire between the Baltic and the Black Sea; let
them, they have been dreaming about it for centuries, and they will still dream about it for
many centuries to come ).
Now compare European militaries with the kind of armed forces you can find in Latin America
or Asia? There is such a knee-jerk assumption of superiority in most Anglos that they
completely fail to realize that medium and even small-sized countries can develop militaries
sufficient enough to make an outright US invasion impossible or, at least, any occupation
prohibitively expensive in terms of human lives and money (see here
, here and
here ). This
new reality also makes the typical US missile/airstrike campaign pretty useless: they will
destroy a lot of buildings and bridges, they will turn the local TV stations ("propaganda
outlets" in imperial terminology) into giant piles of smoking rubble and dead bodies, and they
kill plenty of innocents, but that won't result in any kind of regime change. The striking fact
is that if we accept that warfare is the continuation of politics by other means, then we also
have to admit, that under that definition, the US armed forces are totally useless since they
cannot help the US achieve any meaningful political goals.
The truth is that in military and economic terms, the "West" has already lost. The fact that
those who understand don't talk, and that those who talk about this (denying it, of course)
have no understanding of what is taking place, makes no difference at all.
...Indeed, if the Neocons don't blow up the entire planet in a nuclear holocaust, the US and
Europe will survive, but only after a painful transition period which could last for a decade
or more. One of the factors which will immensely complicate the transition from Empire to
"regular" country will be the profound and deep influence 1000 years of imperialism have had on
the western cultures, especially in the completely megalomaniac United States ( Professor
John Marciano's "Empire as a way of life" lecture series addresses this topic superbly
– I highly recommend them!): One thousand years of brainwashing are not so easily
overcome, especially on the subconscious (assumptions) level.
Well, the number one factor keeping empire in a hegemonic stance is the hegemonic U.S. dollar.
The empire isn't going anywhere as long as the dollar remains as the worlds reserve currency.
Most of planetary trade goes through Brussels and Wall Street denoted in dollars. Most of the
credit cards carried and used around the world are SWIFT creations.
How and where this will change will be more telling than where the military loses its last
battle.
A usual tour de force by the Saker. But one can see things also very differently.
– Western Imperialism: the Holy Roman Empire never had any colonies. Nor did any of
the Eastern European states. Nor did the Italians states save for the farcical attempts of
Mussolini
– Whas the Turkish empire also due to the Frankish imperialistic popish impulse?
– What the Saker is talking about here are basically GB, France and Holland.
– What about the Russian Empire? What was it but a colonial enterprise? And will rump
Russia endure? I have my doubts. Putin ended the Chechen war by giving Chechnya de facto if not
de jure self governance. Right now things are okey dokey as Russia is bribing Kadyrov and
Kadyrov and Putin having a special personal relationship. But what if circumstances change?
Putin not being there any more and some new Russian government tries to enforce its writ in
Chechnya? On top there is the birthrate in the Caucasus which is two times the Russian
birthrate. Will all those different nationalities still feel bound to Russia in the future? And
will Russians be willing to subsidise the Caucasus for ever?
– The "symbiosis" between Russia and China is laughable. As soon as the Anglo-Zionist
empire really collapses the differences between Russia and China will come to the fore.
To get China´s help after the Ukraine crisis Russia had to give China a free hand in
Mongolia. Before Russia had always seen to it that Mongolia didn´t get too dependent on
China. Half of the foreign exchange of Mongolia was earned by the Russian-Mongolian copper mine
of Erdenet. Three years ago Russia sold its share in Erdenet. By now Erdenet has been pledged
by Mongolias venal politicians as collateral for Chinese loans.
Also China has certainly never forgot that the Russian far East was part of the Qing empire
until the 1850s.Tthis will be brought up again as soon as Russia is sufficiently weak.
Russia was forced into the alliance with China by the West. The only industrial sphere where
Russia does indeed have world class expertise is in armaments. After Ukraine Russia was forced
to share its technology with China. And China will definately put this new knowledge to good
use and in the not so far future overtake Russia in this particular field of expertise. Then
watch what will happen.
– China not interested in old fashioned imperial politics. That is laughable as well.
China has a base in Ceylon now that they got as collateral for a loan that Ceylon
couldn´t repay. China is laying claim to the whole South China sea and even parts of the
200 mile zones of countries like the Philipines, Indonesia and Vietnam. To back up these claims
with military muscle they build navy bases all over the Spratley islands
– China is getting more and more carbon hydrates through pipelines from Central Asia.
At the same time it is mass imprisoning its Turkic population (Uyghus, Kazakhs and Kirgiz). The
way the Chinese treat those people is exactly racist in the way the Saker has described the
European relationship to the rest of the world. If you are a businessman in any one of those
countries you will not be allowed to interact with people of the same faith, culture and almost
the same language who live just across the border in Xinjiang.
The Chinese government has seen to the fact that any member of those minorities lives in
mortal fear of any contact with foreigners. Any business must now be conducted only with ethnic
Chinese. And as as a Kirghiz or Kazakh national you are not distuingishable from a Kirgiz or
Kazakh from Xinjiang you will suffer the same indignities as them when you travel to
Xinjiang.
As venal and corrupt as the elites of the "Stans" might be: even they perceive Chinese
actions in neighbouring Xinjiang as so grossly offensive that they hardly hide their disdain
anymore. In fact I talked to a journalist last week who was present at the latest SCO gathering
in Bishkek. She was astonished at the level of Sinophobia she accountered.
So on the one hand China is in the process of acquiring more and more of the ressources of
the Stans. But on the other hand it is worsening its relationship with the peoples of these
countries.
The Stans are still ruled by the same Soviet nomenklatura. There has been no real change.
The question is how stable this arrangement is. It definately fits the requirement of the
Chinese but the longer this lasts the more the elites of the Stans are coming between China and
their own population.
China is well aware of this. To protect its investment it might have to use force in the
future. And that is what I expect to happen in case one of those pipelines is interrupted. Not
so different from what the West is doing in the Middle East. All that talk of the Saker about
"good" and "bad" civilisations and promised land once the Anglo-Zionist ascendancy is over is
just that: empty words.
In reality Nitzsche is still right: States are the coldest of cold monsters.
It is incredibly , wickedly absurd and naïve to even think that , what you call an
empire
will go down without a world shattering fight.
It is mindless ignorance not to notice the handwriting on the wall.
This entity you call empire , has been preparing for this event for centuries.
They are telling it in our face directly , " new world order", " full spectrum domination"
They have what nobody else has , a proactive plan, a global network of military bases, and
the scariest part is the fact , that they have no moral barriers to say that, it is not going
to be a fair fight. No hold barred ! No laws ! No rules of engagement! The end justifies the
means !
On the end they will not win in fact nobody will .
But the old must die for the new to be .
Our desire to become brought us to this point , it was an exiting ride , but the new humans
will have a " climate change " of consciousness .
That is not a silly hope , that is logic based clearly on design.
Both US Americans and Europeans will, for the very first time in their history, have to
behave like civilized people, which means that their traditional "model of development"
(ransacking the entire planet and robbing everybody blind) will have to be replaced by one in
which these US Americans and Europeans will have to work like everybody else to accumulate
riches.
Most Americans don't get to collect welfare. Most Americans have to get jobs and pay for
stuff. Most Americans who work do NOT accumulate riches – they go broke. Probably the
elite .01% – guys like Jeff Bezos and Jeff Epstein and Bernie Madoff – can get rich
and accumulate riches. That is not "AngloZionist." It's just Zionist.
"... Wall Street bankers funded all those 'anti colonial movements' in the first place. They wanted to deal with some corrupt brown black politician over an honest White/Japanese colonial officer. ..."
"... What many people do not know is that the after the damage done by the Great Depression (the total Wall Street take over of the US Economy and the looting of independent of American business with the help of the private 'Federal' reserve ), The British Government put restrictions on trade in between the British Empire and USA to protect the economies of Britain and all of her colonies from the Wall Street pigs. ..."
http://www.unz.com/audio/gunsbutter_the-imf-and-world-bank-partners-in-backwardness-407/
Email This Page to Someone
Remember My Information
=>
◄
►
◄
►
▲
▼
Remove from Library
B
Show
Comment
Next New Comment
Next
New Reply
Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More...
This Commenter
This Thread
Hide Thread
Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They
are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My
Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Email Comment
Ignore
Commenter
Follow Commenter
Bookmark
Toggle
All
ToC
▲
▼
Add
to Library
Search Text
Case
Sensitive
Exact Words
Include Comments
Search
Clear
Cancel
List of Bookmarks
Audio Player
00:00
00:00
00:00
Use Up/Down Arrow keys to increase or decrease volume.
Michael Hudson discusses his seminal work of 1972, Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire,
a critique of how the US exploits foreign economies through IMF and World bank debt; difference between the IMF
and World Bank; World Bank dysfunctional from the outset; loans made in foreign currency only; policy to
provide loans for countries to devote their land to export plantation crops; US food and monetary imperialism;
U.S. agricultural protectionism built into the postwar global system; promotion of dependency on the US as food
supplier; food blackmail; perpetration of world poverty preferred; no encouragement of land reform;
privatization of the public domain; America aided, not foreign economies; exploitation of mineral deposits;
bribery; foreign nations politically controlled at the top; veto power for US only.
This was planned decades ago. That is why Wall Street bankers funded all those 'anti colonial movements' in the
first place. They wanted to deal with some corrupt brown black politician over an honest White/Japanese
colonial officer.
"As far as is known "America's" anti-British policy was first given concrete expression in the brief that
General Marshall took with him to the Quebec Conference in 1943.
This was to the effect that the greatest single obstacle to the expansion of America's export-capitalism after
the war would be not the Soviet Union but the British Empire. What this meant, in practical terms, was that as
soon as the enemies in the field had been disposed of would come the turn of the British Empire to be
progressively destroyed and that means to this end would be shaped even while hostilities raged. The moment
they were over the campaign could begin in real earnest, the signal for which was to be Truman's abrupt
dropping of Lend-Lease to an ally whose economy had been so closely geared to war production that many markets
for her goods had been systematically referred to U.S producers.
The British Empire was not the only ally marked down for liquidation. The Dutch Empire in the East Indies and
the French Empire in Indo-China and Africa were also high on the list "
What many people do not know is that the after the damage done by the Great Depression (the total Wall
Street take over of the US Economy and the looting of independent of American business with the help of the
private 'Federal' reserve ), The British Government put restrictions on trade in between the British Empire and
USA to protect the economies of Britain and all of her colonies from the Wall Street pigs.
In Page 22 of the book we read
"However, as has happened time and again throughout history, the money-lenders had tended to overplay their
hand. The six million German unemployed who were the victims of the "Great Depression" resulted in a formidable
revolt against the Money Power -- the revolt of Adolf Hitler. There was also a rebellion, although of a much
milder kind, in Great Britain and the British nations overseas, whose representatives met in Ottawa in 1932 to
hammer out a system of Imperial Preferences calculated to insulate the British world against Wall St.
amok-runs. These Preferences, as we shall see, incurred the unrelenting hostility of the New York Money Power
and the only reason why a show-down was not forced was the far more serious threat to the international
financial system implicit in the economic doctrines of the Third Reich."
In other words, the Wall street greedy pigs after devouring American industry came to the conclusion that
they faced a major threat from Third Reich Germany (the barter system used by the regime) as well as to a
lesser extent from the British Empire (and other Empires). Hence the war to destroy Third Reich Germany,
Japanese Empire and Italy and then after the war the eventual slow destruction of the European Empires,
especially the British Empire. And hence we suddenly see 'independence movements' sprouting all over the world
and succeeding. Even before the war we had 'independence movements' and 'communist movements' all around the
world thanks to their pet 'Soviet Russia's' agents going all around and 'radicalisng the masses', all with the
blessings of Wall Street Banker pigs.
I'm curious do you live in Britain? I would bet you do because of your relentless protection of the
British Empire. The British Empire has been working on Economic World Domination since Cecil Rhodes established
the Round Table groups. I agree with a comment you made about British citizens not being responsible for their
government's tretment of countries in the colonial era. The same can be said about the American citizen if you
place all the blame on the political class and Wall Street. But then we have to take into consideration the
benefits that the English and American citizen receive from their government's crimminal dealings. As long as
they live better than anyone else in the world, they will not protest against the hand that feed them.
This artilce (audio) uncovers the reason why America and Britian along with their Anglo Saxon partners
Canada and Australia control other country's economies. Creating poverty in other countries keeps the Anglo
Saxon countries ecomomically superiour at the expense of the poor throughout the world. If American and British
citizens stopped their government's continued assault on third world countries the immigration crisis would
end.
America and England have been dominant over other countries with the help of their Jewish partners for a
long time Malla. As you commented to me, they have married into prominent British Society. I'm sorry Malla, but
there is a Mexican saying "Tanta culpa tiene el que mata la vaca que el que detiene la pata". Translation: "The
person that holds the cows feet is as guilty as the one that kills it". Meaning when you unknowingly
participate in a crime you are just as responsible as the one commiting it.
It's hard for decent Americans and British people to see themselves as perpitrators of such horrible
injustices because most of them are very warm and loving Christian people I'm sure. But so are the people of
the countries their government target. Until people stop looking at the problems we are all facing as a
Christian/Muslim – White/Black – High IQ/Low IQ problem, things will only get worse. The real problem as I see
it is a Social Class problem as we can see by this article. The Elites have no problem helping Blacks and other
races as long as they are the Rich Elites. The lower class people can starve white, black, brown, etc. it
doesn't matter just another day in the life of a parasite.
The problem as I see it, can only be solved by the "White" people that are socially below the Elites in
power and take it away from them. The reason why I say that is because history tells us that when the Social
underclass revolts against the oppressor government as so many have in Latin America, the U.S. send their
military to help the crimminal leaders and the people are murdered. The problem needs to be stopped at the
source or else nothing can change. We can talk about the Jews till we're bloe in face, but it is clear as to
who is responsible
@Malla
I am so surprised there are only 2 comments on this article! This is the most important information on this
site I like your comments Malla, you're a very smart Lady me I'm just a Rebel that hates bullies with a
passion! Some of my comments are very rough around the edges depending on the level of racism and ignorance the
commentator writes. But, always respectful to the opposite sex. Thanks for engaging Have a nice day.
Very impressive interview. Indeed, it is shocking when all piracy strategies are put together the brilliante
way Professor Hudson does. A lecture for everybody.
We can talk about the Jews till we're bloe in face, but it is clear as to who is responsible
Who do you think is behind British and American Imperialism? As per Ron Unz's findings, who was behind
Bolshevism? Regarding social and political control, there is always a Zionist element. Look at the World Bank,
the CFR, the Chabad Lubavitch presence behind Netanyahu, Putin and Trump. Look at media, music and education.
What about the Warburgs both in the United States and in Nazi Germany.
https://www.onjewishmatters.com/archives/18428
John Ruskin was the mentor of Cecil Rhodes at Oxford University. Cecil Rhodes was a member of the "Society
of the Elect" along with Rothschild. ( See pg. 311
http://www.carrollquigley.net/pdf/The_Anglo-American_Establishment.pdf
) Rothschild proud founder of the
state of israel. Below are photos of John Ruskin's grave. Why is there a Swastika placed between 1819 and 1900?
Also, why is there a Menorah on his headstone? "The seven branch menorah was used in the ancient temple of
Jerusalem The menorah is part of the coat of arms of the modern State of Israel." –
https://www.judaicawebstore.com/7-branched-menorahs-C918.aspx
Creating poverty in other countries keeps the Anglo Saxon countries ecomomically superiour at the expense
of the poor throughout the world. If American and British citizens stopped their government's continued
assault on third world countries the immigration crisis would end.
I disagree completely. In most brown black countries, the people themselves exploit each other and cause all
the screw ups. Most people here in India (poor or rich) cheat, swindle and ruthlessly exploit others. Of course
you have the IMF gang hovering around for their loot but they are not the main factor in many third world
countries.
Thank you Bonnie for asking the perfect questions and thank you Michael for your ever
incisive and brilliantly clear answers. Together this interview is the perfect Predatory Economics 101 for
ordinary people, i.e. the Bonnie & Michael course
I write this from Athens Greece in 2019, 3 days after our US educated (Harvard & Stanford) oligarchical
class has just been voted back into power with a parliamentary majority in bone-headed but fully deserved
reaction to Tsipras the fake left traitor. Very sad and very silly since Greece is a 100% captive colony of EU
/ Washington. The only upside is that with the Trotskyists out Greeks will be able to keep our icons and our
Orthodoxy, something we shall need more than ever.
"Harris is the establishment's primary backup candidate after Biden. She was supposed to coast through the primaries while all
the attention was on Handsy Joe. Now she's wounded, and the establishment is royally pissed."
Notable quotes:
"... Not only was she not supposed to attack Kamala Harris, but she most certainly wasn't supposed to have landed such an effective blow and lived to tell about it. ..."
Not only was she not supposed to attack Kamala Harris, but she most certainly wasn't
supposed to have landed such an effective blow and lived to tell about it.
Kamala Harris (Dem.-AIPAC) goes full-bore Mccarthy after Tulsi Gabbard skewers her in the
debates. After attacking Biden in the first debate with a proven winning argument (Racist!),
Harris and her campaign now employ the other proven winning argument (Assad apologist! Putin
Apologist!) all over the Twittersphere: suddenly #5 trending on Twitter is Assad(!), with MSM
joining the frenzy to attack Gabbard. NPR's approach is to never mention Gabbard's name;
maybe the only lesson they learned from the 2016 election is to not give coverage to a
candidate they despise.
https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/08/01/propagandists-are-freaking-out-over-gabbards-destruction-of-harris/
Gabbard needs 130,000 donors ($2 will work) to qualify for the September debates; hope
folks will step up, as she's the strongest voice breaking the MIC/Neocon Narrative. Without
her in the race, I'd predict those issues will disappear from the media and Presidential
campaigns. Of course that's the goal for those forces, but 2020 may be the best chance yet of
bursting open that rotten fruit.
Gabbard needs 130,000 donors ($2 will work) to qualify for the September debates; hope folks
will step up, as she's the strongest voice breaking the MIC/Neocon Narrative. Without her in
the race, I'd predict those issues will disappear from the media and Presidential campaigns.
Of course that's the goal for those forces, but 2020 may be the best chance yet of bursting
open that rotten fruit.
Posted by: kabobyak | Aug 3 2019 1:22 utc | 44
Bow, bow, to the great kabobyak! Bow, bow, to the great kabobyak! (for the correct tune,
check "Miya sama, Mikado", for original tune, check "Miya-san, miya san"). Our after the
kabobyak appeal, Gabbard raised the number of donations above 150,000!
Some commenters had justified objections to Gabbard, but the game here is to shake the
"bipartisan consensus" to inflict "maximum misery" to all perceived opponents of USA. It is
not easy to convey this message to the American majority. And Tulsi has other positive
messages too, she apparently eviscerated Kamala Harris for her past as a cruelly heartless
prosecutor, fighting to keep innocent in prison. Mind you, Hillary, Kamala etc. do those
things out of conviction that it is popular, or that the public is divided as follows: those
who donate to campaigns and those who do not care. Once they are properly scared, politicians
can actually improve. Alas, for decades they were "improperly scared", thus concluding that
to survive on the national (or state-wide) arena they need a psychopathic persona.
BTW, there are websites tabulating donations and industries, and Gabbard is apparently
supported by fitness clubs. Survival of the fittest may be actually a positive social
value.
I guess we don't really know what Gabbard would be. All the Dems and Repubs have bad
connections; almost all have pushed (or are still pushing) the lunatic Russiagate hoax, and
that includes Bernie. OK to sit back and watch the circus, but if Gabbard gets no support for
what she is currently speaking out on, it sends a strong message to anyone else thinking of
carrying the water further on issues of war and peace.
There is plenty not to like about Tulsi Gabbard. Maybe someday I will dislike her as much
as I dislike Kamilla Harris and some of the others. Whoever wins, we will end up with the
same bureaucracy anyway so it will pretty much business as usual.
>> As Caitlin Johnstone writes, the fact that Gabbard is under such attack
>> by war cheerleaders like Lindsey Graham and Josh Rogin shows they
>> view her as a threat to their narrative control.
Yes, it "shows".
The appearance of a fight "shows" they're actually fighting. It "shows" you that the DNC
and American democracy isn't a complete sham. So you found someone (within the establishment
and who votes establishment) you can pour your heart, energy, and money into. And who will,
after the primary, endorse the establishment pick. And another election cycle passes with no
effort for a genuinely independent challenge. Just like every prior cycle that I paid
attention to.
"Maybe someday I will dislike her as much as I dislike Kamilla Harris"
Not a chance in hell--Kamala takes the despicable cake: people don't know the tip of the
iceberg with regard to how genuinely corrupt she is. I'm pretty sure it is a travesty she's
not in prison right now.
Well you don't trust any of them, but you vote for the ones pushing policy you want to see
happen, and you vote for the ones that try to make that happen, and you abandon them
immediately if they renege. In the current rigged system, you can't assume anybody can be
relied on, I mean pressure will be applied, and all kinds of dirty politics is totally the
way we do things here. So when one leader falls you look for the next to pick up the flag,
and follow them now. It's not about the leader. Tulsi is talking the talk, that's all you can
do in a campaign. I'd support her against anybody who is mouthing weasel words. Right now
there are three candidates with something to say: Tulsi, Elizabeth, and Bernie, any will do,
lets see who gets traction when people start to pay attention again.
Anacharsis @88: Well, on the one hand we have slid a long way downhill intellectually here,
can't deny it.
On the other hand among 300-plus-something millions here, I'm sure we could find better,
but they won't run, the system is rigged, and we know it. They rub it in our faces. Once it
collapses of its own fecklessness, maybe then you will see some new faces worthy of respect
here.
Other oligarchies get overthrown, oligarchy seems to be the human norm for humans, they
fail with some regularity in history, it can for sure happen here too.
Tulsi, Elizabeth, and Bernie, any will do, lets see who gets traction when people start to
pay attention again.
Posted by: Bemildred | Aug 3 2019 13:50 utc | 87
"The people" are a bottleneck of the democracy. They have to select representatives to
decide on complex issues that they scant idea about, and their access to information reminds
my "The Library of Babel", a short story by Argentine author and librarian Jorge Luis Borges
(1899–1986). The library contains every possible book, and for any "genuine book",
every possible variation, with truth replaced with something else in every possible pattern
-- the paradoxes of infinity were a major theme in Borges stories.
Creating a message that relates these issues to everyday experience of the people, so
their common sense is switched on, is hard, but not impossible. For example, for all ravages
of "imperial complex", military plus weapon making plus economic impositions and distortions,
the largest loot is collected by business in all aspects of healthcare, be it making drugs
and devices, administering insurance, "providing healthcare" etc. More than a sixth of
American GDP at hugely inflated prices adds to... surely, these are trillions. This rapacity
can be contained by a "single payer" system that can provide more care for more people at
smaller costs (e.g. compare costs and outcomes in USA and Australia). Not so long time ago,
you were a Commie or a Socialist (equally bad) if you were proposing that. Sanders championed
it and failed, but now, it became a mainstream idea with a decent chance of being implemented
in the next decade.
Even now there is unceasing propaganda for "creativity and efficiency of free market" in
healthcare, but the shift in public opinion AND in political programs is clear.
Clarification of Gabbard's vote on H.Res.246 on BDS
Linda Wood on Sat, 08/03/2019 - 1:54pm I have read Tulsi Gabbard's response to
criticism of her Yes vote on H.Res.246 , which opposes BDS but which also affirms the right of
Americans to support BDS. She is quoted here in making that point:
Tulsi Gabbard voted to condemn BDS, but she's become a co-sponsor of Ilhan Omar's boycott
bill
Congresswoman and presidential hopeful Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) has become the fifteenth House
member to cosponsor H.Res.496 , a resolution affirming that Americans have the right to
boycott foreign countries to advance the cause of human rights...
The article then quotes Gabbard on her vote in support of the anti-BDS resolution, H.Res.246
:
... H.Res.246 does not in any way limit or hinder our First Amendment rights. In fact, it
affirms every American's right to exercise free speech for or against U.S. foreign policy, as
well as the right of Israeli and Palestinian people to live in safe and sovereign states free
from fear and violence and with mutual recognition. The right to protest the actions of our
government is essential if America is to truly be a free society.
I support BDS as far as I understand it. And I disagree strongly with the parts of 246 that
establish support for Israel's right to exist because I question the whole premise. But I
understand Gabbard's position.
H.Res.246 - Opposing efforts to delegitimize the State of Israel and the Global Boycott,
Divestment, and Sanctions Movement targeting Israel.
116th Congress (2019-2020)
Resolved, That the House of Representatives --
(1) opposes the Global Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement (BDS Movement)
targeting Israel, including efforts to target United States companies that are engaged in
commercial activities that are legal under United States law, and all efforts to delegitimize
the State of Israel;
(2) urges Israelis and Palestinians to return to direct negotiations as the only way to
achieve an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict;
(3) affirms the Constitutional right of United States citizens to free speech, including
the right to protest or criticize the policies of the United States or foreign governments
;
(4) supports the full implementation of the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act
of 2014 (Public Law 113–296; 128 Stat. 4075) and new efforts to enhance
government-wide, coordinated United States-Israel scientific and technological cooperation in
civilian areas, such as with respect to energy, water, agriculture, alternative fuel
technology, civilian space technology, and security, in order to counter the effects of
actions to boycott, divest from, or sanction Israel; and
(5) reaffirms its strong support for a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict resulting in two states -- a democratic Jewish State of Israel, and a viable,
democratic Palestinian state -- living side-by-side in peace, security, and mutual
recognition.
"Harris is the establishment's primary backup candidate after Biden. She was supposed to coast through the primaries while all
the attention was on Handsy Joe. Now she's wounded, and the establishment is royally pissed."
Notable quotes:
"... Not only was she not supposed to attack Kamala Harris, but she most certainly wasn't supposed to have landed such an effective blow and lived to tell about it. ..."
Not only was she not supposed to attack Kamala Harris, but she most certainly wasn't
supposed to have landed such an effective blow and lived to tell about it.
2016 was widely recognized as the year of "populism," more adequately described as the year
of revolt against the political Establishment -- in both Parties. The Democratic Primary in
2016 was a battle of progressive forces against the Democratic Establishment, and the battle
lines were clearly drawn. Those lines remain much the same as we approach 2020.
On the Progressive or Populist side were those who opposed the endless wars in the Middle
East, and on the Establishment side those who supported those long and bloody wars. On the
Progressive Side were those who supported badly needed domestic reforms, most notably Medicare
for All, which after all is a reform of almost 20% of the entire economy and a reform that has
to do with life itself. In contrast on the Establishment side were those who supported
ObamaCare, a device for leaving our health care to the tender mercies of the Insurance
behemoths with its ever increasing premiums and ever decreasing coverage.
In 2016 the pundits gave progressives little chance of success. Hillary Clinton was a
shoo-in, we were all assured by a horde of "reliable sources." And given the control that the
Clintonites exercised over the Democratic Party apparatus, there was little prospect of a
successful rebellion and every chance of having one's career badly damaged by opposing Party
elite. Summer soldiers and duplicitous candidates were not interested in challenging the
Establishment.
In 2016 Bernie Sanders was the only politician who was willing to take on the Establishment.
Although not technically a Democrat, he caucused with them and worked with them. And he was a
lifelong, reliable and ardent advocate for Medicare for All and a consistent opponent of the
endless wars. For these things he was prepared to do battle against overwhelming odds on the
chance that he might prevail and because from his grass roots contacts he sensed that a
rebellion was brewing.
In 2016 only one among the current crop of candidates followed Bernie, supported him and
joined him on the campaign trail -- Tulsi Gabbard. At the time she was a two term Congresswoman
and Vice Chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), a career building position, from
which she would have to resign in order to support one of the candidates. Moreover, reports
said she bridled at the internal bias of the DNC in favor of Hillary. To express her
displeasure with the DNC and to support Bernie, she had to defy the Clinton Establishment,
which might even have terminated her political career. But she was a foe of the endless wars,
partly based on her own experience as a National Guard member who had been deployed to Iraq in
a medical unit and saw the ravages of war first hand. So she joined Bernie, introducing him at
many of his rallies and strengthening his antiwar message.
Bernie and Tulsi proved themselves in the defining battle of 2016. They let us know
unequivocally where they stand. And Bernie might well have won the nomination were he not
cheated out of it by the Establishment which continues to control the levers of power in the
Democratic Party to this day.
In 2016 these two stood in stark contrast to the other 2020 Democratic candidates. Let us
take one example of these others, Elizabeth Warren, a darling of the main stream media which
often refers to her as ideologically aligned to Bernie Sanders. Perhaps she is so aligned at
times -- at least in words; she is after all in favor of Medicare for All, although she hastens
to add that she is "open to other approaches." That qualifier is balm to the ears of the
Insurance behemoths. Translation: she has already surrendered before the battle has begun.
In 2016 a critical primary for Bernie was Masschusetts where Senator Warren wields
considerable influence. Clinton defeated Sanders there by a mere 1.5% whereas she had lost to
Obama there by 15% in 2008. Wikipedia has this to say of the
primary:
"Following the primary, Elizabeth Warren, the state's senior US senator, was widely
criticized by Sanders supporters online for her refusal to endorse him prior to the primary.
Supporters of Bernie Sanders have argued that an endorsement from Warren, whose political
positions were similar to that of Sanders's, and who was a frequent critic of Hillary Clinton
in the past, could have handed Massachusetts to him. "
One must conclude that either Warren does not genuinely share the views of Sanders or she is
loath to buck the Establishment and fight for those views. In either event she, and the others
who failed to back Bernie in 2016, are not made of the stuff that can win Medicare for All,
bring an end to the regime change wars and illegal sanctions of the last four or more
administrations, begin serious negotiations to end the existential nuclear peril, and address
the many other problems facing us and all of humanity.
“Bernie walked the walk”
When was that? The time he toured through Baltimore and called it a third world city while
assiduously not discussing how, why, and because of who it became so?
The way he openly sold out to Clinton and ducked into his new third manor house to avoid
being held to task for leaving his base out to dry the very moment they were ready to
seriously break ranks from the neolib political machine?
Is he walking the walk now as he tries to rationalize away his underpaying of his campaign
workers and cuts hours to minimize the costs of the 15 dollar floor price he demanded for
everyone other employer?
The man is a DNC stooge through and through.
And Tulsi being anti-war out of personal squeamishness doesn’t make up for the rest of
her painfully party-line-compliant platform, particularly when the Deep State has multiple
active avenues available to at the very least keep our military presence still existing
military presence trapped and held hostage. All the dove cooing in recorded world history
won’t hold up when, not if, Britain or France or whoever deliberately sinks another
navy vessel and drags her by the hair into another desert scrum.
@Tusk As with the 1960 Presidential Election, Hillary stole that election fair and
square. Had Sanders went full third party, it would’ve destroyed the Democrats
outright. Despite Clinton’s cheating, Bernie went ahead and bent the knee. Strangely
enough, Trump’s victory saved Sanders and his faction. Had Clinton won, she
would’ve purged the Sanders supporters relentlessly.
There is such a thing as a tactical retreat. Now he’s able to play again.
is that our “establishment elite” have failed the United States of
America.
How, you may ask ?
The answer is simple.
By defrauded us into multiple illegal wars of aggression they have bankrupted the entire
nation.
The iron fact is that because our “elites” lied us into illegal war we are now
22.5 trillion dollars in heinous debt.
Why is this okay ?
The answer is simple.
It is not okay, NOT AT ALL .
And it is not enough (anymore) to just demand we “end our wars”, Mr.
Walsh.
The cost in treasure has been too high and the burden on the US taxpayer too obscene.
Without demanding “accountability” from our elites, who lied us into this
catastrophe, our nation is most probably going under.
I say…. make them pay …”every penny”…. for the cost of
the wars they lied us into.
An initiative, like the “War fraud Accountability Act” (retroactive to 2002)
would do just that.
it would replenish the coffers of our nation with all the assets of the larcenous
profiteers who deceived us all….into heinous war debt.
As we witness the rise of China as the new global economic powerhouse, we can see first
hand how a nation can rise to immense wealth and global influence “precisely
because” it was never deceived by its “ruling class” into squandering all
its resources initiating and fighting endless criminal wars.
Just imagine where the USA would be today, had we chosen the same course.
Until Dems are willing to refuse to depend on Haim Saban’s “generous
donation” to the Dem candidate, none of their candidates will deserve to be the the
POTUS candidate. Ditto for the Republicans and their fetish with Shelly Adelson. Candidates
must kowtow to Israel or else there will be no dough for them and they might even be
challenged in their incumbencies next time around by ADL/AIPAC. Until we get rid of Israeli
money and political power, we are toast.
1)Both Sanders and Gabbard are onboard for going to war against Christian Russia over
Crimea..Sanders has gone so far as saying that a Military response against Russia is an
option if all else fails in getting Russia out of Crimea…
2)Both Sanders and Gabbard are waging a war of RACIAL EXTERMINATION against Working Class
Native Born White American Males….And that’s WHITE GENOCIDE!!!!
@Kronos Bernie “bent the knee” once and got to enjoy his lakeside home and
his wife protected from fraud prosecution after she stole money from People’s United
Bank for her college scam.
He is owned.
If Tulsi were a serious threat she would be neutralized one way or another.
“Progressives” are virtue signaling fools–the kleptocracy marches on and
laughs at them.
One has to wonder where Dems like Warren and their identity politics is taking the US.
Will everyone who even slightly disagrees with them be labeled a terrorist?
"... Vote for Elizabeth Warren, because there is NO other choice to force the Jewish mafia pimp out, and send the Zionist liars, Tulsi and Sanders, back to where they came from. Sanders loves little apartheid shitty entity and does anything to protect it, so the racist zionist Hindi. ..."
[So, if you are a progressive looking at the crowded Democratic field in 2020, there is no
need to be perplexed. The answer to your dilemma lies right before your eyes in the record of
2016. The two who stood up then and fought for the kind of changes you desire were Bernie and
Tulsi.]
Don't be a fool by the zionist Jewish tribe. Both Sanders and Tulsi are Charlatan and
zionist to the core. It needs you to watch Sanders' videos to see for yourself that he is A
RABID ZIONIST Jew and part of the Jewish mafia tribe. Tulis is a zionist servant and an
zionist racist Hindi who would do anything for the criminal Jewish tribe to be selected.
No one in the selection process will be 'elected'. Only fifth columnist traitors are
selected by the baby killers.
At this grave moment that the world rules by the Criminal Jewish mafia and their pimps,
only ELIZABETH WARREN will beat shit out of that Jewish mafia pimp, Trump.
Biden a self announced ZIONIST should be thrown out or jailed. He is one of the Iraq War
architect like other jewish neocons where should be shot. Even the Zionists don't want him.
He is as criminal as Bush, Obama and Clinton.
Vote for Elizabeth Warren, because there is NO other choice to force the Jewish mafia pimp
out, and send the Zionist liars, Tulsi and Sanders, back to where they came from. Sanders
loves little apartheid shitty entity and does anything to protect it, so the racist zionist
Hindi.
Don't be fooled by their 'journalist' propagandists. Sanders is NOT a socialist or a left,
but a charlatan belongs to the criminal Tribe. Only liars paint him differently.
"... How prog-guru John Podesta isn't household name as world class underage sex slave op cover-upperer defending unspeakable dregs escapes me. -- AndrewBreitbart (@AndrewBreitbart) February 4, 2011 ..."
"... Geffen has his BF yacht sourced from CIA industrial contractor Larry Ellison. Epstein has his private planes, including the one sharing CIA-controlled tail number N474AW*. This is one way CIA maintains impunity for pedophile child trafficking and concomitant blackmail – by making its DoJ focal points disclaim jurisdiction. CIA used the same cheap trick to evade prosecution for torture. This is boilerplate CIA impunity policy. ..."
"... I'm pretty sure virtually certain that the vast majority of Americans are definitely not pedophiles, and reject entirely the idea of sex with minors, so your attempt here to blame the whole country for the crimes, depravities, and weird appetites of a tiny minority makes no sense, save to distract attention from the guilty parties. ..."
"... PYTs (Pretty Young Things) can make fools out of older men with flattery and opportunity. Executive Producers, writers, and directors also. ..."
"... Never forget how Eric Margolis was tempted at Epstein's Manhattan residence (offered a massage by a pretty young girl as soon as he walked in the door). ..."
A good introduction to the topic of pedophile blackmail rings is Nick Bryant's The Franklin Scandal , which builds on John
DeCamp's The Franklin Coverup . Like the cases of Jeffrey Epstein and Jimmy Savile, the two Franklin books offer well-documented
proof that pedophile blackmail is rampant at the top of the US and UK power hierarchies.
I can say that I have known about the paedo rings being used to blackmail and control of the world's most powerful figures since
the early 80s. Since my teenage years throughout my life I've known people who were in sometime contact with or mixed in the circles
of certain celebrities and other powerful names have popped up from time to time. Besides a few band roadies there have been many
young homeless kids among them. I travelled among street people and others on the periphery and partied with them in my youth
for a while. I've also spent another year in prison albeit on remand and I eventually beat most charges but for serious enough
things that I was accepted easily into some circles and again heard many more stories. This time about judges and police but other
names popped up, some mafia families. Oddly enough I witnessed something in the seventies at a school in Sydney involving Rolf
Harris and realise I saw the tip of the icebergl of a child trafficking situation literally as a primary school kid. All this
has long become clear to me as exactly what is now being uncovered via the Epstein and Jimmy Saville cases and the now well documented
history of paedo and homsexual blackmail rings. It is no surprise to me, any of it. There is even a lot of murder of children
and brutal torture as well. Many names have been connected including McCain and the Bushes and of course the Clintons as well.
Trump was mentored by Roy Cohn. Roy Cohn was a bigger fixer than Epstein ever was. However that makes Trump a gaylord. One of
Cohns pretty boys. Rumours are Trump's wives have been his beards. Along with some of the stories at least of women, just sometimes
paid accusations meant to make him seem more like leaders are expected to be in the USA. Basically JFK was loved for not keeping
his dick in his pants, same as Clinton. Yanks secretly expect to see big powerful men shagging like dogs. Very basic and simple
minded people yanks.
Remember that the late Andrew Breitbart was somehow able to "predict" Pizzagate in a 2011 tweet:
How prog-guru John Podesta isn't household name as world class underage sex slave op cover-upperer defending unspeakable
dregs escapes me. -- AndrewBreitbart (@AndrewBreitbart)
February 4, 2011
If you have any question whether pedophile blackmail is longstanding core US policy, just look at the reservation the US entered
to the CRC-OPSC. CRC-OPSC is the anti child-trafficking protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. US reservations
are formulated by DoS in appointive-level interagency consultation with agencies including DoJ and CIA. The US government reserves
the right to disregard its obligations in a "narrow range of situations." This "minor technical discrepancy" is one that CIA is
ideally positioned to exploit with its control over plane and ship registration for covert operations. Look at paragraph 10 below.
Geffen has his BF yacht sourced from CIA industrial contractor Larry Ellison. Epstein has his private planes, including the
one sharing CIA-controlled tail number N474AW*. This is one way CIA maintains impunity for pedophile child trafficking and concomitant
blackmail – by making its DoJ focal points disclaim jurisdiction. CIA used the same cheap trick to evade prosecution for torture.
This is boilerplate CIA impunity policy.
CIA doesn't just have impunity for child trafficking. It has municipal-law impunity for murder, torture, war crimes, and crimes
against humanity and peace. That makes the USA a failed state that has forfeited its sovereignty.
If you step back and look at the gestalt, you see your problem is the CIA regime. It is a criminal enterprise. Nothing will
change till we knock it over or decapitate it in a war.
CIA doesn't just have impunity for child trafficking. It has municipal-law impunity for murder, torture, war crimes, and
crimes against humanity and peace. That makes the USA a failed state that has forfeited its sovereignty.
N ot so fast.
That's a wild flight of logic to argue that somehow the entire USA is accountable for any and all CIA crimes, especially since
many of them, probably most, have been committed in secret, entirely compartmentalized, and even now we probably
almost certainly don't know the full extent of the CIA's criminal actions.
I'm pretty sure virtually certain that the vast majority of Americans are definitely not pedophiles,
and reject entirely the idea of sex with minors, so your attempt here to blame the whole country for the crimes, depravities,
and weird appetites of a tiny minority makes no sense, save to distract attention from the guilty parties.
I'm guessing this came from civil litigation in which case I'd be extremely skeptical of it and any cases either involving
one victim and/or a deceased perpetrator. My hunch is this would eliminate 80% of the cases. As a long-time investigator (w/ a
badge and/or creds) who's worked thousands of cases I've seen it all. Things are rarely what they seem and almost never how they're
portrayed.
Marty Baron went on from his role if decimating the Boston Catholic Church and American Catholicism to the Washington Post
where last year he and his Post reporters received a Pulitzer for their investigation and documentation of Russian collusion in
the 2016 election. The reports you hear about priest abuse in various archdioceses/diocese, view them with the same degree of
skepticism you'd have if you knew every source/informant contributing to the Mueller investigation and report became a millionaire
with no liability for his or her testimony.
Kind of makes you wonder about the inexplicable rise of the lackluster non-entity Obama, and all the ongoing "Bathhouse Barry"
rumors.
Sure enough, the big "anti-war" candidate Obama took the war machine to the next level, and he flipped like a switch on gay
marriage. He let the NSA run rampant on domestic spying operations. And, not that it needs any reminding, after "the biggest financial
scandal since the Depression!" the number of financial executives who were arrested during Obama's terms when it all came out
in the wash remains at exactly zero.
Matt Lauer asked Hillary some uncomfortable questions, and got "me too'ed".
Charlie Rose was supposedly known for loosening up a bit and talking a wee bit too much at various events. He got "me too'ed"
also.
Bill O'Rielly?
Roger Ailes .?
The non-CIA plants can be blackmailed to toe the company line via scandal. The CIA certainly has the means to make scandals
happen.
Remember Elliot Spitzer? Strauss-Khan?
PYTs (Pretty Young Things) can make fools out of older men with flattery and opportunity. Executive Producers, writers, and
directors also.
Never forget how Eric Margolis was tempted at Epstein's Manhattan residence (offered a massage by a pretty young girl as soon
as he walked in the door).
I have never looked much into Pizzagate but now that I have, I'm certainly beginning to suspect some of this could be true. The
only thing is, where are all the victims? How could they keep this so quiet if so many children were supposedly involved? Were
they all homeless/runaway kids? So were many of Epstein's victims and they have come forward. Were they all illegal minors that
Obama released into the country and couldn't speak any English? But pedophiles only love white children. Were they all killed
after they were abused? Hmm
@Bardon
Kaldian Sorry old man, but the Polish Bishop's Conference admitted that between 1990 and 2018 382 clergy committed sexual
abuse. We all wish it weren't true, but we can no longer deny what the Church itself has admitted.
@JohnnyWalker123Eyes Wide Shut is based on a novel by an Austrian Jew named Schnitzler, who knew the art and academic and super rich worlds
of Vienna and Berlin very well. He knew that the decadent rich of post-Christian Modern Europe were perverted to the core – Gentiles
as well as Jews.
The most urgent question though is why are so many high & mighty tempted by pedophilia in the first place
While there is abundant evidence that the political class is composed primarily of sociopathic megalomaniacs, it's a category
error to conclude from the recent revelations that they're 'tempted' by paedophilia.
Rather, they are people who are selected and promoted for their willingness to perform reprehensible acts, rather than
an actual desire to do so. (The two characteristics intersect, and probably significantly more than the societal average;
in the same way, on average butchers are less squeamish about blood, than are housewives).
Black male actors don't do 'drag' roles because they want to; they do those roles because it pleases the people who control
the arc of their careers.
C.S. Lewis nailed it in his talk entitled "The Inner Ring". Some people are extraordinarily keen to belong to a group they
identify as 'exclusive'; when that exclusivity involves access to unmerited wealth and power, it's easy for the unscrupulous insiders
to up the ante.
FWIW, as part of an initiation I once stood with one trouser leg rolled up, a noose around my neck, a compass point held to
my exposed left pectoral in front of a glass coffin that held a human skeleton. Looking back it just seems monumentally retarded,
but that's humans for you.
When faced with the inevitable downstream " Oh, we all do this ", I walked away well before crossing any serious moral
lines. Two colleagues who faced similar choices, are now a Deputy Commissioner of Taxation and a QC, respectively.
Make of that what you will being a senior bureaucrat is no feat of skill or talent; being made Silk likewise marks one out
as being 'safe hands', rather than a genuinely talented advocate (it's possible to be both safe hands and a talented advocate,
but the safe hands predominate among the "junior rabbis" of the modern QC/SC ranks).
I have a personal experience of abuse from someone involved in the Franklin Sex Scandal (Conspiracy of Silence). I also witnessed
abuse of another person by this same individual. The abuser's name was Peter Citron (now deceased).
My experiences with Citron happened well before the Franklin story in Omaha. Citron was arrested but set free because my parents
did not want me to testify against him. I was so young, I understood almost nothing.
This is related to Pizzagate because Citron left Scarsdale after his case was closed and soon became active in the Franklin
"Pizzagate-style" sex abuse group. For me, the ease with which Citron went from Scarsdale to become a member of that group is
very telling.
Pizzagate and Franklin both centered around powerful men with connections to the police, the FBI, and state and national politics.
I know what Citron did to me and my friend. He was convicted in Omaha on many similar counts. I am all but certain the Franklin
group was real and tend strongly to believe that Pizzagate is about another group much like Franklin.
I had the son of Chuck Hamel in my class and eventually as a graduate student.
His father had proven the major oil companies were cheating to the tune of billions on royalties due the state of Alaska. The
way he did it was hire tankers to deliver crude profitably at much lower cost/barrel than the majors were claiming.
The instant Chuck Hamel hit the pages of the newspapers, they have the firm Wackenhut taking his garbage, spying on him, and
hiring a beautiful hooker to bed him and then wreck his marriage.
Chuck said his father's advice was this: if a beautiful young girl approaches you, and I mean you pull 6's and this girl is
a 10 then something's wrong.
If you play ball, your life is paved ahead with gold until the day they whack you with an MS-13 soldier. McCain is about the
most disgusting, despicably corrupt war criminal we've ever had, while Ron Paul was treated as some kind of lunatic at the same
time.
I think Mr. Unz is a victim of media propaganda when it comes to the Catholic Church and so called "pedophilia".
Pedophilia is defined as "a psychiatric disorder in which an adult has sexual fantasies about or engages in sexual acts with
a prepubescent child" (Webster's dictionary)
There are few if any documented cases, so far as I know, of priest engaged with prepubescent children. Rather, cases with post-pubic
boys; i.e. pederasty.
And far more cases of sex between adult male priest.
The mass media use of "pedophilia" is a diversion because they won't use the word or write about homosexuality.
That some, if not many US politicians have degenerate backgrounds and bizarre tastes can't be brushed off as some coincidence.
Is the number of politicians with "degenerate backgrounds and bizarre tastes" significantly greater than the number of the
general population with same? You'd have to establish that first.
@Olorin
There is simply too much evidence pointing to the fact that 'something' is surely out of the ordinary – whether or not anyone
wants to believe it or not. How many wacko's connected to pizza symbology being outed as pedophiles will it take? The old cheese
pizza slang has been knocking around online since 2008 from my memory, but yet nobody seems to question how a) the slang even
originated in use, and b) how come people connected to it (such as Peter Bright aka @DrPizza) are exactly how they were described?
Epstein was on pol's radar for years and only now is the Government acting. How could one anonymous website know something seemingly
before the domestic spy agencies of the US Government? If 4chan had the resources of the Gov then the amount of dirt that would
be discovered would surely dwarf the limited perception of the drones tuned into CNN and the like.
I wrote about the Epstein blackmail theory on my blog:
The theory is unbelievable for a number of reasons. I have right-wing populist sympathies and I don't particularly like
the elite, but I don't share the common belief that they are sex perverts. Now if you define attraction by older men to younger
women as "perversion" then they deserve condemnation, but that isn't normally done outside of feminist circles. Do I believe
many would risk their positions by knowingly sleeping with underage girls? No. Epstein is anomalous in that respect.
Now what if he tricked his friends into sleeping with underage girls, then tried to blackmail them with the evidence? I
don't think that would work, because the super-rich are very unlikely to go to jail for accidental statutory rape. What about
"strict liability?" That's the kind of crap the peasants have to deal with. If a billionaire were ensnared in it, the legal
system might actually start seeing that as an injustice , certainly the maximum penalty wouldn't apply to that billionaire.
And to prove the case, details would have to be provided, the who, the what, the where, and the why, which would implicate
Epstein in crimes more serious than the men he was blackmailing. Furthermore, the first guy blackmailed would tell all his
friends to stay away from Epstein.
A scam like that would work better today that it would have 10 to 20 years ago, with the cultural environment surrounding #MeToo.
Ron says our culture is "remarkably libertine," it's remarkably libertine with regards to certain behaviors, but quite "puritanical"
in other respects.
Maybe PizzaGate's power does not derive from, let's say, the "conspiracy theory proper," but from popular anger at one, some,
or all of the following, which are core (and factually undisputed/undisputable) parts of the story:
(1) The radical empowerment/celebration of homosexuality and sexual deviance (symbolized by the extreme Gay predilections
of the that pizza shop's homosexual owner) -- by the 2010s in most of the West, Gays had been promoted first-class citizens with
Non-Gays demoted to second-class citizens, a disturbing trend that does not augur well for family life; perhaps not coincidentally,
fertility rates have declined;
(2) What in Germany was, once upon a time, called Entartete Kunst ( Degenerate Art ) such as that owned and celebrated
by the key figures in the PizzaGate story; degenerate art as a symbol for cultural decline/decadence -- Do not dismiss the power
of this to galvanize people, as not just Entartete Kunst but "PizzaGates" were all over Weimar Germany, as the soon-to-be NS party
voters looked on in anger;
(3) Frustration at the displacement of middle-class White-Christianity by disturbing, alien religions (symbolized by
the disturbing Spirit Cooking thing) -- probably classifiable as (3-a): religion proper, and (3-b): a proxy grievance against
mass migration of alien people with alien customs, like Muslims and other Third Worlders;
(4) The notion that wealthy, powerful elites are pushing each of the above down on us ; a cultural revolution from above.
Key elite actors are implicated directly in PizzaGate in all of the above, even if no pedophile rings as such ever existed.
PizzaGate has all four of these elements. Deviant sexuality, degenerate art, anti-Christianity (and probably, implicitly, Third
World immigrants), plus an actor group. I believe that PizzaGate's popularity is traceable thereto. The only question left to
ask may be: "Cultural decline: Is it murder, or suicide?"
@Wally as this question is being raised again in a few threads: my guess is Tulsi
gives great weight to people who apologize and own up for their mistakes (Joe on his Iraq
vote) and she believes in forgiveness, and 2dly she knows she also has made mistakes in her
public service career.
Besides the above, she might have felt some of the others on the stage were doing a fair
job of going after Joe last night, albeit not on Iraq, and she didn't want to contribute to
the pile-on. She may also have had a strategy of focusing on Harris in this debate.
There will be future debates to go after Joe on Iraq, if she chooses. Perhaps we might
hope for a sponsored debate where the mods spend more than 1% of the air time talking about
FP. Last night, unless I missed something, the few minutes on foreign stuff was only about
trade, not FP as usually understood.
I did find this
July 9, 2019 article in truthdig calling on him to apologize, tho.
And no matter how it's sliced, Biden's still a warmonger.
I sense something is afoot. Pure speculation but crazier things have happened:
Michelle as Biden's VP. Vote for Joe, get Michelle.
#1 as this question is being raised again in a few threads: my guess is Tulsi gives
great weight to people who apologize and own up for their mistakes (Joe on his Iraq vote)
and she believes in forgiveness, and 2dly she knows she also has made mistakes in her
public service career.
Besides the above, she might have felt some of the others on the stage were doing a
fair job of going after Joe last night, albeit not on Iraq, and she didn't want to
contribute to the pile-on. She may also have had a strategy of focusing on Harris in this
debate.
There will be future debates to go after Joe on Iraq, if she chooses. Perhaps we might
hope for a sponsored debate where the mods spend more than 1% of the air time talking
about FP. Last night, unless I missed something, the few minutes on foreign stuff was
only about trade, not FP as usually understood.
@Wally
@Wally sense, what matters to the issue and complaint being discussed is not what you
or I think of Joe and Iraq (we agree) or even what the objective truth is (I did a full 0.5
sec google search, lazy latte-sipping liberal that I am, and couldn't find an explicit use of
the term "apology" from Joe).
What matters is TG's perception or memory of what Joe said about his vote. In the video
linked above, she talks about how Joe has said it was a mistake --
true -- and that "he's apologized for it, many times" (I couldn't find a link proving
that).
Edit: In Tulsi's forgiving world, she might equate or accept the term "mistake" in lieu of
an official, formal expression of regret using the term "apology".
I might be able to give you Tulsi's private # and you could ask her personally, but in the
words of that immortal American Statesman Richard Nixon, That Would Be Wrong.
@wokkamile
. . . when I run for Pope? I can't wait for you to spin my many wrong thoughts;>).
#1.2.1
#1.2.1 sense, what matters to the issue and complaint being discussed is not what you
or I think of Joe and Iraq (we agree) or even what the objective truth is (I did a full
0.5 sec google search, lazy latte-sipping liberal that I am, and couldn't find an
explicit use of the term "apology" from Joe).
What matters is TG's perception or memory of what Joe said about his vote. In the
video linked above, she talks about how Joe has said it was a mistake --
true -- and that "he's apologized for it, many times" (I couldn't find a link proving
that).
Edit: In Tulsi's forgiving world, she might equate or accept the term "mistake" in
lieu of an official, formal expression of regret using the term "apology".
I might be able to give you Tulsi's private # and you could ask her personally, but in
the words of that immortal American Statesman Richard Nixon, That Would Be Wrong.
@wokkamile IMO, this is not a fatal error by Tulsi.
Despite what we are being sold, Biden is a very weak candidate and many others are working
to take him down. No one was willing to take on Harris who was designated as the rising star
in the Hamptons. But Tulsi did, based upon principle. Funny thing is that Tulsi told Harris
that she was coming after her in advance, but Harris was unprepared.
#1 as this question is being raised again in a few threads: my guess is Tulsi gives
great weight to people who apologize and own up for their mistakes (Joe on his Iraq vote)
and she believes in forgiveness, and 2dly she knows she also has made mistakes in her
public service career.
Besides the above, she might have felt some of the others on the stage were doing a
fair job of going after Joe last night, albeit not on Iraq, and she didn't want to
contribute to the pile-on. She may also have had a strategy of focusing on Harris in this
debate.
There will be future debates to go after Joe on Iraq, if she chooses. Perhaps we might
hope for a sponsored debate where the mods spend more than 1% of the air time talking
about FP. Last night, unless I missed something, the few minutes on foreign stuff was
only about trade, not FP as usually understood.
@wokkamile
that this is exactly what Tulsi was doing. It seems to have been effective. For one thing, it
took everyone, including the CNN hosts, off guard.
She may also have had a strategy of focusing on Harris in this debate.
#1 as this question is being raised again in a few threads: my guess is Tulsi gives
great weight to people who apologize and own up for their mistakes (Joe on his Iraq vote)
and she believes in forgiveness, and 2dly she knows she also has made mistakes in her
public service career.
Besides the above, she might have felt some of the others on the stage were doing a
fair job of going after Joe last night, albeit not on Iraq, and she didn't want to
contribute to the pile-on. She may also have had a strategy of focusing on Harris in this
debate.
There will be future debates to go after Joe on Iraq, if she chooses. Perhaps we might
hope for a sponsored debate where the mods spend more than 1% of the air time talking
about FP. Last night, unless I missed something, the few minutes on foreign stuff was
only about trade, not FP as usually understood.
Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) told Luke Rudkowski of "We Are Change," a libertarian
media organization, that Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard has just signed on
as a co-sponsor of Audit the Fed bill, officially known as H.R.24 The Federal Reserve
Transparency Act of 2019.
Last night Tulsi Gabbard went after Harris on her support of the for profit prison system in
Cali at the expense of human beoings......
soon enough Harris supporters were tweeting that Gabbard is an "Assad apologist".
"Assad apologist is war monger agit prop against anyone who might get in the way of the
profitable forever wars for al Qaeda (in Idlib etc) and the Saudi royals.
im1dc": propagandizing for the war profiteers is not limited to the press it is in the
diverse democrat campaigns pandering for contributions caring nothing for the US or humans in
general. Gabbard being the obvious exception garnering their sound bites.
The Joseph McCarthy-style attack on the Representative by the California Senator and
associates is shocking and dangerous and revealing of "character."
After Democratic 2020 candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) dressed down Sen. Kamala Harris
(D-CA) over her criminal justice record, Harris hit back - suggesting that Gabbard is somehow
'below her' - and an "apologist" for Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad.
In response, Harris thumbed her nose at Gabbard , telling CNN 's Anderson Cooperafter the
debate: "This is going to sound immodest, but obviously I'm a top-tier candidate and so I did
expect that I'd be on the stage and take some hits tonight ... when people are at 0 or 1% or
whatever she might be at , so I did expect to take some hits tonight."
Harris added "Listen, I think that this coming from someone who has been an apologist for an
individual , [Syrian President Bashar al] Assad, who has murdered the people of his country
like cockroaches. She has embraced and been an apologist for him in the way she refuses to call
him a war criminal. I can only take what she says and her opinion so seriously, so I'm prepared
to move on."
Wait a second...
Tulsi wasn't having it. In a Thursday interview with CNN 's Chris Cuomo, Gabbard punched
back - saying "[T]he only response that I've heard her and her campaign give is to push out
smear attacks on me, claim that I am somehow some kind of foreign agent or a traitor to my
country, the country that I love, the country that I put my life on the line to serve , the
country that I still serve today as a soldier in the Army National Guard."
Gabbard also made clear that she believes Assad is " a brutal dictator, just like Saddam
Hussein, just like Gaddafi in Libya ," adding "The reason that I'm so outspoken on this issue
of ending these wasteful regime change wars is because I have seen firsthand this high human
cost of war and the impact that it has on my fellow brothers and sisters in uniform. "
"... When Lindsey Graham tweets about Tulsi Gabbard twice after a debate, when the Washington Post neocons like Josh Rogin are attacking her , you know she's got their panties in a bunch. ..."
"... You expect it from the Harris camp, obviously. But when it comes directly from people like Navid Jamali (double agent, navy intelligence, MSNBC contributor) you know the empire is beginning to get worried. ..."
"... Gabbard is now getting the Ron Paul treatment. It will only intensify from here. They will come after her with everything they have. ..."
"... When the Empire is on the line, left and right in the US close ranks and unite against the threat. The good news is that all they have is their pathetic Russia bashing and appeals to their authority on foreign policy. ..."
"... The colonial masters have been forgetting that more and more people are not benefitting from having like 800 military bases/wars/colonies all over and want them dissolved. Go Gabbard. ..."
"... The longer the US acts like a colonial power, the more painful the dismantling will be. ..."
The second debate among Democratic hopefuls was notable for two things. The lack of common
decency of most of them and Tulsi Gabbard's immense, career-ending attack on Kamala Harris'
(D-Deep State) record as an Attorney General in California.
Harris came out of the first debate the clear winner and Gabbard cut her down to size with
one of the single best minutes of political television since Donald Trump told Hillary Clinton,
"Because you'd be in jail."
Gabbard's takedown of Harris was so spot on and her closing statement about the
irresponsible nature of the Trump Administration's foreign policy was so powerful she had to be
actively suppressed on Twitter. And, within minutes of the debate ending the media and the
political machines moved into overdrive to smear her as a Russian agent, an Assad apologist and
a favorite of the alt-right.
Now, folks, let me tell you something. I write and talk about Gabbard a lot and those to the
right of me are really skeptical of her being some kind of plant for Israel or the
establishment. If she were truly one of those she wouldn't have been polling at 1% going into
that debate.
She would have been promoted as Harris' strongest competition and served up for Harris to
co-opt.
That is not what happened.
No, the fact that Gabbard is being smeared as viciously and baselessly as she is by all the
right people on both the left and the right is all the proof you need that she is 1) the real
deal and 2) they are scared of her.
You expect it from the Harris camp, obviously. But when it comes directly from people like
Navid Jamali (double agent, navy intelligence, MSNBC contributor) you know the empire is
beginning to get worried.
Gabbard is now getting the Ron Paul treatment. It will only intensify from here. They will
come after her with everything they have.
In the past week she's destroyed Kamala Harris on national TV, sued Google for
electioneering and signed onto Thomas Massie's (R-KY) bill to audit the Federal Reserve. What
does she do next week, end the Drug War?
Tulsi Gabbard is admittedly a work in progress. But what I see in her is something that has
the potential to be very special. She's young enough to be both passionately brave and willing
to go where the truth takes her.
And that truth has taken her where Democrats have feared to tread for more than forty years:
the US Empire.
The entire time I was growing up the prevailing wisdom was Social Security was the third
rail of US politics. That, like so many other pearls of wisdom, was nonsense.
The true third rail of US politics is empire. Any candidate that is publicly against the
empire is the enemy of not only the state, it's quislings in the media, the corporations who
profit from it and the party machines of both the GOP and the DNC.
That is Gabbard's crime. And it's the only crime that matters.
When the Empire is on the line, left and right in the US close ranks and unite against the
threat. The good news is that all they have is their pathetic Russia bashing and appeals to
their authority on foreign policy.
Foreign policy, by the way, that most people in America, frankly, despise.
And the response to her performance at the second debate was as predictable as the sun
rising in the east. It's also easily countered. Gabbard will face an uphill battle from here
and we'll find out in the coming weeks just how deep into Trump Derangement Syndrome the
average Democrat voter is.
If she doesn't begin climbing in the polls then the Democrats are lost. They will have
signed onto crazy Progressivism and more Empire in their lust to destroy Donald Trump. But they
will lose because only a principled anti-imperialist like Gabbard can push Trump back to his
days when he was the outsider in the GOP debates, railing against our stupid foreign
policy.
No one else in the field would be remotely credible on this point. It's the area where Trump
is the weakest. He's not weak on women's rights, racism, gay rights or any of the rest of the
idiotic identity politics of the rest of the Democratic field.
He's weakest on the one issue that got him elected in the first place, foreign policy.
Hillary was the candidate of Empire. Trump was not. It's why we saw an international conspiracy
formed to destroy him and his presidency. Now that same apparatus is mobilized against Tulsi
Gabbard.
That's good. As a solider she knows that when you're taking flak you are over your target.
Now let's hope she's capable of sustaining herself to push this election cycle away from the
insanity the elite want to distract us with and make it about the only thing keeping the world
from healing, ending the empire of chaos.
Those who benefit from the US being a Colonial Empire are closing ranks and that is
certainly a huge endorsement for Gabbard.
The colonial masters have been forgetting that more and more people are not benefitting
from having like 800 military bases/wars/colonies all over and want them dissolved. Go
Gabbard.
The longer the US acts like a colonial power, the more painful the dismantling will
be.
Do politicians control the military, especially the strategic arm and weapons of mass
destruction, both here in the US and in Russia? Perhaps only partially, and even that is
doubtful given rapidly unfolding emergency situations. A convincing case could be made that
it's too late, that war is inevitable.
You sound intelligent. Read Herman Kahn's treatise "On Thermonuclear War." It is
mathematical. But Basically nuclear war is out of hands of politicians. But it won't start
from large nuclear powers. If Iran sunk a US Carrier, there would be NO NUCLEAR WAR PERIOD.
But a nuclear war could be caused by an accident of smaller powers but it would be very
limited and not spread.
"The more destructive we [America] look, the less they like us and our program. To the
extent that some in our midst talk and threaten potential world annihilation as a U.S.
defense measure, we focus undeserved attention on ourselves as being dangerous and even
irresponsible -- appearing to be willing to risk uncounted hundreds of millions or billions
of bystanders as to our selfish ambitions and desires." Herman Kahn...
That quote typifies Trump's cavalier yapping about nuclear weapons and his threats in the
last year to expunge North Korea, Iran and most recently Afghanistan. This is the kind of
conversation that most people in the world hate and they hate Trump and the United States for
it. The US is blamed for Trump's loose cannon conduct. So that generates concern and
heightens the potential for a nuclear weapons accident.
As for the world, it would survive a nuclear war. Many people would survive just as the
animals of Chernobyl have survived and thrived even though radioactive. Dumb politicians like
Trump that talk out their *** and sound imbalanced appear flaky. Rest assured the Joint
Chief's would never let Trump near a nuclear weapon.
With nuclear war you also have to mathematically project dud rockets and rockets that land
on your own people or detonate at launch.
Forget Biden, a deadbeat deep state ***. he could never be elected being such a MIC pawn.
Just go Tulsi first (with Rand Paul would be good!) . She'll have to dig deep in the shitheap
to find another honest Dem to play sidekick. But Tulsi stands out above them all as
intelligent and independant. No surprise the Dem and Rep MSM ****-spewers are attacking her.
Go tulsi -the only candidate i would vote for (since they'll nobble her candidacy i guess i
wont be voting).
Liked Trump when he was anti-swamp. But they nobbled him and now he's just a ***-pawn. So
sad he sold his balls.
Tulsi's predicament if of her own doing. She's to the right for today's Dems, but still
too far to the left for the GOP. Her positions on the 2nd Amendment and accusing Trump of
being an Al Qaeda sympathizer have pretty much killed her chances with moderates, too. She's
not really that sane, she just looks that way because the rest of the Dem candidates are
socialist whack jobs.
Newsflash: Trump does support Al Qaeda by virtue his blind support of the Saudi regime
which champions, funds, and spreads Sunni Wahhabism, the violent Jihadist core philosophy of
both Al Qaeda and Isis.
Compare Tulsi Gabbard to Kamala Harris. Harris is a frontrunner for the nomination only
because she is a she and is half black. That is all she has going for her. She owes her
political career to her willingness to **** an old geezer politician from California (Willie
Brown?) As a result, she became state AG. Which shows you just how corrupt politics is at the
state level. Now she's a real candidate for the demorat nomination even though she is a a
total POS, especially compared to someone like Gabbard, who has served her country, talks
straight, and doesn't take **** from the pompous a-holes in the dem establishment. I hope she
stays in the race.
In the race to determine who will serve as Commander in Chief of the most powerful military
force in the history of civilization, night two of the CNN Democratic presidential debates
saw less than six minutes dedicated to discussing US military policy during the 180-minute
event.
That's six, as in the number before seven. Not sixty. Not sixteen. Six. From the moment
Jake Tapper said "I want to turn to foreign policy" to the moment Don Lemon interrupted
Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard just as she was preparing to correctly explain how President
Trump is supporting Al-Qaeda in Idlib, approximately five minutes and fifty seconds had
elapsed.
...
Harris' press secretary Ian Sams unleashed a string of tweets about Gabbard being an "Assad
apologist", which was followed by a deluge of establishment narrative managers who sent the
word "Assad" trending on Twitter, at times when Gabbard's name somehow failed to trend
despite being the top-searched candidate on Google after the debate. As of this writing,
"Assad" is showing on the #5 trending list on the side bar of Twitter's new layout, while
Gabbard's name is nowhere to be seen. This discrepancy has drawn criticism from numerous
Gabbard defenders on the platform.
"Somehow I have a hard time believing that 'Assad' is the top trending item in the United
States but 'Tulsi' is nowhere to be found," tweeted journalist Michael Tracey.
Trump wasn't their candidate (which suggests that he's clean), and (so far) he hasn't
enabled a war with Iran, so what happens with him is an open question.
I wonder what makes you (or anyone) so sure that "Trump wasn't their candidate". From the
time that he announced his candidacy in 2015 to the present moment, I have never found
implausible the possibility that the President may be controlled opposition. Or, more
mundanely, simply the self-promoting carnival barker that just about all evidence strongly
suggests that he always was. How closely have you looked at Mr. Trump's actual record,
starting from before he announced?
And, to what extent, since becoming President, has Mr. Trump actually opposed the
Globo-Homo agenda?
Trump wasn't their candidate (which suggests that he's clean), and (so far) he hasn't
enabled a war with Iran, so what happens with him is an open question.
I wonder what makes you (or anyone) so sure that "Trump wasn't their candidate".
The Deep State, Empire, Zio-Glob, or whatever you want to call it, was obviously 100%
behind Hillary Clinton. She and her husband were totally blackmailable, and the media fury
when she lost was something to see.
For his part, Trump looked surprised (and not too happy) that he won. It's clear that he
has links to the Deep State, but he was set up to lose (the media from the start presenting
him as the joke candidate – the irrelevant clown). The script was for serious, boring
and ineffectual Jeb Bush to lose to the heroic champion of Social Justice, and first woman
President Hillary Clinton.
When Trump actually found himself President (and could see the trouble he was in) –
for survival, he fully committed to Israel and the Zionists. The idea was that they would
defend him , against their Cultural Bolshevik cousins in the US. The Adelsons and the
Israelis love him while the US Cultural Bolshevik Jews hate him.
The US public are just extras in this show. If he cared about them he would do something
about 9/11 – which he won't. He's a high rise developer from New York and knows better
than anyone that 9/11 was all fakery. Here's his first public reaction (on the day):
Democracy was the next step, but it only works in small polities.
And for very short periods of time.
Anyway, yours is a key concept that most 'Merkins are completely ignorant of, yet some of
the anti-federalists were aware of it. Here, Brutus questions whether "democracy" is sensible
in a nation of three million !
Now, in a large extended country, it is impossible to have a representation, possessing
the sentiments, and of integrity, to declare the minds of the people, without having it so
numerous and unwieldly, as to be subject in great measure to the inconveniency of a
democratic government.
The territory of the United States is of vast extent; it now contains near three
millions of souls, and is capable of containing much more than ten times that number. Is it
practicable for a country, so large and so numerous as they will soon become, to elect a
representation, that will speak their sentiments, without their becoming so numerous as to
be incapable of transacting public business?
It certainly is not.
Brutus, (Robert Yates), To the Citizens of the State of New-York, October 18, 1787
While he was at Berkeley, David Brock contributed an op-ed to The Wall Street Journal
entitled "Combating Those Campus Marxists". It drew the attention of John Podhoretz, who at
the time was the editor of Insight, a weekly newsmagazine published by The Washington
Times.
Podhoretz flew Brock to Washington, D.C., for an interview and hired him as a writer of
the weekly conservative news magazine Insight on the News, a sister publication of The
Washington Times After working at Insight, Brock spent some time as a fellow at The
Heritage Foundation.
Brock was formerly the domestic partner of William Grey; Fox News reported that their
relationship ended in a bitter, three-year-long legal battle in which "Brock and Grey
traded angry accusations, replete with charges of blackmail, theft and financial
malfeasance"
Brock's claim that the Clintons have never committed any wrongdoing has received
criticisms from many who have cited instances of abuse
@OEMIKITLOB " . . . [A]ny individual who openly questions an official narrative or shares
a dissenting opinion of said narrative an "enemy of the state'."
OE -- , yeah, pretty much. My judgment is the meaningful exercise of the First Amendment
is probably pretty damned close to being a dead letter. President Trump's no-filters tweeting
is sort of sui generis . Unz Review is remarkable, an exception.
I've "sold" Unz Review successfully. I was grumbling about some articles and
comments to a friend of mine. College-educated guy, and I've known him for years. I was just
talking loosely when he piped up, "They ought to shut it down!" He seemed genuinely angry,
and I'm sure he'd reconsider his response later if I asked him. Still, I was startled that a
bright guy would reach for government suppression of speech as a go-to.
Our masters need stable narratives. Those narratives don't have to be just, economically
sound, or to make much sense at all. They just have to be stable.
They definitely don't want debate that would undermine the legitimacy of those narratives.
So we get that extremely narrow, inconclusive, and fragmented rhetoric, such as the stuff
uttered by the Democratic contenders.
@Sean Major national governments and state actors around the world are largely in the
business of engineering conspiracies, detecting conspiracies, disseminating false conspiracy
theories and discrediting truthful conspiracy research. This is what they do.
That would include the US, UK, France, Germany, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel,
Saudi Arabia, etc.
In other words, the world is awash in conspiratorial activity of endless varieties.
Russiagate gives every appearance of having been a conspiracy against Donald Trump hatched
by factions within the Deep State: ODNI, CIA, FBI, MI6, MI5, etc. No wonder Trump is highly
suspicious of the Deep State.
In this case, the conspiracy was so poorly planned and executed that it was hoist on its
own petard. It is on the verge of being fully exposed to the entire world.
@Sean McBride All these 'conspiracies' distract us and our leaders from our respective
duties. Actual government processes are simple, rather dull, and conducted in the open for
the press, citizens and other parties to monitor or address. Our government has seen fit to
skulk around and spy on Americans, compiling data on them, which they'll claim as being
measures to prevent "Terrorism" or suppress "Hate". What should truly concern Americans is
that an entire sector of our government is aligned with the media (See TASS) and they conduct
campaigns to compel voters, minorities, illegal aliens and other proponents of Big Government
to sustain these unconstitutional intrusions. Diverting our attention away from those
activities seems to be the function of our media these days.
@Jacques Sheete The current US President is a though-going conspiracy theorist. He
insisted Obama was born outside America, and then that his college transcripts were faked,
ThenVince Fisher's death was "very fishy" and after the San Bernadino shootings, that the
US government was covering up the existence of accomplices of the shooters and all
Muslims should be banned from entering the US. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's was not
found dead with his pillow over his face according to the FBI, but who repeated hearsay that
he had been? A day or so after the event (he may have priority on this one) he came close to
impling explosives must have been used on 9/11 because he explicitly said he knew all
about the steel structure of the building and made a point of emphasising how massively
strong it was around the exterior walls .
Trump also gave credence to the 'vaccination causes autism but the medical establishment
won't admit it' conspiracy theory EL Presidente, as he now is, obtained the nomination while
suggesting that his main rival for the nomination, Ted Cruz, was the son of a man who had
been one of the Cuban anti-Castro exiles involved in a conspiracy to kill JFK . And
Trump made and, more or less kept, a campaign promise to release all still classified CIA
files relating to the JFK assassination. He also tried to ban Muslims from entering the US
(Executive Order 13769 ).
@Fran Taubman "Neo-Nazi Azov National Corps march/rally in Odessa to celebrate the 5th
year anniversary of the far-right's instituting "Ukrainian order" [Kaganat of Nuland] in the
city via the massacre of 40+ people in the Trade Unions House on May 2, 2014."
@Fran Taubman Zionist project in Ukraine: "Some of the people in the group [supporters of
the Kiev regime installed by Nuland-Kagan] were wearing ultra-nationalist Right Sector
movement insignia, were armed with chains and bats and carried shields." https://www.rt.com/news/156592-odessa-activists-burnt-alive/
Consider also the remarkable case of British television personality Sir Jimmy Savile. Only shortly after his death at age
84 did the press begin revealing that he had probably molested many hundreds of children during his long career.
Actually it was only after he died and left a lot of money to charity that numerous women started to claim he has sexually
molested them at a young age so that they could jump on the compensation wagon.
If all the claims are to be believed, he was Britain's most prolific pedophile ever, and also Britain's most prolific serial
rapist.
There is no doubt that he was an odd personality, never married, and liked the company of young women (the age of consent is
16 in Britain) , but none of the allegations against him have every been conclusively proved, the accusers have nearly all remained
anonymous, and many of them are frankly bizarre, and improbable, or allegedly occurred in places where he had never been.
For example after his death there were allegations that he had sexually molested female patients at Leeds General Infirmary
(Hospital) where he worked as a celebrity volunteer porter.
I worked at another large hospital in Leeds during this period (Savile was nationally known as a celebrity disc jockey and
TV presenter at the time) and I never heard a whisper about him or any kind of inappropriate behavior at the hospital via the
hospitals gossip grapevine. He lived in a penthouse apartment on the edge of Roundhay Park, less than 10 minutes walk from where
I lived.
I am very sceptical about the allegations and think they had a lot to do with compensation culture.
Incidentally I did not even like the guy when he was alive and was certainly not a fan.
This video report is presented by Jon Snow whom I knew personally as a student radical at the University of Liverpool circa
1970 in the days when I had long hair and he was doing an undergraduate degree in law.
Further to my earlier comment about the Jimmy Savile and Carl Beech pedophile scandals in
England, I would up today to find this really excellent article written by barrister Matthew
Scott that gives an excellent summary of the whole shebang, that would be of great interest
to anyone who wants to know more.
"... No publicly released details should be naively accepted. For example, it makes no sense to me that he just happened to be flying back to the US. I assume he was effectively renditioned. ..."
"... Acosta is anything but a mystery. He was told to make this go away. You'll note that no one asked Robert Mueller about the case when he testified last week even though he was FBI Director at the time. Maybe he was suffering from dementia back then too! ..."
A few comments on Epstein. First, exercise some common sense. The timing of the resuscitation
of his case is anything but coincidental. Whomever made that happen -- like flipping a light
switch -- is sending a message and applying leverage. My guess would be in the context of the
conspiracy against the duly elected POTUS. The malefactors will take some hostages as they're
exposed and indicted.
No publicly released details should be naively accepted. For example, it makes no sense to
me that he just happened to be flying back to the US. I assume he was effectively
renditioned.
Acosta is anything but a mystery. He was told to make this go away. You'll note that no
one asked Robert Mueller about the case when he testified last week even though he was FBI
Director at the time. Maybe he was suffering from dementia back then too!
All I know is that I correctly predicted right after Epstein's arrest that Weissmann and
the other Mueller staff wouldn't testify behind closed doors as they were scheduled to.
Mueller's testimony was delayed for a week. In my view to arrange a deal so that he wasn't
asked anything about this under oath and to otherwise act like he could no longer knew how
tie his shoes.
That said, it really is a fool's errand to try to find out a high level play like this.
Usually there are many moving parts.
it is quite intriguing that so many of these cases involve the sort of criminal or
sexual misbehavior that would be ideally suited for blackmailing powerful individuals who
are less likely to be vulnerable to other influences. So perhaps many of the elected
officials situated at the top of our democratic system merely reign as political puppets,
dancing to invisible strings.
I would invite Ron Unz and readers to look up the recent case of a Mark W. Levin
(b.1944 or '45). He has a murky background, but by the 2000s was apparently involved closely
with some outer-tier DC organizations and by the 2010s at a small DC graduate school aimed at
aspiring intelligence agents.
Levin pressured young men for sex, used blackmail and threats, though the stick was mixed
in with carrots. In a word, he appeared to be part of an operation with some striking
similarities to the kinds of political blackmail operations (or the gaining of 'compromised'
people) alleged/proposed in this article.
The Mark W. Levin story was reported in mainstream media (see some excerpts, below; Google
or Bing or DuckDuckGo for much more), but there are some questions have deserved asking since
the scandal broke in spring 2017, such as: What was the source of Levin's money, with which
he paid for some students' tuition? Do we know for sure that Levin was "acting alone"? Did he
have any political objectives? The story was fairly extensively reported on, but I don't
think any of these questions were answered.
It's possible Mark W. Levin was just a lone, sick con-artist acting alone for
homosexual-gratification and power, which is what the media depicted him as. It is also
possible that he really was (at least at one time) part of a blackmail operation, and that
after years of service he finally went down or was discarded, messily (a lawsuit against him
was made public in spring 2017).
This is really a small-time case compared to Epstein, but it may be useful for comparative
purposes.
Excerpts from some press reports in the case:
[Hide MORE]
In the late 1990s, Levin began attending the institute's public lectures. Then he
started handing over checks to pay for the tuitions of certain students, though the source
of the money was a mystery
By late 2012, the alleged victim said, Levin told him that if he wanted to remain a
candidate for Levin's covert group, he needed to avoid marriage, children, sexually
transmitted diseases and relationships with Muslim women. Levin warned him, he said, that
his "guys" would constantly watch him and that if he didn't follow instructions, he would
be blacklisted from government jobs.
Levin began inviting his protege back to his Arlington apartment building to practice
drawing a weapon – shirtless. Soon, the man said, Levin began fondling him and giving
him prostate exams, telling him the inspections were key to his recruitment. Levin also
bathed him in the shower under the pretext of helping him with his hygiene, according to
the alleged victims' lawsuit [ ]
Although Levin told him that he was free to refuse, the Arlington man said he did not
want to imperil his candidacy for the clandestine organization or risk losing out on
government jobs.
When the Falls Church man applied for his internship in July 2016, Levin told him "The
Watchers" or "my guys" had been surveilling him.
"Then, Mark told me: 'I've killed 38 people. We have people killed all the time. And we
cover our tracks,' " he said. "I was intimidated."
John Doe recalls following Levin's instructions him to masturbate and ejaculate on his
own stomach.
"Levin proceeded to play with the semen on Mr. Doe's stomach, and then informed Mr. Doe
that his semen output was insufficient and could have damaging effects on Mr. Doe's
'candidacy,' and this exercise would therefore need to be repeated in the future," the
complaint states.
Though the men say they found such treatment degrading, they say they trusted Levin's
credentials and believed his threats, some veiled and some explicit, about his ability to
harm them.
Similar rumors swirl around events much farther back in history as well, sometimes with
enormous consequences. Well-placed contemporary sources have claimed that Samuel Untermyer, a
wealthy Jewish lawyer, purchased the secret correspondence between Woodrow Wilson and his
longtime mistress, and that the existence of that powerful leverage may have been an
important factor behind Wilson's astonishingly rapid rise from president of Princeton in 1910
to governor of New Jersey in 1911 to president of the United States in 1912. Once in office,
Wilson signed the controversial legislation establishing the Federal Reserve system in 1913
and also named Louis Brandeis as the first Jewish member of the U.S. Supreme Court despite
the public opposition of nearly our entire legal establishment. Wilson's swiftly changing
views on American involvement in the First World War may also have influenced by such
personal pressures rather than solely determined by his perceptions of the national
interest
When writing of the Protocols in the "International Jew" Henry Ford discussed the blackmail
issue, referring anonymously to three political figures, one of whom was clearly Wilson, that
were then under control of the hidden hand. Don't know who the other two were.
Re Wilson and Untermyer, my understanding was that Unternyer simultaneously represented Mrs.
Peck, the wife of one of Wilson's fellow professors with who Wilson had an affair, in a
(potential) alienation of affections claim against Wilson, and represented Wilson in the same
matter, and supplied the money to Wilson to settle the claim, thereby cementing control over
him. (Don't remember where I read this.)
Re the pedophilia issue, don't rule out that there is an element of Evil involved in
this.
What a prime example of presstitution this article by certain Matthew Scott. https://quillette.com/2019/07/25/the-many-lies-of-carl-beech/
Here is the presstitute's coup de force -- Russia! Antisemitism!! – what else? Not a
word about the decades-long coverup of the horrific abuse of British children by the
pedophilic "elites" instead Matthew Scott focuses on malicious smear of a messenger.
Beech's targets were mainly "establishment" figures. Only one, the former Labour MP
Greville Janner, was from the Labour Party, and his prominent position within the British
Jewish community and his support for Israel made him, like Lord Brittan, a perfect target
for the antisemitic agitators who gleefully climbed aboard Beech's bandwagon.
A Russian government energetically promoting [?] "anti-establishment" movements all over
Europe was not about to miss an opportunity like this. George Galloway, used his platform
as a presenter on the Russian state broadcaster RT.com to promote Beech's claims.
The unwelcome truth:
Greville Ewan Janner, Baron Janner of Braunstone, QC was a British politician, barrister
and writer who was alleged to have abused vulnerable children, but died before court
proceedings could formally establish the facts. He was an MP until 1997, and then elevated
to the House of Lords. He was associated with a number of Jewish organizations including
the Board of Deputies of British Jews, of which he was chairman from 1978 to 1984, and was
later prominent in the field of education about the Holocaust.
Allegations that he had sexually abused children first emerged publicly in 1991, but
Janner denied them and no action was taken. The accusations re-emerged shortly before
Janner's death, and although the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) considered that there was
enough evidence to merit prosecution, they decided that it would not be in the public
interest as Janner had been diagnosed as suffering from dementia.
Leon Brittan, the former Home Secretary, was long accused of covering up a Westminster
child-sex ring. Now that he's died, authorities say he was a suspect as well.
"England: Land of Royals, Tea and Horrific Pedophilia
Coverupshttps:"//time.com/2974381/england-land-of-royals-tea-and-horrific-pedophilia-coverups/
politicians with links to Margaret Thatcher's government sexually abused vulnerable
children in the 1980s and hid the truth for decades through their "chumocracy."
Most notoriously of all, Sir Jimmy Savile, a BBC children's television presenter feted
by the Royal Family and Downing Street, abused 450 victims, mostly boys and girls as young
as eight over 50 years.
Lord Brittan, the Home Secretary to whom Dickens handed his dossier, told reporters he
could not recall anything about it. But last week Lord Brittan issued a statement
remembering that he had received the dossier and had asked his officials to study its
contents. Over the weekend it emerged that Lord Brittan had been interviewed as a suspect
in the rape of a 19-year-old in 1967..
I wonder how Eisenhower was persuaded to permit the 1953 coup in Iran.
The British wanted to preserve BP's oil concessions in Iran, but MI6 was not powerful
enough to stage a coup without help from the CIA. So the Brits pretended that Mosaddegh
leaned towards the Soviets, and the Americans pretended to believe them.
After the coup, the Shah's government transferred the majority of BP's rights to American
oil companies. It would have been much better for the Brits if they had done a deal with
Mosaddegh.
@James N. Kennett 1952: Mosaddeq Nationalization of Iran's Oil Industry Leads to Coup
Time Magazine's Man of the Year cover for 1951. Mohammad Mosaddeq
]
Iranian President Mohammad Mosaddeq moves to nationalize the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in
order to ensure that more oil profits remain in Iran. His efforts to democratize Iran had
already earned him being named Time Magazine's Man of the Year for 1951. After he
nationalizes it, Mosaddeq realizes that Britain may want to overthrow his government, so he
closes the British Embassy and sends all British civilians, including its intelligence
operatives, out of the country.
Britain finds itself with no way to stage the coup it desires, so it approaches the
American intelligence community for help. Their first approach results in abject failure when
Harry Truman throws the British representatives out of his office, stating that "We don't
overthrow governments; the United States has never done this before, and we're not going to
start now."
After Eisenhower is elected in November 1952, the British have a much more receptive
audience, and plans for overthrowing Mosaddeq are produced. The British intelligence
operative who presents the idea to the Eisenhower administration later will write in his
memoirs, "If I ask the Americans to overthrow Mosaddeq in order to rescue a British oil
company, they are not going to respond. This is not an argument that's going to cut much
mustard in Washington. I've got to have a different argument. I'm going to tell the Americans
that Mosaddeq is leading Iran towards Communism." This argument wins over the Eisenhower
administration, who promptly decides to organize a coup in Iran (see August 19, 1953).
[Stephen Kinzer, 7/29/2003]
Entity Tags: Dwight Eisenhower, Harry S. Truman, Muhammad Mosaddeq
Timeline Tags: US confrontation with Iran, US-Iran (1952-1953)
apenultimate on Thu, 08/01/2019 - 7:31pm Well, Tulsi for the past couple months had
been averaging around 500 new unique donors per day. Early in the day before her 2nd debate
performance, her campaign announced she had reached 110,000 unique donors. In 1.5 days, she
gained more than 10,000 more.
During the first debate, in the week after the debate Tulsi gained 8,500 donors above her
usual donor gains. Tulsi managed to do 9,500 more than average in less than 2 days this time
around. This time around seems much better.
She needed a debate boost from the second debate of 8,000 donors above her typical daily
donor gain to be ensured to reach the 130,000 unique donor minimum. She has already surpassed
that gain.
But, the polling requirements still need to be met . . .
Tulsi is going on an annual 2-week National Guard training pretty much now. She will not be
able to personally campaign during this time. That's one reason this debate was so crucial.
Let's see if it can elevate her in the coming polls.
A national Economist/YouGov poll had her at 2% through July 30. That one is not qualifying,
but it's a good trend.
I have *heard* (but not confirmed) that only one qualifying poll from each of the first 4
states are allowed for qualifying (but all qualifying national polls count). Tulsi has 1
qualifying poll from New Hampshire. If what I heard above is true, this means no other polls
from New Hampshire count towards the debate requirements. They must be qualifying polls from
Iowa, Nevada, South Carolina, or national polls from here on out.
on Snoopydawg's thread about Tulsi confronting Kamala, but I'd like to repost it here. I
think the American people are responding not just to what Tulsi is saying, but how she is
presenting herself.
Tulsi is a warrior. That's one of the main things she's accomplishing here: letting the
voters see that about her.
She's directly confronting and exposing the old guard and their heirs presumptive. She's
taking on the "powers that be", right to their faces, with strength and confidence.
And she's demonstrating to the American people that she is fully willing and capable of
doing so.
"... Gabbard has been perhaps the most interesting Democrat running for president and Wednesday night could be her last stand. She gets to share the stage with frontrunner Joe Biden, like Hillary Clinton a vote for the Iraq war. There is no guarantee she will get another opportunity: the eligibility criteria for subsequent debates is more stringent and she has yet to qualify. ..."
"... represent our military veterans' sharp turn against forever war, arguably the most important public opinion trend of our time. ..."
"... Tulsi is more experienced and articulate on foreign AND domestic policy than any other Democrat up there (Bernie being an independent). She's also more genuine. ..."
"... being 'woke', as the author failed to point out, is code for having the backing of the still extant Clinton/Obama cartel and hence the idiot US media. ..."
Screenshot
It was already one of the most memorable moments of the Democratic presidential debates
in this young election cycle. "Leaders as disparate as President Obama and President Trump have both said they want to
end U.S. involvement in Afghanistan but it isn't over for America," observed moderator Rachel Maddow. "Why isn't it
over? Why can't presidents of very different parties and very different temperaments get us out of there? And how could
you?"
Representative Tim Ryan of Ohio responded with talking points that could
have been ripped out of a George W. Bush speech circa 2004. "[T]he lesson that I've learned over the years is that you
have to stay engaged in these situations," he said, later adding, "Whether we're talking about Central America, whether
we're talking about Iran, whether we're talking about Afghanistan, we have got to be completely engaged."
Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii was having none of it. "Is that what you will
tell the parents of those two soldiers who were just killed in Afghanistan? Well, we just have to be engaged?" she asked
a sputtering Ryan. "As a soldier, I will tell you that answer is unacceptable. We have to bring our troops home from
Afghanistan." Gabbard noted that she had joined the military to fight those who attacked us on 9/11, not to nation-build
indefinitely in Afghanistan, and pointed out the perfidy of Saudi Arabia.
Some likened Gabbard's rebuke of Ryan to the famous 2007 exchange
between Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani
. Except Paul, then a relatively unknown
congressman from Texas, was speaking truth to power against "America's Mayor" and the national GOP frontrunner. Gabbard
is polling at 0.8 percent in the national RealClearPolitics average, and was challenging someone at 0.3 percent.
Ryan's asterisk candidacy is unsurprising. But Gabbard has been perhaps the most
interesting Democrat running for president and Wednesday night could be her last stand. She gets to share the stage with
frontrunner Joe Biden, like Hillary Clinton a vote for the Iraq war. There is no guarantee she will get another
opportunity: the eligibility criteria for subsequent debates is more stringent and she has yet to qualify.
The huge Democratic field has been a bust. Of the more than 20 declared presidential
candidates, only seven are polling at 2 percent or more in the national averages. Two more -- Senators Cory Booker and Amy
Klobuchar -- are polling at least that well in Iowa. Only four candidates are consistently polling in the double digits:
Biden, who recovered from his early debate stumbles and remains comfortably in the lead; Senator Bernie Sanders of
Vermont, who has nevertheless mostly failed to recapture his 2016 magic; Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who
seems ascendant; and Senator Kamala Harris of California, potentially the main threat to Biden's rock-solid black
support.
Low-polling candidates have still managed to have an impact. Some, like former
secretary of housing and urban development Julian Castro, have helped coax contenders likelier to win the nomination to
the left on immigration. We've thus seen Democrats raise their hands in support of decriminalizing illegal border
crossings in the midst of a migrant crisis not entirely of the Trump administration's making, expanding Medicare to
cover everyone even at the expense of private health insurance, and ensuring that "everyone" includes illegal
immigrants. Transgender abortions, also at taxpayer expense, have come up too.
Gabbard has so far been unable to penetrate this madness despite being young (she's
38), attractive, telegenic, a military veteran, a woman of color, and an articulate, passionate opponent of the regime
change wars that have brought our country so much pain. While reliably progressive, she has occasionally reached across
the political divide on issues like religious liberty and Big Tech censorship, a potent combination that could prove
more responsive to Trump voters' concerns than what we've heard from her neocon lite interlocutor from Youngstown.
"None of this seems to matter in a Democratic Party that cares more about wokeness
than war. In fact, Gabbard's conservative fans --
The View
brought up Ann Coulter -- are often held against her, as
is her failure to go all in on Trump-Russia. Ninety-five Democrats stand ready to impeach Trump over mean tweets with
nary a peep over the near-bombing of Iran or the active thwarting of Congress's will on Yemen.
That's not to say that no one else running is sound on foreign policy -- Bernie has
realist advisers and it took real courage for Warren to back Trump's abortive withdrawals from Afghanistan and Syria -- and
it required a Democratic House to advance the bipartisan Yemen resolution. But none of them are basing their campaigns
on it in the same way Gabbard has. Nor do any of them better represent our military veterans'
sharp turn
against forever war, arguably the
most important public opinion trend of our time.
Liberals remain skeptical of Gabbard's turn away from social conservatism (which
admittedly went far beyond sincerely opposing gay marriage while Barack Obama was merely pretending to do so), which she
attributes to "aloha." In meeting with Bashar al-Assad, she hurt her credibility as a foe of the Syria intervention,
failing to realize that doves are held to a higher standard on these matters
than hawks
.
A saner Democratic Party might realize the chances are far greater that their nominee
will be a covert hawk rather than a secret right-winger. Only time will tell if vestiges of that party still exist.
Tulsi is more experienced and articulate on foreign AND domestic policy than any
other Democrat up there (Bernie being an independent). She's also more genuine.
But
being 'woke', as the author failed to point out, is code for having the backing of
the still extant Clinton/Obama cartel and hence the idiot US media. And that she
does not have
Unfortunately foreign policy and the forever war are not an issue that resonates with
voters on either side. Here is an
excerpt from NPR
.
"That is one finding from the latest NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll, which shows that
Americans have limited confidence in its public schools, courts, organized labor and
banks -- and even less confidence in big business, the presidency, the political parties
and the media.
.....
The only institution that Americans have overwhelming faith in is the military -- 87
percent say they have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in the military. That
is a striking change from the 1970s during and after the Vietnam War."
A military that has been a consistent loser for decades. How depressing
Given that this magazine was partially founded as a reaction to the Iraq War, why
does an article about Tulsi Gabbard, one of the only presidential candidates who
takes a mostly non-interventionist foreign policy stance, surprise you? She is a
progressive, yes, and a Democrat, but her stance on war is very conservative.
You
don't have to be a Republican to be conservative or to hold some conservative views.
Warren is a corporate kiss a** and a perfect example of precisely why the
person you're talking to might as well be listening to a Chipmunks song for
all the ridiculous partisan deflection going on. Literally nothing of value in
any of that and the implication that Dumbocraps are any different than
Republicans in talking a lot and saying and doing nothing is frankly one of
the insults to the intelligence that convinced me very early to reject both
"sides" of this Candyland based majik partisan aisle
I was ready to replace Mike Pompeo with Tulsi Gabbard the day after the first debate. It
would be very unfortunate if she got bumped out. I live in California (an open primary
state), which means I would have voted for her in the primary
It doesn't "hurt" Tulsi's "credibility" that she met with Assad. It's been clear from the
beginning of the Syrian civil war that he was the sole viable protector of Christian and
other religious minorities in the region after the fall of Saddam. The U.S. should never
have armed and trained the country's rebels. But it's again apparent that Democrats have
no interest in saving Christians from Islamic killers.
Foreign policy does not elect American presidents.
I like her, and support her, and
think she's made valuable points. I hope it is heard. However, there was never any chance
that her course would lead to the White House.
Maybe she can get a senior post and shape policy on our endless wars. Or maybe she'll
have a louder voice in Congress. However, the best she could do with this is influence.
They all support Israel w/o condition. Unfortunately. None of them are any better
than her on this issue, and they are much worse than her on most FP and military
issues.
I am fully supporting Gabbard's campaign, but few people are concerned about our senseless
wars. The issue does not make the top ten voter concerns in recent polls.
For whatever reason the President Primary debates tend to avoid most foreign policy
issues. Democrats love getting the gory details of healthcare that sort prove Reagan's
joke "They know too much" but there are few question on Foreign Policy. I think it
reasonable to ask "What would your administration do with Venezuela?" (And Yes I like
really basic Open End questions at debates.)
And yes there are good parts of Tulsi but
she does need to campaign things outside of No Wars as that usually does not win
Primaries.
Forever wars are driven by Wash. through campaign funds coming from the war industry,
foreign states and those in the USA who support other countries over their own. How could
an anti-war candidate get those funds necessary for campaigning? And, as I said before,
Obama and Trump both campaigned to end the wars but didn't. What makes anyone think the
next president, when in office, will do anything different? Plus, one has to take into
consideration the DNC's choice, and all the intrigues surrounding that process. Tulsi
hasn't paid all those dues necessary for a shot at the presidency.
Some people were as stupid as to think that Trump would lose by a landslide in 2016.
Some people were as stupid as to think that Candidate
Five-Year-Old-Girl-in-a-Grown-Up-Woman's-Body, who managed to hijack (or, rather,
joyride) Obama's foreign policy and to start two (or, rather, three, given that
Yemen is also her legacy) foreign wars yet, knowing about the "nice" legacy of
Afghanistan and Iraq, would be any appealing. So
I wonder
how anyone with
both hemispheres functional can believe that discarding Gabbard and Sanders, while
picking any of the political reincarnations of the ingnorant, arrogant and, first of
all, almost childishly self-righteous moron who managed to wreck the country's
entire foreign policy without even being the president can win against the man who
cleaned up that child's (despite her physically being his age-mate) mess in Syria
and, judging by what the Italian press says, is letting others to clean an even
greater mess of hers in Libya.
Looks that on foreign policy Tulsi is the only sane option.
That's exactly why the bipartisan establishment, the corrupt corporate media and the MIC
hate her vehemently.
I am a registered Republican so I can't vote for Tulsi in the MD primaries, but I will
consider donating to her campaign to help her get into the third debate.
I can forgive a
Democrat for supporting universal healthcare so long as they
don't buy into the identity politics garbage.
Although I'm fairly conservative, I will take a Democrat with character over who we
have in the White House today.
Eric, you can change your registration for long enough to vote for someone you
obviously think is worth voting for.
I was a registered Democrat for all of my
voting life, although I often voted for Republicans. As a result of Bush Jr.'s war
against Iraq, I swore never to vote for a Republican again.
But when Ron Paul was on the ballot in the Republican primary, I re-registered,
as a Republican, just so I could vote for him. (In California, the party determines
whether its primary is open or closed.) After 6 weeks, following the primary, I
re-registered again, this time as a no-party-preference voter.
It's not that I liked everything Ron Paul believed in (but I did like the fact
that he was genuine and truthful). But I agreed with him on the really important
issues involving foreign policy.
So you have options, Eric. It won't soil you to change party registration
temporarily if it allows you to vote for someone you might vote for in the general
election. In fact, you might feel good about it. I know I did. Voting for Ron Paul
was the first time in a long time that I felt good about my vote. And this time,
I'll vote for Tulsi Gabbard in the primary even if I have to write her name in.
Tulsi is not running for President. She's running for running mate for either Bernie or
Warren. Both need her foreign policy chops and military cred.
She will bring voters to the ticket, unlike most V.P. picks.
Given Bernie age, should he
pick her, she could end up President after all.
Works for me.
The Democratic Party uber alles types over at Daily Kos are supporting Gabbard's primary
challenger for her Congressional seat, attacking her for her previous stands on abortion
and same sex marriage, and really laying into her for playing footsies with a dictator
like Assad. And while Bernie has some support over there, especially among the readers who
take their polls, there are others who still won't forgive him for not actually joining
the Dems officially (and who buy all of the "he cost Clinton the election" stupidity).
The most tragic thing is not that they simply buy that stupidity. It is that they
still
buy it. After almost three years. Bernie didn't cost Clinton the election.
Clinton
cost Democrats the election. Much like any of her political
reincarnations they are about to pick will.
"... Attacking the authoritarian prosecutorial record of Senator Kamala Harris to thunderous applause from the audience, Gabbard criticized the way her opponent "put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana violations and then laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana," "blocked evidence that would have freed an innocent man from death row until the court's forced her to do so," "kept people in prisons beyond their sentences to use them as cheap labor for the state of California," and "fought to keep the cash bail system in place that impacts poor people in the worst kind of way." ..."
"... That was all it took. Harris' press secretary Ian Sams unleashed a string of tweets about Gabbard being an "Assad apologist", which was followed by a deluge of establishment narrative managers who sent the word "Assad" trending on Twitter, at times when Gabbard's name somehow failed to trend despite being the top-searched candidate on Google after the debate. As of this writing, "Assad" is showing on the #5 trending list on the side bar of Twitter's new layout, while Gabbard's name is nowhere to be seen. This discrepancy has drawn criticism from numerous Gabbard defenders on the platform . ..."
"... It really is interesting how aggressively the narrative managers thrust this line into mainstream consciousness all at the same time. ..."
"... "Beware the Russian bots and their promotion of Tulsi Gabbard and sowing racial dischord [sic], especially around Kamala Harris," tweeted New York Times and CNN contributor Wajahat Ali. ..."
"... All the usual war cheerleaders from Lindsey Graham to Caroline Orr to Jennifer Rubin piled on, because this feeding frenzy had nothing to do with concern that Gabbard adores Bashar al-Assad and everything to do with wanting more war. Add that to the fact that Gabbard just publicly eviscerated a charming, ambitious and completely amoral centrist who would excel at putting a friendly humanitarian face on future wars if elected, and it's easy to understand why the narrative managers are flipping out so hard right now. ..."
"... War is the glue that holds the empire together . A politician can get away with opposing some aspects of the status quo when it comes to healthcare or education, but war as a strategy for maintaining global dominance is strictly off limits. This is how you tell the difference between someone who actually wants to change things and someone who's just going through the motions for show; the real rebels forcefully oppose the actual pillars of empire by calling for an end to military bloodshed, while the performers just stick to the safe subjects. ..."
"... The shrill, hysterical pushback that Gabbard received last night was very encouraging, because it means she's forcing them to fight back. In a media environment where the war propaganda machine normally coasts along almost entirely unhindered in mainstream attention, the fact that someone has positioned themselves to move the needle like this says good things for our future. If our society is to have any chance of ever throwing off the omnicidal, ecocidal power establishment which keeps us in a state of endless war and soul-crushing oppression, the first step is punching a hole in the narrative matrix which keeps us hypnotized into believing that this is all normal and acceptable. ..."
In the race to determine who will serve as Commander in Chief of the most powerful military
force in the history of civilization, night two of the CNN Democratic presidential debates saw
less than six minutes dedicated to discussing US military policy during the 180-minute
event.
That's six, as in the number before seven. Not sixty. Not sixteen. Six. From the moment Jake Tapper said "I want to
turn to foreign policy" to the
moment Don Lemon interrupted Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard just as she was preparing to
correctly explain how President Trump is supporting Al-Qaeda in
Idlib
, approximately five minutes and fifty seconds had elapsed. The questions then turned toward
the Mueller report and impeachment proceedings.
Night one of the CNN debates saw almost twice as much time, with
a whole eleven minutes by my count dedicated to questions of war and peace for the
leadership of the most warlike nation on the planet. This discrepancy could very well be due to
the fact that night two was the slot allotted to Gabbard, whose campaign largely revolves
around the platform of ending US warmongering. CNN is a virulent establishment propaganda firm
with an extensive history of promoting
lies and
brazen psyops in facilitation of US imperialism , so it would make sense that they would
try to avoid a subject which would inevitably lead to unauthorized truth-telling on the
matter.
But the near-absence of foreign policy discussion didn't stop the Hawaii congresswoman from
getting in some unauthorized truth-telling anyway.
Attacking the
authoritarian prosecutorial record of Senator Kamala Harris to thunderous applause from the
audience, Gabbard criticized the way her opponent "put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana
violations and then laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana," "blocked
evidence that would have freed an innocent man from death row until the court's forced her to
do so," "kept people in prisons beyond their sentences to use them as cheap labor for the state
of California," and "fought to keep the cash bail system in place that impacts poor people in
the worst kind of way."
Harris, who it turns out fights
very well when advancing but folds under pressure, had no answer for Gabbard's attack,
preferring to focus on attacking Joe Biden instead . Later, when she was a nice safe distance
out of Gabbard's earshot, she uncorked a
long-debunked but still effective smear which establishment narrative managers have been
dying for an excuse to run wild with.
"This, coming from someone who has been an apologist for an individual, Assad, who has
murdered the people of his country like cockroaches," Harris told
Anderson Cooper after the debate.
"She who has embraced and been an apologist for him in a way that she refuses to call him
a war criminal. I can only take what she says and her opinion so seriously and so I'm
prepared to move on."
That was all it took. Harris' press secretary Ian Sams unleashed a string of tweets
about Gabbard being an "Assad apologist", which was followed by a deluge of establishment
narrative managers who sent the word "Assad" trending on Twitter, at times when Gabbard's name
somehow failed to trend despite being
the top-searched candidate on Google after the debate. As of this writing, "Assad" is showing on the #5 trending list
on the side bar of Twitter's new layout, while Gabbard's name is nowhere to be seen. This
discrepancy has drawn
criticism from numerous Gabbard defenders on
the platform .
"Somehow I have a hard time believing that 'Assad' is the top trending item in the United
States but 'Tulsi' is nowhere to be found," tweeted journalist Michael
Tracey.
It really is interesting how aggressively the narrative managers thrust this line into
mainstream consciousness all at the same time.
The Washington Post 's Josh Rogin went on a frantic, lie-filled Twitter
storm as soon as he saw an opportunity, claiming with no evidence
whatsoever that Gabbard lied when she said she met with Assad for purposes of diplomacy and
that she "helped Assad whitewash a mass atrocity", and falsely claiming that " she praised
Russian bombing of Syrian civilians ".
In reality all
Gabbard did was meet with Assad to discuss the possibility of peace, and, more importantly,
she said the US shouldn't be involved in regime change interventionism in Syria. This latter
bit of business is the real reason professional war propagandists like Rogin are targeting her;
not because they honestly believe that a longtime US service member and sitting House
Representative is an "Assad apologist", but because she commits the unforgivable heresy of
resisting the mechanics of America's forever war .
MSNBC's Joy Reid gleefully leapt into the smearing frenzy, falsely claiming that "Gabbard
will not criticize Assad, no matter what." Gabbard has publicly and unequivocally both decried
Assad as a "brutal dictator" and claimed he's guilty of war crimes, much
to the irritation of anti-imperialists like myself who hold a far more skeptical eye to the
war propaganda narratives about what's going on in Syria. At no time has Gabbard ever claimed
that Assad is a nice person or that he isn't a brutal leader; all she's done is say the US
shouldn't get involved in another regime change war there because US regime change
interventionism is consistently and predictably disastrous. That's not being an "Assad
apologist", that's having basic common sense.
"Beware the Russian bots and their promotion of Tulsi Gabbard and sowing racial
dischord [sic], especially around Kamala Harris," tweeted New York Times and
CNN contributor Wajahat Ali.
All the usual war cheerleaders from Lindsey Graham to
Caroline
Orr to Jennifer Rubin piled on,
because this feeding frenzy had nothing to do with concern that Gabbard adores Bashar al-Assad
and everything to do with wanting more war. Add that to the fact that Gabbard just publicly
eviscerated a charming, ambitious and completely amoral centrist who would excel at putting a
friendly humanitarian face on future wars if elected, and it's easy to understand why the
narrative managers are flipping out so hard right now.
War is the
glue that holds the empire together . A politician can get away with opposing some aspects
of the status quo when it comes to healthcare or education, but war as a strategy for
maintaining global dominance is strictly off limits. This is how you tell the difference
between someone who actually wants to change things and someone who's just going through the
motions for show; the real rebels forcefully oppose the actual pillars of empire by calling for
an end to military bloodshed, while the performers just stick to the safe subjects.
The shrill, hysterical pushback that Gabbard received last night was very encouraging,
because it means she's forcing them to fight back. In a media environment where the war
propaganda machine normally coasts along almost entirely unhindered in mainstream attention,
the fact that someone has positioned themselves to move the needle like this says good things
for our future. If our society is to have any chance of ever throwing off the omnicidal,
ecocidal power establishment which keeps us in a state of endless war and soul-crushing
oppression, the first step is punching a hole in
the narrative matrix which keeps us hypnotized into believing that this is all normal and
acceptable.
Whoever controls the narrative controls the world. Whoever disrupts that narrative control
is doing the real work.
* * *
The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish
is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website , which will get you an email notification for
everything I publish. My work is
entirely reader-supported , so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around,
liking me on Facebook
, following my antics on Twitter ,
throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal , purchasing some of my sweet merchandise , buying
my new book Rogue Nation:
Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone , or my previous book
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . For more info on who I am, where I stand, and
what I'm trying to do with this platform,
click here . Everyone, racist platforms excluded,
has my permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I've written)
in any way they like free of charge.
"It really is interesting how aggressively the narrative managers thrust this line into
mainstream consciousness all at the same time." - C.J.
I think we see evidence of this sort of thing all the time. "Russian collusion" was thrust
upon MSM consumers in coordinated fashion for many months. Now that it has largely fizzled
out, "racism" has taken its place. "Racism". "Racism". "Racism". It seems as if MSM drones
plug into the Mothership to get their talking points. This sort of behavior was featured in
the 1939 film, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington", when the Establishment decided Mr. Smith
needed to be crushed.
Harris's deflection of Gabbard's attacks are right in line with the Establishment's
treatment of people who don't tow the line. Harris is trying to dismiss Gabbard as if her
opinion has no weight. Harris is probably wishing hard that Gabbard won't make the next round
of debates.
if Tulsi is nominee, i'll vote for her and vote republican for house/senate etc. her
anti-war policy is what i was hoping Trump would do. in reality if the republicans hold a
chamber in congress then any anti-gun and healthcare bills won't get through. but on day one
Tulsi can start removing our troops from Ukraine, Syria, Afghan, Iraq, Saudi, Turkey, and
wherever the hell else they are
Tulsi Gabbard is no cankles. She is a veteran, she's female, and she has some good
policies. Buyer beware her site mentions nothing about gun control. Liberals always make me
nervous.
As president I'll end the failed war on drugs, legalize marijuana, end cash bail, and
ban private prisons and bring about real criminal justice reform. ( link )
Everyone talks a big game..but Trump's actually delivered on a few good policies. Example
he ended Trans-Pacific partnership. He is renegotiating bad deals with NAFTA and China. He's
able to take the heat form the deep state and criminals all around him. He's kept the stock
market up. I suspect the stock market is the tide lifting all boats. So far Trump's been
pretty good.
The only thing I have against Tulsi Gabbard is that she recently voted for the ridiculous
Democrat sponsored Defense budget that was even more than the Pentagon requested.
Tulsi Gabbard should be the Democratic Nominee. I support Trump, voted for him, but he is
too distracted, too much of an overactive schmoe. He made all of these promises and yes the
attacks have been relentless, but nothing is being accomplished. Trump has deep state clowns
all around him including Bolton and Pompeo. The deficit is going through the roof, the
artificial, superficial manipulated stock market is going to eventually hurt a lot of
people.
I don't agree with many of her policies but Tulsi Gabbard is a sane and a thoughtful
thinker. She will think before reacting. Her Ron Paul approach to our overreach in the world
is absolutely appropriate. Think about this, we spend $850 Billion Dollars on defense so we
can feed the war industry. That is more than all the countries of the world combined
literally!!! If we brought all the troops home, closed up most bases outside the US, and
protected our borders, our deficit would plummet, we could rebuild the infrastructure, we
could figure out the health care B.S. We would get along with the rest of the world instead
of being looked at as an enemy.
Everybody is coming out of the woodwork because she knows, like most, that Assad did not
pepper spray his own people. Cripes, when does this insanity end?
Drawing down the US military to the point you describe will put 1 million American men and
women between the ages of 18 and 40 out of work. Do you not realize in addition to feeding
the MIC the military is one giant jobs program? Those young men and women, the vast majority
of whom do not want to learn to code, would find themselves competing against foreigners and
teenagers for $15 minimum wage jobs.
Meanwhile, the rest of the world would openly laugh at us and secretly plot how to take
advantage of the power vacuum. Evil does not rest when unopposed, it becomes stronger.
When half the world's population (= all Chinese plus all Muslims) wants to destroy your
country, "insanity" is defined as beating your swords into ploughshares.
The enemies of Tulsi Gabbard are not the Zionazis who helped Trump win the elections or
MAGA hat wearing hillbillies who have no clue whats the difference between Hong Kong and King
Kong. It is the liberals who voted for Hillary and went berserk after their beloved mafia
bitch lost who hate Tulsi Gabbard. Because she makes them look like what they are, i.e. scum.
Sure, conservatives will never vote for a intelligent woman. But they are not the
problem.
"Liberals who voted for Hillary" is a false premise. The Democratic National Committee
forced Hillary Clinton on liberals, they fixed the primaries so she would win. Liberals and
progressives wanted Bernie Sanders who would have kicked Trump's ***.
"... On top of the cake Kamala Not-The-Wrestler responded as expected, with a neoMcCarthyite slander, which will only work with Tulsi's haters and make Harris look like a tool to everyone else. ..."
"... @doh1304 ..."
"... Harris' record was both fair game and easy pickings because no one had gone there yet. It gained Tulsi the maximum impact because those who don't follow politics had not heard about any of these issues. ..."
"... Joe is so far down in the actual REAL polls, (not the land line polls as has been exposed), that the oligarchy has given up on him. Tulsi senses Joe is low hanging fruit. The DNC is going to cheat Bernie with either Kamala or Liz. Tulsi just took out Kamala. ..."
Why go after Biden? He's already imploding; she would only look cruel, beating up on a senile
old man for her own aggrandizement. Harris, OTOH, is a clear enemy, perpetrator of obvious
crimes. Exposing her could only make her look like a paladin.
On top of the cake Kamala Not-The-Wrestler responded as expected, with a neoMcCarthyite
slander, which will only work with Tulsi's haters and make Harris look like a tool to everyone
else.
Harris is sort of right, it is a strategy only used by someone trying to come from behind,
but that's because people with Tulsi's integrity are not allowed to start at the "Top-tier". up
14 users have voted. --
@doh1304 Harris' record was both fair game and easy pickings because no one had gone there yet.
It gained Tulsi the maximum impact because those who don't follow politics had not heard
about any of these issues.
Joe is so far down in the actual REAL polls, (not the land line polls as has been
exposed), that the oligarchy has given up on him. Tulsi senses Joe is low hanging fruit. The
DNC is going to cheat Bernie with either Kamala or Liz. Tulsi just took out Kamala.
Don't be surprised if she goes after Pocahontas in the next debates.
The crisis actors are just there to say what the democrats can't do or to derail anyone
who thinks they are going to change the system. Delaney, Bullock, DeBlasio and everyone else
who doesn't stand a chance have all been negative on Warren and Bernie pushing their MFA. Did
Delaney set himself up for Warren to smack him down? The silly ass smile on his face made me
think that. Then he was all over Twitter the next day saying how good he did in the debate.
And after 24 hours he finally had a comeback to Warren's response.
The other reason for so many candidates of course is to split the votes during the first
part so that the super delegates can come in and play.
attitude certainly was smacked down in righteous fashion. Hollywood level
righteous.
Having those extras on stage feature so prominently in the debates certainly was
interesting.
Harris's spokesman explains Tulsi's takedown of Kamala: It was Russia!
gjohnsit on Thu, 08/01/2019 - 11:47am Snoopydawg has got the
takedown covered , so I won't duplicate it.
Instead I'd like to show you how TOP has gone into a full-throated
whine party over it.
On Wednesday night, that meant that Gabbard got to go after Kamala Harris on her actions as
attorney general, using loaded phrases and selected statements to paint Harris as someone who
was ready to throw pot-smokers behind bars for eternity and personally throw the execution
switch for death row inmates after hiding evidence of their innocence.
There's no doubt that Harris will face more kicks about her AG role during this campaign,
and she certainly expected to receive some blows. But Gabbard knew she could square off with
Harris in the certainty that no one, but no one, came into the Wednesday night debate
thinking, "I need to prepare some talking points against Tulsi Gabbard." And even if she had,
CNN gave Harris little time to muster her thoughts before calling in more witnesses to
bolster Gabbard's attacks.
It wasn't just the tools on GOS that Tulsi knocked off balance, it was Harris
herself . Even CNN noticed.
Worse than that -- for Harris -- is the fact that it became crystal clear in the aftermath of
the debate that Gabbard had gotten under her skin. In a post-debate interview, CNN's Anderson
Cooper asked Harris about the moment with Gabbard.
"This is going to sound immodest, but obviously I'm a top-tier candidate and so I did expect
that I'd be on the stage and take some hits tonight," Harris said. "When people are at 0 or
1% or whatever she might be at, so I did expect to take some hits tonight."
Woof.
First of all, if you are running for president and you hear the words, "This is going to
sound immodest" come out of your mouth, it may be best to recalibrate what you are going to
say.
Second, what Harris is actually saying is, basically, this: The dork took a shot at the most
popular kid in school. Big whoop.
That is not a good look. For any candidate. Ever. (And, yes, politics is a LOT like high
school.)
That's gonna leave a mark.
But never fear, because there is a reason for Harris getting taken down by Gabbard -
Russia .
The #KamalaHarrisDestroyed hashtag had disappeared from the list of trending U.S. terms by
9:30 a.m. Thursday.
Harris's spokesman, Ian Sams, responded to the hashtag, noting that at least some of the
accounts promoting it appeared to be bots.
"The Russian propaganda machine that tried to influence the 2016 election is now promoting
the presidential aspirations of a controversial Hawaii Democrat," he said.
Reporters writing their stories with eyes on the modern-day assignment desk of Twitter,
read this:
"The Russian propaganda machine that tried to influence the 2016 election is now promoting
the presidential aspirations of a controversial Hawaii Democrat" https://t.co/2kpKQqW3Ir
Damn! Putin was on the debate stage and no one noticed?
That has got to be the weakest response in recent history.
Here's the thing, the Harris campaign is already guilty of
crying wolf over Russia.
Harris has already been caught misrepresenting alleged Russian propaganda activity. She
claimed in a radio interview on July 12 that she had been subjected to Russian bot attacks on
social media sites like Twitter.
But CNN debunked the claim days later, reporting that Twitter saw no evidence that Russian
bots were targeting Harris.
The far left wants too much form Tulsi. You can't fight on two fronts when attacking the the neocon foreign policy.
Notable quotes:
"... Israel is the litmus test issue in American politics for a lot of good reasons. It may or may not be the worst regime in the world. There are a lot of bad ones competing for that title, many of whom we support. But Israel is the candidate we not only support but sponsor and champion to the point where it is at times very very hard to tell who is leading and who is following, between Israel and the US. This seems to have a lot to do with the end-times preoccupations that seem to have been at the heart of what passes for American spirituality since the earliest colonial days. ..."
I should always trust my instincts. Attending an event hosted by the Adelsons was disturbing enough, but I trusted people here
instead and brushed off my suspicions.
Israel is the litmus test issue in American politics for a lot of good reasons. It may or may not be the worst regime in the
world. There are a lot of bad ones competing for that title, many of whom we support. But Israel is the candidate we not only
support but sponsor and champion to the point where it is at times very very hard to tell who is leading and who is following,
between Israel and the US. This seems to have a lot to do with the end-times preoccupations that seem to have been at the heart
of what passes for American spirituality since the earliest colonial days.
Gabbard has now broken a lot of hopes. She has jumped the shark spectacularly, shamelessly craving the support of the 'Israel
Lobby'. Her claims to be against the regime change wars when these wars are relentlessly pushed by the Israel Lobby she is now
shamelessly courting?!!!
I suppose we can hope that Tulsi takes a flying leap back over the shark, say by visiting Gaza the way she recently visited
Puerto Rico. If she doesn't now make a huge point of it, in words and actions, that she will NOT be yet another tool of the Israel
Lobby, the neocons, the neolibs, etc., then she must be opposed as the turncoat shill she now seems to be.
No use wasting breath on Gabbard. Trump vs. Biden in 2020 with Trump taking the Midwest and the electoral college like 2016 is
unavoidable. If undermining Gabbard is your deal, I'd wait until 2024.
I took a lot of flak when I pointed out the simple truth that Gabbard is not against war and not against US/NATO imperialism
but simply against "regime change wars" that USA failed to win.
Trump was also against dumb wars and his imperialist detractors called him an isolationist - but that was merely a neat
way to burnish his populist credentials. Trump has acted much like his imperialist predecessors who hedge their peace talk with
exceptionalist morality that requires utmost strength in a "dangerous world". And these faux democratic leaders are all-too-willing
to lead the propaganda effort when called upon to support Deep State objectives.
Gabbard reminds me that the leaders of every nation should be watching re-runs of Mister Roger's Neighborhood and apply its lessons
to the abstract and Alpha-male dominated world of international relations.
I'm only half-joking. In a world of technological parity, real-time communication, and rapid travel the importance of being
a good neighbor has never been more important. At the minimum, that means doing no harm and, at the max, doing nice things with
no expectations.
Alas, we're stuck with countries building walls, using prosperity as a weapon, and thinking that power never waxes and wanes.
Shame that human wisdom hasn't kept up with material progress.
I had an uneasy interest/hope in/for Gabbard. No more after she sold herself to Israeli interests.
Lets face it, nobody worth his/her salt can get close to the Presidency without being backed by one or more factions of the
elite. The unrepresented bottom 90% (non military/vet) simply has no representation, and more than half are too stupid to know
it.
Change for the better will never happen under the present system. The US and the world will continue falling into the abyss.
One day soon the people find out what that means. Thats when the gloves come off. Nowhere to hide then. Serve your masters well
or be disappeared.
Jason @42 is right. Gabbard was never going to make it anyway. She's there because fake democratic choice is the establishment's
way of cementing their control.
As in:
- STFU, you shoulda voted for Tulsi (faux anti-war choice)
- STFU, you shoulda voted for Bernie (faux anti-wealth inequality choice)
- STFU, you shoulda voted for Kamala (faux civil rights choice)
- STFU, you shoulda voted for Biden (faux anti-Trump choice)
- STFU, you shoulda voted for Warren (faux business regulation)
Gabbard: One can either give up participating (definitely an option) or look for the best alternative to doing nothing. As
pointed out by others there is a power structure in America, which cannot be opposed in totality.
On the other hand, politicians are famous for not keeping their promises. There is the possibility of not keeping promises
to Adelson as well. One person can only do so much, even the President. So, we have to keep supporting alternatives, if there
is any chance at all to change direction. Outside forces are definitely going to help here ... Russia and China are busy building
a new 'World Order' which will be very good for America, when we finally give up the Empire.
Environmental fanatics: The two essential factors in preserving Earth's ecosystem are: 1) limit to human population ... I believe
this is happening and human population will reach a peak and begin to decline I think best estimates are ~ 2050 at 10 billion,
2) widespread, near total replacement of fossil energy use by nuclear power, which can easily be made to have virtually zero environmental
impact, while allowing a high standard of living for Earth's entire population.
Jodi Schneider
Senior International Editor
Gabbard says she will "
end these endless regime-change wars
" and use the "trillions of dollars we have
been wasting on these wars and these weapons" on domestic spending.
Photographer: Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images
"why the Pelosi is playing the racist card.... there will be none of it (remedies) from the
democrats"
[Not quite half right. There will be no remedies from either Democrats nor Republicans.
Racism has been in the cards from the beginning. They played those cards with 3/5ths of a man
to begin with but after that it was still the de facto corner for a lot of the triangulation,
although unions gave the descendants of slaves a run for their money for a while. But now
unions are effectively a dead end corner of the deck while racism still burns on into the
future. Last time to get a New Deal it took a Great Depression, but now the two party shuffle
is cautious enough to maintain the status quo without inciting substantive rebellion. Don't
be fooled by the smoke and mirrors.]
Political triangulation of the electorate would be impossible if they were all the same.
The purpose of political triangulation of the electorate into effectively equal parts is to
ensure a high probability of reelection in combination with a low requirement for socially
responsible policy. Divide and conquer works. Elites get everything that they really need and
there is always someone else to blame. Perfect!
That is a distinction without difference. Just think in terms of driving between the
coneheads and choosing to veer to either the left or right to knock down the number of
coneheads that you will need.
The electorate comes with perforated seams from the factory. It is just a matter of
choosing where to tear them apart. The important thing though for elites is to never let
anyone tape across those perforated seams and hold the electorate together.
In the immoral words of King Lear "Your old kind father, whose frank heart gave all -- /
O, that way madness lies; let me shun that; / No more of that"
The worst thing that Clinton (Bill) ever did was to embrace southern racists the way he
did with his "tough on crime" and "welfare reform." Those ideas were coded white baby boomer
racism put into policy.
They were certainly among the worst, but I would have to set the Wayback Machine and travel
back with Doctor Peabody to do a bit of research to explicitly agree. Particularly,
evaluating the consequences of trade status (e.g., WTO and PNTR China) and trade agreements
(e.g., NAFTA) are nontrivial exercises. Remember that such status and agreements would not
lead to arbitrage pricing and trade imbalances all else being equal. So, we know that all
else was not equal.
I know as much as I do about politics and civil rights in the 60's as I do because I was
an insider, an embedded observer and to a minor extent an active participant at the ground
level. Trade negotiations and institutions are way outside my home turf. I can read about it
from the available source material and substantiate or nullify by digging through sources to
get to the truth, but that kind of research takes big hours (from a few dozen to a few
hundred to cover all the bases reasonably well) and no one is paying me to do it. So, I can
have no opinion of my own and I have tired of just transferring received wisdom. Paine is the
only commenter on this blog that I know of that has any substantial understanding of the
trade issues, but you might be better off to just stick with Dean Baker and Dan Rodrik if you
want to understand what you are reading. They write in English, rather than in Paine.
Dani and Dean are great, but I still think that all of the issues with trade are pretty
easily solved with a top tax rate that limits oligarchs income, capital controls to prevent
the flight of capital to other places, environmental arbitrage penalties, and a big helping
of helping the third world raise living standards, efficiency and allowing them to become
trading partners rather than trade based vassal states. Also, I don't think that trade
adequately explains the weakness of unions or loss of manufacturing jobs. Right to work,
voter suppression, automation and the white working class going full racist and voting for
their own demise are better explainers.
On politics and race, there is a lot feeding into it; economics, policy blindness of
pseudo-intellectual elites, private corporate news conglomerates, small white dicks, the list
goes on. Don't underestimate the demoralizing effect that the consolidation of corporations
has had both as an enabler of low wages, offshoring, union busting, pension insecurity, and
general antisocial behavior AND as a big brother for big brother running public policy and
the media as wholly owned subsidiaries.
Fair enough - and I should have (and always should) include enforcing the anti-trust laws
against US and offshore based companies. Consolidation also is a bigger culprit than trade
agreements. Failure to enforce anti-trust measures for going on 50 years is a bigger
culprit.
Enforcing anti-trust is a little like busing, a day late and a dollar short. There were
tax incentives before 1954 that prevented most mergers, but still allowed fire sale
acquisitions (where there are more capital losses than capital gains so no or few taxes)
without any adverse consequences. Accomplishing mergers depends upon the attractiveness of
capital gains windfall tax incentives when compared to dividends income potential over
time.
The equity owner tax incentive tables were turned in 1954 towards consolidating US
corporations into giant conglomerates to better compete with the state sponsored monopolies
of Japan. That was under Ike and Republican controlled Congress, but when the Democrats got
back in power then they just let it ride falsely justifying it as a tax increase on the
wealthy.
LOL!!! kurt still hasn't figured out that the essence of 'free' trade was the free flow of
capital. This form of 'free' trade would die a sudden and ignominious death if capital
controls were put in place to prevent the flight of capital to other places.
'Free' trade never really was about the free flow of goods, but about the ability of
banksters and corporations to make secure investments abroad. Only if and when their
investments are protected do investors feel comfortable shipping American jobs overseas to
exploit foreign labor.
Of course, this was not something that Krugman and the 'free' trade zealots wanted to
publicize. Instead they focused on how good 'free' trade would be for America (implying
Americans but really meaning the investor class.) And they chose to lie about how good 'free'
trade would be for labor.
Every post I have made saying "it ain't all trade" has included a call for capital controls.
Your statement here is belied by the fact that I keep asking for what you want.
What's Driving Populism?
If authoritarian populism is rooted in economics, then the appropriate remedy is a populism
of another kind – targeting economic injustice and inclusion, but pluralist in its
politics and not necessarily damaging to democracy. If it is rooted in culture and values,
however, there are fewer options.
By DANI RODRIK ]
"... If authoritarian populism is rooted in economics, then the appropriate remedy is a populism of another kind – targeting economic injustice and inclusion, but pluralist in its politics and not necessarily damaging to democracy. ..."
"... On the other side of the argument, economists have produced a number of studies that link political support for populists to economic shocks ..."
"... Indeed, according to Autor, Dorn, Hanson, and Majlesi, the China trade shock may have been directly responsible for Trump's electoral victory in 2016. Their estimates imply that had import penetration been 50% lower than the actual rate over the 2002-14 period, a Democratic presidential candidate would have won the critical states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, making Hillary Clinton the winner of the election. ..."
"... Ultimately, the precise parsing of the causes behind the rise of authoritarian populism may be less important than the policy lessons to be drawn from it. There is little debate here. Economic remedies to inequality and insecurity are paramount. ..."
If authoritarian populism is rooted in economics, then the appropriate remedy is a populism of
another kind – targeting economic injustice and inclusion, but pluralist in its politics
and not necessarily damaging to democracy. If it is rooted in culture and values, however,
there are fewer options.
By DANI RODRIK
CAMBRIDGE – Is it culture or economics? That question frames much of the debate about
contemporary populism. Are Donald Trump's presidency, Brexit, and the rise of right-wing
nativist political parties in continental Europe the consequence of a deepening rift in values
between social conservatives and social liberals, with the former having thrown their support
behind xenophobic, ethno-nationalist, authoritarian politicians? Or do they reflect many
voters' economic anxiety and insecurity, fueled by financial crises, austerity, and
globalization?
Much depends on the answer.
If authoritarian populism is rooted in economics, then the
appropriate remedy is a populism of another kind – targeting economic injustice and
inclusion, but pluralist in its politics and not necessarily damaging to democracy. If it is
rooted in culture and values, however, there are fewer options. Liberal democracy may be doomed
by its own internal dynamics and contradictions.1
Some versions of the cultural argument can be dismissed out of hand. For example, many
commentators in the United States have focused on Trump's appeals to racism. But racism in some
form or another has been an enduring feature of US society and cannot tell us, on its own, why
Trump's manipulation of it has proved so popular. A constant cannot explain a change.
Other accounts are more sophisticated. The most thorough and ambitious version of the
cultural backlash argument has been advanced by my Harvard Kennedy School colleague Pippa
Norris and Ronald Inglehart of the University of Michigan. In a recent book, they argue that
authoritarian populism is the consequence of a long-term generational shift in values.
As younger generations have become richer, more educated, and more secure, they have adopted
"post-materialist" values that emphasize secularism, personal autonomy, and diversity at the
expense of religiosity, traditional family structures, and conformity. Older generations have
become alienated – effectively becoming "strangers in their own land." While the
traditionalists are now numerically the smaller group, they vote in greater numbers and are
more politically active.
Will Wilkinson of the Niskanen Center recently made a similar argument, focusing on the role
of urbanization in particular. Wilkinson argues that urbanization is a process of spatial
sorting that divides society in terms not only of economic fortunes, but also of cultural
values. It creates thriving, multicultural, high-density areas where socially liberal values
predominate. And it leaves behind rural areas and smaller urban centers that are increasingly
uniform in terms of social conservatism and aversion to diversity.
This process, moreover, is self-reinforcing: economic success in large cities validates
urban values, while self-selection in migration out of lagging regions increases polarization
further. In Europe and the US alike, homogenous, socially conservative areas constitute the
basis of support for nativist populists.
On the other side of the argument, economists have produced a number of studies that link
political support for populists to economic shocks. In what is perhaps the most famous among
these, David Autor, David Dorn, Gordon Hanson, and Kaveh Majlesi – from MIT, the
University of Zurich, the University of California at San Diego, and Lund University,
respectively – have shown that votes for Trump in the 2016 presidential election across
US communities were strongly correlated with the magnitude of adverse China trade shocks. All
else being equal, the greater the loss of jobs due to rising imports from China, the higher the
support for Trump.
Indeed, according to Autor, Dorn, Hanson, and Majlesi, the China trade shock may have been
directly responsible for Trump's electoral victory in 2016. Their estimates imply that had
import penetration been 50% lower than the actual rate over the 2002-14 period, a Democratic
presidential candidate would have won the critical states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and
Pennsylvania, making Hillary Clinton the winner of the election.
Other empirical studies have produced similar results for Western Europe. Higher penetration
of Chinese imports has been found to be implicated in support for Brexit in Britain and the
rise of far-right nationalist parties in continental Europe. Austerity and broader measures of
economic insecurity have been shown to have played a statistically significant role as well.
And in Sweden, increased labor-market insecurity has been linked empirically to the rise of the
far-right Sweden Democrats.
The cultural and economic arguments may seem to be in tension – if not downright
inconsistent – with each other. But, reading between the lines, one can discern a type of
convergence. Because the cultural trends – such as post-materialism and
urbanization-promoted values – are of a long-term nature, they do not fully account for
the timing of the populist backlash. (Norris and Inglehart posit a tipping point where socially
conservative groups have become a minority but still have disproportionate political power.)
And those who advocate for the primacy of cultural explanations do not in fact dismiss the role
of economic shocks. These shocks, they maintain, aggravated and exacerbated cultural divisions,
giving authoritarian populists the added push they needed.
Norris and Inglehart, for example, argue that "medium-term economic conditions and growth in
social diversity" accelerated the cultural backlash, and show in their empirical work that
economic factors did play a role in support for populist parties. Similarly, Wilkinson
emphasizes that "racial anxiety" and "economic anxiety" are not alternative hypotheses, because
economic shocks have greatly intensified urbanization-led cultural sorting. For their part,
economic determinists should recognize that factors like the China trade shock do not occur in
a vacuum, but in the context of pre-existing societal divisions along socio-cultural
lines.1
Ultimately, the precise parsing of the causes behind the rise of authoritarian populism may
be less important than the policy lessons to be drawn from it. There is little debate here.
Economic remedies to inequality and insecurity are paramount.
Dani Rodrik, Professor of International Political Economy at Harvard University's John F.
Kennedy School of Government.
Is Plutocracy Really the Problem?
After the 2008 financial crisis, economic policymakers in the United States did enough to
avert another Great Depression, but fell far short of what was needed to ensure a strong
recovery. Attributing that failure to the malign influence of the plutocracy is tempting, but
it misses the root of the problem.
By BRADFORD DELONG
BERKELEY – Why did the policy response to the Great Recession only partly reflect
the lessons learned from the Great Depression? Until recently, the smart money was on the
answers given by the Financial Times commentator Martin Wolf and my Berkeley colleague Barry
Eichengreen. Each has argued that while enough was remembered to prevent the 1929-size shock
of 2008 from producing another Great Depression, many lessons were plowed under by a
rightward ideological shift in the years following the crisis. Since then, the fact that the
worst was avoided has served as an alibi for a suboptimal status quo.
Now, Nobel laureate economist Paul Krugman has offered * an alternative explanation:
plutocracy. At the start of the 2010s, the top 0.01% – 30,000 people around the world,
half of them in the United States – cared little about high unemployment, which didn't
seem to affect them, but were greatly alarmed by government debt. They began demanding
austerity, and, as Krugman contends, "the political and media establishment internalized the
preferences of the extremely wealthy."
Would the US economy of the 2010s have been materially different if the share of total
income accruing to the top 0.01% had not quadrupled in recent decades, from 1.3% to 5%?
Krugman certainly thinks so. "While vigilance can mitigate the extent to which the wealthy
get to define the policy agenda," he writes, "in the end big money will find a way –
unless there's less big money to begin with." Hence, curbing plutocracy should be America's
top priority.
In fact, big money does not always find a way, nor does its influence necessarily increase
as the top 0.01% captures a larger share of total income. Whether the average plutocrat has
1,000 or 50,000 times more than the average worker makes little difference in this respect.
More to the point, big money wasn't the primary determinant of whether policymakers heeded or
forgot the lessons of the Great Depression.
For example, one lesson from that earlier episode is that high unemployment is extremely
unhealthy for an economy and society; a depression is not, as the early twentieth-century
economist Joseph Schumpeter once claimed, a "good, cold douche" for the economy. But this
lesson was forgotten only by a lunatic fringe, some of whom suggested that the Great
Recession was needed to shift workers out of bloated sectors such as home construction.
As for lessons that were forgotten, one is that persistent ultra-low interest rates means
the economy is still short of safe, liquid stores of value, and thus in need of further
monetary expansion. During and after the Great Recession, denying this plain truth and
calling for an end to stimulus became a litmus test for any Republican holding or seeking
office. Worse, these politicians were joined by an astonishingly large number of conservative
economists, who conveniently seemed to forget that the short-term safe interest rate is a
good thermometer for the economy.
To be sure, "big finance" did play a role here, by insisting that the Federal Reserve was
trying to push value away from "fundamentals," even though economic fundamentals are
generally whatever the Fed says they are. But an even more obvious culprit was
hyper-partisanship.
Another lesson is that printing or borrowing money to buy stuff is an effective means for
governments to address worryingly high unemployment. After 2009, the Obama administration
effectively rejected this lesson, in favor of the logic of austerity, even though the
unemployment rate was still 9.9%. A related lesson is that high levels of government debt
need not lead to price instability or an inflationary spiral. As John Maynard Keynes argued
in January 1937, "The boom, not the slump, is the right time for austerity at the Treasury."
Unfortunately, in the early 2010s, those of us who recalled this lesson were consigned to the
margins of debate.
Yet, here, big-money influence was a secondary problem compared to the Democratic Party's
broader surrender to neoliberalism, which started under President Bill Clinton, but reached
its apotheosis in the Obama era. After all, the plutocracy itself profits when money is cheap
and lending is dear.
The larger issue, then, is an absence of alternative voices. If the 2010s had been
anything like the 1930s, the National Association of Manufacturers and the Conference Board
would have been aggressively calling for more investment in America, and these arguments
would have commanded the attention of the press. Labor unions would have had a prominent
voice as advocates for a high-pressure economy. Both would have had very powerful voices
inside the political process through their support of candidates.
Did the top 0.01% put something in the water to make the media freeze out such voices
after 2008? Did the ultra-wealthy create our modern campaign-finance system, in which elite
social networks and door-to-door canvassing are less important than a candidate's
fund-raising totals? The problem is not so much that the plutocracy has grown stronger as
that countervailing powers have disappeared. After all, there are wealthy donors and
philanthropists on the left as well as the right, and some billionaires have even started to
demand that they be taxed more.
Of course, the political implications of plutocracy are dangerous and destructive. In the
US, Olin money has captured the judiciary, Koch money has misinformed the public about global
warming, and Murdoch money routinely terrifies retirees about immigrants. But just because
the public sphere is tainted and skewed by plutocratic influence does not mean that more
rational policymaking is doomed. Once we are aware of the problem, we can begin to work
around it.
Krugman admits as much when he warns "centrist politicians and the media not to pull
another 2011, treating the policy preferences of the 0.1% as the Right Thing as opposed to,
well, what a certain small class of people want." For journalists, academics, elected
officials, and concerned citizens generally, the first task is to ask oneself everyday: Whose
voices are getting more attention than they deserve, and who isn't being heard at all?
Ultimately, it is the public that will decide the fate of the public sphere.
"As for lessons that were forgotten, one is that persistent ultra-low interest rates means
the economy is still short of safe, liquid stores of value, and thus in need of further
monetary expansion."
I think this sentence is nonsense. Ultra low interest rates are a consequence of lots of
low velocity money - and that is heavily correlated with income inequality. https://angrybearblog.com/2019/07/long-bond-yields.html
It is not spelled out why he thinks this but I think he is really talking about the yield
curve not interest rates as such. What he is saying is that if short term interest rates are
low then the demand for short bonds is high because they are seen as an alternative to cash
which is in short supply. If there was more cash then people would either invest more or
spend more. But if all the cash is held by the very rich, there is not much evidence they
will have much urgency to either spend it or invest it. Better to give any created money
directly to poorer people so that it circulates.
Ah, yes, the Fed does not have that power faux liberals reason for excusing the Fed from
doing what needs to be done. Of course, they could bail out foreign governments and private
enterprises with very dubious authority.
But who at the Fed or among Democrats is asking for the Fed to have the power to buy state
bonds for infrastructure? [The silence is deafening!}
And kurt is lying about Republicans having had power form most of the last 40 years, as I
have pointed out on multiple occasions. They never had anything close to a filibuster-proof
majority in the Senate.
However, if you include the significant number of Republicans who opportunistically define
themselves as Democrats, many selected by Team Pelosi and Team Schumer, then you can argue
than Republicans have dominated but only with the complicity of the Democratic
leadership.
Are you positing that the Fed should ignore their charter and break the law? Are you positing
that there was a time in the past 40 years where both the Dems having enough power to amend
the Federal Reserve Act and a need to make such an amendment existed? When?
Is kurt so naïve as to believe that the Fed followed the letter of the law during the
financial crisis? From what I saw it followed the letter of the law not when bailing out
corporations and foreign banks but when it consistently refused to help mortgage holders.
The Fed was directed by legislation to do what you describe. Guess who voted for that
legislation and signed it into law? It is really hard to take someone seriously when they
don't know about TARP.
Yes - this is my point. The FED currently doesn't have the powers that some folks want them
to have - and with Rs controlling the Senate for the foreseeable future, I don't see how the
FED could gain that power - nor can I see a point over the last 40 years where those powers
could have been granted - especially in 08-09 when they would have been useful.
The senate is structurally set up to favor rural voters. Throw in some voter suppression and
some psyops from Putin and I don't see how that is going to change anytime soon.
Also, Trump and a number of prominent Republicans are directly attacking democracy. Trump is
an immediate emergency - but retaking the Senate is also vital.
The Fed [and Democrats] have no interest in expanding the Fed's power beyond helping
banksters, corporations, and foreign banksters.
Since when is it illegal for the Fed to advocate for fiscal stimulus and to help the
general public? Of course, it's not. But the last thing that banksters and their Democratic
poodles will advocate is for the Fed to have authority to bail out we, the people.
The Fed already has a few banks of its own--the Wall Street banks that own it.
I'd prefer to have some more banks that didn't have such a massive conflict of interest.
But instead, the Fed shrinks the number of big banks and tightens the banking oligopoly's
grip on the industry every time there's a recession.
Fair enough. I am all in on georgist. But the fact remains that most of housing crisis is
caused by local control of landuse. The value proposition is far, far from indirect.
Otherwise, why would hoppin Palo Alto have wildly different housing values than Monterey or
Pismo Beach. It is simple, because the entire bay area restricts supply via zoning.
I thought immediately of you when I read this on politico:
"When the Obama administration persuaded Sen. Arlen Specter to switch parties in 2009,
helping Democrats briefly hold a 60-vote Senate supermajority, blogger-activists who could
not forgive Specter's conservative past helped Rep. Joe Sestak defeat Specter in the 2010
primary. Specter's willingness to participate in a Netroots Nation primary debate proved
insufficient for the blogosphere. The victory was pyrrhic, as Sestak then lost the general
election to a Republican."
Only the US Congress Senate out of the 50 something legislatures in the US has the
filibuster, and the GOP has controlled the entire legislature in more than half for the past
quarter century, and at least one chamber in as many as 40 quite often.
And defeating everything you advocate merely requires blocking new laws.
Thus, you are defeated easily by the GOP, yet you keep blaming Obama and Pelosi, but never
the GOP who can "veto" everything you want.
With the filibuster, Democrats could also veto any obnoxious Republican issue they want but
they don't. They'd rather let the social safety net be shredded than exercise their veto
power.
Worse, the Democratic leadership is cunning enough to make sure enough Republicans posing
as Democrats in order to get many Republican initiatives passed. You have a current example
in the House, where Pelosi bends over backwards to appease conservative Blue Dogs while
accommodating the huge progressive caucus with great reluctance.
The
OIG conducted an investigation concerning allegations that an AUSA [Assistant United States
Attorney under Eric Holder] was using his government computer to view inappropriate material on
his government computer. The investigation determined that the AUSA routinely viewed adult
content during official duty hours, and that there was at least one image of child pornography
recovered on the AUSA's government computer. The AUSA acknowledged that he had spent a
significant amount of time each day viewing pornography. The U.S. Attorney's Office [Eric
Holder] declined prosecution.
Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa sent a letter to Eric Holder asking why the lawyer was not
punished, and why he remained on the taxpayer dime for at least two months after being caught.
I was able to find
a copy through the Internet Wayback machine.
In 2006, the DHS's Department of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) ran an
internationally
cooperative investigation into the purchase of subscriptions of child pornography online.
Code-named Project Flicker, the investigation uncovered the identities of 30,000 child porn
subscribers in 132 different nations. Some 250 of these identities belonged to civilian and
military employees of the U.S. Defense Department, who gave their real names and purchased the
porn with government .mil email addresses -- some with the highest security clearances
available. In response, the Pentagon's Department of Criminal Investigative Services (DCIS)
cross-referenced ICE's list with current employment roles and began a series of
prosecutions.
A DCIS
report from July 2010 shows that 30 of these individuals were investigated, despite
uncovering a new total of
264 Defense employees and contractors who had purchased child pornography online. 13 had
Top Secret security clearance. 8 had NATO Secret security clearance. 42 had Secret security
clearance. 4 had Interim Secret security clearance. A total of 76 individuals had Secret
security clearance or higher.
Yet, the investigations were halted entirely after only some 50 total names were
investigated at all, and
just 10 were prosecuted .
A full 212 of the individuals on ICE's list were never even given the most cursory
investigation at all. (Note: The number 5200 keeps popping up in sources covering this -- for
instance,
see here -- and I'm not sure what that number is for: American subscribers? Pentagon email
addresses that weren't confirmed to have actually been used by Pentagon employees, but still
may have been? I'll leave it to anyone interested enough to pursue these individual leads to
see if they can figure that out and get back to us.)
In 2011, the story resurfaced when Anderson Cooper covered it with (again)
Senator Chuck Grassley on CNN. After this, the story appears to have sunk straight back down
into the memory hole yet again. Neither Anderson Cooper nor CNN appear to have given a
follow–up in the five years since the story of the failed investigation first aired --
why not? And why wasn't the first airing enough to lead to mass outrage and calls for action
anyway? See here
for another summary of the squashed investigation from 2014.
Here's a headline from The Washington Times dated June 29, 1989: "Homosexual
prostitution inquiry ensnares VIPs with Reagan, Bush." From the article:
A homosexual prostitution ring is under investigation by federal and District authorities
and includes among its clients key officials of the Reagan and Bush administrations, military
officers, congressional aides and U.S. and foreign businessmen with close social ties to
Washington's political elite, documents obtained by The Washington Times reveal. One of
the ring's high-profile clients was so well-connected, in fact, that he could arrange a
middle-of-the-night tour of the White House for his friends on Sunday, July 3, of last year.
Among the six persons on the extraordinary 1 a.m. tour were two male prostitutes.
Can anyone find a follow-up clarifying what happened as a result of that
investigation? I can't find one here either, though once again I'd appreciate if someone else
was able to.
In the infamous Jimmy Savile sex abuse scandal in Britain, we now know that Savile's
coworkers at the BBC knew that Savile was committing many of his sexual offenses right on
BBC campuses. Paul Gamboccini, who worked next door to him,
said "The expression which I came to associate with Savile's sex partners was . . . the now
politically incorrect 'under-age subnormals'. He targeted the institutionalized, the
hospitalized – and this was known . Why did Jimmy Savile go to hospitals? That's
where the patients were."
Yet, the BBC's official statement was that there
was " no evidence" of misconduct, and they even dismissed claims that
there was a cover-up. But now that Savile's offenses have been confirmed, we know that indeed
there was.
... ... ...
The one most striking line of evidence in the case I will mention is this: the head of the
investigative Franklin committee, Gary Carodori, was convinced that the victim's allegations of
rampant child abuse were true. You can see his interviews with the victims here . On
the way to Chicago to reopen evidence, Carodori met an untimely death when his plane crashed,
and his briefcase of evidence vanished without a trace. According to the Omaha
World-Herald , investigators with the National Transportation Safety Board concluded
that the "scattered wreckage pattern . . . certainly demonstrates that [the plane] did
break up in flight," which in other words means that it didn't fall apart on impact because of
a crash -- the plane crashed because it fell apart.
State Sen. Loran Schmit of Bellwood, chairman of the Franklin legislative committee, told
The Associated Press in Lincoln that he had no doubt there were people who wanted to see
Caradori dead.
"They got their wish," he said. ". . . The question to be answered is whether it was a
coincidence."
Schmit, himself a pilot with 40 years' flying experience, stopped short of saying he thought
Caradori's plane was sabotaged, but he added in an interview with AP:
"A small plane is the perfect thing to use to get at someone. . . . They tend to burn when
they crash, and things get burned, destroyed, scattered. You don't need a bomb. A fuel line
could be tampered with. Any number of possibilities are there."
. . . Scott Caradori of Ralston told the World-Herald that his brother was a careful
flier of more than 15 years who would not take chances, especially with his son on board, and
had never had a mishap.
He said he did not rule out sabotage, given the nature of his brother's work with the
Franklin committee. "Our family received numerous threats over that, telling him to back off,"
he said . . .
... ... ...
Then there's the Dutroux Affair -- a perfect example of the capacity of high–level
pedophiles to destroy investigations by placing the right people in the right positions of
power to protect themselves. In Belgium, a nation of just 10 million people, 350,000 people
took to the streets in an event known as the White March to protest the handling of the case
(in other words, that's approximately 1 out of every 30 citizens of Belgium, including the
elderly and children). Around 1995, multiple young girls began disappearing around the
municipality of Bertrix. Headway in the investigation was finally made when a white van was
reported that the police were able to trace back to Marc Dutroux. Marc Dutroux was a previously
convicted pedophile who was released after serving just a third of his sentence despite the
fact that his own mother had testified to the parole board that he would unquestionably offend again . Though
unemployed and receiving welfare, Dutroux was able to live quite lavishly thanks to selling
children -- he owned seven homes, and used four of them as bases for kidnappings .
But the most disturbing part of this case isn't even the offenses -- it's how deliberately
inept the prosecution was. Police not only investigated Dutroux repeatedly without pressing
charges, they even
reported hearing voices -- and accepted Dutroux's story that the voices came from the
street outside. They ignored a
tip from an informant claiming Dutroux offered him thousands of dollars to participate in a
kidnapping. They even sat on a video tape showing
Dutroux building a makeshift dungeon in his basement, and could have saved the lives of the two
girls who were then being tortured there had they acted on it
Once the case was transferred from police to the courts, the initiative of lead prosecutor
Jean-Marc Conorrette led to the rescue of two girls and the discovery of four bodies.
Conorrette was inexplicably dumped from
the case , and later
broke down in tears in court describing the constant death threats he received while still
on the case. Obviously there were other interested parties, some at least with influence in the
government.
When a parliamentary panel revealed the names of 30 government officials who were
complicit in hiding the misdeeds, none were punished. Nine police
officers were eventually detained, but though a full 100 people in
government, finance, and the media were accused of involvement, no one other than Dutroux
ever made it to jail. (Edit 6:40PM EST 12/24: A friend with connections to intelligence
agencies sent me a message in response to this article to tell me that that this post is a
solid summary of the amount of coverup involved in the Dutroux Affair, despite the overall
conspiratorial leanings of the site itself. He also tells me that the case of
Peter Scully is one that's too little known that has well–documented evidence of
institutional involvement and cover–up.)
In Italy, Alfredo Ormanni who led an investigation into child porn
claimed that a "paedophile lobby that acts in broad daylight and probably with the support,
which" -- he politely added -- he "could consider unwitting, of certain political parties" was
actively disrupting the efforts of his investigation.
In 1987, allegations of
abuse involving dozens of children surfaced at the Presidio military base in San Francisco.
The American Journal of Orthopsychiatry analyzed the victims, and claimed that :
The severity of the trauma for children at the Presidio was immediately manifest in clear
cut symptoms. Before the abuse was exposed, parents had already noticed the following changes
in their children: vaginal discharge, genital soreness, rashes, fear of the dark, sleep
disturbances, nightmares, sexually provocative language, and sexually inappropriate behavior.
In addition, the children were exhibiting other radical changes in behavior, including temper
outbursts, sudden mood shifts, and poor impulse control. All these behavioral symptoms are to
be expected in preschool children who have been molested.
Lt. Col. Michael Aquino, who ended up at the center of the investigation, had previously
appeared on the Oprah
Winfrey show to discuss his views on Satanism (Aquino founded a group called The Temple of
Set).
Records showed that the children were taken on unannounced trips outside the center.
One child positively identified Aquino and his wife, Lilith (known to the kids as 'Mikey'
and 'Shamby'), and was also able to identify the Aquinos' private home and to describe with
considerable accuracy the distinctively satanic interior décor of the house. The young
witness claimed to have been photographed at the Aquinos' home. On August 14, 1987, a search
warrant was served on the house. Confiscated in the raid were numerous videotapes, photographs,
photo albums, photographic negatives, cassette tapes, and name and address books. Also observed
was what appeared to be a soundproof room.
... ... ...
Nonetheless, the case was "
quietly closed " after suspected offenders, including Aquino, were simply moved to
different facilities
And yet again, the leads in these supposedly separate cases come full circle: Michael Aquino
was also linked to the kidnapping of Johnny Gosch in the case of the Franklin scandal
(according to an interview with the boy's
mother , Noreen Gosch).
I'm approaching 5000 words now, so I'm just going to dump some of the other
mainstream–media headlines I found here without further elaboration.
In the UK, MP Tom
Watson confronts PM Cameron in Parliament with evidence of an elite pedophile ring at high
levels ( Video of speech ).
British pedophile ring 'protected by Parliament and Downing Street' ( Belfast Telegraph ) Panic among UK leaders as high-level pedophile network is
covered up: BBC Newsnight program suspended for naming senior Conservative pedophile (
The
Guardian ) Wikileaks cables reveal DynCorp employees purchased child prostitutes in
Afghanistan and the US State Department helped cover it up ( Huffington
Post ) Savile 'had accomplice who would supply girls to sex ring inside BBC' (
The Sun ) Jimmy Savile is the Tip of the Iceberg (This one is a blog , but it references
several worthwhile mainstream sources) France's most notorious serial killer has claimed that
he murdered at least one victim on the orders of highly placed personalities in Toulouse
because of a blackmail threat linked to sadomasochistic orgies involving politicians, judges
and police. ( The Guardian )
Tebbit hints at sex abuse cover-up as pressure over missing files intensifies ( The Guardian ) My Name Is Anneke Lucas and I Was a Sex Slave to Europe's Elite at
Age 6 ( Global Citizen )
For more sources like these, there are collections
here and here and here
-- I share these with the caveat, as always, that I don't necessarily endorse everything there,
but I have found plenty that is useful within them.
To repeat the conclusion I reached earlier: child sex abuse is, without question, a rampant,
institutional, and high-level phenomena. It occurs on a large scale in the highest levels of
power -- in the fields of entertainment, government, and law enforcement -- and members of
these rings have been well-known to gain handles on the relevant positions of power to ensure
their actions are successfully covered up. Whether anything unique or original comes out of
Pizzagate or not, then, my take is that the basic spirit of concern and distrust towards the
elite halls of power that Pizzagaters have demonstrated is their general disposition is
still far closer to the spirit of the truth than the basic attitude of dismissiveness
that such a thing could even occur being demonstrated by those who find it too quick and
easy to dismiss all of Pizzagate in its entirety as nothing more than a hoax -- and I would
stand by this statement even if it turned out that the latter were right.
Given that we know how rampant the problem of institutionalized child sex abuse in upper
levels of power really is, with mounds of unquestioned public evidence stretching back decades
across the world, the amount of evidence it takes to justify suspicion of people in
positions of power drops.
But some question whether it is even appropriate to use words like "evidence" when speaking
of cases like these in reference to Pizzagate. The answer is yes. Logicians call cases like
this "background evidence," which means facts that raise the prior probability that a thing
being alleged could happen, by showing that it does happen, and therefore
increasing the plausibility -- to whatever extent -- that it could have happened in this
particular case. If things like Pizzagate have already happened, then Pizzagate is at least
possibly true as well. If something is actual, that proves that things like it are possible and
thus cannot be simply dismissed as impossible or implausible.
It is important to understand that "evidence" is not the same thing as "proof." For example,
if we know that a man molested every child he had prior to this one, that doesn't prove
that he molested this one. But we would absolutely be interested in knowing that in a court of
law, and specifically it would count as "background evidence" that raises the prior probability
that the claim that he molested this child could be true.
To continue the example, here's what background evidence does: if we know the man has
molested all of his previous children, then we are justified to give increased weight to
whatever direct evidence exists indicating he may have molested this one. If we know the man
has never molested a previous child, then we are justified to give less weight to
whatever direct evidence exists indicating he may have molested this one.
On the other hand, if we knew the child had a history of lying for various reasons, that
wouldn't prove they were lying for those reasons this time too, but it would count as "
background evidence ": relatively speaking, it would cause us to give less
evidentiary weight to the child's statements alone, if those were all we had as evidence.
If the father also molested every child he had previously, those two pieces of background
evidence might basically cancel out. But if we knew the father had never molested any previous
child (background evidence), and we knew the child had a strong history of lying about
similar claims (background evidence), then the two facts put together would suddenly become
enough to make a pretty compelling legal argument all by themselves, even though they have
nothing to do with the specific facts at stake in this specific case, and they do
nothing to deductively refute whatever claims against the father the child might have
made.
In the real world, we often don't have access to the kind of information we would need to
deductively prove or refute things one way or another, so background evidence is sometimes the
only evidence we have to go on, and it is in fact defined as a form of evidence (again,
in court, if you knew that the child had previously made very similar lies and that the father
had never molested a previous child, you would submit that information to the court "as
evidence").
So, whether or not we know high-level sex rings exist, and whether or now we know that they
get covered up, influences how we ought to evaluate the evidentiary relevance of things we do
or do not know when it comes to Pizzagate in particular. You might find similarities between
the way people respond, or in the particular people taking the effort to respond, to Pizzagate
and the way coverups of other cases took place.
For instance, if someone we now know was very active in denying allegations about a case
that later turned out to be true is doing the same in Pizzagate (and for instance, Mark
Thompson of the BBC was credibly accused of helping cover up the Savile scandal, and now
runs the NYT), then we have evidence in the form of recognizing that what's in front of us
fits a certain pattern . Previous cases establish the "patterns" that take place when
one thing or another happen, and therefore influence how we ought to interpret the patterns we
see in front of us in a given case. If the patterns start to match, then that qualifies as
evidence.
So, do high-level sex trafficking rings or organized forms of pedophilia exist in upper
levels of government? How prevalent does it appear to be? As best we can tell, how many of them
are there? How do things tend to go at first when they're exposed? Can we confirm with prior
evidence that they can be and are successfully covered up? All of this directly
influences the likelihood that Pizzagate could be on to something. The more prevalent
these things are, the less overwhelming the direct evidence needs to be to justify concern. The
less prevalent they are, the more overwhelming it needs to be. Just like the history of how
many previous children a man has molested influences how we evaluate the evidence at play when
someone claims he's molesting this one: if he's never done anything of the sort, you're going
to need a lot of evidence before you take the accusation seriously. If you know that he's even
had a history of glancing at child porn, the more of that kind of background evidence you get,
the less direct evidence you need to say that the accusation that he molested this child should
be taken seriously.
Thus, to close, there are two responses we could take to someone who has latched on to a
particular claim involving child sex abuse that turns out not to be accurate: First, we can
call them paranoid idiots and move on with our day, conveniently forgetting about all of the
rampant evil that does in fact exist, comforted by the fact that we could shut someone up for
making us feel uncomfortable -- because, after all, it turns out they actually were wrong about
this particular claim. This appears to be the standard mainstream approach. Second, we can
appreciate the basic human concern that motivates their interest in the subject and point them
in the direction of better evidence for the very thing they're ultimately concerned
about, because the basic thing they are concerned about -- institutionalized child sex abuse in
upper reaches of power -- absolutely is, in fact, real, whether they have the exact details
right or not.
The dry intelligence of skeptics is utterly and entirely useless if it isn't paired with a
natural human drive to care . But the passion of the concerned just might be
invaluable if only it can be paired with a more accurate picture of the facts. And
this is the basic reason why some people have misread the intentions behind this series,
even despite the clarity of my direct words stating that -- again:
"... Only four candidates are consistently polling in the double digits: Biden, who recovered from his early debate stumbles and remains comfortably in the lead; Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who has nevertheless mostly failed to recapture his 2016 magic; Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who seems ascendant; and Senator Kamala Harris of California, potentially the main threat to Biden's rock-solid black support. ..."
"... Gabbard has so far been unable to penetrate this madness despite being young (she's 38), attractive, telegenic, a military veteran, a woman of color, and an articulate, passionate opponent of the regime change wars that have brought our country so much pain. While reliably progressive, she has occasionally reached across the political divide on issues like religious liberty and Big Tech censorship, a potent combination that could prove more responsive to Trump voters' concerns than what we've heard from her neocon lite interlocutor from Youngstown. ..."
"... That's not to say that no one else running is sound on foreign policy -- Bernie has realist advisers and it took real courage for Warren to back Trump's abortive withdrawals from Afghanistan and Syria -- and it required a Democratic House to advance the bipartisan Yemen resolution. But none of them are basing their campaigns on it in the same way Gabbard has. Nor do any of them better represent our military veterans' sharp turn against forever war, arguably the most important public opinion trend of our time. ..."
"... Unfortunately foreign policy and the forever war are not an issue that resonates with voters on either side. Here is an excerpt from NPR . ..."
"... The most important public opinion of our time is not the military realizing that forever war is bad, it's that climate change is occurring now. It is the only issue that will matter to our grandchildren and we haven't begun to deal with it. We need to get serious about this. "A stitch in time saves 9" comes to mind. ..."
"... Foreign policy does not elect American presidents. I like her, and support her, and think she's made valuable points. I hope it is heard. However, there was never any chance that her course would lead to the White House. ..."
It was already one of the most memorable moments of the Democratic presidential debates in this young election cycle. "Leaders
as disparate as President Obama and President Trump have both said they want to end U.S. involvement in Afghanistan but it isn't
over for America," observed moderator Rachel Maddow. "Why isn't it over? Why can't presidents of very different parties and very
different temperaments get us out of there? And how could you?"
Representative Tim Ryan of Ohio responded with talking points that could have been ripped out of a George W. Bush speech circa
2004. "[T]he lesson that I've learned over the years is that you have to stay engaged in these situations," he said, later adding,
"Whether we're talking about Central America, whether we're talking about Iran, whether we're talking about Afghanistan, we have
got to be completely engaged."
Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii was having none of it. "Is that what you will tell the parents of those two soldiers who
were just killed in Afghanistan? Well, we just have to be engaged?" she asked a sputtering Ryan. "As a soldier, I will tell you that
answer is unacceptable. We have to bring our troops home from Afghanistan." Gabbard noted that she had joined the military to fight
those who attacked us on 9/11, not to nation-build indefinitely in Afghanistan, and pointed out the perfidy of Saudi Arabia.
Some likened Gabbard's rebuke of Ryan to the famous 2007 exchange
between Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani
. Except Paul, then a relatively unknown congressman from Texas, was speaking truth to power against "America's Mayor" and the national
GOP frontrunner. Gabbard is polling at 0.8 percent in the national RealClearPolitics average, and was challenging someone at 0.3
percent.
Ryan's asterisk candidacy is unsurprising. But Gabbard has been perhaps the most interesting Democrat running for president and
Wednesday night could be her last stand. She gets to share the stage with frontrunner Joe Biden, like Hillary Clinton a vote for
the Iraq war. There is no guarantee she will get another opportunity: the eligibility criteria for subsequent debates is more stringent
and she has yet to qualify.
The huge Democratic field has been a bust. Of the more than 20 declared presidential candidates, only seven are polling at 2 percent
or more in the national averages. Two more -- Senators Cory Booker and Amy Klobuchar -- are polling at least that well in Iowa.
Only
four candidates are consistently polling in the double digits: Biden, who recovered from his early debate stumbles and remains comfortably
in the lead; Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who has nevertheless mostly failed to recapture his 2016 magic; Senator Elizabeth
Warren of Massachusetts, who seems ascendant; and Senator Kamala Harris of California, potentially the main threat to Biden's rock-solid
black support.
Low-polling candidates have still managed to have an impact. Some, like former secretary of housing and urban development Julian
Castro, have helped coax contenders likelier to win the nomination to the left on immigration. We've thus seen Democrats raise their
hands in support of decriminalizing illegal border crossings in the midst of a migrant crisis not entirely of the Trump administration's
making, expanding Medicare to cover everyone even at the expense of private health insurance, and ensuring that "everyone" includes
illegal immigrants. Transgender abortions, also at taxpayer expense, have come up too.
Gabbard has so far been unable to penetrate this madness despite being young (she's 38), attractive, telegenic, a military veteran,
a woman of color, and an articulate, passionate opponent of the regime change wars that have brought our country so much pain. While
reliably progressive, she has occasionally reached across the political divide on issues like religious liberty and Big Tech censorship,
a potent combination that could prove more responsive to Trump voters' concerns than what we've heard from her neocon lite interlocutor
from Youngstown.
"None of this seems to matter in a Democratic Party that cares more about wokeness than war. In fact, Gabbard's conservative fans
-- The View brought up Ann Coulter -- are often held against her, as is her failure to go all in on Trump-Russia. Ninety-five
Democrats stand ready to impeach Trump over mean tweets with nary a peep over the near-bombing of Iran or the active thwarting of
Congress's will on Yemen.
That's not to say that no one else running is sound on foreign policy -- Bernie has realist advisers and it took real courage
for Warren to back Trump's abortive withdrawals from Afghanistan and Syria -- and it required a Democratic House to advance the bipartisan
Yemen resolution. But none of them are basing their campaigns on it in the same way Gabbard has. Nor do any of them better represent
our military veterans'
sharp turn against forever war, arguably the most important public opinion trend of our time.
Liberals remain skeptical of Gabbard's turn away from social conservatism (which admittedly went far beyond sincerely opposing
gay marriage while Barack Obama was merely pretending to do so), which she attributes to "aloha." In meeting with Bashar al-Assad,
she hurt her credibility as a foe of the Syria intervention, failing to realize that doves are held to a higher standard on these
matters than hawks
.
A saner Democratic Party might realize the chances are far greater that their nominee will be a covert hawk rather than a secret
right-winger. Only time will tell if vestiges of that party still exist.
I generally like Tulsi, but she's a mixed bag for Democrats and an easy mark for her Beltway opponents. She needs more time, but
could be a very effective member of a Democrat's cabinet.
Unfortunately foreign policy and the forever war are not an issue that resonates with voters on either side. Here is an
excerpt from NPR .
"That is one finding from the latest NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll, which shows that Americans have limited confidence in its
public schools, courts, organized labor and banks -- and even less confidence in big business, the presidency, the political
parties and the media.
.....
The only institution that Americans have overwhelming faith in is the military -- 87 percent say they have a great deal or
quite a lot of confidence in the military. That is a striking change from the 1970s during and after the Vietnam War."
A military that has been a consistent loser for decades. How depressing!
I was ready to replace Mike Pompeo with Tulsi Gabbard the day after the first debate. It would be very unfortunate if she got
bumped out. I live in California (an open primary state), which means I would have voted for her in the primary.
Anyone who wants to keep as much focus on foreign policy issues as possible during the Democratic Party primary campaigns should
contribute to Tulsi Gabbard's campaign. It looks like she needs another 20,000 unique contributors in order to qualify for the
third debate in September. Even contributing a dollar or two is sufficient.
Fortunately, she is yet so young. She has many years before her, and, when the old Democratic Party dies, much like its old Republican
counterpart did in 2016, Tulsi and people like her will be able to take over.
Also, covert hawks are either critically endangered or extinct in the wild. They're all open now in both parties.
Tulsi will be the leading progressive / conservative on the stage this evening, looking forward to seeing how she handles being
asked to criticize Bernie. (I'm a Tulsi fan.)
Btw, a saner American Conservative would realize a big field almost always looks like this. Can you name the 20 or so who ran
as Republicans a few years ago?
The most important public opinion of our time is not the military realizing that forever war is bad, it's that climate change
is occurring now. It is the only issue that will matter to our grandchildren and we haven't begun to deal with it. We need to
get serious about this. "A stitch in time saves 9" comes to mind.
What you seem to be missing about the Democratic Party is that the rift between progressives (extremists asking for higher
wages for those who work, etc.) and establishment types (let's fix the ACA) is ultimately more significant than the upcoming Presidential
election.
This is why I tell anyone who askes that I don't have a favorite for the Democratic Presidential nominee yet, but I know exactly
who I want for VP. That person is whoever comes in second. If HRC had chosen Bernie for VP, she would be President today and no
Republican Congress would have dared to impeach her for fear of seating the first Democratic Socialist President in America's
history.
After multiple *change* elections that have failed to deliver, change will once again be on the ballot in 2020. This time,
for the sake of our Nation and our world, let's hope it's real change this time. Tulsi would certainly be part of that, maybe
not as a nominee, but in the Cabinet.
Foreign policy does not elect American presidents.
I like her, and support her, and think she's made valuable points. I hope it is heard. However, there was never any chance
that her course would lead to the White House.
Maybe she can get a senior post and shape policy on our endless wars. Or maybe she'll have a louder voice in Congress. However,
the best she could do with this is influence.
@Kevin Barrett Jack Ruby did not kill Oswald "for the Jews." He was the Mafia capo of
Dallas and was following orders in Plan B when two previous attempts to kill Oswald failed.
He tried to get out of it, but had no choice but to follow orders that he could not refuse.
Philip Zelikow, effectively the sole author of that
work of fiction known as the 9/11 Commission Report (which he completed in chapter
outline before the Commission even convened) is a history professor and self-styled expert in
"the creation and maintenance of public myths." Zelikow defines public myths as "beliefs (1)
thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared
in common within the relevant political community." The public myths he is most interested in
are those that most powerfully shape political perception and behavior; the first example he
gives is the myth of the dastardly Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, which transformed
America from an isolationist republic to an interventionist empire.
Anyone who has studied the alternative literature on such events as Pearl Harbor, the
Kennedy assassinations, and 9/11 knows that any overwhelmingly powerful mythic event that
changes public perceptions and, in so doing, changes history, ought to be greeted with profound
suspicion and subjected to the most painstaking scrutiny. As Philip Zelikow wrote in
a 1998 Foreign Affairs article , a catastrophic terror attack on America, such as
the destruction of the World Trade Center, would be a "transforming event," a "watershed event
in American history" that would, "like Pearl Harbor divide our past and future into a before
and after." The "after" would feature "draconian measures, scaling back civil liberties,
allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and use of deadly force."
Zelikow's 2001 false flag operation would achieve all that and more. It succeeded in demonizing
opposition to Zionism and empire, and to tyranny in general, by associating resistance with the
fearsome image of a scary looking guy sporting an easily-identifiable villain's beard.
"... Besides preventing social movements from undertaking independent political activity to their left, the Democrats have been adept at killing social movements altogether. They have done – and continue to do – this in four key ways: ..."
"... i) inducing "progressive" movement activists (e.g. Medea Benjamin of Code Pink and the leaders of Moveon.org and United for Peace and Justice today) to focus scarce resources on electing and defending capitalist politicians who are certain to betray peaceful- and populist-sounding campaign promises upon the attainment of power; ..."
"... (ii) pressuring activists to "rein in their movements, thereby undercutting the potential for struggle from below;" ..."
"... (iii) using material and social (status) incentives to buy off social movement leaders; ..."
"... iv) feeding a pervasive sense of futility regarding activity against the dominant social and political order, with its business party duopoly. ..."
"... It is not broken. It is fixed. Against us. ..."
"... The militarization of US economy and society underscores your scenario. By being part of the war coalition, the Democratic party, as now constituted, doesn't have to win any presidential elections. The purpose of the Democratic party is to diffuse public dissent in an orderly fashion. This allows the war machine to grind on and the politicians are paid handsomely for their efforts. ..."
"... By joining the war coalition, the Democrats only have leverage over Republicans if the majority of citizens get "uppity" and start demanding social concessions. Democrats put down the revolt by subterfuge, which is less costly and allows the fiction of American Democracy and freedom to persist for a while longer. Republicans, while preferring more overt methods of repressing the working class, allow the fiction to continue because their support for authoritarian principles can stay hidden in the background. ..."
"... When this political theatre in the US finally reaches its end date, what lies behind the curtain will surely shock most of the population and I have little faith that the citizenry are prepared to deal with the consequences. A society of feckless consumers is little prepared to deal with hard core imperialists who's time has reached its end. ..."
"... This wrath of frustrated Imperialists will be turned upon the citizenry ..."
Mainstream Dems are performing their role very well. Most likely I am preaching to the choir. But anyways, here is a review
of Lance Selfa's book "Democrats: a critical history" by Paul Street :
Besides preventing social movements from undertaking independent political activity to their left, the Democrats have
been adept at killing social movements altogether. They have done – and continue to do – this in four key ways:
i) inducing "progressive" movement activists (e.g. Medea Benjamin of Code Pink and the leaders of Moveon.org and United
for Peace and Justice today) to focus scarce resources on electing and defending capitalist politicians who are certain to
betray peaceful- and populist-sounding campaign promises upon the attainment of power;
(ii) pressuring activists to "rein in their movements, thereby undercutting the potential for struggle from below;"
(iii) using material and social (status) incentives to buy off social movement leaders;
iv) feeding a pervasive sense of futility regarding activity against the dominant social and political order, with its
business party duopoly.
The militarization of US economy and society underscores your scenario. By being part of the war coalition, the Democratic
party, as now constituted, doesn't have to win any presidential elections. The purpose of the Democratic party is to diffuse public
dissent in an orderly fashion. This allows the war machine to grind on and the politicians are paid handsomely for their efforts.
By joining the war coalition, the Democrats only have leverage over Republicans if the majority of citizens get "uppity"
and start demanding social concessions. Democrats put down the revolt by subterfuge, which is less costly and allows the fiction
of American Democracy and freedom to persist for a while longer. Republicans, while preferring more overt methods of repressing
the working class, allow the fiction to continue because their support for authoritarian principles can stay hidden in the background.
I have little faith in my fellow citizens as the majority are too brainwashed to see the danger of this political theatre.
Most ignore politics, while those that do show an interest exercise that effort mainly by supporting whatever faction they belong.
Larger issues and connections between current events remain a mystery to them as a result.
Military defeat seems the only means to break this cycle. Democrats, being the fake peaceniks that they are, will be more than
happy to defer to their more authoritarian Republican counterparts when dealing with issues concerning war and peace. Look no
further than Tulsi Gabbard's treatment in the party. The question is really should the country continue down this Imperialist
path.
In one sense, economic recession will be the least of our problems in the future. When this political theatre in the US
finally reaches its end date, what lies behind the curtain will surely shock most of the population and I have little faith that
the citizenry are prepared to deal with the consequences. A society of feckless consumers is little prepared to deal with hard
core imperialists who's time has reached its end.
This wrath of frustrated Imperialists will be turned upon the citizenry.
The purpose of the "Clintonized" Democratic Party is to diffuse public dissent to neoliberal rule in an orderly fashion. The
militarization of US economy and society means that by joining the war coalition, the Democratic party doesn't have to win any presidential
elections to remain in power. Because military-industrial complex rules the country.
Yes Clinton neoliberals want to stay in control and derail Sanders, much like they did in 2016. Biden and Harris are Clinton faction
Trojan horses to accomplish that. But times changed and they might have to agree on Warren inread of Biden of Harris.
Notable quotes:
"... Trump fought the swamp, and the swamp won. Trump campaigned on ending our stupid pointless wars and spending that money on ourselves – and it looked at first like he might actually deliver (how RACIST of the man!) but not to worry, he is now surrounded by uber hawks and the defense industry dollars are continuing to flow. Which the Democrats are fine with. ..."
"... Trump campaigned on a populist platform, but once elected the only thing he really pushed for was a big juicy tax cut for himself and his billionaire buddies – which the Democrats are fine with (how come they can easily block attempts to stop the flow of cheap labor across the southern border, but not block massive giveaway tax cuts to the super rich? Because they have their priorities). ..."
"... So yeah, Trump is governing a lot like Hilary Clinton would have. ..."
"... I think it's much more likely that a Sanders victory would see the Clintonistas digging even further into the underbelly of the Democratic Party. There they would covertly and overtly sabotage Sanders, brief against him in the press and weaken, corrupt and hamstring any legislation that he proposes ..."
"... electing Sanders can not be the endgame, only the beginning. I think Nax is completely right that a Sanders win would bring on the full wrath of all its opponents. Then the real battle would begin. ..."
"... The notion that real change could happen in this country by winning an election or two is naive in the extreme. But that doesn't make it impossible. ..."
"... Lots of people hired by the Clintons, Obama, Rahm Emanuel, Cuomo, etc. will have to be defenestrated. Lose their public sector jobs, if not outright charged with crimes. No one must be left in a position to hurt you after the election. Anyone on the "other side" must lose all power or ability to damage you, except those too weak. These people can be turned and used by you; they can be kept in line with fear. But all the leaders must go. ..."
"... In order for Sanders to survive the onslaught that will surely come, he must have a jobs program ready to go on day one of his administration- and competent people committed to his cause ready to cary out the plan. ..."
"... Besides preventing social movements from undertaking independent political activity to their left, the Democrats have been adept at killing social movements altogether. They have done – and continue to do – this in four key ways: ..."
"... i) inducing "progressive" movement activists (e.g. Medea Benjamin of Code Pink and the leaders of Moveon.org and United for Peace and Justice today) to focus scarce resources on electing and defending capitalist politicians who are certain to betray peaceful- and populist-sounding campaign promises upon the attainment of power; ..."
"... (ii) pressuring activists to "rein in their movements, thereby undercutting the potential for struggle from below;" ..."
"... (iii) using material and social (status) incentives to buy off social movement leaders; ..."
"... iv) feeding a pervasive sense of futility regarding activity against the dominant social and political order, with its business party duopoly. ..."
"... It is not broken. It is fixed. Against us. ..."
"... Obama spent tens of trillions of dollars saving Wall Street – at the expense of Main Street – so that nothing got resolved about the problems that caused the crash in the first place. Trump's policies are doubling down on these problems so there is going to be a major disruption coming down the track. A major recession perhaps or maybe even worse. ..."
"... The militarization of US economy and society underscores your scenario. By being part of the war coalition, the Democratic party, as now constituted, doesn't have to win any presidential elections. The purpose of the Democratic party is to diffuse public dissent in an orderly fashion. This allows the war machine to grind on and the politicians are paid handsomely for their efforts. ..."
"... By joining the war coalition, the Democrats only have leverage over Republicans if the majority of citizens get "uppity" and start demanding social concessions. Democrats put down the revolt by subterfuge, which is less costly and allows the fiction of American Democracy and freedom to persist for a while longer. Republicans, while preferring more overt methods of repressing the working class, allow the fiction to continue because their support for authoritarian principles can stay hidden in the background. ..."
"... When this political theatre in the US finally reaches its end date, what lies behind the curtain will surely shock most of the population and I have little faith that the citizenry are prepared to deal with the consequences. A society of feckless consumers is little prepared to deal with hard core imperialists who's time has reached its end. ..."
"... This wrath of frustrated Imperialists will be turned upon the citizenry ..."
"... By owning the means of production, the Oligarchs will be able to produce the machinery of oppression without the resort to 'money.' In revolutionary times, the most valuable commodity would be flying lead. ..."
"... Could that be why "our" three-letter agencies have been stocking up on that substance for awhile, now? ..."
"... " The purpose of the Democratic Party is to diffuse public dissent in an orderly fashion." ..."
"... Yes, this election is starting to remind me of 2004. High-up Dems, believing they're playing the long game, sacrifice the election to maintain standing with big biz donors. ..."
"... Sadly, when Sanders speaks of a "revolution", and when he is referred to as a revolutionary, while at the same time accepting that the Democratic Party is a Party of the top 10%, puts into context just how low the bar is for a political revolution in America. ..."
"... actual democracy is an impediment to those who wield power in today's America, and in that respect the class war continues to be waged, primarily through divisive social issues to divert our attention from the looting being done by and for the rich and the decline in opportunity and economic security for everyone else. ..."
"... the Democratic Party consultant class, I call them leeches, is fighting for its power at the expense of the party and the country. ..."
"... The DLC-type New Democrats (corporatists) have been working to destroy New Deal Democrats and policies as a force in the party. The New Deal Democrats brought in bank regulations, social security, medicare, the voting rights act, restraint on financial predation, and various economic protections for the little-guy and for Main Street businesses. ..."
"... The DLC Dems have brought deregulation of the banks and financial sector, an attempt to cut social security, expansion of prisons, tax cuts for corporations and the billionaires, the return of monopoly power, and the economic squeeze on Main Street businesses forced to compete with monopolies. ..."
That 2020 existential battle, of course, is always cast as between the Democrats and the Republicans.
But there's another existential battle going on, one that will occur before the main event -- the battle for control of the Democratic
Party. In the long run, that battle may turn out to be more important than the one that immediately follows it.
... ... ...
Before mainstream Democrats can begin the "existential battle" with the forces of Trump and Republicanism, they have to win the
existential battle against the force that wants to force change on their own party.
They're engaged in that battle today, and it seems almost all of the "liberal media," sensing the existential nature of the threat,
is helping them win it. Katie Halper, in a second perceptive piece on the media's obvious anti-Sanders bias, "
MSNBC's Anti-Sanders
Bias Is Getting Truly Ridiculous ," writes: "When MSNBC legal analyst Mimi Rocah (
7/21/19 ) said that Bernie Sanders 'made [her] skin crawl,'
though she 'can't even identify for you what exactly it is,' she was just expressing more overtly the
anti-Sanders bias that pervades the network."
... ... ...
MSNBC is clearly acting as a messaging arm of the Democratic Party mainstream in its battle with progressives in general and Sanders
in particular, and Zerlina Maxwell, who's been variously employed by that mainstream, from her work with Clinton to her work on MSNBC,
is an agent in that effort.
Let me repeat what Matt Taibbi wrote: " [Sanders'] election would mean a complete overhaul of the Democratic Party, forcing
everyone who ever worked for a Clinton to look toward the private sector. "
Agreed. Trump fought the swamp, and the swamp won. Trump campaigned on ending our stupid pointless wars and spending that
money on ourselves – and it looked at first like he might actually deliver (how RACIST of the man!) but not to worry, he is now
surrounded by uber hawks and the defense industry dollars are continuing to flow. Which the Democrats are fine with.
Trump campaigned on enforcing the laws against illegal immigration and limiting legal immigration, but he's now pretty much
given up, the southern border is open full "Camp of the Saints" style and he's pushing for more legal 'guest' workers to satisfy
the corporate demands for cheap labor – and the Democrats are for this (though Sanders started to object back in 2015 before he
was beaten down).
Trump campaigned on a populist platform, but once elected the only thing he really pushed for was a big juicy tax cut for
himself and his billionaire buddies – which the Democrats are fine with (how come they can easily block attempts to stop the flow
of cheap labor across the southern border, but not block massive giveaway tax cuts to the super rich? Because they have their
priorities).
Soon I expect that Trump will propose massive regressive tax increases on the working class – which of course the Democrats
will be fine with ('to save the planet').
So yeah, Trump is governing a lot like Hilary Clinton would have.
And elections are pretty much pointless. Even if Sanders does win, he'll get beaten down faster even than Trump was.
I think people have a hard time with real inflection points. Most of life uses more short-term linear decision making. But
at inflection points we have multiple possibilities that turn into rather surprising turns of events, such as Brexit and Trump.
We still have people saying in the UK – "but they wouldn't do that!" The hell "they" won't. Norms are thrown out of the window
and people start realising how wide the options are. This is not positive or negative. Just change or transformation.
That is my philosophical way of agreeing with you! It is easy to point at the hostility of the mainstream media and DNC as
there being no way for Sanders to win. After all in 2004, look what the media and DNC did to Howard Dean. But people weren't dying
then like they are now. The "Great Recession" wasn't on anyone's radar. People felt rich, like everything would be fine. We are
not in that situation – the facts on the ground are so wildly different that the DNC and mainstream media will find it hard to
stay in control.
I think it's much more likely that a Sanders victory would see the Clintonistas digging even further into the underbelly
of the Democratic Party. There they would covertly and overtly sabotage Sanders, brief against him in the press and weaken, corrupt
and hamstring any legislation that he proposes.
If Sanders should win against Trump expect the establishment to go into full revolt. Capital strike, mass layoffs, federal
reserve hiking interest rates to induce a recession, a rotating cast of Democrats siding with Republicans to block legislation,
press comparing him to worse than Carter before he even takes office and vilifying him all day every day.
I wouldn't be shocked to see Israel and the Saudis generate a crisis in, for example, Iran so Sanders either bends the knee
to the neocons or gets to be portrayed as a cowardly failure for abandoning our 'allies' for the rest of his term.
You've just convinced me that the American Experiment is doomed. No one else but Sanders can pull America out of its long slow
death spiral and your litany of the tactics of subversion of his presidency is persuasive that even in the event of his electoral
victory, there will be no changing of the national direction.
I'm reading a series of essays by Morris Berman in his book "Are We There Yet". A lot of critics complain that he is too much
the pessimist, but he presents some good arguments, dark though they may be, that the American Experiment was doomed from the
start due to the inherent flaw of Every Man For Himself and its "get mine and the hell with everybody else" attitude that has
been a part of the experiment from the beginning.
He is absolutely right about one thing, we are a country strongly based on hustling for money as much or more than anything
else, and both Trump and the Clintons are classic examples of this, and why the country often gets the leaders it deserves.
That's why I believe that we need people like Sanders and Gabbard in the Oval Office. It is also why I believe that should
either end up even getting close, Nax is correct. Those with power in this country will not accept the results and will do whatever
is necessary to subvert them, and the Voter will buy that subversion hook, line, and sinker.
No. The point is that electing Sanders can not be the endgame, only the beginning. I think Nax is completely right that
a Sanders win would bring on the full wrath of all its opponents. Then the real battle would begin.
The notion that real change could happen in this country by winning an election or two is naive in the extreme. But that
doesn't make it impossible.
Lots of people hired by the Clintons, Obama, Rahm Emanuel, Cuomo, etc. will have to be defenestrated. Lose their public
sector jobs, if not outright charged with crimes. No one must be left in a position to hurt you after the election. Anyone on
the "other side" must lose all power or ability to damage you, except those too weak. These people can be turned and used by you;
they can be kept in line with fear. But all the leaders must go.
In order for Sanders to survive the onslaught that will surely come, he must have a jobs program ready to go on day one
of his administration- and competent people committed to his cause ready to cary out the plan.
The high ground is being able to express a new vision for the common good, 24/7, and do something to bring it about. You win
even if you suffer losses.
Without that, life in the USA will become very disruptive to say the least.
Mainstream Dems are performing their role very well. Most likely I am preaching to the choir. But anyways, here is a review
of Lance Selfa's book "Democrats: a critical history" by Paul Street :
Besides preventing social movements from undertaking independent political activity to their left, the Democrats have
been adept at killing social movements altogether. They have done – and continue to do – this in four key ways:
i) inducing "progressive" movement activists (e.g. Medea Benjamin of Code Pink and the leaders of Moveon.org and United
for Peace and Justice today) to focus scarce resources on electing and defending capitalist politicians who are certain to
betray peaceful- and populist-sounding campaign promises upon the attainment of power;
(ii) pressuring activists to "rein in their movements, thereby undercutting the potential for struggle from below;"
(iii) using material and social (status) incentives to buy off social movement leaders;
iv) feeding a pervasive sense of futility regarding activity against the dominant social and political order, with its
business party duopoly.
Pretty bad optics on MSNBC's part being unable to do simple numbers and I can fully believe that their motto starts with the
words "This is who we are". Jimmy Dore has put out a few videos on how bad MSNBC has been towards Bernie and Progressives lately
so it is becoming pretty blatant. Just spitballing a loose theory here but perhaps the Democrats have decided on a "poisoned chalice"
strategy and do want not to win in 2020.
After 2008 the whole economy should have had a major re-set but Obama spent tens of trillions of dollars saving Wall Street
– at the expense of Main Street – so that nothing got resolved about the problems that caused the crash in the first place. Trump's
policies are doubling down on these problems so there is going to be a major disruption coming down the track. A major recession
perhaps or maybe even worse.
Point is that perhaps the Democrats have calculated that it would be best for them to leave the Republicans in power to own
this crash which will help them long term. And this explains why most of those democrat candidates look like they have fallen
out of a clown car. The ones capable of going head to head with Trump are sidelined while their weakest candidates are pushed
forward – people like Biden and Harris. Just a theory mind.
The militarization of US economy and society underscores your scenario. By being part of the war coalition, the Democratic
party, as now constituted, doesn't have to win any presidential elections. The purpose of the Democratic party is to diffuse public
dissent in an orderly fashion. This allows the war machine to grind on and the politicians are paid handsomely for their efforts.
By joining the war coalition, the Democrats only have leverage over Republicans if the majority of citizens get "uppity"
and start demanding social concessions. Democrats put down the revolt by subterfuge, which is less costly and allows the fiction
of American Democracy and freedom to persist for a while longer. Republicans, while preferring more overt methods of repressing
the working class, allow the fiction to continue because their support for authoritarian principles can stay hidden in the background.
I have little faith in my fellow citizens as the majority are too brainwashed to see the danger of this political theatre.
Most ignore politics, while those that do show an interest exercise that effort mainly by supporting whatever faction they belong.
Larger issues and connections between current events remain a mystery to them as a result.
Military defeat seems the only means to break this cycle. Democrats, being the fake peaceniks that they are, will be more than
happy to defer to their more authoritarian Republican counterparts when dealing with issues concerning war and peace. Look no
further than Tulsi Gabbard's treatment in the party. The question is really should the country continue down this Imperialist
path.
In one sense, economic recession will be the least of our problems in the future. When this political theatre in the US
finally reaches its end date, what lies behind the curtain will surely shock most of the population and I have little faith that
the citizenry are prepared to deal with the consequences. A society of feckless consumers is little prepared to deal with hard
core imperialists who's time has reached its end.
This wrath of frustrated Imperialists will be turned upon the citizenry.
By owning the means of production, the Oligarchs will be able to produce the machinery of oppression without the resort
to 'money.'
In revolutionary times, the most valuable commodity would be flying lead.
If the nation wishes true deliverance, not just from Trump and Republicans, but from the painful state that got Trump elected
in the first place, it will first have to believe in a savior.
No, no, no, no, no. No oooshy religion, which is part of what got us into this mess. Cities on a hill. The Exceptional Nation(tm).
Obligatory burbling of Amazing Grace. Assumptions that everyone is a Methodist. And after Deliverance, the U S of A will be magically
re-virginated (for the umpteenth time), pure and worthy of Manifest Destiny once again.
If you want to be saved, stick to your own church. Stop dragging it into the public sphere. This absurd and sloppy religious
language is part of the problem. At the very least it is kitsch. At its worst it leads us to bomb Muslim nations and engage in
"Crusades."
Other than that, the article makes some important points. In a year or so, there will be a lot of comments here on whether
or not to vote for the pre-failed Democratic candidate, once the Party dumps Bernie Sanders. There is no requirement of voting
for the Democrats, unless you truly do believe that they will bring the Deliverance (and untarnish your tarnished virtue). Vote
your conscience. Not who Nate Silver indicates.
Yes, this election is starting to remind me of 2004. High-up Dems, believing they're playing the long game, sacrifice the
election to maintain standing with big biz donors. The leading issue of the day (Iraq/GWOT/Patriot Act) was erased from mainstream
US politics and has been since. Don't for a minute think they won't do a similar thing now. Big donors don't particularly fear
Trump, nor a 6-3 conservative supreme court, nor a Bolton state dept, nor a racist DHS/ICE – those are not money issues for them.
Sadly, when Sanders speaks of a "revolution", and when he is referred to as a revolutionary, while at the same time accepting
that the Democratic Party is a Party of the top 10%, puts into context just how low the bar is for a political revolution in America.
The candidate who would fight and would govern for the 90% of Americans is a revolutionary.
The fact that it can be said as a given that neither major Party is being run specifically to serve the vast majority of our
country is itself an admission for that the class war begun by Reagan has been won, in more of a silent coup, and the rich have
control of our nation.
Sadly, actual democracy is an impediment to those who wield power in today's America, and in that respect the class war
continues to be waged, primarily through divisive social issues to divert our attention from the looting being done by and for
the rich and the decline in opportunity and economic security for everyone else.
Sanders is considered a revolutionary merely for stating the obvious, stating the truth. That is what makes him dangerous to
those that run the Democratic Party, and more broadly those who run this nation.
Sanders would do better to cast himself not as a revolutionary, but as a person of the people, with the belief that good government
does not favor the wants of the richest over the needs of our country. That is what makes him a threat. To the rich unseen who
hold power, to the Republican Party, and to some Democrats.
I agree with the thesis here, and confess to being puzzled by comments on LGM (for example) politics threads of the ilk "I'm
with Warren but am good with Buttigieg too," or "I'm with Sanders but am good with Harris, too," etc.
I love reading Taibbi, but in
his article , that quote, " Sanders is the revolutionary. His election would mean a complete overhaul of the Democratic
Party, forcing everyone who ever worked for a Clinton to look toward the private sector ," should be the lede, and its buried
2/3 of the way down.
This primary season is about how the Democratic Party consultant class, I call them leeches, is fighting for its power
at the expense of the party and the country.
Yves writes: it is unfortunate that this struggle is being personified, as in too often treated by the media and political
operatives as being about Sanders.
I agree. Sanders represents the continuing New Deal-type policies. The DLC-type New Democrats (corporatists) have been
working to destroy New Deal Democrats and policies as a force in the party. The New Deal Democrats brought in bank regulations,
social security, medicare, the voting rights act, restraint on financial predation, and various economic protections for the little-guy
and for Main Street businesses.
The DLC Dems have brought deregulation of the banks and financial sector, an attempt to cut social security, expansion
of prisons, tax cuts for corporations and the billionaires, the return of monopoly power, and the economic squeeze on Main Street
businesses forced to compete with monopolies.
The MSM won't talk about any of the programmatic differences between the two sides. The MSM won't recognize the New Deal style
Democratic voters even exist; the New Deal wing voters are quickly labeled 'deplorable' instead voters with competing economic
policies to the current economic policies.
So, we're left with the MSM focusing on personalities to avoid talking about the real policy differences, imo.
When Bernie talks about a revolution, he explains how it must be from the grassroots, from the bottom up. If he manages to
get elected, his supporters have to make sure they get behind the politicians who also support him and, if they don't, get rid
of them.
Without continuing mass protests, nothing is going to happen. Other countries have figured this out but Americans remain clueless.
"... Aggressive wars abroad pollute the domestic political discourse and breed hypernationalism, racism and xenophobia. The 18 or so years of war following the 9/11 attacks have seen this ostensible republic sink to new lows of behavior. ..."
"Empires in decline tend to behave badly. Indeed, whether British, French or Russian, the
twilight years of imperialism often brought brutal repression of subjects abroad, the
suppression of civil liberties at home and general varieties of brutality toward foreigners, be
they refugees or migrants.
Aggressive wars abroad pollute the domestic political discourse and breed
hypernationalism, racism and xenophobia. The 18 or so years of war following the 9/11 attacks
have seen this ostensible republic sink to new lows of behavior.
Aggressive wars of choice have ushered in rampant torture, atrocities in Iraq's Abu Ghraib
prison, indefinite detention at Guantanamo Bay, extraordinary rendition, drone assassinations,
warrantless wiretapping, mass surveillance of the citizenry...
It's all connected. The empire -- all empires -- eventually come home."
Maj. Danny Sjursen, An American Tragedy: Empire at Home and Abroad
The New Quincy Institute Seeks Warmongering Monsters to Destroy Andrew Bacevich on his new left-right group, which is
going hammer and tongs against the establishment on foreign policy. By
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos •
July 30, 2019
Andrew J. Bacevich participates in a panel discussion at the U.S. Naval War College in 2016. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication
Specialist 1st Class Christian S. Eskelund/Released) For the last month, the foreign policy establishment has been abuzz over the
new kid on the block: the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft , named
for John Quincy Adams. Adams, along with our first president George Washington,
warned of foreign entanglements and the urge to go
abroad in "search of monsters to destroy," lest America's fundamental policy "insensibly change from liberty to force
. She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit ."
Those in the foreign policy Blob have had different reactions to the "upstart" think tank. These are the preeminent organizations
that stand imperious in size and square footage, but have lacked greatly in wisdom and clarity over the last 20 years. Quincy will
stand apart from them in two significant ways: it is drawing its intellectual and political firepower from both the anti-war Left
and the realist and restraint Right. And it is poised to support a new "responsible statecraft," one that challenges the conditions
of endless war, including persistent American militarism here and abroad, the military industrial complex, and a doctrine that worships
primacy and a liberal world order over peace and the sovereignty of other nations.
Quincy, which is rolling out its statement of principles this
week (its official launch will be in the fall), is the brainchild of Trita Parsi, former head of the National Iranian-American Council,
who saw an opening to bring together Left and Right academics, activists, and media disenchanted by both sides' pro-war proclivities.
Together with Vietnam veteran and former Boston University professor Andrew Bacevich (also a longtime TAC contributor), the
Carnegie Endowment's Suzanne DiMaggio, Columbia University's Stephen Wertheim, and investigative journalist Eli Clifton, the group
wants to serve as a counterweight to both liberal interventionists like the Brookings Institution and Council on Foreign Relations,
and the war hawks and neoconservatives of the Heritage Foundation and Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
They've already taken hits from both sides of the establishment, dismissed brusquely
as naive , or worse,
isolationist (that swipe from neoconservative Bill Kristol, whose now-defunct Weekly Standard once ran a manifesto headlined
"The Case for American Empire"
). The fact that Quincy will be funded by both George Soros on the Left and the Charles Koch Foundation on the Right has brought
some rebuke from unfriendlies and even some friendlies. The former hate on one or the other powerful billionaire, while the latter
are wary of Soros' intentions (he's has long been a financial supporter of
"soft-power"
democracy movements overseas, some of which have encouraged revolution and regime change).
Advertisement
But Quincy's timing couldn't be more perfect. With a president in the White House who has promised to draw down U.S. involvement
overseas (with the exception of his Iran policy, he has so far held to much of that pledge), and national conservatives coming around
to TAC's long-held worldview on realism and restraint (and an increasing willingness to reach across the aisle to work with
like-minded groups and individuals), Quincy appears poised to make some noise in Washington.
According to the group's new statement of principles , "responsible
statecraft" 1) serves the public interest, 2) engages the world, 3) builds a peaceful world, 4) abhors war, and 5) is democratic.
Andrew Bacevich and Trita Parsi expanded on this further in a recent Q&A with TAC.
(Full disclosure: the author is on Quincy's steering committee and TAC also receives funding from the Charles Koch Foundation.)
TAC : Quincy's principles -- and thus it's name -- are rooted in the mission of "responsible statecraft." Can you give
me a sense of what that means in practical terms, and why you settled on this phrasing for the institute?
AB: With the end of the Cold War, policy elites succumbed to an extraordinary bout of hubris, perhaps best expressed in the claim
that history had designated the United States as its "indispensable nation." Hubris bred recklessness and irresponsibility, with
the Iraq war of 2003 as Exhibit A. We see "responsible statecraft" as the necessary antidote. Its abiding qualities are realism,
restraint, prudence, and vigorous engagement. While the QI is not anti-military, we are wary of war except when all other alternatives
have been exhausted. We are acutely conscious of war's tendency to produce unintended consequences and to exact unexpectedly high
costs.
TAC : Quincy is a trans-partisan effort that is bringing together Left and Right for common cause. Is it a challenge?
AB: It seems apparent to us that the myriad foreign policy failures and disappointments of the past couple of decades have induced
among both progressives and at least some conservatives a growing disenchantment with the trajectory of U.S. policy. Out of that
disenchantment comes the potential for a Left-Right coalition to challenge the status quo. The QI hopes to build on that potential.
TAC : Two of the principles take direct aim at the current foreign policy status quo: responsible statecraft abhors war,
and responsible statecraft is democratic (calling out a closed system in which Americans have had little input into the wars waged
in their names). How much of what Quincy aims to do involves upending conventional norms, particularly those bred and defended by
the Washington "Blob"?
AB: In a fundamental sense, the purpose of the QI is to educate the American people and their leaders regarding the Blob's shortcomings,
exposing the deficiencies of old ideas and proposing new ones to take their place.
TAC: That said, how much blowback do you anticipate from the Washington establishment, particularly those think tanks and
individuals whose careers and very existence depend on the wheels of militarism forever turning?
AB : Plenty. Proponents of the status quo are entrenched and well-funded. Breaking old habits -- for example, the practice of
scattering U.S. military bases around the world -- will not come easily.
TAC : There has been much ado about your two primary funders -- Charles Koch and George Soros. What do you say to critics
who suggest you will be tied to/limited by their agendas?
AB: Our funding sources are not confined to Koch and Soros and we will continue to broaden our support base. It's not for me to
speak for Koch or Soros. But my guess is they decided to support the QI because they support our principles. They too believe in
policies based on realism, restraint, prudence, and vigorous engagement.
TAC : Better yet, how did you convince these two men to fund something together?
TP: It is important to recognize that they have collaborated in the past before, for instance on criminal justice reform. This
is, however, the first time they've come together to be founding funders of a new entity. I cannot speak for them, but I think they
both recognize that there currently is a conceptual deficit in our foreign policy. U.S. elite consensus on foreign policy has collapsed
and the void that has been created begs to be filled. But it has to be filled with new ideas, not just a repackaging of old ideas.
And those new ideas cannot simply follow the old political alignments. Transpartisan collaboration is necessary in order to create
a new consensus. Koch and Soros are showing tremendous leadership in that regard.
TAC : The last refuge of a scorned hawk is to call his critics "isolationist." It would seem as though your statement of
principles takes this on directly. How else does Quincy take this often-used invective into account?
AB : We will demonstrate through our own actions that the charge is false.
TAC : Critics (including James Traub,
in his own piece on Quincy
) say that Washington leaders, once in office, are "mugged by reality," suggesting that the idea of rolling back military interventions
and avoiding others sounds good on paper but presidents like Barack Obama had no choice, that this is all about protecting interests
and hard-nosed realism. The alternative is a bit naive. How do you respond?
AB: Choices are available if our leaders have the creativity to recognize them and the gumption to pursue them. Obama's patient
and resolute pursuit of the Iran nuclear deal affirms this possibility. The QI will expose the "we have no choice" argument as false.
We will identify and promote choice, thereby freeing U.S. policy from outmoded habits and stale routines.
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos is e xecutive editor at . Follow her on Twitter
@Vlahos_at_TAC
QI is a welcome change from the endless, whining tirade of the old hawks.
I wish them well in gaining influence in DC.
I hope that they can give voice to the growing numbers of us who do not support illegal invasions, funding dissidents to
foment regime change and our flawed system of selecting key allies (regardless of their human rights records) and protecting
them and their interests at all cost. This has been a drain our economic resources and moral standing.
In this time, when nationalism and disaster capitalism seem to be winning on both sides of the Atlantic, it seems there
is little hope for peace, decency and diplomacy.
QI has a huge challenge to take on the parasitic organism that is the war machine, but any initiative is better than none.
If Quincy is to have any chance of success in its mission, it will have to tackle the issues surrounding Federal election campaign
financing. The current rules give a handful of American billionaires effective control over US Middle East policy. What is
good for donors like Sheldon and Miriam Edelson is not necessarily good for the American public. Donald Trump was elected president
of the US not Prime Minister of Israel.
I did read one of Mr. Basevich's books a few years ago and my take away remains valid today: The US cannot afford to be
the policeman of the world.
I don't use Social Media myself, but near the end of the 2016 presidential campaign, I
gradually began seeing more and more Trump supporters referring to something called
"Pizzagate," a burgeoning sexual scandal that they claimed would bring down Hillary Clinton and
many of the top leaders of her party, with the chatter actually increasing after Trump was
elected. As near as I could tell, the whole bizarre theory had grown up on the far-right fringe
of the Internet, with the utterly fantastical plot having something to do with stolen secret
emails, DC pizza parlors, and a ring of pedophiles situated near the top of the Democratic
Party. But given all the other strange and unlikely things I'd gradually discovered about our
history, it didn't seem like something I could necessarily dismiss out of hand.
At the beginning of December, a right-wing blogger produced a lengthy exposition of the
Pizzagate charges, which finally gave me some understanding of what was actually under
discussion, and I soon made arrangements to republish his article. It quickly attracted a great
deal of interest, and some websites pointed to it as the best single introduction to the
scandal for a general audience.
Pizzagate Aedon
Cassiel • December 2, 2016 • 3,100 Words
A couple of weeks later, I republished an additional article by the same writer, describing
a long list of previous pedophilia scandals that had occurred in elite American and European
political circles. Although many of these seemed to be solidly documented, nearly all of them
had received minimal coverage by our mainstream media outlets. And if such political pedophile
rings had existed in the relatively recent past, was it so totally implausible that there might
be another one simmering beneath the surface of today's Washington DC?
Those interested in the details of the Pizzagate Hypothesis are advised to read these
articles, especially the first one, but I might as well provide a brief summary.
John Podesta had been a longtime fixture in DC political circles, becoming chief of staff
to President Bill Clinton in 1998, and afterward remaining one of the most powerful figures in
the Democratic Party establishment. While serving as as chairman of Hillary Clinton's 2016
presidential campaign, his apparent carelessness with the password security of his Gmail
account allowed it to easily be hacked, and tens of thousands of his personal emails were soon
published on WikiLeaks. A swarm of young anti-Clinton activists began scouring this
treasure-trove of semi-confidential information, seeking evidence of mundane bribery and
corruption, but instead they came across some quite odd exchanges, seemingly written in coded
language.
Now use of coded language in a supposedly secure private email account raises all sorts
of natural suspicions regarding what might have been under discussion, with the most likely
possibilities being illegal drugs or sex. But most of the references didn't seem to fit the
former category, and in our remarkably libertine era, in which political candidates compete for
the right to be Grand Marshal at an annual Gay Pride Parade, one of the few sexual activities
still discussed only in whispers would seem to be pedophilia, with some of the very strange
remarks possibly hinting at this.
The researchers also soon discovered that his brother Tony Podesta, one of the wealthiest
and most successful lobbyists in DC, had extremely odd taste in art. Major items of his very
extensive personal collection seemed to represent tortured or murdered bodies, and one of his
favorite artists was best known for paintings depicting young children being held captive,
lying dead, or suffering under severe distress. Such peculiar artwork obviously isn't
illegal, but it might naturally arouse some suspicions. And oddly enough, arch-Democrat Podesta
had long been a close personal friend of former Republican Speaker and convicted child-molester
Dennis Hastert, welcoming him back into DC society after his release from prison.
Furthermore, some of the rather suspiciously-worded Podesta emails referred to events
held at a local DC pizza parlor, greatly favored by the Democratic Party elite, whose owner was
the gay former boyfriend of David Brock, a leading Democratic activist. The public Instagram
account of that pizza-entrepreneur apparently contained numerous images of young children,
sometimes tied or bound, with those images frequently labeled by hashtags using the traditional
gay slang for underage sexual targets . Some photos showed the fellow wearing a tee-shirt
bearing the statement "I Love Children" in French, and by a very odd coincidence, his possibly
assumed name was phonetically identical to that very same French phrase, thus proclaiming to
the world that he was "a lover of children." Closely connected Instagram accounts also
included pictures of young children, sometimes shown amid piles of high-value currency, with
queries about how much those particular children might be worth. None of this seemed illegal,
but surely any reasonable person would regard the material as extremely suspicious.
DC is sometimes described as "Powertown," being the seat of the individuals who make
America's laws and govern our society, with local political journalists being closely attuned
to the relative status of such individuals. And oddly enough, GQ Magazine had ranked that
gay pizza parlor owner with a strange focus on young children as being one of the 50 most
powerful people in our national capital, placing him far ahead of many Cabinet members,
Senators, Congressional Chairmen, Supreme Court justices, and top lobbyists. Was his pizza
really that delicious?
These few paragraphs provide merely a sliver of the large quantity of highly-suspicious
material surrounding various powerful figures at the apex of the DC political world. A vast
cloud of billowing smoke is certainly no proof of any fire, but only a fool would completely
ignore it without attempting further investigation.
I usually regard videos as a poor means of imparting serious information, far less effective
and meaningful than the simple printed word. But the overwhelming bulk of the evidence
supporting the Pizzagate Hypothesis consists of visual images and screen shots, and these are
naturally suited to a video presentation.
Some of the best summaries of the Pizzagate case were produced by a young British
YouTuber named Tara McCarthy, whose work was published under the name of "Reality Calls," and
her videos were viewed hundreds of thousands of times. Although her channel was eventually
banned and her videos purged, copies were later reloaded to other accounts, both on YouTube and
BitChute. Some of the evidence she presents seemed rather innocuous or speculative to me and
other elements were probably based upon her unfamiliarity with American society and culture.
But a great deal of extremely suspicious material remains, and I would suggest that people
watch the videos and decide for themselves.
Around the same time that I first became familiar with the details of the Pizzagate
controversy, the topic also started reaching the pages of my morning newspapers, but in an
rather strange manner. Political stories began giving a sentence or two to the "Pizzagate
hoax," describing it as a ridiculous right-wing "conspiracy theory" but excluding all relevant
details. I had an eery feeling that some unseen hand had suddenly flipped a switch causing the
entire mainstream media to begin displaying identical signs declaring "Pizzagate Is False --
Nothing To See There!" in brightly flashing neon. I couldn't recall any previous example of
such a strange media reaction to some obscure Internet controversy.
Articles in the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times also suddenly
appeared denouncing the entirety of the alternative media -- Left, Right, and Libertarian --
as
"fake news" websites promoting Russian propaganda , while urging that their content be
blocked by all patriotic Internet giants such as Facebook, Twitter, and Google. Prior to that
moment, I'd never even heard the term "fake news" but suddenly it was ubiquitous across the
media, once again almost as if some unseen hand had suddenly flipped a switch.
I naturally began to wonder whether the timing of these two strange developments was
entirely coincidental. Perhaps Pizzagate was indeed true and struck so deeply at the core of
our hugely corrupted political system that the media efforts to suppress it were approaching
the point of hysteria.
Not long afterward, Tara McCarthy's detailed Pizzagate videos were purged from YouTube. This
was among the very first instances of video content being banned despite fully conforming to
all existing YouTube guidelines, another deeply suspicious development.
I also noticed that mere mention of Pizzagate had become politically lethal. Donald Trump
had selected Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, as his
National Security Advisor, and Flynn's son served as the latter's chief of staff. The younger
Flynn happened to Tweet out a couple of links to Pizzagate stories, pointing out that the
accusations hadn't yet been actually investigated let alone disproven, and very soon afterward,
he was
purged from the Trump transition team, foreshadowing his father's fall a few weeks later.
It seemed astonishing to me that a few simple Tweets about an Internet controversy could have
such huge real-life impact near the top of our government.
The media continued its uniform drumbeat of "Pizzagate Has Been Disproven!" but we were
never told how or by whom, and I was not the only individual to notice the hollowness of such
denunciations. An award-winning investigative journalist named Ben Swann at a CBS station in
Atlanta broadcast a short television segment summarizing the Pizzagate controversy and noting
that contrary to widespread media claims, Pizzagate had neither been investigated nor debunked.
Swann was almost immediately purged by CBS but a copy of his television segment remains
available for viewing on the Internet.
There is an old wartime proverb that enemy flak is always heaviest over the most important
target, and the remarkably ferocious wave of attacks and censorship against anyone broaching
the subject of Pizzagate seems to raise obvious dark suspicions. Indeed, the simultaneous waves
of attacks against all alternative media outlets as "Russian propaganda outlets" laid the basis
for the continuing regime of Social Media censorship that has become a central aspect of
today's world.
Pizzagate may or may not turn out to be true, but the ongoing Internet crackdown has
similarly engulfed topics of a somewhat similar nature but with vastly stronger documentation.
Although I don't use Twitter myself, I encountered the obvious implications of this new
censorship policy following McCain's death last August. The senator had died on a Saturday
afternoon, and readership of Sydney Schanberg's long 2008 expose quickly exploded, with
numerous individuals Tweeting out the story and a large fraction of our incoming traffic
therefore coming from Twitter. This continued until the following morning, at which point the
huge flood of Tweets continued to grow, but all incoming Twitter traffic suddenly and
permanently vanished, presumably because "shadow banning" had rendered those Tweets invisible.
My own article on McCain's very doubtful war record simultaneously suffered the same fate, as
did numerous other articles of a controversial nature that we published later that same
week.
Perhaps that censorship decision was made by some ignorant young intern at Twitter, casually
choosing to ban as "hate speech" or "fake news" a massively-documented 8,400 word expose by one
of America's most distinguished journalists, a Pulitzer-prize winning former top editor at
The New York Times .
Or perhaps certain political-puppeteers who had spent decades controlling that late Arizona
senator sought to ensure that their political puppet-strings remained invisible even after his
death.
"... " that perhaps the best career move for an ambitious young politician would be to secretly commit some monstrous crime and then make sure that the hard evidence of his guilt ended up in the hands of certain powerful people, thereby assuring his rapid political rise." ..."
"... "Indeed, under our putative system of democracy, especially since JFK, the oligarchy will not allow the election of any candidate who cannot be blackmailed." ..."
"... No wonder the shenannigans of compromised office-holding puppets (actors, really) and their shadowy string-pullers never seem to be known to their spear-carriers in MSM. ..."
Kudos, Ron Unz. Excellent article and a useful tutorial on the hidden control mechanism of
what the late Paul A. Samuelson called our "democratic oligarchy".
I applaud your parlor joke:
" that perhaps the best career move for an ambitious young politician would be to
secretly commit some monstrous crime and then make sure that the hard evidence of his guilt
ended up in the hands of certain powerful people, thereby assuring his rapid political
rise."
A great French investigative reporter crafted an unfunny version:
"Indeed, under our putative system of democracy, especially since JFK, the oligarchy
will not allow the election of any candidate who cannot be blackmailed."
-- Thierry Meyssan, Before our very eyes -- fake wars and big lies from 9/11 to Donald
Trump , p. 146.
He had just described the 911 caper as a Cheney-led deep-state coup to activate the secret
but long-standing CoG procedure to sideline the Constitution. It succeeded when clueless
Dubya was reinstated as figure-head president within 24 hours after agreeing to the clique's
CoG (continuity of government) agenda, including the planned wars.
No wonder the shenannigans of compromised office-holding puppets (actors, really) and
their shadowy string-pullers never seem to be known to their spear-carriers in MSM.
"... Evidence has emerged that the U.S. State Department is tied to a child trafficking operation involving Billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. shared the tail number of his Bell Long Ranger 206L3 helicopter (tail number N474AW) with a U.S. State Department OV-10D Bronco ..."
"... . Descriptions of sex between adult males and underage females by XXX company employees in Bosnia in the 2000-2002 time frame coincides with descriptions of sex . on .. aircraft and [at] residences in Palm Beach, Florida; New Mexico; and on the island of Little Saint James in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Among the "Jane Does" filing suit against the U.S. government for concluding can anyone get the details of these suits? ..."
"... So so disgusting. First there was the catholic church pedophile scandal. Then there is the Epstein scandal ..."
Evidence has emerged that the U.S. State Department is tied to a child trafficking operation involving Billionaire pedophile
Jeffrey Epstein. shared the tail number of his Bell Long Ranger 206L3 helicopter (tail number N474AW) with a U.S. State Department
OV-10D Bronco. According to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) registration database. Descriptions of sex
between adult males and underage females by XXX company employees in Bosnia in the 2000-2002 time frame coincides with descriptions
of sex . on .. aircraft and [at] residences in Palm Beach, Florida; New Mexico; and on the island of Little Saint James in the
U.S. Virgin Islands. Among the "Jane Does" filing suit against the U.S. government for concluding can anyone get the details of
these suits?
"... The Epstein conspiracy grows worse. One of the victims filed a federal lawsuit. Once filed, this is public record. The only redactions allowed are social security numbers and the like. ..."
"... When the Miami Herald went to obtain the Motion for Summary Judgment, it was completely redacted. 137 pages of blacked out paragraphs. ..."
"... This type of redaction is unheard, unprecedented- appalling. ..."
"... If the redactions stand, we should riot in the street. We knew justice was bought, but pedophilia usually will stir up some dregs of bureaucratic slugs to action. ..."
"... Once you start researching the Epstein matter - not for the lurid details - but the unprecedented, jaw dropping preferential treatment of an actual human sex trafficker ( not this fake #metoo hysteria) – all hope is lost. ..."
"... Dozens of little girls – all poor and from fatherless backgrounds marred by parental drug abuse, suicides and physical abuse- selected and sexually devastated by Epstein- not a word. ..."
The Epstein conspiracy grows worse.
One of the victims filed a federal lawsuit. Once filed, this is public record. The only
redactions allowed are social security numbers and the like.
When the Miami Herald went to obtain the Motion for Summary Judgment, it was completely
redacted. 137 pages of blacked out paragraphs.
A motion for summary judgment is basically saying there are no material issues in dispute-
nothing to litigate. This document would contain all relevant facts about the case. This type of redaction is unheard, unprecedented- appalling.
The only reason the Herald is in pursuit ( and any other MSM) is because they believed it
would destroy Trump.
It's now on appeal. If the redactions stand, we should riot in the street. We knew justice
was bought, but pedophilia usually will stir up some dregs of bureaucratic slugs to
action.
And with a parallel to McCain, if Clinton slithers out of this- with over 27 flights on
the Lolita Express- he is officially the most untouchable man in history.
Once you start researching the Epstein matter - not for the lurid details - but the
unprecedented, jaw dropping preferential treatment of an actual human sex trafficker ( not
this fake #metoo hysteria) – all hope is lost.
Note the strange silence from Hollywood and the elites regarding Epstein's victims, when
they were wearing hair shirts over Christine Fords 30 year old accusation.
A wealthy smug scold, who looks like an exploded can of rotten biscuit dough had them
weeping on camera.
Dozens of little girls – all poor and from fatherless backgrounds marred by parental
drug abuse, suicides and physical abuse- selected and sexually devastated by Epstein- not a
word.
"... top national figures merely being attractive front-men selected for their popular appeal and their political malleability, a development that may eventually have dire consequences for the nations they lead. As an extreme example, a drunken Boris Yeltsin freely allowed the looting of Russia's entire national wealth by the handful of oligarchs who pulled his strings, and the result was the total impoverishment of the Russian people and a demographic collapse almost unprecedented in modern peacetime history. ..."
"... An obvious problem with installing puppet rulers is the risk that they will attempt to cut their strings, much like Putin soon outmaneuvered and exiled his oligarch patron Boris Berezovsky. One means of minimizing such risk is to select puppets who are so deeply compromised that they can never break free, knowing that the political self-destruct charges buried deep within their pasts could easily be triggered if they sought independence. ..."
"... I have sometimes joked with my friends that perhaps the best career move for an ambitious young politician would be to secretly commit some monstrous crime and then make sure that the hard evidence of his guilt ended up in the hands of certain powerful people, thereby assuring his rapid political rise. ..."
"... In The Dark Side of Camelot , famed investigative reporter Seymour Hersh claimed that secret blackmail evidence of JFK's extra-marital affairs probably played a crucial role in having his administration overrule the unanimous verdict of all top Pentagon advisors and award the largest military procurement contract in U.S. history to General Dynamics instead of Boeing, thereby saving the former company from likely bankruptcy and its major organized-crime shareholders from devastating financial losses. Hersh also suggests that a similar factor likely explains JFK's last-minute reversal in the choice of his Vice President, a decision that landed Lyndon Johnson on the 1960 ticket and placed him in the White House after Kennedy's 1963 assassination. ..."
"... Similar rumors swirl around events much farther back in history as well, sometimes with enormous consequences. Well-placed contemporary sources have claimed that Samuel Untermyer, a wealthy Jewish lawyer, purchased the secret correspondence between Woodrow Wilson and his longtime mistress, and that the existence of that powerful leverage may have been an important factor behind Wilson's astonishingly rapid rise from president of Princeton in 1910 to governor of New Jersey in 1911 to president of the United States in 1912. ..."
"... Without naming any names, since 2001 it has been difficult to avoid noticing that one of the most zealous and committed supporters of the Neocon party-line on all Middle Eastern foreign policy matters has been a leading Republican senator from one of the most socially-conservative Southern states, a man whose rumored personal inclinations have long circulated on the Internet. The strikingly-sudden reversal of this individual on a major policy question certainly supports these suspicions. There have also been several other such examples involving prominent Republicans. ..."
"... There are lurid rumors that the Syndicate possessed secret photos of Hoover wearing a dress and high-heels, but just a few years ago Rep. Mike Honda of San Jose desperately placed his eight-year-old transgendered grand-daughter front-and-center in his unsuccessful attempt to win reelection. ..."
"... There seems to be a great deal of evidence that powerful organizations and individuals have successfully managed to suppress credible accusations of that practice for very long periods of time if no group with substantial media influence chose to target the offenders for unmasking. ..."
"... There is also the intriguing example of Dennis Hastert. As the longest serving Republican Speaker of the House in U.S. history, holding office during 1999-2007, Hastert was third in line to the Presidency and even ranked as our nation's top Republican elected official during some of that period. Based upon my newspaper readings, he had always struck me as a rather bland and ordinary individual, with journalists sometimes even strongly hinting at his mediocrity, so that I occasionally wondered just how someone so unimpressive could have risen to such extremely high national office. ..."
"... During the summer of 2007, the Internet was ablaze with claims that Sen. John Edwards, a runner-up in the 2004 Democratic presidential primaries, had just fathered a child with his mistress, and those reports were backed by seemingly-credible visual evidence, including photos showing the married senator holding his new-born baby. Yet as the days and even the weeks went by, not a whiff of this salacious scandal ever reached the pages of any of my morning newspapers or the rest of the mainstream media although it was a top conversation topic everywhere else. ..."
"... Probably one reason I paid so little attention to the topic was the exceptionally lurid nature of the claims being made. Epstein was supposedly an enormously wealthy Wall Street financier of rather mysterious personal background and source of funds, who owned a private island and an immense New York City mansion, both regularly stocked with harems of underage girls provided for sexual purposes. He allegedly hobnobbed on a regular basis with Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew, Harvard's Alan Dershowitz, and numerous other figures in the international elite, as well as a gaggle of ordinary billionaires, frequently transporting those individuals on his personal jet known as "the Lolita Express" for the role it played in facilitating illegal secret orgies with young girls. When right-wing bloggers on obscure websites claimed that former President Clinton and the British Royals were being sexually serviced by the underage girls of a James Bond super-villain brought to life, I just assumed those accusations were the wildest sort of Internet exaggeration. ..."
"... The author of a long 2003 Epstein profile that had appeared in Vanity Fair explained that she had personally spoken to some of his victims and included their highly-credible accounts in her article, but that those portions had been stricken and removed by her timorous editors. ..."
"... As presented by these media outlets, Epstein's personal rise also seemed rather inexplicable unless he had benefited from some powerful network or similar organization. Lacking any college degree or credentials, he had somehow gotten a job teaching at one of New York City's most elite prep schools, then quickly jumped to working at a top investment bank, rising to partner with astonishing speed until he was fired a few years later for illegal activity. Despite such a scanty and doubtful record, he was soon managing money for some of America's wealthiest individuals, and keeping so much of it for himself that he was regularly described as a billionaire. According to newspaper accounts, his great specialty was "making connections for people." ..."
"... Obviously, Epstein was a ruthlessly opportunistic financial hustler. But extremely wealthy individuals must surely be surrounded by great swarms of ruthlessly opportunistic financial hustlers, and why would he have been so much more successful than all those others? Perhaps a clue comes from the offhand remark of Epstein's now-disgraced prosecutor, saying that he had been told to go very easy on the sex-trafficker because he "belonged to intelligence." The vague phrasing of that statement raises questions about whether the intelligence service may not have been one controlled by the U.S. government. ..."
"... Philip Giraldi, a highly-regarded former CIA officer, put things very plainly when he suggested that Epstein had probably been working for the Israeli Mossad, operating "honey traps" to obtain blackmail information on all the wealthy and powerful individuals whom he regularly plied with underage girls. Indeed, longtime Canadian journalist Eric Margolis recounted his early 1990s visit to Epstein's enormous NYC mansion, in which he had barely crossed the threshold before he was offered an "intimate massage" by one of the many young girls there, presumably in a bedroom well-stocked with hidden cameras. ..."
"... Given my personal lack of interest in the Epstein case, then or now, perhaps a few of these details may be garbled, but it seems undeniable that he was exactly the sort of remarkable renegade often faced by Agent 007 in the movies, and the true facts will presumably come out at his trial. ..."
"... John Podesta had been a longtime fixture in DC political circles, becoming chief of staff to President Bill Clinton in 1998, and afterward remaining one of the most powerful figures in the Democratic Party establishment. While serving as as chairman of Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign, his apparent carelessness with the password security of his Gmail account allowed it to easily be hacked, and tens of thousands of his personal emails were soon published on WikiLeaks. A swarm of young anti-Clinton activists began scouring this treasure-trove of semi-confidential information, seeking evidence of mundane bribery and corruption, but instead they came across some quite odd exchanges, seemingly written in coded language. ..."
"... Now use of coded language in a supposedly secure private email account raises all sorts of natural suspicions regarding what might have been under discussion, with the most likely possibilities being illegal drugs or sex. But most of the references didn't seem to fit the former category, and in our remarkably libertine era, in which political candidates compete for the right to be Grand Marshal at an annual Gay Pride Parade, one of the few sexual activities still discussed only in whispers would seem to be pedophilia, with some of the very strange remarks possibly hinting at this. ..."
"... The researchers also soon discovered that his brother Tony Podesta, one of the wealthiest and most successful lobbyists in DC, had extremely odd taste in art. Major items of his very extensive personal collection seemed to represent tortured or murdered bodies, and one of his favorite artists was best known for paintings depicting young children being held captive, lying dead, or suffering under severe distress. ..."
"... Furthermore, some of the rather suspiciously-worded Podesta emails referred to events held at a local DC pizza parlor, greatly favored by the Democratic Party elite, whose owner was the gay former boyfriend of David Brock, a leading Democratic activist. The public Instagram account of that pizza-entrepreneur apparently contained numerous images of young children, sometimes tied or bound, with those images frequently labeled by hashtags using the traditional gay slang for underage sexual targets ..."
"... Closely connected Instagram accounts also included pictures of young children, sometimes shown amid piles of high-value currency, with queries about how much those particular children might be worth. None of this seemed illegal, but surely any reasonable person would regard the material as extremely suspicious. ..."
"... oddly enough, GQ Magazine had ranked that gay pizza parlor owner with a strange focus on young children as being one of the 50 most powerful people in our national capital, placing him far ahead of many Cabinet members, Senators, Congressional Chairmen, Supreme Court justices, and top lobbyists. Was his pizza really that delicious? ..."
"... Some of the best summaries of the Pizzagate case were produced by a young British YouTuber named Tara McCarthy, whose work was published under the name of "Reality Calls," and her videos were viewed hundreds of thousands of times. Although her channel was eventually banned and her videos purged, copies were later reloaded to other accounts, both on YouTube and BitChute. Some of the evidence she presents seemed rather innocuous or speculative to me and other elements were probably based upon her unfamiliarity with American society and culture. But a great deal of extremely suspicious material remains, and I would suggest that people watch the videos and decide for themselves. ..."
...The Arizona senator had traded on his national reputation as our best-known former POW to
bury the story of those abandoned prisoners, permitting America's political establishment to
escape serious embarrassment. As a result, Sen. McCain earned the lush rewards of our generous
ruling elites, much like his own father Admiral John S. McCain, Sr., who had led the cover-up
of the deliberate
1967 Israeli attack on the U.S.S. Liberty , which killed or wounded over 200 American
servicemen.
As publisher of The American Conservative , I ran Schanberg's remarkable piece as a cover
story, and across several websites over the years it has surely been read many hundreds of
thousands of times, including a huge spike around the time of McCain's death. I therefore find
it rather difficult to believe that the many journalists investigating McCain's background
might have remained unaware of this material. Yet no hints of these facts were provided in any
of the articles appearing in any remotely prominent media outlets as can be seen by searching
for web pages containing "McCain and Schanberg" dated around the time of the Senator's
passing.
Schanberg's journalistic stature had hardly been forgotten by his former colleagues. Upon
his death a couple of years ago, the Times ran a very long and
glowing obituary , and a few months later I attended the memorial tribute to his life and
career held at the New York Times headquarters building, which more than two hundred
prominent journalists mostly from his own generation, including those of the highest rank.
Times Publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. gave a speech describing how as a young man he
had always so greatly admired Schanberg and had been mortified by the unfortunate circumstances
of his departure from the family's newspaper. Former Executive Editor Joseph Lelyveld recounted
the many years he had worked closely with the man he had long considered his closest friend and
colleague, someone whom he almost seemed to regard as his older brother. But during the two
hours of praise and remembrance scarcely a single word was uttered in public about the gigantic
story that had occupied the last two decades of Schanberg's celebrated career.
This same blanket of media silence also enveloped the very serious accusations regarding
McCain's own Vietnam War record. A few years ago, I drew upon the Times and other fully
mainstream sources to strongly
suggest that McCain's stories of his torture as a POW were probably fictional, invented to
serve as a cover and an excuse for the very real record of his wartime collaboration with his
Communist captors. Indeed, at the time our American media reported his activities as one of the
leading propagandists of our North Vietnamese foes, but these facts were later flushed down the
memory-hole. McCain's father then ranked as one of America's top military officers, and it
seems likely that his personal political intervention ensured that the official narrative of
his son's wartime record was transmuted from traitor to war-hero, thereby allowing the younger
McCain to later embark upon his celebrated political career.
The story of the abandoned Vietnam POWs and McCain's own Communist propaganda broadcasts
hardly exhaust the catalog of the major skeletons in the late Senator's closet. McCain was
regularly described by reporters as being remarkably hot-headed and having a violent temper,
but the national press left it to the alternative media to investigate the real-life
implications of those rather suggestive phrases.
In a September 1, 2008 Counterpunch expose later published online ,
Alexander Cockburn reported that interviews with two emergency room physicians in Phoenix
revealed that around the time that McCain was sucked into the political maelstrom of the
Keating Five Scandal, his wife Cindy was admitted to her local hospital suffering from a black
eye, facial bruises, and scratches consistent with physical violence, and this same situation
occurred two additional times over the next few years. Cockburn also noted several other highly
suspicious marital incidents during the years that followed, including the Senator's wife
appearing with a bandaged wrist and her arm in a sling not long after she joined her husband on
the 2008 campaign trail, an injury reported by our strangely incurious political journalists as
being due to "excessive hand-shaking." It's an odd situation when a tiny leftist newsletter can
easily uncover facts that so totally eluded the vast resources of our entire national press
corps. If there were credible reports that Melania Trump had been repeatedly admitted to local
emergency rooms suffering from black eyes and facial bruises, would our corporate media have
remained so uninterested in any further investigation?
McCain had first won his Arizona Congressional seat in 1982, not long after he moved into
the state, with his campaign bankrolled by his father-in-law's beer-distributorship fortune,
and that inheritance eventually elevated the McCain household into one of the wealthiest in the
Senate. But although the Senator spent the next quarter-century in public life, even nearly
upsetting George W. Bush for the 2000 Republican presidential nomination, only in late 2008 did
I
learn from the Times that the Phoenix beer-monopoly in question, then valued at
around $200 million, had accrued to a man whose lifelong business partner Kemper Marley had
long been deeply linked to organized crime . Indeed, close associates of that latter
individual had been
convicted by a jury of the car-bomb assassination of a Phoenix investigative crime reporter
just a few years before McCain's sudden triumphal entrance into Arizona politics. Perhaps such
guilt-by-association is improper, but would our national press-corps have remained silent if
the personal fortune of our current president were only a step or two removed from the car-bomb
assassins of a nosy journalist who died while investigating mobsters?
As I gradually became aware of these enormities casually hidden in McCain's background, my
initial reaction was disbelief that someone whose record was so deeply tarnished in so many
different ways could ever have reached such a pinnacle of American political power. But as the
media continued to avert its eyes from these newly revealed facts, even those disclosed in the
pages of the Times itself, I gradually began to consider matters in a different light.
Perhaps McCain's elevation to great American political power was not in spite of the
devastating facts littering his personal past, but because of them. As I
wrote a few years ago:
Today when we consider the major countries of the world we see that in many cases the
official leaders are also the leaders in actuality: Vladimir Putin calls the shots in Russia,
Xi Jinping and his top Politburo colleagues do the same in China, and so forth. However, in
America and in some other Western countries, this seems to be less and less the case, with
top national figures merely being attractive front-men selected for their popular appeal and
their political malleability, a development that may eventually have dire consequences for
the nations they lead. As an extreme example, a drunken Boris Yeltsin freely allowed the
looting of Russia's entire national wealth by the handful of oligarchs who pulled his
strings, and the result was the total impoverishment of the Russian people and a demographic
collapse almost unprecedented in modern peacetime history.
An obvious problem with installing puppet rulers is the risk that they will attempt to cut
their strings, much like Putin soon outmaneuvered and exiled his oligarch patron Boris
Berezovsky. One means of minimizing such risk is to select puppets who are so deeply
compromised that they can never break free, knowing that the political self-destruct charges
buried deep within their pasts could easily be triggered if they sought independence.
I have
sometimes joked with my friends that perhaps the best career move for an ambitious young
politician would be to secretly commit some monstrous crime and then make sure that the hard
evidence of his guilt ended up in the hands of certain powerful people, thereby assuring his
rapid political rise.
In physics, when an object deviates from its expected trajectory for inexplicable reasons,
we assume that some unknown force has been at work, and tracing the record of such deviations
may help to determine the characteristic properties of the latter. Over the years, I've
increasingly become aware of such strange ideological deviations in public policy, and although
some are readily explained, others suggest the existence of hidden forces far beneath the
surface of our regular political world. This same situation may have occurred throughout our
history, and sometimes the political decisions that so baffled contemporaries eventually came
to light decades later.
In The Dark Side of Camelot , famed investigative reporter Seymour Hersh claimed that
secret blackmail evidence of JFK's extra-marital affairs probably played a crucial role in
having his administration overrule the unanimous verdict of all top Pentagon advisors and award
the largest military procurement contract in U.S. history to General Dynamics instead of
Boeing, thereby saving the former company from likely bankruptcy and its major organized-crime
shareholders from devastating financial losses. Hersh also suggests that a similar factor
likely explains JFK's last-minute reversal in the choice of his Vice President, a decision that
landed Lyndon Johnson on the 1960 ticket and placed him in the White House after Kennedy's 1963
assassination.
As I recently
mentioned , in the 1950s Sen. Estes Kefauver shifted the focus of his Organized Crime
Hearings after the Chicago Syndicate confronted him with the photographs of his sexual
encounter with two mob-supplied women. A decade later, California Attorney-General Stanley Mosk
suffered much the same fate, with the facts remaining hidden for over twenty years.
Similar rumors swirl around events much farther back in history as well, sometimes with
enormous consequences. Well-placed contemporary
sources have claimed that Samuel Untermyer, a wealthy Jewish lawyer, purchased the secret
correspondence between Woodrow Wilson and his longtime mistress, and that the existence of that
powerful leverage may have been an important factor behind Wilson's astonishingly rapid rise
from president of Princeton in 1910 to governor of New Jersey in 1911 to president of the
United States in 1912. Once in office, Wilson signed the controversial legislation establishing
the Federal Reserve system in 1913 and also named Louis Brandeis as the first Jewish member of
the U.S. Supreme Court despite the public opposition of nearly our entire legal establishment.
Wilson's swiftly changing views on American involvement in the First World War may also have
influenced by such personal pressures rather than solely determined by his perceptions of the
national interest.
Without naming any names, since 2001 it has been difficult to avoid noticing that one of the
most zealous and committed supporters of the Neocon party-line on all Middle Eastern foreign
policy matters has been a leading Republican senator from one of the most socially-conservative
Southern states, a man whose rumored personal inclinations have long circulated on the
Internet. The strikingly-sudden reversal of this individual on a major policy question
certainly supports these suspicions. There have also been several other such examples involving
prominent Republicans.
But consider the far different situation of Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, who in 1987
became the first member of the Congress to voluntarily admit that he was gay. Not long
afterward, a notorious scandal erupted when it was
revealed that his own DC townhouse had been used by a former boyfriend as headquarters for
a male-prostitution ring. Frank claimed to have had no knowledge of that sordid situation, and
his liberal Massachusetts constituents apparently accepted that, since he was resoundingly
reelected and went on to serve another 24 years in Congress. But surely if Frank had been a
Republican from a socially-conservative district, anyone possessing such evidence would have
totally controlled his political survival, and with Frank spending several years as Chairman of
the very powerful House Financial Services Committee, the value of such a hold would have been
enormous.
This demonstrates the undeniable reality that what constitutes effective blackmail material
may vary tremendously across different eras and regions. Today, it is widely accepted that
longtime FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover lived his life as a deeply-closeted homosexual and there
seem to be serious claims that he also had some black ancestry, with the secret evidence of
these facts probably helping to explain why for decades he stubbornly refused to admit the
existence of American organized crime or focus his G-men on efforts to uproot it. But in
today's America, he surely would have proudly proclaimed his sexuality and racial ancestry in
an New York Times Magazine cover-story, rightly believing that they enhanced his
political invulnerability on the national stage. There are lurid rumors that the Syndicate
possessed secret photos of Hoover wearing a dress and high-heels, but just a few years ago Rep.
Mike Honda of San Jose
desperately placed his eight-year-old transgendered grand-daughter front-and-center in his
unsuccessful attempt to win reelection.
The decades have certainly softened the effectiveness of many forms of blackmail, but
pedophilia still ranks as an extremely powerful taboo. There seems to be a great deal of
evidence that powerful organizations and individuals have successfully managed to suppress
credible accusations of that practice for very long periods of time if no group with
substantial media influence chose to target the offenders for unmasking.
The most obvious example is the Catholic Church, and the failings of its American and
international hierarchy in that regard have regularly made the front pages of our leading
newspapers. But until the early 2000s and the breakthrough reporting of the Boston Globe
as recounted in the Oscar-winning film Spotlight , the Church had routinely fended off
such scandals.
Consider also the remarkable case of British television personality Sir Jimmy Savile , one of his country's most
admired celebrities, eventually knighted for his public service. Only shortly after his death
at age 84 did the press begin revealing that he had probably molested many hundreds of children
during his long career. Accusations by his young victims had stretched back across forty years,
but his criminal activities had seemingly been protected by his wealth and celebrity, along
with his numerous supporters in the media.
There is also the intriguing example of Dennis Hastert. As the longest serving Republican
Speaker of the House in U.S. history, holding office during 1999-2007, Hastert was third in
line to the Presidency and even ranked as our nation's top Republican elected official during
some of that period. Based upon my newspaper readings, he had always struck me as a rather
bland and ordinary individual, with journalists sometimes even strongly hinting at his
mediocrity, so that I occasionally wondered just how someone so unimpressive could have risen
to such extremely high national office.
Then a few years ago, he was suddenly thrust back into the headlines, arrested by the FBI
and charged with financial crimes relating to what apparently had been his past history of
abusing young boys, at least one of whom had committed suicide, with the federal judge who sent
him to prison denouncing him as "a serial
child molester" at sentencing . Perhaps I've led an overly sheltered life, but my
impression is that only a tiny sliver of Americans have had a long record of child molestation,
and all things being equal, it seems rather unlikely that someone of such a background but who
possesses no other great talents or skills would rise to near the absolute top of our political
heap. So perhaps not all things were otherwise equal. If some powerful elements held the hard
evidence that placed a particular elected official under their total control, making great
efforts to elevate him to Speaker of the House would be a very shrewd investment.
At times the unwillingness of our national media to see major stories in front of their very
noses reaches ridiculous extremes. During the summer of 2007, the Internet was ablaze with
claims that Sen. John Edwards, a runner-up in the 2004 Democratic presidential primaries, had
just fathered a child with his mistress, and those reports were backed by seemingly-credible
visual evidence, including photos showing the married senator holding his new-born baby. Yet as
the days and even the weeks went by, not a whiff of this salacious scandal ever reached the
pages of any of my morning newspapers or the rest of the mainstream media although it was a top
conversation topic everywhere else. Eventually, the National Enquirer , a notorious
gossip tabloid, scored a journalistic first ,
by receiving a Pulitzer Prize nomination for breaking the story that no other outlet seemed
willing to cover. Would our media have similarly averted its eyes from a newborn baby Trump
coming from the wrong side of the bed?
Over the years, it became increasingly obvious to me that nearly all elements of our
national media were often quite willing to enlist in a "conspiracy of silence" to minimize or
entirely ignore stories of tremendous potential interest to their readership and major public
importance. I could easily have doubled or tripled the number of such notable examples I
provided above without much effort. Moreover, it is quite intriguing that so many of these
cases involve the sort of criminal or sexual misbehavior that would be ideally suited for
blackmailing powerful individuals who are less likely to be vulnerable to other influences. So
perhaps many of the elected officials situated at the top of our democratic system merely reign
as political puppets, dancing to invisible strings.
Given my awareness of this remarkable track-record of major media cover-ups, I'm ashamed to
admit that I had paid almost no attention to the Jeffrey Epstein case until it exploded across
our national headlines earlier this month, suddenly becoming one of the biggest news stories in
our country.
For many years, reports about Epstein and his illegal sex-ring had regularly circulated on
the fringes of the Internet, with agitated commenters citing the case as proof of the dark and
malevolent forces that secretly controlled our corrupted political system. But I almost
entirely ignored these discussions, and I'm not sure that I ever once clicked on a single
link.
Probably one reason I paid so little attention to the topic was the exceptionally lurid
nature of the claims being made. Epstein was supposedly an enormously wealthy Wall Street
financier of rather mysterious personal background and source of funds, who owned a private
island and an immense New York City mansion, both regularly stocked with harems of underage
girls provided for sexual purposes. He allegedly hobnobbed on a regular basis with Bill
Clinton, Prince Andrew, Harvard's Alan Dershowitz, and numerous other figures in the
international elite, as well as a gaggle of ordinary billionaires, frequently transporting
those individuals on his personal jet known as "the Lolita Express" for the role it played in
facilitating illegal secret orgies with young girls. When right-wing bloggers on obscure
websites claimed that former President Clinton and the British Royals were being sexually
serviced by the underage girls of a James Bond super-villain brought to life, I just assumed
those accusations were the wildest sort of Internet exaggeration.
Moreover, these angry writers did occasionally let slip that the fiendish target of their
wrath had already been charged in a Florida courtroom, eventually pleading guilty to a single
sexual offense and receiving a thirteen month jail sentence, mitigated by very generous
work-release provisions. This hardly seemed like the sort of judicial punishment that would
lend credence to the fantastical accusations against him. If Epstein had already been
investigated by law enforcement authorities and given the sentence one might expect for writing
a bad check, I found it quite unlikely that he was actually the Goldfinger or Dr. No that
deluded Internet activists made him out to be.
Then these same wild, implausible claims previously found only on anonymous comment-threads
were suddenly repeated as solid fact on the front pages of the Times and all my other
morning newspapers, and the former federal prosecutor who had signed off on Epstein's legal
slap-on-the-wrist was forced to resign from the Trump Cabinet. Epstein's safe had been found to
contain a huge cache of child-pornography and other highly suspicious material, and he was
quickly rearrested on charges that could send him to federal prison for decades. Prestigious
media outlets described Epstein as the mastermind of a huge sex-trafficking ring, and numerous
underage victims began coming forward, telling their stories of how he had molested, raped, and
pimped them. The author of a long 2003 Epstein profile that had appeared in Vanity Fair
explained that she had personally spoken to some of his victims and included their
highly-credible accounts in her article, but that those portions had been stricken and removed
by her timorous editors.
As presented by these media outlets, Epstein's personal rise also seemed rather inexplicable
unless he had benefited from some powerful network or similar organization. Lacking any college
degree or credentials, he had somehow gotten a job teaching at one of New York City's most
elite prep schools, then quickly jumped to working at a top investment bank, rising to partner
with astonishing speed until he was fired a few years later for illegal activity. Despite such
a scanty and doubtful record, he was soon managing money for some of America's wealthiest
individuals, and keeping so much of it for himself that he was regularly described as a
billionaire. According to newspaper accounts, his great specialty was "making connections for
people."
Obviously, Epstein was a ruthlessly opportunistic financial hustler. But extremely wealthy
individuals must surely be surrounded by great swarms of ruthlessly opportunistic financial
hustlers, and why would he have been so much more successful than all those others? Perhaps a
clue comes from the offhand remark of Epstein's now-disgraced prosecutor, saying that he had
been told to go very easy on the sex-trafficker because he "belonged to intelligence." The
vague phrasing of that statement raises questions about whether the intelligence service may
not have been one controlled by the U.S. government.
Philip Giraldi, a highly-regarded former CIA officer, put things very plainly when
he suggested
that Epstein had probably been working for the Israeli Mossad, operating "honey traps" to
obtain blackmail information on all the wealthy and powerful individuals whom he regularly
plied with underage girls. Indeed, longtime Canadian journalist Eric Margolis recounted his early
1990s visit to Epstein's enormous NYC mansion, in which he had barely crossed the threshold
before he was offered an "intimate massage" by one of the many young girls there, presumably in
a bedroom well-stocked with hidden cameras.
Given my personal lack of interest in the Epstein case, then or now, perhaps a few of these
details may be garbled, but it seems undeniable that he was exactly the sort of remarkable
renegade often faced by Agent 007 in the movies, and the true facts will presumably come out at
his trial. Or perhaps not. Whether he lives to see trial is not entirely clear given the
considerable number of powerful individuals who might prefer that hidden facts remain hidden,
and the Friday newspapers
reported that Epstein had been found injured and unconscious in his prison cell.
When one seemingly implausible pedophilia scandal has suddenly jumped from obscure corners
of the Internet to the front pages of our leading newspapers, we must naturally begin to wonder
whether others might not eventually do the same. And a very likely candidate comes to mind, one
that seemed to me far better documented than the vague accusations being thrown about over the
last few years against a wealthy financier once given a thirteen-month jail sentence in Florida
a decade earlier.
I don't use Social Media myself, but near the end of the 2016 presidential campaign, I
gradually began seeing more and more Trump supporters referring to something called
"Pizzagate," a burgeoning sexual scandal that they claimed would bring down Hillary Clinton and
many of the top leaders of her party, with the chatter actually increasing after Trump was
elected. As near as I could tell, the whole bizarre theory had grown up on the far-right fringe
of the Internet, with the utterly fantastical plot having something to do with stolen secret
emails, DC pizza parlors, and a ring of pedophiles situated near the top of the Democratic
Party. But given all the other strange and unlikely things I'd gradually discovered about our
history, it didn't seem like something I could necessarily dismiss out of hand.
At the beginning of December, a right-wing blogger produced a lengthy exposition of the
Pizzagate charges, which finally gave me some understanding of what was actually under
discussion, and I soon made arrangements to republish his article. It quickly attracted a great
deal of interest, and some websites pointed to it as the best single introduction to the
scandal for a general audience.
Pizzagate Aedon Cassiel • December 2, 2016
• 3,100 Words
A couple of weeks later, I republished an additional article by the same writer, describing
a long list of previous pedophilia scandals that had occurred in elite American and European
political circles. Although many of these seemed to be solidly documented, nearly all of them
had received minimal coverage by our mainstream media outlets. And if such political pedophile
rings had existed in the relatively recent past, was it so totally implausible that there might
be another one simmering beneath the surface of today's Washington DC?
Those interested in the details of the Pizzagate Hypothesis are advised to read these
articles, especially the first one, but I might as well provide a brief summary.
John Podesta had been a longtime fixture in DC political circles, becoming chief of staff to
President Bill Clinton in 1998, and afterward remaining one of the most powerful figures in the
Democratic Party establishment. While serving as as chairman of Hillary Clinton's 2016
presidential campaign, his apparent carelessness with the password security of his Gmail
account allowed it to easily be hacked, and tens of thousands of his personal emails were soon
published on WikiLeaks. A swarm of young anti-Clinton activists began scouring this
treasure-trove of semi-confidential information, seeking evidence of mundane bribery and
corruption, but instead they came across some quite odd exchanges, seemingly written in coded
language.
Now use of coded language in a supposedly secure private email account raises all sorts of
natural suspicions regarding what might have been under discussion, with the most likely
possibilities being illegal drugs or sex. But most of the references didn't seem to fit the
former category, and in our remarkably libertine era, in which political candidates compete for
the right to be Grand Marshal at an annual Gay Pride Parade, one of the few sexual activities
still discussed only in whispers would seem to be pedophilia, with some of the very strange
remarks possibly hinting at this.
The researchers also soon discovered that his brother Tony Podesta, one of the wealthiest
and most successful lobbyists in DC, had extremely odd taste in art. Major items of his very
extensive personal collection seemed to represent tortured or murdered bodies, and one of his
favorite artists was best known for paintings depicting young children being held captive,
lying dead, or suffering under severe distress. Such peculiar artwork obviously isn't illegal,
but it might naturally arouse some suspicions. And oddly enough, arch-Democrat Podesta had long
been a close personal friend of former Republican Speaker and convicted child-molester Dennis
Hastert, welcoming him back into DC society after his release from prison.
Furthermore, some of the rather suspiciously-worded Podesta emails referred to events held
at a local DC pizza parlor, greatly favored by the Democratic Party elite, whose owner was the
gay former boyfriend of David Brock, a leading Democratic activist. The public Instagram
account of that pizza-entrepreneur apparently contained numerous images of young children,
sometimes tied or bound, with those images frequently labeled by hashtags using the traditional
gay slang for underage sexual targets. Some photos showed the fellow wearing a tee-shirt
bearing the statement "I Love Children" in French, and by a very odd coincidence, his possibly
assumed name was phonetically identical to that very same French phrase, thus proclaiming to
the world that he was "a lover of children." Closely connected Instagram accounts also included
pictures of young children, sometimes shown amid piles of high-value currency, with queries
about how much those particular children might be worth. None of this seemed illegal, but
surely any reasonable person would regard the material as extremely suspicious.
DC is sometimes described as "Powertown," being the seat of the individuals who make
America's laws and govern our society, with local political journalists being closely attuned
to the relative status of such individuals. And oddly enough, GQ Magazine had ranked
that gay pizza parlor owner with a strange focus on young children as being one of the 50 most
powerful people in our national capital, placing him far ahead of many Cabinet members,
Senators, Congressional Chairmen, Supreme Court justices, and top lobbyists. Was his pizza
really that delicious?
These few paragraphs provide merely a sliver of the large quantity of highly-suspicious
material surrounding various powerful figures at the apex of the DC political world. A vast
cloud of billowing smoke is certainly no proof of any fire, but only a fool would completely
ignore it without attempting further investigation.
I usually regard videos as a poor means of imparting serious information, far less effective
and meaningful than the simple printed word. But the overwhelming bulk of the evidence
supporting the Pizzagate Hypothesis consists of visual images and screen shots, and these are
naturally suited to a video presentation.
Some of the best summaries of the Pizzagate case were produced by a young British YouTuber
named Tara McCarthy, whose work was published under the name of "Reality Calls," and her videos
were viewed hundreds of thousands of times. Although her channel was eventually banned and her
videos purged, copies were later reloaded to other accounts, both on YouTube and BitChute. Some
of the evidence she presents seemed rather innocuous or speculative to me and other elements
were probably based upon her unfamiliarity with American society and culture. But a great deal
of extremely suspicious material remains, and I would suggest that people watch the videos and
decide for themselves.
Around the same time that I first became familiar with the details of the Pizzagate
controversy, the topic also started reaching the pages of my morning newspapers, but in an
rather strange manner. Political stories began giving a sentence or two to the "Pizzagate
hoax," describing it as a ridiculous right-wing "conspiracy theory" but excluding all relevant
details. I had an eery feeling that some unseen hand had suddenly flipped a switch causing the
entire mainstream media to begin displaying identical signs declaring "Pizzagate Is False --
Nothing To See There!" in brightly flashing neon. I couldn't recall any previous example of
such a strange media reaction to some obscure Internet controversy.
Articles in the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times also suddenly
appeared denouncing the entirety of the alternative media -- Left, Right, and Libertarian --
as
"fake news" websites promoting Russian propaganda , while urging that their content be
blocked by all patriotic Internet giants such as Facebook, Twitter, and Google. Prior to that
moment, I'd never even heard the term "fake news" but suddenly it was ubiquitous across the
media, once again almost as if some unseen hand had suddenly flipped a switch.
I naturally began to wonder whether the timing of these two strange developments was
entirely coincidental. Perhaps Pizzagate was indeed true and struck so deeply at the core of
our hugely corrupted political system that the media efforts to suppress it were approaching
the point of hysteria.
Not long afterward, Tara McCarthy's detailed Pizzagate videos were purged from YouTube. This
was among the very first instances of video content being banned despite fully conforming to
all existing YouTube guidelines, another deeply suspicious development.
I also noticed that mere mention of Pizzagate had become politically lethal. Donald Trump
had selected Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, as his
National Security Advisor, and Flynn's son served as the latter's chief of staff. The younger
Flynn happened to Tweet out a couple of links to Pizzagate stories, pointing out that the
accusations hadn't yet been actually investigated let alone disproven, and very soon afterward,
he was
purged from the Trump transition team, foreshadowing his father's fall a few weeks later.
It seemed astonishing to me that a few simple Tweets about an Internet controversy could have
such huge real-life impact near the top of our government.
The media continued its uniform drumbeat of "Pizzagate Has Been Disproven!" but we were
never told how or by whom, and I was not the only individual to notice the hollowness of such
denunciations. An award-winning investigative journalist named Ben Swann at a CBS station in
Atlanta broadcast a short television segment summarizing the Pizzagate controversy and noting
that contrary to widespread media claims, Pizzagate had neither been investigated nor debunked.
Swann was almost immediately purged by CBS but a copy of his television segment remains
available for viewing on the Internet.
There is an old wartime proverb that enemy flak is always heaviest over the most important
target, and the remarkably ferocious wave of attacks and censorship against anyone broaching
the subject of Pizzagate seems to raise obvious dark suspicions. Indeed, the simultaneous waves
of attacks against all alternative media outlets as "Russian propaganda outlets" laid the basis
for the continuing regime of Social Media censorship that has become a central aspect of
today's world.
Pizzagate may or may not turn out to be true, but the ongoing Internet crackdown has
similarly engulfed topics of a somewhat similar nature but with vastly stronger documentation.
Although I don't use Twitter myself, I encountered the obvious implications of this new
censorship policy following McCain's death last August. The senator had died on a Saturday
afternoon, and readership of Sydney Schanberg's long 2008 expose quickly exploded, with
numerous individuals Tweeting out the story and a large fraction of our incoming traffic
therefore coming from Twitter. This continued until the following morning, at which point the
huge flood of Tweets continued to grow, but all incoming Twitter traffic suddenly and
permanently vanished, presumably because "shadow banning" had rendered those Tweets invisible.
My own article on McCain's very doubtful war record simultaneously suffered the same fate, as
did numerous other articles of a controversial nature that we published later that same
week.
Perhaps that censorship decision was made by some ignorant young intern at Twitter, casually
choosing to ban as "hate speech" or "fake news" a massively-documented 8,400 word expose by one
of America's most distinguished journalists, a Pulitzer-prize winning former top editor at
The New York Times .
Or perhaps certain political-puppeteers who had spent decades controlling that late Arizona
senator sought to ensure that their political puppet-strings remained invisible even after his
death.
John McCain was a leading American neocon who always advocated war and ever greater
military spending for a growing worldwide empire. This made him a successful politician and
explains why our neocon corporate media praises him and refuses to reports facts about his
life. By several accounts ("The Nightingale Song" for example) he only got into the Naval
Academy for a free college degree because dad and grandfather were admirals, and should have
been kicked out several times. He graduated near the bottom of his class and was a lousy
pilot who got into trouble often and crashed two aircraft because of neglect. He was shot
down on his first tour over Vietnam while bombing a civilian power plant, and getting
captured is not heroic.
[Hide MORE]
What happened in captivity is controversial, but upon returning from POW status he passed a
physical and regained flight status as a pilot. Yet after he finished 20 years of service
that allowed generous retirement pay, he obtained a 100% VA disability rating allowing him to
collect some $40,000 a year tax free too! The LA Times mentioned this when McCain insisted he
was fit to serve as President. For the past two decades, he hauled in over $240,000 a year
from the Feds for military retirement, 100% VA disability, social security retirement, while
working full-time in the US Senate. He was paid for being retired, disabled, and gainfully
employed! This is textbook case of why our system needs reform to protect taxpayers from rich
welfare kings like McCain.
McCain's loyal wife was disabled in a serious auto accident while he was a POW. Soon after
he returned, McCain dumped her for a wealthy woman 20 years younger. The Reagans were so
angry they never spoke to him again. He then married his new babe before he officially got
divorced, so there's that bigamy thing. McCain used his wife's family money to run for
Congress and quickly got into trouble with the Keating Five scandal. McCain got $112,000 in
"campaign contributions" and an equal amount of luxury perks from one of our nation's leading
fraudsters. In return, he helped change laws and threatened regulators to allow this
multi-billion real estate scam to grow.
I don't know why any Arizonian voted for this crazed man, especially since he was a big
advocate for open borders. At a union meeting, he told workers illegals are needed because
Americans are too lazy to work farm fields, even for $50 an hour. McCain never labored his
entire life, always on the government dole earning ten times minimum wage worker pay, whose
increase he opposed.
McCain grew up wealthy and enjoyed free government health care his entire life, yet
thought it nothing workers deserve. While running for President and attacking programs for
the poor, a reporter asked how many houses he owned. He was unsure, but thought maybe seven.
But his worst damage was to oppose any attempt at world peace, often demanding that the USA
bomb the neocon designated villain of the year, currently Iran. McCain was a key player in
the senseless deaths of thousands of American GIs and a million foreigners over the past two
decades. He will not be missed.
Sep 2, 2018 -- John McCain Will Not Be Missed
As a follow-up to my Aug 27th blog, I ask people to name McCain's most important
accomplishment during his long political career. They can think of none, but the TV tells
them McCain was great because he was a neocon. Senator Paul Laxalt saw more combat than
McCain and had an equally long and distinguished career. He was not a crazed neocon so our
media barely reported his death last month.
Here are two examples of McCain's bad character just this past year. McCain had always
opposed Obamacare and campaigned against it. The Republicans had tried to repeal it for
years. The election of President Trump also brought in more Republican congressmen. The House
easily repealed it, and the Senate finally had a majority to vote for a partial repeal. This
would be a big victory for the Republicans led by President Trump. When the vote was held,
McCain shocked everyone and voted against it, thus abandoning his principles and backstabbing
his party! This was applauded by the Democrats and the insurance companies who profit from
Obamacare. They praised McCain as a "maverick", although everyone knows this was done just to
thwart a Trump victory.
On his deathbed, McCain directed his staff not to invite his Presidential running mate
Sarah Palin to his funeral. She campaigned for him as a loyal teammate and never said a bad
word about McCain during the campaign or after their loss. McCain blamed her for his loss and
expressed this in a childish manner. Allow me to summarize his life. John McCain was a
selfish, spoiled brat who had no sense of decency.
One of the most blatant examples of news media's silence on a topic of great national
interest is the lack of coverage of closed-door "globalist" meetings like Bilderberg (which
is attended by employees of such publications as The New York Times and Washington
Post .)
The overheard conversation between Angela Merkel and Mark Zuckerberg on what Facebook can do
to further her immigration agenda also received astonishingly little coverage from the
establishment press:
If you look closely at Hoover's pictures it's hard to miss the kinky hair, broad nose and
just something about the bone structure of his face that reveals some negro ancestry. There's
a high school picture of him in some kind of band or cadet uniform that makes his bit of
black blood obvious.
That Mayor Moscone of San Francisco who was shot had a thing for 11-13 black girls, small
ones. He liked to beat them up a bit too. Probably not as badly as the bearings their mothers
face them all their lives. His driver was a district attorney investigator who had to drive
him to the projects and Protero Silver Av neighborhoods to meet his little friends. He met
them at their mothers homes. I assume the mothers consented and some pimps arranged
things.
One time Mayor Moscone drive himself to the Sunnyvale projects. While he was inside with
his little friend some black guys removed all the tires from his city car and he had to call
the police to drive him home.
He had 4 or 5 kids, Catholic Church attendance catholic schools the whole ostentatious
Italian Catholic thing but he liked sex with those really young black girls in their project
homes.
But as the media continued to avert its eyes from these newly revealed facts, even those
disclosed in the pages of the Times itself, I gradually began to consider matters in a
different light. Perhaps McCain's elevation to great American political power was not in
spite of the devastating facts littering his personal past, but because of
them.
Agree with this. The message from the McCain funeral was that the blackmailed US political
class would be well looked after -right to the end -- if they remained docile and obedient
and followed their scripts.
For "War Hero" McCain, it was his unswerving hard line calling for the destruction of
Iran.
But, the Zio-Glob still failed to get their war through McCain, and they also failed to
get it through Hillary Clinton. Both of them were rejected by voters despite massive media
support. This points to a basic problem that the Empire's has with Democracy. The public
clearly doesn't want another ME war, and is now aware that it was tricked into Iraq (WMD),
and significantly, their (the public's) resistance to war is sufficiently strong enough to
overcome massed MSM propaganda pushing the other way.
If the MSM can't swing it, then they need to get a compromised candidate elected on an
anti-war and immigration control platform, who then does a 180º turn when in office.
Trump wasn't their candidate (which suggests that he's clean), and (so far) he hasn't enabled
a war with Iran, so what happens with him is an open question.
Also agree that the media reaction to the Pizzagate (pedophilia) story was one of extreme
sensitivity -- almost panic, with a massive and coordinated overreaction. This suggests that
Pizzagate is in fact the nightmare subject at the root of American politician's worst
dreams.
The most obvious example is the Catholic Church, and the failings of its American and
international hierarchy in that regard have regularly made the front pages of our leading
newspapers. But until the early 2000s and the breakthrough reporting of the Boston Globe as
recounted in the Oscar-winning film Spotlight, the Church had routinely fended off such
scandals.
I'm an investigator in Boston. Just to put things in perspective, Globe's Spotlight
investigation really only involved 8 priests (3 of them no longer in the priesthood- one in
prison- at the time of the Spotlight piece) and went back 30 years. I don't have numbers on
minors involved in this Epstein scandal but I would guess they are much higher.
I always found it curious that Marty Baron decides to launch a major expose of the Boston
Catholic Church right after arriving from Miami. Seriously? A dozen priests out of thousands
in the Boston Archdiocese? I really would like to know who was behind this concerted
operation to take down the heart of American Catholicism. They make the folks behind the
Trump-Russia collusion plot look like amateurs.
Don't forget the arrest of Ars Technica writer Peter Bright, @DrPizza on twitter (account
still up), who was arrested last month for soliciting sex with children and admitted to
abusing an 11 year old girl. A guy named 'Dr Pizza' who had a pizza emoji next to his name,
who tweeted often that Pizzagate was completely made up and once to the effect that "why
would pedophiles put badges that could identify them up online" was arrested for being a
pedophile and then subsequently came out he had constantly argued for relaxations on things
like child porn and sexual-related issues. If this doesn't at least give doubters cause for
concern that maybe something is up I don't know what will.
This is a well-known weakness of Representative Democracy -- in all its versions.
The Balfour Declaration which led eventually to the creation of the state of Israel was
undoubtedly the result of complex blackmail and bribery. Perhaps the USA would not have
entered into WW1 unless Jews were promised Palestine in a deal.
Democracy is supposed to be a negative-feedback system -- like all control system. The
only way to make it function properly is to have Direct Democracy -- where people vote on all
issues and at the lowest level commensurate with the matter to be decided.
Journolist is probably weak sauce compared to the major editors of the largest television
networks and newspaper syndicates deciding amongst themselves "whats news". Ive thought this
for years. We know the CIA has people placed in media organizations, and probably has dirt on
highly placed people in media organizations who are not CIA.
McCain must have been susceptible to pressure from Russians or Chinese who certainly knew
everything McCain did in Vietnam? Or is KGB/FSB also run form Tel Aviv?
Alex Jones -- yes, Alex Jones -- gave a coherent argument about the pedophilia accusations
that avoided Satanism and the like but was still coherent. And its the same as the one you
talk about.
Simple Kompromat .
Basically, national intelligence agencies identify up-and-comers in media and politics,
then either get kompromat on them early or, if they can find nothing, set up a scenario where
kompromat is created. In this latter scenario, the up-and-comer is invited to dinner,
drugged, and then wakes up with either a dead body next to him or is shown pictures of him
either killing someone or else molesting children. Then the up-and-comer is trapped for
life.
Remember The Godfather, Part II ? They got the Nevada Senator to become their slave
when they drugged him in a whorehouse and Neri killed the girl he was sleeping with, and the
senator wakes up confused next to the girl and doesn't know if he did it or not -- and
Michael promises to keep it all quiet -- for a price, of course. That's how it happens to
these folks.
Then they own you for years.
Which makes you really scared -- not only is the FBI and NSA and CIA spying on us all
illegally and spying on Trump at Obama's behest and allowing Hillary to skate -- they're
running murder and child sex rings themselves. To gain leverage.
@Jimmy R Surprisingly, the Globe's in-bad-faith attack on the Church might have begun a a
greater renewal in it. Once it came out, people who had faith started noticing that almost
all the priests doing the abuse were -- gay men abusing teenage boys. 81% of the cases
weren't "pedophilia", they were homosexuals getting sexually mature but underage, vulnerable
boys behind closed doors and taking advantage of them.
Catholics like Michael Voris at Church Militant have put 2 and 2 together. The problems in
the Church isn't pedophilia, its homosexuals -- and Voris has exposed a ton more, including
many bishops, and called them out harshly. The Church is supposed to purge homosexuals from
the priesthood (by Catholic dogma), but haven't -- because higher-up homos have protected the
lot.
But now many Catholic lay groups are organized and pushing to attack the illegal gay
priests and get them out of the cloth. The homomafia is now proven to exist -- and, much like
when the original Mafia was admitted to exist by the Kefauver hearings, an organized rounding
up can occur.
I learn from the Times that the Phoenix beer-monopoly in question, then valued at around
$200 million, had accrued to a man whose lifelong business partner Kemper Marley had long
been deeply linked to organized crime.
Jim Hensley the beer baron and McCain father in law was convicted of liquor related
federal crimes (stealing from warehouses) but must have had a friendly judge lol cause he
didn't do jail time , got probation and paid a big fine. He was working for Kemper Marley at
the time.
So liar McCain married into a crime family .makes sense for a career fuck up who once his
father died would start failing downward instead of upward.
Organized crime loves beer and liquor distributorships cause its a all cash business .the
retailer pays you for the beer before it goes on their shelves or in their bar. no credit, no
billing, pay up front. I bought a beer distributorship in 1975 so I know a bit about it .and
Hensley had to have had some state officials in his pocket or his friend Marley had them
cause is no way the state is going to give you a license if you've been convicted on anything
worse than a speeding ticket.
You've got to be investigated by your state FBI for starters, account for every year of your
life, your schools, your wife's life, your parents and relatives, list people you associate
with in business or socially, then they go interview people who know you,,,in fact they do
that before they even personally interview you and you have to give them your financial
records, what your source of money is and all your tax returns. All of this is to make sure
you have no ties to any kind of organized crime and the money purchasing the distributorship
isn't coming from any shady figures.
Hensley or his backer had some very serious political pull and pay offs.
The number one career choice for aspiring crooks and fuckups is politics .McCain with his
punk complex temper couldn't have held on to job anywhere else.
Over the years, it became increasingly obvious to me that nearly all elements of our
national media were often quite willing to enlist in a "conspiracy of silence" to minimize or
entirely ignore stories of tremendous potential interest to their readership and major public
importance.
Yes, how about an update on the investigation into the killing of Seth Rich -- does that
count as a 'cold case' at this point?
Also media interest in the Las Vegas mass shooting seemed to fizzle -- as did the
investigation.
This is the concept of Kakistocracy. I always found McCain getting a pass on what he did to
the left behind POWs hard to fathom -- this explains it. Before I read this article I thought
that Pizzagate was just some kind of lunacy/nothing and had heard some guy went and shot up a
restaurant over it (probably the creeps involved in it arranged that themselves to discredit
those exposing them?) and it was since faded away discredited, I see it attacked by the same
people who are always using the CIA created term "Conspiracy Theory" seems it is in fact the
opposite of what I thought (due to the Globalist Propagandist Media) and its creepy players
are "running" things and highly protected by the Propagandist Globalist NWO Media, seems
Obama himself is in deep if the video is correct? hard to even look at the video as to these
creatures .So Question? Is the Q thing also for real? I have never really followed it and
seen it "debunked" on a site that made it sound like lunacy but this makes me wonder .
@Jimmy R Sometimes ago, the Mexican Bishops Conference, when speaking about Mexican
monopolistic oligarches, said they were like contemporary slave-owners .
About one year later, one of theses oligarches, Carlos Slim, bought a part of the NYTimes.
Then the NYT started its own crusade against Catholic priests paedophilia.
At the time, I noticed the coincidence, but it was like I was the only one noticing
it.
Is J. Gutierez around? He may confirm the story.
I appreciate your telling "the rest of the story" regarding the actual (as opposed to
purported) extent of the Boston sex abuse scandal.
The same abuse exaggerations also occurred in Pennsylvania."Grossly misleading,
irresponsible, inaccurate, and unjust" is how former New York Times religion reporter Peter
Steinfels described last August's grand jury report in its sweeping accusations that
Pennsylvania Catholic bishops refused to protect children from sexual abuse.
BTW, some time ago our patron Ron off-handedly accepted as factual the Globe narrative.
When contrary opinion and facts were brought to his attention, he appeared to have accepted
that they were at least worthy of consideration. (Or that's the way I vaguely remember what
transpired.)
I did not know anything about any physical violence that may or many not have been present in
McCain's marriage. I certainly did feel, that much of the senator's last days were being
carefully orchestrated in order to maintain the highest degree of hero status possible. His
wealthy wife certainly had the resources to leave if she wanted to. She always seemed to me
extremely loyal and attentive.
I would say it was similar concerning Bush 41. Perfectly understandable that negative
stories wouldn't be brought up during his long wake/funeral -- in Tx and DC -- but how about
never? Several books have said that Bush's -- and campaign manager W. Casey -- CIA
connections helped Reagan get elected by keeping the hostages in Iran .
The Vice-Pres was also up to his neck in the Iran/Contra affair in spite of him saying he
was "out of the loop (he wasn't)." A sexual affair is unimportant. But the family says it
never happened. Others have said otherwise. Jesse Ventura and his writer Dick Russell have
done a nice job laying out some things that you will never hear from the Bush flack John
Meacham. Or pretty much anyone else in on- air media.
The Corporate Fascist Military Industrial-Intelligence Police State will tell us who our
heroes, presidents, and icons are. It has already been decided. McCain was commonly known as
"crash" for all the incidents he had. He was a terrible pilot and would have never been one
except for his father. His beatings of his wife were widely known but covered up because of
his "War Hero Status." Our entire society is nothing more than a projection by the
"controllers."
Examples of this are of course Obama and his wife. The media asked him almost no questions
and he was guided by the Jew Axelrod to the Media's satisfaction. What Obama and his wife got
away with in Chicago would embarrass the Mafia. Michele Obama had to surrender her law
license to the Illinois State Disciplinary Committee. The files have been sealed.
Just look at the group running for President. All basically selected by the same
controllers. They will not make a mistake in letting another Trump spoil their plans. Our
entire democracy is just a mirage. The founder fathers were afraid that this would happen but
their plans in the Constitution to protect the nation have become "gang banged" by the
Marxist Mobs whose heroes are icons like Obama who bombed seven Muslim countries, murdered
thousands of innocent people, destroyed the middle class and started wars and lied to the
nation yet these people are on their knees to his royal presence.
We have no chance of getting to the truth on anything because to even ask a question is
now an act of racism, antisemitism, and hatred.
One of the more extreme accusers in Britain has revealed to be a fantasist, his claims went
well beyond other claims and included such unlikely characters as Field Marshall Lord
Brammal, and this is being used to Bury the paedophile scandal in Britain. Greville Janner's
children have been given prominent coverage to suggest this shows their father is innocent
despite the fact that the evidence against their father is very substantial and has little to
do with the fantasist.
There is an old wartime proverb that enemy flak is always heaviest over the most
important target, and the remarkably ferocious wave of attacks and censorship against
anyone broaching the subject of Pizzagate seems to raise all sorts of dark suspicions.
I guess we can look forward to another day of heavy DDoS of unz.com.
How is it we don't yet have a Grand Unifying Theory that links the seemingly unconnected
paedophelia stories that have simmered simultaneously in D.C., Westminster, and Brussels over
the past couple of decades? The Church would seem to fit right in in this NWO orgy, but has
instead been hung out to dry.
One of the elite one worlder groups is the (in)famous Skull and Bones society at Yale. Its
membership included both president Bushes as well as John Kerry and a multitude of other
politicians. Anthony Sutton carried out an expose in his book America's secret establishment.
Part of the inition occurs in a crypt surrounded by skulls , including Geronimos's skull
while lying in a coffin. If that isnt weird enough part of the initiation includes something
around sexual misadventure. According to Kay Riggs, whose husband was a colnel in the
intelligence services the sexual side of the initiation involves the person being sodomised
by an member of the society. According to her , in order to enter the higher levels of many
parts of government this is not an uncommon practice.
In the murky world of american political elites the truth is impossible to be certain
of.
The skull and bones society has been well publicised so presumably now the power has been
withdrawn from it.
I've had much enjoyment over the years by asking McCain worshipers to give me the name of one
Vietnamese with as many confirmed kills of American military as John McCain.
Another long-winded & annoyingly inchoate ramble raising several important but seemingly
disparate subjects, each of which could & probably should have been pursued
independently. Is there really any viable connection between Sydney Schanberg & Epstein,
between the Catholic Church & John McCain, between Berezovsky & Pizzagate, etc.? What
a jumbled mishmash that leaves you more confused than when you started. "Perhaps" this &
"perhaps" that, doesn't help very much. The most urgent question though is why are so many
high & mighty tempted by pedophilia in the first place, where does that psychosis come
from & why are the power games more important than the pawns, the poor kids, that are
used to play it? Hanging is much too good for an unspeakable filth like Epstein & whoever
aided him. There is no punishment or torture ever devised that would be sufficient, if found
guilty, for the crimes for which he stands accused. That should come first, the rest is
chickenfeed.
We have progressed (here we laugh) from the times of Gentlemen and Ladies to so-called
emancipated men and women with human rights fit for animals. Just to refresh your memory
The last big VA scandal where many Veterans died waiting to get medical treatment
happened in Arizona. You cannot tell me that McCain did not know that Veterans were dying
while waiting to get help at the Phoenix VA. In my opinion McCain was a worthless human
being.
The most devastating victory the North Vietnamese had over the US was the return of McCain
alive.
I'm not convinced by the evidence against Comet Ping Pong, but I am intrigued by the possible
connections that the Podesta brothers have to the disappearance of the British girl,
Madelaine McCann, in Portugal over a decade ago. John Podesta is known to have been in
Portugal around the time of Madelaine's disappearance. There is also a description eerily
similar to Anthony Wiener.
I've long been convinced, and who can deny, that most of the wars the US has been involved
in, and all of the ones Zionists and Communists have been involved in, have roots in
outrageous sadistic psychopathology like this.:
Major items of his very extensive personal collection seemed to represent tortured or
murdered bodies, and one of his favorite artists was best known for paintings depicting
young children being held captive, lying dead, or suffering under severe distress
.
As for the slime, McCain, and the rest of the political establishment, none of it
surprises me. The type was recognized long ago.
(1) Roy Cohn (1927-86) allegedly ran child sex and blackmail operations for decades,
operating out of locales such as New York's Plaza Hotel
(2) Robert Keith Gray (1921-2014), USA lobbyist, "specialist in homosexual blackmail
operations for the CIA and reported to have collaborated with Roy Cohn"
(3) Bruce Ritter (1927-99), Roman Catholic priest and founder of Covenant House for
homeless teenagers, "eventually accused of having sexual relationships with many of the
underaged boys he had taken in", Ritter supported by Cardinal Spellman closely tied to Roy
Cohn, and tied to George H W Bush's Yale room-mate
(4) Craig Spence (1941-89), another USA lobbyist; "in June 1989, it was revealed that he
had been pimping out children to the power elite in the nation's capital throughout the 1980s
in apartments that were bugged with video and audio recording equipment reports on Spence's
child sex ring also reveal his close ties to none other than the ubiquitous Roy Cohn
"Spence had been able to enter the White House late at night during the George H.W. Bush
administration with young men whom the Washington Times described as 'call boys' Spence often
boasted that he was working for the CIA Not long after the Washington Times report on his
activities was published, Spence was found dead in the Boston Ritz Carlton and his death was
quickly ruled a suicide."
(5) Lawrence E. King Jr, lobbyist and credit union banker, key figure in the "infamous
Franklin child sex abuse and ritual murder scandal run out of Omaha, Nebraska Larry King and
his Nebraska-based call boy ring, was discovered by looking through the credit card chits of
Spence's ring King and Spence were essentially business partners as their child trafficking
rings were operated under a larger group that was nicknamed 'Bodies by God' the rings run by
both King and Spence were connected to each other and both were also connected to prominent
officials in the Reagan and subsequent George H.W. Bush administrations, including officials
with ties to the CIA and Roy Cohn and his network"
(6) Jeffrey Epstein (born 1953) then comes in on the scene, convicted of the same kinds of
activities, and linked to the networks reflected in the above
By the way, the 'police break-in' to Epstein's New York City 27,000 square foot mansion,
is regarded as a staged fake event by many, because as was clear, Epstein had multiple
live-in staffers, there was always a butler or someone present 24/7, who would simply have
opened the door for the police. The crowbar damage to the door would not have opened the
high-security portal, and would have set off massive alarms. The people walking out with
cheap rubbish bags of alleged 'evidence' did not even look like police or feds on a
high-profile operation.
Epstein always had lots of aides & helpers such as Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of
'Israeli super-spy Robert Maxwell', allegedly helping procure all the young girls etc., yet
somehow not yet so touched by these events when a 'serious' prosecution would certain quickly
dragnet all such people. What is really going on, remains yet to be seen.
That some, if not many US politicians have degenerate backgrounds and bizarre tastes can't be
brushed off as some coincidence.
If you're a tiny ME nation that is doing a good job of occupying the most powerful
military on Earth or if you're some bankster gangster that wants to keep your fraudulent fiat
money scheme afloat, our corrupt politicians are just what the doctor ordered.
A guy named 'Dr Pizza' who had a pizza emoji next to his name, who tweeted often that
Pizzagate was completely made up and once to the effect that "why would pedophiles put
badges that could identify them up online" was arrested for being a pedophile and then
subsequently came out he had constantly argued for relaxations on things like child porn
and sexual-related issues.
The bastards just love molesting our minds as well. Who can deny that they enjoy it even
more when they ply their perversions in our faces? It should also be crystal clear that the
gratuitous Isreali sniping and crippling and a thousand other outrageous crimes against
humanity stimulate the hell out of the perverts.
When will people finally get it through their heads that politics is all about
domination , most often in perverted and sadistic forms?
@Jimmy R I'm no Catholic, but it's long been obvious that the incessant harping on the
Church's pedophilia is a twofer; it's not only a huge smear campaign, but it's no doubt worth
$$ to the usual suspects. Look what the Commies did to religious folk in the former USSR and
to the largely Christian Germany, and tell me that there's no connection.
Sadistic perverts rule with the consistent support of the "great" US moneyed ruling
classes while the drooling rubes and dupes do their part as well.
@Jimmy R It is all about stopping the Catholic Church from having a voice to oppose Zion
BC wars and coups. The Jewish Zionists want to continue the mass destruction of our planet
without any back talk.
Planted Memories is a good trick to silence any organization and a big one like the
Catholic Church.
Planted memories have used since the 1990s against the Catholic Church in a big way. After
the end of the cold war, the ZUS wanted wars for Zion mania. No back talk allowed from any
one or group is "allowed". This planted memories games works like a charm and has been used
over and over again on the Catholic Church to silence it. It allows the wars and the coups
for Zion BC go on and on endlessly with no back talk. It is a common trick for many cases
these days.
"There is no credible scientific support for the idea that we can take eleven years of
brutalization and banish it into the unconscious and then undergo some therapy which is
going to make us aware of it," Dr. Loftus reported as she discussed the Holly Ramona case,
"and yet these kinds of things were being introduced into court cases throughout the 1990s
and into the 2000s and still today." While her outspoken opposition to recovered memory has
led to her being targeted by feminist and victims' rights groups over the years (including
the controversial "Jane Doe case"), Dr. Loftus continues to stand by her own research into
false memory.
Regarding the fabled photos of J Edgar Hoover in a woman's dress and with his gay lover, held
as successful blackmail by the Jewish mob & Meyer Lansky, Ms Whitney Webb says in her
Mint Press News series on Epstein connections:
Anthony Summers, former BBC journalist and author of 'Official and Confidential: The
Secret Life of J. Edgar Hoover', has argued that it was not Lansky, but William Donovan,
the director of the OSS, who obtained the original photos of Hoover and later shared them
with Lansky.
Ms Webb argues for a quite long series of connections between the USA-Canadian Jewish
& Italian mobs going back a century, the paedophile and under-age-sex-slave blackmail
groups, and the USA & Israel intel agencies. Her series is quite something, the first two
installments: https://www.mintpressnews.com/shocking-origins-jeffrey-epstein-blackmail-roy-cohn/260621/ https://www.mintpressnews.com/blackmail-jeffrey-epstein-trump-mentor-reagan-era/260760/
Many connections are indeed striking. Trump's current USA Attorney General Barr (born 1950)
& his father Donald Barr (1921-2004), were both CIA-intel officers & both linked to
Epstein. William was CIA officer 1973-77, the CIA supporting him going to law school, father
Donald with OSS & Bill Donovan the CIA predecessor during WW2.
Barr's later law firm Kirkland & Ellis represented Epstein; Donald Barr, when NYC
Dalton School headmaster, gave Jeffrey Epstein his first job, teaching teen-age girls &
boys 1973-75, whilst William Barr was at the CIA. Father Donald Barr was fascinated by sex
slavery as much as Epstein apparently, Barr authoring a 1973 fantasy novel on the subject,
'Space Relations: A Slightly Gothic Interplanetary Tale" book published when Jeffrey Epstein
was his underling & school-teacher of teens.
Ms Webb recounts multiple child molestation and political blackmail groups -- which had a
collective name, 'Bodies from God' -- all linking ultimately with Jeffrey Epstein, intel
agencies, and Jewish mobsters; Lansky etc., and such as the Bronfmans of Canada, the
Bronfmans in 1991 joining with Epstein's patron & the original buyer of his New York City
mansion, Les Wexner, to found the 'Mega Group' of 20 or so Zionist Jewish billionaires who
are now often perceived to be the Mossad-backed money source for Epstein. A short list of
these groups and persons mentioned by Webb
[MORE]
(1) Roy Cohn (1927-86) allegedly ran child sex and blackmail operations for decades,
operating out of locales such as New York's Plaza Hotel
(2) Robert Keith Gray (1921-2014), USA lobbyist, "specialist in homosexual blackmail
operations for the CIA and reported to have collaborated with Roy Cohn"
(3) Bruce Ritter (1927-99), Roman Catholic priest and founder of Covenant House for
homeless teenagers, "eventually accused of having sexual relationships with many of the
underaged boys he had taken in", Ritter supported by Cardinal Spellman closely tied to Roy
Cohn, and tied to George H W Bush's Yale room-mate
(4) Craig Spence (1941-89), another USA lobbyist; "in June 1989, it was revealed that he
had been pimping out children to the power elite in the nation's capital throughout the 1980s
in apartments that were bugged with video and audio recording equipment reports on Spence's
child sex ring also reveal his close ties to none other than the ubiquitous Roy Cohn
"Spence had been able to enter the White House late at night during the George H.W. Bush
administration with young men whom the Washington Times described as 'call boys' Spence often
boasted that he was working for the CIA Not long after the Washington Times report on his
activities was published, Spence was found dead in the Boston Ritz Carlton and his death was
quickly ruled a suicide."
(5) Lawrence E. King Jr, lobbyist and credit union banker, key figure in the "infamous
Franklin child sex abuse and ritual murder scandal run out of Omaha, Nebraska Larry King and
his Nebraska-based call boy ring, was discovered by looking through the credit card chits of
Spence's ring King and Spence were essentially business partners as their child trafficking
rings were operated under a larger group that was nicknamed 'Bodies by God' the rings run by
both King and Spence were connected to each other and both were also connected to prominent
officials in the Reagan and subsequent George H.W. Bush administrations, including officials
with ties to the CIA and Roy Cohn and his network"
(6) Jeffrey Epstein (born 1953) then comes in on the scene, convicted of the same kinds of
activities, and linked to the networks reflected in the above
By the way, the 'police break-in' to Epstein's New York City 27,000 square foot mansion,
is regarded as a staged fake event by many, because as was clear, Epstein had multiple
live-in staffers, there was always a butler or someone present 24/7, who would simply have
opened the door for the police. The crowbar damage to the door would not have opened the
high-security portal, and would have set off massive alarms. The people walking out with
cheap rubbish bags of alleged 'evidence' did not even look like police or feds on a
high-profile operation.
Epstein always had lots of aides & helpers such as Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of
'Israeli super-spy Robert Maxwell', allegedly helping procure all the young girls etc., yet
somehow not yet so touched by these events when a 'serious' prosecution would certain quickly
dragnet all such people. What is really going on, remains yet to be seen.
Pizzagate" is a debunked conspiracy theory that went viral during the 2016 United States
presidential election cycle.[2][3][4] It has been extensively discredited by a wide range
of organizations, including the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of
Columbia.[3][4][5]
Some of Pizzagate's proponents, including David Seaman and Michael G. Flynn (Michael
Flynn's son), have evolved the conspiracy into a broader government conspiracy called
"Pedogate". According to this theory, a "satanic cabal of elites" of the New World Order
operates international child sex trafficking rings.[27]
One of the victims filed a federal lawsuit. Once filed, this is public record. The only
redactions allowed are social security numbers and the like.
When the Miami Herald went to obtain the Motion for Summary Judgment, it was completely
redacted. 137 pages of blacked out paragraphs.
A motion for summary judgment is basically saying there are no material issues in dispute-
nothing to litigate. This document would contain all relevant facts about the case.
This type of redaction is unheard, unprecedented- appalling.
The only reason the Herald is in pursuit ( and any other MSM) is because they believed it
would destroy Trump.
It's now on appeal. If the redactions stand, we should riot in the street. We knew justice
was bought, but pedophilia usually will stir up some dregs of bureaucratic slugs to
action.
And with a parallel to McCain, if Clinton slithers out of this- with over 27 flights on
the Lolita Express- he is officially the most untouchable man in history.
Once you start researching the Epstein matter- not for the lurid details- but the
unprecedented, jaw dropping preferential treatment of an actual human sex trafficker ( not
this fake #metoo hysteria)
-- all hope is lost.
Note the strange silence from Hollywood and the elites regarding Epstein's victims, when
they were wearing hair shirts over Christine Fords 30 year old accusation.
A wealthy smug scold, who looks like an exploded can of rotten biscuit dough had them
weeping on camera.
Dozens of little girls -- all poor and from fatherless backgrounds marred by parental drug
abuse, suicides and physical abuse- selected and sexually devastated by Epstein- not a
word.
Ron Unz says: " ..at the core of our hugely corrupted political system .."
So whats to be done? Isn't that the big question here?
I believe that its only with the an understanding of the true, 100% corrupt nature of the
state, that real-world solutions to the massive [ and progressively worse] problems it causes
in society can be worked out and then implemented.
Ron, the big picture here that you, like most, either genuinely don't see [ or
conveniently refuse to see] is this:
The True Nature of All Governments:
"Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft [taxes], and
counterfeiting [via central bank monopolies], all governments are essentially, at their very
cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams which cannot be "reformed","improved", nor "limited" in
scope, simply because of their innate criminal nature." onebornfree
"Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no way
to differentiate the activities of its founders, administrators and beneficiaries from those
of a professional-criminal class." Albert J. Nock
"Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure." Robert LeFevre
Without an generally accepted understanding of the true nature of all states and
governments, we are lost, as far as I can see.
@Jimmy R Also, there is a major distinction: child abuse in the Catholic Church is
committed by isolated individuals whose sole responsibility is involved when the crime is
committed. It is not institutionalised, pre-planned and organised by a group, as it is within
the political establishment.
It is the same difference as between a criminal and organised crime, and it is a major
difference, in magnitude and in nature.
I actually highly reccomend a film called "Eyes Wide Shut."
The film, which stars Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman, was directed by the late Stanley
Kubrick and released back in 1999. It was extremely hyped at the time, especially given that
Kubrick died several days after completing the film.
While I won't summarize the entire film, there is one very important scene in which Tom
Cruise's character sneaks into a large New York mansion and stumbles upon a Satanic sexual
ritual/orgy. At the ritual/orgy, there are various individuals in costumes&masks who
engage in debauched sexual practices with sex slaves. Later in the movie, one of the men
there (who happens to be a prominent local Jewish socialite) tells Tom Cruise's character
that the Satanic sexual gathering was full of very important and powerful local figures. Tom
Cruise's character is ominously threatened into silence. At the end of the film, Tom Cruise
and Nicole Kidman allow their young daughter to be taken by the Satanic sexual abusers.
After he was finished with the movie, Stanley Kubrick showed it to execs from Warner
Brothers for the first time. They ended up getting into a contentious argument over the film.
The next day, Kubrick (who was a very healthy man) was announced dead of a heart attack.
Around 30 minutes of the film was later edited out by Warner Brothers before it was released.
Supposedly (and this has NOT been confirmed) there were scenes of child sexual abuse in the
original that Kubrick made, but this was edited out.
The movie would go on to become very popular in "conspiracy" circles. Many of these people
said that Kubrick (who was notoriously reclusive, enigmatic, and fond of "conspiracy
theories") was exposing the secret world of the Illuminati and their debauched sexual
practices, including their sexual enslavement of children.
There are very interesting similarities between the movie's Satanic sexual gathering and
an eerie real life Rothschild ball held back in 1972 (at one of the family mansions). The
movie even used a Rothschild mansion (Mentmore Towers) as the setting for the Satanic sexual
orgy.
When you hear all the allegations being made against Epstein, it makes you wonder. The New
York mansion. The weird Occult/Satanic temple on his island. The really young women coerced
into orgies. The hordes of wealth, famous, and powerful people who "partied" with Epstein.
The threats made against journalists and accusers who've come forward. The Jewish connection.
The Rothschild connection (Dershowitz was introduced to Epstein by the Rothschilds). The
Royal family and Prince Andrew connection ("Eyes Wide Shut" had a character with the surname
"Windsor"). There are many similarities to "Eyes Wide Shut."
If we assume that the Illuminati (or a similar elite society) actually exists, maybe it
makes sense that they would invite powerful people to attend their parties and engage in
debauched sexual acts, especially with the underaged. By encouraging this, the society would
get blackmail material on the elite of society. Once those elites were under blackmail,
they'd be puppets. These compromised elites would also be willing to recruit more new members
and bring them to the sexual parties.
So perhaps Epstein started off by befriending a few of the elite (with the Mossad helping
facilitate the social interaction). He then invited them to some type of perverse sexual
party. Once Epstein got tapes and pictures of them, these elites then became Israeli pawns
and also became willing to invite their elite friends to the parties.
That may explain why Epstein became so popular and why no one was willing to take him
down. That may also explain why everyone quoted in news articles always used to mention his
supposed "brilliance."
Even Newsweek noted the similarity between "Eyes Wide Shut" and the Epstein situation.
If you're interested in seeing the ritual that I mentioned above, here's a short video
from the movie. I wouldn't be surprised if Epstein was doing something similar to this in his
Occult/Satanic temple on his island.
What this article should convince everyone of is that 'rules but no rulers' makes perfect
sense. That's what real anarchism means -- rules but no rulers. If your immediate mental
picture was of a bomb thrower, then your mind has been successfully infiltrated by the powers
that shouldn't be.
Why is it that one person with the title of 'President' can declare things that affect the
lives of millions of USians and billions world wide. No one should have that much power.
"The way to get rid of corruption in high places is to get rid of high places." -- Frank
Chodorov
If the deep state has managed to install their puppets in positions of authority shouldn't
we all be trying to get rid of the positions of authority instead of rotating through that
position replaceable candidates offered up by the deep state political parties?
If you vote, you are tacitly approving of a system that has enslaved your mind.
If you're not an anarchist, you are part of the problem.
Kudos, Ron Unz. Excellent article and a useful tutorial on the hidden control mechanism of
what the late Paul A. Samuelson called our "democratic oligarchy".
I applaud your parlor joke:
" that perhaps the best career move for an ambitious young politician would be to
secretly commit some monstrous crime and then make sure that the hard evidence of his guilt
ended up in the hands of certain powerful people, thereby assuring his rapid political
rise."
A great French investigative reporter crafted an unfunny version:
"Indeed, under our putative system of democracy, especially since JFK, the oligarchy
will not allow the election of any candidate who cannot be blackmailed."
-- Thierry Meyssan, Before our very eyes -- fake wars and big lies from 9/11 to Donald
Trump , p. 146.
He had just described the 911 caper as a Cheney-led deep-state coup to activate the secret
but long-standing CoG procedure to sideline the Constitution. It succeeded when clueless
Dubya was reinstated as figure-head president within 24 hours after agreeing to the clique's
CoG (continuity of government) agenda, including the planned wars.
No wonder the shenannigans of compromised office-holding puppets (actors, really) and
their shadowy string-pullers never seem to be known to their spear-carriers in MSM.
McCain was a psycopath and a traitor and proof of the zionists love of war and killers was
their praise for this psycopath in his death and funeral and on the other hand no mention was
ever made about the crime committed against the crew of the USS Liberty by the joint Israeli
and zio/US attack on the Liberty, this shows how f##ked up this zionist ruled country has
become!
Get and read the book Blood in the Water by Joan Mellen about the joint Israeli and zio/US
attack on the Liberty, who McCains father participated in the cover up of this war crime!
The number one career choice for aspiring crooks and fuckups is politics .McCain with
his punk complex temper couldn't have held on to job anywhere else.
Perverts and psychopaths as well.
" nobody is going to be a thief with me as his accomplice,
and that right there is why I'm going in no governor's entourage."
Juvenal, Satires, Volume 3, (3.41-48) ~100 AD
Now do not be vexed with me when I speak the truth. For there is no human being who will
preserve his life if he genuinely opposes either you or any other multitude and prevents
many unjust and unlawful things from happening in the city. Rather, if someone who
really fights for the just is going to preserve himself even for a short time, it is
necessary for him to lead a private rather than a public life.
@Jimmy R The Diocese of Rockville Centre, where I live, has released a list of 61 priests
accused of sexual misconduct. The Diocese of Newark, NJ has released a list of 82 priests.
The Diocese of Brooklyn, NY has released a list of 108 priests. The Diocese of NY has
released a list of 120. That's a lot more than eight, and I think if the Church is willing to
give us this many names, there are probably quite a few who managed to fly under the radar.
I was raised a Catholic and really wish I didn't have to accept this reality. I've read
stories that the Church was infiltrated in the 20th century, and perhaps it's true, but maybe
it's been going on for a very long time. It does seem to be a bit unnatural for a man to
become celibate, and that might be one of the reasons so many deviants were attracted to the
priesthood, I don't know. I do know I never trusted any of them alone with my kids and I'd
advise others to do the same.
It's a shame, because as a society we need some kind of moralistic code, but the Church
has failed, or is at least failing, at this time in its history.
Regarding the fabled photos of J Edgar Hoover in a woman's dress and with his gay lover, held
as successful blackmail by the Jewish mob & Meyer Lansky, Ms Whitney Webb says in her
Mint Press News series on Epstein connections:
Anthony Summers, former BBC journalist and author of 'Official and Confidential: The
Secret Life of J. Edgar Hoover', has argued that it was not Lansky, but William Donovan,
the director of the OSS, who obtained the original photos of Hoover and later shared them
with Lansky.
Ms Webb argues for a quite long series of connections between the USA-Canadian Jewish
& Italian mobs going back a century, the paedophile and under-age-sex-slave blackmail
groups, and the USA & Israel intel agencies. Her series is quite something, the first two
installments: https://www.mintpressnews.com/shocking-origins-jeffrey-epstein-blackmail-roy-cohn/260621/ https://www.mintpressnews.com/blackmail-jeffrey-epstein-trump-mentor-reagan-era/260760/
Many connections are indeed striking. Trump's current USA Attorney General Barr (born 1950)
& his father Donald Barr (1921-2004), were both CIA-intel officers & both linked to
Epstein. William was CIA officer 1973-77, the CIA supporting him going to law school, father
Donald with OSS & Bill Donovan the CIA predecessor during WW2.
Barr's later law firm Kirkland & Ellis represented Epstein; Donald Barr, when NYC
Dalton School headmaster, gave Jeffrey Epstein his first job, teaching teen-age girls &
boys 1973-75, whilst William Barr was at the CIA. Father Donald Barr was fascinated by sex
slavery as much as Epstein apparently, Barr authoring a 1973 fantasy novel on the subject,
'Space Relations: A Slightly Gothic Interplanetary Tale" book published when Jeffrey Epstein
was his underling & school-teacher of teens.
Ms Webb recounts multiple child molestation and political blackmail groups – which
had a collective name, 'Bodies from God' – all linking ultimately with Jeffrey Epstein,
intel agencies, and Jewish mobsters; Lansky etc., and such as the Bronfmans of Canada, the
Bronfmans in 1991 joining with Epstein's patron & the original buyer of his New York City
mansion, Les Wexner, to found the 'Mega Group' of 20 or so Zionist Jewish billionaires who
are now often perceived to be the Mossad-backed money source for Epstein. A short list of
these groups and persons mentioned by Webb
[Hide MORE]
(1) Roy Cohn (1927-86) allegedly ran child sex and blackmail operations for decades,
operating out of locales such as New York's Plaza Hotel
(2) Robert Keith Gray (1921-2014), USA lobbyist, "specialist in homosexual blackmail
operations for the CIA and reported to have collaborated with Roy Cohn"
(3) Bruce Ritter (1927-99), Roman Catholic priest and founder of Covenant House for
homeless teenagers, "eventually accused of having sexual relationships with many of the
underaged boys he had taken in", Ritter supported by Cardinal Spellman closely tied to Roy
Cohn, and tied to George H W Bush's Yale room-mate
(4) Craig Spence (1941-89), another USA lobbyist; "in June 1989, it was revealed that he
had been pimping out children to the power elite in the nation's capital throughout the 1980s
in apartments that were bugged with video and audio recording equipment reports on Spence's
child sex ring also reveal his close ties to none other than the ubiquitous Roy Cohn
"Spence had been able to enter the White House late at night during the George H.W. Bush
administration with young men whom the Washington Times described as 'call boys' Spence often
boasted that he was working for the CIA Not long after the Washington Times report on his
activities was published, Spence was found dead in the Boston Ritz Carlton and his death was
quickly ruled a suicide."
(5) Lawrence E. King Jr, lobbyist and credit union banker, key figure in the "infamous
Franklin child sex abuse and ritual murder scandal run out of Omaha, Nebraska Larry King and
his Nebraska-based call boy ring, was discovered by looking through the credit card chits of
Spence's ring King and Spence were essentially business partners as their child trafficking
rings were operated under a larger group that was nicknamed 'Bodies by God' the rings run by
both King and Spence were connected to each other and both were also connected to prominent
officials in the Reagan and subsequent George H.W. Bush administrations, including officials
with ties to the CIA and Roy Cohn and his network"
(6) Jeffrey Epstein (born 1953) then comes in on the scene, convicted of the same kinds of
activities, and linked to the networks reflected in the above
By the way, the 'police break-in' to Epstein's New York City 27,000 square foot mansion,
is regarded as a staged fake event by many, because as was clear, Epstein had multiple
live-in staffers, there was always a butler or someone present 24/7, who would simply have
opened the door for the police. The crowbar damage to the door would not have opened the
high-security portal, and would have set off massive alarms. The people walking out with
cheap rubbish bags of alleged 'evidence' did not even look like police or feds on a
high-profile operation.
Epstein always had lots of aides & helpers such as Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of
'Israeli super-spy Robert Maxwell', allegedly helping procure all the young girls etc., yet
somehow not yet so touched by these events when a 'serious' prosecution would certain quickly
dragnet all such people. What is really going on, remains yet to be seen.
Pizzagate" is a debunked conspiracy theory that went viral during the 2016 United States
presidential election cycle.[2][3][4] It has been extensively discredited by a wide range
of organizations, including the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of
Columbia.[3][4][5]
Some of Pizzagate's proponents, including David Seaman and Michael G. Flynn (Michael
Flynn's son), have evolved the conspiracy into a broader government conspiracy called
"Pedogate". According to this theory, a "satanic cabal of elites" of the New World Order
operates international child sex trafficking rings.[27]
"... "You have no evidence for the so-called Russian IO. It is a fabrication." In fact, Putin rejects the claim many times publicly saying that Russia does not meddle in foreign elections as a matter of policy. Maybe I'm gullible, but I find his disclaimer pretty convincing.... ..."
"... Is there an unseen connection between the Democrat leadership and the Intel agencies??? And --if there is-- does that mean we are headed for a one-party system??? ..."
"... The Russians trying to rig the elections meme was a fallback for the failure of the “trump is a russianstooge" meme. ..."
Here are some insights into the minds of many movers and shakers in Russiagate:
Key US officials behind the Russia investigation have made no secret of their animus
towards Russia.
"I do always hate the Russians," Lisa Page, a senior FBI lawyer on the Russia probe,
testified to Congress in July 2018. "It is my opinion that with respect to Western ideals
and who it is and what it is we stand for as Americans, Russia poses the most dangerous
threat to that way of life."
As he opened the FBI's probe of the Trump campaign's ties to Russians in July 2016,
FBI agent Peter Strzok texted Page: "fuck the cheating motherfucking Russians Bastards. I
hate them I think they're probably the worst. Fucking conniving cheating savages."
Speaking to NBC News in May 2017, former director of national intelligence James
Clapper explained why US officials saw interactions between the Trump camp and Russian
nationals as a cause for alarm: "The Russians," Clapper said, "almost genetically driven to
co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique. So we were
concerned."
In a May interview with Lawfare, former FBI general counsel Jim Baker, who helped
oversee the Russia probe, explained the origins of the investigation as follows: "It was
about Russia, period, full stop. When the [George] Papadopoulos information comes across
our radar screen, it's coming across in the sense that we were always looking at Russia.
we've been thinking about Russia as a threat actor for decades and decades."
"You have no evidence for the so-called Russian IO. It is a fabrication." In fact, Putin
rejects the claim many times publicly saying that Russia does not meddle in foreign elections
as a matter of policy. Maybe I'm gullible, but I find his disclaimer pretty
convincing....
My question for Larry Johnson requires some speculation on his part: How did the claims of
"Russia meddling" which began with the DNC and Hillary campaign, take root at the FBI, CIA
and NSA???
Is there an unseen connection between the Democrat leadership and the Intel agencies???
And --if there is-- does that mean we are headed for a one-party system???
"... The Servant of the People Party with 43.17% remains in the lead. The Opposition Platform – For Life Party ranks second with 13.01%, Yulia Tymoshenko's Batkivshchyna Party ranks third with 8.18%, Petro Poroshenko's European Solidarity Party has 8.11%, and Svyatoslav Vakarchuk's Holos (Voice) Party has 5.83%. All the other parties failed to get a representative into the Rada. ..."
"... The entire Euromaidan is nothing more than the overthrow of one oligarchic gang by a combination of other oligarchic gangs which used neo-Nazi mobs to seize power. The fact that the USA and the EU backed this typical neo-Nazi coup really means very little: the West has always sided with anybody and everybody who is in some way against Russia. ..."
"... In theory, Zelenskii could "go Putin" and crush the oligarchs. But Zelenskii is no Putin, to put it mildly. Furthermore, the true reason why the Ukrainian oligarchs hate and fear Russia is not because of some supposed Grand-Russian nationalism or imperialism, but because they want to keep the Ukraine in the same dysfunctional and very profitable condition in which this poor country has been kept since 1991 ..."
"... The truth is that Zelenskii has to choose between acting on the will of the people and face the wrath of the neo-Nazis or do the will of the neo-Nazis and face the wrath of the people : tertium non datur ! ..."
"... Ukraine is the classic case of ustashization. A nation (often invented, but doesn't need to be so) with an inferiority complex (because it didn't exist, or failed to demonstrate any reason why it should be kept around) makes it's raison d'etre to be the hatred of the nation(s) it really should belong to. ..."
"... He is not in control – yet – anymore than Trump was in early 2017. (Not sure if Trump is in control now). However, if Ukraine's parliament controls the budget, Zelensky can eventually gain control of the military. The first thing he should do, though, is shut down western NGOs. ..."
"... Judging from my African experiences, the rulers of countries who are powerless invariably start pulling down statues (USA included), renaming streets and changing the Latin spelling of their place names ..."
"... Though the February 2014 US instigated coup put Poroshenko in power much overlooked is that the EU's European Neighborhood Policy exploited this to the hilt by having this puppet regime sign the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement. This agreement is a disaster for Ukraine's economy by creating an exclusive EU-Ukraine trade relation specifically designed to exclude Russia and destroy any existing trade ties with Russia. ..."
"... EU Comissioner Stefan Fule (responsible for implementing the European Neighborhood Policy) knew up front that this agreement would cost Ukraine up to 169 billion US$. The European Neighborhood Policy aims to establish a sphere of dependent non-member states. This is exactly why Yanukovich refused to sign that agreement and was subsequently removed from office. ..."
"... Monsanto, Cargill, Dupont, John Deere/ Iowa St. Univ. { whom I met in Kyiv } , Royal Dutch Shell, Lily Pharma and even China had a deal going for a lease of hundreds of thousands of hectares of Ag land. ..."
"... Much of the Ukie-ville territory can fail fail fail but remember which Globalist Corporations now own the bread basket , the port that they use to export grain, corn, arms, bio-war research, etc. and that these are real boss's of Ukraine. ..."
"... Obviously the deal offered to the coup plotters by Obomber via Nuland and McStain was try to raise as much hell as possible and obstruct Russia to the max and you'll get a handsome reward from Uncle Sam. If this means shooting and blowing up your own citizens in the Russian oblasts by the thousands, chopping your GNP in two through loss of mining, manufacturing, and trade, losing your natural gas transit revenues by relentlessly antagonizing Russia, destroying what industrial infrastructure there was in your pathetic country by five years of artillery barrages against the Donbass so be it. ..."
"... Zelensky is very weak, one of the least powerful leaders in the world today. But it is not just him, he reflects the weakness that took over Ukraine. They have very few options left and time is not on Kiev's side. ..."
"... I've long assessed American Presidents on a spectrum from Figurehead/Pitchman to Real POTUS. During the post-Cold War period they were increasingly the former, with Trump constituting an abrupt turn to the latter. ..."
"... This relationship of the elected/Constitutional leader to the Permanent Government/Administrative State/National Security State/Deep State is universal. ..."
"... Kolomoisky brought him to the helm, which was in essence the same thing as Maidan: several oligarchic clans ganging up on the ones feeding at the trough. The thievery won't stop, just as it did not stop after Maidan. The only thing that is going to change is the personalities of the top thieves. Nazi mobs are stupid (and therefore convenient) tool of oligarchs, just as they were in 2014. ..."
First, almost all the nationalist parties failed to get even one representative elected to
the Rada (Poroshenko's and Timoshenko's parties did get some seats, but only 25 each)
Second, for the first time since the independence of the Ukraine, the country's President
will have an absolute majority in the Rada.
The Servant of the People Party with 43.17% remains in the lead. The Opposition Platform
– For Life Party ranks second with 13.01%, Yulia Tymoshenko's Batkivshchyna Party ranks
third with 8.18%, Petro Poroshenko's European Solidarity Party has 8.11%, and Svyatoslav
Vakarchuk's Holos (Voice) Party has 5.83%. All the other parties failed to get a
representative into the Rada.
Also of interest is the score of the "Opposition Platform – for Life" party
(Rabinovich, Boyko, Medvedchuk) which got a total of 44
seats .
In plain English what this means is that the war parties have suffered a crushing
electoral defeat .
One might be forgiven in thinking that this is fantastic news for Zelenskii, but in fact it
is quite the opposite: this election result creates an extremely dangerous situation for
him.
Why the outcome of elections is extremely dangerous for the Ukraine
The first thing that we need to remember is while the neo-Nazis suffered two crushing
defeats in a row (in the Presidential election and in the Parliamentary elections), they have
not somehow magically disappeared. Here is the key factoid which we must never forget:
The Nazi-occupied Ukraine is not a democracy, but a plutocracy combined with an ochlocracy .
In plain English this means that the Ukraine is ruled by oligarchs, mobs and death
squads .
The entire Euromaidan is nothing more than the overthrow of one oligarchic gang by a
combination of other oligarchic gangs which used neo-Nazi mobs to seize power. The fact that
the USA and the EU backed this typical neo-Nazi coup really means very little: the West has
always sided with anybody and everybody who is in some way against Russia. This has been true
since the Middle-Ages and it is still true today (I would even argue that Hitler's rise to
power was yet another operation by the Anglosphere to try to control the European continent and
the fact that eventually the Nazi golem turned on its intended masters, does not change
that).
The oligarchs are still there, as are the neo-Nazis mobs and death squads. And that creates
an immense problem for Zelenskii: this new Rada might well represent the views of a majority of
the Ukrainian people, but the real power in the country is not concentrated in the Rada
at all: it is in the streets .
Legally speaking, Zelenskii does have the tools to crack down on the oligarchs and the
neo-Nazis, but in practical terms he has nothing. Okay, maybe not quite "nothing", but whatever
power he has is rooted much more in the fact that he has the backing of the ultimate
Uber-oligarch Kolomoiskii (whom many consider to be the real "president" of the Ukraine,
Zelenskii being nothing more than a puppet). Not only that, but Kolomoiskii has many scores to
settle with Poroshenko's gang, and we can be pretty sure that he will want to his enemies to
pay for what they did to him under the previous regime.
So let's sum it up.
The people of the Ukraine desperately want peace . For the time being, the
Rada reflects this overwhelmingly important fact. I say "for the time being" because what will
happen next is that the various forces and individuals who currently support Zelenskii have
done so just to gain power. They do not, however, have a common ideological platform or even a
common program. As soon as things go south (which they will inevitably do) many (most?) of
these folks will turn against Zelenskii and side with whoever can muster the biggest crowds and
mete out the most violence.
In theory, Zelenskii could "go Putin" and crush the oligarchs. But Zelenskii is no Putin, to
put it mildly. Furthermore, the true reason why the Ukrainian oligarchs hate and fear Russia is
not because of some supposed Grand-Russian nationalism or imperialism, but because they want to
keep the Ukraine in the same dysfunctional and very profitable condition in which this poor
country has been kept since 1991. When Putin came to power and cracked down on the Russian
oligarchs, the Ukrainian oligarchs looked in absolute horror at what was happening in Russia,
and they decided to do whatever it takes to prevent that from ever happening in the
Ukraine.
There is a well-known slogan in the Ukraine "Путин
прыйдэ –
порядок навэдэ"
which can be translated as "Putin came and restored order". This is the Ukie oligarch's
ultimate nightmare. As it so happens, it is also the AngloZionist Empire's ultimate nightmare.
Hence the apparently bizarre alliance between Anglos, Zionists and Nazis: they all fear that
Putin will come and restore order to the Ukraine. Add to this the hallucinations of Hillary
("Putin wants to restore the USSR") and Brzezinski ("Russia needs the Ukraine to be a
superpower") and you have a simple and all-encompassing explanation for what we have seen
taking place in the Ukraine since the Euromaidan.
Interestingly, there are even indicators that Putin is very popular with a majority of the
Ukrainian people (see here , here
,
here or
here ). This might, in part at least, explain why Poroshenko's campaign was centered on
the "either me or Putin" concept which, considering the crushing defeat suffered by Poroshenko,
could suggest that Putin was the real winner of the last election or, alternatively, that folks
only voted for Zelenskii as the least pro-war and the most anti-Poroshenko candidate: a kind of
anti-anti-Putin candidate, at least while campaigning. Now that he got elected, Zelenskii
quasi-instantly switched to the exact same rhetoric as what got Poroshenko so severely
defeated. Why?
Because Zelenskiii is afraid that the neo-Nazi mobs and death squads will be unleashed
against him at the very first opportunity. In fact, the neo-Nazis have already begun promising
a new Maidan (see
here or
here ).
Conclusion: Zelenskii has two options, both very dangerous
The truth is that Zelenskii has to choose between acting on the will of the people and
face the wrath of the neo-Nazis or do the will of the neo-Nazis and face the wrath of the
people : tertium non datur !
And if that was not bad enough, there is another factor making this even worse for
Zelenskii: nobody can meaningfully help him.
Ukraine is the classic case of ustashization. A nation (often invented, but doesn't need to
be so) with an inferiority complex (because it didn't exist, or failed to demonstrate any
reason why it should be kept around) makes it's raison d'etre to be the hatred of the
nation(s) it really should belong to.
Once this mind virus sets in I think unpersoning is the only solution. Ukraine is already
larping as a concentration camp/kolhoz, maybe it should be turned into one for real.
A real
"play stupid games win stupid prizes" solution our reality loves so much
I really wish people would give up on the neo-Nazi narrative. Say what you want about the
Nazis, as long as it's factual, but they actually improved the lives of Germans and
Ukrainians. The alleged neo-Nazis aren't interested in stopping the rape of Ukraine, they are
aiding in it. Like Russia, there are many Jewish oligarchs in Ukraine. Are you telling me
neo-Nazis were supporting them?
Before you start with the "brown shirt thugs" bs, the SA was formed to protect NSDAP
members from the communist thugs, who a couple of years previously overthrown the government
and declared Bavaria and Berlin soviet republics. I don't hear of any communists in the
streets of Ukraine.
which forces every person to chose between the Empire (main sponsor of the "Crimea
belongs to the Ukraine forever" reply) and Putin's Russia (in which everybody except the
most terminally stupid liberal politicians reply "Crimea belongs to Russia forever").
Crimea belongs to Crimeans. If they voted to leave Ukraine, they can vote to leave
Russia.
Why in recent weeks do we have a spate of tanker seizures? The game is now pin the tail on
the tanker. They all have one thing in common: John Bolton. The ploy seems to be to provoke
an over-reaction by Iran or Russia. This "aggression" by the new axis of evil would "justify"
US military action against those countries, thus satisfying Bolton's apparent death wish
dreams. The Orange cucker spaniel lets himself be dragged on Bolton's leash, while
celebrating he hasn't been charged with crimes (yet). What about the crime of selling out his
country to moneyed foreign and domestic interests?
"If he did not [order the seizure of the Russian tanker] – then he is not in control."
He is not in control – yet – anymore than Trump was in early 2017. (Not sure
if Trump is in control now). However, if Ukraine's parliament controls the budget, Zelensky
can eventually gain control of the military. The first thing he should do, though, is shut
down western NGOs.
Allow me to remind you who Mr.Zelensky is–he is an entertainer (allegedly a comic,
only few sketches by Kvartal 95 were truly funny) who has, long forgotten and never
practiced, law degree.
In other words–he cannot be in control of anything except for the circus because he
has no knowledge and skills for that. He is merely a figurehead.
Unlike circus, however, where one can observe at least some creative, however low-brow,
activity, Ukraine is not a circus long ago–it is a steadily deteriorating shithole
filled with populace most of which lives in a complete delusion. It is kind of symptomatic
that two mental asylums such as combined West and Ukraine found each-other.
I spent 4 weeks in Odessa/Odesa. Now, I am in my 3rd week in Kharkov/Kharviv.
Judging from my African experiences, the rulers of countries who are powerless invariably
start pulling down statues (USA included), renaming streets and changing the Latin spelling
of their place names. Kiev is now Kyiv apparently – because English-speakers have no
say in the matter. Even if it remains Киев in both Slavic
languages.
All I can say is that it is amazing that tourists from Western Europe are not pouring into
places like Odessa. There are decent beaches nearby. Food, restaurant and transport costs are
a fraction of those in the South of France – or anywhere else in the EU for that
matter. An Uber from downtown to the airport is less than $4 at this moment in time (Friday
8:00PM). The subway in Kharkov costs a flat 32 cents!
Lean beef mince is $1.10 per lb ($3 per kg). In Australia, it is $9/kg.
The girls here are a heck of a lot prettier than in Paris. There are only a handful of
Black students in Kharkov. There are no social handouts so the detritus of the 3rd world does
not willingly come here.
I speak no Russian (Kharkov is really the Russia of Yeltsin) and people are very polite to
me. There is no crime whatsoever (unlike Odessa). You can walk around the centre for days and
hear no English, German, French, Italian, Greek, Spanish etc.
Cocktails in the ritziest of bars is around $5. There is a huge surplus of females. I am
69 and I get looks from girls in their 20's. I guess I look different from the Slavs. I have
no paunch and I still have much of my hair.
I go out in the evening with a handful of cash that is worth very little. When I come
home, my pocket is still full. I am paying $21 per night for a studio with one double and two
single beds in a nice area near the nightlife.
If this is gentle decline, I am all for it. I wish London would go back to the way it was
when I was a student there – 1968-73. I wish Sydney would go back to the way it was
when I first visited in 1978. I wish Cairo were like in the 1950's. And California like in
'69 when I spent 4 months there. and students at UCLA glorified Charles Manson.
@Curmudgeon Yes, the
neo-Nazis support the Jewish oligarchs that fund them. In their minds they're using the
oligarchs not the other way around. It's the same mental gymnastics that Antifa and other
left wing extremists use to justify receiving support and protection from corporations,
universities, and the police.
Crimea belongs to Crimeans. If they voted to leave Ukraine, they can vote to leave
Russia.
That's nice, but Crimeans aren't going to vote to leave Russia. Crimea is inhabited by
Russians and pro-Russian Ukrainians who overwhelmingly desire to be part of Russia. The
Tatars were the only ones against joining Russia and they're a small minority. Crimea is a
region of Russia that due to historical accident was briefly separated from Russia. Crimea is
as likely to vote to join Ukraine as Lvov is to join Russia, and an independent Crimean state
has no cultural or political basis.
Though the February 2014 US instigated coup put Poroshenko in power much overlooked is that
the EU's European Neighborhood Policy exploited this to the hilt by having this puppet regime
sign the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement. This agreement is a disaster for Ukraine's economy
by creating an exclusive EU-Ukraine trade relation specifically designed to exclude Russia
and destroy any existing trade ties with Russia.
EU Comissioner Stefan Fule (responsible for implementing the European Neighborhood Policy)
knew up front that this agreement would cost Ukraine up to 169 billion US$. The European
Neighborhood Policy aims to establish a sphere of dependent non-member states. This is
exactly why Yanukovich refused to sign that agreement and was subsequently removed from
office.
The IMF and EU provided loans to Ukraine and proceeded with imposing the usual "Washington
Consensus" recipe: austerity, liberalization, fire sale of assets resulting in halving GDP
exploding debt and firmly indenturing Ukraine thus losing its political and economic
sovereignty.
Great article – Since I was in Ukraine before, during and after the Maidan, there is
another huge factor involved. President Yanukovych, before running to Russia , was receiving
millions of dollars from the rich Globalist Corporations and some countries. Monsanto,
Cargill, Dupont, John Deere/ Iowa St. Univ. { whom I met in Kyiv } , Royal Dutch Shell, Lily
Pharma and even China had a deal going for a lease of hundreds of thousands of hectares of Ag
land.
China had started to put a port in Crimea and it was real close to where i lived. The
Place was for sale. After the EU deal fell thru lol, and Ukraine fell into a failed state,
and the East Ukrainians were isolated, and Crimea voted to head back to Mother Russia, those
Globalist took over and now own the best parts of Ukraine and are making their money from the
cheap labor along with owning the breadbasket and other corrupt industries. The US Navy ,
moved between Odecca and Crimea and between Cargill and them – they own the port that
exports all the grain, arms, Bio – war labs, etc.. I'm assuming that the Nazi armies
are probably supplying the security to these globalists { Saker would have to verify for this
} and as the Saker confirms , it doesn't much matter what Kyiv says or does – the
Globalists, their Nazis, their partners in Tel Aviv – run the show/circus/scam. Spacibo
UNZ
Good comment
– Much of the Ukie-ville territory can fail fail fail but remember which Globalist
Corporations now own the bread basket , the port that they use to export grain, corn, arms,
bio-war research, etc. and that these are real boss's of Ukraine. LOL
I was on the
Crimea/Ukie border this weekend and a guy was selling Amerikansky corn { cuuka roosa } and he
said some farmers are stealing Monsantos seeds and growing corn on the side. I bought a few
cobs for a buck and it definitely looked and tasted like corn I got – back in the states
– bright dark yellow – not light colored like regular sweet corn I get here. And
the circus – goes on.
The comparative point about Putin and Zelensky vis-a-vis the oligarchs is something Western
mass media has pretty much overlooked. Instead, there's the (otherwise faulty) image of
Ukraine having something positive which Russia lacks.
Obviously the deal offered to the coup plotters by Obomber via Nuland and McStain was try to
raise as much hell as possible and obstruct Russia to the max and you'll get a handsome
reward from Uncle Sam. If this means shooting and blowing up your own citizens in the Russian
oblasts by the thousands, chopping your GNP in two through loss of mining, manufacturing, and
trade, losing your natural gas transit revenues by relentlessly antagonizing Russia,
destroying what industrial infrastructure there was in your pathetic country by five years of
artillery barrages against the Donbass so be it.
I would only ask the Ukrainian "braintrust," has Uncle Sam delivered anything he promised,
other than a few surplus outdated weapons he couldn't pawn off to his Islamic headchopper
mercenaries and some nice gratuities for Porky, Yats, and the other traitors who would play
ball? No question but Uncle got his money's worth in the metastasizing damage he's been able
to do to Russian economic interests–most significantly in cancelling or delaying all
the gas pipelines to Europe–all stemming from how convincingly Ukraine managed to
machine gun itself in all recognizable body parts while blaming its madness on "malign"
actions by Russia. Washington's next big awaited success is to put the kibosh on Nordstream
II by stopping all construction in Danish waters and then instigating lawsuits from the EU
for breach of contract against Russia for failing to deliver product (or so say some
analysts). Oh, and then they'll schlock their LNG to dumb Euro trash at twice the price.
Poland thinks it will become a supplier of American LNG to the EU through a new pipeline it
is building. "Free trade" America remains as persistent as a pack of rabid wolverines in its
goal of strangling all possible trade between Europe and Russia.
Just what is Ukraine gonna get of any value, especially after its gold reserves, fertile
farm land and energy/mineral resources have been put in the hands of the American MIC and
Western corporations? The satisfaction of Russia being sanctioned for the next two centuries?
I will really LMAO if those Western carpetbaggers don't even hire native Ukies to work in the
industries they plan to set up in that country. I think Hunter Biden was meant to be the
prototype. Hell, even the Ukie government, micromanaged by Washington, wouldn't fill
important ministerial positions with native Ukies, opting instead for Russophobic Americans,
Georgians and anyone with an axe to grind against Russia. Europe won't let them join the EU,
since their economy is weaker than that of most third world African countries, and NATO had
better not admit them or face the prospect of World War III the very next day as they invoke
article five after taking pot shots at Russia buoyed by the exuberance of knowing that Uncle
Sam's got their back! American Evangelicals support Israel and wait for the rapture. Poland,
the Baltics and Ukraine drink the Neocon Koolaid and wait for Washington to nuke Russia. More
like the whole planet gets raptured that day, cuz everyone's troubles will be ovah!
@Adam Crimea in Ukraine
would simply mean more bloodshed, does Zelensky really want more fighting?
For those who argue that ' borders in Europe can't be changed ': that ship has
sailed with Kosovo. It is idiotic to support self-determination with massive bombing in
Kosovo and try to deny it in Crimea. Precedent is a precedent.
Zelensky is very weak, one of the least powerful leaders in the world today. But it is not just him, he reflects the
weakness that took over Ukraine. They have very few options left and time is not on Kiev's side. A small regional
quasi-war, emigrating and drinking with surplus left-behind women is probably the best they can do. Even splitting up the
country would now just make worse.
But Maidan sure was fun, right? That Nuland lady had nothing but the well-being of
Ukrainians on her mind.
Oh for God's sake STOP with the bullshit term "neo-nazi" when describing the Jewish led and
paid for Galician street thugs that perpetrated so called 'Euro Maidan'.
They have nothing in common with German NS, except absconding with symbols of the SS so
that the Jooz that perpetrated all this can always say "see, not us, but those wicked Nazis
did all this killing" when the truth inevitably comes out that this was an organized coup,
not a popular revolt.
Meanwhile Saker, go to hell for the stupidity and arrogance of your fevered attempts to
portray the situations in Ukraine as some sort of "oligarchy" attempting to put a
semi-natural and sorta-legit face on what really is JOO LED RAPING OF THE COUNTRY by Nudelman
and her co-Tribal mafioso stooges, Kolomoisky, et al.
the accomplices and co-conspirators in the [Kolomoisky's] scheme include officials of
the IMF, the US and Canadian Governments who knowingly directed billions of dollars into
the NBU, from which, as they knew full well at the time, the money went out to Kolomoisky's
Privat Bank, the largest single Ukrainian recipient of the international cash. At the top
of the list of accomplices, immediately subordinate to Clinton, Nuland and Lagarde, are
David Lipton, the US deputy managing director at the IMF, and the head of the IMF in
Ukraine until 2017, Jerome Vacher.
"The stated purpose for each loan involved in the Optima Schemes was typically for
financing the activities of the ostensible corporate borrower. The Optima Scheme Loans,
however, were sham arrangements and the proceeds were not in fact used for that purpose.
Instead, sometimes within minutes of being disbursed, the loan proceeds were cycled through
dozens of UBO-controlled or affiliated bank accounts at PrivatBank's Cyprus branch
("PrivatBank Cyprus") before being disbursed to one of multiple Delaware limited liability
companies or corporations (or other United States-based entities), all of which were
[controlled by the UBOs]."
"In effect, the UBOs utilized a Ponzi-type scheme: old loans issued by PrivatBank would
be 'repaid' (along with the accrued interest) with new loans issued by PrivatBank, and
those new loans issued by PrivatBank would then be repaid with a new round of loans. The
UBOs and their co-conspirators continuously carried out this process to conceal their
frauds. Thus, proceeds from new PrivatBank loans were used to give the appearance that the
initial PrivatBank loans (along with the accrued interest) were repaid by the borrower when
in fact there was no actual repayment."
A regular Jewish business approved by the ZUSA and IMF. The ordinary Ukrainians will be
forced to pay with whatever is left of the raped and robbed country. In short, looting.
Nobody wants such a treacherous and greedy country like Ukraina .
In 2018 the gross per capita income in Ukraina was down to 2624 euros , and in Bolivia was
3005 euros . Ucrania shows that the IQ of white blond people can be very very low .
Russia does not want Ukraina anylonger , it would be too expensive and risky . Crimea and
Donbass already went back to Russia . Maybe in the future the russian speaking east and south
of Ukraina will beg Russia to take them and pay again the gas and oil for them , but it would
be too expensive and dangerous for Russia .
The EU does not want Ukraina , it would be ruinous , it is already ruinous the admission
in the EU of so many eastern european countries .
As the excellent cartoon shows , the anglo-israelis are the only ones who benefit fron the
ukranian tragedy , they are using Ukraina against Europe , against Russia and against the EU
( fuck the EU said Nuland when she was organizing the coup d`Etat in Kiev ) . Poroshenko and
Zelensky are jewish as well as most of the oligarchs of Ukraina .
Agree that Hitler and the nazis were put in power by the zionist banking cabal as is pointed
out in the book Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler by Anthony Sutton and in the book The
Crime and Punishment of I. G. Farben by Joseph Borkin and in the book Trading With the Enemy
by Charles Higham, among many others, and the destruction of the Ukraine had the neo-nazis
funded by the same zionist bankers with their front puppets the Nulands , etc. and so the
problems in the Ukraine will never go away unless and until the zionists are thrown out of
the country and only Russia can help with that!
One thing that is a fact, in all countries where there is violence, destruction, and war,
to find the cause look no further than the zionist bankers and we goyim here in America have
the same problem with the zionist bankers since their creation of the FED in 1913 with the
inception of perpetual wars and debt and big brother government all thanks to the satanic
demonic zionist banking kabal.
I've long assessed American Presidents on a spectrum from Figurehead/Pitchman to Real POTUS.
During the post-Cold War period they were increasingly the former, with Trump constituting an
abrupt turn to the latter.
This relationship of the elected/Constitutional leader to the Permanent
Government/Administrative State/National Security State/Deep State is universal.
The cliche "Hindsight is easy," most definitely applies. Does a leader/administration
survive; what of its objectives is it able to achieve. Erdogan and Putin are examples of
leaders able to survive and act in the national interest.
Even more than casual observers such as The Saker have difficulty not lapsing in bias
confirmation. Thus Putin is a brilliant operator but Trump is a clown and sock puppet.
Any observer who has any respect for themselves should exercise some common sense. Trump
has not only survived everything his enemies (pretty much the whole of what I call Globalist
Filth) have thrown at him but he's moved his America First agenda (MAGA!; Global Trade Reset;
America First foreign policy).
I mention this in the current context because Ukraine is such a mess it raises the
question as to what Zelenskii can realistically accomplish. Besides the obvious (staying
alive; finishing his term),
Am I the only one to notice that in 2016 and since the Cold War 2.0 shouters were Radio
Silent about Nord Stream II. That was the gift to Putin for turning a blind eye (or better
assisting) in throwing the election to Hillary. This is likely top of the gift list delivered
by Brennan personally to Moscow in a secret trip in March, 2016.
It's too late for the POTUS to stop Nord Stream II. Instead he's leveraging it with Putin
(and Merkel).
Trump inherited a mess from Obama. Not the least because the former administration put out
the word that everything was on the table for foreign powers willing to assist with Hillary
taking power. Trump is upping the cost to Putin of his close alliance with Xi/China. Whether
it's making Russia (and China) spend money and geopolitical capital propping up the bus
driver in Venezuela or the expense of protecting against close-in NATO capabilities. As the
POTUS says frequently "I've got nothing but time."
How it goes for Ukraine/Zelenskii is wholly a function of the bargaining between the POTUS
and Putin.
@DESERT FOX Don't
understand why I may not yet use the AGREE option.
Hitler and the nazis were put in power by the zionist banking cabal as is pointed out in
the book Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler by Anthony Sutton and in the book The Crime and
Punishment of I. G. Farben by Joseph Borkin and in the book Trading With the Enemy by
Charles Higham, among many others,
Why so much talk about Zelenskii? He is a nonentity, a clown, by profession and by personal
qualities. When he does not have a script written by someone else, he becomes incoherent. Ze
was best described by Ukrainian rights lawyer Montyan: a hologram.
Kolomoisky brought him to the helm, which was in essence the same thing as Maidan: several
oligarchic clans ganging up on the ones feeding at the trough. The thievery won't stop, just
as it did not stop after Maidan. The only thing that is going to change is the personalities
of the top thieves. Nazi mobs are stupid (and therefore convenient) tool of oligarchs, just
as they were in 2014.
Russian government would be stupid to support any existing force in Ukraine, including
Medvedchuk's Pro Life party. As Russian bloggers often say, there is no reason to look for
differences in various kinds of shit.
The main weakness of Ukrainians is their hope that
someone else will solve their problems for them. That equally applies to those who pin their
hopes on the US and its vassals and to those who look to Russia. The uncomfortable truth is
that either they sort things out themselves, or their "country" will remain the shithole it
was since 1991 and still is.
Pentagon Reject Russian Doctrine Russia slapped NATO. The US Department of Defense said
that there are "challenges" in deterring a threat in Russia's doctrine.
The US Department of Defense said that there are "challenges" in deterring a nuclear
threat in Russia's military doctrine. Thus, according to Pentagon Deputy Head John Oud, the
Russian doctrine states that Russia can use nuclear weapons "without fear" against the United
States and its partners to meet an "adequate response".
Gabbard is more controlled opposition. Remember, she voted for the anti-BDS resolution,
more sanctions and is anti-2nd Amendment. Don't be fooled by her shtick.
She says she is against forever wars yet she voted to pass the monstrosity that is the new
defense bill. She is also a friend to Israhell as she voted for anti BDS.
I don't listen to what politicians say but what they do that falls in line with the most
important elements of empire.
Pornography multiplies frequency, duration, angles, positions and sexual partners, an
endless and eternal sexual buffet, except that none of it is really happening. Similarly,
American democracy gives the appearance of boundless participation by all citizens, for they
can't just vote in caucuses and elections, but cheer at conventions, march in protest, write
letters to newspapers, comment on the internet and follow, blow by blow, the serial mud
wrestling between opposing politicians. Pissed, they can freely curse Bush, Obama or Trump
without fearing a midnight knock on the door. Alas, none of their "political activities"
actually matters, for Americans don't influence their government's policies, much less decide
them. It's all an elaborate spectacle to make each chump think he's somehow a player, in on the
action, when he's actually all alone, in the dark, to beat his own meat, yet again.
He has railroaded, premasticated opinions on everything, but without the means to act on any
of it. Only his impotence is real.
"... Any candidate that is publicly against the empire is the enemy of not only the state, it's quislings in the media, the corporations who profit from it and the party machines of both the GOP and the DNC. That is Gabbard's crime. And it's the only crime that matters. ..."
"... This represents an intervention into her ability to speak to voters and, as such, is a violation of not only her First Amendment rights but also, more critically, campaign finance law. ..."
"... On a day when it became clear to the world that Robert Mueller led an investigation to affect the outcome of the 2018 mid-term elections (and beyond) while attempting to overthrow an elected President, Gabbard attacking the one of the main pillars of the information control system is both welcome and needed. ..."
"... Her filing this lawsuit is making it clear that even a fairly conventional Democrat on most all other issues is to be marginalized if she criticizes the empire. ..."
"... You can disagree with Tulsi on many things but she is absolutely right and the only one who gets the real problem.Military Industrial Complex & The Empire. ..."
Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI)
is suing Google
. It's about time someone did. It's one thing to for conservatives and libertarians to be outraged by their treatment
by the tech giant, it's another for them to go after a female Democrat.
Since Trump's election the campaign to curtail free speech has went into overdrive and we are now far beyond Orwell's dystopian
vision in 1984 in terms of technological infrastructure.
Google makes Big Brother look like George Carlin's the Hippy Dippy Weather Man with the "hippy dippy weather, man." The drive
to stamp out all forms of political division has only one thing animating it, protecting the drive of the elites I call The Davos
Crowd to erect a transnational superstate to herd humanity to their vision of sustainability.
Gabbard is the only person running for the Democratic nomination worth any amount of my time. Her fundamental criticisms of the
U.S. warfare state are spot on. She's sincere about this. It's costing her stature within her own party.
She's a committed anti-imperialist. She's also young, inexperienced and a little bit naive. But that, to me, is part of her charm.
It means she is still malleable. She's smart enough to be outraged about where we are headed and young enough to be flexible about
what the solutions are to stop it from happening.
So, as such, she's the perfect champion for the defenders of free speech and critics of the U.S. empire. A young, attractive,
intelligent woman of mixed-race heritage with a service record who stands athwart the mainstream on the most important issue in politics
today: the U.S. empire.
The entire time I was growing up the prevailing wisdom was Social Security was the third rail of U.S. politics. That, like so
many other pearls of wisdom, was nonsense.
The true third rail of U.S. politics is empire.
Any candidate that is publicly against the empire is the enemy of not only the state, it's quislings in the media, the corporations
who profit from it and the party machines of both the GOP and the DNC. That is Gabbard's crime. And it's the only crime that matters.
For that crime Google acted to blunt interest in her campaign in the critical hours after the first democratic debate. So, Gabbard,
rightly, sued them.
The two main points of her lawsuit are:
1) suspending her Google Ad account for six hours while search traffic for her was spiking and
2) Gmail disproportionately junked her campaign emails.
This represents an intervention into her ability to speak to voters and, as such, is a violation of not only her First Amendment
rights but also, more critically, campaign finance law.
Whether this lawsuit goes anywhere or not is beside the point. Google will ignore it until they can't and then settle with her
before discovery. Gabbard doing this is good PR for her as it sets her on the right side of an incredibly important issue, censorship
and technological bias/de-platforming of political outsiders.
It's also good because if she does pursue this principally, it will lead to potential discovery of Google's internal practices,
lending the DoJ a hand in pursuing all the big tech firms for electioneering.
On a day when it became clear to the world that Robert Mueller led an investigation to affect the outcome of the 2018 mid-term
elections (and beyond) while attempting to overthrow an elected President, Gabbard attacking the one of the main pillars of the information
control system is both welcome and needed.
Her filing this lawsuit is making it clear that even a fairly conventional Democrat on most all other issues is to be marginalized
if she criticizes the empire.
As libertarians and conservatives it is irrelevant if she is conventional in other areas. It doesn't matter that she's been to
a CFR meeting or two or that she's anti-gun. She's not going to be president.
This is not about our virtue-signaling about the purity of essence of our political figures. They are tools to our ends. And on
now two incredibly important issues leading up to the 2020 election Tulsi Gabbard is on the right side of them.
She is someone we can and should reach out to and support while she makes these issues the centerpiece of her campaign. Her timing
is even more excellent than what I've already stated.
Filing this lawsuit is a pre-emptive strike at Google now that she's qualified for the next two Democratic debates. And it may
assist her in breaking out of the bottom tier of the Democratic field, Ron Paul style if she gets her opportunity.
Shedding light on Google's anti-free speech practices is a fundamental good, one we should celebrate. Dare I say, it's double
plus good.
* * *
Join
my Patreon
and
install Brave
if you both hate big tech censorship and the empire in equal
measure.
You can disagree with Tulsi on many things but she is absolutely
right and the only one who gets the real problem.Military
Industrial Complex & The Empire.
If you won't kill this problem
you can virtue signal about your left and right opinions about
your perfect candidate as much as you want without getting
anything done ( Trump). Purism won't help you. It only gets you
distracted and controlled by the elites.
The point of this article is that Gabbard is taking on GOOGLE,
for screwing with her account. See Google demonitizes, deboosts,
deplatforms people without them even knowing it, and diddles their
search algorythms NOT ONLY against conservatives, but for
independent democrats like Gabbard. THAT'S THE POINT, not who or
what Gabbard stands for. The dem party did the same to Gabbard
during the 2016 election, cut her off from financing, because she
supported Bernie Sanders.
This is the sort of **** things dim's do, and progressive
companies like Fakebook, Twatter and Goolag. Now Gabbard may not
have views that we can support, but if she is taking on GOOLAG,
than we should stand like a wall behind her. This is a big threat
to 1st amendment rights.
Good point, chunga. She is already being given the Ron Paul
treatment by MSM (they either slam her as basically a naive
fool, or just ignore her), so no way does she rise to the top
of the **** pile of Blue Team candidates. Would make a good
run as an independent, and maybe wake some people up.
uh Hillary Clinton stood with Bush and lied the world into war. Hillary and Obama brought
slavery back to Libya and ISIS and the largest refugee crisis since WW2 to Syria .
Dont forget genocide in Yemen ..
Hillary also supported disastrous free trade deals like NAFTA and CAFTA and {TPP that
brought back slavery} that harm workers on both sides of the borders
Hillary also toppled a democratically elected president in Honduras with Death Squads and
Obama killed 40,000 innocent t people with Sanctions in Venezuela
They are fleeing Hillary and Obama's Terror spree ..and cheer on worse WW3 with Russia
Reporter Quits NBC Citing Network's Support For Endless War
c.. Yes, Yes, Yes and Yes, Emma Peele, Without a Doubt – and I absolutely adore your
"Avengers" pseudonym !
Hillary's disgusting crimes, however, seem to me to be an attempt to ingratiate herself
(and the Democrats) with the Ultra Hawkish Bush Era Republicans.
Who can ever forgive & forget her ghoulish pronouncement, "We came, we saw, He
died!!"
(in reference to the ghoulishly brutal public murder of Libya's Qaddafi. {Qaddafi's "Green
Book" was a well imagined Socio-Economic plan for for the economic liberation of Africa from
the economic and cultural strictures of US, European Absolutist Brutal Dominion.} -- As it
was, Libya, under Qaddafi, was a liberal, socialist society with free education, free health
care for all citizens, and a nation with it's own currency , free from US/EURO manipulation
and control.
-- This Is Why We Killed Him. --
This is US Command and Control World-Wide POLICY ! ! ! --
-- Anglo-Saxon Command and Control of the Whole Wide World and all it's resources Owned and
Militarily Controlled by European Bankers
-- - EUROPEAN Bankers, Rothschild Criminal Banker WarMongers/ Wall Street and American
Military Power --
These are They which Evilly Rule the World and Disparage or Murder (annihilate) All Others
at their pleasure, and Trump is an evil antagonist with the personage of a King Leopold.
Please find "KING LEOPOLD'S GHOST' By Adam Hochschild
Occupy
was no revolution, but its initial aim of disrupting a key operation of the state was the right
idea, for you must hurt your enemy, if only for a day. Imagine Wall Street or nearby Goldman
Sachs in flames! This goal was akin to puncturing a pipeline, blowing up an important bridge or
assassinating a crucial figure. In America, however, there's no visible target who's actually
worth killing, for none is indispensable to the state's criminal function. Those out in the
open are just actors. In laying out a much ballyhooed puppet's mangled cadaver, all you'll
achieve is a symbolic goal, but perhaps it's worth it after all, for all traitors must pay, and
it may even inspire a real revolt.
Revolution sounds cool because it implies a terrible awakening of the masses, to impose
their will, exact justice and start a new paradigm, but most revolutions are fake, with many
orchestrated by another elite or triggered by a foreign power. Moreover, Americans are too
divided and atomized to rebel as a people, so the best you can hope for is to regain
independence, freedom and sanity for your state, region or maybe just town.
The first step is to stop thinking of yourself as an American, for there's no America left
to save, much less "make great again," and there are no Americans left either, for if anybody
can be a defacto American just by showing up, then the concept is meaningless. That's like me
landing in Tel Aviv tomorrow and declaring I'm a Jew.
Your average American hardly has a hometown, just a homepage, and his neighbors are the
anonymous, pseudonymous, hasbarists and trolls he compulsively chats with. If you don't even
belong to your neighborhood, how are you the citizen of any nation?
To reclaim your street, you must regain your mind, but the porn has gotten so damn good, why
would anyone want to leave PornHub, Chaturbate or Illusory Participation, USA?
I was born in 1963, a year of many coup d'états, and you may remember the one in
South Vietnam, Guatemala, Ecuador, Honduras, Dominican Republic, Benin, Togo, Iraq or Syria,
which actually witnessed two. The most significant happened right in the US of A, however, and
like most, it was certainly an inside job.
Like Ngo Dinh Diem, John F. Kennedy wasn't a good enough puppet, so he had to be expertly
brained. Even if Lyndon Johnson wasn't in on the plot, he served them faithfully afterwards, as
has every American president since. They've all gotten the message. Similarly, it only
takes one academic to be defenestrated from the ivory tower for the rest to toe the line.
Americans live in a cowed country. Home of the brave my ass!
Protesting their government, thousands of Americans became symbolically homeless
, but their society has only sunk further, with destitution, despair and anger rapidly
increasing. As the rank of those who must sleep and defecate outside constantly swells,
Washington still doesn't give a shit, but why should it? They're getting theirs.
Inside the Beltway may be a swamp, but it's a gilded one, designed for the most arrogant and
smug. Outside, the quicksand ocean keeps on devouring.
Game over, I heave these toss away lines during garbage time, but enough of this, for I must
return to my daily tons of garbage .
The future is indeed plastic. From the end of the world, I watch various endings.
The theatrically strident "radical," who's most conformist, paradoxically this specimen
is a cookie cutter puppet that's jerked by a totalitarian master, the very state he thinks
he's resisting. Obediently correct, the American radical divides and attacks the masses.
Happily domineered, he demands that everyone else becomes as shackled as he is, and since
this will never happen, he's eternally enraged.
Notice how the solidarity of the 99% is no longer evoked by anybody.
Most revolutions are fake, with many orchestrated by another elite or triggered by a
foreign power.
Your average American hardly has a hometown, just a homepage.
I've read several well done, poetic, laments for the USA tonight, always enjoy good writing.
Don't understand why you exceptionalize JFK, though, he was pretty much a white Obama, good
looking but completely without insight or competence and certainly no different than Truman,
LBJ, RonReagan and all the rest. I mean, really? Have to admit, banging MM would sure beat
Porn!
@Brabantian "Steve
Sailer had written earlier about the idea that the elite-fostered public obsessing with
racial ethnic etc identity as a war cry, date from after the crushing of the Occupy movement,
as the possibly supreme distraction from people uniting against the elites."
Been going on for a long time. The New Age movements were spookfests to sidetrack
energetic and hopeful youth from trying to initiate real change in society. Follow a guru
("got to get a guru" drummed into our minds) or a Sun Myung Moon, instead of bothering the
elite ruling families and their wealth machine.
AntiFa never goes after the true fascists, the private owners of the corporations that
work with the government at transferring wealth from Public to Private hands. The Hidden Hand
at work.
Climate Change. Taxes and more expense for individuals to combat the Public-Private
partnership geo engineering of the Weather. Great Carbo "The People must change".
How about They shut down the weather modification machines for a start.
Projects created in sub basements underneath Langley.
@IvyMikeY ou
make your entirely idiotic claim and reveal your ignorance. The worst part of UR is the large
number of ignorant and/or lying babblers peddling their wares here.
• JFK was trying to stop Israel from getting The Bomb.
• JFK had ordered US forces out of Vietnam by the end of 1965.
• JFK had spoken out against secret societies.
• JFK had issued Executive Order 11110.
• HST dropped The Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
• HST woke up in the middle of the night to recognize Israel.
• LBJ carried on an illicit affair with Israeli agent Mathilde Krim.
• LBJ called back jet fighters racing to defend the USS Liberty from Israeli
attack.
• LBJ escalated US involvement in Vietnam.
• LBJ claimed to have been visited by the Holy Spirit in the White House.
• RWR granted amnesty to illegal aliens in the U.S.
• RWR presided over downsizing, outsourcing, and offshoring U.S. industry to China.
• RWR tripled the national debt.
• RWR conspired with GHWB to delay release of U.S. hostages in Iran.
Linh Dinh: "Moreover, Americans are too divided and atomized to rebel as a people, so the
best you can hope for is to regain independence, freedom and sanity for your state, region or
maybe just town."
Atomization, alienation, and anomie are inherent properties of mass society. The only way
to get rid of these things would be to get rid of the mass of people themselves, or to
destroy the technology that undergirds such an arrangement and makes it possible. The latter
is a solution that would also cause a mass die off.
Many people imagine that the system could arbitrarily be decentralized, without
understanding that things have centralized, and are as they are, for a great many good,
practical reasons. Nevertheless, there is always nostalgia for the past. An article I
recently read ends this way:
We must have a polis again, in all that the Greeks understood by that term: small,
self-governing communities bound by common language, ethnicity, customs, and religious
traditions. Such a thing, far from being utopian, would spring from our nature, life as it
was lived across thousands of generations. What is artificial is our divorce from the land,
our crowding into cities to live alongside strangers for the purpose of endless
consumption, and our insistence on universalism even when we ourselves – those of
European descent – lose the most by it.
But that author appears not to understand, any more than you do, that such a thing is
impossible in the modern world. The technological infrastructure necessary to support the
more than seven billion people on the planet won't permit it; not even the 330 million or so
in the USA. Keep the infrastructure, and keep the atomization, alienation, and anomie. You
can't have one without the other.
Chinaman: "As Mark Twain put it succinctly: "If voting made a difference, they wouldn't let
you do it""
This doesn't appear in any of his writings, and is dubious. Twain did write or say some
other things about voting that are in conflict with it, for example:
But in this country we have one great privilege which they don't have in other countries.
When a thing gets to be absolutely unbearable the people can rise up and throw it off. That's
the finest asset we've got -- the ballot box.
– interview in Boston Transcript, 6 November 1905
A similar quote has been attributed to anarchist Emma Goldman, who seems a more likely
source.
"If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal."
Representative democracy is just evolutionary autocracy, autocracy perfected.
In the good old days, were a leader to be a bit cruel or terrible, there would be an, if a
little bloody, directly democratic revolution, and the system would be switched to something
new. This is really just the Duke of Zhou's Mandate of Heaven, but without the pointing to
the unverifiable.
But within our autocracy, a good old boy can become leader through a popularity contest,
in which they neither have to tell the truth, nor wear speedos down a promenade for judges,
be a cruel and terrible leader, and even if the system somehow indited them whilst they were
in office, then another magical election would be called, and another good old boy would be
tapped into the hot seat. Sometimes they'd wear a blue tie, sometimes a red tie – but
they'd always listen to the brain, the permanent governments of elite money and power, and do
its bidding.
Representative democracy is a facelift, and currently, the world's representative
democracies are mostly giving facelifts to zombies. Protest is the right to shout but not the
right to be listened to. Being listened to is semi-direct democracy. At the very least a
legal and independent path to the reversing of representative decisions, so that there could
be a check and balance on the whole system of government by the people, de facto as well as
de jure.
This is spot on about the disease but not about the cure. For the cure consult LaFollette's
autobiography, Pinchot on the history of the Progressive Party, Thorstein Veblen's economics
(Michael Hudson for help), Buckminster Fuller, the Townsend Clubs, Upton Sinclair Eisenhower
told us -- an alert informed citizenry is America's ONLY hope. That's why you never heard of
these people.
Been going on for a long time. The New Age movements were spookfests to sidetrack
energetic and hopeful youth from trying to initiate real change in society.
Indeed. The incubus was generated in the social sciences labs of Tavistock and Frankfurt
even earlier, in this case to impregnate the minds instead of wombs. The offspring are the
sordid sexual freaks blinded and deranged by political syphilis.
They call this abortion Cultural Marxism to complete the oxymoronic allegory of fighting
for equality when the purpose and result is the opposite through diversion and division to
entrench elite rule.
Marx's words and works have been denigrated to give authority to a miscarriage. Marxism is
for equality, real equality; not sexual perversions, race blindness, gender fusion. His
philosophical message is that our existence is determined by our relationship with the social
and economic forces acting on our lives. The root power comes from the relations of
production, that is, our place in the economic order; whether you have to labour for your
crust or you belong to the chosen or privileged class; whether you have to sell your labour
to survive or enjoy the profits from the product of someone else's labour. In a sentence:
Marxism is for economic equality. Everything else is a distraction and smoke-screen.
@Laura McGrath It is
not race that is the problem. Brazil has a very mixed population. It had ZUS coup in 2016.
Race mixing will not help free this planet of the criminals who rule us.
For the Brazilian political scientist and historian Moniz Bandeira, the alarms rang long
ago. "These demonstrations that started last year and before the World Cup were not
spontaneous. These were prepared beforehand, with trained elements, trained agitators", he
explains. In his book "A Segunda Guerra Fria" (The Second Cold War) he describes in detail
the role of some NGOs and think-thanks in the so called color revolutions. "What is
necessary in Brazil is that the government does what Putin did: to force all NGOs to
register, register the money they receive, where they receive it from and how they use
it.
"
It is all about the Benjamins. Race mixing is not going to help us at all. It is a
delusion from our rulers. Obama is a classic example. In his administration he had a coup in
Honduras, Paraguay, Brazil, Argentina, Ukraine and who knows where else. He destroyed Libya,
Syria by supporting "rebels" and Yemen he did the same.
Moniz points out the American interest in maintaining the prevalence of the dollar as
the global currency. According to him, threatened by BRICS – and the nonexistence of
regional powers in the continent -- "That's what the U.S don't want: Brazil having nuclear
submarines, they don't want a regional power in South America – not to mention one
that is linked to China and Russia. And there's a detail unknown for the Brazilian people:
there's a struggle around the international reserve currency. The fact that the U.S has the
right to print as much dollars as they want and the fact that the dollar is the
international currency: that's where the U.S hegemony lies. And what China and Putin want
to put an end to is just that -- that's the reason behind the BRICS."
Terpil later told author and investigative journalist Jim Hougan:
Historically, one of Wilson's Agency jobs was to subvert members of both houses [of
Congress] by any means necessary . Certain people could be easily coerced by living out
their sexual fantasy in the flesh . A remembrance of these occasions [was] permanently
recorded via selected cameras . The technicians in charge of filming [were] TSD [Technical
Services Division of the CIA]. The unwitting porno stars advanced in their political
careers, some of [whom] may still be in office."
. . . .
The downfall of "Washington's Jay Gatsby"
After having left his job as an ABC News correspondent in the 1980s, Craig Spence found
success as a prominent conservative Washington lobbyist. Spence would soon find his
fortunes shift dramatically when, in June 1989 , it was revealed that he had been
pimping out children to the power elite in the nation's capital throughout the 1980s in
apartments that were bugged with video and audio recording equipment. Much like Jeffrey
Epstein, who ran a similar operation, Spence was often likened to Jay Gatsby, the
mysterious, wealthy figure from the well-known Fitzgerald novel The Great Gatsby.
Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY)
told
Luke Rudkowski of "
We
Are Change
," a libertarian media organization, that Democratic presidential candidate
Tulsi Gabbard has just signed on as a co-sponsor of Audit the Fed bill, officially known as
H.R.24
The Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2019
.
The bill
authorizes the General Accountability Office to perform a full audit of the
Fed's conduct of monetary policy,
including the Fed's mysterious dealings with Wall
Street, central banks and governments.
During the interview, Massie said the latest development in attempting to audit the Federal
Reserve is that Gabbard signed on as co-sponsor.
He believes the topic will "get some
airtime" in the upcoming presidential debates.
He said there are four Democratic co-sponsors and 80 Republican co-sponsors for the
bill;
it was recently passed in the House of Representatives as it heads to the Senate.
Massie said:
"We have passed it in the House but have never passed it in the Senate. Because of a lot of
these people in the House of Representatives who vote for it and support it in the House go to
the Senate and decide it's not such a good idea."
Rudkowski then tells Massie about interesting parallels between some presidential candidates
(Gabbard and Bernie Sanders), who have an anti-interventionists view along with being critical of
the Federal Reserve.
Massie responds by saying,
"Well if you're just trying to sorta tie the anti-war people to
the Federal Reserve. I think the closest connection is
the Federal Reserve enables the
endless Wars that are being funded by controlling the value of our currency and without the massive
borrowing and printing of money and controlling of interest rates - we wouldn't be able to sustain
a permanent state of war.
"
https://www.youtube.com/embed/WQEbGkzy6Sk
Last week, Ron Paul recently wrote that Massie needs to
"expedite passage of their Audit
the Fed legislation should the Federal Reserve decide to disobey the will of its creator – Congress
– by involving itself in real-time payments.
After all, their bipartisan legislation came
just seven votes shy of passing not long ago. With the Fed extending its wings even further and the
president finally making good on his promise to push the bill through, it should be all but certain
of arriving on his Oval Office desk for signing."
With the US infected by a global industrial slowdown, and in President Trump's view a Federal
Reserve-caused economic downturn, support for auditing the Fed will continue to increase among
Americans across all political ideologies.
It's not just Republicans who demand the audit,
but now Gabbard and even Sanders (Democrats).
Auditing the Fed is the first step in changing monetary policy that has created a
debt-and-bubble-based economy; promoted the welfare-warfare state; created the most massive wealth
inequality crisis in history; led to an affordable housing crisis; transferred all the wealth to
the top 1% of America, and could lead to the collapse of the American empire if not corrected in
the next several years.
"... The upcoming Horowitz and Durham reports on their respective probes into "meddling into the meddling" will target many people in the Democratic Party, US intelligence services, and the media. In that order. Can the Dems survive such a thing? It's hard to see. ..."
"... After the opening credits, [Dominic] Cummings rejects an offer in 2015 by UKIP MP Douglas Carswell and political strategist Matthew Elliott to lead the Vote Leave campaign due to his contempt for "Westminster politics", but accepts when Carswell promises Cummings full control. ..."
"... The next sequences show Cummings outlining the core strategy on a whiteboard of narrow disciplined messaging delivered via algorithmic database-driven micro-targeting tools . Cummings rejects an approach by Nigel Farage and Arron Banks of Leave.EU to merge their campaigns, as his data shows Farage is an obstacle to winning an overall majority. ..."
"... [..] In a eureka moment, Cummings refines the core message to "Take Back Control", thus positioning Vote Leave as the historical status quo, and Remain as the "change" option . Cummings meets and hires Canadian Zack Massingham, co-founder of AggregateIQ, who offers to build a database using social media tools of [3 million] voters who are not on the UK electoral register but are inclined to vote to leave. ..."
"... [..] In the final stages, high-profile senior Tory MPs Michael Gove and Boris Johnson join the Vote Leave campaign emphasising the need to "Take Back Control", while Penny Mordaunt is shown on BBC raising concerns over the accession of Turkey. Gove and Johnson are shown as having some reticence over specific Vote Leave claims (e.g. £350 million for NHS, and 70 million potential Turkish emigrants) but are seen to overcome them. ..."
"... And now Cummings is back to finish the job. ..."
"... They were sending targeted personalized messages to individual voters, by the millions. Algorithms. AI. Tailor made. If you're the opposition, and you don't have those tools, then what do you have exactly? ..."
It's a development that has long been evident in continental Europe, and that has now arrived on the shores of the US and UK.
It is the somewhat slow but very certain dissolution of long-existing political parties, organizations and groups. That's what I
was seeing during the Robert Mueller clown horror show on Wednesday.
Mueller was not just the Democratic Party's last hope, he was their identity. He was the anti-Trump. Well, he no longer is, he
is not fit to play that role anymore. And there is nobody to take it over who is not going to be highly contested by at least some
parts of the party. In other words: it's falling apart.
And that's not necessarily a bad thing, it's a natural process, parties change as conditions do and if they don't do it fast enough
they disappear. Look at the candidates the Dems have. Can anyone imagine the party, post-Mueller, uniting behind Joe Biden or Bernie
Sanders or Kamala Harris? And then for one of them to beat Donald Trump in 2020? I was just watching a little clip from Sean Hannity,
doing what Trump did last week, which is going after the Squad. Who he said are anti-Israel socialists and, most importantly, the
de facto leaders of the party, not Nancy Pelosi. That is a follow-up consequence of Mueller's tragic defeat, the right can now go
on the chase. The Squad is the face of the Dems because Trump and Hannity have made them that.
The upcoming Horowitz and Durham reports on their respective probes into "meddling into the meddling" will target many people
in the Democratic Party, US intelligence services, and the media. In that order. Can the Dems survive such a thing? It's hard to
see. The Dems have no Trump. They do have a DNC that will stifle any candidate they don't like (Bernie!), though. Just think
what they would have done if Trump had run as a Democrat (crazy, but not that crazy).
The UK's issues are remarkably similar to those of the US. Only, in their case, the socialists have already taken over the left-wing
party (if you can call the Dems left-wing). This has led to absolute stagnation. Tony Blair had moved Labour so far to the right
(which he and his Blairites call center, because it sounds so much better), that injecting Jeremy Corbyn as leader was just too fast
and furious.
So they labeled Corbyn an anti-semite, the most successful and equally empty smear campaign since Julian Assange was called a
rapist. Corbyn never adequately responded, so he couldn't profile himself and now the Blairites are again calling on him to leave.
Oh, and he never gave a direct answer to the question of Brexit yes or no either. Pity. Corbyn's support among the people is massive,
but not in the party.
Which is why it's now up to Boris Johnson to 'deliver the will of the people'. And apparently the first thing the people want
is 20,000 more policemen. Which were fired by the very party he at the time represented first as first mayor of London and then foreign
minister, for goodness sake. His very own Tories closed 600 police stations since 2010 and will have to re-open many now.
Some survey must have told him it polled well. Just like polling was an essential part of pushing through Brexit. There's a very
revealing TV movie that came out 6 months ago called Brexit: The Uncivil War, that makes this very clear. The extent to which campaigns
these days rely on data gathering and voter targeting will take a while yet to be understood, but they're a future that is already
here. Wikipedia in its description of the film puts it quite well:
After the opening credits, [Dominic] Cummings rejects an offer in 2015 by UKIP MP Douglas Carswell and political strategist
Matthew Elliott to lead the Vote Leave campaign due to his contempt for "Westminster politics", but accepts when Carswell promises
Cummings full control.
The next sequences show Cummings outlining the core strategy on a whiteboard of narrow disciplined messaging delivered
via algorithmic database-driven micro-targeting tools . Cummings rejects an approach by Nigel Farage and Arron Banks of Leave.EU
to merge their campaigns, as his data shows Farage is an obstacle to winning an overall majority.
[..] In a eureka moment, Cummings refines the core message to "Take Back Control", thus positioning Vote Leave as the historical
status quo, and Remain as the "change" option . Cummings meets and hires Canadian Zack Massingham, co-founder of AggregateIQ,
who offers to build a database using social media tools of [3 million] voters who are not on the UK electoral register but are
inclined to vote to leave.
[..] In the final stages, high-profile senior Tory MPs Michael Gove and Boris Johnson join the Vote Leave campaign emphasising
the need to "Take Back Control", while Penny Mordaunt is shown on BBC raising concerns over the accession of Turkey. Gove and
Johnson are shown as having some reticence over specific Vote Leave claims (e.g. £350 million for NHS, and 70 million potential
Turkish emigrants) but are seen to overcome them.
Dominic Cummings, played in the movie by Benedict Cumberbatch, is an independent political adviser who belongs to no party. But
guess what? He was the first adviser Boris Johnson hired after his nomination Wednesday. Cummings didn't want Nigel Farage as the
face of Brexit, because he polled poorly. He wanted Boris, because his numbers were better. Not because he didn't think Boris was
a bumbling fool, he did.
And now Cummings is back to finish the job. Far as I can see, that can only mean one thing: elections, and soon (it's
what Cummings does). A no-deal Brexit was voted down, in the same Parliament Boris Johnson now faces, 3 times, or was it 4? There
is going to be a lot of opposition. Boris wants Brexit on October 31, and has practically bet his career on it. But there is going
to be a lot of opposition.
He can't have elections before September, because of the summer recess. So perhaps end of September?! But he has Dominic Cummings
and his "algorithmic database-driven micro-targeting tools" . Without which Brexit would never have been voted in. So if
you don't want Brexit, you better come prepared.
Cummings and his techies weren't -just- sending out mass mails or that kind of stuff. That's already arcane. They were sending
targeted personalized messages to individual voters, by the millions. Algorithms. AI. Tailor made. If you're the opposition, and
you don't have those tools, then what do you have exactly?
Already thought before it all happened that it was funny that Boris Johnson's ascension and Robert Mueller's downfall were scheduled
for the same day. There must be a pattern somewhere.
You can find the movie at HBO or Channel 4, I'm sure. Try
this link for Channel
4. Seeing that movie, and thinking about the implications of the technology, the whole notion of Russian meddling becomes arcane
as well. We just have no idea.
The Demoncrats have one candidate who could beat Trump, namely Tulsi Gabbard. I disagree with her economics and her 2nd amendment
stance, but enough Chump voters who based their vote on his promise to stop the continuous war on everyone, would switch to Tulsi
if she were nominated, particularly if the Chump plays his Zio directive and starts a war with Iran which will not go well for
anybody. But Tulsi will never have a fair shot at the nominations as the MIC Google has demon-strated in her law suit. **** the
election. The people and their opinions are not a factor. **** the left right hatred division while the Owners just laugh from
the shadows at us for being so easily manipulated.
The upcoming Horowitz and Durham reports on their respective probes into "meddling into the meddling" will target many people
in the Democratic Party, US intelligence services, and the media. In that order. Can the Dems survive such a thing? It's hard
to see.
Can criminals survive a functioning DOJ working under the Law?
In its self-described "pied piper" strategy, the Clinton campaign proposed intentionally cultivating extreme right-wing
presidential candidates, hoping to turn them into the new "mainstream of the Republican Party" in order to try to increase
Clinton's chances of winning.
Trump is using Hillary's Pied Piper strategy against AoC and the Squid.
Elevate the radical leftists...they'll be seen as the face of the Democrat party...then 2020 is a sure Trump win.
Not that I care...I never consented to being governed by anyone.
For decades, the Democratic party has been a joke: a weakly bound coalition of liberals and labor -- two groups with nothing
in common, and a fair degree of hate for each other.
For decades, the Republican party has also been a joke: a weakly bound coalition of religious fundamentalists and fiscal conservatives
-- two groups with nothing in common, and a fair degree of hate for each other.
In European politics, they call a shovel a shovel and work by coalition government. You have smaller parties which actually
represent interest groups, although none are large enough for power themselves. They form and break coalitions -- some long lasting,
some flittering around from election to election -- in order to form a majority ad hoc. It isn't a bad system, and the voters
don't have to hold their noses so much at the polls.
(edit: all this squabbling between "the squad" and the Pelosi leadership makes much more sense when viewed as friction between
the labor and liberal halves of the dems.)
But can the Dems be serious? They've got to be drinking the Kool-Aid. We have Kamala Harris,
a colored woman who is in favor of busing. This means sending white children forty-five minutes
each way to violent fifth-rate schools where they will be bullied without mercy and come away
hating blacks. She thinks parents will put her racial enthusiasms over the welfare of their
kids. Not gonna happen, Kamala gal.
Kamala says we need more integration. Why? What good is it? Who is going to vote for it? Do
not people avoid it like hemorrhagic tuberculosis when they have a choice?
The entire screwy list of adolescent canditatorial hamsters favors reparations for, oh god,
slavery. We will never hear the end of slavery. Like the liver of Prometheus, slavery is a
resource never depleted.
Reparations of course means forcing whites who never owned slaves to give money to blacks
who never were slaves. Granted, this will get the Democrats the votes of American Africans,
which they had anyway.
I can hear it in Detroit: "Reparations? Yowee! Hoo-ah!! More free stuff!" Just like looting
a Walgreen's but you don't have to run even a couple of blocks.
In the "debates," these political dribs and drabs and leftovers avoided topics of importance
such as the wars, the Pentagon's maximum-flab budget, the national debt, our domestic banditry
such as Black Lives Matter and Antifa, immigration, and black crime. The latter spreads like
gangrene in a suppurated wound. Almost weekly we read of businesses gang-robbed by "teens,"
which we all know what are.
(Meerriam-Webster–"Teen: a black between the ages of sixteen and twenty-eight caught
on surveillance cameras sacking a business owned by shties.")
Now, reparations will fly in Flint. Who can doubtit? The water is poisonous, people don't
have jobs, and now they have to pay American Africans who hate them for something Flint didn't
do to them.
Trump must be paying the Democratic lineup to do this. Nothing else can explain it.
And all of the same political retards favor open borders. This is what got Trump elected in
the first place, so they are going to do it again. What could make more sense? If you
pound your thumb with a hammer, and it hurts, the smart thing is to pound it again. That will
make it feel better. They seem to be in a race to see who can be least electable. They all look
to be winners.
Meanwhile Trump, who should be an easy target, revs up his fans with carney-barker harangues
appealing to the limbic third-grader so prevalent in the psyches of the mid-country. You have
to hand it to the guy: He has charisma. Make America Great Again! Never mind that he is
presiding over the greatest decline America has ever seen. Build the wall! Build the wall!
Yeeee-hah! This sort of thing appeals to those whose minds might be described as uncluttered
and, hey, a vote is a vote.
He hasn't built the Wall, is unlikely to, has deported almost nobody, and jobs are still
leaving America. With Trump, though, it's the giddy mood of the thing, the sense that the
President is one of us, against those rich New York bastards and snotty anchorwomen who have
screwed us. Which of course they have.
Curiously, the press rabble in Washington pride themselves as being on the Left. Say
what ? Howzat again? The Left used to be the party of the working man, the party
supporting unionization, often at risk of bodily harm.They were against wars. Working men got
killed in them for the benefit of the arms industry.
Today's alleged Left is the party of white coastal upper middle classes against the working
class, whom they name deplorables. The racial minorities, with whom the elites strictly avoid
associating, serve as voting fodder.
Can you imagine Saul Alinsky arguing for integrated bathrooms so as to be inclusive?
So we have Biden and Bernie, intensely exciting as wallpaper paste, suited more to Madame
Tussaud's than the White House. Elizabeth Warren, who presumably will wear feathers and say
woo-woo-woo and wave her DNA report saying that she is 1/1024 wild Indian. Maybe she will carry
a tomahawk.
What gave us these? Saturation mutagenesis? The Russians put something in the water?
Well, there was Tulsi Gabbard, who will get my vote.(This doubtless will prove
decisive.) She was the only entry in the lineup of stale-bread Democrats who mentioned the
wars. She is against. Nobody else noticed the voracious Five-Sided Black Hole on the Potomac
that devours the nation's substance.
This matters, or ought to. The military boodle is the only available pile of moolah to pay
for Free Stuff. Or infrastructure. Or decent medical care. But it also sustains the military,
the biggest scam of corporate America. The media will have to sideline Tulsi.
Meanwhile at the top, in the Great Double-Wide on Pennsylvania Avenue, we have Trump
himself, crass as a truss ad, and John Bolton, who seems to be an actual mutant. Maybe his
father sat on a radium watch. Throw in Pompeo, a vicious Christian who looks like an ad for
bacon fat. This is what the turnips of the Democratic freak show, each more boring than all the
others combined, all rushing to out-weird the others, will give us again in 2020.
Actually, I hope Trump isn't impeached. He may be all that stands between the Republic (I am
being nostalgic) and war with Iran. The only people who want war are Bolton, the Jewish
lobbies, and Israel. Everybody else wants to sell Iran stuff and buy stuff from it.
Anyway, Pence is a loon who thinks he is about to be vacuumed up by the Rapture and I guess
drink beer with God. Without Trump, who may be too confused for a war, Bolton would nuke
Tehran.
To date, the last chapter in this comic book has been the sad story of the British
ambassador. He got caught telling his government that Trump was incompetent, flaky, unreliable,
and egotistical. This of course is what all ambassadors must be telling headquarters. What do
you expect them to write of a president who has invented three hitherto unknown
countries–Nambia, Nepple, and Button–and tweets of the "Prince of Whales"? Tweeting
is what birds do. Europe must look on with equal parts horror and amusement.
But how can he lose against such a sorry gaggle of embarrassing Democrats? They appear set
to nominate some creature of the remote fringes, the political equivalent of Rupaul and then,
having elected Trump again, they will wonder at length how he got elected. Only in America.
You are 100% bang on with this article, Fred. The reason why the multiculturalism fiasco was
invented was so the US can continue with their old reactionary right wing ways – out of
nostalgia – of course. If the idea wasn't catastrophic – it would be brilliant
– and it is. Because who would suspect such a thing, the country with immigrant policy
so carefree like there is no tomorrow – and the way the things look, there might not be
one-and yet the country who invented it is exactly that – reactionary right wing.
Regardless who is in power – democrats or republicans – who are there just for
the amusement of the great unwashed, US is stuck in their old ways. The dead giveaway that
they are reactionary right wing country are their wars – which are exclusively fought
against anyone who shows even a hint of socialism.
And yet – they are "socialist" themselves, or at least they are trying to sell
themselves to the world as being "left wing". See, that's clever, the good old capitalists
know that humanity ALWAYS evolves to the left – throughout history this has been
proven. Feudalism was more left wing than slavery, capitalism is more left wing than
feudalism, and whatever comes next, will have to be more left wing still.
Having no heart to follow that direction, the US decided to fake a left and continue with
their right wing ways. What bothers me the most is that they think they are smart. And the
fake left that they took will destroy them more thoroughly than if they took a real left.
@phil In the 1950's,
the labor force participation rate of men (percent of working age men with a job) was around
86%. Today that number is about 69%. Lowest rate in history. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300001
Before any of you takes seriously the next Most Important Election Ever, consider this
prediction by another columnist here at The Unz Review:
"In 2008, Obama was touted as a political outsider who will hose away all of the rot and
bloody criminality of the Bush years. He turned out to be a deft move by our ruling class.
Though fools still refuse to see it, Obama is a perfect servant of our military banking
complex. Now, Trump is being trumpeted as another political outsider.
A Trump presidency will temporarily appease restless, lower class whites, while serving as
a magnet for liberal anger. This will buy our ruling class time as they continue to wage war
abroad while impoverishing Americans back home. Like Obama, Trump won't fulfill any of his
election promises, and this, too, will be blamed on bipartisan politics."
Linh Dinh, June 12, 2016.
National politics are the Establishment's way to channel, geld, and harmlessly blow off
dissent. If you want things to change, stop voting and encourage others to do so. If nothing
else, at least take a different crayon, something other than Red or Blue.
This is actually a pretty reasonable column from Fredrigo Reedriguez -- except perhaps for
this part:
and jobs are still leaving America.
Of course jobs will always leave America -- the question is: Has there been net job growth
under Trump (not that he should get sole credit for that), especially in manufacturing
(decimated in previous decades), and if these gains are sustainable -- I don't think anyone
can really answer the latter question -- also import is altering trade policy to stem future
job loss -- it's less clear Trump has made significant progress there.
In President Trump's first two years in office, factory job growth accelerated, Some of
the 465,000 factory jobs that the country created in 2017 and 2018 are in the most
economically beleaguered counties that voted for Mr. Trump in 2016.
"But how can he lose against such a sorry gaggle of embarrassing Democrats?"
Exactly; just like they did the first time around by running the least electable democrat
they could find, Hillary Clinton (and even then having to take obvious steps to undermine her
campaign), in accordance with the long-standing plan.
"They appear set to nominate some creature of the remote fringes, the political
equivalent of Rupaul and then, having elected Trump again, they will wonder at length how
he got elected. Only in America."
Well I don't think they'll "wonder" about their own calculated plan, i.e., to portray
orange clown's "opposition" as wanting to eat babies, open the borders, put white people in
concentration camps, pay reparations, do away with the concept of gender, teach sexual
perversion in schools, trash the 2nd amendment, etc., etc., etc thus only the apparently
somewhat less evil orange clown can save us.
There is something perversely funny in the notion that the greatest nation in history, with
the best military in the world is really nothing more than just another occupied land.
Tech platforms circumvented the MSM and allowed different voices to be heard. Policing these
platforms are still currently beyond the capabilities of tech companies. Content censorship
is a main focus of AI right now. You can expect an impersonal, Stalinist PC police in every
platform very soon.
We need to be looking at the current situation. History (almost entirely an extremely
unpleasant horror show) is only relevant in that we have to deal with its mostly negative
relics.
Your way of looking at things assumes that everybody has convergent interests. The populists
argument is that those smart guys in power are only looking after their own interests and not
everybody else's.
Fighting ignorance with ignorance? Not a cool move, Comrade.
"[Marx] had few qualms about colonialism as many leftists in the 19th century."
1] Read Marx's stuff on India and Ireland and American Slavery.
2] "Marx didn't say much about culture."
Intro to the Grundrisse? Feuerbach Theses? German Ideology? All of what's been dismissed as
the "Humanist" Marx, meaning almost everything written before Capital?
3] " it is actually right-wingers who have used Gramsci's concept of Cultural Hegemony
with both hands." Read up.
Here's for starters:
Which brings me to the gist:
"Cultural Marxism," also known as Western Marxism, non-Leninist Marxism, etc. etc. Stuff they
can't accuse of being in collusion with Marxist-Leninism, Stalinism, etc. Ranging from late
Engels to Adorno to Benjamin to Sartre and beyond.
""Bannon, Kristol and many other have read him extensively."
About as much as you have, pal.
This is a paradox that clever progressives ought to be able to exploit, if only by
asking non-American rightwing populists to explain their great love for an industry that
even Steve Bannon considers to be "evil".
It doesn't seem to have occurred to the author that the American populist right,
not the European populist right, has the weaker argument, when it comes to Silicon Valley.
I think Big Tech ought to pay higher taxes (and I vehemently oppose the scandalous
subsidies and tax breaks they receive), but I think that's the case with all vastly
wealthy corporate interests, including such sectors as finance, property, bio-pharma, and
energy.
I'm not much of a fan of Facebook, but in general my life's loads more convenient and
affordable because of the likes of Google, Netflix, Amazon, Uber and Airbnb. Plus, you know,
they seem to piss off Trump and Bannon. So that's a plus.
As a Marxist, I would like someone to explain to me the meaning of the expression "cultural
Marxism".
It's cool to be an intellectual onanist or an outright bell-end (like Bolsonaro's minister
who said that global warming was a Marxist plot), but words have meanings and it would be
nice to use words carefully.
The bloody irony of "cultural Marxism" is that even though Marx didn't say much about
culture, LGBTQ(put another letter here) or minorities (he had few qualms about colonialism as
many leftists in the 19th century), it is actually right-wingers who have used Gramsci's
concept of Cultural Hegemony with both hands.
Bannon, Kristol and many other have read him extensively and have the cheek to criticise
others for promoting "cultural Marxism", which is a figment of their imagination.
Cultural Marxism is the Godwin point of intellectual discourse.
The American wing of the movement sees big tech as an attractive target of
attack....
One of those statements that indicates how deep you are wandering in the woods. There is
an onslaught of EU countries and EU councils that have sued big tech in the US. The
investigations don't stop and the threats don't stop.
In 2018, the EU hit Google with a fine of $5 billion in an antitrust verdict with respect
to the Android operating system. In 2017, the EU hit Google with a $2.7 billion judgement
with respect to displaying advertisements.
That is just the recent material with respect to Google.
The biggest pressure faced by Facebook (again) comes from the left. The pressures over
data, the race to take-down opposing viewpoints and the fines for non-compliance. Facebook
has been forced by the left to hire so many "fact-checkers" that it has affected its
profitability. (Recent discoveries reveal that Mark Zuckerberg lied to Congress -- a felony
offense.)
... as bashing it helps to delegitimize the legacy of Obama and Clinton, seen as its
primary enablers.
The Clinton's have amassed a remarkable trail of felony violations in many areas.
Continued pressure against the swamp is slowly removing their layers of protection. Documents
and evidence are also appearing that implicates Obama and some advisers in various illegal
activities in 2016 with respect to the FBI and DOJ.
That process continues to move forward, irregardless of the House.
The Right Wing Christian parties have found the Immigrant hot button with which to field
their arguments. Loosely knitted with finance to hide their real purpose, they are finding
success. I say, unmask them for their actual fears propelled by underlying bigotry and fear.
"Big tech monsters like Google and Facebook have become nothing less than incubators for
far-left liberal ideologies and are doing everything they can to eradicate conservative
ideas and their proponents from the internet."
If only it were true.
No fan of Mussolini, but he did oversee the eradication of malaria in Italy.
And I love free speech, but it's hard to justify the proposition that "conservative ideas"
really constitute a set of ideas, a coherent perspective. They're more accurately
understood as a set of noises, devoid of coherent meaning, made while harming oneself and
others.... They're just more verbose versions of, say, the inarticulate noises made by a
headmaster while whipping a young child for some fabricated misdemeanour. Noises the child
will learn to make while punishing others......
But there's one issue on which there's no agreement between American rightwing populists
and their peers in the rest of the world: what to make of Silicon Valley. On the one hand,
its services and platforms have been a boon to the populists everywhere...
Followed by more strawmen and generalized incoherence. In a recent speech, Macron started
by reminding his audience of Marie-Antoinette and King Louis XVI. The later was decapitated
because of a poor economic performance and wide-spread discontent.
And in 1517, the theologian Martin Luther nailed Thesis 86 to a church door and started
the Protestant Reformation.
In Morozov's scope of history, humanity has never experienced a social eruption,
revolution, or change of direction until Silicon Valley. That is not surprising since the
progressive left's extent of history begins around 1932.
Also, the author's knowledge of Silicon Valley's history is heavily flawed with biases and
fraudulent presentations.
Tech isn't new anymore. Silicon Valley is almost 40 years old in terms of its social impact.
That's equivalent to the 1960s for the US car industry, which is about the time that the
social and political negatives of car ownership began to manifest in public debate. The
novelty of big tech has begun wearing off as its early benefits fade, and the costs to
society linger. It's the rest of the world that is lagging behind the USA in terms of
disillusionment
The far left and the far right have a point about tech. Silicon Valley has always had
lamentable political tendencies: a love of both neoliberalism, a penchance for "Singaporean"
authoritarianism, and an ungainly mix of personal hubris and pseudomessianic claptrap. In the
US big tech is guilty of overselling itself to the public while just proving to be little
better at corporate citizenship than oil companies.
The ambition and business method of all social media is to create a condition of extreme
excitability, reactiveness and strong engagement by users so as to maximize participation and
thereby to drive revenue streams, whether these are advertising or product sales or data
acquisition for future commercial exploitation.
Accordingly, Big Tech relies on the hyper provocation and ultra engagement of the "2
minutes hate" as it is described by some.
It's like throwing out morsels of raw meat to a group of crocodiles or alligators and
watching the feeding frenzy.
The commercial model of Big Tech demands the strong drivers of intense hate, fear, envy
and even hostility.
Negative emotions, acting on the more primitive parts of the brain, subvert our critical
faculties and drive our impulsive and destructive behaviours for the advantage of Big
Tech.
Politically correct and worthy speech will ertainly not optimize the revenues. You need
the fulminating hate merchants, the graders, the nasties and the trolls. That gets other
users highly exercised and strongly engaged.
I know of few social media based outlets which cynically and manipulatively use a few
social provocateurs to throw out incendiary and provocative hate speech so as to get the
punters enraged and engaged.
Alt-right and hard right sells. Hate speech stimulates.
The commercial objective is to get the online dogs salivating out of a Pavlovian reaction
to the trigger bells of hate, discrimination, fear of migrants, provocation over identity
issues, fear of being swamped, loss if he familiar and the rise tinted but deceptive lens of
nostalgia for a wholly fictitious imagined past.
Gd point. The ambition of all social media is to create a condition of extreme excitability,
reactive ness and engagement so as to maximize participation and thereby to drive revenue
streams.
Excellent and apposite reference to Orwell in this context.
Big Tech relies on the hyper privication and engagement of the "2 minutes hate" as you
aptly describe it.
It's like throwing out morsels ofvraw meet to a group of crocodiles or alligators and
watching the feeding frenzy.
The commercial model of Big Tech demands the drivers of hate, fear, envy and even
hostility. Negative emotions, acting on the more primitive parts of the brain, subvert our
critical faculties and drive our impulsive and destructive behaviors.
Politically correct and worthy speech will not optimize the revenues.
I know of few social media based outlets which cynically and manipulatively use a few
social provocateurs to throw out incendiary and provocative hate speech so as to get the
punters engaged.
Alt-right and hard right sells. Hate speech stimulates.
Get the online dogs salivating out of a Pavlovian reaction to the trigger bells.
And as we have seen with Facebook's monthly scandals they are not going to behave better
unless they are forced to. It would be good to have governments that might help: right now
that's the EU alone, China being a special case.
Left wing is not really to do with labour politics anymore
Of course it is though that was simply a vehicle to uplift the whole of society making it
egalitarian. Silicon Valley can only be implicated as left wing as communism for the rich. In
no respect are they looking for equality quite the reverse their celebrated ideal is the
emancipation of the individual to be great wealth creators, if they have a social conscience
their beneficence will be to become philanthropists creating another legacy from their
wealth.
You can see why European fascist like them they were always happy to work with capitalists
in the past. It seems their US counterparts are behind the curve on that.
Big Tech preserves the surface veneer of democracy whilst controlling the prejudices and
direction of the electorates.
Big Tech assimilates us into a hive mind. It is not yet absolute but we are well on the
way to being controlled by those who use Big Tech to direct us.
Only the far right libertarian billionaires can afford to use Big Tech to impose their
wishes.
Democracy is being replaced by a toxic mix of plutocracy, technocracy and a mobbing mass
directed like a murmurstion of starlings.
Read Shoshana Zuboff's book, "Surveillance Capitalism" for an insight.
I consume social media and technology; therefore I am.
"The rhetoric of hatred and divisiveness only has one logical conclusion, which is ultimately
to pit every individual against every other individual. The order in which they do so is not
some kind of universal, it's a complex product of cultural fears and how they can be
exploited."
But ironically the obsession with "identity politics" the erasure of wider communities in
favour of further and further fragmentation- seen as "progressive", is helping to deliver the
same agenda. is it not? It concentrates on what makes us different, not what makes us
similar.
No, they've provided a platform for almost anyone to encourage and amplify their
message, including far-left, far-right, people looking for missing cats etc.
I made this point in my original post.
You seem to be agreeing with me for the sake of disagreement, as a mechanism to get your
point across, in the process omitting and skewing the points I made.
You subtly edited one of my statements to omit the term capital. My full sentence was as
below:
We're in a desperate situation where capital and tech giants have utilised social media
to encourage, amplify and legitimise the very worst human impulses.
The point here is that capital has a tremedous advantage over smaller and grass roots
movements because it can employ companies such as Cambridge Analytica and Aggregate IQ to
mobilise opinion.*
In this arena, as in every arena, money helps people seize and bolster power. The
assertion that left and right can exert the same influence in this domain is a false
equivalence.
Social media isn't a channel through which all views can flow equally. Your claim to this
effect is either disingenuous or naive.
* They're the same company, but that's another discussion.
Here's a sound analysis of the global economy for you, Zhenya: capitalism is an unrecoverable
failure. Wreck it, scrap it, replace it by egalitarian cybernetically centrally-planned
low-competition, moderated-consumption leisure-oriented socialism with a private sector
limited to 30% of GDP or less.
One thing that appears to be missing from this is the recent trend in rightwing populists
being kicked off online payment processes services & fund raising tools, not to mention
twitter and similar social media platforms. It's easy enough to understand the
Alex Jones/Infowars being banned from paypal being one such example, another interesting
one is, again,
paypal and them banning the Proud Boys , the amusing part is they banned Antifa groups as
well for violating the same terms of service.
Throw in social media sites
"Purging political discussions" and it's easy to see how there's going to be hate from
populists. Social media has become a vital tool of political discussion, but it's not... yet
stable, the platform providers are reactionary and inconsistent in their approach to sorting
problems.
I think this can be explained by the American propensity to conflate "conservatism" with
"market liberalism". It's a sleight of hand that really confuses some people.
Left wing is not really to do with labour politics anymore, if it ever was. Arguably it was
only ever a useful grievance to be harnessed that has long been superseded. Harnessed to the
goal of remaking mankind to the favoured plan of upper middle class utopians. I think that at
bottom that is what leftism is in its essence.
The idea that these most ludicrously successful and world-bestriding capitalist enterprises
are founded and staffed by Marxists, or folks who are pretty much indistinguishable from
Marxists, would, one might think, be something that would engender a long and thoughtful
period of reflectio
Big tech are a classic example of those who are "socially liberal but fiscally conservative".
In other words, are happy to have compassion and a conscience...as long as it doesn't cost
them anything.
The assumption among academics was that, should new media democratise our politics it
would, naturally, advantage the left. The people would throw off their shackles and reclaim
authority from capital. The wave would be egalitarian rather than divisive.
Capital has successfully devised an ersatz, designedly harmless (to them) "left" and used
its class/cultural power to squash and demonise the real thing.
How do we begin to fight back? Can we fight back?
Sure. The bourgeoisie's exploitation of our common decency has pretty much exhausted
itself. It's essential that new left currents are exclusively proletarian however.
I don't think either 'side' is necessarily wrong here. The social media giants are
generally made up of left-leaning people; not necessarily surprising given that they're
based in California and are made up of relatively young college graduates.
This is fundamentally untrue.
At best these people have appropriated socially liberal attitudes because it suits their
capitalist instincts.
There's a market for social liberalism. Tech giants and their owners have branded aspects
of their companies accordingly.
If the money flows in the other direction, these same companies and owners will profit
from this stream without compunction. Increasingly that's where the money streams from.
These people are capital. Their ethics stretch no further than their bottom
line.
Zuckerberg et al. sell notions of "hacking the system" only to service a profit
imperative. Indeed, they've "hacked" publishing laws to dodge accountability.
Bannon, while condemning Silicon Valley, is one of the main proponents of the use of its
platforms in propaganda. Indeed, it was central to the 2016 election of Trump and the
campaigns he has overseen in Europe.
What he describes as "evil" are the utopian tech barons, as they are an easy target for
popular hate. This is, of course, rank hypocrisy - as he and his "pro-business" allies are
neither calling for them to be taxed nor brought down to size, and they are quite happy to
use their services.
Therefore, I don't think there is a divide between the US far right or their offshoots
around the world. The paradox at the centre of all these movements is that they are both for
and against powerful elites, when it suits them.
The arab spring was initially viewed by many as an anti US uprising using the freedom of the
internet.
When it didnt deliver honey and unicorns, by many it was retrospectively recast as a US coup
using a US corporation controlled by zionists.
Its not the medium it is the ownership and the bias behind it. TV media today is left wing
biased not just in UK but US and other western countries too. Similarly, we have to look at
the ownership of the big internet companies and their bias today also.
The tech giants don't care about 'left' or 'right', 'conservative' or 'progressive'. They
care about money and they care about enriching their senior executives and shareholders.
It wasn't that long ago that progressives bubbled over with excitement at the role played by
Twitter and Facebook in the Arab Spring. And of course no profession has embraced Twitter
more enthusiastically than journalists. If that was removed half our newspapers would be
blank pages. Ambivalence about the big social media platforms is not unique to populists. If
your ideas get traction on it you like it. If your opponents ideas get traction you don't.
Not entirely unlike traditional media in this respect.
The advent of social media produced an upswell of academic papers and arguments.
As the internet became a growing cultural and political tool, the framing question for
much academic debate was as follows:
Will "new media" democratise our culture and politics, or be co-opted by established
actors to bolster their hegemonic status.
The assumption among academics was that, should new media democratise our politics it
would, naturally, advantage the left. The people would throw off their shackles and reclaim
authority from capital. The wave would be egalitarian rather than divisive.
Post-Brexit and Trump, this assumption has been exposed as deeply flawed.
While Western politics has become increasingly polarised, the beneficiaries have been the
increasingly hard to far right.
We're in a desperate situation where capital and tech giants have utilised social media to
encourage, amplify and legitimise the very worst human impulses.
Isnt this just the modern equivalent of 1950s republicans complaining that new fangled TV
makes JFK seem better looking and more likely to win elections? You cant uninvent TV or the
internet.
Barack Obama was the pioneer of using social media to help win elections but there was zero
outcry about it.
Automation will likely eliminate all jobs eventually. The idea that it's a tool of the
liberal centre to displace the "provincial periphery" is nonsense.
2008 was the pivotal year that trust was lost in the banks, the political class and the
media; all three have been fighting a rearguard action ever since.
The crash saw politicians use public money to bail out the banks while the media were
complicit in subverting this reality, blaming certain groups for causing the melt down (such
as the poor, the feckless, migrants, etc).
In the meantime things have become much worse guaranteeing that the next crash (which is
just round the corner) will be far worse than 2008 because borrowing has reached such
stratospheric proportions, while none of the root causes of 2008 have been addressed - the
likes of the Yellow Vests in France are probably a taste of what is to come.
Most of the arguments around the digital media are driven by a desire to surpress the
nature of previous and coming economic catastrophes in my opinion typified by some of the
groups who are trying to exploit the lack of honesty about why living conditions are under
threat in places like Spain, Greece and the North of England.
So outside of the US, populist see social media as a way out of some sort dictatorship by
people smarter than themselves? That's just perverse. I want the damned country to be run by
people who are smarter than I am. I hope this will actually happen one day.
I tend to think that the Atlanticists are right here - Big Tech represents the liberal centre
who would happily replace the provincial periphery with robots for cultural as well as
economic reasons.
In Continental Europe, the new populism is nascent and so as we saw with the leader-less
Gilets jaunes, folk are still excited about the self-organisation potential of the Net.
I don't think either 'side' is necessarily wrong here. The social media giants are generally
made up of left-leaning people; not necessarily surprising given that they're based in
California and are made up of relatively young college graduates. And yes, they are getting
filthy rich off the backs of some questionable policies and, in some instances, questionable
approaches to taxation.
For all the faults of the left and right populists, and there are many, I think they are
right in thinking that the big tech companies are no angels.
It's obvious to any American that still has a functioning brain that this nation is under
Israeli occupation, with various American Financial moguls acting as Gauleiters.
Whether it's Arnon Milchan on the West Coast, bragging about stealing some of our nuclear
triggers and shipping them to Israel, or Lex Wexner on the East Coast, helping the Israeli
spy Epstein lure, seduce and entrap American politico types in his honey-traps, the Zionist
control of our nation is right in front of our faces.
But most either refuse to see, or they're too busy cheering on the latest batch of Trump's
idiotic tweets, filled with hate and belligerence and slavish loyalty to Israel.
My guess is there's many more Epstein's out there, still running their honey-traps. After
all, Epstein is just one, and when one adds in the 535 members of Congress, the untold number
of possible targets in the WH, the Treasury Dept, the Pentagon and the rest, plus the 50
states, like the Florida guv more than willing to do whatever Israel wants, that points to
more than just Jeffrey running a honey-trap.
@Germanicus
Australia prohibits double citizenship for members of parliament. It has not significantly
diminished the strength of the Israel lobby in that country.
There is something perversely funny in the notion that the greatest nation in history, with
the best military in the world is really nothing more than just another occupied land.
Holo-deniers are bonkers. There is not much to discuss here. They're like flat-earthers, just
more amusing.
However, there are some things I see rarely mentioned
They, holo-deniers, are mostly from North America & Western Europe. They see all this
warfare at the Eastern front as something exotic, strange, alien & incomprehensible. It
seems they are incapable of comprehending reality of that part of war (which was the most
savage war after Mongol invasions). Instead, they juggle with some half-truths &
fictions, long since debunked as Soviet & American propaganda, for their own purposes.
Yet- no serious man (or historian) thinks that extermination of European Jewry was a myth, a
story invented for sinister Jewish purposes. For instance, I don't see a serious effort to
debate numbers of Ukrainians, Russians, Poles, . who perished in that war (nor Germans or
Japanese, for that matter). Simple demography refutes holo-deniers.
You won't find normal people in Central & Eastern who deny that Jews, their neighbors,
had been exterminated, one way or another. Figures of victims vary, but not that much –
perhaps 20%, not more. Then, it is extremely difficult to ascertain how many people, by
nationality, perished in those vast swaths of earth from Poland to the Urals. Further east,
when we come to Cambodia & China- it is next to impossible.
For Jews, a few things are evident: the shoah & Auschwitz are their central
anti-corrosives in the modern world. Old faith has, except in pockets, all but vanished &
most ethnic Jews in Western world don't believe in that set of tales. So, they're
assimilating & the Auschwitz – as the state of mind – presents an emotional
rallying point; a huge asset indeed. Just- it seems even that doesn't work in keeping them
together:
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israel-s-education-minister-says-intermarriage-is-like-a-second-holocaust-1.7486330
Last year, Agriculture Minister Uri Ariel, member of the National Union – one of
the member parties to the Union of Right-Wing Parties, sent a letter to employees at his
ministry discussing the "assimilation Holocaust." According to Ariel, "During the
Holocaust, we've lost about six million Jews. Without at all comparing the two, we're
losing a part of our people to assimilation."
Fellow National Union member Eli Ben Dahan said in 2014, while he was deputy minister
for religious affairs, that intermarriage are "a silent Holocaust. We must remember that
the Jewish people, unfortunately, has gone through a Holocaust. It has been diminishing
over the past century In Europe we have as much as 80 percent intermarriages; in the United
States it's 66 percent. It's horrible."
..no one complains more often or at greater volume than American Jewish groups intent on
preserving the benefits that are derived from always being able to claim their perpetual
victimhood.
Utilizing accusations of faux guilt as both a shaming weapon towards other(s), and,
more importantly for the accusers, a negative means of social control (via fear and
terrorization) of one's own people, has happened before, as in the case of the United States
and it's Civil War, fought 1861-1865.
And, too, when a cause is morally dubious, it is sometimes necessary to augment it with
something anything.
The below excerpt was published in The Atlantic Monthly (now known simply as The
Atlantic ) in October, 1870, in an article entitled 'Our Israelitish Brethren'. In more
modern English the title would translate as 'Our Jewish Brothers'. 'Brethren', or brothers,
is an apparent reference to the unfortunate belief by some Anglo-Saxons that they were of the
'Lost Tribes of Israel'.
The reference in the emboldened portion to 'huge Andersonville outrages' is to the South's
Andersonville POW camp for captured Union soldiers. The accusations regarding planned
systematic mass murder at Andersonville, surrounded with much talk about 'cattle cars', the
manufacture of leather wallets from the human skin of 'murdered' Union prisoners, 'poisonous
injections' disguised as health measures, the wanton shooting down of prisoners by the
commanding officer, the setting upon prisoners of large and ferocious dogs for sport, all
constituting 'crimes against humanity', for which the declared intention had been to execute,
via hanging, the entirety of the upper echelons of the defeated South's political and
military leadership.
Those plans ultimately fell through, and the accusations regarding Andersonville are now
generally, albeit quietly, acknowledged not to have been true.
All too late, though, for the solitary and hapless Henry Wirz, the commanding officer at
Andersonville, who would be hanged in 1865 as a scape goat for Union pique regarding it's
huge war time losses in what was ultimately a largely morally dubious economic war, a war not
in any way, shape, or form, in the interest of the vast majority of the public 'North' or
'South', ie the North's far more profitable wage slavery (so called 'cheap
labor'/'mass immigration'), vs the South's far less profitable chattel slavery.
The hanging was 'botched', and as Wirz slowly strangled to death, the last words he would
hear on this earth uttered by the mouths of hundreds of watching Union spectators, were the
chants of 'Andersonville!', 'Andersonville!!', 'Andersonville!!!'
'Of the giant wrongs to which they [the Jewish people] have been subjected for the last
ten centuries, -- the huge Andersonville outrages, -- few readers need to be
reminded.'
The Atlantic Monthly (October, 1870) – Our Israelitish Brethren
Who can estimate the reparation which Christendom owes this interesting and unoffending
people? How abundant, how untiring, should be our charity in judging the faults of
character which our own superstition has created or developed!
Of the giant wrongs to which they [the Jewish people] have been subjected for the last
ten centuries, -- the huge Andersonville outrages, -- few readers need to be reminded. In
the slaughter of the Jews of Seville, in 1391, thirty-five hundred families were murdered.
In 1492, under Ferdinand and Isabella, three hundred thousand heroic Israelites preferred
exile to apostasy.
Many of them found a resting-place only in the grave or in the depths of the sea; for
neither Portugal nor Italy nor Mohammedan Morocco would tolerate the presence of a people
who would not comply with their superstitions, and who, by their frugality, continence,
temperance, and industry, absorbed the wealth of every country in which they lived.
A friend of mine recently commented that if the current trend to reduce the study of history
in schools to easily digestible politically correct soundbites that are being successfully
pushed by social justice warriors continues, we will soon be limited to discussing how horrible
slavery was, the Stonewall Inn riots and the so-called holocaust. Indeed, it seems that those
who complain the loudest are the only ones listened to and no one complains more often or at
greater volume than American Jewish groups intent on preserving the benefits that are derived
from always being able to claim their perpetual victimhood.
Recent media accounts from Florida
detail how low pandering to Israeli and Jewish interests can go. A high school principal
identified as Dr. Willian Latson was
removed from his position after he revealed to a parent that he considered the holocaust to
be a belief and not a demonstrated fact. According to statement made by the school district,
the action was taken "out of an abundance of concern" for students and staff after Latson had
"made a grave error in judgment." It added that "In addition to being offensive, the
principal's statement is not supported by either the School District Administration or the
School Board."
The story took place in the School District of Palm Beach County. Latson, now the
ex-principal of Spanish River High School in West Palm Beach, presided over his school in a
heavily Jewish district that includes Boca Raton. Latson is currently being considered for
reassignment by the school district though there are have also been recurring calls from county
and state legislators to fire him, which will undoubtedly occur.
The tale is somewhat convoluted and there are some disagreements about what actually took
place, but it goes basically like this: roughly one year ago a high school parent, unidentified
but presumably Jewish, emailed Latson asking him to confirm that holocaust education was a top
priority in Spanish River H.S. He responded by email that the school has a "variety of
activities" for holocaust education but "Not everyone believes the Holocaust happened. And you
have your thoughts, but we are a public school and not all of our parents have the same
beliefs." He added that an educator has "the role to be politically neutral but support all
groups in the school I can't say the Holocaust is a factual, historical event because I am not
in a position to do so as a school district employee."
After the emails were revealed to school officials, presumably by the parent, a year-long
investigation commenced in which Latson apologized for having caused offense, saying his emails
"did not accurately reflect my professional and personal commitment to educating all students
about the atrocities of the Holocaust." The school board initially ruled that he had not done
anything meriting disciplinary action or a reprimand, but the story did not end there.
Simultaneously,
an online petition which eventually included 6,000 signatures was initiated demanding
Latson's replacement and he was subsequently removed from his position. The school board
officials justified their change of course by citing his apparent unwillingness to comply with
instructions, stating that they previously had ordered him to "expand the Holocaust curriculum
at Spanish River and ordered him to spend 'several days at the United States Holocaust Museum
to increase his personal knowledge.'"
Latson responded that his emails and comments were not "accurately relayed" to the media: "I
have been reassigned to the district office due to a statement that was not accurately relayed
to the newspaper by one of our parents. It is unfortunate that someone can make a false
statement and do so anonymously and it holds credibility but that is the world we live in."
His statement implicitly blaming a school parent generated
new problems for Latson with two Palm Beach County state lawmakers and the Anti-Defamation
League (ADL) calling for his firing because he had not groveled sufficiently. ADL stated that
"ADL had hoped his apology was sincere and Latson could learn from his mistakes. Given that he
cannot take responsibility for his actions, Latson should resign, and if not we believe the
district should end his employment."
The two state officials, Senator Kevin Rader and Representative Tina Polsky issued a
statement saying "By his latest email, Dr. Latson has shown no remorse for his actions and we
call on the district to immediately terminate him."
The publication of Latson's comments also
unleashed heavy criticism from a broad range of other Florida public officials. Governor
Ron DeSantis, who calls himself the most pro-Israel governor in American,
joined in with "Look, to act like the Holocaust is a matter of debate, I mean, is just
absurd."
Senator Rick Scott called Latson's comments anti-Semitism and tweeted that the "fact
that someone charged with educating children would be unable to speak unequivocally on the
realities & horrors of the holocaust is incredibly concerning." Jewish State Representative
Randy Fine, who recently introduced legislation
officially banning "anti-Semitism" in Florida public schools, said "the law does not allow
a Holocaust-denier to serve as a public school principal." In a publish statement he expanded
on that point, writing that "anti-Semitism by public employees in our K-20 public education
system must be treated the same as racism."
The controversy inadvertently revealed the extent to which state law now requires the
holocaust to be taught in all Florida public schools. Ironically, Spanish River High has one of
the country's most rigorous holocaust education programs with the subject being taught both in
ninth- and 10th-grade English classes as well as a component of both U.S. and world history.
There is also an elective course as well regular holocaust assemblies for the entire school
featuring keynote speakers. After the Latson controversy started, the school district required
all 10th graders to read "Night" by Elie Wiesel. There are now plans to add multiple
annual assemblies for students in every grade in the school district this year.
So, if you go to school in Florida your English and history courses will be about the
holocaust and you will have to attend holocaust assemblies just in case some alleged atrocity
has not been described extensively enough in class. Well, when does it end? When does the
almost incessant pandering to Zionists and Jewish groups become too much for the deliberately
kept-in-ignorance American public to tolerate?
The so-called holocaust was an historical event that took place in Europe seventy-five years
ago. It has an established but very debatable narrative that pretty much has been contrived
over the past fifty years for political reasons, see Professor Norman Finkelstein's brilliant
deconstruction of it
in his book"The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish
Suffering." Those inconsistencies in the holocaust story and its general lack of
credibility may have been what Latson was referring to.
The imposed holocaust narrative is full of holes and contradictions in terms of who was
killed and how, but it is impossible for genuine academics to critique it if they want to stay
employed. Books like Wiesel's "Night" are largely works of fiction. The narrative exists
to perpetuate the belief in Jewish suffering, which brings with it a number of practical
advantages. First, it is regularly deployed to excuse the horrific treatment of the Palestinian
people by Israel – Jewish suffering means that the creation of a homeland is a debt that
all the world owes to the Jews without regard to what has been done to the area's other
inhabitants. Second, guilt over the alleged holocaust means that reparations from countries
involved must be continued indefinitely. Currently the Poles are
resisting new Jewish claims while the Germans have been paying for years. It is now being
asserted that the descendants of so-called holocaust survivors have been
genetically psychologically damaged , in the womb as it were, so reparations will
presumably continue forever.
Third, holocaust guilt is used in the United States to counter any criticism of what Israel
and Jewish groups are up to, as they use their wealth and access to power to corrupt America's
institutions and drive the country to needless wars. One might well ask, when confronted by the
taxpayer funded holocaust museums that appear to spring up like mushrooms, why so much interest
in a possible crime that has nothing to do with the United States? Where are the museums and
courses in Florida schools discussing the mass killing that happened on our own shores, the
genocide of the native Americans?
Lest we forget, the holocaust industry operates everywhere in America, particularly in the
education system. Eight states already have laws mandating holocaust education (California, New
York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Florida, Illinois, Indiana and Michigan) and there is
considerable pressure to make it universal in the United States. An alarmed World Jewish
Congress (WJC) is urging required holocaust education
for everyone everywhere "citing statistics from a 2018 poll revealing half of millennials
can't name a single Nazi concentration camp."
A currently circulating WJC
petition in Congress expresses concern over the rise in anti-Semitism, with a warning that
"the horrors of the Holocaust are fading from our collective memory " A bill to brainwash
students so they will not forget, 'The Never Again Education
Act ', is currently making the rounds in the House of Representatives. It would make
holocaust study mandatory in public schools and set up a Department of Education program that
would train teachers to properly instruct students about the story of Jewish suffering.
Yes, the "Never Again Education Act" will soon be sucking up taxpayer money like an enormous
vacuum cleaner and creating lots of new jobs for holocaust instructors, who will, of course,
all be Jewish. Public schools will be teaching the next generation about what a great place
Israel is and how the holocaust justifies vigilant groups like AIPAC and ADL, though it will
not mention how they have corrupted the U.S. government and turned America's foreign policy
into an Israeli wag-the-dog. But who's complaining? It's good for the Jews, isn't it?
So Dr. William Latson will be unemployed and possibly unemployable because he spoke the
truth, a lesson to all of us that one must never cross the red lines established by the
wielders of Jewish power in America. One might reasonably currently expect that serial
pedophile Jeffrey Epstein will use the holocaust get-out-of-jail-free card in his defense,
claiming that his recollection of the event has so traumatized him that he did bad things that
he would not have otherwise considered. Poor Jeffrey. He has suffered so much.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest,
a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a
more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its
email is[email protected]
A middle school teacher in our area, while teaching about the suffering of the Jews in
America, told the class that in the south, where she was from, people use derogatory terms
like "jewing" somebody down to describe driving a hard bargain. Next thing we knew, she was
leaving the district at the end the year to return to Alabama to care for her aging parents,
even though her husband had an excellent job with a local tech firm. A few parents suspected
she had been asked to leave just from that one innocent comment and would never be able to
get a job anywhere in Western WA.
E.A. Ross said in his book The Old World in The New that the Hebrews are consumed
by over sensitivity, unscrupulousness and pleasure seeking . Couldn't have
found three more accurate terms to describe this tribe, though one might also add
narcissism and shamelessness . Ross said this way back in 1914. Things have
only gotten worse since, much, much worse now that they are the ruling class.
no one complains more often or at greater volume than American Jewish groups intent on
preserving the benefits that are derived from always being able to claim their perpetual
victimhood
lol no one but a Jew can find victimhood in absolutely everything.
(((Michael Koplow)))Verified account @mkoplow
Follow Follow @mkoplow
More
Let's dispense with the fiction that everything Trump does is good for Israel. He cares for
Israel only so far as his policies toward Israel further his political aims and benefit him,
and right now that involves using Israel as a shield for his own racism."
The so-called holocaust was an historical event that took place in Europe seventy-five
years ago. It has an established but very debatable narrative that pretty much has been
contrived over the past fifty years for political reasons, see Professor Norman
Finkelstein's brilliant deconstruction of it in his book " The Holocaust Industry:
Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering ."
I came across Finkelstein's book purely by chance in the freebie pile of a local used
bookstore about a decade ago, when in my mid 20s. It made me a skeptic of Israel, Zionism,
and the Holocaust virtually overnight, not to mention drawing my attention to the fact that
Jewish power is no tin hat conspiracy theory. In a just world, his book would be required
reading for anybody 12 and over.
While I remain a believer that there was a mass murder of Jews perpetrated by Germans, my
own belief is that the manner in which this event is commonly portrayed today to be a vast
exaggeration. The "six million" figure does not really hold up under scrutiny; my personal
guess is that the actual number is no more than one million, and likely closer to the tens of
thousands rather than millions. Most of those were probably murdered for being communists or
other such political undesirables, rather than for their ethnicity as such; another good
amount simply died in the closing months of the war because of supply and food shortages,
although I do not discount that a fair amount were targeted for their religion or race.
But even if that were the case, so what? They would not be the first to be targeted in
that manner -- nor were they even the last. There is more actual documentation and proof of
the Armenian Genocide, for example, as a deliberate race/religion-focused act than there is
for the Holocaust. Yet comparatively few peoples or nations seem to care about that event,
most tellingly Israel. Meanwhile, the US on a federal level denies or refuses to acknowledge
the Armenian Genocide. Imagine if any American political figure ever publicly vacillated on
the subject of the Holocaust?
From my Ph. D. research and seeing survivors with tattoos I am convinced that the Nazi regime
did engage in exterminations, but I know that Jewish people were not the only targets. The
actual number exterminated is open to interpretation, but a great many were obviously
exterminated. Proof that something happened can be seen in comparisons of the ethnic makeup
of territories before and after Nazi occupation. Over 3 Million Soviet POW's were also
liquidated in Nazi camps and hundreds of thousands of other non-Jewish people were also
liquidated.
I agree with Dr. Giraldi that these historical incidents, factual or exaggerated, have
been exploited to create "get out of jail free cards" for Israeli actions that too closely
resemble proven Nazi crimes. Gaza is a sort of ghetto-concentration camp reminiscent of
documented Nazi crimes in Poland and elsewhere. Whatever the extent the facts fully support
the received view, I agree with the implication that feelings of guilt for Nazi excesses were
central to the creation of Israel and think that the Finkelstein book mentioned is a valuable
corrective.
I also find it outrageous that any sort of questioning or revisionism is considered taboo
despite the traditional existence of constitutional guarantees of free speech, which have
been seriously curtailed in recent years. I also deplore identity politics and forced
political correctness, recalling George Carlin's view that political correctness was nothing
more than polite fascism As for Dr. Latson, he obviously made a serious mistake in the
present environment and in the context of events at his school, and I am sure he will be
sacked. If traditional rule of law still obtained he would probably be able to continue on as
a teacher, but, recalling my studies of the rise of fascism, a new version of it appears to
have gradually developed in the "west" during the last 30 years or so.
@Anonymous You got it
wrong. Women -- affluent white women, specifically -- crowd the top of the totem pole of
grievances along with the Jews. The casual reader of the major periodicals in English,
Spanish, French, and German are lead to believe on a daily basis that no being suffers more
on this miserable bitch of an Earth than women. Arguably, Latin American and European media
are even more zealously fourth-wave feminist than many of the major Anglo-American outlets.
And the contagion is quickly spreading to East Asia.
And here in the US, affluent white women have remarkably (and without any dissent)
positioned themselves not only as the ne plus ultra of historical victimhood, but have
effectively declared themselves honorary "POC", presenting themselves as the spokesfigures
for the world's huddled masses of the dusky and "oppressed".
55 MILLION non-jews died in that war, and you never hear about that.
There was never any order given to kill jews. The jews that died mostly died from typhus
and starvation.
The "holocaust" isn't mentioned in the jewish encyclopedia of the time. Also, none of the
world leaders of that time period mention anything about a "holocaust" in any of their
autobiographies.
Finkelstein says that "The Holocaust" was actually invented around 1967 to provide support
for Israel in fighting its' Arab neighbors.
The "holocaust" is essentially a marketing tool to shield the jews and Israel, and to
shame the dumb goyim into allowing themselves to be destroyed.
The mass persecution of European Jews by the Nazi regime during the Second World War is an
established historical fact. Its origins, its actual scope, extent, methods, parameters and
motivating factors are all questions properly explored by scholars and historians, not by
activists. Many of these issues have taken a plausibly reliable shape (e.g. historians are
reliably certain that killer whales were not used to murder Jews), but some have not. History
is a long and patient enterprise.
Proper, accurate historical scholarship on matters of this magnitude is never fully
settled, and certainly not in the space of a single human lifetime; scholars to this day are
still exploring new information regarding such distant events as the Thirty Years War and the
Old Kingdom of pharaonic Egypt. To close the book permanently on the exploration of an event
like the Jewish Persecution, and declare that "the history is settled" on a scale so recent
that there are still living participants, is an act of scholarly abuse so egregious as to
constitute a crime of omission against Truth itself.
The fact that it has become literally a crime in many countries to honestly explore these
issues in a scholarly context is evidence of "mens rea", consciousness of guilt, on the part
of those activists who seek to shut down good-faith discussion and exploit the event for
personal and group gain. What do they fear will be discovered? What do they fear to lose by
such discoveries?
Furthermore, labeling this Jewish Persecution Event with the mystical, quasi-religious
grand title of "the Holocaust" (or, the "Shoah") is in fact a racist act of cultural
appropriation, and a theft of historical place. It sacralizes and valorizes a single
particular historical catastrophe, which took place among many, many such catastrophes,
within the context of the largest war in human history, a war which involved participants on
FOUR continents.
The label "Holocaust" is racist propaganda, designed to put the Jewish Persecution at the
center of world history, to elevate a single grim historical tragedy well above many other
such tragedies, equally deserving of historical attention, and many of them far more
deserving. It strongly implies that the suffering of the Jewish people is somehow mystically
more important than the suffering of other people's; it strongly evokes the notion that
Jewish lives are somehow more valuable than the lives of other peoples.
Finally, this notion that Jewish lives are more valuable than the lives of non-Jews, is in
fact a codified Jewish religious belief, well-attested in voluminous citations of Jewish
scriptures and Jewish hermeneutical texts. It is not a uniform canonical belief, but it is so
widespread among learned doctors of Jewish dogma that it can with confidence be considered a
valid and well-known "Jewish religious belief".
Therefore, any law passed by Congress mandating special enforced education practices
regarding the Holocaust as an event of somehow uniquely elevated importance would be a law
expressing government preference in religious faith, and as such is null and void under the
First Amendment.
For those who are not Americans but who have a good grasp of history, this is an amusing
point in history, watching the Israelis drawing the Americans into another Jewish disaster
brought about by their ongoing arrogance.
When I read the title the first person that popped into my head was Norman Finklestein, who
rightly calls the holocaust an industry, not an official category of history, since the
reason it is taught in schools has more of a monetary(think power) value than a historical
one. "Industry"
At best it is a controversy, with non-verifible facts and events. It's probably closer to
a religion than a game of football with a real score. But that's life – Bullshit still
rules the field. How about some real Bullshit for your kid.
@Anonymous Yes indeed,
the victimhood totempole exists and I think you are right to point this out. However, there
is more overlap than just Jews and homos: Jews and women (vociferous Jewesses are very
numerous), homos and women, women and any of the other categories, illegals and any other
category, and so on.
In the end, the totempole serves the interests of the state, since it keeps the population
divided (divide and rule, remember) into mutually antagonistic groups. The state itself was
the first to initiate this unfortunate categorization, requiring everyone when filling out
official documents, to tick the appropriate category: White, African-American (or whatever
the current politically correct term is), Hispanic, Hispanic non-white, Native American,
Pacific islander, Aleut, Asian etc. I have always found this insulting, derogatory,
humiliating and reminiscent of nazi-Germany.
Philip Giraldi's article and all other articles like it, indicate the US has gone
full-blown nazi. By the way, this often occurs in history: in the end, the victor always
adopts the ways and ideas of the vanquished. That is why it is so important to pick one's
battles. That is also why the Chinese are so superior: they always try to avoid open conflict
and in doing so have preserved their collective identity.
It is now being asserted that the descendants of so-called holocaust survivors have been
genetically psychologically damaged, in the womb as it were, so reparations will presumably
continue forever.
Interesting. This is basically Lysenkoism, i.e. Lamarckism.
A high school principal identified as Dr. Willian Latson was removed from his position
after he revealed to a parent that he considered the holocaust to be a belief and not a
demonstrated fact. According to statement made by the school district, the action was taken
"out of an abundance of concern" for students and staff after Latson had "made a grave
error in judgment." It added that "In addition to being offensive, the principal's
statement is not supported by either the School District Administration or the School
Board."
Ka-ching!
Exhibit 1 for the plaintiff in his suit for defamation and wrongful constructive
termination.
"The ADL stated that "The ADL had hoped his apology was sincere and Latson could learn from
his mistakes. Given that he cannot take responsibility for his actions, Latson should resign,
and if not we believe the district should end his employment."
When have jews ever apologized for anything?
When have jews ever taken responsibility for their actions?
"The two state officials, Senator Kevin Rader and Representative Tina Polsky issued a
statement saying "By his latest email, Dr. Latson has shown no remorse for his actions and we
call on the district to immediately terminate him.""
When have jews ever shown remose?
"The publication of Latson's comments also unleashed heavy criticism from a broad range of
other Florida public officials. Governor Ron DeSantis, who calls himself the most pro-Israel
governor in American, joined in with "Look, to act like the Holocaust is a matter of debate,
I mean, is just absurd.""
The fact that they can not see that FORCING the study of an histoircal evidence is
self-discrediting is yet more proof of how insane and dangerou they are to everyone they come
into contact with.
Any country that bows before the alter of Jewish Supremacy Inc. is doomed.
So why do it?
The only answer is that such people have lost the will to live.
@Anonymous Great
comment. Sad story about the teacher.
And to your list we could add the word Dostoyevsky used to describe them,
"mericiless."
Around the time of Ross' book there was a study on criminal pathology conducted in the USA
in 1911 and it discusses the jewish inclination toward just that, criminal pathology. I
regret to say I don't recall the name of the study. I'm sure it was influential in the 1924
Immigration Act.
In any event, the rise of Jewish Supremacy Inc. is in direct proportion to the rise of
psychopathy in the West.
For now, their insanity is in full display in demands to be
1. placed above criticism
2. loved unconditionally
3. blindly obeyed
The fact that they have the power to effecuate these insane demands makes one shudder for
the future of our children.
I think JSI is about to find out that not everyone is keen on being their slaves or
sacrifices.
The Jews started all this stuff with the "Frankfurt School" (started 1923) crap. Every dirty
rotten lousy thing going on today is tied to that stinking, "Jew Think Tank" –
including the holocaust hoax.
Palm Beach County is directly adjacent to Broward County, which has a large Borg infestation
and never seems to run out of incidents that can be traced back to the Tribe.
Maybe Americans should do a repeat of those Middle Ages types that went around,
flagellating themselves on their backs with whips that contained rusty nails and broken
pottery, trying to get the Black Death to vanish, but the modern day ones would be moaning
about how bad the Jews have it and it's our fault that some died during WWII.
My guess is that even that wouldn't be enough, unless a check of at least 6 gorillion was
included each year to Jews.
Most of those were probably murdered for being communists or other such political
undesirables, rather than for their ethnicity as such; another good amount simply died in
the closing months of the war because of supply and food shortages, although I do not
discount that a fair amount were targeted for their religion or race.
Two out of three is not bad for a relatively young fellow, especially if you were raised
in the the Brainwashed States of America, the Bullshit Capitol of the World. I hope you have
sufficient time to follow your inquiries into the truth. Keep reading PG and RU, and you'll
keep making excellent progress.
In the case of "the Jewish persecution" in Germany I found that impartial presentation
of the facts gradually gave way to so partisan a depictment that the truth was lost. This
transformation was effected in three subtle stages. First the persecution of "political
opponents and Jews" was reported; then this was imperceptibly amended to "Jews and
political opponents"; and at the end the press in general spoke only of "the persecution of
Jews". By this means a false image was projected on to the public mind and the plight of
the overwhelming majority of the victims, by this fixing of the spotlight on one group, was
lost to sight. The result showed in 1945, when, on the one hand, the persecution of Jews
was made the subject of a formal indictment at Nuremberg, and on the other hand half of
Europe and all the people in it were abandoned to the selfsame persecution, in which the
Jews had shared in their small proportion to populations everywhere.
-Douglas Reed, The Controversy of Zion, page 214-5
I used to have a link to the book, but now all I get is a 404 message.
"When does the almost incessant pandering to Zionists and Jewish groups become too much
for the deliberately kept-in-ignorance American public to tolerate?"
It became too much decades ago.
I haven't seen a more succinct, articulate description of American life under Jewish
occupation. Giraldi hits the nail on the head every time.
Here's what the Holocaust Industry is so desperate to cover up, the sickening treatment of
the indigenous Palestinians by the Israelis–that claim to be Jews–that have
invaded Palestine and turned it into a much more deadlier version of Apartheid South Africa:
Poof! One day in occupation causes young Jews on Zionist tour to question Zionism --
'NYT' reports
We are as critical of the New York Times as anyone, but we need to salute the superb
report in the newspaper by David Halbfinger on a liberal Zionist trip for American Jews to
see the occupation. Titled, "Touring the Israeli Occupation: Young U.S. Jews Get an
Unflinching View," the July 10 article offered horrifying glimpses of Palestinian
conditions in Susiya and Hebron that left the young Jews staggered.
Since they toured part of Occupied Hebron, wonder if they visited those streets that
have wire and steel barricades over the sidewalks, necessitated by Israelis, living above
those streets, that dump chunks of concrete down on the Palestinians passing by?
But that doesn't stop the buckets of human waste the kindly Israelis also dump on the
Palestinians.
But hey, to think about that is anti-Semitic. That time should be spent worshiping the
most Holy Holocaust, Goyim!
@Richard B The Jewish
establishment and the various foreigners aren't really the problem. WW I and WW II stunned
the Europeans an European descendants, who have had a sort of PTSD for a three generations
now. _That's_ the problem.
R. Unz's article [1] shows that, had solidly Republican California simply arrested a few
people (and continued to arrest their replacements) it could have saved itself. The people
were not arrested because nobody cared. Politics had already become a game, played by
professionals, of being elected rather than a constant and precarious effort to keep
civilization (or at least Republican California) alive. The civil population at the time had
no interest in politics and was badly frightened by the prospect of yet another central war,
this time fought with nuclear weapons. [2]
The fourth generation seems to be recovering enough to defend itself, if only because the
choice is that or life on gradually diminishing welfare.
2] Although i seem to remember, from _Only yesterday_, that in the 1920s the frequent
moving from one neighborhood to another made neighborhoods hard for anybody "organize"
politically, and that the California populace could be lured to vote by presenting political
contests as a horse race (X lead's by a nose! Now Y is moving up in the final stretch! And ..
. . It's Seabiscuit!". Watching a human horesrace is not the same as protecting your
civilization, as the Californians (and now the Americans) have found out.
P. Giraldi says: "Well, when does it end? When does the almost incessant pandering to
Zionists and Jewish groups become too much for the deliberately kept-in-ignorance American
public to tolerate?"
It's not going to end as long as the current, enforced at-the-point-of-a-gun government
run "educational" system exists.
@exiled off mainstreet
The PhD has to be in something rigorous, like gender studies.
If an aeronautics engineer said "from seeing survivor tattoos I am convinced the Nazi regime
did engage in exterminations, " he/she would be disqualified from folding paper airplanes.
. . and the repeated use of "exterminations" -- why that word? Did Germans seek out 3 m.
Soviet soldiers as if they were the Terminex man fumigating a rat-infested slum? Or did
Stalin send ill-equiped, untrained & poorly fed troops who surrendered in such large
numbers that there was no way to cope with them?
Furthermore, labeling this Jewish Persecution Event with the mystical, quasi-religious
grand title of "the Holocaust" (or, the "Shoah") is in fact a racist act of cultural
appropriation, and a theft of historical place.
I'll say! Did you know that the very word 'holocaust' was first coined in 1944 to describe
the effects of the incendiary bombs that the allies dropped on the Germans during the war?
That's right: 'holocaust' originally referred to a war crime committed against the
Germans, not by them. Even well into the 60s, when the word was used, it was usually used
with reference the ever-present threat of nuclear war–the so-called nuclear holocaust.
It wasn't really until the 70s–a full generation after the war–that the word
acquired its present meaning, completely displacing the older ones.
@Bardon Kaldian Yes the
inheritance of acquired characteristics is considered to be a massive scientific heresy. If
the experiment is repeatable it would blow modern genetics wide open. If the Krauts have any
brains they'd be asking for a lot more more evidence before paying out on that one.
The state of affairs that provided cover for the "Holocaust" was a wonderful gift the Nazis
gave. It allowed the truth at last to be told about the Chmielnitsy rebellion. It was time to
admit, for Jews to admit, that the number of Jews killed was less than a tenth of the number
previously said to have been killed. And further, when a town with a 99 percent Jewish
population was overrun by the Cossacks and the peasants, the Jews were left unharmed because
they were simply merchants, had not been involved in the oppression of the peasants. Jewish
towns overrun and left unharmed. This truth could be told now because there was a more
delicious story to tell. Chmielnitsy was rendered obsolete by its successor, the "Holocaust".
But I get a sense that the Tribe may be going over the top. They appear to be desperate
to ram this Holocaust narrative down our collective throats.
I believe you're on to something here. there is a Holocaust museum in a large Southern
city near me. Recently there's been a blitz, so to speak, of billboards and teevee ads
encouraging all and sundry to attend to learn about the baleful consequences of 'hate."
Why now? Because their POC pets are turning on (((them)))? because they have internal
polling showing people are noticing epstein/weinstein/et cetera? resistance to the Iran war
noises? It's all very odd.
The holocaust is a preposterous hoax that is unsupported by any physical evidence. It is
made up of literally millions of lies, but it all rests on one 'big lie'.
The hoax has three main components –
1. The Nazis planned to exterminate the Jews.
2. The Nazis built gas chambers to exterminate the Jews and disguised them as shower
rooms.
3. The Nazis killed six million Jews.
Each component of the hoax is categorically false and completely without evidence.
1. There was no Nazi plan to exterminate the Jews or anyone else, and no evidence of one
has ever been found.
2. The gas chambers disguised as shower rooms are pure phantasmagoria, and there is not a
shred of physical evidence for them.
3. The number of Jews killed in the camps for being Jews is zero, and it is well
documented that the Nazis aggressively investigate any crime in the camps.
That is the hoax, and the reality
The big lie is the photos and film footage that are shown of Jewish prisoners who had
been gassed by the Nazis. The truth is that all the photos and film were taken after the
war by British and US soldiers, and showed prisoners of all nationalities and religions who
had died of tyhpus at the very last weeks of the war, primarily at Belsen where 35,000
died, 10,000 after the camp had been liberated by the British. Further, the Nazis had done
everything in their power to combat the epidemic.
The video documents all the above. To understand the holohoax you must study it.
From my Ph. D. research and seeing survivors with tattoos I am convinced that the Nazi
regime did engage in exterminations
So encountering an old woman with a number tattoo proves Nazis exterminated Jews? Not that
there were prisoners of war, but that Jews were systematically slaughtered?
Wow, there's a logical leap of faith
As far as Ph.D. research, I'm not sure it has the cachet you think it does.
Sir, foxnews is reporting that the fake passport recovered in Epstein's locker places him
as a resident of Saudi Arabia – and that is from the 80's. What is going on here? This
is so weird (and scary). How much of penetration we have from foreign groups in USA, for how
long, and why are our politicians not being safeguarded from their influence? Are our
intelligence agencies trying to stop that influence? I think this new revelation deserves
another article from you. Thank you.
Judaizing heresy not identified and refuted and stopped, rejected thoroughly, leads directly
to a world like this one.
Anglo-Zionist Empire.
Anglo-Saxon Puritanism was a Judaizing heresy. WASP culture is the product of a Judaizing
heresy. The British Empire took the secularist form of that Judaizing heresy and planted ir
across the globe.
With all due respect, I think Norman Finkelstein's.views are being distorted in this article.
Finkelstein never questions whether or not the Holocaust occurred. Indeed, he promotes the
work of Raul Hillberg, who Finkelstein views as a serious scholar. Also, he always states
that the suffering of his parents in the Holocaust is what motivates him to defend the rights
of Palestinians. Finkelstein does indeed go after Jewish groups and the State of Israel for
using the Holocaust as an idelogical weapon, and he does attack Ellie Weisel as a fraud and
hyoprite, but he has never questioned the standard narrative that a systematic extermination
of European Jewry occurred during World War II.
"The Never Again Education Act" is the exact same thing as a "The Santa Claus Education Act".
One only has only to believe, no inquiry allowed.
" The Again and Again Wars for Jewish Zionist Advisor Act" has been put in action
endlessly in the past hundred years. The earth is crying out in pain from from this world
wide destruction.
" Seven Nations to destroy" is the latest war plan for the most persecuted people on
planet earth.
" The Never Again promotion of Wars by Jewish/Zionist Advisors Act" is what the world
needs.
WWI was for the Balfour. Zionist Jewish Advisors were at the top of both the British and
American governments promoting WWI.
WWII was for Israel. Zionist Jewish Advisors were at the top of both the British and
American governments promoting WWII.
Jewish Zionist Oligarchs world wide promoted the Bolshevik take over Russia.
If anything like the big 6 happened, the blame should go at the Jewish/Zionist Advisors
that created the conditions for it by promoting two massive world wars.
Will "The Never Again promotion of War by Jewish/Zionist Advisors Act" ever be passed? Now
that is a bill that should be passed. Climate Change is peanuts compared to war promotion by
Jewish/Zionist Advisors.
Over 3 Million Soviet POW's were also liquidated in Nazi camps and hundreds of thousands
of other non-Jewish people were also liquidated.
Only if by "liquidated" you mean died of starvation and disease because food and medical
care were inadequate. German logistics in the winter of 1941 were famously a nightmare: if
the Wehrmacht couldn't even supply their own troops with adequate winter gear, it's no
surprise EPWs fared worse. Though the number of victims you cite is too high. It comes
ultimately from the book Keine Kameraden by one Christian Streit, who is often quoted
uncritically by mainstream historians who won't (or can't, if they don't read German) check
how he actually derived his figures. In fact, he inflates them quite a bit.
Even so, many hundreds of thousands did die. And this, of course, is still a real tragedy.
But it was not an intentional genocide, any more than the starvation of even more millions of
Germans and Japanese by the Allies after the war. And the Allies didn't have the excuse that
they were fighting history's biggest land war while their victims starved in peacetime. See
the convincing studies by Alfred De Zayas, most of which have been translated to English, and
Stalin's War of Annihilation by Joachim Hoffmann, which our host Ron Unz mentions in
his American Pravda series.
The nazis killed millions of not only Jews but Christians and political opponents and in
regards to the Jews , the elite Jews helped the nazis kill the Jews to further their goal of
a zionist homeland and a case in point is George Soros , who at the age of 14 lived with the
nazi commander of Budapest who was in charge of rounding up Jews to be shipped to the death
camps, and Soros went with the nazis and pointed out the Jews for the nazis, this is a fact.
I have always found this [demographic categorization] insulting, derogatory, humiliating
and reminiscent of nazi-Germany.
YMMV, but I personally think we should drill down even deeper, e.g. how many Jews? That'd
drive 'em nuts, since it's literally against their religion to count a Jew. And it would
finally put to bed this 2% nonsense.
Not to mention the current census controversy over how many illegals constitute
congressional redistricting.
In spite of bans on free speech, which proves that the story is a fraud, rational,
scientific Revisionist research has demolished the claims. I mean, that fact IS the reason
that free speech on the subject is banned. The absurd narrative does not hold up.
Can you say dumb? I have beliefs similar to most of the people in this forum, but I would
know better than to allow them to appear under my real name, let alone in professional
correspondence! You could also be jailed in much of Europe based on such information.
Probably also banned from the schengen zone.
There are other pieces of forbidden thought and discussion, such as race and IQ. I bet Mr
Latson would support those orthodoxies.
@Genrick Yagoda
Indeed.
It's claimed that millions upon millions of human remain exists in allegedly known
locations , yet those remain are not there.
Remember, the claim is "6,000,000 Jews & 5,000,000 others". That alleged 11,000,000 is
equal to the city of London.
The "Holocau$t Industry" in court:
'Please your honor, there really are remains of millions upon millions buried in huge
mass graves, we know where the mass graves are, but, but, well, umm, we can't show the
court the human remains. You must trust us, we're Zionists.'
recommended: The Rudolf Report / Expert Report on Chemical and Technical Aspects of the 'Gas Chambers'
of Auschwitz http://vho.org/GB/Books/trr/index.html
If an aeronautics engineer said "from seeing survivor tattoos I am convinced the Nazi
regime did engage in exterminations, " he/she would be disqualified from folding paper
airplanes.
That piece of "logic" really got my attention as well. I'll be shaking my head over that
for quite a while.
" if the current trend to reduce the study of history in schools to easily digestible
politically correct soundbites that are being successfully pushed by social justice warriors
continues, we will soon be limited to discussing how horrible slavery was, the Stonewall Inn
riots and the so-called holocaust. "
@John Regan I guess the
"PhD" never knew about the Brit starvation blockades that continued for some time after the
fighting stopped, but with the logic displayed above, I doubt even knowing the facts would
lead to valid conclusions.
And here we are, with nearly a century of hindsight available!
Tattoos are not placed on people for any other reason than to identify them, if they are
incarcerated. You don't tattoo them if you intend to kill them.
The only ones that "exterminated" Soviet POW's were the Jewish NKVD when they returned
home.
The so-called HC can't withstand scientific or logical scrutiny, so these things are
criminalized.
@Nicolás Palacios
Navarro My belief is that 2.5 million Jews were killed by the Nazis, whatever the cause.
This could still be described as a holocaust. Also, I do agree that there are some issues
with the capital "H" Holocaust. Still, there is entirely too much time and energy spent on
the subject. There are far more pressing issues these days .
Those that do not intentionally peddle lies (they may be wrong, but that is a different
issue) discuss things along this line, only dealing with the story:
What?
Where, when?
Who?
Why?
How?
The intentional deceiver attack along the line:
Who? (within the story)
Who? (with respect to their debating opposite)
Why? (with respect to their debating opposite)
.
(usually it doesn't get beyond this because the truth seekers debate 'what', don't engage the
ad hominem speculation, and one hissy fit return serve later, they are out, but..)
.
Why/how/when/where/what?
Your whole point is on 'who', there is no counterpoint to Eisenhower's, Churchill's,
De-Gaulle's silence on the issue – even though they should have had the info. No
discounting the coke shipment statistics for the crematoria, no discussion of ground water
levels and the impossibility of burials (or even discarding of bones), no explanation why
Germans neither recorded their acts in documentary fashion, or didn't just throw the helpless
6 million off a cliff (the Mongols, Chinese, Turks would have certainly found a cheaper way
to kill 6 million), etc, etc.
We, the revisionists, discuss 'what' first, and 'who' somewhere down the line.
Anyone that pokes the speaker first, fears the words of the speaker. Simple. An
intelligent person does not fear false information – it is false.
@John Regan Sorry,but
I've already wasted too much time on this irrelevant issue. 1-2 reposts.
I do get Jews' obsession with shoah, but I hardly get "denialists'"" stance: this did
happen, but is, due to Jewish media influence in Western societies, overblown out of
proportion. No one with sane mind in Poland, Hungary, Greece, Ukraine or Russia will deny
that many or most Jews were systematically murdered. This is not even the topic. What they
would, reasonably, argue with that Jewish nationalists' constant drumming on the theme &
emotional blackmail in trying to extort as much money as possible and advance their tribalist
interests at the expense of the natives' is simply unacceptable.
@Bardon Kaldian All of
Central and Eastern Europe was a wreck after WWII. There was mass movements of people of all
ethnic groups. The largest mass movement after the war was the German one. It was the largest
one in human history. Looking at who was in each nation before the war does not prove any
genocide. The Jewish H was a mass movement too.
14 million Germans were forced to leave their ancestral homes.
Orwell greatly underestimated both the determination and the ambition of the Allied
leaders' plans. What neither he nor anybody else knew was that in addition to the
displacement of the 7-8 million Germans of the East, Churchill, U.S. President Franklin D.
Roosevelt and Soviet leader Joseph Stalin had already agreed to a similar "orderly and
humane" deportation of the more than 3 million German-speakers -- the "Sudeten Germans" --
from their homelands in Czechoslovakia. They would soon add the half-million ethnic Germans
of Hungary to the list.
Although the governments of Yugoslavia and Romania were never given permission by the
Big Three to deport their German minorities, both would take advantage of the situation to
drive them out also.
By mid-1945, not merely the largest forced migration but probably the largest single
movement of population in human history was under way, an operation that continued for the
next five years. Between 12 and 14 million civilians, the overwhelming majority of them
women, children and the elderly, were driven out of their homes or, if they had already
fled the advancing Red Army in the last days of the war, forcibly prevented from returning
to them.
German refugees were put in camps.
From the beginning, this mass displacement was accomplished largely by state-sponsored
violence and terror. In Poland and Czechoslovakia, hundreds of thousands of detainees were
herded into camps -- often, like Auschwitz I or Theresienstadt, former Nazi concentration
camps kept in operation for years after the war and put to a new purpose.
The regime for prisoners in many of these facilities was brutal, as Red Cross officials
recorded, with beatings, rapes of female inmates, gruelling forced labour and starvation
diets of 500-800 calories the order of the day. In violation of rarely-applied rules
exempting the young from detention, children routinely were incarcerated, either alongside
their parents or in designated children's camps. As the British Embassy in Belgrade
reported in 1946, conditions for Germans "seem well down to Dachau standards."
Death rates were very high for these German refugees in the camps.
Though the death rates in the camps were often frighteningly high -- 2,227 inmates of
the Mysłowice facility in southern Poland alone perished in the last ten months of
1945 -- most of the mortality associated with the expulsions occurred outside them.
No trains or cars were used to get these refugees to rump Germany.
Forced marches in which inhabitants of entire villages were cleared at fifteen minutes'
notice and driven at rifle-point to the nearest border, accounted for many losses. So did
train transports that sometimes took weeks to reach their destination, with up to 80
expellees crammed into each cattle car without adequate (or, occasionally, any) food, water
or heating.
No help from Allies even in rump Germany.
The deaths continued on arrival in Germany itself. Declared ineligible by the Allied
authorities to receive any form of international relief and lacking accommodation in a
country devastated by bombing, expellees in many cases spent their first months or years
living rough in fields, goods wagons or railway platforms.
No one knows how many died in these long forced marches.
Malnutrition, hypothermia and disease took their toll, especially among the very old and
very young. Although more research is needed to establish the total number of deaths,
conservative estimates suggest that some 500,000 people lost their lives as a result of the
operation.
Ironically the Nuremberg trials was going on while this happened.
Not only was the treatment of the expellees in defiance of the principles for which the
Second World War had professedly been fought, it created numerous and persistent legal
complications. At the Nuremberg trials, for example, the Allies were trying the surviving
Nazi leaders on charges of carrying out "deportation and other inhumane acts" against
civilian populations at the same moment as, less than a hundred miles away, they were
engaging in large-scale forced removals of their own.
I remember reading that after "Perestroika" the Russian wartime records were released, which
showed that more Christians than Jews died at the wartime labour complex that was Austwich.
(Sorry! I comment so rarely that I forget what name I've commented under in the past.
There are so many excellent articals and so many very well informed readers on this site,
that I'm honestly a little bit intimidated. I don't have that problem with the Spectator,
Telegraph etc. Thank You.
teaching non existent history as factual is what made me disbelieve everything I am taught or
most things I read. How can I believe anything these days when anything I look deeper into is
found to be a fabrication. Instead of the actual victims being helped a few in the minority
uses the falsehood to enrich themselves all the while to oppress others and gain an
unwarranted leverage against others. This is inequality in the extreme. Punishing the victims
and creating new victims all so a few can live a life of luxury and do what they think is
their right to be above others.
"The Ruins of the Gas Chambers: A Forensic Investigation of Crematoriums at Auschwitz I
and Auschwitz-Birkenau" by Daniel Keren, Harry W. Mazal and Jamie McCarthy in Holocaust and
Genocide Studies, Oxford University Press, Volume 18, Number 1, Spring 2004, pages
68-103.
"A Study of the Cyanide Compounds Content In The Walls Of The Gas Chambers in the Former
Auschwitz and Birkenau Concentration Camps" by Jan Markiewicz, Wojciech Gubala, Jerzy Labedz,
Z Zagadnien Sqdowych z. XXX, 1994, 17-27.
"Kalkulierte Morde. Die deutsche Wirtschafts-und Vernichtungspolitik in Weissrussland 1941
bis 1944", Gerlach, Christian,Hamburger Edition, HIS Verlag, 1998.
"Besatzungspolitik und Massenmord. Die Einsatzgruppe D in der sudlichen Sowjetunion
1941-1943". Angrick, Andrej, Zeitschrift fur Geschichtswissenschaft, 2004, Jahr 52 Heft 6,
pages 576-577. (Occupation Policy and Mass Murder: Einsatzgruppe D in the Southern Soviet
Union 1941-1943. Journal of History, Vol. 52 No. 6.)
"Völkerverschiebung und der Mord an den europäischen Juden", Aly, Götz,
Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag, Frankfurt am Main, 1998
"Treblinka: The Operation Reinhard Death Camps", Arad, Yitzhak, Belzec, Sobibor, Indiana
University Press, Bloomington, 1999
"AUSCHWITZ: Technique and operation of the gas chambers", Jean-Claude Pressac, The Beate
Klarsfeld Foundation, 1989
TBC
Nobody did mention tuberculosis so I have to do it.
Grim reaper actually during and after war was working mostly with tuberculosis.
There were no X-ray machines in concentration camps, and cibazol did not cure the
tuberculosis.
Kafka himself did die of tuberculosis so most probably his two sisters died of it also,
Strangely enough females died of tuberculosis far quicker than males, and also were more
susceptible to catch it.
@Fran Taubman Shit also
happens when you decide you don't want to be subject to International Communism and when your
enemies are the largest empires the world had ever seen.
Also, have a look at Robjil's comment #274.:
In 1933 , when Germany refused to surrender to the world conference of
Jews in Amsterdam
Stuff also happens when you attempt to control the world too. (That's a hint.) Now, go
read the Protocols.
@Ilya G Poimandres Why,
why, why? Why did the Russians allow any Germans to live after what they had done to them?
Why do Americans send drones to kill terrorists in Yemen who may or may not have killed US
citizens but have not bothered to bring to justice those who attacked USS Liberty? Why didn't
the West back the Soviets against Muslims in Afghanistan when now they have to fight those
same Muslims there? That kind of reasoning gets you nowhere.
@SolontoCroesus The
soap fable was merely a retread of WWI British Intelligence atrocity propaganda, disseminated
through the Daily Mail , The Times and the like. Beat you to it!
"The story described how corpses arrived by rail at the factory, which was placed "deep
in forest country" and surrounded by an electrified fence, and how they were rendered for
their fats which were then further processed into stearin (a form of tallow). It went on to
claim that this was then used to make soap, or refined into an oil "of yellowish brown
colour". – 17 April 1917″
Anytime a tale like this is put about, guaranteed it's fake and gay.
If desperate, you can make soap out of a number of native European wild plants and shrubs
right out of the box, for instance the .. Soapwort. Or even bracken roots, which aren't
exactly in short supply. They could have farmed the stuff if they felt like it. Kelp is
another, less effective bodywash source.
@Bardon Kaldian
Holocaust deniers on UR are the funniest people ever. They spend half their time trying to
prove that the Jews deserved to be holocausted and the other half denying that Hitler and his
Nazis tried to holocaust them. They have no balls to say they deserved it and they got it. So
what good was their idol Hitler they praise to high heaven if he couldn't do the main job he
claimed he would do? They want a second coming of Hitler to rid us of the Jews when even the
first one couldn't do it. How can anyone take them seriously? Good for a laugh and that's
about it.
@turtle Many people do
not know that at the Irving V Lipstadt trial David Irving produced the records of the Degesh
Corporation regarding shipments of Zyklon B. The amount of Zyklon B shipped to Bullschwitz
was exactly the same as the non "death camp" of Oranienburg.
In other words, exactly as much as was required for routine fumigation. No where near
enough to snuff 4 garillion Jews with bug spray.
The principal issue that deniers have disputed is the reason the Bauleitung began to
build so many new ovens. Historians have long recognized that the extensive building
campaign was because the authorities were committing mass murder and wanted an efficient
means of disposing of the bodies as well as structures which could be used to gas
prisoners. At the time the building began there were two structures in Birkenau which were
used for gassing. They were located in the wooded area behind the camp. There was also a
gas chamber in the crematorium located in the main camp which housed the six ovens. [15]
Forensic tests done by the Institute For Forensic Research in Cracow, Poland in 1994 found
traces of the poisonous hydrocyanic acid in all five crematoria, [16] consistent with a
great deal of eyewitness testimony and other documents from Auschwitz which show that these
structures were used as gas chambers. [17] The two structures in the wooded area were
completely destroyed by the Germans and no trace remains. However, as will be seen later
on, there is photographic evidence of one of these structures.
Deniers claim that there were no gassings at Auschwitz. They attribute the principal
reason for building so many ovens to other factors. In 1977 Arthur Butz, the best known of
American deniers, hinted that typhus was a principal reason for building so many new ovens.
However, this hint became explicit, and by 1992 he was attributing the typhus epidemic
which swept the camp in the summer of 1942 as the reason for the building campaign. [18]
Carlo Mattogno attributes the building campaign to the typhus epidemic and a decision by
the camp authorities to greatly expand the population of the camp. [19]
One of the reasons deniers need to make this argument is that they must find a
justification for building so many ovens. This argument also involves the amount of bodies
these new ovens could dispose of in a 24 hour period. A report from the Bauleitung in June
1943, after all of the new ovens became operational for at least some period, placed the
cremation capacity of all 52 ovens at 4756 per day. [20] Deniers have not totally agreed
among themselves on this issue, but Butz and Mattogno place the cremation capacity at about
1000 per day, or 30,000 per month. [21] Mattogno claimed the maximum cremation capacity of
the six original ovens was 120 per day, [22] even though he was familiar with evidence from
another concentration camp that showed a Topf double muffle oven could burn 52 per day or
26 per muffle. [23]
@Nicolás Palacios
Navarro "There is more actual documentation and proof of the Armenian Genocide, for
example, as a deliberate race/religion-focused act than there is for the Holocaust. "
Philip Jenkins, in his book "The Lost History of Christianity: The Thousand-Year Golden
Age of the Church in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia–and How It Died," says:
Some months afterward, Polish Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin used the cases of the
Assyrians, and the Christian Armenians before them, to argue for a new legal category to be
called crimes of barbarity, primarily "acts of extermination directed against the ethnic,
religious or social collectivities whatever the motive (political, religious, etc.)." Lemkin
developed this theme over the following years, and in 1943 he coined a new word for this
atrocious behavior – namely, genocide. The modern concept of genocide as a uniquely
horrible act demanding international sanctions has its roots in the thoroughly successful
movements to eradicate Middle Eastern Christians. Lemkin recognized acutely that such acts
might provide an awful precedent for later regimes: as Hitler asked in 1939, "Who, after all,
speaks to-day of the annihilation of the Armenians?"
@Digital Samizdat
"Holocaust" is derived from the Greek word meaning an offering that is entirely consumed by
fire. It entered the English language in the 1582 Douay Bible, the first English translation
of the New Testament by and for Roman Catholics. The scholars who worked on this
groundbreaking work were noted for transliterating into English terms found in the original
Latin and Greek texts. Other words first used in our language in this Bible include gratis,
victim, and, ironically, that most Protestant of words, evangelize.
@Fran Taubman It's very
difficult to face facts that contradict sincerely held beliefs. But you can't argue the
physics of the matter. The nazis didn't have the infrastructure to cremate, or gas, that many
people. It would be an impossible project. You must also understand that many Germans, Poles,
Russians and others lost their whole families, too, don't you? Such is the terrible cost of
war. No one is saying many Jews didn't die in WW2, it's just that the holocaust narrative
doesn't stand up to vigorous investigation. That's why some countries have passed laws
forbidding research into the issue. There would be no reason to forbid research if the truth
landed everyone at the accepted narrative.
@Germanicus Indeed, the
burden of the proof is on the accuser. When investigated, the story of the gas chambers,
cremations or burnings doesn't stand up. However, millions of Jews were abducted by train and
locked up in concentration camps, and did not return . If they were not murdered, then
what happened to them? Revisionists have no answer to this legitimate question, and in this
case the burden of providing an answer is on them. 100,000 Jews from Holland were abducted,
hardly any returned. 400,000 Jews from Hungary were abducted, hardly any returned. If they
were not murdered, what became of them?
However, even more incredible was the actions taken by the Nazis between August 19 and
September 28 last. Vilkis said that in the middle of August the SS mobilized a party of 100
Russian war prisoners, who were taken to the ravines. On August 19 these men were ordered
to disinter all the bodies in the ravine. The Germans meanwhile took a party to a nearby
Jewish cemetery whence marble headstones were brought to Babii Yar [sic] to form the
foundation of a huge funeral pyre. Atop the stones were piled a layer of wood and then a
layer of bodies, and so on until the pyre was as high as a two-story house. Vilkis said
that approximately 1,500 bodies were burned in each operation of the furnace and each
funeral pyre took two nights and one day to burn completely. The cremation went on for 40
days, and then the prisoners, who by this time included 341 men, were ordered to build
another furnace. Since this was the last furnace and there were no more bodies, the
prisoners decided it was for them. They made a break but only a dozen out of more than 200
survived the bullets of the Nazi machine guns.[40]
People saw there families disappear before their eyes. Who says that Germany could not
perform mass extermination you. If you go on line you can find photos of the outdoor pits
with bodies all around. There is a done of evidence. It is not like loosing someone on a
fighting front. These people exited a train as a family unit, some walked towards a building
with a smoke stack and never came out. Piles of clothes not people. You have to look at this
like a human story. Imagine your father disappears at a restaurant. You look and he is no
wear to be found. 5 million Jews are missing that is an incontrovertible fact. There are
birth certificates and no people.
@Fran Taubman So where
is the conclusive, definitive, unquestionable truth about this missing "5 million"? Actually,
was it not "6 million"? And why is denial of the Holocaust a criminal offense in various
Western jurisdictions, but not of the Armenian Genocide, which was perpetrated against a
Christian nation and was far better documented?
@Fran Taubman I
understand that belief in the holocaust is on par with religious belief, and difficult to
question, but do you know how many Russians died in WW2? 27,000,000. That's a lot, no?
9.000.000 Germans died and 6,000,000 Poles. All the people of Central Europe suffered
horribly in an unnecessary war. Imagine the poor German child, his father killed at Dresden,
the Polish kid who lost his Dad at Katyn, the Russian lad, left fatherless after Stalingrad.
All European people suffered from the war. Your people are no different, or more special,
than these others. Sorry.
@Germanicus The
Israelis prattle on about "terrorists."
They do know about terrorists, alright, since the State of Israel was founded by terrorists
and mass murderers, and they have repeatedly elected such to lead their government over the
years.
Pot, meet kettle.
The allies took away a lot of the files and made use of the results.
Particularly the freezing experiments, as I understand it.
USAF couldn't perform those experiments themselves (not officially, anyway) but were happy to
get the data intended for the Luftwaffe.
So what if a few Russian POWs froze to death.
Hell, the evil Commies were our mortal enemies by then, anyhow ('cause We Said So, and Don't
You Question It). Strange, how a Valuable and Trusted Ally can turn into Satan Incarnate
almost overnight. Devilish, that.
The criminal zionist jews want this word be used ONLY for the chosen people. Use of this
word for others, they think, diminishes their unique case.
Well, many people use this word when they want to expose the zionists' hypocracy.
@Theodore I tried to
find that article in the Jerusalem Post. I saw the book, but could not find the article.
I have listened to a lot of testimony sounds pretty reasonable to me. The way the transports
worked the separations at the train station. The building with the somoke stack. The SS
telling the people going to the gas building to take off their clothes and that jobs would
await for them after showers, and that the people never came out.
Same story over and over almost repetitive. In many different languages.
Claude Lanzman in his movie ShoA did secret recordings where Germans talked about the trains
and transports, and knowing what was going on. Also the gassing vans at Chelmmo.
There is a vast amount of information from Jews and Germans. The Nuremberg trials.
You cannot possible deny this part of history and be normal. Most survivors did not
witness the actual gassing and crematorium they were sent to the work barracks.
The Sonderkommando the workers have testified. Filip Muller. These people are not lying.
They are not. They talk about the back up of the crematoriums
As early as June 13, 1943, all was not well with the new installation. Eventually the
ovens seemed to fall apart. Crematorium Four failed completely after a short time and
Crematoria Five had to be shut down repeatedly. (TWC, V:624) (Between 1945 and 1962 Polish
officials found five manuscripts written by Sonderkommando members before their deaths. The
published manuscripts and documents relate to the specific process of extermination at
Birkenau, and provide detailed descriptions of the crematoria and gas chambers.)
@Hippopotamusdrome Yes,
the Nazis killed commies and visa versa. I was referring however to the justice and
punishment that was meted out mercilessly after WWII (upon Germany) as well as the stigma,
reparations, and shame that is still raining down exclusively on Nazis and their descendents
today.
Ex-commies on the other hand suffer no similar opprobrium and face no financial
responsibility for their murderous past.
Holocaust denial is intellectually unserious. You might as well try to argue Hitler and the
Nazis as a positive good as they unleashed death and destruction on neighboring countries and
peoples out of a pagan self worship personified in the Fuhrer's own murderous megalomania. He
didn't love Jews, he hated them like some reincarnation of Haman who sought their
destruction. And not just the big criminals who incidentally were Jewish, but millions of
innocents who weren't the Rothchilds in any way whatsoever.
Now it is true that today some people who weren't among the six million Jewish victims of
the Nazis, or among the other gentile six million liquidated by them, either, or even alive
at the time, use this abysmal episode in human inhumanity to claim immunity for their own
current crimes and to claim profitable victimhood by proxy. Or to claim those who challenge
their political agenda are Jew haters and Nazis, a phoney but still somewhat useful
libel.
And it's true, as Nicholson Baker's Human Smoke reveals, that there were no clean hands
among any nations in the events that triggered the path to World War II, including the rise
to power of the duplicitous Nazis.
All Yids[a] of the city of Kiev and its vicinity must appear on Monday, September 29, by
8 o'clock in the morning at the corner of Mel'nikova and Dokterivskaya streets (near the
Viis'kove cemetery). Bring documents, money and valuables, and also warm clothing, linen,
etc. Any Yids[a] who do not follow this order and are found elsewhere will be shot. Any
civilians who enter the dwellings left by Yids[a] and appropriate the things in them will
be shot.
-- Order posted in Kiev in Russian, Ukrainian, and German on or around 26 September
1941.[15]
I watched what happened when the Jews -- men, women and children -- arrived. The
Ukrainians[b] led them past a number of different places where one after the other they had
to give up their luggage, then their coats, shoes and over-garments and also underwear.
They also had to leave their valuables in a designated place. There was a special pile for
each article of clothing. It all happened very quickly and anyone who hesitated was kicked
or pushed by the Ukrainians [sic][b] to keep them moving.
-- Michael Berenbaum: "Statement of Truck-Driver Hofer describing the murder of
Jews at Babi Yar"[25]
@Fiendly Neighbourhood
Terrorist Good 'ol post-modernism creeping into our discussion. There is such a thing as
truth as is there the opposite called a lie. Denigrating many fine authors on their Shoah
works is certainly not the answer to the eternal question.
Here's a brand new science paper, hot off the presses so to speak, for you and Wally to
ponder. I haven't read it yet in detail but it must have passed peer review by referees and
all that. The paper even presents time series data of the kills. RU may want to look at this
paper too as he's got this high regard for high quality academic works . The references at
the bottom of the paper may also be useful to those interested in the research, as well as
those mentioned in the right hand side bar.
Quantifying the Holocaust: Hyperintense kill rates during the Nazi genocide, Lewi Stone,
Sci Adv. 2019 Jan; 5(1)
the words of Savitri Davi, a convicted post-war Nazi sympathiser, who in her book
"Defiance" mentions that she met a convicted Nazi woman, a former lay Christian sister, in
jail who told her that she murdered a whole bunch of children born to compulsory
foreign labourers that she was charged to look after in a children's home established on
the factory premises of the motor car Volkswagen Werke company.
Thanks for that story and some of the many other very good materials you have
presented
To murder a child never mind a bunch of children, is simply pure evil these kinds of
deranged and sadistic episodes played out many thousands of times during the reign of terror
of the Nazi scum
@Robjil You find the
dates during 1942 when US and UK were bombing railway lines in Eastern Europe and report
them. Yes there was some bombing of Germany but not much further. Most of the heavy bombing
campaign came later and mainly targeted the oil facilities in Ploiesti, Romania. As you can
see the graph claims most of the Holocaust killings were done during 1942.
@Hippopotamusdrome The
Germans themselves estimated that roughly 600,000 Soviet POWs had died as of late February
1942. Here's a link to a document that was translated for the Nuremberg Trials, but
apparently wasn't entered into the evidence:
In this document, General von Gravenitz (chief of the Wehrmacht supply services) described
the causes of the high mortality like so to Reich Minister Dr. Goebbels:
Furthermore, the OKW counts 1,900,000 Soviet Prisoners of War in the zones of interior
and in other occupied areas. As of 1 February 1942, the OKW, according to their tabulation,
had available 685,000 Soviet Prisoners of war, and of those 323,000 were present in the
Reich. He gave the following reasons for the high mortality: In the great "Kessel" (kettle)
battles, the Soviets were contained up to 22 days without any supplies whatsoever. The
German armies stormed forward, covering incredibly large distances. The German supply
services could bring up to the front only the most necessary ammunitions and living
necessities of the fighting troops. Thus, it would have been necessary to feed the
Soviet Prisoners of War from supplies of the countryside . However, these supplies
had been totally destroyed by the Soviets during their flight-like retreats. The early
and abnormal winter did the rest.
In other words, the Soviet scorched earth tactics destroyed the food supplies the Germans
had planned to feed the Soviet prisoners with. So then they starved. No genocidal intent was
needed. In fact, later in the same document it says:
He [still General Gravenitz] quoted the order of the Fuehrer of September 1941 to
the effect that Soviet Prisoners of War should be kept in condition to enable them to
work .
Hitler, who according to the politically correct among our historians wanted to have a
genocide of all Russians, just because he was a horrible racist, actually ordered his army
that they should be fed adequately. Unless this top ranking German general was lying to
Goebbels in their top secret conference.
So in the end, as I already wrote, it's still true that great numbers of Soviet POWs did
die in the winter of 1941/42, and that IS and remains a great tragedy. But again, hundreds of
thousands of Axis soldiers on the Eastern Front also died in this same period, and even
modern politically correct historians don't claim that Hitler made his own soldiers a target
of genocide. They died because adequate food, fuel, housing and medical care simply wasn't
available when the German logistics system had almost collapsed under the impact of the
Russian winter.
@Truth3 I would
encourage to research the Polish Typhus epidemic of 1916-1919.
It gives more context, because typhus had occurred in eastern Europe way before WWII, the
Soviet "revolution" was the starting point of this epidemic.
In this context, the Patton diary also sheds some light on the hygiene of the eastern
European jews from the Shtetls. And yeah, its embarrassing for the Jews, but they have not
changed much in that regard. Ie jewish females are forbidden to clean themselves during
menstruation period in some of the jewish circles.
A little research on Ellis Island and its function as decontamination island before
entering NY is also highly informative. They used Zyklon B as well to disinfect clothes and
people. There is even film footage of Ellis Island on the internet, showing immigrants
getting fumigated with Zyklon.
Furthermore, the US also operated gas tunnels to disinfect trains.
The sad truth is, Zyklon B was used to save lives.
If Germany wanted to kill all the inmates of the camps, they would have just locked the camps
up and had them die of Typhus.
Btw, Auschwitz had only ~40% jewish inmates, the Auschwitz death records revealed it after
the collapse of the Soviet Union. It also revealed births in the camps.
Zyklon was used to fight the Typhus epidemic, which could otherwise spread
uncontrolled.
Typhus carrying lice do not care what belief a human has before biting and infecting the
human. These lice travel far with animals and humans.
Typhus is a danger to ground water and everything, ie you cannot bury typhus infected corpses
near settlements, it would contaminate the water supply, hence cremation.
http://www.unz.com/article/myth-and-the-russian-pogroms/
Email This Page to Someone
Remember My
Information
=>
◄
►
◄
►
▲
▼
Remove from Library
B
Show
Comment
Next New Comment
Next
New Reply
Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More...
This Commenter
This Thread
Hide Thread
Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They
are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My
Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Email Comment
Ignore
Commenter
Follow Commenter
Bookmark
Toggle
All
ToC
▲
▼
Add
to Library
Search Text
Case
Sensitive
Exact Words
Include Comments
Search
Clear
Cancel
The anti-Jewish riots, or "pogroms" of late 19th-century Russia represent
one of the most decisive periods in modern Jewish, if not world, history. Most obviously, the riots had
demographic implications for western countries – around 80% of today's western Diaspora Jews are descendants
of those Jews who left Russia and its environs during the period 1880–1910. But perhaps the most lasting
legacy of the period was the enhancement of Jewish "national self-awareness," and the accelerated
development of "modern, international Jewish politics."
[A1]
John
Klier,
Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-2
, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011)
p.xiii.
Little or no historiography has been
dedicated to peeling back the layers of "refugee" stories to uncover what really happened in the Russian
Empire in the years before and during the riots. This lack of historical enquiry can be attributed at least
in part to a great reluctance on the part of Jewish historians to investigate the pogroms in any manner
beyond the merely superficial. In addition, historical enquiry by non-Jewish historians into the subject has
been openly discouraged. For example, when Ukrainian historians discovered evidence proving that
contemporary media reports of Jewish casualties in that nation were exaggerated, the Jewish genealogy
website 'JewishGen,'
responded
by stating: "We believe that [these facts] are more than irrelevant because it redirects
public attention from the major topic: the genocidal essence of pogroms."
It should suffice to state here that
this response contravenes the very essence of historical enquiry – to uncover history as it actually
happened, irrespective of the uncomfortable truths which may lie therein. The statement could be translated
as "Let's not let the facts get in the way of a good story." Also, as this paper will show, the tendency to
portray the riots as "genocidal" is completely lacking in foundation. University of California Los Angeles
Professor of Sociology, Michael Mann, has provided substantial evidence indicating that "most perpetrators
did not conceive of removing Jews altogether."
[A4]
Michael
Mann,
The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing
(Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2005) p.142.
JewishGen's allusion to genocide should
also be seen as part of a broader problem in modern Jewish historiography. Rather than seeing the pogroms as
products of specific local circumstances, in which Jews would play at least an implicit role, there has been
a tendency to use them for comparative purposes. John Klier states that when used in a comparative sense,
"examples are drawn almost exclusively from the 20th century, and these events are then read back into the
earlier period of 1881–2," making any objective historical enquiry difficult, and implying the presence of
some non-existent 'pan-European' malaise in anti-Jewish actions.
Nonetheless, this series of essays will
seek to peel back the myths, to tease a few threads of truth from the veil which covers these events.
Encouragingly, some work has already begun in this respect. I.M. Aronson's assertion that the pogroms were
"planned or encouraged to one degree or another, by elements within the government itself,"
[A5]
I.M.
Aronson, 'Geographical and Socioeconomic factors in the 1881 Anti-Jewish Pogroms in Russia,'
Russian
Review
, Vol.39, No.1 (Jan. 1980) p.18.
has been dealt a death blow in recent years through
the concerted work of a small number of non-Jewish historians, mostly notably, University College London's
Professor of Hebrew and Jewish Studies, John Doyle Klier. In his 2005 work,
Russians, Jews, and the
Pogroms of 1881–2
, Klier asserts that "contemporary research has dispelled the myth that Russian
officials were responsible for instigating, permitting, or approving the pogroms."
[A6]
Klier,
Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-2
, p.xiv.
This series of essays will attempt to
move further, adhering to the belief that the facts of the events remain paramount to historical enquiry
rather than being a 'distracting' irrelevance. The series will begin with an explanation of the origins of
Russia's "Jewish Question." Subsequent articles will concern the pogroms themselves and how myth and
exaggeration have plagued our conception of them. Finally, I will examine why these myths were developed,
and the broader implications of the prevalence of myth in Jewish 'history.'
Investigations carried out by special
committees discovered that in the decades prior to partition, Polish Jewry had enjoyed a demographic
explosion, with Jews now representing almost 20% of the entire population. In addition, it was discovered
that Jews controlled a full 75% of Polish exports, and that many were now spilling out of over-populated
urban centres into the countryside, making a living by monopolising the sale of liquor to peasants.
[A11]
Ibid,
p.85.
(Israel Friedlander,
The Jews of Russia and Poland
, (New York: G.P. Putnam, 1915), p.84.)
By 1774, complaints were reaching Russian officials from non-Jewish merchants who argued that Jewish ethnic
networking was propping up the monopoly of exports, and that this monopoly would shortly have dire
implications for the consumer.
[A12]
Simon
Dubnow,
History of the Jews in Russia and Poland
, (Bergenfield: Avontayu, 2000), p.173
These revelations were the key motivating factors in the decision to expel Warsaw's Jews in 1775, and until
the early 19
th
century there was a kind of stand-off between Poles and Jews.
[A13]
Ibid.
(Simon Dubnow,
History of the Jews in Russia and Poland
, (Bergenfield: Avontayu, 2000), p.173)
Napoleon's establishment of the Duchy of Warsaw in 1807 did little to alter the situation, as Napoleon
acceded to local sentiment which held that Jews should not feel the benefit of the new constitution until
they had "eradicated their peculiar characteristics."
[A14]
Ibid,
p.87.
(Simon Dubnow,
History of the Jews in Russia and Poland
, (Bergenfield: Avontayu, 2000), p.173)
In 1813, the government of the Duchy moved to break the Jewish monopoly on liquor, banning all Jews from
selling alcohol in the villages, bringing an end to the activity of "tens of thousands" of Jewish liquor
merchants in the provinces. Not surprisingly, when the Duchy was dissolved in 1815 following Napoleon's
failed attempt to invade Russia, Polish Jewry shed no tears.
In late 1815, the Congress of Vienna
was held. The aim of the congress was to give its assent to the formation of a new autonomous Polish kingdom
under the sovereignty of Russia. Although the bulk of Polish Jewry remained within the newly established
kingdom, tens of thousands also poured forth into other areas of the Russian Empire, ushering in an
uncomfortable age of fraught Russian-Jewish relations. The immediate reaction of the Russian government to
the acquisition of such large, and unwanted, Jewish populations was to prevent the penetration of these
populations from intrusion into the old Russian territories, and the solution reached was one of
containment. A new kind of settlement was created in provinces along the western frontier, and it became
known as the "Pale of Settlement." Although a large amount of negative connotations have been attributed to
the Pale, it was not an impermeable fortress. Certain Jews were permitted to reside outside these provinces,
they could visit trade fairs, and Jews were even permitted to study at Russian universities provided they
did not exceed quotas. By 1860, more than half of world Jewry resided in the Pale.
Following the Congress of Vienna,
wherever Jews resided in the Russian Empire, they overwhelmingly "served in a variety of middleman roles."
In some cities, "the Jewish mercantile element was numerically superior to the Christian," and there was a
gradual move towards the reacquisition of the liquor trade.
[A15]
Simon
Dubnow,
History of the Jews in Russia and Poland
, (Bergenfield: Avontayu, 2000), p.173
According to Klier, by 1830 Belorussian Jews were found to be "totally dominating trade" in that country.
[A16]
John
Klier,
Pogroms: Anti-Jewish Violence in Modern Russian History
, (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2004) p.4.
It was largely Klier's work in the late 1980s which began to truly shed light
on the origins of Russian-Jewish relations prior to 1914. Klier, born into a Catholic family in Kansas,
"rejected what might be called the Fiddler on the Roof pieties and simplifications. In book after book, he
emphasised that what the tsars and their ministers wanted, above all else, was for the Jewish settlements to
be orderly and productive."
[A17]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2007/oct/26/guardian...uaries
Klier further stressed that the much-maligned Pale of Settlement was simply the only response that the
Russian administration could come up with, faced as they were with the "baffling question" of how to deal
with the "fanaticism of ultra-Orthodox Jewry" which was thoroughly "unassimilable to official purposes."
[A18]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2007/oct/26/guardian...uaries
In 1841, investigations were carried
out into Russia's Jewish communities, and the subsequent reports pointed to three significant problems. The
first was persistent Jewish difference in dress, language, and religious and communal organization. The idea
underpinning this aloofness from non-Jewish society, the 'Chosen' status of the Jews and an accompanying
ethnic chauvinism, was said to be particularly harmful to Jewish-Gentile relations, particularly when it was
reinforced through "a system of male education that was thought to inculcate anti-Christian interpretations
of the Talmud."
[A19]
Klier,
Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-2
, p.3.
The second, related, problem was that
Jewish economic practices were also rooted in this aloofness. The Talmud "encouraged and justified
unreserved economic exploitation based on cheating and exploiting the non-Jews,"
[A20]
Ibid.
(Klier,
Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-2
, p.3.)
in a validation of Max Weber's
theory of 'internal' and 'external' ethics, whereby "members of a cohesive social unit observe different
moral standards among themselves compared with those observed in relation to strangers."
[A21]
Jacob
Katz,
Exclusiveness and Tolerance: Jewish-Gentile Relations in Medieval and Modern Times
(Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1962) p.56.
The third aspect of the Russian 'Jewish Question,' was the
issue of Jewish loyalty. The Jews of the Russian Empire had evidently retained the
kahal
of
pre-partition Polish Jewry. The
kahal
was a formal system of Jewish communal leadership and
government, entirely separate from the Russian state. Although tacitly tolerated by the state for its tax
collection capabilities, Jewish loyalty to the
kahal
was absolute, going beyond the merely fiscal.
Almost all Jews continued to resort to Jewish courts.
John Klier states that following these
revelations, "state and society shared a consensus that Jews could be – and must be – reformed and
transformed into good subjects of the realm."
[A22]
Ibid.
(Jacob Katz,
Exclusiveness and Tolerance: Jewish-Gentile Relations in Medieval and Modern Times
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962) p.56.)
Under Emperor Alexander I (1801–25) there had been
attempts to encourage Jews to pursue more productive economic activities. Generous concessions were made to
Jews in the hope that they would abandon their middleman roles, as well as the distilleries and taverns of
the provinces, and take up work in agricultural colonies. Klier states that the "embeddedness of the Jews in
the economic and social life of the imperial borderlands ensured that despite legislative initiatives,
Jewish economic life remained largely unchanged."
[A23]
Klier,
Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-2
, p.4
In 1844, under Nicholas I, the Russian
government began a program of reforms and legislation designed to break down Jewish exclusivity and
incorporate the nation's Jews more fully into Russian society. Not surprisingly, the government first took
aim at the
kahal
, banning it as "an illegal underground structure."
[A24]
Ibid.
(Klier,
Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-2
, p.4)
The significance of the banning
of the
kahal
went beyond tackling the issue of Jewish loyalty. The mutual assistance offered by the
kahal
was felt to have had economic implications – "it was the mutual support provided by the
kahal
that ensured that Jews were more than a match for any competitor, even the arch-exploiter of the
Russian village, the kulak."
[A25]
Ibid.
(Klier,
Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-2
, p.4)
The civil rights of any "Jews
who were perceived to be engaged in productive undertakings" were extended, though there were few takers.
Nicholas I even conceived of, and supported, the establishment of state-financed Jewish schools, in the hope
that such establishments would lead to the development of a more progressive and integrative Russian Jewry.
Unfortunately for Nicholas, what his system produced was a cadre of Jewish intellectuals profoundly hostile
to the state.
Emperor Alexander II continued the
efforts of Mother Russia to gather in her Jews. He abolished serfdom in 1861. He relaxed efforts to change
the economic profile of Russian Jewry, extending the rights of educated Jews and large-scale merchants. His
was a program aimed at reconciliation, an abandonment of the stick in favour of the carrot. Education was
made fully open to Jews, and Jews could sit on the juries of Russian courts. Conditions on settlement and
mobility in the Pale were relaxed further. Klier states that "Jews even became the subject of sympathetic
concern for the leaders of public opinion. Proposals for the complete emancipation of the Jews were widely
mooted in the press."
[A26]
Klier,
Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-2
, p.5
These measures, however, were also
accompanied by a growing uneasiness with the way the Jews of Russia took advantage of them. There was little
in the way of gratitude, and the measures did not bring about the great changes that had been hoped for. The
nationalist revolt of the Poles in 1863, and the fact that a large number of wealthy Jews were found to have
funded some of the rebels cast new doubts on Jewish loyalty. Having emancipated the peasantry and adopted a
paternalistic concern for the former serfs, the government also viewed with alarm the rapidity with which
the "Jews were exploiting the unsophisticated and ignorant rural inhabitants, reducing them to a Jewish
serfdom."
[A27]
Klier,
Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-2
, p.5
It also quickly became apparent that
despite new military legislation, Jews were noticeable in their overwhelming avoidance of military service.
In retaliation, the government clamped down on rural tavern ownership, and introduced more stringent
recruitment procedures specifically for Jews. It has been claimed that Jews were also banned from land
ownership at this time, but Klier provides evidence that Jews were still able to buy any peasant properties
sold at auction for tax arrears, as well as any property within the Pale not owned by Russian gentry.
[A28]
Ibid.
(Klier,
Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-2
, p.5)
By the end of Alexander II's reign,
disillusionment with the government's policy at handling the Jewish Question was widespread. The vast
majority of Jews had stubbornly persisted in the unproductive trades, continued in their antipathy to
Russian culture, and refused to make any meaningful contribution to Russian society. An air of resignation
swept the country. Some newspapers even advocated abolishing the Pale, if only to alleviate that region from
bearing the burden of the Jews alone. Other papers opposed this "fearing for the welfare of the peasantry at
a time when the cultural level of the peasantry made them an easy target for exploitation."
[A29]
Ibid,
p.6
(Klier,
Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-2
, p.5)
Meanwhile Jews were beginning to
swamp higher education establishments. In Odessa, there were reports that in school after school, Jews were
"driving Christians from the school benches," and "filling up the schools."
[A30]
Ibid.
(Klier,
Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881-2
, p.5)
On the eve of the assassination of
Alexander II, Russia's Jewish Question remained unanswered. Decades of legislation had done little to change
the nature of Russian Jewry, which remained ethnically, politically, and culturally homogenous. The new
Jewish intelligentsia had turned on the hand that fed it, failing to encourage the adaptation of their
fellow Jews, moving instead to defend them and advocate for their interests. In terms of educational and
social opportunities, Jews had been given an inch and taken a mile. They had swamped the schools, and added
to a group of emergent Jewish capitalists. In 1879 Russian authorities were being lobbied by a Rabbinic
Commission for full emancipation, an ominous prospect for those concerned about the well-being of Russian
peasantry.
The breaking point, when it came, did
not emerge from the ether, but from this historical background. In part two we will examine the more
immediate origins of the anti-Jewish riots and how the riots proceeded. We will do away with petty
distractions, dispelling myths with facts; and as we venture into the Pale, we now do so with a more
complete view of the Jew we find there.
Having grounded ourselves in the
history of Russia's Jewish Question, it is now time for us to turn our attention to the anti-Jewish riots of
the 1880s. The following essay will first provide the reader with the standard narrative of these events
advanced by Jewish contemporaries and the majority of Jewish historians -- a narrative which has
overwhelmingly prevailed in the public consciousness. The latter half of the essay will be devoted to
dissecting one aspect of the Jewish narrative, and explaining how events really transpired. Other aspects of
the Jewish narrative will be examined in later entries in this series. While a work like this can come in
for heavy criticism from certain sections of the population who may denounce it as 'revisionist,' I can only
say that 'revisionism' should be at the heart of every historical work. If we blindly accept the stories
that are passed down to us, we are liable to fall victim to what amounts to little more than a glorified
game of Chinese whispers. And, if we taboo the right of the historian to reinterpret history in light of new
research and new discoveries, then we have become far removed from anything resembling true scholarship.
In 1881 the 'Russo-Jewish Committee,'
(RJC) an arm of Britain's Jewish elite, mass-produced a pamphlet entitled "The Persecution of the Jews in
Russia," and began disseminating it through the press, the churches, and numerous other channels. By 1899,
it was embellished and published as a short book, and today digitized copies are freely available online.
[B1]
http://archive.org/stream/persecutionofjew00russ
By the early 20th century, the pamphlet had even spawned a four-page journal called
Darkest Russia – A
Weekly Record of the Struggle for Freedom
, ensuring that the average British citizen did not go long
without being reminded of the 'horrors' facing Russian Jews.
[B2]
Max
Beloff,
The Intellectual in Politics: And other essays
, (London: Taylor and Francis, 1970) p.135
The fact that these publications were
mass
produced should provide an indication as to their
purpose: It is clear that these publications represented one of the most ambitious propaganda campaign in
Jewish history, and combined with similar efforts in the United States, they were aimed at gaining the
attention of, and 'educating,' the Western nations and ensuring the primacy of the 'Jewish side of the
story.' Implicit in this was not only a desire to provoke anti-Russian attitudes, but also copious amounts
of sympathy for the victimized Jews -- sympathy necessary to ensure that mass Jewish chain migration to the
West went on untroubled and unhindered by nativists. After all, wasn't the bigoted nativist just a step
removed from the rampaging Cossack?
The first element of the narrative
advanced by the RJC is essentially a manipulation of the history of Russian-Jewish relations. It holds that
the Jews of Eastern Europe have been oppressed for centuries, their whole lives "hampered, from cradle to
grave, by restrictive laws."
[B3]
The
Persecution of the Jews in Russia
, (London: Russo-Jewish Committee, 1899), p.3.
It was
claimed that the Russians had an unwritten law: "That no Russian Jew shall earn a living."
[B4]
Ibid,
p.4
(
The Persecution of the Jews in Russia
, (London: Russo-Jewish Committee, 1899), p.3.)
Russian Jews, according to the Russo-Jewish Committee, have wanted nothing more than to participate in
Russian society, but have been rebuffed time and again as "heretics and aliens." The Pale is an impenetrable
fortress, where every Jew "must live and die." Implicit in this interpretation of the history of
Russian-Jewish relations in the belief that "the fount and origin of all the ills that assail Russian Jewry"
has nothing to do with the Jews themselves, but everything to do with the Church, the State, and the Pale.
In essence, the plight of the Jews was the result of nothing more than irrational hatred. Jews adopt a meek
and passive role in this narrative, having committed no wrong-doing other than being Jews. They are also
presented as the
only
victims of Russian violence. There is no acknowledgement of failed Russian
efforts to break down the Jewish walls of exclusivity and claim the Jews as brothers. In fact, there is no
reference at all to the walls of exclusivity. The pogroms themselves, according to the Jewish narrative,
broke out following the assassination of Alexander II, when shock, anger and a desire for revenge brought
this irrational, rootless hatred to the surface.
The second element of the Jewish
narrative is that the government and petty officialdom had some role to play in organizing and directing the
pogroms. Much disdain is heaped on the government, and petty officialdom, which was said to have been
afflicted with "a chronic anti-Semitic outlook." It was claimed that when the riots began, the government
was "not altogether sorry to let the excitement of the people vent itself on the Jews."
[B5]
The
Persecution of the Jews in Russia
, (London: Russo-Jewish Committee, 1899), p.5
In reference
to the restrictive May Laws, the authors were forced to concede they had never really been enforced, but
maintained that "whether moderately or rigorously applied, the May Laws still remained on the Russian
Statute Book."
[B6]
Ibid,
p.8
(
The Persecution of the Jews in Russia
, (London: Russo-Jewish Committee, 1899), p.5)
The third element of the Jewish
narrative is that the pogroms were genocidal, and that they had been organized and perpetrated by groups
seeking the extermination of the Jews. The 1899 edition of "The Persecution of the Jews in Russia" included
a copy of a lengthy letter written to the
London Times
by Nathan Joseph, Secretary of the RJC,
dated November 5th, 1890. In the letter, Joseph claimed that in the present circumstances "hundreds of
thousands could be exterminated,"
[B7]
Ibid,
p.36
(
The Persecution of the Jews in Russia
, (London: Russo-Jewish Committee, 1899), p.5)
and
that Russian legislation in relation to Jews represented "an instrument of torture and persecution." In sum,
the Jews of Russia were claimed to be living under "a sentence of death," and it was further claimed that
"the executions are proceeding." The letter ends with an appeal to "Civilized Europe" to intervene, chastise
Russia, and aid the victimized Jews.
[B8]
Ibid,
p.38.
(
The Persecution of the Jews in Russia
, (London: Russo-Jewish Committee, 1899), p.5)
The fourth key element of the Jewish
narrative is that the pogroms were extremely violent in nature. Contemporary media reports especially were
the source of most of the atrocity stories, reportedly gleaned from newly-arrived 'refugees' who had given
statements to the Russo-Jewish Committee about the pogroms they had fled. In these reports, which were
carried very regularly by both the
New York Times
and the
London Times
, Russians were
charged with having committed the most fiendish atrocities on the most enormous scale. Every Jew in the
Russian Empire was under threat. Men had been ruthlessly murdered, tender infants had been dashed on the
stones or roasted alive in their own homes. During a British parliamentary consultation on the pogroms in
1905, a Rabbi Michelson claimed that "the atrocities had been so fiendish that they could find no parallel
even in the most barbarous annals of the most barbarous peoples."
[B9]
Anthony
Heywood,
The Russian Revolution of 1905: Centenary Perspectives
(New York: Routledge, 2005) p.266.
The
New York Times
reported that during the 1903 Kishinev pogrom "babes were literally torn to
pieces by the frenzied and bloodthirsty mob."
[B10]
"Jewish
Massacre Denounced,"
New York Times
, April 28, 1903, p.6
A common theme in most contemporary
atrocity stories was the brutal rape of Jewish women, with most reports including mention of breasts being
hacked off. There are literally thousands of carbon-copy reports in which it is claimed that mothers were
raped alongside their daughters. There is simply not enough space to cite extensively from these articles,
but they number in their thousands and are available to anyone with access to the digitized archives of any
major newspaper, or the microfilm facilities at major libraries. In addition, these articles claim that
whole streets inhabited by Jews had been razed, and the Jewish quarters of towns had been systematically
fired.
The RJC charged the government with
criminal sympathy, the local authorities generally with criminal inaction, and some of the troops with
active participation. The situation, they argued, was simply so hopeless and the possibility of
extermination was so great, that the only way out was for the civilized nations of the West to throw open
their doors and let in these poor 'Hebrews'.
And to a great extent this is exactly
what the churches, the politicians, and the media agreed to. This capitulation to manipulated conscience
ushered in the greatest migration in Jewish history, with profound consequences for us all. But there was
just one small problem -- the vast majority of this narrative was a calculated, designed, and expertly
promoted fraud, furthered by the willing participation of Russian-Jewish emigrants who wished to ease their
own access to the West and obtain "relief money from Western Europe and America."
[B18]
Albert
Lindemann,
Esau's Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews
(Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1997) p.291.
Let us first turn our attention to the
atrocity stories. Prior to any major reports of violence, the British public was already being primed to
hate the Russian government and accept the Jewish narrative. John Doyle Klier points out that the
Daily
Telegraph
was at that time Jewish-owned, and was particularly "severe" in its reports on Russian
treatment of Jews prior to 1881.
[B19]
John
Doyle Klier,
Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82
, p.399
In the pages of this
publication, it was stated that "these Russian atrocities are only the beginning. [T]he Russian officials
themselves countenance these barbarities."
[B20]
Ibid.
(John Doyle Klier,
Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82
, p.399)
Around this time in
Continental Europe, Prussian Rabbi Yizhak Rülf established himself as an "intermediary" between Eastern
Jewry and the West, and, according to Klier, one of his specialities was the spreading of "sensationalized
accounts of mass rape."
[B21]
Ibid.
(John Doyle Klier,
Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82
, p.399)
Other major sources of pogrom atrocity
stories were the
New York Times
, the London
Times
, and the
Jewish World
. It would
be the
Jewish World
which furnished the majority of these tales, having sent a reporter "to visit
areas that had suffered pogroms."
[B22]
Ibid,
p.400
(John Doyle Klier,
Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82
, p.399)
Most of the other
papers simply reprinted what the
Jewish World
reporter sent them. The atrocity stories carried by
these newspapers provoked global outrage. There were large-scale public protests against Russia in Paris,
Brussels, London, Vienna, and even in Melbourne, Australia. However, "it was in the United States that
public indignation reached its height." Historian Edward Judge states that the American public was spurred
on by reports of "brutal beatings, multiple rapes, dismemberment of corpses, senseless slaughter, painful
suffering and unbearable grief."
[B23]
Edward
Judge,
Easter in Kishinev: Anatomy of a Pogrom
(New York: New York University Press, 1993) p.89.
Furthermore, Klier states that the
atrocity stories compiled by the
Jewish World
correspondent, which went on to be so influential in
manipulating Western perceptions of the events, must be treated with "extreme caution."
[B27]
Ibid.
(John Doyle Klier,
Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82
, p.400)
The reporter
"portrayed the pogroms dramatically, as great in scale and inhuman in their brutality. He reported numerous
accounts where Jews were burned alive in their homes while the authorities looked on."
[B28]
Ibid.
(John Doyle Klier,
Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82
, p.400)
There are hundreds
of instances where he references the murder of children, the mutilation of women, and the biting off of
fingers.
Klier states that "the author's most
influential accounts, given their effect on world opinion, were his accounts of the rape and torture of
girls as young as ten or twelve."
[B29]
Ibid.
(John Doyle Klier,
Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82
, p.400)
In 1881 he reported
25 rapes in Kiev, of which five were said to have resulted in fatalities, in Odessa he claimed 11, and in
Elizavetgrad he claimed 30.
[B30]
Ibid.
(John Doyle Klier,
Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82
, p.400)
Rape featured
prominently in the reports, not because rapes were common, but because rape "even more than murder and
looting" was known to "generate particular outrage abroad." Klier states that "Jewish intermediaries who
were channelling pogrom reports abroad were well aware of the impact of reports of rape, and it featured
prominently in their accounts."
[B31]
Ibid,
p.12
(John Doyle Klier,
Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82
, p.400)
The two most
dramatic and gruesome accounts came from Berezovka and Borispol. In fact, as the year neared its end, the
reports became more and more gruesome and brutal in the details they conveyed.
There is, of course, a reason for this.
As the non-Jewish public began to tire of the reports and switched their minds to the coming Christmas
festivities, Klier states that records show the RJC made a conscious and calculated decision to "keep
Russian Jewry before the eyes of the public."
[B32]
Ibid,
p.404
(John Doyle Klier,
Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82
, p.400)
A key component of
this strategy was to take the accounts of the Special Correspondent and publish them in a more widely
circulated and respected newspaper. They settled on the London
Times
, which was already predisposed
to "critical editorial faulting of the Russian government." Klier further states that these evidently false
reports "garnished with the prestige of
The Times
and devoid of any attribution, subsequently
published as a separate pamphlet, and translated into a variety of European languages became the
definitive Western version of the pogroms."
[B33]
Ibid.
(John Doyle Klier,
Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82
, p.400)
As increasingly lurid atrocity tales
again captured the attention of the Gentile public, the British Government found itself under pressure to
intervene. The British Government, however, adopted a more cautious approach and undertook its own
independent investigations into events in the Russian Empire. Its findings, published as a "Blue Book,"
"presented an account of events at great variance with that offered by
The Times
."
[B34]
Ibid,
p.405. (
Correspondence Respecting the Treatment of Jews in Russia, Nos. 1 and 2,
1882, 1883)
(John Doyle Klier,
Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82
, p.400)
The most notable
aspect of the independent inquiry is the outright denial of mass rape. In January 1882, Consul-General
Stanley objected to all of the details contained within reports published by
The Times
, mentioning
in particular the unfounded "accounts of the violation of women."
[B35]
John
Doyle Klier,
Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82
, p.405
He further stated that his
own investigations revealed that there had been no incidences of rape during the Berezovka pogrom, that
violence was rare, and that much of the disturbance was restricted to property damage. In relation to
property damage in Odessa, Stanley estimated it to be around 20,000 rubles, and rejected outright the Jewish
claim that damage amounted to over one million rubles.
Vice-Consul Law, another independent
investigator, reported that he had visited Kiev and Odessa, and could only conclude that "I should be
disinclined to believe in any stories of women having been outraged in those towns."
[B36]
Ibid.
(John Doyle Klier,
Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82
, p.405)
Another
investigator, Colonel Francis Maude, visited Warsaw and said that he could "not attach any importance" to
atrocity reports emanating from that city.
[B37]
Ibid.
(John Doyle Klier,
Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82
, p.405)
At Elizavetgrad,
instead of whole streets being razed to the ground, it was discovered that a small hut had lost its roof. It
was further discovered that very few Jews, if any, had been intentionally killed, though some died of
injuries received in the riots. These were mainly the result of conflicts between groups of Jews who
defended their taverns and rioters seeking alcohol. The small number of Jews who had been intentionally
killed had fallen victim to unstable individuals who had been drunk on Jewish liquor -- accusations of
murderous intent among the masses were simply unfounded and unsubstantiated by the evidence.
The revelations came at a bad time for
the RJC, which was at that time attempting to move the British Government to "act in some way on behalf of
persecuted Russian Jewry."
[B40]
Ibid.
(John Doyle Klier,
Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82
, p.405)
It resorted to
republishing (in the
Times
) its pamphlet on persecution in Russia twice in one month, presumably in
the belief that blunt repetition would suffice to overcome tangible evidence. Klier states that the pieces
were examples of "masterful" propaganda, as they attempted to undermine the credibility of the Government
consuls, while sycophantically appealing to "the wise and noble people of England," who "will know what
weight should be attached to such denials and refutations."
[B41]
Ibid,
p.406.
(John Doyle Klier,
Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82
, p.405)
The RJC offered its
own "corroborative evidence of the most undeniable kind," though of course the exact source of this evidence
was not specified beyond "persons occupying high official positions in the Jewish community" and "Jewish
refugees."
In essence, the people of western
nations were being asked to trust an anonymous Rabbi on the other side of the world rather than identifiable
representatives of their own government. The pieces, states Klier, "painted the familiar picture of murder
and rape," and despite the debunking statements of the consuls, "a number of mother/daughter rapes, which
had already done so much to outrage British public opinion, were again repeated."
[B42]
Ibid.
(John Doyle Klier,
Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82
, p.405)
Although the move
for British government intervention failed, in the battle for public opinion "the RJC clearly won the day,"
and the
Times
and the RJC remained good bedfellows.
The Consuls were outraged. Stanley
reiterated the fact that his intensive investigations, which he carried out at great personal cost with a
serious leg injury, illustrated that "
The Times'
accounts of what took place at each of those
places contains the greatest exaggerations, and that the account of what took place at some of those places
is absolutely untrue."
[B43]
John
Doyle Klier,
Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82
, p.407.
He related the fact that
a Rabbi in Odessa had "not heard of any outrages on women there," and that the object of almost every pogrom
he had investigated was simple "plunder."
[B44]
John
Doyle Klier,
Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82
, p.408.
Enraged by the lies
circulating in Britain and America, Stanley "went right to the top," interviewing state rabbis and asking
for evidence and touring pogrom sites. In Odessa, where a wealth of atrocity stories had originated, he was
able to confirm "one death, but no looting of synagogues or victims set alight." There was no evidence that
a single rape had taken place. One state Rabbi admitted that he had not heard of any outrages of women in
Berezovka and further assured Stanley that he "could with a clear conscience positively deny that any deaths
or any violations had occurred there during the disturbances of last year."
[B45]
Ibid.
(John Doyle Klier,
Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82
, p.408.)
He again sent this
report to his superior in London, with a note saying "This is in accordance with all the information I have
received and forwarded to your Lordship, and which I think more credible than anonymous letters in
The
Times
."
[B46]
Ibid.
(John Doyle Klier,
Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82
, p.408.)
Despite Stanley's best efforts the
Jewish narrative advanced by the RJC, imbued with atrocity tales, has remained unalterably attached in
Western perceptions of the pogroms. The Blue Book was smothered by the more visible, and oft-repeated, tales
of the RJC and organisations like it around the globe. Only with the decade-long research of John Klier has
some revision of this narrative, grounded in scholarship and archival evidence, been possible. In light of
this evidence, one can only conclude that stories of rape, murder and mutilation were "more legendary than
factual."
[B47]
Ibid,
p. 13.
(John Doyle Klier,
Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-82
, p.408.)
However, the task
remains to further dismantle and analyse other aspects of the Jewish narrative, and to seek the true motives
behind its creation.
We continue our series of essays
examining the Russian Pogroms with this essay on the part played by Jews in provoking the disturbances. As
stated in Part Two, one of the key problems with existing historiography on the pogroms (and 'anti-Semitism'
generally) is that these narratives invariably argue that the plight of the Jews was the result of nothing
more than irrational hatred. Jews adopt a meek and passive role in this narrative, having committed no
wrong-doing other than being Jews. There is no sense of Jewish agency, and one is left with the impression
that Jews historically have lacked the capacity to
act
in the world. In almost every single
academic and popular history of the pogroms, the author blindly accepts, or willfully perpetuates, the basic
premise that Jews had been hated in the Russian Empire for centuries, that this hatred was irrational and
rootless, and that the outbreak of anti-Jewish riots late in the 19
th
century was a 'knee-jerk'
emotional response to the assassination of the Tsar and some blood libel accusations.
This is of course far from the truth,
but the prevalence of this 'victim paradigm' plays two significant roles. Firstly, Jewish historiography is
saturated with allusions to the "unique" status of Jews, who have suffered a "unique" hatred at the hands of
successive generations of Europeans. In essence, it is the notion that Jews stand alone in the world as the
quintessential "blameless victim." To allow for any sense of Jewish agency -- any argument that Jews may have
in some way contributed to anti-Jewish sentiment -- is to harm the perpetuation of this paradigm. In this
sense, the 'victim paradigm' also contributes heavily to the claim for Jewish uniqueness and, as Norman
Finkelstein has pointed out, one can clearly see in many examples of Jewish historiography the tendency to
focus not so much on the "suffering of Jews" but rather on the simple fact that "Jews suffered."
[C1]
Norman
Finkelstein, 'The Holocaust Industry,'
Index on Censorship
, 29:2, 120-130, p.124
As a
result, the paradigm offers no place to non-Jewish suffering. Simply put, the 'victim paradigm' is a form of
secular "chosenness." This aspect of the narrative is seen, quite rightly, as a useful tool in the here and
now. There is perhaps no race on earth which uses its history to justify its actions in the present quite
like the Jewish people. From seeking reparations to establishing nation states, Jewish history is one of the
foundation stones propping up Jewish international politics in the present. As such, Jewish history is
carefully constructed and fiercely defended. The interplay between Jewish history and contemporary Jewish
politics is plain to see -- I need only make reference to the terms "revisionist" and "denier" to conjure up
images of puppet trials and prison cells.
Secondly, the omission of the Jewish
contribution to the development of anti-Semitism (be it in a village setting or a national setting), leaves
the spotlight burning all the more ferociously on the 'aggressor.' Within this context, the blameless victim
is free to make the most ghastly accusations, basking in the assurance that his own role, and by extension
his own character, is unimpeachable. The word of this untainted, unique, blameless victim is taken as fact --
to doubt his account is to be in league with the 'aggressor.' In Part Two we explored the manner in which
the RJC took full advantage of this construct to purvey appalling, and unfounded, atrocity stories. More
generally, exaggerated tales of brutality by non-Jews are commonplace in Jewish literature and
historiography, and go hand in hand with images of dove-like Jews. For example, Finkelstein has pointed to
Jerzy Kosinski's
The Painted Bird
, a work now widely acknowledged as "the first major Holocaust
hoax," as an example of this "pornography of violence."
[C2]
Ibid.
(Norman Finkelstein, 'The Holocaust Industry,'
Index on Censorship
, 29:2, 120-130, p.124)
The twin concepts of Jewish blamelessness and extreme Gentile brutality are inextricably bound up together,
and supporters of one strand of the 'victim paradigm' are invariably supporters of the other. Take for
example that high priest of Jewish chosenness, Elie Wiesel, who praised Kosinki's pastiche of
sadomasochistic fantasies as "written with deep sincerity and sensitivity."
[C3]
Ibid,
p.125.
(Norman Finkelstein, 'The Holocaust Industry,'
Index on Censorship
, 29:2, 120-130, p.124)
Having clarified this theoretical
framework, we now turn our attention to deconstructing the second strand of the pogrom 'victim paradigm.' To
deal most effectively with the question of Jewish culpability in the souring of relations between Jews and
non-Jews, we will need to probe deeper, and with more focus, than we endeavored to do in Part One. This
essay will focus on specific examples of anti-Jewish disturbance in the Russian Empire prior to 1880, with a
particular focus on Jewish economic practices preceding these events.
For the reasons discussed above, the
majority of Jewish historians have long displayed an aversion to the idea that Jewish economic practices
have played a significant role historically in provoking anti-Semitism. For example, Leon Poliakov in
The History of anti-Semitism: From Voltaire to Wagner
, argues that the idea of economic anti-Semitism
is "devoid of real explanatory value."
[C4]
Leon
Poliakov
The History of anti-Semitism: From Voltaire to Wagner
(Pennsylvania: University of
Pennsylvania Press, 2003) p.viii
Similarly, Jonathan Freedman has stated that, in explaining
anti-Jewish attitudes, economic anti-Semitism should play only a very "small explanatory role."
[C5]
Jonathan
Freedman,
The Temple of Culture: Assimilation and Anti-Semitism in Literary Anglo-America
(Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2002) p.60.
Both of these historians posit that theology, and by
extension Christianity (and therefore Western culture) is the fount and origin of anti-Semitism. Robert
Weinberg, in his 1998 article on
Visualizing Pogroms in Russian History
, explains anti-Semitic
outbreaks of violence in Eastern Europe by stating that they were the product of "the frustrations of
Russian and Ukrainian peasants, workers and town dwellers who, for the most part, spontaneously took out
their frustrations on a time-honored scapegoat, the Jews."
[C6]
Robert
Weinberg, 'Visualizing Pogroms in Russian History,'
Jewish History
, Vol.12 (1998), 71-92, p.72
Weinberg refrains from stating where precisely these 'frustrations' emerge from, but note again the
extremely passive Jewish role in his analysis.
Conversely, those historians who have
accepted that economic issues have played a role in provoking anti-Semitism fail to engage in actual case
studies of economically provoked anti-Jewish actions, preferring instead to probe "images" or stereotypes
which allegedly infuse the consciousness of non-Jews. For example Professor of Israel Studies at Oxford
University, Derek J. Penslar, has stated that economic anti-Semitism is nothing more than "a double helix of
intersecting paradigms, the first associating the Jew with paupers and savages and the second conceiving of
Jews as conspirators, leaders of a financial cabal seeking global domination."
[C7]
Derek
J. Penslar,
Shylock's Children: Economics and Jewish Identity in Modern Europe,
(Los Angeles:
University of California Press, 2001) p.13.
By choosing to discuss "images" and concepts rather
than say, an actual incident such as the Limerick Anti-Jewish Riots, Penslar engages in a practice equally
duplicitous to that engaged in by Poliakov and Freedman. Penslar's thesis only superficially acknowledges
the economic role, while really lending more weight to the argument that European society has suffered some
kind of neurosis in relation to its Jews. Penslar deftly offers us an argument in which Jews and economics
play a role in the development of an anti-Semitic "image," without placing the Jew in anything but a passive
role. Penslar's "images" are also devoid of gradation -- Europeans, if they hold to economically motivated
anti-Semitism, either view Jews as pauper savages or global financiers. This despite the case that most
European peasants simply didn't
need
to have these extreme conceptions of Jews, and probably
didn't. Exploitative economic practices by local Jewish capitalists, the existence of local Jewish
monopolies on such items as alcohol, and the Jewish practice of in-group/out-group ethics would be more than
sufficient to provoke anti-Jewish resentment.
But references to
this
motivation for anti-Jewish action is entirely absent from Jewish historiography on the causes of
anti-Semitism, most likely because it comes extremely close to demolishing the 'victim paradigm.' This
essay, which focuses on actual case studies (in particular the city of Odessa), will argue that the
anti-Jewish riots of the 1880s, like many riots before them, were motivated by economic anti-Semitism, and
that this economic anti-Semitism had its origins not in the European psyche, but in the day to day economic
interactions of Jews had with the non-Jews of Odessa. It attempts to rediscover the Jewish role, and to
place it front and centre.
The first disturbance involving Jews to
occur in the Russian Empire, and which left sufficient documentation, was the 1821 Odessa pogrom. Weinberg
has painted a picture of Odessa as being some kind of multicultural heaven at this time. He states that the
city "benefited from the presence of German, Italian, French, Greek, and English residents whose cultural
and intellectual tastes influenced local life."
[C8]
Robert
Weinberg, 'Visualizing Pogroms in Russian History,'
Jewish History
, Vol.12 (1998), 71-92, p.73
By the 1820s street signs were written in Russian and Italian, the city's first newspaper appeared in
French. Odessa, according to Weinberg, had a thriving art scene, particularly in relation to theatre, music,
and opera.
Violence erupted in 1821 when, during
the Greek War of Independence, a group of Muslims and Jews murdered and then mutilated Gregory V, the Greek
Orthodox Patriarch in Istanbul. In the aftermath, many Greeks fled with Gregory's remains from Istanbul to
Odessa, where his funeral procession was held. Surviving documents suggest that violence broke out when a
large contingent of Odessa's Jewish population showed open disrespect for the procession.
[C11]
John
Klier,
Pogroms: Anti-Jewish Violence in Modern Russian History
, (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2004), p.16.
How do we describe such events? In
light of the context of these disturbances, does the term "pogrom" or "anti-Jewish riot" withstand scrutiny?
Certainly not. Note my use of the terms "inter-ethnic violence" and "disturbance involving Jews." These
terms do not feature in Jewish historiography on these events. "Anti-Jewish riot" or "pogrom" is merely part
of the lexicon of the 'victim paradigm,' bequeathing passive status even through word use. To express it
flippantly, when Tom and Bill have a fight in the street, one does not describe it as "anti-Tom violence."
This automatically imparts passive, victim status to Tom, despite the fact that he may have started the
fight, and certainly threw as many punches. Weinberg, for example, describes the 1859 disturbance as
"anti-Jewish activity," but states that both "Jewish and gentile youths engaged in bloody brawls."
[C19]
Robert
Weinberg, 'Visualizing Pogroms in Russian History,'
Jewish History
, Vol.12 (1998), 71-92, p.74
This is an obvious contradiction in terms.
It is only in 1871, during a
particularly severe bout of disturbances, that we see the first Russian involvement in Odessa's inter-ethnic
violence. The late John Doyle Klier, formerly Professor of Hebrew and Jewish Studies at Oxford University,
informs us categorically that Russian involvement in the 1871 Odessa ethnic conflict had its roots in real,
tangible economic grievances. Klier states that Russian participation was the result of "bitterness born of
the exploitation of their work by Jews and the ability of the latter to enrich themselves and manipulate all
manner of trade and commercial activity."
[C20]
John
Klier,
Pogroms: Anti-Jewish Violence in Modern Russian History
, (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2004) p.21
Similarly, Weinberg concedes that by 1871, there were "many others besides
Greeks who perceived Jews as an economic threat."
[C21]
Robert
Weinberg, 'Visualizing Pogroms in Russian History,'
Jewish History
, Vol.12 (1998), 71-92, p.75.
The roots of the 1871 disturbance are
quite tangible, and there is a tremendous amount of evidence suggesting it was the result of real
socio-economic grievances, rather than "images," "stereotypes," or any of the other usual suspects wheeled
out in Jewish historiography. Brian Horowitz, Chair of Jewish Studies at Tulane University argues that by
1870 Jewish economic and social cohesiveness had been further enhanced in Odessa by founding of a branch of
the Society for the Promotion of Enlightenment, an organization dedicated to in-group philanthropy as well
as "alternative politics" whereby members "did not contact the government as an intercessor."
[C22]
Brian
Horowitz,
How Jewish was Odessa
? : http://www.wilsoncenter.net/sites/default/files/OP3...age=17
In this respect, it was the
kahal
-lite, and it had a significant positive impact on the wealth of
Odessa Jewry. Klier states that under this organisation, the Jewish grip on the economic life of the city
grew stronger, and that Russian government reports from 1871 attribute the disturbance above all to the fact
that "the economic domination of the Jews in the area produced abnormal relations between Christians and
Jews."
[C23]
John
Klier,
Pogroms: Anti-Jewish Violence in Modern Russian History
, (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2004) p.22
By 1871, Jewish economic domination had moved beyond grain exports. A US
consular report from that year reveals the extent of Jewish control over Odessa's economic life. It reports
that Jews in the city "occupy themselves with trade and favoring their own class or sect, that is that their
combinations, in a great many instances, amount almost to monopolies. The common remark, therefore, is that
'everything is in the hands of the Jews.' To sell or buy a house, a horse, a carriage, to rent a lodging or
contract for a loan, to engage a governess, and sometimes even to marry a wife the Jew gets his percent as a
"go between." The poor laborer, the hungry soldier, the land proprietor, the money capitalist, and in fact
every producer and every consumer is obliged in one way or another to pay tribute to the Jew."
[C24]
Evridiki
Sifneos, 'The Dark Side of the Moon: Rivalry and Riots for Shelter and Occupation Between the Greek and
Jewish Populations in multi-ethnic Nineteenth Century Odessa,'
The Historical Review
, Vol.3 (2006),
p.198
[C14]
Evridiki Sifneos, 'The Dark Side of the Moon: Rivalry and Riots for Shelter and Occupation Between
the Greek and Jewish Populations in multi-ethnic Nineteenth Century Odessa,'
The Historical Review
,
Vol.3 (2006), p.191
[C23]
John Klier,
Pogroms: Anti-Jewish Violence in Modern Russian History
, (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2004) p.22
[C24]
Evridiki Sifneos, 'The Dark Side of the Moon: Rivalry and Riots for Shelter and Occupation Between
the Greek and Jewish Populations in multi-ethnic Nineteenth Century Odessa,'
The Historical Review
,
Vol.3 (2006), p.198
[C25]
Evridiki Sifneos, 'The Dark Side of the Moon: Rivalry and Riots for Shelter and Occupation Between
the Greek and Jewish Populations in multi-ethnic Nineteenth Century Odessa,'
The Historical Review
,
Vol.3 (2006), p.193
Another attack on the jewish people by a white christian right liar thinly disguised as a historical
account.if it is not the palestinian cause then it is some other propaganda fantasy.
The truth is that these articles are an attempt to discredit judaism solely for the purposes of promoting a
modern crusade on behalf of chritianity.This is not about supporting the Palestinian cause or the arab
people who have been attacked in endless wars these past decade.
This is about christian right wing fundamentalists hoping to capture jerusalem.
I hope that there are those ordinary Christian who see through this charade of evil that speaks in there
name
It's an excellent book, which you'll only find online to read, since no publisher in the West has had the
audacity to print these truths so finely elaborated by Solzhenitsyn. You'll see that Russian Jews took
advantage of their nation, refusing to pay taxes or let their sons be drafted. Their main contribution to
Russia was money lending using usury and operating bars and stills.
As money lenders, they were ruthless, demanding full payment from farmers, even during bad crop seasons.
Add in the booze factor, and sooner or later, the local Russians would rise up and toss out the bankers,
sometimes rather violently.
Three different Czars that tried to right this malady wound up being assassinated, by whom you can
already guess. Naturally, even though its accurately documented, it's been branded as being anti-Semitic, as
many truths are.
Russians have always hated Jews, and for numerous good reasons.
The fact that Jews greatly exaggerated the
conflicts with Russian peasants is obvious for a whole host of reasons.
When the Bolshevik Jews overthrew the government and killed the Czar and Royal Family, the Russian people
were left helpless against the black leather coat wearing, pistol carrying, Russian peasant and Christianity
hating Jew Chekist.
Tens of Millions of Russian Christians were killed.
Pogroms? Hardly worth noting.
The situation is very much akin to Palestine.
Jews kill on the order of 100:1, but the propaganda would make you think otherwise.
"Little or no historiography has been dedicated to peeling back the layers of "refugee" stories to uncover
what really happened in the Russian Empire in the years before and during the riots."
Alexander
Solzhenitsyn did an exhaustive, balanced and masterful analysis of these years in his book "200 Years
Together".
For example, University of British Columbia Professor, Donald G. Dutton has asserted that the mobs
were not motivated by "the sudden rapid increase of the Jewish urban population, the extraordinary
economic success of Russian Jews, or the involvement of Jews in Russian revolutionary politics" but
rather by the "blood libel."
The author makes it sound like all over the Pale Russian peasants got upset because Jews were being
falsely libeled. The reality here is that Rabbi's were getting powerful and sloppy. They were getting caught
draining the blood from Christian boys and performing other satanic rituals, just as they have everywhere
else they have been allowed to form their colonies.
Violence erupted in 1821 when, during the Greek War of Independence, a group of Muslims and Jews
murdered and then mutilated Gregory V
Jews and Muslims working hand in hand to murder and mutilate Christians. Gods Chosen People and the
people of Gods Religion of Peace expose their true genocidal nature century after century after century.
It's hard for me to dig up so much as a shred of sympathy for muh pogroms when you compare it to the gentile
body count of genocidal jews from the Cheka all the way up to the modern IDF.
Cry me a river Shlomo.
"So harrible!!! Six million tears I swea-ahh!"
The poor laborer, the hungry soldier, the land proprietor, the money capitalist, and in fact every
producer and every consumer is
obliged
in one way or another to pay tribute to the Jew."
@mcohen
But Mr. Maga (aka Sunkist) has already handed over Jerusalem–and the Golan Heights, and, effectively the
West Bank–to the Jews. Yahweh works in mysterious ways, mon ami.
There was a grand total of about a couple of thousand deaths during all the late Imperial era pogroms, which
occurred precisely when state authority disappeared, as in 1905.
For comparison, that's about a week's worth of work for the (40% Jewish) NKVD in 1937-38.
"On the eve of the assassination of Alexander II, Russia's Jewish Question remained unanswered. Decades of
legislation had done little to change the nature of Russian Jewry, which remained ethnically, politically,
and culturally homogenous."
And that culture was expressed in Yiddish, in German. Russian-ruled Jews
remained linguistically Germanic by choice.
The Donald Trump Administration is looking more and more like George W. Bush's
Administration: a dumb clueless idiot surrounded by neocons.
Remember Donald Rumsfeld , Karl Rove, Condoleezza Rice, John Bolton , George Tenet, Henry
Paulson, Paul Wolfowitz , and **** Cheney from the George W Bush Administration?
Tell me Trumptards, what's so "different this time" about Donald Trump hiring Bolton,
Pompeo, Mattis/Shanahan/Esper, Haley, Haspel and Mnuchin?
The Donald Trump Administration is looking more and more like George W. Bush's
Administration: a dumb clueless idiot surrounded by neocons.
Remember Donald Rumsfeld , Karl Rove, Condoleezza Rice, John Bolton , George Tenet, Henry
Paulson, Paul Wolfowitz , and **** Cheney from the George W Bush Administration?
Tell me Trumptards, what's so "different this time" about Donald Trump hiring Bolton,
Pompeo, Mattis/Shanahan/Esper, Haley, Haspel and Mnuchin?
Add his violations of personal space of women and children and he's a perfect
candidate for a RICO prosecution, not POTUS.
Oh, well, Warren's on deck; and, if she goes down (no pun intended), there are the unsweet
sixteen or so more. Anybody but Bernie, Tulsi or Gravel is no doubt the hope of the
establishment, including the PTB of the Democratic Party.
Is Bernie perfect? God, no. None of them are, including Tulsi. Are Bernie and Tulsi evil? I
don't think so. I think, at worst, Bernie is doing what he thinks he must in order to represent
the people of Vermont and, if he can win, the people of the other forty-nine states, too.
I will not vote for anyone who I believe to be evil, but I will vote for Bernie or Tulsi in
the Democratic primary. If nothing else, that will mean one more vote against the rest of the
pack...
"... One pressure on Putin comes from the Atlanticist Integrationists who have a material stake in their connections to the West and who want Russia to be integrated into the Western world. ..."
"... We agree with President Putin that the sanctions are in fact a benefit to Russia as they have moved Russia in self-sufficient directions and toward developing relationships with China and Asia. ..."
"... It is a self-serving Western myth that Russia needs foreign loans. This myth is enshrined in neoliberal economics, which is a device for Western exploitation and control of other countries. Russia's most dangerous threat is the country's neoliberal economists. ..."
"... Neoliberals argue that Russia needs privatization in order to cover its budget deficit. Russia's government debt is only 17 percent of Russian GDP. According to official measures, US federal debt is 104 percent of GDP, 6.1 times higher than in Russia. If US federal debt is measured in real corrected terms, US federal debt is 185 percent of US GDP. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/07/08/deteriorating-economic-outlook/ ..."
"... Russia's most dangerous threat is the country's neoliberal economists. ..."
"... Most of Russia's economic block has to be literally purged from their sinecures, some, indeed, have to be "re-educated" near Magadan or Tyumen, or Saransk. Too bad, two of these places are actually not too bad. Others deserved to be executed. Too bad this jackass Gaidar (actually no blood relation to Arkady whatsoever) died before he could be tried for crimes against humanity and genocide. Albeit, some say he died because of his consciousness couldn't take the burden. Looking at his swine face I, somehow, doubt it. ..."
"... This is not a US vs Russia issue. The real conflict is ... Globalism vs Russian nationalism and American nationalism. But since Jews control the media, they've spread the impression that it's about US vs Russia. ..."
"... Trump is an ultra-zionist for Sheldon Adelson and prolongs & creates wars for the Goldman banking crimesyndicat. ..."
"... Voltaire once said, "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." ..."
"... You write about Russia but have not done your homework. Russia is very dependent on Western technology and its entire high-tech industry depends on the import of Western machinery. Without such machinery many Russian factories, including military ones, would stall. Very important oil industry is particularly vulnerable. ..."
An article by Robert Berke in oilprice.com, which describes itself as "The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News," illustrates how interest
groups control outcomes by how they shape policy choices.
Berke's article reveals how the US intends to maintain and extend its hegemony by breaking up the alliance between Russia, Iran,
and China, and by oil privatizations that result in countries losing control over their sovereignty to private oil companies that
work closely with the US government. As Trump has neutered his presidency by gratuitously accepting Gen. Flynn's resignation as National
Security Advisor, this scheme is likely to be Trump's approach to "better relations" with Russia.
Berke reports that Henry Kissinger has sold President Trump on a scheme to use the removal of Russian sanctions to pry President
Putin away from the Russian alliance with Iran and China. Should Putin fall for such a scheme, it would be a fatal strategic blunder
from which Russia could not recover. Yet, Putin will be pressured to make this blunder.
One pressure on Putin comes from the Atlanticist Integrationists who have a material stake in their connections to the West
and who want Russia to be integrated into the Western world. Another pressure comes from the affront that sanctions represent
to Russians. Removing this insult has become important to Russians even though the sanctions do Russia no material harm.
We agree with President Putin that the sanctions are in fact a benefit to Russia as they have moved Russia in self-sufficient
directions and toward developing relationships with China and Asia. Moreover, the West with its hegemonic impulses uses economic
relationships for control purposes. Trade with China and Asia does not pose the same threat to Russian independence.
Berke says that part of the deal being offered to Putin is "increased access to the huge European energy market, restored western
financial credit, access to Western technology, and a seat at the global decision-making table, all of which Russia badly needs and
wants." Sweetening the honey trap is official recognization of "Crimea as part of Russia."
Russia might want all of this, but it is nonsense that Russia needs any of it.
Crimea is part of Russia, as it has been for 300 years, and no one can do anything about it. What would it mean if Mexico did
not recognize that Texas and California were part of the US? Nothing.
Europe has scant alternatives to Russian energy. Russia does not need Western technology. Indeed, its military technology
is superior to that in the West. And Russia most certainly does not need Western loans. Indeed, it would be an act of insanity
to accept them.
It is a self-serving Western myth that Russia needs foreign loans. This myth is enshrined in neoliberal economics, which is
a device for Western exploitation and control of other countries. Russia's most dangerous threat is the country's neoliberal economists.
The Russian central bank has convinced the Russian government that it would be inflationary to finance Russian development
projects with the issuance of central bank credit. Foreign loans are essential, claims the central bank.
Someone needs to teach the Russian central bank basic economics before Russia is turned into another Western vassal. Here is the
lesson: When central bank credit is used to finance development projects, the supply of rubles increases but so does output from
the projects. Thus, goods and services rise with the supply of rubles. When Russia borrows foreign currencies from abroad, the money
supply also increases, but so does the foreign debt. Russia does not spend the foreign currencies on the project but puts them into
its foreign exchange reserves. The central bank issues the same amount of rubles to pay the project's bills as it would in the absence
of the foreign loan. All the foreign loan does is to present Russia with an interest payment to a foreign creditor.
Foreign capital is not important to countries such as Russia and China. Both countries are perfectly capable of financing their
own development. Indeed, China is the world's largest creditor nation. Foreign loans are only important to countries that lack the
internal resources for development and have to purchase the business know-how, techlology, and resources abroad with foreign currencies
that their exports are insufficient to bring in.
This is not the case with Russia, which has large endowments of resources and a trade surplus. China's development was given a
boost by US corporations that moved their production for the US market offshore in order to pocket the difference in labor and regulatory
costs.
Neoliberals argue that Russia needs privatization in order to cover its budget deficit. Russia's government debt is only 17 percent
of Russian GDP. According to official measures, US federal debt is 104 percent of GDP, 6.1 times higher than in Russia. If US federal
debt is measured in real corrected terms, US federal debt is 185 percent of US GDP.
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/07/08/deteriorating-economic-outlook/
Clearly, if the massive debt of the US government is not a problem, the tiny debt of Russia is not a problem.
Berke's article is part of the effort to scam Russia by convincing the Russian government that its prosperity depends on unfavorable
deals with the West. As Russia's neoliberal economists believe this, the scam has a chance of success.
Another delusion affecting the Russian government is the belief that privatization brings in capital. This delusion caused the
Russian government to turn over 20 percent of its oil company to foreign ownership. The only thing Russia achieved by this strategic
blunder was to deliver 20 percent of its oil profits into foreign hands. For a one-time payment, Russia gave away 20 percent of its
oil profits in perpetuity.
To repeat outselves, the greatest threat that Russia faces is not sanctions but the incompetence of its neoliberal economists
who have been throughly brainwashed to serve US interests.
When Russia borrows foreign currencies from abroad, the money supply also increases, but so does the foreign debt. Russia
does not spend the foreign currencies on the project but puts them into its foreign exchange reserves. The central bank issues
the same amount of rubles to pay the project's bills as it would in the absence of the foreign loan. All the foreign loan does
is to present Russia with an interest payment to a foreign creditor.
Yes, correct. But this is an IMF rule, and Russia is an IMF member. To control its monetary policy it would have to get out.
Another pressure comes from the affront that sanctions represent to Russians. Removing this insult has become important
to Russians even though the sanctions do Russia no material harm.
Oh dear, neolibs at their "finest"!
This "theory" is simply not true. If anything, Russians don't want the sanctions to be lifted, because this will also force
us to scrap our counter-sanctions against the EU. The agro-business in Russia had been expanding by leaps and bounds for the last
two years. This persistent myth that "the Russians" (who exactly, I wonder – 2-3% of the pro-Western urbanites in Moscow and St.
Pete?) are desperate to have the sanctons lifted is a self-deception of the West, who IS desparate of the fact that the sanctions
didn't work.
Russia's most dangerous threat is the country's neoliberal economists.
Yes! Ulyukayev is, probably, feeling lonely in his prison. I say – why not send Chubais, Siluanov and Nabiulina to cheer him
up?
Berke reports that Henry Kissinger has sold President Trump on a scheme to use the removal of Russian sanctions to pry President
Putin away from the Russian alliance with Iran and China.
Kissinger, like Dick Cheney or George Soros, will probably never be completely dead.
Berke reports that Henry Kissinger has sold President Trump on a scheme to use the removal of Russian sanctions to pry President
Putin away from the Russian alliance with Iran and China.
Kissinger, like Dick Cheney or George Soros, will probably never be completely dead.
Another pressure comes from the affront that sanctions represent to Russians. Removing this insult has become important to
Russians even though the sanctions do Russia no material harm.
Oh dear, neolibs at their "finest"! This "theory" is simply not true. If anything, Russians don't want the sanctions to
be lifted, because this will also force us to scrap our counter-sanctions against the EU. The agro-business in Russia had been
expanding by leaps and bounds for the last two years. This persistent myth that "the Russians" (who exactly, I wonder - 2-3% of
the pro-Western urbanites in Moscow and St. Pete?) are desperate to have the sanctons lifted is a self-deception of the West,
who IS desparate of the fact that the sanctions didn't work.
Russia's most dangerous threat is the country's neoliberal economists.
Yes! Ulyukayev is, probably, feeling lonely in his prison. I say - why not send Chubais, Siluanov and Nabiulina to cheer him
up? ;)
I say – why not send Chubais, Siluanov and Nabiulina to cheer him up?
Most of Russia's economic block has to be literally purged from their sinecures, some, indeed, have to be "re-educated"
near Magadan or Tyumen, or Saransk. Too bad, two of these places are actually not too bad. Others deserved to be executed. Too
bad this jackass Gaidar (actually no blood relation to Arkady whatsoever) died before he could be tried for crimes against humanity
and genocide. Albeit, some say he died because of his consciousness couldn't take the burden. Looking at his swine face I, somehow,
doubt it.
If the US continues to antagonize Russia, Russia will have to grow even more independent, nationalist, and sovereign. At any
rate, this issue cannot be addressed until we face that the fact that globalism is essentially Jewish Supremacism that fears gentile
nationalism as a barrier to its penetration and domination.
This is not a US vs Russia issue. The real conflict is ... Globalism vs Russian nationalism and American nationalism. But
since Jews control the media, they've spread the impression that it's about US vs Russia.
Same thing with this crap about 'white privilege'. It is a misleading concept to fool Americans into thinking that the main
conflict is between 'privileged whites' and 'people of color'. It is really to hide the fact that Jewish power and privilege really
rules the US. It is a means to hoodwink people from noticing that the real divide is between Jews and Gentiles, not between 'privileged
whites' and 'non-white victims'. After all, too many whites lack privilege, and too many non-whites do very well in America.
I say – why not send Chubais, Siluanov and Nabiulina to cheer him up?
Most of Russia's economic block has to be literally purged from their sinecures, some, indeed, have to be "re-educated"
near Magadan or Tyumen, or Saransk. Too bad, two of these places are actually not too bad. Others deserved to be executed.
Too bad this jackass Gaidar (actually no blood relation to Arkady whatsoever) died before he could be tried for crimes against
humanity and genocide. Albeit, some say he died because of his consciousness couldn't take the burden. Looking at his swine
face I, somehow, doubt it.
I'm generally a big fan and admirer of Putin, but this is definitely one criticism of him that I have a lot of sympathy for.
It is long past time for Putin to purge the neoliberals from the Kremlin and nationalize the Russian Central Bank. I cannot fathom
why he hasn't done this already.
Does PCR really think that Putin is stupid enough to fall for Kissinger's hair-brained scheme? I mean, give Putin a little
bit of credit. He has so far completely outmaneuvered Washington on virtually ever subject. I'm sure he's clever enough to see
through such a crude divide-and-rule strategy.
The Russians can't be flummoxed, they aren't children. Russia and China border each other so they have a natural mutual interest
in having their east-west areas be stable and safe, particularly when the US threatens both of them. This geography isn't going
to change. Abandoning clients such as Syria and Iran would irreversibly damage the Russian brand as being unreliable therefore
they'd find it impossible to attract any others in the future. They know this so it's unlikely they would be so rash as to snap
at any bait dangled in front of them. And, as pointed out, the bait really isn't all that irresistible. It's always best to negotiate
from a position of strength and they realize that. American policy deep thinkers are often fantasists who bank upon their chess
opponents making hoped-for predictable moves. That doesn't happen in real life.
I'm generally a big fan and admirer of Putin, but this is definitely one criticism of him that I have a lot of sympathy for.
It is long past time for Putin to purge the neoliberals from the Kremlin and nationalize the Russian Central Bank. I cannot fathom
why he hasn't done this already.
I cannot fathom why he hasn't done this already.
Partially, because Putin himself is an economic liberal and, to a degree, monetarist, albeit less rigid than his economic block.
The good choices he made often were opposite to his views. As he himself admitted that Russia's geopolitical vector changed with
NATO's aggression against Yugoslavia–a strengthening of Russia has become an imperative. This comeback was impossible within the
largely "Western" monetarist economic model. Russia's comeback happened not thanks but despite Putin's economic views, Putin adjusted
his views in the process, his economic block didn't. But many of them still remain his friends, despite the fact that many of
them are de facto fifth column and work against Russia, intentionally and other wise. Eventually Putin will be forced to get down
from his fence and take the position of industrialists and siloviki. Putin's present for Medvedev's birthday was a good hint on
where he is standing economically today and I am beginning to like that but still–I personally am not convinced yet. We'll see.
In many respects Putin was lucky and specifically because of the namely Soviet military and industry captains still being around–people
who, unlike Putin, knew exactly what constituted Russia's strength. Enough to mention late Evgeny Primakov. Let's not forget that
despite Putin's meteoric rise through the top levels of Russia's state bureaucracy, including his tenure as a Director of FSB,
Putin's background is not really military-industrial. He is a lawyer, even if uniformed (KGB) part of his career. I know for a
fact that initially (early 2000s) he was overwhelmed with the complexity of Russia's military and industry. Enough to mention
his creature Serdyukov who almost destroyed Command and Control structure of Russia's Armed Forces and main ideologue behind Russia's
military "reform", late Vitaly Shlykov who might have been a great GRU spy (and economist by trade) but who never served a day
in combat units. Thankfully, the "reforms" have been stopped and Russian Armed Forces are still dealing with the consequences.
This whole clusterfvck was of Putin's own creation–hardly a good record on his resume. Hopefully, he learned.
I'm generally a big fan and admirer of Putin, but this is definitely one criticism of him that I have a lot of sympathy
for. It is long past time for Putin to purge the neoliberals from the Kremlin and nationalize the Russian Central Bank. I cannot
fathom why he hasn't done this already.
He has not done it already because he just cannot let go of his dream to have it as he did in 2003, when Russia Germany and
France together blocked legality of US war in Iraq. Putin still hopes for a good working relationship with major West European
powers. Italy France and even Germany.
He still hopes to draw them away from the US. However the obvious gains from Import substitution campaign make it apparent
that Russia does benefit from sanctions, that Russia can get anything it wants in technology from the East rather than the West.
So the break with Western orientation is in the making. Hopefully.
You forgot to mention the "moderate" jihadis, including the operatives from NATO, Israel, and US. (It seems that the Ukrainian
"patriots" that have been bombing the civilians in East Ukraine, also include special "patriots" from the same unholy trinity:
https://www.roguemoney.net/stories/2016/12/6/there-are-troops-jack-us-army-donbass
). There has been also a certain asymmetry in means: look at the map for the number and location of the US/NATO military bases.
At least we can see that RF has been trying to avoid the hot phase of WWIII.
http://russia-insider.com/sites/insider/files/NATO-vs-Russia640.jpg
If the US continues to antagonize Russia, Russia will have to grow even more independent, nationalist, and sovereign.
At any rate, this issue cannot be addressed until we face that the fact that globalism is essentially Jewish Supremacism that
fears gentile nationalism as a barrier to its penetration and domination.
This is not a US vs Russia issue. The real conflict is Jewish Globalism vs Russian nationalism and American nationalism. But
since Jews control the media, they've spread the impression that it's about US vs Russia.
Same thing with this crap about 'white privilege'. It is a misleading concept to fool Americans into thinking that the main
conflict is between 'privileged whites' and 'people of color'. It is really to hide the fact that Jewish power and privilege really
rules the US. It is a means to hoodwink people from noticing that the real divide is between Jews and Gentiles, not between 'privileged
whites' and 'non-white victims'. After all, too many whites lack privilege, and too many non-whites do very well in America.
On the power and privilege that really rule the US:
"Sanctions – economic sanctions, as most of them are, can only stand and 'succeed', as long as countries, who oppose Washington's
dictate remain bound into the western, dollar-based, fraudulent monetary scheme. The system is entirely privatized by a small
Zionist-led elite. FED, Wall Street, Bank for International Settlement (BIS), are all private institutions, largely controlled
by the Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan et al clans. They are also supported by the Breton Woods Organizations, IMF and World Bank,
conveniently created under the Charter of the UN.
Few progressive economists understand how this debt-based pyramid scam is manipulating the entire western economic system. When
in a just world, it should be just the contrary, the economy that shapes, designs and decides the functioning of the monetary
system and policy.
Even Russia, with Atlantists still largely commanding the central bank and much of the financial system, isn't fully detached
from the dollar dominion – yet."
"I cannot fathom why he hasn't done this (nationalize the "central bank) already".
I read about a rumor a few years ago that Putin has been warned that nationalizing the now private Russian central bank will
bring absolutely dire consequences to both him and Russia. It is simply a step he cannot take.
How dire are the potential consequences? Consider that the refusal of the American government to reauthorize the private central
bank in the US brought about the War of 1812. The Americans learned their lesson and quickly reauthorized the private bank after
the war had ended.
Numerous attempts were made to assassinate President Andrew Jacksons specifically because of his refusal to reauthorize the
private central bank.
Here it is in audio form so you can just relax and just listen at your leisure.
*ALL WARS ARE BANKERS' WARS* By Michael Rivero https://youtu.be/WN0Y3HRiuxo
I know many people have a great deal of difficulty comprehending just how many wars are started for no other purpose than to
force private central banks onto nations, so let me share a few examples, so that you understand why the US Government is mired
in so many wars against so many foreign nations. There is ample precedent for this.
Here is proof that there is no real Leftist power anymore.
Voltaire once said, "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
If the Left really rules America, how come it is fair game to criticize, condemn, mock, and vilify Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin,
Bakunin, Emma Goldman & anarchists, Castro, Che(even though he is revered by many, one's career isn't damaged by attacking him),
Tito, Ceucescu, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Gramsci, Eurgene Debs, Pete Seeger, Abbie Hoffman, Bill Ayers, and etc.
You can say whatever you want about such people. Some will agree, some will disagree, but you will not be fired, blacklisted,
or destroyed.
If the Left really rules, why would this be?
Now, what would happen if you name the Jewish Capitalists as the real holders of power?
What would happen if you name the Jewish oligarchic corporatists who control most of media?
What would happen if you said Jews are prominent in the vice industry of gambling?
What would happen if you named the Jewish capitalists in music industry that made so much money by spreading garbage?
What would happen if you said Jewish warhawks were largely responsible for the disasters in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine?
And what would happen if you were question the MLK mythology and cult?
What would happen if you were to make fun of homos and trannies?
Now, keep in mind that blacks and homos are favored by Jews as their main allies.
(Some say the US is not a pro-minority nation, but it's still permissible to criticize, impugn, and vilify Chinese, Iranians,
Muslims, Mexicans, Hindus, and etc. Trump was hard on China, Iran, Muslims, and Mexicans, and he got some flak over it but not
enough to destroy him. Now, imagine what would have happened if he'd said such things about blacks, Africa, homos, Jews, and Israel?
American politics isn't necessarily pro-minority. If it is, it should favor Palestinian-Americans just as much as Jewish-Americans.
Actually, since there are fewer Palestinian-Americans than Jewish-Americans, the US, being pro-minority, should favor Palestinians
over Jews in America. In reality, it is AIPAC that draws all the politicians. America is about Pro-Power, and since Jews have
the Power and since Jews are a minority, it creates the false impression that the US is a minority-supremacist nation. But WHICH
minority? Jews would like for us think that all minorities are represented equally in the US, but do Eskimos, Hawaiians, Guatemalans,
Vietnamese, and etc. have the kind of power & protection that the Jewish minority has? Do we see politicians and powerbrokers
flock to such minorities for funds and favors?)
So, what does it about the real power in America? So many 'conservatives' say the Left controls America. But in fact, an American
can badmouth all true bonafide leftist leaders and thinkers(everyone from Lenin to Sartre). However, if an American were to badmouth
Sheldon Adelson as a sick demented Zionist capitalist oligarch who wants to nuke Iran, he would be blacklisted by the most of
the media. (If one must criticize Adelson, it has to be in generic terms of him a top donor to the likes of Romney. One mustn't
discuss his zealous and maniacal views rooted in Zionist-supremacism. You can criticize his money but not the mentality that determines
the use of that money.) Isn't it rather amusing how the so-called Liberals denounce the GOP for being 'extreme' but overlook the
main reason for such extremism? It's because the GOP relies on Zionist lunatics like Adelson who thinks Iran should be nuked to
be taught a lesson. Even Liberal Media overlook this fact. Also, it's interesting that the Liberal Media are more outraged by
Trump's peace offer to Russia than Trump's hawkish rhetoric toward Iran. I thought Liberals were the Doves.
We know why politics and media work like this. It's not about 'left' vs 'right' or 'liberal' vs 'conservative'. It is really
about Jewish Globalist Dominance. Jews, neocon 'right' or globo-'left', hate Russia because its brand of white gentile nationalism
is an obstacle to Jewish supremacist domination. Now, Current Russia is nice to Jews, and Jews can make all the money they want.
But that isn't enough for Jews. Jews want total control of media, government, narrative, everything. If Jews say Russia must have
homo parades and 'gay marriage', Russia better bend over because its saying NO means that it is defiant to the Jewish supremacist
agenda of using homomania as proxy to undermine and destroy all gentile nationalism rooted in identity and moral righteousness.
Russia doesn't allow that, and that is what pisses off Jews. For Jews, the New Antisemitism is defined as denying them the supremacist
'right' to control other nations. Classic antisemitism used to mean denying Jews equal rights under the law. The New Antisemitism
means Jews are denied the right to gain dominance over others and dictate terms.
So, that is why Jews hate any idea of good relations with Russia. But Jews don't mind Trump's irresponsible anti-Iran rhetoric
since it serves Zionist interest. So, if Trump were to say, "We shouldn't go to war with Russia; we should be friends" and "We
should get ready to bomb, destroy, and even nuke Iran", the 'liberal' media would be more alarmed by the Peace-with-Russia statement.
Which groups controls the media? 'Liberals', really? Do Muslim 'liberals' agree with Jewish 'liberals'?
Anyway, we need to do away with the fiction that Left rules anything. They don't. We have Jewish Supremacist rule hiding behind
the label of the 'Left'. But the US is a nation where it's totally permissible to attack real leftist ideas and leaders but suicidal
if anyone dares to discuss the power of super-capitalist Jewish oligarchs. Some 'leftism'!
300 Words @Quartermaster
Trump has not been neutered. Buchanan has the right on this and Flynn's actions.
Sorry, but Crimea is Ukraine. Russia is in serious economic decline and is rapidly burning through its reserves. Putin is almost
down to the welfare fund from which pensions are paid, and only about a third of pensions are being paid now.
If Sanctions are of benefit to Russia, then the sanctions against Imperial Japan were just ducky and no war was fought.
Roberts is the next best thing to insane.
This is rich from a Ukrainian nationalist ruled by Groysman/Kagans.
First, figure out who is your saint, a collaborationist Bandera (Babiy Yar and such) or a triple-sitizenship Kolomojski (auto-da-fe
of civilians in Odessa). If you still want to bring Holodomor to a discussion, then you need to be reminded that 80% of Ukrainian
Cheka at that time were Jewish. If you still think that Russians are the root of all evil, then try to ask the US for more money
for pensions, education, and healthcare – instead of weaponry. Here are the glorious results of the US-approved governance from
Kiev: http://gnnliberia.com/2017/02/17/liberia-ahead-ukraine-index-economic-freedom-2017/
"Liberia, Chad, Afghanistan, Sudan and Angola are ahead of Ukraine. All these countries are in the group of repressed economies
(49.9-40 scores). Ukraine's economy has contracted deeply and remains very fragile."
Here are your relationships with your neighbors on the other side – Poland and Romania:
"The right-winged conservative orientation of Warsaw makes it remember old Polish-Ukrainian arguments and scores, and claim its
rights on the historically Polish lands of Western Ukraine"
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/01/17/poland-will-begin-dividing-ukraine/
" the "Assembly of Bukovina Romanians" has recently applied to Petro Poroshenko demanding a territorial autonomy to the Chernivtsi
region densely populated by Romanians. The "Assembly" motivated its demand with the Ukrainian president's abovementioned statement
urging territorial autonomy for the Crimean Tatars."
https://eadaily.com/en/news/2016/06/30/what-is-behind-romanias-activity-in-ukraine
And please read some history books about Crimea. Or at least Wikipedia:
"In 1783, Crimea was annexed by the Russian Empire. In 1954, the Crimean Oblast was transferred to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist
Republic by Nikita Khrushchev (a Soviet dictator). In 2014, a 96.77 percent of Crimeans voted for integration of the region into
the Russian Federation with an 83.1 percent voter turnout." You see, the Crimeans do not like Nuland-Kagan and Pravyj Sector.
Do you know why?
100 Words @Seamus
Padraig Does PCR really think that Putin is stupid enough to fall for Kissinger's hair-brained scheme? I mean, give Putin
a little bit of credit. He has so far completely outmaneuvered Washington on virtually ever subject. I'm sure he's clever enough
to see through such a crude divide-and-rule strategy.
well it depends. if putin is just out for himself, I can see him getting in bed with kissinger and co. if he is about russia,
he would not. that is how I see it. it isn't about if putin is smart or stupid. just a choice and where his royalty lies.
100 Words @Quartermaster
Trump has not been neutered. Buchanan has the right on this and Flynn's actions.
Sorry, but Crimea is Ukraine. Russia is in serious economic decline and is rapidly burning through its reserves. Putin is almost
down to the welfare fund from which pensions are paid, and only about a third of pensions are being paid now.
If Sanctions are of benefit to Russia, then the sanctions against Imperial Japan were just ducky and no war was fought.
Roberts is the next best thing to insane.
Sorry, but Crimea is Ukraine.
How so? #Krymnash
Russia is in serious economic decline and is rapidly burning through its reserves.
If by "decline" you mean "expects this year a modest growth as opposed to previous years" then you might be right.
I've been reading about Russia's imminent collapse and the annihilation of the economy since forever. Some no-names like you
(or some Big Names with agenda) had been predicting it every year. Still didn't happen.
Putin is almost down to the welfare fund from which pensions are paid, and only about a third of pensions are being paid
now.
Can I see a source for that?
If Sanctions are of benefit to Russia, then the sanctions against Imperial Japan were just ducky and no war was fought.
False equivalence.
P.S. Hey, Quart – how is Bezviz? Also – are you not cold here? Or are you one of the most racally pure Ukrs, currently residing
in Ontario province (Canada), from whence you teach your less lucky raguls in Nizalezhnaya how to be more racially pure? Well,
SUGS to be you!
@Quartermaster
Trump has not been neutered. Buchanan has the right on this and Flynn's actions.
Sorry, but Crimea is Ukraine. Russia is in serious economic decline and is rapidly burning through its reserves. Putin is almost
down to the welfare fund from which pensions are paid, and only about a third of pensions are being paid now.
If Sanctions are of benefit to Russia, then the sanctions against Imperial Japan were just ducky and no war was fought.
Roberts is the next best thing to insane.
Do you have any links to verify this that Russia is down to bedrock,from everything I read and have read Russia's do pretty
damn good, or is this just some more of your endless antiRussian propaganda,,
A scandal of a EU member Poland:
http://thesaker.is/zmiana-piskorski-and-the-case-for-polish-liberation/
Two days after he [Piskorski] publicly warned that US-NATO troops now have a mandate to suppress Polish dissent on the grounds
of combatting "Russian hybrid war," he was snatched up by armed agents of Poland's Internal Security Agency while taking his children
to school on May 18th, 2016. He was promptly imprisoned in Warsaw, where he remains with no formal charges to this day."
With the Poland's entry into EU, "Poland did not "regain" sovereignty, much less justice, but forfeited such to the Atlanticist
project Poland has been de-industrialized, and thus deprived of the capacity to pursue independent and effective social and economic
policies Now, with the deployment of thousands of US-NATO troops, tanks, and missile systems on its soil and the Polish government's
relinquishment of jurisdiction over foreign armed forces on its territory, Poland is de facto under occupation. This occupation
is not a mere taxation on Poland's national budget – it is an undeniable liquidation of sovereignty and inevitably turns the country
into a direct target and battlefield in the US' provocative war on Russia."
" it's not the Russians who are going to occupy us now – they left here voluntarily 24 years ago. It's not the Russians that
have ravaged Polish industry since 1989. It's not the Russians that have stifled Poles with usurious debt. Finally, it's not the
Russians that are responsible for the fact that we have become the easternmost aircraft carrier of the United States anchored
in Europe. We ourselves, who failed by allowing such traitors into power, are to blame for this."
More from a comment section: "Donald Tusk, who is now President of the European Council, whose grandfather, Josef Tusk, served
in Hitler's Wehrmacht, has consistently demanded that the Kiev regime imposed by the US and EU deal with the Donbass people brutally,
"as with terrorists". While the Polish special services were training the future participants of the Maidan operations and the
ethnic cleansing of the Donbass, the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs made this official statement (02-02-2014): "We support
the hard line taken by the Right Sector The radical actions of the Right Sector and other militant groups of demonstrators and
the use of force by protesters are justified The Right Sector has taken full responsibility for all the acts of violence during
the recent protests. This is an honest position, and we respect it. The politicians have failed at their peacekeeping function.
This means that the only acceptable option is the radical actions of the Right Sector. There is no other alternative".
In short, the US has been the most active enabler of the neo-Nazi movement in Europe. Mrs. Clinton seemingly did not get a
memo about who is "new Hitler."
Do you happen to know anything about western financial giants' influence upon Russia's "Atlanticist Integrationists"?
It's low hanging fruit for me to take a pick, but I am thinking The Goldman Sachs Group is well ensconced among Russian "Atlanticist
Integrationists."
You guys are top seeded pros at uncovering Deep State-banker secrets. In contrast, I drive school bus and I struggle to even
balance the family Wells Fargo debit card!
However, since our US Congress has anointed a seasoned G.S.G. veteran, Steve Mnuchin, as the administration's Treasury Secretary,
he has become my favorite "Person of Interest" who I suspect spouts a Ural Mountain-level say as to how "Atlanticist Integrationists"
operate.
Speaking very respectfully, I hope my question does not get "flummoxed" into resource rich Siberia.
Berke reports that Henry Kissinger has sold President Trump on a scheme to use the removal of Russian sanctions to pry President
Putin away from the Russian alliance with Iran and China.
Kissinger, like Dick Cheney or George Soros, will probably never be completely dead.
Kissinger, like Dick Cheney or George Soros, will probably never be completely dead
.
Most likely the Spirit of Anti-Christ keeping them alive to do his bidding.
@Priss Factor
Here is proof that there is no real Leftist power anymore.
Voltaire once said, "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
If the Left really rules America, how come it is fair game to criticize, condemn, mock, and vilify Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin,
Bakunin, Emma Goldman & anarchists, Castro, Che(even though he is revered by many, one's career isn't damaged by attacking him),
Tito, Ceucescu, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Gramsci, Eurgene Debs, Pete Seeger, Abbie Hoffman, Bill Ayers, and etc.
You can say whatever you want about such people. Some will agree, some will disagree, but you will not be fired, blacklisted,
or destroyed.
If the Left really rules, why would this be?
Now, what would happen if you name the Jewish Capitalists as the real holders of power?
What would happen if you name the Jewish oligarchic corporatists who control most of media?
What would happen if you said Jews are prominent in the vice industry of gambling?
What would happen if you named the Jewish capitalists in music industry that made so much money by spreading garbage?
What would happen if you said Jewish warhawks were largely responsible for the disasters in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine?
And what would happen if you were question the MLK mythology and cult?
What would happen if you were to make fun of homos and trannies?
Now, keep in mind that blacks and homos are favored by Jews as their main allies.
(Some say the US is not a pro-minority nation, but it's still permissible to criticize, impugn, and vilify Chinese, Iranians,
Muslims, Mexicans, Hindus, and etc. Trump was hard on China, Iran, Muslims, and Mexicans, and he got some flak over it but not
enough to destroy him. Now, imagine what would have happened if he'd said such things about blacks, Africa, homos, Jews, and Israel?
American politics isn't necessarily pro-minority. If it is, it should favor Palestinian-Americans just as much as Jewish-Americans.
Actually, since there are fewer Palestinian-Americans than Jewish-Americans, the US, being pro-minority, should favor Palestinians
over Jews in America. In reality, it is AIPAC that draws all the politicians. America is about Pro-Power, and since Jews have
the Power and since Jews are a minority, it creates the false impression that the US is a minority-supremacist nation. But WHICH
minority? Jews would like for us think that all minorities are represented equally in the US, but do Eskimos, Hawaiians, Guatemalans,
Vietnamese, and etc. have the kind of power & protection that the Jewish minority has? Do we see politicians and powerbrokers
flock to such minorities for funds and favors?)
So, what does it about the real power in America? So many 'conservatives' say the Left controls America. But in fact, an American
can badmouth all true bonafide leftist leaders and thinkers(everyone from Lenin to Sartre). However, if an American were to badmouth
Sheldon Adelson as a sick demented Zionist capitalist oligarch who wants to nuke Iran, he would be blacklisted by the most of
the media. (If one must criticize Adelson, it has to be in generic terms of him a top donor to the likes of Romney. One mustn't
discuss his zealous and maniacal views rooted in Zionist-supremacism. You can criticize his money but not the mentality that determines
the use of that money.) Isn't it rather amusing how the so-called Liberals denounce the GOP for being 'extreme' but overlook the
main reason for such extremism? It's because the GOP relies on Zionist lunatics like Adelson who thinks Iran should be nuked to
be taught a lesson. Even Liberal Media overlook this fact. Also, it's interesting that the Liberal Media are more outraged by
Trump's peace offer to Russia than Trump's hawkish rhetoric toward Iran. I thought Liberals were the Doves.
We know why politics and media work like this. It's not about 'left' vs 'right' or 'liberal' vs 'conservative'. It is really
about Jewish Globalist Dominance. Jews, neocon 'right' or globo-'left', hate Russia because its brand of white gentile nationalism
is an obstacle to Jewish supremacist domination. Now, Current Russia is nice to Jews, and Jews can make all the money they want.
But that isn't enough for Jews. Jews want total control of media, government, narrative, everything. If Jews say Russia must have
homo parades and 'gay marriage', Russia better bend over because its saying NO means that it is defiant to the Jewish supremacist
agenda of using homomania as proxy to undermine and destroy all gentile nationalism rooted in identity and moral righteousness.
Russia doesn't allow that, and that is what pisses off Jews. For Jews, the New Antisemitism is defined as denying them the supremacist
'right' to control other nations. Classic antisemitism used to mean denying Jews equal rights under the law. The New Antisemitism
means Jews are denied the right to gain dominance over others and dictate terms.
So, that is why Jews hate any idea of good relations with Russia. But Jews don't mind Trump's irresponsible anti-Iran rhetoric
since it serves Zionist interest. So, if Trump were to say, "We shouldn't go to war with Russia; we should be friends" and "We
should get ready to bomb, destroy, and even nuke Iran", the 'liberal' media would be more alarmed by the Peace-with-Russia statement.
Which groups controls the media? 'Liberals', really? Do Muslim 'liberals' agree with Jewish 'liberals'?
Anyway, we need to do away with the fiction that Left rules anything. They don't. We have Jewish Supremacist rule hiding behind
the label of the 'Left'. But the US is a nation where it's totally permissible to attack real leftist ideas and leaders but suicidal
if anyone dares to discuss the power of super-capitalist Jewish oligarchs. Some 'leftism'!
What an amazing whoring performance for the war-manufacturers! And here is an interesting morsel of information about the belligerent
Frau der Leyen:
http://www.dw.com/en/stanford-accuses-von-der-leyen-of-misrepresentation/a-18775432
"Stanford university has said Ursula von der Leyen is misrepresenting her affiliation with the school. The German defense minister's
academic career is already under scrutiny after accusations of plagiarism." No kidding. Some "Ursula von der Leyen' values" indeed.
I doubt we'll see little change from the Trump administration toward Russia.
From SOTT:
Predictable news coming out of Yemen: Saudi-backed "Southern Resistance" forces and Hadi loyalists, alongside al-Qaeda of
the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), launched a new offensive against the Houthis in western Yemen on Wednesday.
This is not the first time Saudi-backed (and by extension, Washington-backed) forces have teamed up with al-Qaeda in Yemen
.
Yemen is quickly becoming the "spark that lights the powder keg". The conflict has already killed, maimed and displaced
countless thousands (thanks to the stellar lack of reporting from trustworthy western news sources, we can only estimate the
scale of Saudi/U.S. crimes in Yemen), but now it seems that elements of the Trump administration are keen on escalation, likely
in hopes of giving Washington an excuse to carpet bomb Tehran.
Apparently, we feel satisfied fighting with our old allies, al-Qaeda and Saudis.
I think that the authors may be underestimating Putin in his determination to keep Russia and the Russian economy independent.
For example, I find this rumoured offer of "increased access to the huge European energy market" very funny, for at least two
reasons:
1) US wants to sell hydrocarbons (LPG) to the European market at significantly higher prices than the Russian prices, and
2) the current dependence of EU countries on the Russian energy would have never happened if there were better alternatives.
In other words, any detente offer that the West would make to Russia would last, as usual, not even until the signature ink
dries on the new cooperation agreements. Putin does not look to me like someone who suffers much from wishful thinking.
The Russian relationship with China is not a bed of roses, but it is not China which is increasing military activity all
around Russia, it is the West. Also, so far China has shown no interest in regime-changing Russia and dividing it into pieces.
Would you rather believe in the reform capability of an addict in violence or someone who does not need to reform? Would the West
self-reform and sincerely renounce violence just by signing a new agreement with Russia?
The new faux detente will never happen, as long as Putin is alive.
Trump is an ultra-zionist for Sheldon Adelson and prolongs & creates wars for the Goldman banking crimesyndicat.
The only one stopping Trump is Putin or Russia's missile defenses.
Indeed, Putin's main inside enemy is Russia's central bank, or the Jewish oligarchs in Russia (Atlanticists). Also Russia needs
to foster and encourage small&medium enterprises, that need cheap credit, to create competitive markets, where no prices are fixed
and market shares change. These are most efficient resource users.
In the US, Wallstreet controls government = fascism = the IG Farben- Auschwitz concentration camps to maximize profits. This
is the direction for the US economy.
Meanwhile in the EU, the former Auschwitz owners IG Farben (Bayer(Monsanto), Hoechst, BASF) the EU chemical giants, who have
patented all natures molecules, are in controll again over EU. Deutsche bank et allies is eating Greece, Italy, Spain's working
classes, using AUSTERITY as their creed.
So what is new? Nothing, the supercorporate-fascist elites are the same families, who 's morality is unchanged in a 100 years.
I'm generally a big fan and admirer of Putin, but this is definitely one criticism of him that I have a lot of sympathy
for. It is long past time for Putin to purge the neoliberals from the Kremlin and nationalize the Russian Central Bank. I cannot
fathom why he hasn't done this already.
I would really love to like Putin and I am trying but him protecting all those criminals and not reversing the history greatest
heist of 90′s makes it impossible. While I am behind all his moves to restore Russian military and foreign policy, I am still
waiting for more on home front. Note, not only the Bank must be nationalized. Everything, all industries, factories and other
assets privatized by now must be returned to rightful owner. Public which over 70 years through great sacrifice built all of it.
Partially, because Putin himself is an economic liberal and, to a degree, monetarist, albeit less rigid than his economic block.
The good choices he made often were opposite to his views. As he himself admitted that Russia's geopolitical vector changed with
NATO's aggression against Yugoslavia--a strengthening of Russia has become an imperative. This comeback was impossible within
the largely "Western" monetarist economic model. Russia's comeback happened not thanks but despite Putin's economic views, Putin
adjusted his views in the process, his economic block didn't. But many of them still remain his friends, despite the fact that
many of them are de facto fifth column and work against Russia, intentionally and other wise. Eventually Putin will be forced
to get down from his fence and take the position of industrialists and siloviki. Putin's present for Medvedev's birthday was a
good hint on where he is standing economically today and I am beginning to like that but still--I personally am not convinced
yet. We'll see. In many respects Putin was lucky and specifically because of the namely Soviet military and industry captains
still being around--people who, unlike Putin, knew exactly what constituted Russia's strength. Enough to mention late Evgeny Primakov.
Let's not forget that despite Putin's meteoric rise through the top levels of Russia's state bureaucracy, including his tenure
as a Director of FSB, Putin's background is not really military-industrial. He is a lawyer, even if uniformed (KGB) part of his
career. I know for a fact that initially (early 2000s) he was overwhelmed with the complexity of Russia's military and industry.
Enough to mention his creature Serdyukov who almost destroyed Command and Control structure of Russia's Armed Forces and main
ideologue behind Russia's military "reform", late Vitaly Shlykov who might have been a great GRU spy (and economist by trade)
but who never served a day in combat units. Thankfully, the "reforms" have been stopped and Russian Armed Forces are still dealing
with the consequences. This whole clusterfvck was of Putin's own creation--hardly a good record on his resume. Hopefully, he learned.
Smoothie, you seem to have natural aversion towards lawyers
Albeit, the first Vladimir, I mean Lenin also was a lawyers by education still he was a rather quick study. Remember that military
communism and Lenin after one year after Bolsheviks took power telling that state capitalism would be great step forward for Russia
whcih obviously was backward and ruined by wars at the time and he proceeded with New Economic Policy and Lenin despite not being
industry captain realized pretty well what constituted state power hence GOELRO plans and electrification of all Russia plans
and so forth which was later turned by Stalin and his team into reality.
Now, Lenin was ideologically motivated and so is Putin. But he clearly has been trying to achieve different results by keeping
same people around him and doing same things. Hopefully it is changing now, but it is so much wasted time when old Vladimir was
always repeating that time is of essence and delay is like death knell. Putin imho is away too relax and even vain in some way,
hence those shirtless pictures and those on the bike. And the way he walks a la "Я Московский озорной гуляка". As you said it
looks like he is protecting those criminals who must be prosecuted and yes, many executed for what they caused.
I suspect in cases when it comes to economical development he is not picking right people for those jobs and it is his major
responsibility to assign right people and delegate power properly, not to be forgotten to reverse what constitutes the history
greatest heist and crime so called "privatization". Basically returning to more communal society minus Politburo.
There is a huge elephant in the room too. Russia demographic situation which I doubt can be addressed under current liberal
order. all states which are in liberal state of affairs fail to basically procreate hence these waves of immigrants brought into
all Western Nations. Russia cannot do it. It would be suicide which is what all Western countries are doing right now.
Russia does not need Western technology. Indeed, its military technology is superior to that in the West.
You write about Russia but have not done your homework. Russia is very dependent on Western technology and its entire high-tech
industry depends on the import of Western machinery. Without such machinery many Russian factories, including military ones, would
stall. Very important oil industry is particularly vulnerable.
Some home reading (sorry, they are in Russian, but one ought to know the language if one writes about the country).
Q: Who and what drove this cultural and political direction within the corporation?
A: There are a number of drivers behind this biased BBC culture. The most important is the fact that a small number of hardline
Zionists occupy key positions at the top and middle levels of the corporation, as well as at the shop-floor level, by which I mean
the people who select what to publish or broadcast on a daily basis and who provide editorial steer to journalists. This has been
widely publicised and has been in the public domain for some time -- see, for example, this
http://tinyurl.com/ydhjzeek , these (a)
http://tinyurl.com/y7mjtkc6 , (b)
http://tinyurl.com/y7k39vsh , and (c)
http://tinyurl.com/y3x9nktl . Also see this
http://tinyurl.com/y6ne4apn and this
http://tinyurl.com/y7l88zwl .
Q: What about political impartiality, supposedly a core BBC value?
A: Unfortunately, there are many examples of such pro- Israel hype, some blatant and others who slant the news by use of emphasis
and/or omission. For instance, there was
Sarah Montague's
interview with Israel's defence minister, Moshe Ya'alon , in March 2015, Head of Statistics' Anthony Reuben's reflection on fatalities
in Gaza ( http://tinyurl.com/ycc9p8d4 ), and the utilization of Gil Hoffman,
an Israeli army reservist and chief political correspondent for the Jerusalem Post to write for the BBC News website (
http://tinyurl.com/yanppk93 ) to mention but a few.
Q: Does the broadcaster have the means or inclination to fix itself ?
A: In my opinion, the chances of the BBC fixing itself is about zero. Apart from what I have said above, it is a cowardly, spineless
organisation. Not only does it always pursue the path of least resistance by selecting to broadcast what is least likely to upset
the Zionist lobby, but it is also deadly afraid of what the Daily Mail might say about its output. Very often, and by that
I mean almost on a daily basis, one would hear senior managers ask at the morning agenda-setting editorial meetings, "What would
the Daily Mail say about that?" Invariably, they would choose what is least likely to be picked up and criticised by the
Daily Mail. Please remember, this is a public broadcaster that is funded by taxpayers (yes, the License Fee is a tax) and
is supposed to "Educate, Inform and Entertain", not propagandise on behalf of Israel.
Q: Some of the so-called Labour 'Whistleblowers' were exposed by
Al Jazeera
as Israeli Lobby assets . Is it possible that the BBC was so bold as to interview these characters hoping that no one would notice
or was it simply a matter of a clumsy decision making? Can the BBC match the journalistic dedication of organisations such as RT
or Al Jazeera?
A: There is no chance whatsoever that the BBC would do anything approximating Al Jazeera TV's programme on Israeli infiltration
of the Labour Party ( http://tinyurl.com/yad6fslm ). The BBC is institutionally
pro-Zionist and institutionally spineless.
Q: You worked in the corporation for 35 years, did you notice a deterioration in the quality of people hired? Was there a change
in employees' attitudes and their willingness to express themselves freely and critically?
A: I worked for the BBC's English-language outlets as an editor and senior editor for 35 years. Since the early 1990s there has
been growing intolerance of criticism of editorial management decisions, even in internal forums which internal BBC propaganda claims
are meant for staff to speak freely. This applies across the board on all matters. But certainly with regard to Israel and Zionism,
any questioning of BBC impartiality would attract accusations of anti-Semitism and would certainly spell the end of one's career,
no matter how privately and confidentially such criticism is conveyed.
It wasn't always this way. See the 2002 BBC documentary Dead in the Water , documenting Israel's 1967 attack on the
USS Liberty .
It demonstrates conclusively that the attack was deliberate and even goes so far as to speculate that it was a black-flag operation
intended to justify a joint US-Israeli invasion of Egypt proper.
Personally, I'm skeptical of that -- although it's possible. I think Israel just wanted to ensure she wasn't forced to withdraw
from Sinai as she had been in 1956. After all, in the upshot, we didn't force Israel to withdraw this time -- but she may not
have been sure of that outcome. Making it appear the Egyptians had sunk the Liberty would have helped to assure we would
be in no mood to demand any such thing of Israel.
Of course, Israel muffed it. She wasn't able to sink the Liberty , and wasn't able to prevent her from sending out a
distress signal. Machine-gunning the lifeboats was of no use if the attack had to be aborted before the Liberty could be
finished off and the surviving crew members never needed to get into those lifeboats.
There's nothing special about Israel. The BBC has a policy on every contentious subject, domestic or international. A conspicuous
current example is Brexit.
@dearieme'There's nothing special about Israel. The BBC has a policy on every contentious subject, domestic or international.
A conspicuous current example is Brexit.'
Lol. This piece notwithstanding, the BBC used to give Israel a pretty hard time.
Then, at some point about fifteen years ago, it was very noticeably brought to heel and has since toed the Zionist line as
closely as it can without visible displays of submissive piddling.
The same applies to the Guardian , by the way. Many of its staff who used to report accurately on the Middle East can
now be found on Middle East Eye.
In a way, I find the Zionism of these organs a lot more nauseating than that of, say, the Wall Street Journal or Fox
News. At least with the latter, there's a kind of ideological consistency to their Zionism. With the BBC and the Guardian
, it's the rankest, most craven hypocrisy imaginable.
It demonstrates conclusively that the attack was deliberate and even goes so far as to speculate that it was a black-flag
operation intended to justify a joint US-Israeli invasion of Egypt proper.
The USS Liberty was an ELINT ship. The Israeli's attacked it to prevent the US listening in to Israeli military radio traffic,
and keep the US in the dark re Israel's operations.
This study shows us that the pro-Israel narrative has become so firmly entrenched in the American mainstream media that it
is almost impossible for news consumers to discern the truth about the situation in Israel and Palestine. This has greatly benefitted
Washington which has made it abundantly clear that it sides with Israel in this fifty year-old conflict.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) is also under the editorial control of pro-Zionists.
Since the takeover, they have a limited number of revolving topics: holocaust, anti-semitism, slavery, South African Apartheid,
Jewish diaspora feel-good stories, Black lives matter, aboriginal suffering, colonialism, Islamophobia/ why-can't-we-accept-women-in-hijabs,
the KKK, white racism, reparations for Jewish victims of history, refugees, the need to crush white identity .
You cannot go a week of even a day without a mention of one of the above. News critical of Jews or Israel is not allowed.
The BBC claims that these neo-Nazis were supporters of the Russian-speakers who do not wish to be controlled by the ZioNazis
of Kiev.
In reality, the Italian police said the precise opposite. This weaponry was destined to help the ZioNazis of Ukraine. They
were to be used against the beleaguered defenders of the Donbass region.
The lies of the BBC are constant. This is an ongoing phenomenon – MH17, Syrian Chemicals, Skripals, Iran's nuclear weapons,
Hong Kong's peaceful protesters, concentration camps for Uighurs, Global Warming, Building 7 collapsed 20 minutes after broadcast
that it had fallen etc.
my forgotten!! point was that this period of MSM upheaval and enormously rising salaries, noticeably from the 1990s onward,
coincided with ever increasing pro-Israel coverage and ever decreasing pro-Palestinian coverage. Today it has become virtually
an 'anti-semitic' 'racist' 'hate' crime to be sympathetic to Palestinians .accompanied by tearful Zionist bleatings about fearing
for their lives, lurid word pictures of nazis walking the streets and claims of massive population flight to Israel – although
the numbers of UK jews does not seem to decrease. The perception – which could be wrong but given their total dominance
of the media – is quite the opposite!
@(((They))) Live The Hungarian Foreign Minister should have asked the interviewer "Why does the US do the foot soldier work
to protect against the same invasion of muslims into Israel?" While Israel the only country allowed to shoot and kill those even
coming close to their border has the right!
@Parfois1 You raise an interesting point. I remember the outcry over the Beeb reporting on the Falklands that the Beeb was
left wing and treasonous. The BBC was giving massive air time to Labour MPs and talking heads saying that the Falklands should
be abandoned, handed to the Argentinians.
My left wing father (ex-WW2 RN submarine officer) surprised me by pointing out that whatever the rights or wrongs of UK 'owning'
the Falklands the fact was that they did and therefore in the circumstance of armed invasion the UK was obliged to defend it on
the principle of national sovereignty. Not to mention discouraging other such invasions.
I bring this up because exactly these issues have re-appeared today.
That is, the old left-wingism of BBC reportage has morphed into the new left-wingism of today: i.e. LGBT+, racism, anti-semitism,
indoctrinating homosexuality & trans issues into infants in state schools etc. Pro-EU, pro-open borders, pro-migrant, pro-Israel,
pro-war. Anti-Brexit, anti-sovereignty, anti-patriotism, anti-nationalism, anti-religion, anti traditional family all of which
the Beeb loudly deems 'fascist' [deplorable] across all its channels.
@AP East
Germany was certainly not 'dragged down to Soviet level'. It had a higher GDP/capita growth
rate than the Federal Republic every decade between 1950 and 1989, was always much richer than
the soviet union and by 1989 was the 19th highest HDI country in the world. They advanced from
40% of West Germany GDP in 1950 to 55-57% of West German GDP in 1989.
That said, yes the Soviets did massively strip the country of assets between 1945-1950, and
that probably did set it back for the entire course of its existence as a state, so its correct
to say they dragged it down somewhat. The way you present the situation is exaggerated and
misleading however. Central planning actually worked reasonably well in East Germany although
probably not as well as a mixed planning/market economy would have worked.
Unfortunately Angus Maddison doesn't have data for the separate Germanys, but East Germany
was at less than 40% of West Germany around 1990 according to the Federal Interior
Ministry.
Also as you yourself point out East Germany would have been more impacted by reparations to
the USSR.
@Greg Bacon
Agreed. Here's a place where the original author was wrong. The class struggle isn't over.
Income inequality is bigger than it's ever been. Identity politics are a misdirection used by
elites like Hitlery to divide us so we don't realize who the _real_ enemy is.
@Anatoly Karlinunemployment is not an issue for any minimally competent and conscientious worker in
countries with reasonable labor regulations.
The white working class in the US did not become incompetent and un-conscientious in one
generation. Employment at less than a living wage is not "employment."
Trump is a zionist puppet and pretends to be doing something about illegal immigration but he
has all the authority under the Constitution to close the border and stop the illegal
immigration and since the zionists want open borders , Trump is not doing jackshit about
stopping illegal immigration!
The zionists in control of the zio/US want open borders so that they can merge the zio/US
with Mexico and zio/Canada into the North American Union similar to the European Union with a
new currency the Amero similar to the Euro, and so the borders are going to remain a sieve
!
Trump and Helliary and all the politicians , be they demonrats or republicons are all
under zionist AIPAC control and the borders will remain a pathway to the destruction of
America!
@follyofwar In case you did not hear it, Philip Giraldi is informing us:
25 Senators in Secret Meeting With Jewish Leaders to Plot Strategy Against Growing Anger
Over Influence of Jewish Elites
"On June 5, 16 heads of Jewish organizations joined 25 Democratic senators in a private
meeting, which, according to the Times of Israel, is an annual event.
As with last year, the meeting was chaired by Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and included Sens.
Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Ben Cardin (D-MD), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Chris Coons (D-DE), Bob Menendez
(D-NJ), Patty Murray (D-WA), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Ed Markey (D-MA), Michael Bennet (D-CO),
Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Tom Carper (D-DE), Bob Casey (PA),
Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Mazie Hirono (D-HI),
Chris Murphy (D-CT), Patty Murray (D-CT), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Tom
Udall (D-NM), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Ron Wyden (D-OR)".
The real leader of the American Right today is not President Donald Trump. It's Tucker
Carlson.
He's the best communicator in the country, he's talking about the most important issues, and
he has a platform the Left hasn't been able to take away ( yet
). And they're getting desperate, even to the point of
doxxing his home address and
attacking his house .
Tucker is preaching unwanted truths from within Conservatism Inc. I'm sure the top
executives of the nonprofits clustered in Northern Virginia are furious he's on the air.
Certainly, any lowly staffer at any Conservatism Inc. organization who raised his arguments
would be fired.
Perhaps the most revealing exchange of the last year came a few months ago when Carlson
spoke at the Turning Point USA conference [ Betrayal:
American Conservatives and Capitalism, by Gregory Hood, American
Renaissance, January 28, 2019]. While Charlie Kirk desperately tried to convince the young
crowd to support tax cuts for Big Tech, Carlson had them
laughing at conservatism's "inflexible theories ."
Tucker Carlson is sparking the intellectual renaissance the GOP desperately needs.
Could he run for office? Some Leftists are afraid he will --
Jeet Heer suggested he might be the "competent & effective
Trump" that could come after the current president. But Carlson might be stronger where he
is.
Perhaps then Carlson should take his case to the people. [ Tucker Carlson for
president, by Damon Linker, The Week, June 7, 2019] He's certainly a
better spokesperson for Trump than Trump himself.
Tom Cotton wanted to "slash" legal immigration to 700K which is still at race replacement
levels. We need a complete moratorium or the next best thing. Cotton is also as much a
proponent of MIGA, if not more so, than Trump so an asterisk must be placed by his name.
If Trump were really a 4D chessmaster he should have asked Jeff Sessions to stay in the
Senate, where he commanded the respect of both parties, to help shepherd through
restrictionist immigration legislation. Then he should have appointed Kobach to DHS while he
had momentum right after taking office. Instead we got Kirsten Nielsen who was a supporter of
DACA.
Ted Cruz is capable of winning the Republican nomination but he doesn't have the appeal to
win working class white Democrats as Trump did. His religious fundamentalism could annoy some
independents.
incredibly citing smears from the Southern Poverty Law Center. This defamation is
arguably what dissuaded Trump from appointing him.
And we voted for Trump to fight the corrupt establishment and entrenched (((special
interests))). Not shrink from them.
I think Tucker Carlson could probably beat Trump in the Republican primaries. Tucker's
problem is that he thinks if he can keep preaching race blindness and anti-identity politics
every night and that it will eventually resonate with the Jewish led left. It won't and it
never will and identity politics is here to stay so it's time whites start engaging in it.
Tucker is also fine and dandy with the country becoming 90% non-white as long as those
non-whites adhere to race blindness and the Constitution. I'd say the early returns tell us
that they adhere to third world/non-white tribalism.
But at the end of the day none of these men will mount a racial defense of white Americans
as it's either against their religion or their ideology. Whites are being attacked as a race
so must be defended as a race and not simply as "Americans".
The demographic situation will be even worse in 2024, so unless the Republican candidate
can secure at least 65-68% of the white vote (instead of the usual 59-60%) then this is all
an exercise in futility. Then the discussion should turn to secession by any means necessary
to secure a future for white people in North America. The (((status quo))) ensures white
genocide.
"... I cannot verify whether Robert Maxwell was a Mossad agent or if association with the Mossad is an hereditary trait, but the possible conjecture that Epstein and Maxwell were running an intelligence operation makes sense of the questions surrounding this gruesome spectacle. ..."
"... This intelligence postulate raises a crucial question. If Epstein was a spy, who did he work for? Was it the Russians? I only ask because every time Tel Aviv comes up as a likely suspect American media tends to blame the Russians . ..."
"... Another possibly is that this affair is a classic MI6 operation and Epstein is actually the paedophile model of 007. ..."
"... it is difficult to believe that the Mossad acting by itself was powerful enough to procure for Epstein his remarkably lenient plea deal. ..."
"... If it was the Mossad, they likely enjoyed significant support from within the American intelligence community. ..."
"... Something is just not quite right about Epstein's 'career'. Hugh Hefner could live the 'Playboy' life into his nineties and never run afoul of the law or public opinion because his 'girls' driver's licenses said 18. ..."
"... As a practical matter, to a 40 or 50 year old man looking for some young flesh being 16 or 18 is a distinction without a difference but it makes a world of difference if your goal is blackmail but this begs another question. ..."
"... If you are Prince Andrew, a billionaire or an ex POTUS do your really need the services of Epstein and Maxwell to get laid- even by a teeny bopper? ..."
"... The biggest item missing from Gilad Atzmon's look at Jeffrey Epstein, is Epstein's historically biggest financial partner, Les Wexner ..."
"... In 1988 Jeffrey Epstein declared net worth of only USA $20 million where did he get the huge fortune after that? ..."
"... Wexner's trust bought the New York mansion Epstein lives in, which was raided the other day, Wexner turning it over to Epstein around 1995 ..."
"... On 30 June during the USA 2016 election, The Daily Beast ran a story about how the Jeffrey Epstein files, could destroy either the Clintons or Donald Trump https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-billionaire-pedophile-who-could-bring-down-donald-trump-and-hillary-clinton ..."
It is possible that Epstein is just an ordinary paedophile, a slave to his own sick depravity. But this now seems unlikely, it
leaves too many questions unresolved: why did Epstein build a sex trafficking network? Why did he seek the company of the world's
most influential characters? Why did he schlep all those royals, once and future presidents, Harvard professors and movie
stars around the world in his 'Lolita Express'? And then we get to the big question: how did he get away with it all? Back in 2007,
registered sex offender Epstein was supposed to spend the rest of his life behind bars. Instead he spent a mere thirteen months
in a VIP prison.
The Daily Beast reported yesterday that when Alexander Acosta, the former U.S. attorney in Miami who
infamously cut Epstein a non-prosecution plea deal back in 2007 , was being interviewed for the job of US labor secretary by
the Trump administration's transition team, Acosta's conduct in the Epstein affair came under scrutiny. In that interview Acosta
allegedly said, "I was told Epstein 'belonged to intelligence' and to leave it alone."
The more we look into this registered sex offender's saga, the more it appears to have the characteristics of a gargantuan espionage
operation. If so, then Epstein was running a multi-million intelligence apparatus set to accumulate dirt on some of the world's
most influential people. The walls of his Caribbean island palace were rigged with cameras, and likely for reasons other than his
personal libidinal gratification. Epstein didn't work alone. Press reports allege that Ghislaine Maxwell functioned as Epstein's
'madam.'
Multiple court filings reviewed and reported on by the Miami Herald reveal that lawyers
for one of Epstein's alleged victims claim that Maxwell helped traffic girls and women to powerful figures. The same documents report
that the alleged victims were lured into the sex ring by offers of modelling, fashion, and educational opportunities.
Ghislaine is the youngest child of the flamboyant Jewish media tycoon Robert Maxwell, who died under mysterious circumstances
in November 1991. Shortly before he died, a self-proclaimed former Mossad officer named
Ari Ben-Menashe
had approached a number of news organisations in Britain and the United States with the allegation that Maxwell was a long-time
agent for the Israeli intelligence service.
I cannot verify whether Robert Maxwell was a Mossad agent or if association with the Mossad is an hereditary trait, but the possible
conjecture that Epstein and Maxwell were running an intelligence operation makes sense of the questions surrounding this gruesome
spectacle.
This intelligence postulate raises a crucial question. If Epstein was a spy, who did he work for? Was it the Russians? I only
ask because every time Tel Aviv comes up as a likely suspect
American media tends to blame the Russians
.
Maybe Epstein was working for the Iranians, all indications are that the Trump's administration is desperate for a pretext
for a war with Iran. Another possibly is that this affair is a classic MI6 operation and Epstein is actually the paedophile model
of 007.
If the espionage conspiracy theory is correct, then the Mossad and the CIA would be the natural suspects. Yet it is difficult
to believe that the Mossad acting by itself was powerful enough to procure for Epstein his remarkably lenient plea deal.
It is almost
impossible to imagine that Acosta, acting as the federal prosecutor, would take instructions from Israel. If it was the Mossad,
they likely enjoyed significant support from within the American intelligence community. I assume that Alan Dershowitz, Epstein's
former attorney, may be able to answer some of these questions. He seems to know the details:
Could there be a connection to Starr's role in covering up the Vince Foster murder? See "Was Vince Foster's Murder PizzaGate-Related?
http://dcdave.com/article5/161213.htm . Maybe Starr is an
all-purpose Deep State fixer when it comes to pedophilia.
Gangbangers are known to be extremely stimulated by teens on the young side. Epstein sent invitations to socially acclaimed
gangbangers letting them know that dozens of young teens were going to be at his parties. Epstein's was a voyeur, his reward
was to enjoy watching the high and mighty descend into depravity. He masturbated while watching the orgy.
Epstein has been pegged for more than a decade in my books as a MOSSAD agent running a global, THE global pedo ring used
to blackmail and bribe powerful, connected people for his masters. It was NO secret.
I know that Gilad knows the VT crew, they
reported on this many years ago I think. besides which you'd have to be a retard not to have put 2 and 2 together years ago
from what was public knowledge.
Unless of course one is naive and doesn't understand the nature of 'intelligence agencies' and
their methods. Particularly MOSSAD/CIA. Circumstantial evidence alone would just about convict him.
What I am wondering is if Trump is dirty or clean. This will be hugely significant going forward. If Trump is dirty, then
Epstein is in the right place at the right time for his masters to make sure Trump dances to their tune without fail. Only remaining
queston besides who are his masters? Do they want war with Iran, or not? Guess we will know when the next false flag in the
Gulf goes off.
@Tono Bungay Sure, the 'international man of mystery' , Epstein, is the issue but the labeling of him as a paedophile by
the media is not an accident. Almost 30 years ago, Rep. Gerry Studds could stand on the floor of the House of
Representatives and defend his pouring vodka down the gullet of a 16 year old page boy before sodomizing him as 'consensual
sex'. Studds was not called a paedophile by the Washington Post or the NYTs.
Raúl Ilargi Meijer has an interesting article at his website ( https://www.theautomaticearth.com/2019/07/why-did-jeffrey-epstein-fly-back-to-the-us/
) that asks the important question of why did Epstein come back to the US knowing he was going to be indicted?
Something is just not quite right about Epstein's 'career'. Hugh Hefner could live the 'Playboy' life into his
nineties and never run afoul of the law or public opinion because his 'girls' driver's licenses said 18.
As a practical matter, to a 40 or 50 year old man looking
for some young flesh being 16 or 18 is a distinction without a difference but it makes a world of difference if your goal is
blackmail but this begs another question.
If you are Prince Andrew, a billionaire or an ex POTUS do your really need the services
of Epstein and Maxwell to get laid- even by a teeny bopper? None of this story makes much sense save for the fact that Epstein
has fallen out of favor and must have feared for his life had he stayed in Paris.
The biggest item missing from Gilad Atzmon's look at Jeffrey Epstein, is Epstein's historically biggest financial partner,
Les Wexner
Wexner the lead figure in a group of about 20 aggressive Zionist Jewish billionaires named as the 'Mega Group' in the 1990s
Wexner possibly the main funder & creator of the whole 'blackmail via under-age girls on an island' scheme
Did Les Wexner, with his fierce wish to destroy the enemies of Zionism, along with his fellow 'Mega Group' billionaires,
fund the expensive show of 'Jeffrey Epstein billionaire with private jet' all in order to create a Mossad honeypot blackmail
scheme abusing under-age girls, in order to entrap major politicians into being compelled to support Israel? To 'save &
protect Jewish lives'?
In 1988 Jeffrey Epstein declared net worth of only USA $20 million where did he get the huge fortune after that?
Wexner's trust bought the New York mansion Epstein lives in, which was raided the other day, Wexner turning it over to Epstein
around 1995
Les Wexner has himself been named as the paymaster of kidnappers of a menaced young woman, in a court filing involving Ghislaine
Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein, Alan Dershowitz etc
Dershowitz admits he had a massage at Epstein's place, tho by an 'older Russian woman' and Dersh 'kept his underwear on'
maybe this 'Russian' a girl who looked older with all her make-up?
In the 2008 'deal' after Epstein's 2007 indictment, ultra-Zionist Alan Dershowitz was a leading lawyer brokering that deal
Now Dershowitz seems to have sabotaged Epstein, Dershowitz arguing in court that Epstein files should be unsealed and made
public Dershowitz won that battle in a US federal appeals court 2 July, 4 days before Epstein was arrested
Dershowitz claimed he was trying to defend himself but that seems silly Epstein files cannot 'prove a negative' that Dershowitz
never raped children, there can only be a lack of evidence and files show Dershowitz deeply connected with Epstein
Daily Beast is the media leading the charge against Epstein now with 'insider scoops' from prosecutors
Daily Beast was founded in 2008 by Jewish media kingpin Barry Diller, & Tina Brown 'who has Jewish grand-father'
The 'prosecution' of Jeffrey Epstein is ... involving prosecutors connected to both Trumps & Clintons
Lead prosecutor of Epstein is Jewish Geoffrey Berman, law partner of Rudy Giuliani 'Mr 9-11' who is now Donald Trump's top
personal lawyer
Assisting Berman, is Maurene Comey, daughter of Hillary ally & former FBI Director James Comey, fired by Trump, Maurene Comey
married into the Zionist Issacharoff family, her new father-in-law having taught at Tel Aviv University
Wikipedia, run by CIA-Mossad ex-pornographer Jimmy Wales, close friend of Israeli presidents, has edited Epstein's biography
to delete the USA Democrats connected with Epstein and to delete references Epstein is Jewish
Epstein made the same claim as Jimmy Wales, of getting their mysterious money by 'foreign currency trading', which crushes
most people who try to do it it seems this is a cover story for getting political money from Jewish sources
At the age of 20, university drop-out Jeffrey Epstein, was hired to teach maths & physics to teen-age girls & boys, at the
prestigious private Dalton School in Manhattan, where he worked from 1973-75
The headmaster who hired Epstein, was Jewish convert to Christianity Donald Barr (1921-2004), who is the father of Donald
Trump's current Attorney General William Barr (born 1950) who thus has Jewish ancestral heritage
@Brabantian hind all these accusations
by the woman who has accused Wexner of having sex with her. Her unpublished manuscript for a book did not mention Dershowitz,
he was a very late addition. She also originally claimed to have been 15 when she started work with Epstein but now acknowledges
she was 17.
No one in their right mind is going to involve their lawyer or allow his to have knowledge of the very crimes that the lawyer
is defending him on. First of all, you cannot expect a lawyer to stand up police pressure. Secondly, lawyers are far more effective
if they believe their client is innocent.
@Brabantian llionaires named as the 'Mega
Group' in the 1990s Wexner possibly the main funder & creator of the whole 'blackmail via under-age girls on an island' scheme
This works better than either the 'jus' a feller who liked 'em young' or the 'Mossad agent' extremes.
Epstein, Wexner, et al would be like Sheldon Adelson; 'mighty warriors for Yahweh.' They're taking their money and talents
and using them to fight the good fight for Israel.
Certainly Israel's happy to benefit -- and no doubt she cooperates fully -- but she's not really the driving engine of this
scheme.
I'm not convinced of this myself -- but it makes a better working hypothesis than anything else I've read yet.
' If you are Prince Andrew, a billionaire or an ex POTUS do your really need the services of Epstein and Maxwell to get
laid- even by a teeny bopper? '
If you think through the practical scenarios, the answer might be 'yeah, you do.'
that is, unless you shortly want to read all the details about your weekend together with your love-toy in the National
Enquirer.
Lawyers need brains, but also to have a lot of the actor about them to be good in court. They suspend their disbelief, and
don't expect the fourth wall to be broken. Even after an acquittal, it is considered very bad form for the client to tell the
lawyer he was guilty.
Supposing they are found guilty, there is then less reason than before the trial to make even implicit admissions, because
they have one last hope of a successful appeal. So no one is going to give their their lawyer any reason to think they are guilty.
Prison is full of innocent convicts.
@Colin Wright liked older women, as with
Sarah Ferguson (he went gay for a while after that) and Koo Stark. Before that he astounded the the Queen by asking out a friend
of hers who was decades older than him.
Anyway the woman fabricating all these these allegations was at least 17 years old at the time. He could have had young looking
18 or 19 year olds as a single man if that was his thing. He could have married a 16 year old if he wanted. Andrew official
position at the time was to drum up business for UK exporters, so he hung out with moneyed Wall Street figures. The allegation
against him is bullcrap.
@Sean beaten 5-3 by Portugal in the World
Cup of 1966 after leading 3-0. This occurred on July 23rd, 1966, 5 days after my fifteenth birthday. (53 years ago.)
I would never confuse that with hearing about the first man walking on the moon on July 20th 1969, 2 days after my eighteenth.
Even if her memory is not as good as mine, she would surely know how old she was and what grade she was in high school when
she started working at Mar-A-Lago, and even if she didn't, making legal depositions is not the same as a casual conversation
after a few drinks when a slip of the tongue might give the wrong year.
You have had a real field day, more like a feast on Epstein for your diet of champions: SCAPEGOATING JEWS.
How delicious it must be for you to have someone so loathed a defense is non existent.
A billionaire pedophile with secret money. Check every box. So easy my poodles could write this feast of Scapegoat crap.
The true test of a lazy mind to figure 3 articles about this guy. Have you done Kabbalah numerology to decipher the meaning
of his name in the Torah, or did they find the protocols amongst his belongings, or secret nuclear codes with notes to take
over the world? You are a true mental midget Gilad, to weaponize this guy among the Jew hating crowd. But that is your true
calling article after article pin the tail on the Jewish scapegoat artist, feed the frenzy.
I leave you with this article by Hirshi Ali, talking about the white elephant in the room. Baked into the DNA of muslims. Interesting
how she points out the myth of the Jews buying power, vs the Islamist. https://www.wsj.com/articles/can-ilhan-omar-overcome-her-prejudice-11562970265
The allegation that Jewish or Zionist money controls Congress is nonsensical. The Center for Responsive Politics estimates
that the Israeli government has spent $34 million on lobbying in Washington since 2017. The Saudis and Qataris spent a combined
$51 million during the same period. If we include foreign nongovernmental organizations, the pro-Israel lobbying figure
rises to $63 million -- less than the $68 million spent lobbying for Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
Hirsi Ali
Islamists have understood well how to couple Muslim anti-Semitism with the American left's vague notion of "social justice."
They have succeeded in couching their agenda in the progressive framework of the oppressed versus the oppressor. Identity
politics and victimhood culture also provide Islamists with the vocabulary to deflect their critics with accusations of
"Islamophobia," "white privilege" and "insensitivity." A perfect illustration was the way Ms. Omar and her allies were able
to turn a House resolution condemning her anti-Semitism into a garbled "intersectional" rant in which Muslims emerged as
the most vulnerable minority in the league table of victimhood.
@Sean depressing that he spent his time
securing acquittals for people who not only were guilty, but were usually very bad actors to boot. After all, first-time offenders
can usually do alright with the public defender. By the time anyone hired Spencer, they were usually repeat offenders, had done
something horrific again , and were looking at some serious time unless the family threw money into the kitty and paid
Spencer's fee.
The other lawyer was a guy who'd gone back to teaching high school after his kids were grown up -- he thought other lawyers
sucked. Thinking back over his career, he could think of one client he'd had who was convicted that he genuinely thought
was innocent.
There is no defense of him. You never comprehend what I wrote. My point being, the only reason he is being written about
is that he is Jewish. So you can imprint all your Jewphobia on to him.
IE: All Jewish men are pedophiles. Its called racism and scapegoating, you are always so slow to understand.
My fault is with Gilad posting every criminal Jew he can get his hands on. "look, look a criminal Jew."
No, Epstein is not being written about because he is Jewish. He is being written about because he variously seduced and raped
girls as young as thirteen and trafficked in them to the rich and famous, including almost certainly a former US president.
It's all incredibly corrupt and lurid, including suborned courts and government officials, hints of involvement on the part
of a member of the British Royal family, a personal 737 equipped with a bed, and a private island.
This guy would be a story no matter what he was. Face it. If the Jewish angle is having any impact at all, it's probably
making some people back off.
@Colin Wright l their mothers that he
had duped them (he paid out tens of millions in compensation as part of the deal). He could have had 18 year olds galore, paid
them properly, and even if they went to the press he could say. "So What!"
Instead he is a convicted sex offender who had to agree to register as such to get his plea deal, now any charge against
him will be a slam dunk. And the trafficking a 14 year old charge is going to get him life in prison, and because of the previous
deal the judge will specify a real prison, which is somewhere Epstein will have to be isolated and soon wish himself dead.
And the focus will stay on Epstein so that all the Elites who were sexually assaulting 11-16 year old girls and boys on that
island will remain covered up. So far, they have only mentioned the same names they have already mentioned the first time this
story broke; Clinton, Prince Andrew, and a couple others.
So, it is likely that much more powerful people who were involved will be protected from indictment.
Because Jewsus loves all the children of the world, red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in his sight.
We all bleed red, man! "He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth." (Acts 17:26)
@Sean hey'd have a hell of a time if they
started trying to make sure he never got drunk and fired off his assault rifle in the camp ground.
My point here is that like the N.R.A., Israel can command the allegiance of quite an army of supporters. It's not, however,
a very disciplined army, and Israel can't actually keep many of these troops from acting like idiots if they feel like acting
like idiots. They're allies, actually; not servants. Israel goes to them, and says 'would you,' or they come to Israel and say
'I could' -- but then they go off on their own and have that hot little shiksa who wouldn't even look at them when they
were a pimply adolescent. There's nothing Israel can do about that.
A) As part of a sophisticated secret service operation for compromising VIPs, Epstein became a self confessed child molester
who pled guilty to specimen charges. He then helpfully left thousands of photos of victims he had not faced charges about strewn
around his properties, so that investigators could easily frame new charges that would–will–put him in prison for the rest of
his life.
B) Epstein got his dick caught in his zipper. No one can understand how a financial conjurer of considerable personal charm
could have been so stupid, so it is being assumed that there was much more to it than other sex scandals like Weinstein, Luis
K . But the accounts of Epstein's victims are in fact very similar to the aforementioned cases. Epstein liked mastubating in
front of the girls as much as if not rather more rather than actually having sex with them. The assertion that Epstein 'belonged
to intelligence' and the prosecutor was told to "to leave it alone" (although Epstein was sent to prison amid huge publicity)
came from the prosecutor himself, Acosta, who was bullshitting.
"... The McCarthyite nature of this process of misrepresentation and guilt by association was underscored when Jewish Voice for Labour, a group of Jewish party members who have defended Corbyn against the anti-semitism smears, voiced their support for Williamson. Jon Lansman, a founder of the Momentum group originally close to Corbyn, turned on the JVL calling them "part of the problem and not part of the solution to antisemitism in the Labour Party". In an additional, ugly but increasingly normalised remark, he added: "Neither the vast majority of individual members of JVL nor the organisation itself can really be said to be part of the Jewish community." ..."
"... In this febrile atmosphere, Corbyn's allies have been required to confess that the party is institutionally anti-semitic, to distance themselves from Corbyn and often to submit to anti-semitism training. To do otherwise, to deny the accusation is, as in the Salem witch-hunts, treated as proof of guilt ..."
"... These attacks have transformed the whole discursive landscape on Israel, the Palestinians, Zionism and anti-semitism in ways unimaginable 20 years ago, when I first started reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Then the claim that anti-Zionism -- opposition to Israel as a state privileging Jews over non-Jews -- was the same as anti-semitism sounded patently ridiculous. It was an idea promoted only by the most unhinged apologists for Israel ..."
"... To criticise Israel is to attack them as Jews, and by implication to attack all Jews. And therefore any Jew dissenting from this consensus, any Jew identifying as anti-Zionist, any Jew in Labour who supports Corbyn -- and there are many, even if they are largely ignored -- are denounced, in line with Lansman, as the "wrong kind of Jews". It may be absurd logic, but such ideas are now so commonplace as to be unremarkable. ..."
"... As long as we colluded in the manufactured consensus of western societies, the system operated without challenge or meaningful dissent. A deeply ideological system destroying the planet was treated as if it was natural, immutable, the summit of human progress, the end of history. Those times are over. Accidents like Corbyn will happen more frequently, as will extreme climate events and economic crises. ..."
"... The power structures in place to prevent such accidents will by necessity grow more ham-fisted, more belligerent, less concealed to get their way. And we might finally understand that a system designed to pacify us while a few grow rich at the expense of our children's future and our own does not have to continue. That we can raise our voices and loudly say: "No!" ..."
Corbyn was extremely unusual in many ways as the leader of a western party within sight of
power. Personally he was self-effacing and lived modestly. Ideologically he was resolutely
against the thrust of four decades of a turbo-charged neoliberal capitalism unleashed by
Thatcher and Reagan in the early 1980s; and he opposed foreign wars for empire, fashionable
"humanitarian interventions" whose real goal was to attack other sovereign states either to
control their resources, usually oil, or line the pockets of the military-industrial
complex.
It was difficult to attack Corbyn directly for these positions. There was the danger that
they might prove popular with voters. But Corbyn was seen to have an Achilles' heel. He was a
life-long anti-racism activist and well known for his support for the rights of the
long-suffering Palestinians. The political and media establishments quickly learnt that they
could recharacterise his support for the Palestinians and criticism of Israel as anti-semitism.
He was soon being presented as a leader happy to preside over an "institutionally" anti-semitic
party.
Under pressure of these attacks, Labour was forced to adopt a new and highly controversial
definition of anti-semitism -- one rejected by leading
jurists and later
repudiated by the lawyer who devised it -- that expressly conflates criticism of Israel,
and anti-Zionism, with Jew hatred. One by one Corbyn's few ideological allies in the party --
those outside the Blairite consensus -- have been picked off as anti-semites. They have either
fallen foul of this conflation or, as with Labour MP Chris Williamson, they have been tarred
and feathered for trying to defend Labour's record against the accusations of a supposed
endemic anti-semitism in its ranks.
The bad faith of the anti-semitism smears were particularly clear in relation to Williamson.
The comment that plunged him into so much trouble -- now leading twice to his suspension -- was
videoed. In it he can be heard calling anti-semitism a "scourge" that must be confronted. But
also, in line with all
evidence , Williamson denied that Labour had any particular anti-semitism problem. In part
he blamed the party for being too ready to concede unwarranted ground to critics, further
stoking the attacks and smears. He noted that Labour had been "demonised as a racist, bigoted
party", adding: "Our party's response has been partly responsible for that because in my
opinion we've backed off far too much, we have given too much ground, we've been too
apologetic."
The Guardian has been typical in mischaracterising Williamson's remarks not once but each
time it has covered developments in his case. Every Guardian
report has stated, against the audible evidence, that Williamson said Labour was "too
apologetic about anti-semitism". In short, the Guardian and the rest of the media have
insinuated that Williamson approves of anti-semitism. But what he actually said was that Labour
was "too apologetic" when dealing with unfair or unreasonable allegations of anti-semitism,
that it had too willingly accepted the unfounded premise of its critics that the party condoned
racism.
Like the Salem witch-hunts
The McCarthyite nature of this process of misrepresentation and guilt by association was
underscored when Jewish Voice for Labour, a group of Jewish party members who have defended
Corbyn against the anti-semitism smears, voiced their support for Williamson. Jon Lansman, a
founder of the Momentum group originally close to Corbyn, turned on the JVL
calling them "part of the problem and not part of the solution to antisemitism in the
Labour Party". In an additional, ugly but increasingly normalised remark, he added: "Neither
the vast majority of individual members of JVL nor the organisation itself can really be said
to be part of the Jewish community."
In this febrile atmosphere, Corbyn's allies have been required to confess that the party
is institutionally anti-semitic, to distance themselves from Corbyn and often to submit to
anti-semitism training. To do otherwise, to deny the accusation is, as in the Salem
witch-hunts, treated as proof of guilt .
The anti-semitism claims have been regurgitated almost daily across the narrow corporate
media "spectrum", even though they are unsupported by any
actual evidence of an anti-semitism problem in Labour beyond a marginal one representative
of wider British society. The allegations have reached such fever-pitch, stoked into a hysteria
by the media, that the party is now under
investigation by the Equality and Human Rights Commission -- the only party apart from the
neo-Nazi British National Party ever to face such an investigation.
These attacks have transformed the whole discursive landscape on Israel, the
Palestinians, Zionism and anti-semitism in ways unimaginable 20 years ago, when I first started
reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Then the claim that anti-Zionism -- opposition
to Israel as a state privileging Jews over non-Jews -- was the same as anti-semitism sounded
patently ridiculous. It was an idea promoted only by the most unhinged apologists for
Israel .
Now, however, we have leading liberal commentators such as the Guardian's Jonathan Freedland
claiming not only that Israel is integral to their Jewish identity but that they speak for
all other Jews in making such an identification. To criticise Israel is to attack them as
Jews, and by implication to attack all Jews. And therefore any Jew dissenting from this
consensus, any Jew identifying as anti-Zionist, any Jew in Labour who supports Corbyn -- and
there are many, even if they are largely ignored -- are denounced, in line with Lansman, as the
"wrong kind of Jews". It may be absurd logic, but such ideas are now so commonplace as to be
unremarkable.
In fact, the weaponisation of Anti-semitism against Corbyn has become so normal that, even
while I was writing this post, a new nadir was reached. Jeremy Hunt, the foreign secretary who
hopes to defeat Boris Johnson in the upcoming Tory leadership race, as good as
accused Corbyn of being a new Hitler, a man who as prime minister might allow Jews to be
exterminated, just as occurred in the Nazi death camps.
Last month a private conversation concerning Corbyn between the US secretary of state, Mike
Pompeo, and the heads of a handful of rightwing American Jewish organisations was leaked.
Contrary to the refrain of the UK corporate media that Corbyn is so absurd a figure that he
could never win an election, the fear expressed on both sides of that Washington conversation
was that the Labour leader might soon become Britain's prime minister.
Framing Corbyn yet again as an anti-semite, a US Jewish leader could be heard asking Pompeo
if he would be "willing to work with us to take on actions if life becomes very difficult for
Jews in the UK". Pompeo
responded that it was possible "Mr Corbyn manages to run the gauntlet and get elected" -- a
telling phrase that attracted remarkably little attention, as did the story itself, given that
it revealed one of the most senior Trump administration officials explicitly talking about
meddling directly in the outcome of a UK election.
Here is the dictionary definition of "run the gauntlet": to take part in a form of corporal
punishment in which the party judged guilty is forced to run between two rows of soldiers, who
strike out and attack him.
So Pompeo was suggesting that there already is a gauntlet -- systematic and organised blows
and strikes against Corbyn -- that he is being made to run through. In fact, "running the
gauntlet" precisely describes the experience Corbyn has faced since he was elected Labour
leader -- from the corporate media, from the dominant Blairite faction of his own party, from
rightwing, pro-Israel Jewish organisations like the Board of Deputies, and from anonymous
generals and senior civil servants.
'We cheated, we stole'
Pompeo continued: "You should know, we won't wait for him to do those things to begin to
push back. We will do our level best. It's too risky and too important and too hard once it's
already happened."
So, Washington's view is that action must be taken before Corbyn reaches a position
of power. To avoid any danger he might become the UK's next prime minister, the US will do its
"level best" to "push back". Assuming that this hasn't suddenly become the US administration's
priority, how much time does the US think it has before Corbyn might win power? How close is a
UK election?
As everyone in Washington is only too keenly aware, a UK election has been a distinct
possiblity since the Conservatives set up a minority goverment two years ago with the help of
fickle, hardline Ulster loyalists. Elections have been looming ever since, as the UK ruling
party has torn itself apart over Brexit, its MPs regularly defeating their own leader, prime
minister Theresa May, in parliamentary votes.
So if Pompeo is saying, as he appears to be, that the US will do whatever it can to make
sure Corbyn doesn't win an election well before that election takes place, it means the US is
already deeply mired in anti-Corbyn activity. Pompeo is not only saying that the US is ready to
meddle in the UK's election, which is bad enough; he is hinting that it is already meddling in
UK politics to make sure the will of the British people does not bring to power the wrong
leader.
Remember that Pompeo, a former CIA director, once effectively America's spy chief, was
unusually frank about what his agency got up to when he was in charge. He observed : "I was the CIA director. We
lied, we cheated, we stole. It's -- it was like -- we had entire training courses."
One would have to be remarkably naive to think that Pompeo changed the CIA's culture during
his short tenure. He simply became the figurehead of the world's most powerful spying outfit,
one that had spent decades developing the principles of US exceptionalism, that had lied its
way to recent wars in Iraq and Libya, as it had done earlier in Vietnam and in justifying the
nuclear bombing of Hiroshima, and much more. Black ops and psyops were not invented by Pompeo.
They have long been a mainstay of US foreign policy.
An eroding consensus
It takes a determined refusal to join the dots not to see a clear pattern here.
Brand was right that the system is rigged, that our political and media elites are captured,
and that the power structure of our societies will defend itself by all means possible, "fair
or foul". Corbyn is far from alone in this treatment. The system is similarly rigged to stop a
democratic socialist like Bernie Sanders -- though not a rich businessman like Donald Trump --
winning the nomination for the US presidential race. It is also rigged to silence real
journalists like Julian Assange who are trying to overturn the access journalism prized by the
corporate media -- with its reliance on official sources and insiders for stories -- to divulge
the secrets of the national security states we live in.
There is a conspiracy at work here, though it is not of the kind lampooned by critics: a
small cabal of the rich secretly pullng the strings of our societies. The conspiracy operates
at an institutional level, one that has evolved over time to create structures and refine and
entrench values that keep power and wealth in the hands of the few. In that sense we are all
part of the conspiracy. It is a conspiracy that embraces us every time we unquestioningly
accept the "consensual" narratives laid out for us by our education systems, politicians and
media. Our minds have been occupied with myths, fears and narratives that turned us into the
turkeys that keep voting for Christmas.
That system is not impregnable, however. The consensus so carefully constructed over many
decades is rapidly breaking down as the power structure that underpins it is forced to grapple
with real-world problems it is entirely unsuited to resolve, such as the gradual collapse of
western economies premised on infinite growth and a climate that is fighting back against our
insatiable appetite for the planet's resources.
As long as we colluded in the manufactured consensus of western societies, the system
operated without challenge or meaningful dissent. A deeply ideological system destroying the
planet was treated as if it was natural, immutable, the summit of human progress, the end of
history. Those times are over. Accidents like Corbyn will happen more frequently, as will
extreme climate events and economic crises.
The power structures in place to prevent such accidents will by necessity grow more
ham-fisted, more belligerent, less concealed to get their way. And we might finally understand
that a system designed to pacify us while a few grow rich at the expense of our children's
future and our own does not have to continue. That we can raise our voices and loudly say:
"No!"
The initial attacks on Corbyn were for being poorly dressed, sexist, unstatesmanlike, a
national security threat, a Communist spy – relentless, unsubstantiated smears the
like of which no other party leader had ever faced. But over time the allegations became
even more outrageously propagandistic as the campaign to undermine him not only failed but
backfired – not least, because Labour membership rocketed under Corbyn to make the
party the largest in Europe.
There was a term for that — Borking. But that was a much milder thing at its
inception. So let’s just say that Corbyn is getting the Full Trumping. The latest smear
is that JC is battling senior dementia, not far away from the 25th Amendment crowd, including
a non-licenced Yale mental health “expert” who keeps pushing the case for
Trump’s insanity in the MSM.
Humble nsa has worked in the UK (nord zee oil) and spent considerable time in working
class pubs when onshore. The vast majority of decent working class people in the UK are
closeted jew haters, and for good reason. So chances are the jew smear campaign will get
Corbyn elected PM in a three way race. Of course, he will eventually prove to be a
disappointment….but it will be fun seeing the tribe and their legions of useful idiots
squirm for awhile.
antisemitism = all Arabs, Muslims and Palestinians fully excluded.
+ all european khazars in.
The word itself is devoid of meaning, rendered useless and become a full blown
‘stopper’ to end discussions about the Apartheid State and anything else to do
with criticism of the state and the squatters in Occupied Palestine.
Another accident might yet see Corbyn as Prime Minister. If it is the System – in
the shape of Theresa May and sundry Conservative MPs doing their best to nullify the result
of the 2016 referendum – that has been resisting Brexit, then that same system is
responsible for the return of Nigel Farage to the fray. His new Brexit Party could split the
right-wing vote and allow Labour in by default.
I sympathise with Corbyn on the Palestine issue, but I am old enough and unlucky enough to
have lived through the comparatively centrist Labour administrations of the 1970s and view
with trepidation the prospect of John McDonnell, an avowed Maoist, as finance minister.
Corbyn is surrounded by equally sinister and unpleasant people: he would likely be replaced
soon after his elevation, and then God help the people of Britain.
This prospect is evidently alarming a number of Labour’s core voters, who seem to be
defecting to the previously somnolent Liberal Democrat party, so maybe the left-wing vote
will be split as well. The Brexit Party is also set to mop up a lot of working-class Labour
voters, especially in the north of England, who are viscerally opposed to the EU.
Interesting times ahead, in the very best Chinese and proverbial sense of that term.
The plutocrats who are served the intelligence agencies such as the FBI, MI5. CIA and MI6
hate socialist leaders such as Maduro and the UK’s former Prime Minister Harold Wilson
, if they can’t control them they will be removed by an engineered coup , a scandal or
an early death , in the future Corbyn should avoid the hotel toothpaste .
I think very few British people have Jewish ancestry. I never met a Jewish person until I
was in my 30s and he was a secular Jew – bacon eater, etc. Among ordinary people
outside London there was no antisemitism because most people didn’t know any Jewish
people. But this Israeli embassy organised campaign against Corbyn is waking people up to the
disproportionate influence of Jews in the UK. In The Times where the columnists are mainly
Jewish there is an Israeli embassy planted story nearly every day.
"... With promises to "drain the swamp!" still ringing in our ears, we have watched Trump appoint nothing but Goldman banksters, Soros stooges, neocon war hawks and police state zealots to head his cabinet. ..."
The United States believes that it is so invincible, exceptional and so frightening that no
one would ever dare to protest, let alone defend its people against constant humiliation,
economic embargos and military threats.
It used to be like this for quite some time. In the past, the West used to bully the world
before and after each well-planned assault. Also, well-crafted propaganda used to be
applied.
It was declared that things are done 'legally' and rationally. There were certain stages to
colonialist and imperialist attacks: "define your goals", "identify your victim", "plan",
"brainwash your own citizens and people all over the world", and then, only then, "bomb some
unfortunate country back to the stone ages".
Now, things are slightly different. "The leader of the free world" wakes up in the middle of
the night, and he tweets. What comes from his computer, tablet or phone, (or whatever he uses),
is spontaneous, unpolished and incredibly dangerous. Similar in substance to what made him wake
up in the middle of the night, in a first place.
He does not seem to plan; he shoots off from the hip. Today, as I am writing this essay, he
has declared that he has "five strategies for Venezuela". Go figure. Bravo!
Earlier, as he was about to land outside London, he embarked on insulting the Mayor of the
British capital, calling him names. A bit like we used to do to each other, when we were five
years old, in the neighborhood playground.
He has been regularly offending Mexico, and of course Iran, China and Russia.
He basically tells the leader of the most populous nation on earth -- China -- to "be
there", at the G20 Summit, or else.
Whenever he and his lieutenants are in the mood, they get busy antagonizing everyone: Cuba
and Nicaragua, DPRK and Venezuela, Bolivia and Syria.
Of course, the main "culprits" are always the 'biggest bad boys', Russia and China.
Anyone, at any time, could easily land on the proverbial hit list of President Trump, and
hawks of his United States of A. It could be India (which, during 'good submissive times' is
called by the West the "biggest democracy", or perhaps Turkey (militarily the second mightiest
NATO country). The world had been converted into an entity which appears to be run by a
bloodthirsty and unpredictable dictatorship. The world is an entity where everyone is
terrified of being purged, imprisoned, starved to death, or directly attacked, even
liquidated.
It was always like this, at least in the modern history of the planet. Colonialism,
neo-colonialism, imperialism: they have many different faces but one common root. Root that has
been often hidden deep under the surface.
But this time it is all in the open, raw and brutally honest.
Both George W. Bush and Donald Trump have one thing in common: they are honest.
Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama were both 'suave' presidents. They were loved in Europe, as
they knew how to speak politely, how to dine elegantly, and how to commit mass murder in a
'rational, righteous way'; 'old-fashioned, European-style'.
The brutal, vulgar ways of W. Bush and Donald Trump, have been consistently shocking all
those individuals who are pleased when things are done 'stylishly' and 'politically correctly';
be it a coup or the starvation to death of millions through embargos. Or be it invasions or
'smart' bombing (practically, 'smart' meaning very far from the inquisitive eyes).
... ... ...
[First published by NEO -- New Eastern Outlook]
Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has
covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Four of his latest books are
In case Westerners have not realized it, yet -- people all over the world are
indignant.
Absolutely Mr. Vltchek. No doubt about the widespread indignation against the US (and her
puppeteer, Israel) .You forgot to mention that the same people all over the world have caved
in to US imperial threats and blackmail . They are essentially powerless. Imperialism is also
about emasculating nations -- it is about dis-empowerment.
The US State Department's key personnel and its policies are of the Nuland ilk.
Trump is their puppet.
First part is true, second part is wrong, although they sure would like to have him under
their thump. State was hostile to Trump from day one. Besides, the Nulands aren't that high
on the totem pole, they're firmly subordinate to the Clinton/Democrat axis.
The author is correct, any small incident (and there are many potential flashpoints) could
trigger world war three: from the Artic to the Balkans, Syria to the South China Sea. Of
great empires: they rise, they hold sway, they die. That's the pattern of history. It is
always important to remember what comes before a fall. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
I would say we ought to be making some changes to US policy that our friends and opponents
won't like. In that their public sentiments of angst, disgust, recriminations would carry
much weight -- they are certainly entitled to the their view.
1. reconsidering NATO and the size and number of US bases in Europe on the US dime
2. ensuring the security of US borders
3. reinvesting in the US
4. fewer employment of foreigners
and a host of other considerations, should our international neighbors pitch a conniption
fit -- well, fine and dandy they have that right -- but all things US must first support US
citizens.
Second,
Whether the president should be engaging these personal attacks via twitter is another
matter.
When I was in high school we had a bully, always taking kids lunch money, punching them,
throwing their books in the trash, calling their mothers sexual names and so on. He had two
cohorts who did the same using him as their muscle to intimidate and beat on the weak. This
went on for some time and finally became unbearable. One day while he was on a lower stair
someone pushed a sharpened pencil into his neck. The poor fellow fell in shock and other
students took the opportunity to savagely kick and stomp him in his head, groin and about his
body. One of his associates later got a rock in his head sending him to the hospital for 10
stitches.
This is what happens when folks get bullied and the "victims" arrive at the point where
they no longer care what happens to them. On an international scale the bully is the USA with
associates like the UK and France. We have already seen little victims give the bully a
bloody nose. Vietnam, (the last US troops fled from the embassy roof) Iraq and Afghanistan
come to mind. North Korea thumbs its nose at the goon. Venezuela and Iran are defiant and the
thug, for all its rhetoric is afraid to resort to physical violence. However bigger boys
China and Russia have been targeted and have become players.
However it is always the small guys who retaliate feeling that that they have lost all
dignity and have nothing more to lose.
This article is right on. It is only a matter of time before the US gets another
thrashing.
Brace yourselves mothers and fathers. Its your sons who will come home maimed, mentally
unstable or dead (the lucky ones) for scum draft dodging politicians who never learn and who
send youth to bleed for their illusions of grandeur.
@EliteCommInc. 'll bet a big majority of Europeans would be indifferent at worst to
withdrawal of our troops.
Some president or candidate would be smart to say, "Let's close bases abroad and
immediately use the money here at home to put Americans back to work." Take the money saved
from closing bases and ending the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq and use it to build or
repair our crumbling infrastructure: bridges, roads, sidewalks, public hospitals, and public
schools. I'd like high-speed rail and an extensive electric vehicle charging network at least
along the coasts and in dense Regions elsewhere. We could do all of it for the amounts we are
squandering abroad, without borrowing further or raising taxes.
I have no idea if said war is coming. If history is any indication, there will most likely
be another war. I am dubious however, that said war will end human existence.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -
"Its your sons who will come home maimed, mentally unstable or dead (the lucky ones) for
scum draft dodging politicians who never learn and who send youth to bleed for their
illusions of grandeur."
@Markster dy bags don't make the rulers lose any sleep. So far, they think the
continental USA is impregnable. We'll maybe see a skyscraper or two fall down, lose a few
thousand people, easily forgotten.
But what would really make the rulers think is losing a few cities via firestorms, or
millions of deaths in a few weeks due to plagues, or a breakdown of the transport or
electrical infrastructure, causing death and destruction on a huge scale.
With a little ingenuity and not too much money, some of these things can be made to
happen. And if the USA continues to be, not the policeman of the world but the abusive
drunken boyfriend, they will happen.
I agree. One US drill instructor told me the quality of recruits is so poor its enough to
make a man weep. The majority are mentally and physically deficient but quotas have to be
met. If you can count to two and can lift a fork to your mouth you could be the next great
general.
Instructors are also not allowed to holler at them or hit them and have to be respectful
and not get spittle in their faces or call them, their mothers and sisters names. Many cry
and breakdown in basic training and have to be given training on how to get through basic
training.
Many have served in Iraq, not seen any action having been in the support and supply areas
and yet come back to the States as cuckoo as ever.
I dont know how they will hold up in a conflict but your point is well taken. The parents
whether together or not never laid a solid foundation in their upbringing and you cannot make
a silk purse from a pig's arse !
@Twodees Partain s you apparently jumped to conclusions and personal insults rather than
reading it.
Do you really think that anyone who has fought rough, personal, political battles for
years or decades to become a national leader is so thin skinned they would overreact to
Twitter?
Your assertion is simply wrong. There is zero (0.0000%) tweet danger. National leaders are
not going to overreact to Tweets.
In fact, many of them have problems with their own local media. Those leaders are probably
taking notes on TRUMP's highly successful "Roll the Extremist Media" technique to see
if there is anything they can work into their own repertoire.
In case Westerners have not realized it, yet -- people all over the world are indignant.
I talk to Libyans, Afghans, Iraqis, Venezuelans, Cubans, Iranians: they hate what comes
from Washington; hate it with passion. They know that what is being done to them is
terrorism, thuggery. But for now, they do not know how to defend themselves. Not yet, but
they are thinking.
Quite a few Americans are indignant too. Unfortunately they pay more attention to his
idiot ranting then what he actually does ..which is even worse than what he says.
Perhaps more striking are the public's feelings about the things Trump says: sizable
majorities say Trump's comments often or sometimes make them feel concerned (76%), confused
(70%), embarrassed (69%) and exhausted (67%). By contrast, fewer have positive reactions to
Trump's rhetoric, though 54% say they at least sometimes feel entertained by what he
says.
@Markster > Some people believe that could never happen again, some Jews believe there
could never be a holocaust in America , some think the US would never again imprison a ethnic
group in our country like we did the Japanese during WWII, some believe we would never again
drop a atomic bomb on a city of civilians like Truman did.
They would be wrong. We like to believe America and its people are an exception but we are
not.
No matter what country there will be enough of the wrong kind of people that the wrong
kind of leaders can get them possessed with fantasies and delusions of their power and get
them to cheer on senseless destruction including, unknowingly, their own.
" Someone may say: The West is killing millions every year, anyway. Better to fight
it, in order to stop it, once and for all. Others may join. And then, then what? Will Trump
give orders to kill tens of millions, just to maintain control over the world..?"
Extreme exaggerations due to extreme paranoia. Show me the millions the West is killing
every year. Trump refrained from retalliating against Iran because 150 people could be
killed, and you say he might be prepared to kill tens of millions ?
What Trump really is engaged in is not global mass murder but Big Mouth Diplomacy. You may
regret that, but that is all there is. That is his "art of the deal".
"Some president or candidate would be smart to say, "Let's close bases abroad and
immediately use the money here at home to put Americans back to work."
I would agree that we need to reconsider our base deployments. I am not as clear about
closing all of them outright. But we do agree that we need to calculate our exposure. And
while this recalculation is often turned into an "isolation" accusation, recalculating, even
if we opted to close those installations does not equate to advocating isolationism,
Laugh, though some time in isolation, minding our own business and dealing with ourselves,
might not be a bad idea for a time.
Trump refrained from retalliating against Iran because 150 people could be killed, and
you say he might be prepared to kill tens of millions ?
Another dweller in "Alice in Wonderland" I was writing about. It's getting crowded
there!
There are many ways of skinning a cat; also many ways of killing people, such as
sanctions, embargoes, blockades, destroying their infrastructure, stealing their resources
and gold deposits in the US, and so on.
With promises to "drain the swamp!" still ringing in our ears, we have watched Trump
appoint nothing but Goldman banksters, Soros stooges, neocon war hawks and police state
zealots to head his cabinet.
https://staticxx.facebook.com/connect/xd_arbiter.php?version=44#channel=f2559af6f0c9cec&origin=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.unz.com
The Unz Review: An Alternative Media
Selection A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely
Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
First things first: let get the obvious out of the way
Homosexuality is a phenomenon which has probably always existed and which has often
polarized society into two camps: those who believe that there is something inherently
bad/wrong/pathological/abnormal with homosexuality (probably most/all major religions) and
those who emphatically disagree. This is normal. After all, the issue of homosexuality deals
not only with sex as such, but also with societal norms, reproduction, children and family
issues and, most importantly, with love. What could be more mysterious, more fascinating and
more controversial than love?
I am beginning this article with these self-evident truisms not because I find them
particularly interesting, but because we live in a weird time when only one of these two views
gets objectively and calmly discussed, while the other point of view is immediately censored,
denounced and condemned as some kind of phobia. Now, the word " phobia " can mean one of two things:
aversion/hatred or fear/anxiety.
Does this make sense to you?
Why is it that an opinion, a point of view, can only be explained away and dismissed as
being in itself pathological/irrational?
Let me ask you this: can you imagine that somebody might be critical of homosexuality as
such (or of homosexual behavior/practices) without suffering from any kind of phobias or
without hating anybody?
If not, please stop reading and turn the TV back on.
For everybody else, I submit that this phobia-canard (along with the no less stupid "closet
homosexual in denial" label) is not conducive to an intelligent discussion. It is, however,
great to shut down any critical analyses and " ad homineming " anybody who dares to ask
the wrong questions.
Next, I also submit that there are those existing out there who do indeed feel an
aversion/hatred/fear/anxiety towards homosexuals. These are the folks who feel their
masculinity tremendously boosted when they get the chance to beat up (preferably in a group
against one), humiliate or otherwise assault a homosexual. In my (admittedly entirely
subjective) experience these are a minority. True, some homosexuals do elicit a strong sense of
disgust from male heterosexuals, but these are typically those homosexuals who, far from being
sequestered in some societal "closet" do the opposite: they ostentatiously flaunt their
homosexuality with provocative make-up, dress or behavior. Again, in my (no less subjective)
experience, these are also a minority among homosexuals. I think that there is a very natural
explanation for the aversion these "in your face" homosexuals trigger in male heteros, and I
will discuss it later below.
But for the time being, I would rather stay away from these circumstance-specific minority
phenomena.
Next, let's define the issue
In its entry for "homosexuality" Wikipedia writes " The longstanding
consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions is
that homosexuality per se is a normal and positive variation of human sexual orientation, and
therefore not a mental disorder ".
This sentence deserves to be parsed very carefully, especially since it uses a lot of
frankly vague terms.
For starters, what does "longstanding consensus" refer to? In 1973 the US American
Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the DSM-II . The US American Psychological Association
followed suit in 1975. This leads me to conclude that by "longstanding" Wikipedia means either
46 years or 44 years. In terms of human history, 44/46 years is close to instantaneous and
hardly "longstanding". There is also the issue of HOW and WHY these two associations decided to
" de-pathologize " homosexuality. I will touch upon that later, and for the time being I
will simply state that declaring a pathology that is henceforth to be considered as "normal" by
means of a vote is hardly scientific.
Next, the statement above begs the question of what "homosexuality per se " is (as
opposed to homosexuality "not per se " I suppose?). The intent here is clear: to decree
that whatever co-morbidity (depression, suicide, substance abuse, violence, etc.) can be
identified in homosexuality will always get explained away because it is not inherent to
homosexuality per se . This is just another crude word-trick to suppress any discussion
of homosexuality in the real world (as opposed to DSM-like manuals).
Then there is the notion of " normal and positive variation of human sexual
orientation" which, of course, begs the question of what would qualify as an "abnormal and
negative variation of human sexuality". And to those who would say that I am being silly here,
I would point out that while in the 1970s the issue was "just" homosexuality, we nowadays live
in the society of
LGBTQIAPK and that some even add an ominous + sign at the end of this abbreviation
(LGBTQIAPK + ) just to be truly and totally "inclusive". And here is the obvious
fallacy: since homosexuality is a " normal and positive variation of human sexual
orientation " then it must also be true for the entire LGBTQIAPK+ "constellation". I submit
that unless your IQ is way below room temperature you surely must realize that what we are
dealing with here is a free for all in which any
variation of human sexuality is declared "normal and positive". QED (technically, this
would be a syllogisic fallacy ).
By the way – do you ever wonder what that small "+" sign at the end of LGBTQIAPK
+ really stands for? The answer depends on who you ask, of course, but if you ask
Facebook in the UK, it's no less that
71 (SEVENY ONE!!) genders (not sure if FB believes that UK users need more options than
non-UK users ?). Turns out that this one small "+" is much bigger than the rest official
acronym And, just for giggles, here is what the full acronym (the original 10 plus the new 71
should look something like this:
AAAAAABBCCCCCCCCCCFFFFFFGGGGGGGHIIIIIKLMMMMMMMNNNOPPPQTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTW+
(yes, I still added the obligatory "+" at the end so as to be truly "inclusive" should this
list grow in the future (which, no doubt, it will!).
And anybody not buying into that fallacy is, again by definition, a "hater" and, as you well
know, "haters will hate," right? And if not a hater, then at the very least a repressed closet
homosexual.
So far, how do you like that intellectual environment?
I sure don't. In fact, I loathe it, primarily because it is freedom-crushing.
So I will proceed to discuss this topic with no regard whatsoever for the politically
correct doxa that seems to have take over the entire western world. If you think that
this makes me a "hater" (or a homosexual in deep denial) you can stop reading here, since
everything below could be summarized by the one word " crimethink ", which would make me a
thought-criminal.
Every since I began blogging, about a decade ago, I have really pissed off a lot of people
who accused me of an endless list of ideological "crimes" ranging from being a Communist, to
being an anti-Semite, a Jew (or Jew-lover), a Muslim, a Nazi, a CIA/MI6/Mossad agent, a Putin
agent, an FSB agent (they meant SVR, but they don't know any better) and even (my favorite!) a
"traitor to the White Race". Frankly, my most persistent detractors have been Papists and Nazis
primarily because I had the nerve to tell them that neither the Papacy nor Nazism has any
traction in Russia and that Russia will never somehow step in to boost their declining
popularity or influence. The truth is that Russia has exactly zero use for anything even
remotely resembling the Alt-Right or any other racist theories (nevermind the Papacy and its
terminal degeneracy – whether of the ultramontanist or the sedevencantist persuasion). The Zionists
also tried to "counsel" me to change my use of the expression "AngloZionist" but they pretty
rapidly gave up. As did the Papists. The Nazis complained and moaned about my anti-Nazism (I
was "unfair" to Hitler and his supposedly immensely kind and Russia-loving goons!), but they
eventually also gave up. The French philosopher Alain Soral once stated that (in France) the
Homo Lobby is even more powerful in France than the Israel Lobby. I suspect that this is even
more true in the United States and I am under no illusions about the kind of reactions my
article will elicit. That's fine. I really don't care anymore.
The truth is that as long as we continue to use terms imposed upon us by the dictatorship of
political correctness and as long as we leave the numerous assumptions of the LGBTQIAPK+ Lobby
unchallenged, we will either die of boredom or, at least, never understand why the society we
live in (or why it is collapsing).
So let's engage in some much needed crimethink!
First, let's toss out all the stupid and ambiguous terms and expressions imposed upon us by
the leaders of the Empire. For example, we could agree to ditch the value-loaded term "gay" and
replace it by a value-free term "homosexual" (well, since homosexual is value-free, homosexual activists have declared it
"offensive" and they demand that only "gay" be used, thus imposing a value-loaded term in
lieu of the correct scientific designation). And if the LGBTQIAPK+ Lobby excoriates us for
doing so, we could always declare that from now on, "gays" shall only be called "sads"
(primarily on account of all the pathology and dysfunction which typically come along with
homosexuality: most psychologists and psychiatrists are quite aware of that comorbidity, but
speaking about it would be a career-ending mistake for them). In fact, let's try a little
thought experiment.
Let's imagine that we organize a public debate, a town hall meeting if you want, on the
topic of homosexuality. And for that purpose, we establish the following rules:
1) Homosexuals are only to be referred to as "sads"
2) Those refusing to use that term will be immediately labeled "heterophobes" and "closet
heteros in deep denial".
How many people do you think would accept that?
How would you feel if you were told that you need to comply with such outrageous
demands?
Well, then why would anybody expect us to accept the very same nonsense, only in
reverse?!
And yet, in 99.9999% of cases in the western media and public discourse these
ideological shackles are present and hardly anybody dares to use a different
terminology.
The parallels between how the Israel Lobby carefully crafted the public discourse on Zionism
and Israel and how the LGBTQIAPK+ Lobby succeeded in shaping the public discourse on
homosexuality is striking and not at all coincidental: for a host of reasons these two lobbies
strongly support each other and learn from each other.
Do you think that this "just happened", and that this new politically correct terminology
reflects some growing understanding and awareness of the issue at hand by the general
public?
Think again.
Turns out, there is a conspiracy behind this, literally. See for yourself :
This video is 44 minutes long and I highly recommend that you watch it in full
for two crucial reasons:
It will give you a detailed analysis of how the LGBTQIAPK+ Lobby
conspired to use its influence to shape the public perceptions of homosexuality in the West It
will give you a good insight into the Russian objections to the ideology and methods of the
LGBTQIAPK+ Lobby
Finally, I will assume that those reading further will have seen and understood the
information contained in this video and that this information forms an integral part of our
discussion.
Next, debunking one of the silliest arguments used by the LGBTQIAPK+ Lobby
" I was born that way! "
How many times have you heard this totally meaningless argument?
And, just for comparison's sake,
How many times have you heard this meaningless argument debunked?
(My guess? Roughly 1000:0 – right?)
Like most LGBTQIAPK+ Lobby canards, this one is based on a misleading assumption that
whatever you are born with is "natural" and even "good". The problem with that is that this
same argument can be made for every mental disease and even any criminal impulse. And without
going into an endless battle of numbers, I think that we can agree that if somewhere around
1.2%-2.2% of
humans might be born homosexuals and if sociopaths are 3%-5% of the
population , then sociopathy is about as "natural" as homosexuality. In fact, we could even
declare that sociopathy is a " normal and positive variation of personality". Would you
want to live in a society which would proclaim that?
For Christians: this argument is even more ridiculous when coming from people trying to
impersonate Christians (say, like
these folks ). The truth is that Patristic dogmatic theology is very clear on the dogma
that the Fall of Man has not only corrupted the original God-given and perfect nature of Man,
but it has really corrupted all of creation: " Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the
world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned " Rom
5:12. The problem is that Augustine of Hippo diverged from the consensus patrum on this
issue and offered instead his own, misguided, interpretation of the dogma of the Original Sin.
Later Anslem of Canterbury and, even more so, Thomas Aquinas further hopelessly corrupted the
dogma of Original Sin and, as a result, in the West the original Patristic understanding of
that dogma has been lost (generally, scholasticism has been the poison which killed western
Christianity and turned it into the abomination we all see today). Due to a lack of space, I
cannot offer a full discussion of this dogma here, but I will point you to this excellent article on this topic
(or, even better, the original writings of Saint Maximos the Confessor and Saint Gregory
Palamas). The point here is that Christianity unambiguously teaches that every single human
being (including Christ Himself!) as born not with the personal guilt for the sin of Adam and
Eve, but with the consequences of their sin: a pathological, spiritual, psychological and even
physical nature, in which pathology and even death are always present and weighing down each
and every human being , not only homosexuals. From a truly Christian point of
view the notion that what we are born with is axiomatically declared as good and natural is
sheer folly. If anything, the assumption is that the opposite is true or, more accurately, that
the only way for a human being to recover his/her true, perfect, original nature is to reunite
with the Church of God and God Himself in a process known as "theosis" (for a superb discussion
of this term, please see here ), which begins with the process
of repentance and renunciation self-will. The so-called "Christians" in the West seemed to have
completely blocked out the following words of Saint Paul " Know ye not that the unrighteous
shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor
adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind " (1 Cor 6:9). Either
that, or they subscribe to the absolutely self-evidently stupid notion that Christ Himself was
some kind of well-meaning hippie while the evil homophobe and hater Saint "Paul" (
sic. these folks never call saints "Saint") perverted Christ's original message and
created some kind of "Pauline religion" instead. The facts that 1) Saint Paul was originally a
vicious a persecutor of Christians and that 2) Saint Paul was surrounded by people who
personally knew Christ (including the 12 and the 70) and His teachings does not lead these
simple-minded people to realize that these Christians who personally knew Christ. These
Christians would never let a former persecutor of Christians modify Christ's teachings. If
Saint Paul had tried to introduce any heresy, he would have been immediately condemned like all
the other heretics over the centuries. Sadly, we live not in a Christian society anymore, but a
post-and-pseudo-Christian one in which even the fundamentals of Christianity have been
forgotten, perverted or both.
The argument that "I was born that way" is both infinitely self-serving and infinitely
dishonest. But it also is a powerful illustration of how the LGBTQIAPK+ Lobby not only seeks
acceptance, but also that "regular" homosexuality is used as a kind of "gateway mental
disorder" which is used to force a much longer list of sexual deviations (" paraphilias ") upon the western societies
very much including pedophilia (by means of hebephilia and ephebophilia ). It does not have to be, but
that is how the LGBTQIAPK+ Lobby uses that argument, so it is legit to point that use out and
debunk it too (and this is what freaks like this one will use to
demand acceptance, endorsement and even special protection!).
Next, debunking the canard that homosexuality and pedophilia are totally different
phenomena
That is another deceptive core-argument of the LGBTQIAPK+ Lobby. I won't go into a long
historical discussion of how the term " pederast " and " pederasty " have been universally used
in the past. I will just point out that the first link above says that "pederast"
is " a man who desires or engages in sexual activity with a boy " whereas the
second one defines
"pederasty" as " sexual relations between two males, especially when one of them is a
minor " (emphasis added by me, VS)! See how "fuzzy" all this rapidly becomes? Not
convinced, then just add ephebophilia, hebephilia and pedophilia to the mix and see the
inextricable mess you end up with!
I am lucky to speak 6 languages and understand another 3 pretty well and I can attest that
in many other languages the politically incorrect word for the root for pedophile and
homosexual are one and the same (ex: Russian:
педераст,
пидарас, пидор; French:
pédale, pédé ), which makes sense since the Greek word paiderastes means
, literally, lover of boys.
Now, I am not, repeat, not saying that all homosexuals are also pedophiles.
What I am saying is that, contrary to LGBTQIAPK+ Lobby propaganda, the boundary between these
two categories is fuzzy and ambiguous and that it most definitely is nowhere nearly as
clear-cut as the LGBTQIAPK+ Lobby propaganda claims it to be.
Now having debunked a few (not all!) LGBTQIAPK+ Lobby canards, let's try to look at what is
really happening here.
The truth? We are being brainwashed
Shocked by my use of the term "brainwashed"? Fine. Use "conditioned", or "trained" or
whatever term you prefer as long as it reflects the following: there is an organized,
well-financed and powerful effort made to convince you of a number of (highly controversial and
dubious) things. That is not some invention of mine, and if the video I posted above was not
enough to convince you, why don't you make a quick visit to this website, a typical LGBTQIAPK+
Lobby propaganda outlet https://www.glaad.org and click on "About". There you will read
for yourself that the purpose of this organization is to be " Leading the conversation.
Shaping the media narrative. Changing the culture. That's GLAAD at work ". Of course, GLAAD
is just one star in a much bigger galaxy and we can see that galaxy at work literally
everywhere. Here are just one excellent example from Google:
If Google selling phones or pushing the agenda?
Now, if that is the new consensus in the West and if folks here like that, I personally have
no objection to this whatsoever. To each his own. But when that ideology is not only shoved on
the Russian people but also used in political campaigns to discredit Russia, then I have a
problem with that: not only do I object to this specific case of ideological brainwashing, I
object to the very notion that folks in the West have some kind of right to impose their
so-called "values" on other people. As far as I am concerned, the various advocates of
gender-fluidity are welcome to add "Z" (for zoophilia ) or "C" (for coprophagia ) to their favorite acronym, but
they are not welcome to impose it on others or demand that the rest of the planet endorse it as
a " normal and positive variation" of human sexuality or gastronomy.
Another example of corporate sponsorship of homopropaganda
And, finally, western politicians are all trying to outcompete each other as enthusiastic
supporters of homosexuality. This is just one example amongst many more:
At the very least, I find the Russian reaction to that kind of brainwashing rather
refreshing, see for yourself:
Translation: Ladies in the EU, the USA and Russia
I also get some solace that there are still folks in the West who do understand that this
propaganda campaign is part of a real "
war on men " which has been waged for many decades already. Here is the example of a lady
who makes minced meat of all the "transgender madness":
In fact, I would wager that most people in the West at least feel that something here really
stinks, but that most keep their peace lest they be accused of some kind of homophobia or, more
accurately, some kind of "LGBTQIAPK+phobia".
By the way, there is also a lot of money to be made in transgenderism. Jennifer
Bilek's research has found that:
"Exceedingly rich, white men with enormous cultural influence are funding the transgender
lobby and various transgender organizations. These include but are not limited to Jennifer Pritzker (a
male who identifies as transgender); George Soros ; Martine Rothblatt (a male who
identifies as transgender and transhumanist); Tim Gill (a gay
man); Drummond
Pike ;
Warren and Peter Buffett; Jon Stryker (a gay man); Mark Bonham (a gay man); and
Ric Weiland (a deceased gay man whose philanthropy is still LGBT-oriented). Most of these
billionaires fund the transgender lobby and organizations through their own organizations,
including corporations".
She also points out that the kind of sums involved in the homosexuality/transgenderism
propaganda are huge:
These men and others, including pharmaceutical companies and the U.S. government, are
sending millions of dollars to LGBT causes. Overall reported
global spending on LGBT is now estimated at $424 million . From 2003-2013, reported
funding for transgender issues increased more than eightfold
, growing at threefold the increase of LGBTQ funding overall, which
quadrupled from 2003 to 2012. This huge spike in funding happened at the same time
transgenderism began gaining traction in American culture.
I can't vouch for her figures, but I think that it is obvious beyond reasonable doubt that
the LGBTQIAPK+ Lobby has immense sums of money to push its agenda. I know for a fact that many
(all?) US embassies abroad are delivering funds to promote "gay rights" in many (most?)
countries of our poor planet.
This is, by the way, exactly the same case in Europe: being mentally handicapped is the new
"cool" apparently
And when the AngloZionists had the nerve to accuse Russia of doping her athletes, the
Russian blogosphere immediately reacted with this kind of demotivator (I translated the
text)
Russian men (and Russian women!!) don't want to have anything to do with that toxic
ideology, and this is why the most used informal term for "heterosexual" in Russia is
"натурал", meaning "natural" in opposition to the
concepts of "гeй" (gay) – politically correct term – or any of the less
politically correct terms used in Russia for homosexuals.
For a typical Russian reaction to the LGBTQIAPK+ Lobby propaganda, I would refer you to
Ruslan Ostashko (for
a typically Chechen one, see what Ramzan Kadyrov has to
say).
In contrast, in the Euro-compatible & Nazi-occupied Ukraine the reality is, obviously,
very different:
So what is really going on in Russia? Ain't there Gulags for gays?! Don't the Chechens
torture gays?
Actually – no.
Debunking the LGBTQIAPK+ Lobby lies about Russia
To say that homosexuals are persecuted by the state in Russia is a lie which any (honest)
person who has ever been to Russia can debunk. However, what is true is that the Russian
state and a majority of the Russian people do not accept the notion that homosexuality "is just
like" heterosexual love . You might vehemently disagree with this idea, but do you
agree that the Russian state and a majority of the Russian people are under no obligation to
agree with your values any more than you are under any obligation to agree with their values?
Next, the Russian state and a majority of the Russian people also believe that
children need to have two, gender-differentiated, parents: one mother and one father .
Again, you might vehemently disagree with this idea, but do you agree that the Russian state
and a majority of the Russian people are under not under any obligation to agree with your
values, any more than you are under any obligation to agree with their values? Finally,
the Russian state and a majority of Russians believe that Russian children should not be
exposed to any propaganda of homosexuality . Yet again, you might vehemently disagree
with this idea, but do you agree that the Russian state and a majority of the Russian people
are under no obligation to agree with your values any more than you are under any obligation to
agree with their values?
Russian parenting summarized in one picture
Whatever may be the case, the laws in Russia currently support this majority Russian point
of view. Hence, homosexual propaganda directed at minors is illegal and homosexual couples are
not free to adopt children. And, last but certainly not least, the so-called "gay pride parade"
have been banned in many Russian cities, including for the next 100 years in Moscow –
something I enthusiastically support for reasons I outlined in this
article .
But for the rest – Russia does not have US-style sodomy laws. Russia does not tell
anybody what they can/cannot or should/should not do in the privacy of their bedrooms and, in
fact, homosexuals have their own clubs, bars, websites, organizations, magazines and pretty
much everything else all Russians (whether "natural" or not) enjoy.
Here is what is really going on here: militant homosexuals are far from being content with
"inclusion" "non-discrimination" or any other laudable things they claim to stand for. No, what
they want is a two-step sequence:
Declare as axiomatic and self-evident that homosexuality
"is just like" heterosexuality and then Declare that homosexuality is now therefore an accepted
norm
It's that simple, yet that important: Russia categorically refuses to place an "equal"
sign between the concepts of homosexuality and heterosexuality . In fact, the Russian
culture (secular, Orthodox or Islamic) likes to stress and emphasize the differences between
genders and places a premium on masculinity in men and femininity in women. In other words,
Russians reject not only Neanderthal-like macho men, but also what is known as "soy boys" in
the West. Likewise, Russians reject men-hating feminists as much as they reject brainless
bimbos à la cheerleaders. If I was really cruel I would suggest that you compare
(looks and brains!) the Russian spokeswomen to their White House or Foggy Bottom counterparts:
this really says it all.
There is something else which I mentioned above which I want to rapidly touch upon: male
hostility towards homosexuals.
Setting aside the kind of degenerate thugs who feel the need to beat on somebody weaker then
them, I do believe that homosexuality as a concept and homosexual sex as an activity is
naturally repulsive to many, possibly most, men. I don't mean to say that most men are
degenerate thugs who will beat up anybody weaker they find, but I did observe all my life that
most men seem to have at least some degree of repulsion towards homosexuality. I could go on
and just claim that these men "can't help it" and that they were "born that way", but that
would be too easy. I will attempt an explanation for this instead.
I believe that repulsion towards homosexuality is a normal and positive variation of the
healthy male psyche developed to strengthen the reproductive potential of any population. Yup,
it is not popular to say so, and homosexuals go to great lengths to obfuscate that (by means of
adoption and propaganda, mostly) but homosexuality is totally sterile. Thus there must be a
powerful natural selective pressure not only for men not to engage in homosexual behavior, but
also for men to instinctively realize that "something is very not right" with homosexuality.
This instinctive feeling should not be used as a justification for violence (any more than
sexual attraction cannot justify rape, or irritation justify murder), but it does explain the
prevalence of heterosexual repulsion for all things "homo" (at least in males; many/most
females also seem to be repulsed by (male and female) homosexuality, but the feeling seems to
be less strong than in men and it does no lead to aggression).
The real question is what do we do with this kind of repulsion?
The answer depends on your culture, religion and worldview.
Even in the post-Christian West, most people know the saying "love the sinner, hate the sin"
or some variation thereof. This point of view has a very solid scriptural
basis . This approach, by the way, makes sense whether homosexuality has its roots in
nature or in nurture. In fact, from a strictly Christian point of view, homosexual behavior is
no worse than any kind of sexual immorality. This makes sense as the word "sin" originally
means "missing the target" or, more loosely, "failing to achieve your full potential." There
have been attempts in history to classify and order sins according to their severity. This,
again, is a typically scholastic attitude. The Fathers, in contrast, sought to develop a
complete dogmatic anthropology which truly understands the struggles of each human being to
achieve his/her full potential (theosis) and warns about the consequences of failing to do so.
Thus "sinning" is not pissing-off some bearded old guy sitting on a cloud surrounded by
harp-playing overweight angels, but the failure to realize your full potential. In such a
context, "hating the sinner" makes no sense at all while "hating the sin" is quite logical.
Especially since the Fathers believed that the One Church of Christ is a "hospital for sinners"
in which all sinners are welcome and where they get the spiritual medicine needed to achieve
their full potential as human beings.
declare that only one specific form of sexuality is "normal"
arbitrarily discriminate between various forms of sexuality with no logical basis for it.
declare that any form of sexuality is "normal"
Most developed countries have opted for the second option, making a completely arbitrary,
illogical and absurd list of "normal" and "not pathological" sexual behaviors. By the way, the
same dumb approach was used in dealing with sexual practices between consenting adults (the
so-called " sodomy laws
") or the codification of a legal age of sexual consent . Even a cursory
look at these laws clearly shows that they are based on nothing except political expediency:
they make absolutely no logical sense whatsoever.
Most religions and traditional societies have opted for option #1. Modern secularists
initially leaned towards #2 but they are now gradually caving to the LGBTQIAPK+lobby's pressure
to accept #3.
Conclusion: this discussion is far from being over, and it won't be suppressed
either
As I said at the very beginning, the topic of homosexuality is a controversial one. It is
also fascinating on many levels (biological, psychological, ethical, moral, religious, medical,
societal, etc.). The main religions have, over the centuries, developed their "answer" to this
phenomenon, but most of our planet nowadays lives in a secular, sometimes even atheistic,
environment in which religions have lost much of their traction, especially in societies which
were corrupted by centuries of western imperialism (made worse by the bizarre phobia –
yes phobia – the Latin Christians have for everything and anything sexual – hence
their effeminate looking and smoothly shaven priests, wearing lace (at least the
"traditionalists"!), singing with an effeminate voice and thinking that this represents some
true Christian tradition!). You want to see what the original Christians looked like? Look at
any traditional Orthodox icon and you will see for yourself. Or visit a true Orthodox
monastery. You will immediately see the difference, I promise!
For most people – religious or not – this topic ought to remain one which can be
freely discussed in an intellectual and ideological environment which does not immediately
place the label of "hater" on every person daring to dissent from the officially imposed dogma.
Real scientific research (as opposed to ideological votes by professional associations) ought
to be encouraged and regularly reviewed.
In political terms, the topic of homosexuality is just one amongst many others which have
been given a O ne A nd O nly O fficially P olitically
C orrect narrative by the AngloZionist leaders of the Empire. Other such officially
"dogmatized" narratives include the truth about 9/11, the truth about the so-called
"Holocaust", the truth about Zionism and Israel or the truth about Latin Christianity (there
are many more, of course). These are all topics in which dissent is totally taboo and
dissidents dismissed along with any or all of their arguments.
If we really want to stand for freedom in its most fundamental essence, we cannot accept to
be herded into the intellectual cages of the "authorized" political discourse. All the lobbies
which ceaselessly endeavor to silence dissent and impose their views and agenda upon us ought
to be clearly identified and denounced as a danger for all of humanity. I see no reason to make
an exception for the
WHENEVER YOU SEE EVIL, DEPRAVITY OR SICKNESS, LOOK FOR THE JUDAIST BEHIND IT.
Thanks, Sir. You make good points. I want to add/stress 3 points:
Phobia, by definition, is an IRRATIONAL fear of something that is not a fear by the
general public. Simple dislike (say, I don't like mushrooms or homos) is not a phobia. Fear
of standing on tracks with the train coming on is not a phobia -- it is a RATIONAL fear.
Secondly, in medicine including psychiatry, normalcy is defined as average +/- one
standard deviation. For example, what is the normal value of serum sodium? So if majority of
people are heterosexual (or have sodium between 130-150), then homosexuality, and trans, etc.
(or sodium 150), are all, BY DEFINITION, PATHOLOGICAL.
So, yes, these conmen are lying.
The Judaists are behind this depravity, to brainwash the public, to destroy families, to
warp their sexual mores. This is a part of their WAR ON CIVILIZATION. These people are
barbarians.
It's really simple: if a human can accept that heterosexuality is equal to homosexuality,
which goes against the very foundation of life, he/she can accept anything else.
Bye bye ability for critical thought.
A perfect serf, I mean, citizen.
' For example, we could agree to ditch the value-loaded term "gay" and replace it by a
value-free term "homosexual"
The difficulty here, as you note, is that it's all already blossomed far beyond the
compass of mere homosexualty and now incorporates whatever all those letters in 'LGBTQIAPK+'
stand for.
So we need a more inclusive term. 'Pervert' would seem to meet the case. After all, the
acts in question most certainly are perverted. Evolution didn't have any of those activities
in mind when it came up with sexual desire. If it couldn't at least apparently produce
offspring, it's not what was intended -- is, in a word, perverted.
No offense. Be perverted if you want. Just don't ask me to applaud.
Sticking your dick in shit is not normal! Most people have no problem with Homosexuals but
Fags are a different matter. Mind your own business, no flags no parades and get your
sexuality off your forehead!
Brain / genetic research has shifted gears in recent years. Millions now flow into these
areas for dementia and other mental conditions, with new revelations about us nearly every
month from multiple research points around the globe.
Could be just a few years until the science behind sexuality is revealed
Maybe even a simple "gay cure"?
What will the gay lobby do then? How many 16 year olds will want to grow up with the
stress of being "different"?
How will the gay lobby react to a so callef "gay cure"? Will it try to have it banned?
I am so BORED hearing about LBQ whatever. There are such bigger fish to fry.
I'm all for tolerance if they will just shut-up & stop playing the victim .&
humbuging us into ceding even more political power.
If a culture, such as Russia's doesn't want gay-shit rammed down their throat in never ending
gay public performances, then they should just accept it OR move.
There's a difference between tolerance & equality & a blank cheque to shove your
political points down everyone's throats in the knowledge that you have weaseled yourself
beyond any valid criticism.
When any supposed scientific/professional body bases a claim on 'consensus', then you KNOW
that this body is fraudulent and is just espousing an OPINION based on no empirical evidence.
These scientists/professionals are BS artists with PhD's.
Don't listen to a word they say.
I've already mentioned the lesbian prof who went to bat for her sick lover's "domestic
partners'" health benefits, and it turned out all of two additional coverable persons, .o67%
of the total of all group health insurance enrollees, were added. The campus gay lobby was
about the same time touting the 10% figure, which I think came from Kinsey, but has long been
debunked. The provost was too weak to cork this nonsense.
(The culprit that permitted "domestic partners'" insurance is in the very nature of
America's group health insurance. Statistically trivial sub-populations–gays, Martians,
and what-not -- may be added, but not a worker's parents or brothers and sisters. Group
health is a serious mischief-maker.)
The campus LGBTQ+ and women's centers seem to me pretty dubious. I'm not sure what they
do, and a part of me thinks they operate as recruitment depots for predatory gay and lesbian
profs. Plus, they're intellectually dubious. I doubt the operators of these organizations
think much about folks who are heterosexual but who remain virginal or celibate for long
periods.
As with other "permitted" identity groups, the gays are given a very long leash, and
lifting them up has allowed our masters a new tool to work their divide-and-conquer
boogie-woogie.
A parenthesis: Do you really think that Russian men do not practice or fantasize about
practicing anal sex or blowjobs, the 'dirty' acts that homosexual are accused of practicing?
That is naive
Yes, heterosexuality has been accepted as 'normal' simply because a heterosexual act
produces children and build a society while non-heterosexuals are sterile.
Is sexuality in human only limited to procreation? We all know that is not true, otherwise
heterosexual couples would have hundreds of children! it is obvious that all forms of
sexuality should be allowed as long as it is CONSENSUAL. Therefore pedophilia etc.. are NOT
allowed in a society that rejects violence and promote the respect of the person.
Western societies have ostracized and persecuted consensual homosexuals for so long in the
name of religion that it is blowing back in excessive forms by they trying to force new
norms, some absurds, on the society.
In my opinion the excessive ostentation of non-heterosexuals in public life do not have a
positive effect. While women are largely more accepting of homosexuality and do not feel
threatened by it, most heterosexual men are 'conservative' and live all their lives
frustrated from their sexual fantasies. Therefore the exhibition of the sexual freedom of
non-heterosexuals can be traumatic and provoke envy, hatred and violence.
The western society is now regulated by the 'controversial' politically correctness. The
non-heterosexuals are taking advantage of that to take a revenge and affirm their rights ..
but this is going too far.
Saker got called out for cucking on race (Jews are not a race!) and for being soft on the
muzzle question (my Muslim neighbors were nice, therefore Islam is good for Europe!) and he's
never been able to live it down.
Literally every single article he writes now mentions those evil Whites who dared question
Saker's ravings.
The alphabet people have the right to have sex with whomever they want so long as it is
mutually consented to by adults. However, the alphabet people have NO right whatsoever to
tell everyone else what their opinions must be about such sexual activities. That is the
dividing line between homosexuals and their rights and the rights of others. The alphabeters
refuse to understand this.
The irrefutable fact is that the human rectum is designed as a check valve i.e. a one way
valve for outflow not inflow. Therefore using it outside of its designed operation is not
normal nor natural. Calling that which is not normal "not normal" is perfectly reasonable
while claiming something obviously not normal to be normal is the sign of a demented
mind.
I raise a glass to the Saker for having the courage to present this column. He is in the
alphabets' cross hairs now.
Homosexuality and Lesbianism and all other forms of LGBTQ with or without other
alphabetical appendages (no pun intended) is ABNORMAL. It goes against nature. Without man
and woman or male and female in the animal and plant kingdom there would be no life on earth.
the human species would not exist and this planet would be a barren rock. Where men are
concerned the anus was designed for another function and not for sexual penetration. Why
would anyone want to enter a sewer ? These people are perverts. It makes me want to vomit
when I see politicians sucking up to these creatures for a vote.
I really dont care what they do in private. They can get it on all they want. I find it
irritating though that they push it down other people's throats especially the youth and
young children. What I find dangerous is that the more we tolerate this degeneracy more and
more varied degeneracy is foisted upon us. And yet, the more they force others to accept
their twisted personalities and preferences the more revolted we become and the more
repulsive they are.
In this journey through the gutter we are not creating a society of men capable of
standing up to life"s hard knocks but a race of pansies, fruitcakes and sissies who collapse
at the slightest setback. I observe this on a daily basis all around me every day of the
week. On the other hand we have the girls who want to be the dominant "male" in their girlie
relationships. They pump up but look like grotesque freaks. How many men want a she man with
28 inch biceps who can bench press 400 pounds and who looks and acts like an ape just out of
the Congo ?
The next step in this descent into filth is sex with animals and how much further we will
descend into this cesspool of perversion will be a product of the human imagination which
knows no bounds
As for the Williams girl, I have to say I do like her but then again as a boy I always
enjoyed trips to the zoo and the monkeys and gorillas were always my special cages !
@heisendude
the rectum is a highly erotogen zone on the human body as it is full of ending nerves. Why
was it "designed" like that? Why do men have tits that have obvious no usage? Was the
clitoris "designed" for any other purpose than to give pleasure. Is circumcision 'normal' if
the penis was 'designed' with skin covering it?
Man on earth essentially exploits, tames nature and most of the time works against it to fit
his needs and pleasure. The original design becomes lost on the way
In any case sodomy is not the exclusivity of homosexuals, it is practiced by many
'liberated' heterosexuals. I doubt they are concerned by the 'design'
@Markster
nd sissies who collapse at the slightest setback.
Actually, the objective is to create a society of men incapable of challenging the social
pyramid as planned for them.
Such serfs don't do "pitchfork" thing.
No need to mince words here. "They" know exactly what they are doing. EXACTLY. Emasculating a White man.
THAT is the game.
This "sex thing" is just a part of the play.
And .hahaha .a lot of White men buy it all. No "Wilson treatment" required. Just a
smartphone and social media do the trick.
So much for White supremacy, a?
I took a tour through the "Vineyard" and a few similar sites (e.g. Fort Russ) and saw nary a
word about this, even though the case is apparently a sensation in Russia:
"The case of the Khachaturyan sisters has stirred the Russian public, with over 200,000
people signing an online petition urging the prosecutors to drop the murder charges."
I wonder if their reticence to link to this story has anything to do with information like
this:
"Pressured by conservative family groups, President Vladimir Putin in 2017 signed a law
decriminalizing some forms of domestic violence, which has no fixed definition in the Russian
legislation. Police routinely turn a blind eye to cases of domestic abuse, while preventive
measures, such as restraining orders, are either lacking or not in wide use."
I wonder if The Saker et al., who are so alarmed by the antics of what they acknowledge to
be a tiny minority of the U.S. and European population, could bring themselves to comment on
this case, and what it means for Russian prospects of social development (now that suicide by
vodka is alleged to be solely an American phenomenon).
It would mean taking a short break from trashing "the west" and braying over its immanent
collapse. It also would mean real research, of the statistical variety so beloved by readers of
this site. Does a young Russian female have a greater or lesser chance of being "turned
lesbian" by media-enhanced peer pressure than she does of winding up in the ER with Daddy's
love marks?
It never gets old being lectured by your social and cultural superiors. Until, of course,
some truth leaks out, such as the above; truth that suggests that either Russia is still in the
process of social collapse or perhaps has always been the social and cultural avatar of
Mississippi.
@Virgile
es "ostracizing" and "persecuting" consensual homosexuals, whether in the name of religion or
not.
While women are largely more accepting of homosexuality and do not feel threatened by
it,
Until the barrage of the last 25 years or so, women were largely more accepting of
homosexuals than men, and men were more accepting of Lesbianism than women. However, women were
as, or more, averse to Lesbianism than men were of homosexuals.
At the end of the day, it all comes down to Anita Bryant's 1972 warning: "They want to
recruit your children and teach them the virtues of becoming a homosexual."
Good article however the analysis did not go far enough. The force behind all this
brainwashing is the Devil himself. How so? God is "the way, the truth and the life" his
principal enemy is the exact opposite: "no right or wrong way, lies and death".
So now think about everything lgbtetc – every single thing that can be associated with
them can be reduced to "there is no right and wrong" generating, propagating and celebrating
lies and everything they do leads to death and illness (individual death or death of the human
race) Everyone who does not see that is willfully blind All of us will be forced to join one of
those two armies and I would rather have God on my side
Now, the word "phobia" can mean one of two things: aversion/hatred or fear/anxiety.
I hate to quibble, but phobia is more than aversion or fear. It is an irrational fear that
causes anxiety. It is never hate. People who are afraid of height suffer from acrophobia.
People that feint or vomit at the sight of blood suffer from hemophobia.
I don't like eating tripe or brains, it doesn't mean I hate them or have an irrational fear of
them. Disapproval of homosexuality does not equate to hate or a phobia.
Phobia, just as gay was, is a word that has been hi-jacked and weaponized. Unfortunately.
there are many others.
'A parenthesis: Do you really think that Russian men do not practice or fantasize about
practicing anal sex or blowjobs, the 'dirty' acts that homosexual are accused of practicing?
That is naive '
Homosexuality Cultural Conquest comes in 5 stages:
1. TOLERANCE: it means the right to be left alone.
2. ACCEPTANCE: it means equal status.
3. CELEBRATION: it means that everyone must accept homosexuality and promote it as a good
valuable thing.
4. FORCED PARTECIPATION: it means that everyone must participate in homosexuality culture.
5. PUNISHMENT: it means that everyone who disagrees must be punished.
And Satan emboldened can then tell God: "You wanted me to submit to man and now look at what
he's doing, offering me the sacrificial gift that I cherish above everything else: his
children's body and soul".
Does anybody like having his children being taught in primary school that being a sodomite
is all right and normal?
@Carlos675
kay for an adult to choose to enter a program which they believe will be beneficial to their
mental health.
Clown World.
But remember: God said he would spare Sodom and Gomorrah if even 10 good people could be
found in the city. We still have some good people around, so cheer up. Not total destruction,
yet. Never give up.
I even believe that the public opinion is now shifting against the queers, especially as the
country gets browner LOL. These homos are going to get the brown, diverse country they want,
but it ain't gonna be a brown, diverse, homo country where everyone is transgender and they
have unlimited access to negro cocks.
@Virgile
most heterosexual men are 'conservative' and live all their lives frustrated from their sexual
fantasies.
Yes, men are horny. Guess what the best way to have alot of sex is?
Get married.
Being le Alpha Chad Slayer only works if you're in the top 1% of guys. Men are having less sex
than ever (on average) despite the feminist "liberation".
It's in the Bible. Sex is for one man and one woman in a marriage, and they should do it
often. The Bible has been right for millenia and will always be right as long as humans are
around, regardless of how "advanced" some lunatics think we are at this random point in time.
Hippopotamusdrome
, says: July 12,
2019 at 11:25 pm GMT
What's it like to be a KID #DRAGQUEEN? @CBCKidsNews spoke with the four stars of CBC's new
#DragKids documentary to find out what #drag is, and why they do it. #lgbtq #queer
#kiddragqueen @cbcdocs
WATCH: Kid drag queens sashay their way into the spotlight
New documentary follows four kid drag queens as they prepare to slay on Montreal stage
The Saker goes with a roughly 1%-2% figure for born homosexuals, which sounds a bit high.
I'll guess some genetic disturbance, intrauterine chemistry gone bad, and, I think one guy has
speculated on a virus of some sort as the origin. I've read some sketch statistics that
homosexual marriages amount to .34% of all marriages. The gay lobby in my opinion is among the
most high-maintenance of political lobbies with respect to the numbers of people actually
involved. The gays deserve a fair shake, but their scandalizing tactics have given them more
than that in my opinion, plus a dubious victim card to boot.
What are conservative-traditional types to do? Incentivize heterosexual expression and
marriage through outright bonuses upon marriage, and monthly payments thereafter, with
additional bonuses for each child. That might be one way of countering the ill effects of
capitalism, which retards earning capacity until after college, and feminism.
"Homosexuals are sexually troubled people engaging in dangerous activities. Because we care
about them and those tempted to join them, it is important that we neither encourage nor
legitimize such a destructive lifestyle."
What you say is utter claptrap. So we can assume that whether you are a homo or liberated
hetero YOU like big meat in the back door ?? What a sleazy scum pervert you are hiding behind a
load of bubble head babble !
@Virgile
d by calling you names. Such as faggot, poofter or gaylord. NO boy your perversion is not
natural, how can it be since no baby can be born out of a man's arse? Are you a SEAHORSE to
disagree?
PS: The fact that some natural people might enjoy some sort of anal stimulation, does NOT
justify you being a fag. What we natural BREEDING couples do has frankly NOTHING to do with
faggots. Simply NONE of ypour pervert business!
PPS: Take your assumed accusations of anti-faggotry (by any stupid name) and shove them
where your gay partner's knob is expected to be! I do not owe any fags anything.
1. TOLERANCE: it means the right to be left alone.
2. ACCEPTANCE: it means equal status.
3. CELEBRATION: it means that everyone must accept homosexuality and promote it as a good
valuable thing.
4. FORCED PARTICIPATION: it means that everyone must participate in homosexuality
culture.
5. PUNISHMENT: it means that everyone who disagrees must be punished.
I think step 5 should be restated as step 1.a., 2.a, 3.a.,4.a.
Punishment of those who disobey is part of the toolkit of every cult.
@Colin
Wright that prove beyond cavil that nature did not intend the anus to be thus used. Even if
we didn't think there was a God, science and medicine show us what it is naturally conducive to
human life, health, and flourishing, both for the individual human organism and for human
groups, and what is not.
Lastly, the Saker is right that we should stop using the perverts' propaganda terms like
"gay." Simply say homosexual, which is objective, accurate, and not emotional or manipulative.
It makes even some of the people at our church uncomfortable, it seems. People don't realize
how much we concede the whole issue when we use the pervert activists' terms.
You say that homosexuals are not "born that way", and you also state that the great majority
of men find disgusting what homosexuals do. It's obvious that no born-straight male can be
persuaded or forced to engage in sex with another man. So males who do are "born that way",
there is no other explanation.
Lavender mafias are a threat to workplace norms of decency, and politically emboldened
homosexuals are likely to cause a mess of trouble now and in the future. Sexualized behavior,
straight-bashing, sexual propositioning, etc. They can use the victim card when their flaming
gets out of hand, and use threats of sexual harassment complaints against straight guys to
cock-block. Fucking awful way to undermine and demoralize traditional values and workplace
values.
That's why I think it's important to at least think about "re-normalizing" heterosexual
behavior by, for example, subsidies for marriage and child-bearing.
He didn't say homosexuals are not "born that way". He said that if homosexuals are "born
that way" doesn't imply that homosexuality and heterosexuality need enjoy equivalent societal
acceptance.
Thanks for correcting me. You're right, but he did say that the argument that "I was born
that way" is "infinitely dishonest", because it claims to be "natural", and therefore "good",
and I'm guilty of reading too quickly and jumping to my conclusion. Although it is contra
naturam, not what Nature intended, those born exceptions are "natural" in that they can't help
it, but it is not "good". There have always been "queers" as we called them when I was growing
up, but they kept quiet, kept to themselves, and were not in our faces every day as they are
now, with "gay pride" parades, etc.
@JackOH
ents thereafter, with additional bonuses for each child.
Get serious. What next? Subsidize every heterosexual affair ("heterosexual expression")? Every
post-bar-closing one-off, as long as it's a man and a woman?
Yes, I'm for society encouraging heterosexual (and for that matter, same-race) norms. But
paying people to observe them is not the way it would just create a sexual welfare state. Not to
mention that governments at every level can't balance a budget. How would your scheme be
financed? Through Hetero Bonds? Raising your taxes to cover marriage and baby bonuses?
Serena Williams is big, 5 feet eleven inches tall. that photo emphasizes her muscles but she
is all female and heterosexual. I see no reason to compare Sharapova and Williams .I never did.
I perved on both.
Sharapova and Williams are two different examples of the human females from different
environments and biological backgrounds. what the hell is there to compare particularly with
negatives in mind..one is better than the other..more beautiful etc. who the hell says
so..god?
I like Sharapova and I am sure she functions well in her social environment, and lives a
good life. so does Williams in hers..both capable people who have carved out exceptional places
in the global life. what the hell is there to compare particularly with negative principles in
mind
Go-rillas and racists belong in the same cages at the zoo
The Williams sisters are actually the Williams brothers. Their bone structure matches a man.
Likely had hormone therapy. There have been many trans in Women's tennis.
There is no united LGBT lobby. That's a myth the left liberal media is trying to push. In
reality it's a messy and unstable alliance of gay and trans white male libertarians,
progressive lesbians and gender queer activists, and black and brown faux progressives whose
ultimate loyalty is to their race. The rise of nationalist/populist politics and
intersectionality activism will tear it apart.
Does anybody else find it really odd Jordan Peterson is world famous and as near as I can
tell his sole claim to the fame is he refused to participate in the hassle of memorizing his
students custom preferred pronouns? His fifteen minutes of fame has got to pass by any minute
now. If he was a rational thinker he could have trained himself in less than a day to simply
use all proper names and delete all pronouns from his everyday speech.
Saker, thanks for the gaiety of your article. I might mention the Binary site.
The power of the alphabetic lobby is staggering. Staggering!
What happened to common sense? Not permitted?
There is obviously something pathological/abnormal about homosexuality. But that does not
mean bad/wrong unless they attempt to infect others with their pathology and focus on the very
young, years pre-pubescent, because they are so easily indoctrinated, always believe what the
big people say. That is bad/wrong, very bad/wrong. And, if they encourage surgery to make it
irreversible: death penalty, nothing else.
As for the Papacy, its final degeneracy was complete when they dug up Wycliffe's bones and
burnt them to ashes and threw the ashes into the river to render God powerless the resurrect
Wycliffe's body: no body, no resurrection of the body. You abdicated to me, God. Only I and my
subordinates can forgive sins, and for a fee. Get fucked, God.
Compliments for a piece of impeccable, clear reasoning. Good to know you are also making fun
of the letter soup madness currently being enforced on us by the lobby. Still haven't figured
out if those lobbyists are evil or just incredibly stupid. Sorry, perhaps I should say:
ethically challenged or mentally challenged.
– Homosexuality isn't even the worst of it anymore. It's the trans lobby. And the
attempt to indoctrinate children in that ideology.
– Why more people don't speak out against all this insanity is quite confusing. You
can't tell me 50 and 70 year old have suddenly had a generational change of heart.
– "Normal" and "abnormal" have moral connotation. And many times, it is
appropriate.
But from a more neutral point, LGBTQ can be judged based on "useful" and "not useful" in
regards to society and social progress.
Is homosexuality useful? In certain limited situations and times it might be.
Today, maybe it's a useful instrument to accelerate collapse.
Serena is sure a great Tennis player. Not sure if the article was implying she was a trans
person, but she is not. Some women are just more masculine looking just like some men are more
feminine looking.
When did the repression of homosexuality by the state start in the first place? Could it be,
the same forces where behind it, with drive the agenda today? This is what has to be
considered. Everything is spoiled in this world, love of course too. Without the repression,
there would be no leverage today, to drive things into extreme. Imagine a society, with natural
families, raising their children, at home, in small communities! Instantly, the problem of
child molestation fades, because there is less room for it, children are protected by the
social fabric, they are not in institutions like school. In everyday life things are and where
always pretty normal. Some 0X% of people being homosexual has not caused extinction of the
human race, and no propaganda will rise the quote. When considering homosexuality, please don't
look at debauchery. This can be done with heterosexuality too, but nobody judges it by looking
at a brothel.
The transgender topic seems insane, as long as the occult roots are not known, it is about
merging the opposites, for empowerment. These people know, but do not tell the background in
public.
What I found particularly interesting in the article is how a program of a few can indeed
change the society and the way of thinking and acting in general. It also has all the earmarks
of zionist propaganda.
Personally I don't mind whether homosexuality is born, natural, normal or whatever. Actually
I find the religious arguments pretty boring.
What really matters is to understand how people can be influenced and brainwashed merely by
watching tv or reading newspapers and magazines. I don't see any improvement in going back to
the religions. Instead, we should go ahead and learn critical thinking and make sure that no
one can play games with us.
First mix races, then mix genders then mix humans and animals then mix biological beings and
machines.
Everything is reversed in Joo world, reversal of Logos as E Micheal Jones has put it. Ugly is
beautiful, beautiful is Ugly; Gender is a choice; Blacks are smarter than Whites; Race is a
Social construct; barbaric thuggish behaviour is more noble than Civilised behaviour .. Only in
Joo world.
Sexual welfare state? You've probably noticed some of the griping on this site is about the
sexual welfare state that already exists that subsidizes the poor and presumptively "dysgenic".
We're already subsidizing the progeny, many of them, of those "post-bar-closing one-offs".
I agree that subsidies for anything are usually bad, but I'm willing to listen to other
ideas that stand a chance in the political marketplace.
There are these theories floating around that the William Sisters are trannies. How true
this is? I do not know, I have doubts. But it is worth a look, very interesting.
The poster named 'Truth' has been writing about this phenomenon on Unz.
The Saker is full of shit regarding the LGBT issue. This entire article is full of shit. He
is especially full of shit regarding gay pride parades: if a gay pride parade is banned, that
is discrimination and that is what they've done in Moscow and countless other Russian cities:
banned gay pride parades. That is insecure, stupid, and most discriminatory and smacks of
ignorant sexual insecurities. I am totally against the American 'war on Russia cold war pt 2'
we've endured since 2014. But there is no question that Russia is culturally backwards
especially regarding gay rights. There is no excuse for banning a gay pride parade.
Yes, this entire article is a steaming pile of homophobic bullshit. Russia sucks ass bigtime
because they can't handle a gay pride parade once a year going through their mainstreet.
If you don't agree with me, you can go fuck yourself.
Resources that could have been used to promote large, healthy and happy families among
native Swedes, just like Israel does with supporting Haredim, are used to cut penises and carve
out vaginas of Swedish children. The most horrific part, Swedish authorities aren't worried
about the rise of 'transgenderism' or fall of fertility rates since 2009. No, they're worried
that they can't mutilate reproductive organs of confused children fast enough. How
progressive!
You truly don't need to conquer the nation. Just plant the seeds of 'progressivism' and it will
destroy the country from inside.
You suck because you can't live and let live. If someone is transsexual, transgendered etc
so what? They simply want to be left alone, they are not bothering anybody. It is sexually
intolerant, insecure assholes like you who are the problem, not TS/TGs.
You are quite right in principle -- it is entirely distorting to suggest that living
organisms are "designed". All life is an evolutionary adaption to environment. If a "Designer"
should exist, even a designer with a "plan", it still operates through evolutionary adaption
(but not necessarily through random mutation)
Interesting perspective. To what degree are homosexuals likely to resist/attack our corrupt
States, & the filthy elites that animate these States?
Or in short -- have they a Class
consciousness ?
The Saker, from his Moscow bans gay pride parade article-
Right. Brilliant. So "same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings and behavior are
normal and positive variations of human sexuality". And yet pedophilia is still considered a
psychiatric disorder (source). What about incest? Well, guess what? Psychiatry puts incest
next to paraphilia, i.e. pathologic sexual activities which is a group name for every sexual
activity that is considered unnatural in psychology and sexology. Apart from incest,
paraphilia also includes paedophilia, sadism, masochism, sexual fetishism, exhibitionism,
voyeurism, necrophilia, nymphomania (source).
And how does one distinguish between "normal and positive variations of human sexuality" and
paraphilia? Since up until 1974 homosexuality was considered a paraphilia, why were no
arguments presented to remove it from this category?
This is all utter nonsense, of course. There are only three possible solutions to this
conundrum:
a) declare that only one specific form of sexuality is "normal"
b) declare that any form of sexuality is "normal"
c) arbitrarily discriminate between various forms of sexuality with no logical basis for
it.
So for the Saker his main argument is this: because over 40 years ago, the APA categorized
homosexuality as a type of paraphilia, and ONLY because of pressure from the "gay lobby" was it
overturned. Problem is, if you bother to look up the history of the decision, you find the
opposite to be the case, that in fact the so-called 'science' which classified being gay as a
mental disorder back in the 30s/40s/50s was fraught with religious and cultural bias, to
wit-
The best day of the 20th century for every lesbian and gay man in America was December 15,
1973: the day the board of the American Psychiatric Association voted 13-0 to remove
homosexuality from its official list of psychiatric disorders.
It was the front page story in The New York Times (and almost every other major newspaper)
at the time, and it remains the most important victory of the modern gay rights movement,
which was then slightly more than four years old.
The triumph was a tribute to the diligence, intelligence, and furious determination of
Frank Kameny, a cofounder with Jack Nichols of the Washington, D.C., branch of the Mattachine
Society and one of the most important gay leaders of all time. More than a decade before the
APA acted, Kameny identified homosexuality's classification as a mental illness as the major
stumbling block for gay rights because "an attribution of mental illness in our culture is
devastating."
When Kameny studied the psychiatric literature, he was "appalled." He told me that
everything he found there was "sloppy, slovenly, slipshod, sleazy science–social and
cultural and the theological value judgments, cloaked and camouflaged in the language of
science, without the substance of science. There was just nothing there . It was garbage in,
garbage out."
In short, after centuries of religious persecution, gay people had suffered throughout the
20th century from outrageous medical malpractice: the psychiatric notion that the only
healthy gay person was the one who wanted to be straight.
In 1970, Kameny convinced the Gay Activists Alliance to join him in his campaign to
overturn the APA's policy, and only three years later they were successful.
For gay people who came of age after the 1970s, it is almost impossible to imagine what it
had been like to live in an era when every official body (as well as most liberal lobbying
groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union) classified your orientation as an
illness or a crime.
So the Saker's arguments don't stand up to scrutiny. His quotes in the Moscow article are
cherry-picked from a blog by another gay hating bigot Phil Hickey, imagine my shock. The Saker
is a bigot who hates gay people, plain and simple. He wants to go back in time to the 1950s or
1940s (or earlier?) when gays were seen as no different than pedophiles or people who had sex
with animals, as revealed in his Moscow quote above. What a ridiculous, backward mentality, not
to mention a ridiculous backwards argument full of deliberate lies and misinformation. It is
not surprising he has found his audience here on Unz.com, where the comments section if full of
extreme reactionary right wing assholes, bigots and idiots. Nothing like preaching to the
choir, especially if your arguments are shit
If a man wearing a dress and makeup upsets you, you are not just a homophobe, but an example
of human depravity. The fact that such a demented attitude might be widespread doesn't make it
any less depraved or pathological. Human beings seem to be real effed- up sickos, as our
endless wars indicate. It's up to us to change that, but unfortunately there are many like
Snaker who dedicate themselves to perpetuating insanity.
All that being said, we have to recognize that the powers that be in our world have an
uncanny ability to take any idea – however good that idea may be in itself – and
weaponize it, that is, turn it into a tool for them to use to pursue their power-obsessed
transhumanist agenda. Multi-culturalism is a very good idea. Tolerance is a very good idea.
Globalism is a very good idea. Human rights is a very good idea. In fact, these ideas and many
more are essential to a better human future, to any human future. They are being used in
today's world to help bring about a global police state.
We need to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The fundamental ideas
are very good in many cases. They ways they are used can be paradoxical and manipulative. For
example, respect for diversity and tolerance turns into censorship and intolerance. Wishes for
a global humanity turn into a growing global inhumanity. Championing for human rights turns
into warmongering.
Let's attack the way good ideas are manipulated, not the good ideas themselves. Queer people
are good people. Embracing diversity isn't just a good idea. It's the right thing to do and an
essential part of the path towards a better world.
@Curmudgeon
and grab their crotches and scream at us like looks, "LOOK AT ME! PAY ATTENTION TO ME!".
Only seriously sick, infantile and demented intellects behave that way. Again, normal for
THEM. Against the mean of humanity, they are sick fucks top to bottom, the lot of them. It
ain't their queer shit they engage in, it's the advocacy and refusal to leave us the fuck alone
over it. The instant they aren't getting attention, they throw another parade, riot or invent a
new degeneracy for us to 'accept'. What they're doing is building backlash at this point. It's
high time the entire community experienced such. They aren't worth the attention and
expense.
Doesn't the gay lobby's claim if "born that way" contradict the trans argument that they
aren't limited to their biological setup? Why are they allied?
Serena Williams was as doped as Barry Bonds. And it was covered up the same way Lance
Armstrong's doping was covered up, including the blackmail and various other threats. Add in
race, with the Numinous Negro seen as untouchable, and you get doped Serena whose cheating must
be ignored even if it were to lead to murders.
One of the other things the movement does, and the Left does generally is, always claim when
anyone raises any concern about the slippery slope, "Oh that will never happen" (like burly
guys claiming to be women in order to go into women's bathrooms where your daughter is, etc).
Then if you point out some major news item (most suppressed now I bet) where this actually did
happen, then they say, "that's very rare the exception etc" (like illegals killing you or your
kids). Then later, the third step is, "these things are going to happen on occasion it's part
of living in the modern world" (like, living with Terrorism in London). You see the same steps
used with an in everything. Over time, and generations and with public education you see that
the coming generations never need to be sold the prior steps, eventually it just becomes
policy.
They've been gaslighting Americans for decades with the whole "gays will never ask for
marriages, geez-us, dummy, they just want to be left alone" regardless of the controversial
topic. They open the Overton window, and throw you out of it within a short time frame. Nothing
in my long life has moved so rapidly as the LGBT movement. Not even "race relations"
(normalizing of black crime, interracial relationships, etc etc).
Doesn't the gay lobby's claim if "born that way" contradict the trans argument that they
aren't limited to their biological setup? Why are they allied?
Don't forget that the radical feminist lesbians (the so-called TERF) and the trannies hate
each other's guts.
@freedom-cat
t into something else until they leave. That's not a compliment.
You meant to say that some women have normal female hormonal output and some women are
variously Black and /or on steroids.
No natural White woman is as masculine looking as the Williams sisters. They aren't trans,
they're Black with the higher testosterone count that goes with it.
Whether roided up or merely enjoying the increased hormonal output that makes younger women
of their race pound for pound almost as strong as natural White men (especially at non-obese
weights), they look and play like men (to be generous) in skirts and will ruin women's tennis
(like a tranny would) for as long as they are in the sport.
Most in the West, particularly in the U.S., still haven't gotten their minds around the last
quarter century. CCP China won the post-Cold War period hands down.
What became evident years ago is that elite Westerners were of mixed opinion (to say the
least) on the collapse of the Soviet/Totalitarian model. It isn't as if these sentiments
weren't visible even at the height of The Cold War in the form of pessimism of a free (naive)
society defeating such an enemy. But, after Soviet Communism collapsed, and State Capitalist
China began to rise, the Administrative State in particular had lots of reasons to find
technocratic control appealing.
Ideologically, there is no longer a dime's bit of difference between Western multinational
corporations and CCP-led China.
I bring this broad view up in this context because the Sexual Rights Revolution long ago
turned coercive. My working assumption has long been that if a movement's agenda is Live and
Let Live (freedom) it has an opening. But when it turns coercive it will eventually come a
cropper.
You have to be blind not to see the stark difference between gay men/lesbians and trans. The
latter are sick puppies at war with everyone else, including garden variety gays and
lesbians.
Vaclav Havel has written about the Communists true objective being to humiliate by forcing
everyone to mouth the lies. That's the stage we're at regarding trans propaganda and, in my
view, it is no more sustainable than any previous attempts.
I know you and much of your readership wants to analogize to Jews and Israel. I understand
why given similar coercive tactics. But this is the very definition of self-defeating behavior.
Everyone is not alike, including peoples. Just as blacks are unique in American life (as
Hillary discovered) so are Jews with a different metaphor of suffering.
One really must feel sorry for homos in Russian and Eastern European countries–not
because of persecution or anything, but because Slavic men are so goddamned fucking ugly.
Seriously, how is it that Slavic women are naturally pretty (at least until the hit 30, and
then they turn into babushkas overnight), but Slavic men are uniformly ogres?
The "muzzle question" was created by the supremacist-pagan-whitrash. That question (or
problem, as you would more rightly perceive it) can be resolved only when a solution can be
found for the supremacist-pagan-whitrash abomination.
Self-genocide of the supremacist-pagan-whitrash (may I suggest monk-hood, for y'all papist
mfrs) a clear manifestation of nature's built-in equilibrium.
@Golobki
-process from them? They're retarded and infantile in every way imaginable. Proof that
feminists are weak, those feminists allow the trannies to steal scholarships after the
NOW-crowd pestered us for Title IX. This is a whole other reason for greater intake of the
M&Ms of the Depressed. With trannies, the feminists are a group who, if the feminists
(TERFs) protest, now find themselves in a street fight with trannies who have no sense of
chivalry. Women aren't strong, they're weak. And most hetero White men aren't coming to their
defense, anymore, never again. Take care of your own and hell with everyone else. Defending
them is a fool's errand.
Abrahmic religions: Judaism / Christianity / Islam
Then they are much more hostile to mens homosexuality, than to female's: who cares what
Solomon/Suleiman's wives did in harem?
However i am not sure mitraism or zoroastrism or european paganic religions were so
passionately hostile to it.
Buddhism, sintoism – are them?
Now, one may say that those are Abrahmic religions who "own" the world today, and by this
metric are "major". And that their stance on homosexuality made them successful im that
conquest. Which, maybe is. However then the causality would be opposite: not the major
religions are against gays, but religions starkly against gays have better chances to became
major ones
Precisely because Williams literally looks like a gorilla in a tennis skirt when playing
natural White females.
Which coincides with her races gorilla behavior that literally everyone, including
themselves, tries their best to escape (chasing everyone else ever further away).
Do you want more Black gorilla comparisons or are you regretting your metaphor?
Racism is the rejection of widespread gorilla behavior.
In tennis, its obvious that one race can develop lean muscle mass above most other races and
therefore come to dominate the sports in which they participate. Muscle mass that other humans
can not so readily develop.
But imagine if they were related. One human "tribe" with their average "phenotype", the
outlook set somewhere between masculinity and femininity.
Then men and women deviate from that average into different directions.
Not A and B but rather (A-B) and (A+B)
Towards one pole you would have then beautiful(handsome) men with clearly defined manly
features. Square jaws and all that. However the consequence would be manly ugly women.
Towards another pole you would have beautiful(gorgeous) women with soft and soothing
features. And in consequence – men lacking those "monumental" qualities in their
exhibits.
The Bible has been right for millenia and will always be right as long as humans are
around, regardless of how "advanced" some lunatics think we are at this random point in
time.
Lol!
I understand that the point of my post is not even mentioned in this "Bible" of yours, but
before confidently (more like delusionally) claiming its inerrancy, you may first wish to
square-the-circle of your foundational creed that oxymoron called Monotheistic
Trinitarianism . You would then have a much firmer base to stand on, and spew your
nonsense.
I second the vote as I have always favored "sodomite" over any other term.
The political sodomite groups I have always simply referred to as "the acronym people" as I
have long lost track of what the ever-changing line of letters stand for.
"Now, the word "phobia" can mean one of two things: aversion/hatred or
fear/anxiety.
Does this make sense to you?"
No. It means, as the link provided states. Exaggerated/unreasonable fear. This is why it's
use to imply hatred sounds so stupid. No one is afraid of Homosexuals or Islam. Use of the word
in this manner has rendered it impotent and put it in the same category as 'racist' or
'fascist' that have just come to mean 'stuff I don't like' .
@Virgile
r men -- and that is true of normal, heterosexual men around the world.
Normal heterosexual men have and fantasize about having anal sex as a "top" with
women -- since sex is about pleasure as well as reproduction, and some fraction of both
sexes find this act pleasurable (partly for psychological reasons, ie as an act of
submission by the female).
Also normal heterosexual men enjoy receiving and fantasize about receiving oral sex
(fellatio) from a woman .
What abnormal heterosexual men (?) may practice or fantasize about is anyone's guess.
As much as homosexuals vehemently deny it, homosexuality and pedophilia are inextricably
linked. Almost all homosexuals have had their first homosexual "experience" introduced to them
by an ADULT homosexual as pre-teen males. This, in itself constitutes homosexual pedophilia,
which is criminal behavior in itself and is a way to destroy a pre-teen child for life.
The so-called Roman Catholic priest "child abuse scandal" was actually homosexual pedophilia in
action. Of course the "mainstream media" could not afford to offend the "homosexual community"
by calling what it really was–thereby, the "play on words", calling it "child sex abuse"
rather than homosexual pedophilia–the true definition of their sordid behavior.
I must play "devil's advocate" when it comes to the Catholic church homosexual pedophilic
priest "problem" The Catholic church was "caught between a rock and a hard place" and had every
right to be concerned about how many false claims would be made by those parishioners who
belonged to the parish at the same time as this behavior was going on. Follow the money Of
course, there is (and was) absolutely NO EXCUSE for this homosexual pedophilic behavior
It is interesting to note that the number of incidents of homosexual pedophilia among clergy is
higher for Protestant ministers and jewish rabbis than for that of Catholic priests. These
figures are carefully "covered up" so as not to offend Protestant and jewish interests.
Sad to say, the homosexual lobby is at it again, encouraging the "psychiatric community" to
change the definition of pedophilia from a psychiatric "disorder" to a mere "lifestyle", not
unlike what was done for homosexuality. Sick, huh??
Woman Raised By Lesbians Has Some Shocking Things To Say About Needing A Dad
Experience is supposed to be top card over any and all facts. But what happens when
experience blows holes in the activist narrative?
It doesn't matter who you click with. That was what the airline put in their ads.
Homosexuals should be able to raise children. We've been told this for as long as same-sex
relationships have been socially acceptable.
But did anybody ask what the CHILDREN thought about it?
One has finally spoken up. The keepers of the narrative will not like it.
We can probably expect her to be given the same rough treatment that other heretics against
the cause, like Milo, are given.
So, while she still has a voice, let's let hers be heard:
It's her own personal story, after all. By the rules of the game as the Left has been
playing it, who can judge her for her own story?
[Heather]Barwick, who is 31 now, married, and has four children, said that same-sex marriage
and parenting withholds either a mother or father from a child while telling him or her that it
doesn't matter. That it's all the same. But it's not.
"A lot of us, a lot of your kids, are hurting," wrote Barwick in her essay for The
Federalist website. "My father's absence created a huge hole in me, and I ached every day for a
dad. I loved my mom's partner, but another mom could never have replaced the father I
lost."
"I grew up surrounded by women who said they didn't need or want a man," said Barwick. "Yet,
as a little girl, I so desperately wanted a daddy. It is a strange and confusing thing to walk
around with this deep-down unquenchable ache for a father, for a man, in a community that says
that men are unnecessary."
She used to be an advocate of same-sex marriage. So she isn't motivated by disdain for
same-sex relationships. She's backing a different cause now.
"Gay marriage doesn't just redefine marriage, but also parenting," she says. "It promotes
and normalizes a family structure that necessarily denies us something precious and
foundational. It denies us something we need and long for, while at the same time tells us that
we don't need what we naturally crave. That we will be okay. But we're not. We're hurting."
"It's not just me," said Barwick. "There are so many of us. Many of us are too scared to
speak up and tell you about our hurt and pain, because for whatever reason it feels like you're
not listening. That you don't want to hear."
"If we say we are hurting because we were raised by same-sex parents, we are either ignored
or labeled a hater," she wrote.
Source: Daily Mail
Now she's an advocate of Children's rights. She's also married and a mother of four.
Buckle up, Heather. It looks like you'll be in for a rough ride.
The parallels between how the Israel Lobby carefully crafted the public discourse on
Zionism and Israel and how the LGBTQIAPK+ Lobby succeeded in shaping the public discourse on
homosexuality is striking and not at all coincidental: for a host of reasons these two
lobbies strongly support each other and learn from each other.
That explains the rapid political rise of Pete Buttigieg, he is being used as a proxy
warrior for the Zionists
@Deschutes
until 12 th grade .
3 sex education is not for KG or 4 th grader
( congratulations to those brave Muslim and Christian parents who stopped teaching of sex and
homosexuality in primary school in Britain )
5 don't demand religious marriage
6 you can choose as your health beneficiary who ever you want .
7 you can go to work and you can demand to be hired despite having effeminate or masculine
attitudes but keep the dress and the overt behavior free of sexual vibes .
8 society doesn't like serial philanderer , who serially dupes , charlatan , polygamy ,
multiple girl friend dame time or multiple marriages . Because society gets hurt . Society
might feel same way to LG .
Yes, but the subsidy should be given by their local church or other social club, not by a
governmental body. The societal goal should be freedom of association for adults. This would
include freedom for private organizations to promote preferred behaviors and to publicly
denounce abhorrent behaviors.
I share Saker's loathing of the LGBTQ blippety blip + alphabetism. I also agree with some of
his points and strongly disagree with others. The central issue is the condemnation of sex
between males (not "homosexuality"), which is a theological taboo originating in the Holiness
Code of Leviticus -- a taboo carried forward by all three Abrahamic religions. I chronicle this
taboo in my 1998 book, A Freethinker's Primer of Male Love. In historical and anthropological
perspective, male-to-male sex is an ordinary, healthy part of the human sexual repertoire.
Historically, and also today, gay men can and do marry women and raise families. There is no
contradiction. If anything, a male's ability to have sex with another male enhances his ability
to have sex with a female. My Stonewall50 manifesto is in the link.
BTW, Ron, I'm a Harvard grad, and voted for you in the election back when.
The argument I use, to instantly destroy the stupid argument that if one doesn't agree with
homosexuality and instantly labelled a homophobe and a closet homosexual, I reply "So you're
obviously a paedophobe and a closet paedophile then?"
Homosexuality is a mental disorder. The only reason that it's no longer classed as such is
because the psychologists, in the west have been bullied into submission, firstly by being told
by the Jews, involved, in the changing of their findings, that if they didn't their
establishments would lose funding and they'd be blacklisted from working in their industry
again and secondly by the psychology departments being flooded with homosexuals.
Homosexuality is immoral, unnatural and abnormal behaviour. It cannot be disputed and is simple
fact.
I worked, as a heterosexual doorman in the past, in homosexual venues. I will always refuse
to use the word 'gay' to define these perverts. What I saw was lost young men and women. The
men were incredibly effeminate while the female opposite. It was like some sci-fi movie where
the male soul had been transplanted into the female body and vice versa. One wondered where
their vagina was while the other their penis.
I also noticed that the women were incredibly anti male, while the men not so. Of course, you
would very rarely see a lesbian hanging out with a heterosexual male, but quite the contrary
with the homosexual men. The term 'fag hag' is used to imply a heterosexual woman who hangs
about with homosexual men.
The drive towards the utter destabilising of society is most certainly, overwhelming lesbian
driven. Feminism, second wave feminism was promoted, predominantly by Jewish, lesbian
misandrists. So not only did you have the normal, indoctrinated hatred of the goyim by the Jew,
you now had double plus hatred of male goyim by these evil harpies.
If anything, what I've seen with lesbian women is penis envy at its highest. Lesbians are
overwhelmingly men haters.
It's not so much that the tail is wagging the dog, when it comes to the minority controlling
the majority, but more like the hair, on the tail of the dog. Homosexuals make up a tiny
minority of the western population. And of course, they're using the Jewish created, victim
mentality, persecution complex to force their perversion upon society.
I vehemently disagree with homosexuality, although it doesn't stop me speaking to them, as I
treat them like any other human being. I just simply disagree their sexual choice. And it
is.
Very incisive article. Saker, keep on writing as you write, no matter what they call you. As
far as homosexuals are concerned, I have known many over the years. As individuals, I have
found some to be beautiful human beings and others to be totally abominable creatures –
not any different than the larger society. Rather than concentrate on the individual
homosexual, it is the political agenda that our current society has been trying to foist on the
larger society for the past 40+ (this plus doesn't have anything to do with an previous unknown
gender). The speech Nazis and the thought Nazis utterly disgust me. It is these creatures
against who I am phobic. To keep things simple, I treat homosexuals in the same manner as I do
people who prefer chocolate ice cream rather than vanilla or vice-versa. I do not see the need
to have a special flag or a parade. Do homosexuals really add something to society at large?
True, many of them are gifted in the arts, but is this gift contingent on their sexual
proclivities? I don't think so. More abominable is the trans issue which is currently being put
in society's face. This is a far larger psychological abomination than plain old homosexuality.
I refuse to call a he a she, a zhir or a hir. I guess there might be a nice comfy place in the
upcoming Gulag or re-education camp that the uber politically-correct would love to send people
like me.
R.M. Nixon, presidential sage, had much to say on the issue . He was sometimes wrong (last 6
Roman emperors -not fags), but I like videos of his private recordings
@Brooklyn
Dave Then towards puberty boys come through some reversal of their instincts. Girls do not.
Then with boys there should be the device that *pushes* them VERY hard to reverse the very
foundation of their psychology, turn them away from mothers and to fathers and so forth.
IOW for boys aversion to male homosexuality should be natural aversion to past they need to
overcome to move onward.
We all loved to suck our mothers breasts. But if at 20yo you still feel urge to undress your
mother and suck on her breasts, them perhaps something did not click when it had to, by normal
biology path.
The Judaists are behind this depravity, to brainwash the public, to destroy families, to
warp their sexual mores. This is a part of their WAR ON CIVILIZATION. These people are
barbarians.
Hahhah .. in Proust's mind, there was also a link between Jews & homos. Here again the
opening part of "Sodom & Gomorrah".
Loaded word has loads of meaning accrued over the years . Gradually the word becomes the
victims of abuse by public to convey their narrowness . Calling someone retard might send
certain message of disappointment anger frustration and impatience but it also sends the
message that someone is not intellectually good when there is no evidence he is not .
. So retard becomes passionate and becomes re-loaded with extreme negative attitude and
conjectures .
Very soon you can't use the word mentally retarded in diagnosis .
Jun 6, 2019 If You have A Problem With The #STRAIGHTPRIDE Parade, You're Not Seeing The
BIGGER PICTURE!
This summer the city of Boston may become the first city ever to host a straight pride
parade if a group known as "Super Happy Fun America" gets their way.
Apr 6, 2019 Groundbreaking Lawsuit Could Strike Down LGBT LAWS Across The Nation
There is a similar movement for trans rights taking place in the United States however some
towns are pushing back and this week Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed a powerful
groundbreaking lawsuit against a local Ohio sexual orientation gender identity (SOGI)
non-discrimination law that some say may become the most significant religious freedom case
since Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018).
@ben
sampson k their paying customers to remain after they have examined the other species and
degenerates slithering around among us. As for "neanderthal racists" what can be more
Neanderthal than Williams and the "racist" label is a poor debate tool. I see your name is
Sampson ? You probably had your hair cut by one of the trannies and gender confused hoes you
seem to like. This must have made you weak in body matching your weak mind. Think little girl !
Even idiots like you should have some semblance of reason. LGBTQ is a sleazebag of vomit and
excrement all blended together, suitable for people like you and your ilk to wallow in !
I know for a fact that many (all?) US embassies abroad are delivering funds to promote
"gay rights" in many (most?) countries of our poor planet.
Yeah, this aspect of it may be worth an entire article of its own. The US.gov had previously
staffed many of its secret service ranks with Christian sectists like the Mormons, because it
could elicit a type of loyalty which could just not otherwise be bought. But Christians also
had a certain amount of risks for these services because some of these members brought with
them an immutable conscience which had been already formed.
It seems to me that this is where gays may have been filling the ranks of these services.
The reasons they are such perfect tools for the state is that they are not particularly
hindered undue consciences, they form a clandestine web, rejected by their own societies, loyal
to themselves, and would certainly be fiercely loyal to those who, like the US.gov, exert undue
pressure on all to support and promote 'their' LBG73 agenda. This is the danger that Justin
Raimondo warned his fellow gays about, not to shake the hand of the devil and take the bargain
by which they would be aligned with it against the entire societies in which they are let loose
on. Like all tools of Uncle Sam, it is exactly they who will become its victims once the work
of smashing these societies will fail as it it bound to do.
@Wally
e the abnormal is normal and if you disagree ? Well then you are a racist, homophobe etc.
That is the extent of his ability to reason. The poor fellow is probably an ivy league
graduate.
I would bet money his favorite holiday spots are San Francisco and Israel. And his favorite
song ? "I left my arse in San Francisco"
Girls like him (did I say him?) serve as good examples, that is negative ones. They keep us
straight and righteous men who acknowledge that while freaks of nature are a small percentage
of the overall population there is a right and wrong eternally dictated by nature.
I think it's probably never a good idea to ask your enemies to be "fair" to you, or ask them
for anything else either. At this time, although so many of the allied lies (and the Russians,
with Jewish influence, were liars as big as anyone) were exposed decades ago already, the
"NAZI" epithet continues to benefit some people, mostly the Jews. But eventually, your debunked
soap and lampshade stories, the 4 million and 40 years later 1 million (still without evidence)
dead at Auschwitz (Russian Jew?) lies and the fact that even Ukrainians and others in the USSR
welcomed the German army, while no Germans welcomed the raping Reds or their allies, has to
eventually make a light go off in even the dumbest that something is still wrong with your
story.
Homosexual behaviour etc is not about sex. Sex is the intentional act of trying to create
offspring. IVF is closer to sex than all this erotic play, which is all these behaviours
are.
Is erotic play without an underlying desire to create kids bad? Not particularly. It is
materialistic, and reduces your other side to lumps of flesh, but without the intention to do
harm or deceive, it is just erotic play.
@Rabbitnexus
seek to prove that this is unacceptable behaviour scientists have proven that the lower
intestine of the average "man" holds 5 to 10 pounds of uneliminated you know what.
In the Nam, the Viet Cong used to smear sharpened bamboo sticks with human feces. Step on it
and you are guaranteed a bad infection, human feces being extremely poisonous. Imagine sticking
your stick into 5 to 10 pounds of that.
It shows you how far we have progressed in logic and civilization when you have these queers
justifying their perversions .and expecting everyone else to understand and accept their
twisted degeneracy !
if somewhere around 1.2%-2.2% of humans might be born homosexuals and if sociopaths are
3%-5% of the population, then sociopathy is about as "natural" as homosexuality. In fact, we
could even declare that sociopathy is a " normal and positive variation of personality".
If you believe what you see on telly in the Decadent West, half the population in the
Decadent West are persons of colour, half the white population are gay, and any remaining white
folk are the socio- and psychopaths, indeed making it a normal condition, but one found almost
exclusively among white-straight folks.
I'm a live and let live guy, but what we have now is children being recruited as early as
eight years of age, sometime younger, often in the schools, and a dedicated set of activists
rushing them off to clinics and hormones to get them on track with hormones, etc., before
puberty sets in to take them in the direction nature might take them.
We are well beyond brainwashing in the Decadent West our children are being Gender-formed,
and parents are almost powerless to stop it.
As there is no PC BS in Russia, Russian bloggers call them "brothers Williams". I don't now
about anatomy, but to anyone familiar with mammalian biology high testosterone shows.
Testosterone and its analogs come in pills. Of course, WADA would never find doping in brothers
Williams – it is paid not to.
Everyone enjoys a little fag bashing fun as a welcome relief from the usual jew baiting but
only Wally could accomplish a proper Hegelian dialectical synthesis: the jew has a fag
gene.
If people want to be homos or 'gay,' fine with me, but please keep your sexual proclivities
to yourself and your community.
The rest of us don't want or need to see gay people prancing down the street, in a costume
festooned with dildos, swapping spit with your boyfriend(s) and wearing only skimpy Speedo
outfits.
And stay away from our kids. We know you can't reproduce, so you have to recruit. And the
younger the easier to get the gullible little ones to your side.
It's easy to see where all this gay propaganda is leading; The LGBTQ crowd want to add MAP
to their roster, which is Minor Attracted Person, or what we would call a pedophile.
"I'm a live and let live guy, but what we have now is children being recruited as early as
eight years of age, sometime younger, often in the schools, and a dedicated set of activists
rushing them off to clinics and hormones to get them on track with hormones, etc., before
puberty sets in to take them in the direction nature might take them."
I think this is accurate. The diminished capacity of parents to protect their children from
this type of education (indoctrination?) is a very serious issue. And very few in the
Psychiatric and counseling community are standing up against the practice.
I wish the article had been more directed on the issue as opposed to the side barring. And
good place to have started is with The Kinsey Report and its impact on the general population
and counseling. The other aspect to have tackled head on is how that along with the APA
Conferences in the 1970(?) and especially 1973 at which the DSM classification was changed.
That change was not predicated on science. But a very bizarre violent protest in which
conference passes were manufactured to homosexual advocates that enabled them to attend
sessions and the general meetings during which via of violence protest and threats they
hijacked the process intimidated the classification reviewers so intensely that the change was
made.
To this date there is not evidence that same sex conduct is determined by ant steady state
bio-mechanism or process – none.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- –
The photos opening the article are misleading, and damage the credibility of the author's
intent. A photo of a tennis player breaking from play and another of a tennis player wading
leisurely at the beach has not connection to the article in my view. At least I don't get it.
Whatever their physique neither of these women profess to prefer same sex relations -- at least
not to my knowledge.
Phew! Excuse me if I didn't read every word. Am I unenlightened if I just settle for
supporting a rule that no penis should be exhibited in a Ladies loo?
'Perverts – and to a lesser degree deviants – is loaded word too '
Well, perhaps but only because of the necessary implications of the words. After all, to
pervert means to turn aside from a natural and intended purpose, to misuse.
How else would you describe all these possible ways of obtaining sexual gratification
without even simulating the act of reproduction?
To deviate merely means to fail to follow the prescribed course. That one's positively
polite. I frequently deviate from hopping on I-5, preferring to drive through town on my way to
Costco.
I see no need to seek still more obscure euphemisms.
@Jon
Baptist . Propaganda is a weapon to be used against a culture, society, nation, and even
the entire population of the world.
It could be argued speech is not protected under the constitution when such speech or
articles in the press has or have been designed, engineered, and programmed to establish an
"experience space" that reprograms the human mind.
I do not believe propaganda is protected speech or even speech, under the Constitution?
Instead I argue it is fraud. and that it should be prosecuted a fraud.. under the criminal
statutes passed by the Article I congress. and endorsed or not vetoed by the Article II
President.
Without exception, every homosexual I know is miserable. A walking stew of drama, hatred and
mental instability. Even ones that have careers, money, and good families engage in hysterical
promiscuity.
It is ironic, however, to call a weak man a fag. How tough are you to have your rectum torn
to shreds every day?
Male sodomy is repellent. I can't get past it when I look at that Buttleig. It worries me
that they- the people who run America- are going to put him in office as a final kick in the
teeth after the Obama experiment.
When I was young there was a question about homosexuality. Is it nature or nurture?
According to an article I recently read (not in a scientific publication) it was stated that
researchers have been able to induce homosexuality in rats by giving hormone injections to a
pregnant rat at a particular time of the gestation period. They appear to have 95% success
inducing homosexual behavior in rats. This suggests male homosexuality might be caused by
hormone fluctuations in the pregnant mother. Diet might have something to do with it. Sorry, I
forgot which publication I read.
Parents are not powerless to stop it. Instead they are either intellectually corrupt,
cynical, delusional or outright lazy to counter progressive dribble.
Wow! I have to agree again. I believe that the choice of restrooms should be determines by
the equipment you have, regardless of how you feel. Say, if I say that I feel like a dog, the
police won't take it as an excuse for peeing in the street.
We can't stop the sociopaths from lying but there are things that can be done:
–Vigorous antitrust action against any large "communications" companies (today that
would include any large Silicon Valley company). They need to be broken up into tiny pieces,
and the television "networks" need to be abolished.
–Banning censorship or attempts to punish speech by any large organization (as well as
government entities all the way down to school districts).
Bad speech is not the biggest problem–censorship and punishment for speaking the truth
is the problem that needs to be addressed.
@Colin
Wright ms, we should call a spade a spade. But if we discard both PC BS and religious zeal
and stick to a purely scientific view, homosexuality and bestiality are mental disorders, like
schizophrenia. If everything is by consent, that's their business, although mental disorder is
nothing to be proud of. To see what I mean, just imagine a schizophrenia pride parade. But the
society has a perfect right and an obligation to protect normal people from mentally deranged
and otherwise afflicted. Every condition requires certain limitations. It is not
discrimination, it's pure protection of the rest of society. Say, we don't let blind people
drive cars or fly planes.
Some of these comments are very sad to read as they depict a blind rejection of a phenomenon
found in our society for thousands of years to which there has never been a convincing
explanation.
Resorting to demeaning insults toward human beings affected by one of nature's oddities only
shows immaturity and inhumanity.
I wish none of the author of these comments has a gay child. They would probably reject
him/her or kill him/her as they do in some backward countries.
Homosexuality is just a mental disease, like schizophrenia. We should follow a simple rule
"if you don't approve of abortions, don't have one". If it's disgusting to you, don't do it.
Like one of my male colleagues said, "if I were a trans-sex, I'd be a lesbian: the thought of
another male is disgusting". The push for globohomo is a different thing: politically motivated
abomination, like propaganda of "exceptional" and "indispensable" nation.
Embracing diversity isn't just a good idea. It's the right thing to do
"Allowing yourself to be geopolitically dispossessed and your race and culture eradicated
isn't just a good idea, its the right thing to do".
Your false moralizing has no credibility nor impact. Once again, observable reality shines a
light on the bankrupt morality of those trying to now dictate it.
Given that your contingent's mission is to invert traditional human morality, you have no
legitimate moral platform from which to dictate morality. You and yours are quintessentially
immoral and depraved, to use the word that you tried to laughably co-opt in your sad attempt to
invert reality. Anon [178] Disclaimer , says: July 14,
2019 at 5:39 pm GMT
No one likes faggots, as almost universally they have personality disorders. Not even other
faggots.
Traditional society wasn't idiotic. It knew. People were much less insulated from high
stakes losses in the social sphere. All manner of people that were once kept to the periphery
were kept there for good reasons that today still exist.
What is idiotic is thinking that society has discovered uncovered wisdom instead of
regressed, or that your little hissy fit using meaningless labels reads like anything but a
queen in a typically histrionic fit.
@Deschutes
e happy with them. Thus maintaining them and never giving society an excuse to revert.
Instead, like every other identity group whose agenda is not just parallel rights but to
conquer broader society and its institutions: they are going to ramp everything up to 11 and
keep pushing until there is an inevitable and decisive pushback by society. At that point,
homosexual rights will be absolutely crushed back to the stone age. Mark my words.
There is no majority future for homosexuals, however unfortunate for them. Many of us are
born with obstacles. To act like reality will ever be different for them is to assure their own
eventual oppression in a manner that modern people are not accustomed.
@John
Lauritsen there's more of it going on than most people notice. Male homosexuals and lesbi-
ans, respectively, exemplify these two opposite maneuvers. Am- bitious male homosexuals, at
least in fantasy, aspire to rise, and from humble origins to ascend to the ownership of antique
busi- nesses, art galleries, and hair salons. The object is to end by frequenting the Great.
They learn to affect elegant telephone voices and gravitate instinctively toward "style" and
the grand.
The ultimate male-homosexual social dream is to sit at an elegant dinner table, complete
with flowers and doilies and finger bowls, surrounded by rich, successful, superbly suited and
gowned, witty, and cleverly immoral people.
In the 1920s Andre Gide stated that the only true avant garde position for 20th
century men was homosexuality. He was the first self proclaimed homosexual to receive the Nobel
prize for literature, awarded in recognition of his avant garde-isme , for his body of
work was built around the rejection of religious, familial, social, sexual and political norms.
Sound familiar?
This suggests that the LGBTQIAPK+ is a logical end point of so-called Enlightenment
"rationalism" , in which vice and anomie magically convert into virtue. As should be clear from
its suffix (i.e. -ism)
rationalism has little relation to logic and absolutely no relation to logos. Rationalism is
anti-logos.
"Homosexuality is a phenomenon which has probably always existed and which has often
polarized society into two camps: those who believe that there is something inherently
bad/wrong/pathological/abnormal with homosexuality (probably most/all major religions) and
those who emphatically disagree"
((They)Live) will soon be working on us to accept Beastiality as normal. The movie "Shape of
Water"
being the vehicle whereby Beastiality will be shown to impressionable young and old people.
Sodom and Gomorrah is more than just a warning from the past.
I wasn't talking about homosexuals.
The "target audience" for this insanity is the predominantly White middle, working, and
underclass in Western society.
This .thing .is really just contemporary version of O'Brien's game on Winston about 'how many
fingers you see".
You know what was O'Brien achieving there?
Hahaha .a the end "we" will LOVE Black Transgender as the President of USA, have our daily
meal of cabbage and cheap liquor and be happy.
At least something like that is the plan.
Where would the world be without Michelangelo, Oscar Wilde, Cole Porter, and Yves
Saint-Laurent? Without question – a whole lot poorer. Well beyond their numbers,
homosexuals have contributed greatly to human culture.
Beating up homosexuals for sport and forcing them to hide themselves is clearly wrong. With
that said, the pendulum has swung to far with the LGBTQIAPK+ phenomena. The idea that a
LGBTQIAPK+ life is a normal way of living on par with heterosexual living is false. It should
not have to be said, that the heterosexual life is the ideal normal life – it is the life
prescribed by nature to advance humanity into the future. The LGBTQIAPK+ life is something
less.
Only a man and a woman can achieve all that is human – their combined different
emotions are needed to prosper into the future. Facing the world, a man and a woman make a
whole human. The LGBTQIAPK+ human pair are always going to be missing half of the human
emotions needed to advance.
Clearly LGB is a natural happening (2%). But it is not an ideal happening. Most mature
homosexuals would choose to be heterosexual.
TQIAPK+ is an abomination – it is contrived – to alter one's body is unnatural
and unneeded. It is Ok to be an effeminate man or a butch woman – there is zero need to
alter one's body and degrade one's heath.
Adults messing around with children's sexuality is a crime – period. That goes for
heterosexuals and homosexuals.
p.s. Once again we must thank Ron Unz for another ground breaking article – kudos!
@PeterMX
rs with the composer Reynaldo Hahn and with Alfred Agostinelli, the prototype for Albertine,
were very authentic relationships. The refugees from Sodom and Gomorrah are compared by Proust
to the Jews of the Diaspora, and more explicitly to Adam and Eve exiled from Eden. J. E. Rivers
emphasizes that this parallel of Sodom, Jerusalem, and Eden is at the heart of Proust's novel
and fuses the Jewish power of survival with homosexual endurance throughout the ages, so that
both Jews and homosexuals achieve representative status as instances of the human condition
since, as Proust says, "the true paradises are the paradises we have lost."
"Parents are not powerless to stop it. Instead they are either intellectually corrupt,
cynical, delusional or outright lazy to counter progressive dribble."
Apparently unfamiliar with the current positioning regarding children. The advent of
children's rights has been hijacked by counselors in the educational system. The power of state
agencies such as education are empowered to protect a child's welfare. With the
reclassification of homosexual conduct and the volumes of descriptions by the psychiatric
professionals (medical) community a child wrestling with their identity and is experiencing
psychological trauma can now call upon such professionals to protect their rights regarding how
they define their gender. Parental rights is not what it used to be.
When Gov. Reagan was in office in Ca. voters readily and astutely understood the
implications and voted legislation that would prevent those advocates for homosexual conduct
and gender reassignment from engaging proselytizing and or advocating for the behavior in
academic settings that involved children. They understood the implications and in an attempt to
protect their rights as parents and protect their children from undue influence moved to
prevent it.
Governor Reagan thought the measure too extreme and vetoed the law --
Anyone who thinks that parents are merely weak, stupid, or what have you has little
understanding of the sea change that has taken place regarding the protection of children
--
That was in CA more than thirty years ago -- it's no leap of logic to consider what the
reality is today across the country in today.s environment. One might also want to consider
what is being advocated among educators by the National Academy of sciences. This was one of
the areas of concern in supporting the current president's election – he is on board with
the ho,mosexual agenda.
@paulll
sbians and feminists won't be too happy when forced to wear Burkhas and be married to a Mullah
to pump out babies for him. And there will be no one to defend them will there? You've been
attacking them from day one, calling them every name under the sun in order to enforce your
warped beliefs upon the rest of society.
Queer people are deeply, deeply disturbed people, living a life of delusion and denial,
complete slaves to their depraved, sexual desires. Queers, transgenders and every other gender
definition grouping out there are forcing their insanity upon the sane and calling them out as
haters and 'x'phobes for disagreeing.
"The "target audience" for this insanity is the predominantly White middle, working, and
underclass in Western society."
Well, that may be but that argument is being made largely whites. And every major
legislation that has upended the traditional view has been by the advocacy of white
professionals: educators, doctors, lawyers and legislators. The constant hyper-focus on blacks
leaves white advocates to continue to be successful in dismantling objective reality.
Dante placed sodomites and usurers as a pair together in the lowest circle of the
inferno.
Why a pair?
Because sodomy makes what is fertile (sex) sterile while usury (charging any interest at all
on a loan) makes what is sterile (gold) fertile. Sodomy and usury are thus the mirror image of
each other.
It is no coincidence that the western world is simutaneously drowning in debt and dying out
from a low birth rate.
The curse of sodomy will be lifted when we return to the teachings of Moses and Jesus who
opposed charging interest on loans.
Since it is now more than 500 years since Christians abandoned the ancient teachings it
would be wise for us to restore them with dispatch.
There are also plenty of straight men who are into anal intercourse with women. I've never
quite understood this myself. Even Heartiste seemed to talk it up a lot, as if this act asserts
some form of dominance over women that vaginal intercourse doesn't. Maybe there is something to
this, in that it would be less pleasurable for women (especially with them not having a
prostate gland that can be stimulated). Regardless, the act is unhygienic and unnatural no
matter who is doing it.
@Deschutes
tory time at the local library, they are not simply wanting to be left alone.
When they are demanding the rest of us give into their mental illness and refer to them as the
opposite sex, they are not simply being left alone.
I don't care what two people voluntarily do sexually, as long as it does not involve kids or
household pets. If you want to be painted blue and slapped with a yardstick, go for it. If you
want to have congress with a horse, that is your business and maybe it will kick you and break
your neck. But I don't want to see it or have it shoved down my throat. Parading down the
street is not simply wanting to be left alone.
Of course, providing we constantly pass the checks that we are on the proper line of feeling
and thought. Social ahm services will take care of it.
Occasional beatings by the "other" we'll accept as normal for the life we lead. You know as
raining. I could go on but you get the picture.
Now I am sure most people feel I am exaggerating a lot. That's O.K. They probably felt the
same when 20 years ago some rare people were saying this was coming to pass. Hetero equal to
homo enforced by state and accepted by social elites and, apparently, even majority of Western
societies. Frog and boiling water thing.
"... Sir Kim Darroch's secret cable to London was leaked to the Daily Mail, wherein he called the Trump administration "dysfunctional unpredictable faction-riven diplomatically clumsy and inept," the odds on his survival as U.K. ambassador plummeted. ..."
"... his departure in any case, is hilarious. The British aristocracy today are a den of pedophiles and corrupt, war mongering scum. ..."
"... Britain an ally? Not since the end of WW2, I think. In Orwell's "1984" the island of Great Britain is called Airstrip One. Orwell understood, I think, that Britain had become a mere vassal of the "cousins" across The Pond. At best Britain is a remora to the American shark, gobbling tidbits that escape the American maw ..."
"... I would say, that since the 1970's, the US and the UK have been fast going down together. They have both lost their identity. ..."
"... They are the ideological centers Neoliberalism, de-industrialization, outsourcing, multiculturalism, political correctness and SJWism, and both have disconnected extractive elites. It's an Anglo-Jewish thing that's also pulling down Canada, Australia and New Zealand. ..."
"... "there are no permanent allies, only permanent interests" or something to that effect ..."
"... The alliance in question is good for bankers in New York and London. But as for the rest of us .. not so much. ..."
"... 'Special relationship' is shorthand for the British ruling class trying to manipulate U.S. foreign policy, much like Zionists today. ..."
"... Given examples are fake. It was American forces who covertly destroyed the USS Maine in order to start a war with Spain for territorial control. The Zimmermann letter was created by British Intelligence as a means of helping America into a war it's people didn't want to be a part of. Britain didn't tilt towards the confederacy it hedged it's bets with both sides in order to exploit the civil war for it's own gain ..."
"... Outside the EU, the UK will be on its own and fairly isolated. That makes it the best ally and prey for the USA. The UK will offer to act an USA agent in the region, a sort of christian Israel. ..."
"... Now that Trump has his state visit out of the way and has had afternoon tea with the Queen, there is nothing to stop him turning on the UK like a rabid dog. The leaked diplomatic cables said nothing that anybody who reads a newspaper didn't already know, and clearly the 'outrage' is fake ..."
"... To be honest Britain and the U.S. never did have any interests in common. The U.S. saw Britain as an economic and imperial rival to be destroyed or neutered. They chose neutering. ..."
"... Our elites and yours get on great together. ..."
"... The divide is between the elites on one hand and the peoples on the other ..."
When Sir Kim Darroch's secret cable to London was leaked to the Daily Mail, wherein he
called the Trump administration "dysfunctional unpredictable faction-riven diplomatically
clumsy and inept," the odds on his survival as U.K. ambassador plummeted.
When President Donald Trump's tweeted retort called Darroch "wacky," a "stupid guy" and
"pompous fool" who had been "foisted on the US," the countdown to the end began.
Kim's departure do not cancel out that American interest.
(I made sure I left out the laughable and ludicrous title)
But his departure in any case, is hilarious. The British aristocracy today are a den of pedophiles and corrupt, war
mongering scum.
If there was a shed of decency in England, Tony Blair would be in a cage, every member of
the BBC who facilitated Jimmy Savil's serial predations would be in a cage. And the person
who handed the scrip for the controlled demolition of building seven to the BBC journalist,
would be interrogated to the n'th, to find out who knew and how.
But instead that rotting nation is busy jailing a young man for calling attention to
serial gang rape of England's school girls, while the pedophile elites are busy trying to
figure out how to tell the British people that the ruse of "democracy' has been a charade all
along, and that they're not going to get their precious Brexit, because their feudal lords at
the ((ECB)) would consider that inconvenient.
not cancel out that American interest
"American interest", eh? What pray might that possibly be? What even, is an American?
If you arrive here illegally, and step foot on the soil, many Americans, (obviously most
of the Democrats) consider you an American in better standing than the citizens whose
ancestors have lived in these lands and fought in her wars, for untold generations.
So if there's really no such thing as an American, and the courts have decided that the
Constitution applies to every person on the planet, then cyphering who exactly is an
American, when all 7+ billion people in the world are, is a tricky thing.
And as for that elusive "American interest", it seems that too is a conundrum. Are the Eternal Wars, an American interest? Were the bank bailouts, an American interest? Or a Wall Street, international finance
– interest.
Those are the things the American tax-slave is forced to shovel trillions of dollars out
for, but I hardly see how doing so serves the American people whatsoever. Indeed, quite the
contrary.
For decades now, the snakes holed up in DC and London- are the greatest enemies the
American people have ever known.
Ironically, if I were to scan the horizon for a nation who's principles actually are
aligned with that of the American people, vs. our enemies in DC and London, I'd have to say
that it's Putin's Russia that fills that ticket.
The only nation on the planet were our most heroic and iconic American patriot had to flee
for his life to, to escape torture and death by our enemies in DC. When he tried to point out
that our government is a den of traitorous scoundrels.
Russia is the only nation that has reined in the most recent catastrophic follies in our
Eternal Wars for Israel.
Were it not for Russia, many more thousands of our young men and women would have perished
by now in myriad wars in the Middle East to bolster Israel.
And many more trillions of dollars would have been borrowed to that end, all on the leger
for the children and grandchildren of the American people.
Russia is the actual American people's most unlikely ally, in spite of "our" elites.
Britain is a rotting carcass of a once great empire. But like the ZUS, it allowed itself
to be 'Jewed', and so now it's dying a humiliating and ignoble death.
If there's any lesson to all of this, it is don't go the way of England, and allow
the perfidy of your elites, to abase your nation's future to it's most intractable enemy.
Britain an ally? Not since the end of WW2, I think. In Orwell's "1984" the island of Great
Britain is called Airstrip One. Orwell understood, I think, that Britain had become a mere
vassal of the "cousins" across The Pond. At best Britain is a remora to the American shark,
gobbling tidbits that escape the American maw.
I don't think that Britain ever was an ally. It, like the parasite known as Israel, has
long squeezed Uncle Sucker for everything it could snatch.
Common language, culture, banking mafiosi, pedophiles etc., etc., blah, blah blah,
notwithstanding, to hell with the SoBs. And they can stuff their Rhodes "scholars," too.
Yet, in terms of language, culture, ethnicity, history, geography, America has no more
natural ally across the sea. And the unfortunate circumstances of Sir Kim's departure do
not cancel out that American interest.
I would say, that since the 1970's, the US and the UK have been fast going down together.
They have both lost their identity.
They are the ideological centers Neoliberalism, de-industrialization, outsourcing,
multiculturalism, political correctness and SJWism, and both have disconnected extractive
elites. It's an Anglo-Jewish thing that's also pulling down Canada, Australia and New
Zealand.
And the world capitals of the Zio-Glob are New York, Washington, London, Paris and Tel
Aviv. For example, they orchestrated the destruction of the Middle East, and are currently
maneuvering for the destruction of Iran, and they're the ones facing off against Russia and
China
Russia and China are outside their orbit, and are pushing back in places like Syria and
Venezuela , and R&C are looking at economic alternatives to the dollar reserve currency
and international payments through SWIFT.
I would expect currently neutral border zones to pull away from the West. Eastern Europe
towards Russia and Japan and SE Asia towards China.
I guess Churchill was corrrect when he said "there are no permanent allies, only permanent
interests" or something to that effect
I think, at this point, we might be better off looking to a newly re-constructed Russia as
an ally than an ailing Great Britian which seems to be falling apart at the seams.
Anglo-American 'natural alliance'? The alliance of these two countries has seriously
weakened the traditional constitution of both countries. I take the view that W.S. Churchill
has much to answer for. It was he, more than anyone, who undermined the traditional policy of
both countries.
Prior to Pearl Harbour, and in spite of America's entry into the First War,
the vast majority of Americans still held to the advise of outgoing president Washington when
he said: 'let us trade, with all nations, and by all means. But let it stop at that'. No
European wars is what Washington meant.
Churchill did everything he could to undermine this
policy but as he did, he also subverted Great Britain's old policy. Palmerston said that
British policy was predicated upon permanent interests not permanent allies – or
enemies for that matter.
Since the Second War Britain has become a dog on a leash, nothing
more. Churchill did what he did to save the empire, not England; he really lost both. But the
worst loss of all was the American republic that in the post war period grasped after
universal empire and destroyed itself in the process. The alliance in question is good for
bankers in New York and London. But as for the rest of us .. not so much.
There are strong ethnic and cultural links between Britain and the United States. But, as
Patrick Buchanan points out, these factors did not prevent conflict between the two. What
forms relationships are interests. They cut across all apparently unifying principles:
family, kin, nation, religion, ideology, politics – everything. The 'Zimmerman
Telegram' was a decisive factor in the US joining the First World War, its implications so
vital to core American interests. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
The email was leaked on orders of the Foreign Office (SIS.)
It's purpose is irrelevant to U.S interests. It's about UK politics and the establishment
controlling intra party shenanigans. Very entertaining!!
We have had no moral reason to continue our special relationship with the UK since
arch-villain, Sir Tony Blair, turned it into The Caliphate of Albion.
The countries of Churchill and Thatcher and of Reagan and Kennedy(JFK) are dead. Time to
stop fashioning international policies and programs according to historical realities that
ended at least a generation ago.
America has no more natural ally across the sea. And the unfortunate circumstances of
Sir Kim's departure do not cancel out that American interest.
'Special relationship' is shorthand for the British ruling class trying to manipulate U.S.
foreign policy, much like Zionists today.
The Monroe Doctrine was essentially British Foreign Minister George Canning's idea while
Scottish-born Canadian spy William Stephenson undermined American isolationists during
WWII.
Selling War: The British Propaganda Campaign Against American "Neutrality" in World War
II by Nicholas J. Cull is a good read. Equally insightful is this 1975 interview of
Sir Oswald Mosley
who was against the Polish guarantee.
Given examples are fake. It was American forces who covertly destroyed the USS Maine in
order to start a war with Spain for territorial control. The Zimmermann letter was created by
British Intelligence as a means of helping America into a war it's people didn't want to be a
part of. Britain didn't tilt towards the confederacy it hedged it's bets with both sides in
order to exploit the civil war for it's own gain. It's easy to alter history to suit an
argument. There is no special relationship, just many touch points for mutual exploitation at
the expense of their respective populations.
@Rurik acy. Dimwits like Darroch receive their "Sir" by being put on the "Honours list"
by politicians. The titles are not hereditary. There may well be pedophiles and war mongering
scum among the aristocracy, just as there are in every "elite". However, note that "Sir"
Jimmie Savile and "Lord" Janner who were at the centre of the pedophile scandal did not have
hereditary titles, they were "life peers". Titled elites – yes, aristocrats – no.
One reason the treasonous POS Blair passed legislation to do away with the hereditary
seats in the House of Lords, is that they, as the real aristocracy, opposed most of the "New
Labour" agenda, and often asked embarrassing questions.
Outside the EU, the UK will be on its own and fairly isolated. That makes it the best ally
and prey for the USA. The UK will offer to act an USA agent in the region, a sort of
christian Israel.
Happy to free themselves from the EU diktat, the British will soon discover that they are
getting the diktat now from the USA and Israel. Good luck!
Now that Trump has his state visit out of the way and has had afternoon tea with the
Queen, there is nothing to stop him turning on the UK like a rabid dog. The leaked diplomatic
cables said nothing that anybody who reads a newspaper didn't already know, and clearly the
'outrage' is fake.
Darroch was a bright young man who grew up in public housing and made a success of his
career. He will retire a little earlier than expected, but will no doubt benefit from
speaking fees, publishing his memoirs, etc. with much more name recognition that he would
otherwise have had. He will probably be glad to get out of steamy Washington early.
We have literally nothing in common with UK/AU/CA/NZ, and we should stop the idea that
there is a special relationship with any of them. There isn't.
I agree.
To be honest Britain and the U.S. never did have any interests in common. The U.S. saw
Britain as an economic and imperial rival to be destroyed or neutered. They chose
neutering.
Not that the destruction of Britain as a great power bothers me. The British were
responsible for doing an immense amount of harm.
The same applies to the Australia-U.S. "alliance" – two nations with zero interests
in common. To the extent that Australia has a natural ally it's China.
All in all, a bad week for the British Foreign Office when one of its principle
diplomats is virtually declared persona non grata
principal. Oh and our Foreign Secretary, Boris, was a US citizen until 2016, no-one cared, if your
IRS hadn't started asking him questions about his tax returns he would still be a US citizen.
Our elites and yours get on great together.
The divide is between the elites on one hand and the peoples on the other.
There is a Lie.
Then there is BIG LIE.
Then there is 911.
Santa Claus is a LIE.
Jesus DIED for your EVILS is Beyond a LIE.
Mossad's execution of 9-11 should have been a wake up call.
You guys subscribed to the phony WMD and coyote planes dissapearing into the babylonian twin
towers whilst your intuition should have kicked in and told you something is not right.
9-11 should have been the litmus test for truth but you conveniently ignored it. You looked
the other way due to cognitive dissonance.
You followed Bush's order to go on a spending spree with more credit card debt jacked up
with high interest to feed the satanic cabal instead.
With all these bogus wars on terror and non-ending hoaxes you have unwittingly supported the
Zionist Satanic push for one world disorder.
At this point, all you can do is repent for your sins and start fighting back the criminal
enterprize who are in charge of orchestrating all these bogus war on terror, creating these
monstrous, diabolical, sinister ISISraHELL with the help of al-CIA-da and MOSSAD.
Alternate would be to sit back and enjoy bigger fireworks than 9-11 coming near you whilst
they prepare greater IzraHELL for the coming of their Yahweh, The Anti-Christ dajjal who will
globalize his reign of terror from Jerusalem.
Either way buckle up for a roller coaster ride with some of these demonic, totally
psychopathic, diabolical, sinister, pathological liars and corrupters of mother earth. You reap
what you sow.
The infuriating thing about 9/11 and the multitude of lesser false flags which both preceded
and followed it is that, although most Americans know it was as phoney as a three and a half
dollar fed reserve note, everyone seems content to put up with the extremely phoney "war on
terror" it was designed to create and which has already destroyed a hand full of countries in
the world, caused the murder of upwards of two million people, mostly using U.S. military, and
turned the U.S. into a ruthlessly insane police state wherein everyone is made to obey patently
unlawful statutes in the name of "emergency" while the ruling elite has quit obeying any laws
at all while gathering a massive military presence to cow the now restless and resentful
public
See more at: Christopher Bollyn: The Man Who Solved 9/11
Also Look up Sheik Imran Hosein for Islamic End time Eschatology .
+ 64% of veterans said the Iraq War
wasn't worth fighting , considering the costs versus the benefit to the U.S., and more than
50% think the same about the war in Afghanistan I wonder what percentage of them got "woke" to
this before Tulsi Gabbard?
Some
may remember that in 2005 a major media controversy engulfed Harvard President Larry Summers over his remarks at an
academic conference. Casually speaking off-the-record at the private gathering, Summers had
gingerly
raised the hypothetical possibility
that on average men might be a bit better at mathematics than women, perhaps
partially explaining the far larger number of males holding faculty positions in the math, science, and engineering
departments.
These controversial speculations were soon leaked to the press, and an enormous firestorm of protest erupted, with
MIT professor Nancy Hopkins claiming that merely hearing Summers' words at the event had left her physically ill,
forcing her to quickly exit the room
lest
she suffer a blackout and collapse
.
Harvard students and faculty members soon launched an organized campaign to have Summers removed from the summit of
our academic world, with noted evolutionary-psychologist Steven Pinker being
one
of the very few professors
willing to publicly defend him. Eventually, an unprecedented "no confidence" vote by
the entire faculty and growing loss of confidence by the Board of Trustees
forced
Summers to resign
, becoming the first Harvard President to suffer that fate in the university's 350 year
history, thus apparently demonstrating the astonishing power of feminist "political correctness" on college
campuses.
The
true story for those who followed it was actually quite a bit more complex. Summers, a former Clinton Administration
Treasury Secretary, had a long record of very doubtful behavior, which had outraged many faculty members for
entirely different reasons. As I
wrote
a
few years ago:
Now I am hardly someone willing to defend Summers from a whole host of very serious and legitimate charges. He
seems to have played a major role in
transmuting
Harvard from a renowned university to an aggressive hedge fund
, policies that subsequently brought my
beloved alma mater to the very brink of bankruptcy during the 2008 financial crisis. Under his presidency,
Harvard
paid out $26 million dollars to help settle international insider-trading charges
against Andrei Shleifer,
one of his closest personal friends, who avoided prison as a consequence. And after such stellar financial and
ethical achievements, he was naturally appointed as one of President Obama's top economic advisors, a position
from which he strongly supported the massive bailout of Wall Street and the rest of our elite financial services
sector, while ignoring Main Street suffering. Perhaps coincidentally, wealthy hedge funds had
paid
him many millions of dollars
for providing a few hours a week of part-time consulting advice during the
twelve months prior to his appointment.
Moreover, Summers had previously
denounced
anti-Israel
activism by Harvard students and faculty members as "anti-Semitic," an accusation that
provoked
fierce opposition
. A few years later, it also came out that Summers may have played a crucial role in favoring
Mark Zuckerberg over the Winkelvoss brothers in their early battle for ownership of Facebook, while Summers' former
assistant Sheryl Sandberg later became Facebook president, making her a multi-billionaire.
Although Summers' impolitic remarks regarding female math ability had certainly sparked his ouster, the underlying
cause was probably his many years of extremely unbecoming behavior. Indeed, I think a reasonable case can be made
that Summers was the worst and most disreputable president in all of Harvard's long history.
Still, even a broken or crooked clock is right twice a day, and I doubt that Larry Summers is the only person in the
world who suspects that men might be a bit better at math than women. But some strongly disagree with this
assessment, and in the wake of the Summers controversy one of his fiercest academic opponents was a certain Janet
Mertz, who specializes in cancer research at the University of Wisconsin.
In
order to effectively refute Summers' odious speculations, she and her co-authors decided to carefully examine the
total roster of participants in the International Math Olympiads for the years 1988-2007. These 3200-odd individuals
represent the world's highest-performing math students drawn from the secondary schools of dozens of countries, and
the gender distribution across so many different cultures and years would surely constitute powerful quantitative
evidence of whether males and females significantly differed in their average aptitudes. Since most of these
thousands of Math Olympians are drawn from non-Western countries, determining the genders of each and every one is
hardly a trivial undertaking, and we should greatly commend the diligent research that Mertz and her colleagues
undertook to accomplish this task.
They
published their important results in a 10,000 word academic journal article, whose "first and foremost" conclusion,
provided in bold-italics, was that
"the
myth that females cannot excel in mathematics must be put to rest."
And in her subsequent
press
interviews
, she proclaimed that her research had demonstrated that men and women had equal innate ability in
mathematics, and that any current differences in performance were due to culture or bias, a result which our media
gleefully promoted far and wide.
But
strangely enough, when I actually bothered to read the text and tables of her eye-glazingly long and dull academic
study, I noticed something quite intriguing, especially in the quantitative results conveniently summarized in
Tables 6 and 7 (pp. 1252-53), and
mentioned
it
in a column of my own:
The first of these shows the gender-distribution of the 3200-odd Math Olympians of the leading 34 countries for
the years 1988-2007, and a few minutes with a spreadsheet reveals that the skew is 95% male and 5% female.
Furthermore, almost every single country, whether in Europe, Asia, or elsewhere, seems to follow this same
pattern, with the female share ranging between 0% and 12% but mostly close to 5%; Serbia/Montenegro is the only
major outlier at 20% female. Similarly, Table 7 provides a gender distribution of results for just the United
States, and we find that just 5 of our 126 Math Olympians -- or 4% -- have been female. Various other prestigious math
competitions seem to follow a roughly similar gender skew.
These remarkable findings are even more easily grasped when
we
summarize the male percentages
of top math students aggregated across 1988-2008 for each individual country:
ASIA:
China, 96% male
India, 97% male
Iran, 98% male
Israel, 98% male
Japan, 98% male
Kazakhstan, 99% male
South Korea, 93% male
Taiwan, 95% male
Turkey, 96% male
Vietnam, 97% male
EUROPE:
Belarus, 94% male
Bulgaria, 91% male
Czech Republic, 96% male
Slovakia, 88% male
France 97% male
Germany, 94% male
Hungary, 94% male
Poland, 99% male
Romania, 94% male
Russia/USSR, 88% male
Serbia and Montenegro, 80% male
Ukraine, 93% male
United Kingdom, 93% male
OTHER:
Australia, 94% male
Brazil, 96% male
Canada, 90% male
USA, 96% male
INTERNATIONAL AVERAGE
, 94.4% male
These are the empirical results that Mertz and her co-authors touted as conclusively demonstrating that males and
females have equal mathematical ability. As near as I can tell, no previous journalist or researcher had noticed the
considerable difference between Mertz's empirical data and her stated conclusions, or perhaps any such individuals
were just too intimidated to focus public attention on the discrepancy.
This
striking disconnect between a study's purported findings and its actual results should alert us to similar
possibilities elsewhere. Perhaps it is not so totally rare that diligent researchers whose ideological zeal
sufficiently exceeds their mental ability may spend enormous time and effort gathering information but then
interpreting it in a manner exactly contrary to its obvious meaning.
These thoughts recently came to my mind when I decided to read a remarkable analysis of the American military by
Joseph W. Bendersky of Virginia Commonwealth University, a Jewish historian specializing in Holocaust Studies and
the history of Nazi Germany. Last year, I had glanced at a few pages of his text for my long article on
Holocaust
Denial
, but I now decided to carefully read the entire work, published in 2000.
Bendersky devoted ten full years of research to his book, exhaustively mining the archives of American Military
Intelligence as well as the personal papers and correspondence of more than 100 senior military figures and
intelligence officers.
The
"Jewish Threat"
runs over 500 pages, including some 1350 footnotes, with the listed archival sources alone
occupying seven full pages. His subtitle is "Anti-Semitic Politics of the U.S. Army" and he makes an extremely
compelling case that during the first half of the twentieth century and even afterward, the top ranks of the U.S.
military and especially Military Intelligence heavily subscribed to notions that today would be universally
dismissed as "anti-Semitic conspiracy theories."
Put
simply, U.S. military leaders in those decades widely believed that the world faced a direct threat from organized
Jewry, which had seized control of Russia and similarly sought to subvert and gain mastery over America and the rest
of Western civilization.
In
these military circles, there was an overwhelming belief that powerful Jewish elements had financed and led Russia's
Bolshevik Revolution, and were organizing similar Communist movements elsewhere aimed at destroying all existing
Gentile elites and imposing Jewish supremacy throughout America and the rest of the Western world. While some of
these Communist leaders were "idealists," many of the Jewish participants were cynical opportunists, seeking to use
their gullible followers to destroy their ethnic rivals and thereby gain wealth and supreme power. Although
intelligence officers gradually came to doubt that the
Protocols
of the Elders of Zion
was an authentic document, most believed that the notorious work provided a reasonably
accurate description of the strategic plans of the Jewish leadership for subverting America and the rest of the
world and establishing Jewish rule.
Although Bendersky's claims are certainly extraordinary ones, he provides an enormous wealth of compelling evidence
to support them, quoting or summarizing thousands of declassified Intelligence files, and further supporting his
case by drawing from the personal correspondence of many of the officers involved. He conclusively demonstrates that
during the very same years that Henry Ford was publishing his controversial series
The
International Jew
, similar ideas, but with a much sharper edge, were ubiquitous within our own Intelligence
community. Indeed, whereas Ford mostly focused upon Jewish dishonesty, malfeasance, and corruption, our Military
Intelligence professionals viewed organized Jewry as a deadly threat to American society and Western civilization in
general. Hence the title of Bendersky's book.
These widespread beliefs had important political consequences. In recent decades, our leading immigration
restrictionists have regularly argued that anti-Semitism played absolutely no role in the 1924 Immigration Act
drastically curtailing European immigration; and the debates and speeches found in the Congressional Record have
tended to support their claims. However, last year, I
speculated
that
the widespread awareness of the Jewish leadership of the Bolshevik Revolution may have been a large factor behind
the legislation, but one that was kept away from the public record. Bendersky's research fully confirms my
suspicions, and he reveals that one of the former military officers most fearful of Jewish immigrant subversion
actually played a crucial role in orchestrating the legislation, whose central unstated goal was eliminating any
further influx of Eastern European Jews.
The
bulk of the fascinating material that Bendersky cites comes from intelligence reports and official letters contained
in permanent military archives. Therefore, we must keep in mind that the officers producing such documents would
surely have chosen their words carefully and avoided putting all their controversial thoughts down on paper, raising
the possibility that their actual beliefs may have been far more extreme. A particular late 1930s case involving one
top general provides insight into the likely opinions and private conversations of at least some of those
individuals.
Although his name would mean nothing today, Deputy Chief of Staff George Van Horn Moseley spent most of the 1930s as
one of America's most highly-regarded generals, having been considered for the top command of our armed forces and
also serving as a personal mentor to Dwight D. Eisenhower, future Secretary of State George C. Marshall, and
numerous other leading military figures. He seems to have been well-liked within our military establishment, and had
an excellent personal reputation.
Moseley also had very strong opinions on the major public issues of the day, and after his retirement in 1938 freed
him from military discipline, he began to aggressively promote these, going on a nationwide speaking tour. He
repeatedly denounced Roosevelt's military buildup and in an early 1939 speech, he declared that "The war now being
proposed is for the purpose of establishing Jewish hegemony throughout the world." He stated that only Jews would
profit from the war, claimed that leading Wall Street Jews had financed the Russian Revolution, and warned Americans
not to let history repeat itself. Although Moseley's outspokenness soon earned him a reprimand from the Roosevelt
Administration, he also received private letters of support from other top generals and former president Herbert
Hoover.
In
his Congressional testimony just before the outbreak of World War II, Moseley became even more outspoken. He
declared that the "murder squads" of Jewish Communists had killed "millions of Christians," but that "fortunately,
the character of the German people was aroused" against these traitors within their midst and that therefore "We
should not blame the Germans for settling the problem of the Jew within their borders for all time." He even urged
our national leaders to "benefit" from the German example in addressing America's own festering domestic Jewish
problem.
As
might be expected, Moseley's 1939 praise of Germany's Jewish policy in front of Congress provoked a powerful media
backlash, with a lead story in
The
New Republic
denouncing him as a Nazi "fifth columnist" and
The
Nation
attacking him in similar fashion; and after war broke out, most public figures gradually distanced
themselves. But both Eisenhower and Marshall continued to privately regard him with great admiration and remained in
friendly correspondence for many years, strongly suggesting that his harsh appraisal of Jews had hardly been a deep
secret within his personal circle.
Bendersky claims that Moseley's fifty boxes of memoirs, private papers, and correspondence "embody every kind of
anti-Semitic argument ever manifested in the history of Western civilization," and based on the various extreme
examples he provides, few would dispute that verdict. But he also notes that Moseley's statements differed little
from the depictions of Jews expressed by General George S. Patton immediately after World War II, and even from some
retired generals well into the 1970s.
Although I would not question the accuracy of Bendersky's exhaustive archival research, he seems considerably less
sure-footed regarding American intellectual history and sometimes allows his personal sentiments to lead him into
severe error. For example, his first chapter devotes a couple of pages to E.A. Ross, citing some of his unflattering
descriptions of Jews and Jewish behavior, and suggesting he was a fanatic anti-Semite, who dreaded "the coming
catastrophe of an America overrun by racially inferior people."
But
Ross was actually one of our greatest early sociologists, and his 26 page discussion of Jewish immigrants published
in 1913 was scrupulously fair-minded and even-handed, describing both positive and negative characteristics,
following similar chapters on Irish, German, Scandinavian, Italian, and Slavic newcomers. And although Bendersky
routinely denounces his own ideological villains as "Social Darwinists," the source he actually cites regarding Ross
correctly identified the scholar as one of America's leading
critics
of
Social Darwinism. Indeed, Ross's stature in left-wing circles was so great that he was selected as a member of the
Dewey Commission, organized to independently adjudicate the angry conflicting accusations of Stalinists and
Trotskyites. And in 1936, a Jewish leftist
fulsomely
praised
Ross's long and distinguished scholarly career in the pages of
The
New Masses
, the weekly periodical of the American Communist Party, only regretting that Ross had never been
willing to embrace Marxism.
Similarly, Bendersky is completely out of his depth in discussing scientific issues, especially those involving
anthropology and human behavior. He ridicules the "scientific racism" that he noted was widely found among the
military officers he studied, claiming that such theories had already been conclusively debunked by Franz Boas and
his fellow cultural anthropologists. But modern science has firmly established that the notions he so cavalierly
dismisses were substantially if not entirely correct while those of Boas and his disciples were largely fallacious,
and the Boasian conquest of the academic world actually imposed a half-century Dark Age upon the anthropological
sciences, much like Lysenko had done in Soviet biology. Indeed, the views of Boas, an immigrant Jew, may have been
primarily motivated by ideological considerations, and his most famous early work seemed to involve outright fraud:
he claimed to have proven that the shape of human heads was determined by diet, and rapidly changed among immigrant
groups in America.
But
far more serious than Bendersky's lapses in areas outside of his professional expertise are the massive, glaring
omissions found at the very heart of his thesis. His hundreds of pages of text certainly demonstrate that for
decades our top military professionals were extremely concerned about the subversive activities of Jewish
Communists, but he seems to casually dismiss those fears as nonsensical, almost delusional. Yet the actual facts are
quite different. As I
briefly
noted
last year after my cursory examination of his book:
The book runs well over 500 pages, but when I consulted the index I found no mention of the Rosenbergs nor Harry
Dexter White nor any of the other very numerous Jewish spies revealed by the Venona Decrypts, and the term
"Venona" itself is also missing from the index. Reports of the overwhelmingly Jewish leadership of the Russian
Bolsheviks are mostly treated as bigotry and paranoia, as are descriptions of the similar ethnic skew of
America's own Communist Party, let alone the heavy financial support of the Bolsheviks by Jewish international
bankers. At one point, he dismisses the link between Jews and Communism in Germany by noting that "less than
half" of the Communist Party leadership was Jewish; but since fewer than one in a hundred Germans came from that
ethnic background, Jews were obviously over-represented among Communist leaders by as much as 5,000%. This seems
to typify the sort of dishonesty and innumeracy I have regularly encountered among Jewish Holocaust experts.
Admittedly, Bendersky's book was published just 18 months after the seminal first
Venona
volume
of John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr appeared in early 1999. But the Venona Decrypts themselves had been
declassified in 1995 and soon begun circulating within the academic community. For Bendersky to stubbornly ignore
the undeniable reality that a large and overwhelmingly Jewish network of Stalinist agents was situated near the top
of the Roosevelt Administration, while ridiculing the military officers who made such claims at the time, raises
severe doubts about his credibility as an objective historian.
From 1941 to 1944 FDR's Vice President was Henry Wallace, who would have succeeded to the presidency if
Roosevelt had renominated him in that latter year or had died prior to early 1945. And although Wallace himself
was not disloyal, his top advisors were mostly Communist agents. Indeed, he later stated that
a
Wallace Administration
would have included Laurence Duggan as Secretary of State and Harry Dexter White as
Secretary of the Treasury, thereby installing Stalinist henchmen at the top of the Cabinet, presumably supported
by numerous lower-level officials of a similar political ilk. One might jokingly speculate whether the
Rosenbergs -- later executed for treason -- would have been placed in charge of our nuclear weapons development
program.
That America's national government of the early 1940s actually came within a hair's breadth -- or rather a
heart-beat -- of falling under Communist control is a very uncomfortable truth. And our history books and popular
media have maintained such total silence about this remarkable episode that even among today's well-educated
Americans I suspect that fewer than five in one hundred are aware of this grim reality.
The
Venona Project constituted the definitive proof of the massive extent of Soviet espionage activities in America,
which for many decades had been routinely denied by many mainstream journalists and historians, and it also played a
crucial secret role in dismantling that hostile spy network during the late 1940s and 1950s. But Venona was nearly
snuffed out just a year after its birth. In 1944 Soviet agents became aware of the crucial code-breaking effort, and
soon afterwards arranged for the Roosevelt White House to issue a directive ordering the project shut down and all
efforts to uncover Soviet spying abandoned. The only reason that Venona survived, allowing us to later reconstruct
the fateful politics of that era, was that the determined Military Intelligence officer in charge of the project
risked a court-martial by directly disobeying the explicit Presidential order and continuing his work.
That
officer was Col. Carter W. Clarke, but his place in Bendersky's book is a much less favorable one, being described
as a prominent member of the anti-Semitic "clique" who constitute the villains of the narrative. Indeed, Bendersky
particularly condemns Clarke for still seeming to believe in the essential reality of the
Protocols
as
late as the 1970s, quoting from a letter he wrote to a brother officer in 1977:
If, and a big -- damned big IF, as the Jews claim the Protocols of the Elders of Zion were f -- - cooked up by Russian
Secret Police, why is it that so much they contain has already come to pass, and the rest so strongly advocated
by the
Washington
Post
and the
New
York Times
.
Our
historians must surely have a difficult time digesting the remarkable fact that the officer in charge of the vital
Venona Project, whose selfless determination saved it from destruction by the Roosevelt Administration, actually
remained a lifelong believer in the importance of the
Protocols
of the Elders of Zion
.
Let
us take a step back and place Bendersky's findings in their proper context. We must recognize that during much of
the era covered by his research, U.S. Military Intelligence constituted nearly the entirety of America's national
security apparatus -- being the equivalent of a combined CIA, NSA, and FBI -- and was responsible for both international
and domestic security, although the latter portfolio had gradually been assumed by J. Edgar Hoover's own expanding
organization by the end of the 1920s.
Bendersky's years of diligent research demonstrate that for decades these experienced professionals -- and many of
their top commanding generals -- were firmly convinced that major elements of the organized Jewish community were
ruthlessly plotting to seize power in America, destroy all our traditional Constitutional liberties, and ultimately
gain mastery over the entire world.
I
have never believed in the existence of UFOs as alien spacecraft, always dismissing such notions as ridiculous
nonsense. But suppose declassified government documents revealed that for decades nearly all of our top Air Force
officers had been absolutely convinced of the reality of UFOs. Could I continue my insouciant refusal to even
consider such possibilities? At the very least, those revelations would force me to sharply reassess the likely
credibility of other individuals who had made similar claims during that same period.
Some years ago, I came across a totally obscure 1951 book entitled
The
Iron Curtain Over America
by John Beaty, a well-regarded university professor. Beaty had spent his wartime
years in Military Intelligence, being tasked with preparing the daily briefing reports distributed to all top
American officials summarizing available intelligence information acquired during the previous 24 hours, which
was obviously a position of considerable responsibility.
As a zealous anti-Communist, he regarded much of America's Jewish population as deeply implicated in subversive
activity, therefore constituting a serious threat to traditional American freedoms. In particular, the growing
Jewish stranglehold over publishing and the media was making it increasingly difficult for discordant views to
reach the American people, with this regime of censorship constituting the "Iron Curtain" described in his
title. He blamed Jewish interests for the totally unnecessary war with Hitler's Germany, which had long sought
good relations with America, but instead had suffered total destruction for its strong opposition to Europe's
Jewish-backed Communist menace.
Beaty also sharply denounced American support for the new state of Israel, which was potentially costing us the
goodwill of so many millions of Muslims and Arabs. And as a very minor aside, he also criticized the Israelis
for continuing to claim that Hitler had killed six million Jews, a highly implausible accusation that had no
apparent basis in reality and seemed to be just a fraud concocted by Jews and Communists, aimed at poisoning our
relations with postwar Germany and extracting money for the Jewish State from the long-suffering German people.
He was scathing toward the Nuremberg Trials, which he described as a "major indelible blot" upon America and "a
travesty of justice." According to him, the proceedings were dominated by vengeful German Jews, many of whom
engaged in falsification of testimony or even had criminal backgrounds. As a result, this "foul fiasco" merely
taught Germans that "our government had no sense of justice." Sen. Robert Taft, the Republican leader of the
immediate postwar era took a very similar position, which later won him the praise of John F. Kennedy in
Profiles
in Courage
. The fact that the chief Soviet prosecutor at Nuremberg had played the same role during the
notorious Stalinist show trials of the late 1930s, during which numerous Old Bolsheviks confessed to all sorts
of absurd and ridiculous things, hardly enhanced the credibility of the proceedings to many outside observers.
Then as now, a book taking such controversial positions stood little chance of finding a mainstream New York
publisher, but it was soon released by a small Dallas firm, and then became enormously successful, going through
some seventeen printings over the next few years. According to Scott McConnell, founding editor of
The
American Conservative
, Beaty's book became the second most popular conservative text of the 1950s, ranking
only behind Russell Kirk's iconic classic,
The
Conservative Mind
.
Bendersky devotes several pages to a discussion of Beaty's book, which he claims "ranks among the most vicious
anti-Semitic diatribes of the postwar era." He also describes the story of its tremendous national success, which
followed an unusual trajectory.
Books by unknown authors that are released by tiny publishers rarely sell many copies, but the work came to the
attention of George E. Stratemeyer, a retired general who had been one of Douglas MacArthur's commanders, and he
wrote Beaty a letter of endorsement. Beaty began including that letter in his promotional materials, drawing the ire
of the ADL, whose national chairman contacted Stratemeyer, demanding that he repudiate the book, which was described
as a "primer for lunatic fringe groups" all across America. Instead, Stratemeyer delivered a blistering reply to the
ADL, denouncing it for making "veiled threats" against "free expression and thoughts" and trying to establish
Soviet-style repression in the United States. He declared that every "loyal citizen" should read
The
Iron Curtain Over America
, whose pages finally revealed the truth about our national predicament, and he began
actively promoting the book around the country while attacking the Jewish attempt to silence him. Numerous other top
American generals and admirals soon joined Statemeyer in publicly endorsing the work, as did a couple of influential
members of the U.S. Senate, leading to its enormous national sales.
Having now discovered that Beaty's views were so totally consistent with those of nearly all our Military
Intelligence professionals, I decided to reread his short book, and found myself deeply impressed. His erudition and
level-headedness were exactly what one would expect from an accomplished academic with a Columbia Ph.D. who had
risen to the rank of colonel during his five years of service in Military Intelligence and on the General Staff.
Although strongly anti-Communist, by all indications Beaty was very much a moderate conservative, quite judicious in
his claims and proposals. Bendersky's hysterical denunciation reflects rather badly upon the issuer of that
fatwa
.
Beaty's book was written nearly 70 years ago, at the very beginning of our long Cold War, and is hardly free from
various widely-held errors of that time, nor from deep concerns about various calamities that did not come to pass,
such as a Third World War. Moreover, since it was published just a couple of years after Mao's victory in China and
in the midst of our own involvement in the Korean War, its discussion of those large contemporary events is far more
lengthy and detailed than would probably be of interest to present-day readers. But leaving aside those minor
blemishes, I think the account he provides of the true circumstances behind America's involvement in both the First
and Second World Wars and their immediate aftermath is greatly superior to the heavily slanted and expurgated
versions we find in our standard history books. And Beaty's daily wartime responsibility for collating and
summarizing all incoming intelligence information and then producing a digest for distribution to the White House
and our other top officials surely provided him a far more accurate picture of the reality than that of the typical
third-hand scribe.
At
the very least, we should acknowledge that Beaty's volume provides an excellent summary of the beliefs of American
Military Intelligence officers and many of our top generals during the first half of the twentieth century. With
copyright having long lapsed, I'm pleased to make it available in convenient HTML format, allowing those so
interested to read it and judge for themselves:
Despite Bendersky's fulminations, Beaty seems to have been someone of quite moderate sentiments, who viewed
extremism of any type with great disfavor. After describing the ongoing seizure of power in American society by
Jewish immigrants, mostly aligned with international Zionism or international Communism, his suggested responses
were strikingly inoffensive. He urged American citizens to demonstrate their disapproval by writing letters to their
newspapers and elected officials, signing petitions, and providing their political support to the patriotic elements
of both the Democratic and Republican parties. He also argued that the most dangerous aspect of the current
situation was the enfolding "Iron Curtain" of Jewish censorship that was preventing ordinary Americans from
recognizing the great looming threat to their freedoms, and claimed that combating such media censorship was a task
of the highest importance.
Others of similar background and views sometimes moved in far more extreme directions. About a dozen years ago I
began noticing scattered references on fringe websites to a certain Revilo P. Oliver, an oddly-named political
activist of the mid-twentieth century, apparently of enormous stature in Far Right circles. According to these
accounts, after important World War II service at the War Department, he began a long and distinguished career as a
Classics professor at the University of Illinois. Then, beginning in the mid-1950s, he became active in politics,
establishing himself as a leading figure in the early days of both
National
Review
and the John Birch Society, though he eventually broke with both those organizations when he came to
regard them as too politically-compromised and ineffective. Thereafter, he gradually became more angry and extreme
in his views, and by 1974 had become friendly with William Pierce of the National Alliance, suggesting the theme for
his novel
The
Turner Diaries
which sold hundreds of thousands of copies as a huge underground bestseller and according to
federal prosecutors later served as the inspiration for the 1995 Oklahoma City bombings.
Although I had never heard of Oliver nor his unusual career, most of the facts I could verify seemed correct. The
early years of
National
Review
had carried
more
than 100 of his articles and reviews
and
a
major feature
in
The
Saturday Evening Post
discussed his rancorous break with The John Birch Society. A few years later, I became
sufficiently curious that I ordered his 1981 book
America's
Decline: The Education of a Conservative
, containing his personal memoir and many of his writings. So few were
available, that by chance the one I received was the author's own personal copy, with his address label glued to the
cover and including a few pages of his personal correspondence and errata notes sent to his publisher. These days,
the numerous copies available for sale on Amazon start at an outrageous price of almost $150, but fortunately the
book is
also
freely available for reading or downloading at Archive.org
.
When
I first read Oliver's book seven or eight years ago, it constituted one of my earliest exposures to the literature
of the Far Right, and I was not at all sure what to make of it. His enormous classical erudition was quite apparent,
but his political rhetoric seemed totally outrageous, with the word "conspiracy" used with wild abandon, seemingly
on almost every other page. Given his bitter political feuds with so many other right-wingers and the total lack of
any mainstream endorsements, I viewed his claims with a great deal of skepticism, though a number of them stuck in
my mind. However, after having very recently absorbed the remarkable material presented by Bendersky and reread
Beaty, I decided to revisit Oliver's volume, and see what I thought of it the second time round.
Revilo P. Oliver, 1963. Credit: Wikimedia Commons
Bendersky makes no mention of Oliver, which is unfortunate since all the spurious accusations he had leveled against
Ross and Beaty would have been entirely correct if made against Oliver. Unlike most right-wingers, then or now,
Oliver was a militant atheist, holding scathing views towards Christianity, and he instead placed racial conflict at
the absolute center of his world-view, making him exactly the sort of outspoken Social Darwinist not uncommon in the
early years of the twentieth century, but long since driven into hiding. A good indication of the explicit harshness
of Oliver's sentiments appears on the very first page of his preface, when he ridicules the total ineffectiveness of
conservatives in combating "the existing situation, which has resulted from the invasion of their country by hordes
of aliens who are, by a biological necessity, their racial enemies." This sort of statement would have been
unimaginable in Beaty, who emphasized Christian charity and goodwill.
More
than half of the fairly long text consists of pieces that appeared during 1955-1966 in
National
Review
,
American
Opinion
(the Birch magazine), and
Modern
Age
, generally book reviews. Most of the topics are hardly of great current interest, and discuss the internal
conflicts of Ancient Rome, or perhaps provide Oliver's views on Spengler, Toynbee, John Dewey, or Haitian history;
but the material certainly establishes the impressive intellectual breadth of the author. According to the book's
introduction, Oliver was conversant in eleven languages, including Sanskrit, and I can well credit that claim.
As
mentioned, Oliver particularly despised Christianity and Christian preachers, and he devoted a substantial portion
of the remainder of the book to ridiculing them and their doctrines, often deploying his great scholarship laced
with crude invective, and generally writing in an arch, rather droll style. Although not of much interest to me, I'd
think that those who share Oliver's religious disinclinations might find his remarks rather amusing.
However, the remaining one-third or so of the volume is focused on factual and political matters, much of the
material being quite significant. According to the back cover, Oliver had spent World War II as director of a secret
research group at the War Department, leading a staff that eventually grew to 175, and afterward being cited for his
outstanding government service. His statements certainly present himself as extremely knowledgeable about the
"hidden history" of that war, and he minced absolutely no words about his views. The combination of his strong
academic background, his personal vantage point, and his extreme outspokenness would make him a uniquely valuable
source on all those matters.
But
that value is tempered by his credibility, cast into serious doubt by his often wild rhetoric. Whereas I would
consider Beaty's book quite reliable, at least relative to the best information available at the time, and might
place Henry Ford's
The
International Jew
in much the same category, I would tend to be far more cautious in accepting Oliver's claims,
especially given the strong emotions he expressed. Aside from his many reprinted articles, the rest of the book was
written when he was in his seventies, and he repeatedly expressed his political despair concerning his many years of
total failure in various right-wing projects. He declared that he had lost any hope of ever restoring the
Aryan-controlled America of 1939, and instead foresaw our country's inevitable decline, alongside that of the rest
of Western civilization. Moreover, many of the events he recounts had occurred three or four decades earlier, and
even under the best of circumstances his recollections might have become a little garbled.
That
being said, in rereading Oliver I was struck by how much of his description of America's involvement in the two
world wars seemed so entirely consistent with Beaty's account, or that of numerous other highly-regarded journalists
and historians of that era, such as the contributors to
Perpetual
War for Perpetual Peace
. I had encountered this material some years after reading Oliver's book, and it
greatly buttressed his credibility.
But
unlike those other writers, Oliver often framed the same basic facts in extremely dramatic fashion. For example, he
denounced Churchill's 1940 aerial bombing strategy as the most monstrous sort of war crime:
Great Britain, in violation of all the ethics of civilized warfare that had theretofore been respected by our
race, and in treacherous violation of solemnly assumed diplomatic covenants about "open cities", had secretly
carried out intensive bombing of such open cities in Germany for the express purpose of killing enough unarmed
and defenceless men and women to force the German government reluctantly to retaliate and bomb British cities
and thus kill enough helpless British men, women, and children to generate among Englishmen enthusiasm for the
insane war to which their government had committed them.
It is impossible to imagine a governmental act more vile and more depraved than contriving death and suffering
for its own people -- for the very citizens whom it was exhorting to "loyalty" -- and I suspect that an act of
such infamous and savage treason would have nauseated even Genghis Khan or Hulagu or Tamerlane, Oriental
barbarians universally reprobated for their insane blood-lust. History, so far as I recall, does not record that
they ever butchered their own women and children to facilitate lying propaganda .In 1944 members of British
Military Intelligence took it for granted that after the war Marshal Sir Arthur Harris would be hanged or shot
for high treason against the British people
At
the time I originally read those words, my knowledge of World War II was mostly limited to half-remembered portions
of my old History 101 textbooks, and I was naturally quite skeptical at Oliver's astonishing charges. But during
subsequent years, I discovered that the circumstances were exactly as Oliver claimed, with so notable a historian as
David Irving having fully documented the evidence. So although we may question Oliver's exceptionally harsh
characterization or his heated rhetoric, the factual case he makes seems not to be under serious dispute.
His
discussion of America's own entrance in the war is equally strident. He emphasizes that his colleagues in the War
Department had completely broken the most secure Japanese codes, giving our government complete knowledge of all
Japanese plans:
Perhaps the most exhilarating message ever read by American Military Intelligence was one sent by the Japanese
government to their Ambassador in Berlin (as I recall), urging him not to hesitate to communicate certain
information by telegrams and assuring him that "no human mind" could decipher messages that had been enciphered
on the Purple Machine. That assurance justified the merriment it provoked
However, just as many others have alleged, Oliver claims that Roosevelt then deliberately allowed the attack on
Pearl Harbor to proceed and failed to warn the local military commanders, whom he then ordered court-martialed for
their negligence:
Everyone
now
knows,
of course, that the message to the Japanese Ambassador in Washington, warning him that Japan was about to attack
the United States, was read by Military Intelligence not long after the Ambassador himself received it, and that
the frantic cover-up, involving some successful lying about details, was intended, not to preserve that secret,
but to protect the traitors in Washington who made certain that the Japanese attack, which they had labored so
long to provoke, would be successful and produce the maximum loss of American lives and destruction of American
ships.
Numerous historians seem to have thoroughly established that Roosevelt did everything he could to provoke a war with
Japan. But Oliver adds a fascinating detail that I have never seen mentioned elsewhere:
In January 1941, almost eleven months before Pearl Harbor, preparation for it began in Washington when Franklin
D Roosevelt summoned the Portuguese Ambassador to the United States and, enjoining him to the utmost secrecy,
asked him to inform Premier Salazar that Portugal need have no concern for the safety of Timor and her other
possessions in Southeast Asia; the United States, he said, had decided to crush Japan forever by waiting until
her military forces and lines of communication were stretched to the utmost and then suddenly launching an
all-out war with massive attacks that Japan was not, and could not be, prepared to resist. As expected, the
Portuguese Ambassador communicated the glad tidings to the head of his government, using his most secure method
of communication, an enciphered code which the Portuguese doubtless imagined to be "unbreakable," but which
Roosevelt well knew had been compromised by the Japanese, who were currently reading all messages sent in it by
wireless. The statement, ostensibly entrusted in "strict secrecy" to the Portuguese Ambassador, was, of course,
intended for the Japanese government, and, as a matter of fact, it became certain that the trick had succeeded
when the contents of the Portuguese Ambassador's message to Salazar promptly appeared in a Japanese message
enciphered by the Purple Machine. Roosevelt had only to wait for Japan to act on the "secret" information about
American plans thus given her, and to order naval movements and diplomatic negotiations that would appear to the
Japanese to confirm American intentions.
The fact that I have just mentioned is really the ultimate secret of Pearl Harbor, and seems to have been
unknown to Admiral Theobald when he wrote his well-known book on the subject.
Oliver notes that Roosevelt had long sought to have America participate in the great European war
whose
outbreak he had previously orchestrated
, but had been blocked by overwhelming domestic anti-war sentiment. His
decision to provoke a Japanese attack as a "back door" to war only came after all his military provocations against
Germany had failed to accomplish a similar result:
His first plan was defeated by the prudence of the German government. While he yammered about the evils of
aggression to the white Americans whom he despised and hated, Roosevelt used the United States Navy to commit
innumerable acts of stealthy and treacherous aggression against Germany in a secret and undeclared war, hidden
from the American people, hoping that such massive piracy would eventually so exasperate the Germans that they
would declare war on the United States, whose men and resources could then be squandered to punish the Germans
for trying to have a country of their own. These foul acts of the War Criminal were known, of course, to the
officers and men of the Navy that carried out the orders of their Commander-in-Chief, and were commonly
discussed in informed circles, but, so far as I know, were first and much belatedly chronicled by Patrick
Abbazia in
Mr.
Roosevelt's Navy: the Private War of the U.S. Atlantic Fleet, 1939-1942
, published by the Naval Institute
Press in Annapolis in 1975.
Although the U.S. Navy's acts of outrageous piracy on the high seas were successfully concealed from the
majority of the American people before Pearl Harbor, they were, of course, well known to the Japanese, and
partly account for Roosevelt's success in deceiving them with his "confidences" to the Portuguese
Ambassador they assumed that when Roosevelt was ready to attack them, his power over the American press and
communications would enable him to simulate an attack they had not in fact made. That the deception was
successful was, of course, shown in December 1941, when they made a desperate effort to avert the treacherous
blow they feared.
Once
America thus entered the war, Oliver then focuses on the horrific way the Allies waged it, using aerial bombardment
to deliberately slaughter the civilian population of Germany:
Both British and Americans have always claimed to be humane and have loudly condemned unnecessary bloodshed,
mass massacres, and sadistic delight in the infliction of pain in 1945 their professions could still be credited
without doubt, and that meant they would be stricken with remorse for a ferocious act of unmitigated savagery
unparalleled in the history of our race and unsurpassed in the record of any race. The bombing of the
unfortified city of Dresden, nicely timed to insure an agonizing death to the maximum number of white women and
children, has been accurately described by David Irving in
The
Destruction of Dresden
(London, 1963), but the essentials of that sickening atrocity were known soon after
it was perpetrated. To be sure, it is true that such an act might have been ordered by Hulagu, the celebrated
Mongol who found pleasure in ordering the extermination of the population of all cities that did not open their
gates to him -- and of some that did -- so that the severed heads of the inhabitants could be piled up into
pyramids as perishable but impressive monuments to his glory. The Americans and British, however, deem
themselves more civilized than Hulagu and less sadistic.
He
also harshly condemns the very brutal nature of the American occupation of Germany that followed the end of the war:
with the American invasion of German territory began the innumerable atrocities against her civilian population
-- the atrocities against prisoners began even earlier -- that have brought on our people the reputation of
Attila's hordes. The outrages were innumerable and no one, so far as I know, has even tried to compile a list of
typical incidents of rape and torture and mayhem and murder. Most of the unspeakable atrocities, it is true,
were committed by savages and Jews in American uniforms, but many, it must be confessed, were perpetrated by
Americans, louts from the dregs of our own society or normal men crazed with hatred. All victorious armies, it
is true, contain elements that want to outrage the vanquished, and few commanders in "democratic" wars can
maintain the tight discipline that made Wellington's armies the marvels of Europe or the discipline that
generally characterized the German armies in both World Wars; what so brands us with shame is that the
atrocities were encouraged by our supreme commander in Europe, whose orders, presumably issued when he was not
drunk or occupied with his doxies, made it difficult or hazardous for responsible American generals to observe
what had been the rules of civilized warfare. Almost every American soldier in Germany had witnessed the
barbarous treatment of the vanquished, the citizens of one of the greatest nations of Western civilization and
our own kinsmen, and -- despite the efforts to incite them to inhuman hate with Jewish propaganda -- many of our
soldiers witnessed such outrages with pity and shame. The cumulative effect of their reports when they returned
to their own country should have been great. It is needless to multiply examples, some of which may be found in
F.J.P. Veale's
Advance
to Barbarism
(London, 1953).
And
he suggests that the Nuremberg Tribunals brought everlasting shame upon his own country:
I was, of course, profoundly shocked by the foul murders at Nuremberg that brought on the American people an
indelible shame. Savages and Oriental barbarians normally kill, with or without torture, the enemies whom they
have overcome, but even they do not sink so low in the scale of humanity as to perform the obscene farce of
holding quasi-judicial trials before they kill, and had the Americans -- for, given their absolute power, the
responsibility must fall on them, and their guilt cannot be shifted to their supposed allies -- had the
Americans, I say, merely slaughtered the German generals, they could claim to be morally no worse than Apaches,
Balubas, and other primitives. Civilized peoples spare the lives of the vanquished, showing to their leaders a
respectful consideration, and the deepest instincts of our race demand a chivalrous courtesy to brave opponents
whom the fortunes of war have put in our power.
To punish warriors who, against overwhelming odds, fought for their country with a courage and determination
that excited the wonder of the world, and deliberately to kill them because they were not cowards and traitors,
because they did not betray their nation -- that was an act of vileness of which we long believed our race
incapable. And to augment the infamy of our act, we stigmatized them as "War Criminals" which they most
certainly were not, for if that phrase has meaning, it applies to traitors who knowingly involve their nations
in a war contrived to inflict loss, suffering, and death on their own people, who are thus made to fight for
their own effective defeat -- traitors such as Churchill, Roosevelt, and their white accomplices. And to add an
ultimate obscenity to the sadistic crime, "trials" were held to convict the vanquished according to "laws"
invented for the purpose, and on the basis of perjured testimony extorted from prisoners of war by torture
The moral responsibility for those fiendish crimes, therefore, falls on our own War Criminals, and, as a
practical matter, nations always bear the responsibility for the acts of the individuals whom they, however
mistakenly, placed in power. We cannot reasonably blame Dzhugashvili, alias Stalin: he was not a War Criminal,
for he acted, logically and ruthlessly, to augment the power and the territory of the Soviet Empire, and he
(whatever his personal motives may have been) was the architect of the regime that transformed a degraded and
barbarous rabble into what is now the greatest military power on earth.
Oliver's memoirs were published by a tiny London press in a cheap paper binding, lacked even an index, and were
hardly likely to ever reach a substantial audience. That, together with the internal evidence of his text, leads me
to believe that he was quite sincere in his statements, at least with regard to all these sorts of historical and
political matters. And given those beliefs, we should hardly be surprised at the heated rhetoric he directs against
the targets of his wrath, especially Roosevelt, whom he repeatedly references as "the great War Criminal."
Sincerity is obviously no guarantee of accuracy. But Bendersky's extensive review of private letters and personal
memoirs reveals that a large portion of our Military Intelligence officers and top generals seemed to closely share
Oliver's appraisal of Roosevelt, whose eventual death provoked widespread "exultation" and "fierce delight" in their
social circle. Finally, one of them wrote, "The evil man was dead!"
Moreover, although Oliver's words are as heated as those of Beaty are measured, the factual claims of the two
authors are quite similar with regard to World War II, so that all the high-ranking generals who enthusiastically
endorsed Beaty's bestselling 1951 book may be regarded as providing some implicit backing for Oliver.
Consider also the personal diaries and reported conversations of Gen. George S. Patton, one of our most renowned
field commanders. These reveal that shortly after the end of fighting he became outraged over how he had been
totally deceived regarding the circumstances of the conflict, and he planned to return to the U.S., resign his
military commission, and begin a national speaking-tour to provide the American people with the true facts about the
war. Instead, he died in a highly-suspicious car accident the day before his scheduled departure, and there is
very
considerable evidence
that he was actually assassinated by the American OSS.
Oliver's discussion of the Second World War provides remarkably vivid rhetorical flourishes and some intriguing
details, but his basic analysis is not so different from that of Beaty or numerous other writers. Moreover, Beaty
had a far superior vantage point during the conflict, while his book was published just a few years after the end of
fighting and was also far more widely endorsed and distributed. So although Oliver's extreme candor may add much
color to our historical picture, I think his memoirs are probably more useful for their other elements, such as his
unique insights into the origins of both
National
Review
and the John Birch Society, two of the leading right-wing organizations established during the 1950s.
Oliver opens his book by describing his departure from DC and wartime government service in the fall of 1945, fully
confident that the horrific national treachery he had witnessed at the top of the American government would soon
inspire "a reaction of national indignation that would become sheer fury." As he puts it:
That reaction, I thought, would occur automatically, and my only concern was for the welfare of a few friends
who had innocently and ignorantly agitated for war before the unspeakable monster in the White House
successfully tricked the Japanese into destroying the American fleet at Pearl Harbor. I wondered whether a plea
of ignorance would save them from the reprisals I foresaw!
He
spent the next decade entirely engaged in his Classical scholarship and establishing an academic career, while
noting some of the hopeful early signs of the political uprising that he fully expected to see:
In 1949 Congressman Rankin introduced a bill that would recognize as subversive and outlaw the "Anti-"Defamation
League of B'nai B'rith, the formidable organization of Jewish cowboys who ride herd on their American cattle In
both the Houses of Representatives and the Senate committees were beginning investigations of covert treason and
alien subversion Then Senator McCarthy undertook a somewhat more thorough investigation, which seemed to open a
visible leak in the vast dike of deceit erected by our enemies, and it was easy to assume that the little jet of
water that spurted through that leak would grow hydraulically until the dam broke and released an irresistible
flood.
However, by 1954 he recognized that McCarthy's political destruction was at hand, and the opposing forces he so
despised had gained the upper hand. He faced the crucial decision of whether to involve himself in politics, and if
so, what form that might take.
One
of his friends, a right-wing Yale professor named Wilmoore Kendall, argued that a crucial factor in the Jewish
domination of American public life was their control over influential opinion journals such as
The
Nation
and
The
New Republic
, and that launching a competing publication might be the most effective remedy. For this purpose,
he had recruited a prize student of his named William F. Buckley, Jr., who could draw upon the financial resources
of his wealthy father, long known in certain circles for his discreet sponsorship of various anti-Jewish
publications and "his drastic private opinion about the aliens' perversion of our national life."
A
few years earlier, H.L. Mencken's famous literary monthly
The
American Mercury
had fallen on hard times and been purchased by one of America's wealthiest men, Russell
Maguire, who hoped to use it partly as a vehicle for his extremely strong anti-Jewish sentiments. Indeed, one of
Maguire's senior staffers for a couple of years was George Lincoln Rockwell, best known for later founding the
American Nazi Party. But according to Oliver, enormous concerted pressure by Jewish interests upon both newstands
and printers had caused great difficulties for that magazine, which were to eventually force Maguire to abandon the
effort and sell the magazine.
Kendall and Oliver hoped that Buckley's new effort might succeed where Maguire's was failing, perhaps by avoiding
any direct mention of Jewish issues and instead focusing upon threats from Communists, socialists, and liberals, who
were far less risky targets to attack. Buckley had previously gained some journalistic experience by working at the
Mercury
for
a couple of years, so he was probably well aware of the challenging political environment he might face.
Although L. Brent Bozell, another one of his young Yale proteges, would also be working with Buckley on the new
venture, Kendall told Oliver that he had failed to locate a single university professor willing to risk his name as
a contributor. This prompted Oliver to take up the challenge with such determination that more of his pieces
appeared in
National
Review
during the 1950s than almost any other writer, even ahead of Kendall himself. Apparently Oliver had
already been friendly with Buckley,
having
been a member of the latter's 1950 wedding party
.
But
from Oliver's perspective, the project proved a dismal failure. Against all advice, Buckley founded his magazine as
a profit-making enterprise, circulating a prospectus, selling stock and debentures, and promising his financial
backers an excellent financial return. Instead, like every other political magazine, it always lost money and was
soon forced to plead for donations, greatly irritating his initial investors.
Another concern was that just before launch, a couple of Jewish former Communists then running an existing
conservative magazine caught wind of the new publication and offered to betray their employer and bring over all
their existing subscribers if they were given senior roles. Although they were duly brought on board, their planned
coup at
The
Freeman
failed, and no promised bounty of subscribers appeared. In later hindsight, Oliver became deeply
suspicious of these developments and how the publication had been so quickly diverted from its intended mission,
writing:
it was only long after Professor Kendall had been shouldered out of the organization and I had severed my
connections with it that I perceived that whenever a potentially influential journal is founded, it receives the
assistance of talented "conservative" Jews, who are charged with the duty of supervising the Aryan children and
making certain that they play only approved games.
Oliver also emphasized the severe dilemma faced by the magazine and all other organizations intended to combat the
influence of Jews and Communists. For obvious reasons, these almost invariably centered themselves around strong
support for Christianity. But Oliver was a militant atheist who detested religious faith and therefore believed that
such an approach inevitably alienated "the very large number of educated men who were repelled by the hypocrisy,
obscurantism, and rabid ambitions of the clergy." Thus, Christian anti-Communist movements often tended to produce a
large backlash of sympathy for Communism in elite circles.
Small ideological publications are notorious for their bitter intrigues and angry disputes, and I have made no
effort to compare Oliver's brief sketch of the creation of
National
Review
with other accounts, which would surely provide very different perspectives. But I think his basic facts
ring true to me.
By
1958 Oliver had established himself as one of
National
Review
's leading contributors, and he was contacted by a wealthy Massachusetts businessman named Robert Welch,
who had been an early investor in the magazine but was greatly disappointed by its political ineffectiveness, so the
two men corresponded and gradually became quite friendly. Welch said he was concerned that the publication focused
largely on frivolity and pseudo-literary endeavors, while it increasingly minimized or ignored the conspiratorial
role of the Jewish aliens who had gained such a degree of control over the country. The two men eventually met, and
according to Oliver seemed to be entirely in agreement about America's plight, which they discussed in complete
candor.
Late
that same year, Welch described his plans for regaining control of the country by the creation of a semi-secret
national organization of patriotic individuals, primarily drawn from the upper middle classes and prosperous
businessmen, which eventually became known as the John Birch Society. With its structure and strategy inspired by
the Communist Party, it was to be tightly organized into individual local cells, whose members would then establish
a network of front organizations for particular political projects, all seemingly unconnected but actually under
their dominant influence. Secret directives would be passed along to each local chapter by the word of mouth via
coordinators dispatched from Welch's central headquarters, a system also modeled after the strict hierarchical
discipline of Communist movements.
Welch privately unveiled his proposal to a small group of prospective co-founders, all of whom with the exception of
Oliver were wealthy businessmen. He candidly admitted his own atheism and explained that Christianity would have no
role in the project, which cost him a couple of potential supporters; but about a dozen committed themselves,
notably including Fred Koch, founding father of Koch Industries. Minimal emphasis was to be placed upon Jewish
matters, partly to avoid drawing media fire and partly in hopes that a growing schism between Zionist and
non-Zionist Jews might weaken their powerful adversary, or if the former gained the upper hand, perhaps help ensure
the removal of all Jews to the Middle East.
As
the project moved forward, a monthly magazine called
American
Opinion
was launched and Oliver took responsibility for a large portion of each issue. Given his academic and
political prominence, he also became one of the leading speakers for the organization in public venues and also an
influential visitor to many of its local chapters.
Although Oliver remained a top figure in the organization until 1966, in later years he concluded that Welch's
serious mistakes had doomed the project to failure within just a couple of years after its establishment. Very early
on, a Jewish journalist had obtained a copy of some of Welch's secret, controversial writings and their public
disclosure had panicked one of the most prominent Birch leaders, soon producing a major media scandal. Welch
repeatedly vacillated between defending and denying his secret manuscript, forcing his associates to take
contradictory positions, and making the entire leadership seem both dishonest and ridiculous, a pattern that was to
be repeated in future years.
According to Oliver, nearly eighty thousand men and women enlisted in the organization during the first decade, but
he feared that their energetic efforts and commitment were entirely wasted, producing nothing of any value. As the
years went by, the organization's ineffectiveness became more apparent, while Welch's autocratic control blocked any
necessary changes from within since his executive council functioned merely as a powerless fig-leaf. Although Oliver
remained convinced that Welch had been sincere when he began the effort, the accumulation of so many unnecessary
missteps eventually led him to suspect deliberate sabotage. He claimed that his careful investigation revealed that
the organization's financial problems had forced Welch to turn in desperation to outside Jewish donors, who then
became his secret overlords, leading Oliver to rancorously break with the organization in 1966 and denounce it as a
fraud. Although I have no easy means of verifying most of Oliver's claims, his story hardly seems implausible.
Oliver also makes an important point about the severe dilemma produced by Welch's strategy. One of the central goals
of the organization had been to combat organized Jewish influence in America, but any mention of Jews was forbidden,
so the officially designed term for their subversive foes was the "International Communist Conspiracy." Oliver
admitted that the usage of that ubiquitous phrase became "forced" and "monotonous," and indeed it or its variants
appear with remarkable regularity in his articles reprinted from the Birch magazine.
According to Oliver, the intent was to allow members to draw their own logical conclusions about who was really
behind the "conspiracy" they opposed while allowing the organization itself to maintain plausible deniability. But
the result was total failure, with Jewish organizations fully understanding the game being played, while intelligent
individuals quickly concluded that the Birch organization was either dishonest or delusional, hardly an unreasonable
inference. As an example of this situation, the late investigative journalist Michael Collins Piper in 2005 told the
story of how at the age of sixteen he had embraced a
'One-Minute'
Membership in the John Birch Society
. Indeed, by the late 1960s, any public expressions of anti-Semitism by
Birch members became grounds for immediate expulsion, a rather ironic situation for an organization originally
founded just a decade earlier with avowedly anti-Semitic goals.
Following his 1966 rupture with Welch, Oliver greatly reduced his political writing, which henceforth only appeared
in much smaller and more extreme venues than the Birch magazine. His book contains just a couple of such later
pieces, but the second of these, published in a right-wing British magazine during 1980, is of some interest.
Just
as we might expect, Oliver had always been particularly scathing towards the supposed Jewish Holocaust, and near the
very beginning of his book, he states his own views in typically forceful fashion:
The Americans were howling with indignation over the supposed extermination by the Germans of some millions of
Jews, many of whom had taken the opportunity to crawl into the United States, and one could have supposed in
1945 that when the hoax, devised to pep up the cattle that were being stampeded into Europe, was exposed, even
Americans would feel some indignation at having been so completely bamboozled.
The prompt exposure of the bloody swindle seemed inevitable, particularly since the agents of the O.S.S.,
commonly known in military circles as the Office of Soviet Stooges, who had been dispatched to conquered Germany
to set up gas chambers to lend some verisimilitude to the hoax, had been so lazy and feckless that they merely
sent back pictures of shower baths, which were so absurd that they had to be suppressed to avoid ridicule. No
one could have believed in 1945 that the lie would be used to extort thirty billion dollars from the helpless
Germans and would be rammed into the minds of German children by uncouth American "educators" -- or that
civilized men would have to wait until 1950 for Paul Rassinier, who had been himself a prisoner in a German
concentration camp, to challenge the infamous lie, or until 1976 for Professor Arthur Butz's detailed and
exhaustive refutation of the venomous imposture on Aryan credulity.
In
his republished article, Oliver discussed this same topic at far greater length and in the context of its broader
theoretical implications. After recounting various examples of historical frauds and cover-ups, starting with the
possibly forged letter of the younger Pliny, he expressed his amazement at the continuing widespread acceptance of
the Holocaust story, despite the existence of hundreds of thousands of direct eyewitnesses to the contrary. He
suggested that such an astonishing scholarly situation must force us to reassess our assumptions about the nature of
evidentiary methods in historiography.
Oliver's peremptory dismissal of the standard Holocaust narrative led me to take a closer look at the treatment of
the same topic in Bendersky's book, and I noticed something quite odd. As discussed above, his exhaustive research
in official files and personal archives conclusively established that during World War II a very considerable
fraction of all our Military Intelligence officers and top generals were vehemently hostile to Jewish organizations
and also held beliefs that today would be regarded as utterly delusional. The author's academic specialty is
Holocaust studies, so it is hardly surprising that his longest chapter focused on that particular subject, bearing
the title "Officers and the Holocaust, 1940-1945." But a close examination of the contents raises some troubling
questions.
Across more than sixty pages, Bendersky provides hundreds of direct quotes, mostly from the same officers who are
the subject of the rest of his book. But after carefully reading the chapter twice, I was unable to find a single
one of those statements referring to the massive slaughter of Jews that constitutes what we commonly call the
Holocaust, nor to any of its central elements, such as the existence of death camps or gas chambers.
The
forty page chapter that follows focuses on the plight of the Jewish "survivors" in post-war Europe, and the same
utter silence applies. Bendersky is disgusted by the cruel sentiments expressed by these American military men
towards the Jewish former camp inmates, and he frequently quotes them characterizing the latter as thieves, liars,
and criminals; but the officers seem strangely unaware that those unfortunate souls had only just barely escaped an
organized mass extermination campaign that had so recently claimed the lives of the vast majority of their fellows.
Numerous statements and quotes regarding Jewish extermination are provided, but all of these come from various
Jewish activists and organizations, while there is nothing but silence from all of the military officers themselves.
Bendersky's ten years of archival research brought to light personal letters and memoirs of military officers
written decades after the end of the war, and in both those chapters he freely quotes from these invaluable
materials, sometimes including private remarks from the late 1970s, long after the Holocaust had become a major
topic in American public life. Yet not a single statement of sadness, regret, or horror is provided. Thus, a
prominent Holocaust historian spends a decade researching a book about the private views of our military officers
towards Jews and Jewish topics, but the one hundred pages he devotes to the Holocaust and its immediate aftermath
contains not a single directly-relevant quote from those individuals, which is simply astonishing. A yawning chasm
seems to exist at the center of his lengthy historical volume, or put another way, a particular barking dog is quite
deafening in its silence.
I am
not an archival researcher and have no interest in reviewing the many tens of thousands of pages of source material
located at dozens of repositories across the country that Bendersky so diligently examined while producing his
important book. Perhaps during their entire wartime activity and also the decades of their later lives, not a single
one of the hundred-odd important military officers who were the focus of his investigation ever once broached the
subject of the Holocaust or the slaughter of Jews during World War II. But I think there is another distinct
possibly.
As
mentioned earlier, Beaty spent his war years carefully reviewing the sum-total of all incoming intelligence
information each day and then producing an official digest for distribution to the White House and our other top
leaders. And in his 1951 book, published just a few years after the end of fighting, he dismissed the supposed
Holocaust as a ridiculous wartime concoction by dishonest Jewish and Communist propagandists that had no basis in
reality. Soon afterward, Beaty's book was fully endorsed and promoted by many of our leading World War II generals,
including those who were subjects of Bendersky's archival research. And although the ADL and various other Jewish
organizations fiercely denounced Beaty, there is no sign that they ever challenged his absolutely explicit
"Holocaust denial."
I
suspect that Bendersky gradually discovered that such "Holocaust denial" was remarkably common in the private papers
of many of his Military Intelligence officers and top generals, which presented him with a serious dilemma. If only
one or two of those individuals had expressed such sentiments, their shocking statements could be cited as further
evidence of their delusional anti-Semitism. But what if a substantial majority of those officers -- who certainly had
possessed the best knowledge of the reality of World War II -- held private beliefs that were very similar to those
publicly expressed by their former colleagues Beaty and Oliver? In such a situation, Bendersky may have decided that
certain closed doors should remain in that state, and entirely skirted the topic.
At
the age of 89, Richard Lynn surely ranks as the "grand old man" of IQ research, and in 2002 he and his co-author
Tatu Vanhanen published their seminal work
IQ
and the Wealth of Nations
. Their volume strongly argued that mental ability as measured by standardized tests
was overwhelmingly determined by hereditary, genetic factors, and for nearly two decades their research findings
have constituted a central pillar of the IQ movement that they have long inspired. But as I argued in
a
major article
several years ago, the massive quantity of evidence they presented actually demonstrates the exact
opposite conclusion:
We are now faced with a mystery arguably greater than that of IQ itself. Given the powerful ammunition that Lynn
and Vanhanen have provided to those opposing their own "Strong IQ Hypothesis," we must wonder why this has never
attracted the attention of either of the warring camps in the endless, bitter IQ dispute, despite their alleged
familiarity with the work of these two prominent scholars. In effect, I would suggest that the heralded 300-page
work by Lynn and Vanhanen constituted a game-ending own-goal against their IQ-determinist side, but that neither
of the competing ideological teams ever noticed.
For
ideologically-blinkered scholars to sometimes produce research that constitutes "a game-ending own-goal" may be much
more common than most of us would expect. Janet Mertz and her zealously feminist co-authors expended enormous time
and effort to conclusively establish that across nearly all nations of the world, regardless of culture, region,
language, the group of highest-performing math students has almost always been roughly 95% male and just 5% female,
a result that would seem to deeply undercut their hypothesis that men and women have equal mathematical ability.
Similarly, ten years of exhaustive archival research by Joseph Bendersky produced a volume that seems to utterly
demolish our conventional narrative of Jewish political activism in both Europe and America between the two world
wars. Moreover, when carefully considered I think his text constitutes a dagger aimed with deadly accuracy straight
at the heart of our conventional Holocaust narrative, his own lifelong area of study and a central pillar of the
West's current ideological framework.
Over
the last year or two, pressure from the ADL and other Jewish activist organizations has induced
Amazon
to ban all books
that challenge the Holocaust or other beliefs deeply held by organized Jewry. Most of these
purged works are quite obscure, and many are of indifferent quality. In general, their public impact has been
severely diminished by the real or perceived ideological associations of their authors.
Meanwhile, for nearly twenty years a book of absolutely devastating historical importance has sat on the Amazon
shelves, freely available for sale and bearing glowing cover-blurbs by mainstream, reputable scholars, but by its
Amazon sales-rank, selling almost no copies, a massive, unexploded shell whom nearly no one seems to have properly
recognized. I suggest that interested readers purchase their copies of Bendersky's outstanding opus before steps are
taken to permanently flush it down the memory hole.
One wonders how it serves them that they allow unz.com to continue. Giant Honey Pot? Social safety valve? In any
case, I look forward to more as Weimerica continues it's trajectory. Thank you Ron.
A very insightful article only not in the way Mr Unz intended
Ostensibly an article about the Bendersky book, which treats the longstanding issue of anti-Semitism in the US
military the article actually devotes 90 percent of its 12,000 words to an obscure crackpot a creature of the long
past days of open race hate one Revilo P Oliver
Now I understand the 'intellectual' nourishment that the troglodytes writing and commenting on this site have been
nourished on I'm sure there are many more Olivers and his ilk in the dark past of the United States which is
actually still ongoing but only among the truly developmentally challenged that flock to this site fortunately for
all good and decent people a mere numerical irrelevance of harmless outliers
As for Mr Unz's conclusion that the Bendersky book is somehow devoid of its center the Holocaust well it's because
'none' of the anti Semites in the US military mentioned in the book, actually talk about the Holocaust gee go
figure anti-Semites not talking about gas chambers ?
Mr Unz's conclusion about the 'fatal flaw' of Bendersky rests on that one single sentence none of these Jew haters
mentioned the slaughter of Jews ergo it didn't happen LOL
And of course one might ask Mr Unz if these people mentioned in the Bendersky book are representative of the entire
cadre of military men familiar with the genocide or if not, what percentage this important question remains a
mystery so the reader has zero clue as to whether these downplayers of the Holocaust constitute near unanimity or a
tiny minority ?
Nice article. But I comment your article of the IQ. There you state about twin studies:
"These individual results, usually based on relatively small statistical samples of adopted twins or siblings,
seemingly demonstrate the extreme rigidity of IQ -- the "Strong IQ Hypothesis" -- while we have also seen the numerous
examples above of large populations whose IQs have drastically shifted over relatively short periods of time. How
can these contradictory findings be squared? I do not have the solution, but it would seem a very worthwhile subject
for further research, on both theoretical and practical grounds."
Btw, i was even more I nterested by the example than buy the main point, the olympiad in math is the best example of
IQ power but it seems to be hard to grasp (selecting with math predicts math scores. So what ?).
Field medal is harder to get than Nobel prize in physics or Bank of Sweden prize in economy : you have 10 000 PhD
every year and a bit less than 1 fields medal (4, sometimes 3 or 2 every 4 year)
The test is very low on math knowledge (high school level) but very high on complexity. It's not noble math. It's
only about being astute and quick. That's why many good mathematician despize it like they despize scholastic MCQ.
But it's prediction of research stellar power is incredible.
Consider this : Field Medals are given in a 1:2:3:6 model so that there is 40/50 gold medalists for around 500/600
participants (1 in 12). 5 to 6 participants are selected by each country.
There are 6 problems scored 7 points each. Bronze score starts at 16/42 wich is the median score. Silver is 19.
Golden is 24. USA math University tenured professor average 15.
"One wonders how it serves them that they allow unz.com to continue."
"in hopes that a growing schism between Zionist and non-Zionist Jews might weaken their powerful adversary, or if
the former gained the upper hand, perhaps help ensure the removal of all Jews to the Middle East."
The reason for fomenting anti-Semitism (e.g. with the Protocols) in the end of the 19th century up to 1948 was to
get people to Israel. A bit later the reason for fomenting anti-Semitism in Iraq was to have Iraqi Jews to move to
Israel to get more people there.
Mrs Mertz visibly doesn't excel at math herself. "Men being on average better at math" doesn't logically imply that
"females cannot excel at mathematics".
But then, ideology and science just don't go and never will go together. If reality contradicts the theory,
ideologues adapt reality to suit the theory, while scientists adapt the theory to suit reality. Somehow, the
ideologues' approach always has either failed miserably, in the better cases, or created catastrophes, in the worse
cases.
The problem with scientific research today is that it has to be ideology and / or plutocracy compatible to attract
funds, so little room is left for true science.
So International math Olympiad competition test is the best and clearest available example I know – Genome wide
association stat maybe a thing in the future – that measurable individual ability differences is a real world fact.
When I was doing a course at MIT the teaching assistant had been at Harvard with the twins and Zuckerberg. Despite
being a very nerdy guy he said the Winklevoss twins were great people and Zuckerberg was a weasel.
Revilo P. Oliver is mostly known for his suicide (he and his wife) and his hectoring and totally unreadable prose,
with his anti-Christian book so badly executed it's been seen as an advertisement for the faith.
Oliver's error was thinking WWII is over. An error shared by many. Wm F. Buckley, Jr, started American Conservative,
Inc, as a witches coven of anti-Midwest isolationism which Buckley pretty well acknowledged in the first few issues.
Buckley was inducted into Skull & Bones (AKA brotherhood of death) in 1950, at midcentury, which is a Red Flag. As
WFB was an ostentatious Roman Catholic, it was forbidden in that era for a Catholic to join
any
secret
society much less a masonic subdivision at Yale. This ban was not lifted by the Church till the mid-1980s. Buckley
either lied about his faith or is real masters, your bet is as good as any. Either way he lied to
somebody
for
a whole generation.
The real conspiracy isn't the Birch, or Revilo Oliver, or even commies or the Jewish whatever. It's the ball-less
American Right and the misfits and tossers who guide it, use it, rise to the top of it and all the while accomplish
nothing whatsoever.
And it's a string of total failure stretching now back nearly a century. Time to call bullshit on the right and note
the commies were right from the start: It was and is phony, and not an especially edifying one at that.
"This striking disconnect between a study's purported findings and its actual results should alert us to similar
possibilities elsewhere" but not in the same article. There is much food for thought here but it would probably have
been easier to digest if it were split into two separate essays: one on the follies of feminism(s) & the other on
the Jewish-Bolshevik nudge (shove!) of America into WW2 & beyond. There's too great a "disconnect" between the two;
although, they're both enticing subjects in their own right. (ha! three different there-eir-y're's & two too's in
one sentence).
But just so as not to disconnect from the oblique opening of this regaling romp , back to the slimy Summers, who
"Moreover had previously denounced anti-Israel activism by Harvard students and faculty members as 'anti-semitic'":
i.e."Profoundly anti-Israel views are increasingly finding support in progressive intellectual communities. Serious
and thoughtful people are advocating and taking actions that are anti-semitic in their effect if not their
intent."(Lawrence Summers, 17 September 2002)
And just a couple of months ago on Twitter, Summers again:
"The US Department of State's definition of anti-Semitism explicitly identifies singling out Israel policy for
criticism in a way different from other countries and drawing comparisons between it and the Nazis as anti-Semitic.
https://www.state.gov/s/rga/resources/267538.htm#.XKYyGfZfyyE.twitter
(from @StateDept)
Lawrence H. Summers
Verified account
@LHSummers
By this standard, BDS and Israel Apartheid week @Harvard are anti-Semitic in both effect and intent.
9:36 AM – 4 Apr 2019"
The guy's a lost cause!
"... With the uranium in hand, the stealing of the advanced technology needed to make a nuclear weapon is where Milchan comes into the story . Arnon Milchan was born in Israel but moved to the United States as a young man and eventually wound up as the founder-owner of a major movie production company, New Regency Films. In a November 25, 2013 interview on Israeli television Milchan admitted that he had spent his many years in Hollywood as an agent for Israeli intelligence, helping obtain embargoed technologies and materials that enabled Israel to develop a nuclear weapon. ..."
"... Milchan, who clearly still has significant business interests in this country as evidenced by Bohemian Rhapsody , explained in his interview that "I did it for my country and I'm proud of it." He also said that "other big Hollywood names were connected to [his] covert affairs." It is, to be sure, astonishing that Milchan should admit to his crimes at a time when he was still traveling regularly to the U.S. and residing in California, but his belief in his own invulnerability stems from the fact that the federal government failed to act against him during the fifty years when he was mostly resident in the United States even though it knew about his spying activity. ..."
"... Among other successes, Milchan obtained through his company Heli Trading 800 krytons, the sophisticated triggers for nuclear weapons. The devices were acquired from the California top secret defense contractor MILCO International. Milchan personally recruited MILCO's president Richard Kelly Smyth as an agent before turning him over to another Heli Trading employee Benjamin Netanyahu for handling. Smyth was eventually arrested in 1985 and cooperated in his interrogation by the FBI before being sentenced to prison, which means that the Federal government knew all about both Milchan and Netanyahu at that time but did not even seek to interview them and ultimately did nothing. ..."
"... So Milchan was an Israeli spy who got away with it and is still making money off of the country that he victimized. ..."
"... Peres claims that he personally recruited Milchan as a spy and, from the age of 21, Milchan used a family chemical business as cover to engage in arms and technology sales. He was from the beginning involved in clandestine purchases in support of Israel's nuclear program. ..."
Back in the spring I wrote about coming
across the name Arnon Milchan by chance on a movie credit while flying from Venice to
Washington. Milchan, some might recall, is a Hollywood billionaire movie producer born in
Israel, well known for such films as Pretty Woman and Bohemian Rhapsody . He is
less well known for his role in arranging for the procurement and illegal transfer of U.S.
technology that enabled the Jewish state to develop its own nuclear arsenal. Far from being
ashamed of his betrayal of the adopted country that helped make him rich and famous, in 2011 he
authorized and contributed to a ghost-written biography, which he boastfully entitled
"Confidential: The Life of Secret Agent Turned Hollywood Tycoon." Parts of the book were in the
first person with Milchan telling his story in his own words.
I had been aware of Milchan's crimes for a number of years, just as I had also speculated on
how a leading Israeli spy working actively and successfully against vital U.S. anti-nuclear
proliferation interests had managed to continue to maintain a home and business in Los Angeles
while also appearing regularly at the Oscar presentation ceremonies. I asked "Why is this
scumbag still making movies in Hollywood? Why isn't he in jail?" before concluding that the
federal government clearly regards spying for Israel as a victimless crime, rarely arresting
anyone and almost never prosecuting any of the numerous easily identifiable Israeli
intelligence agents roaming the country.
Milchan was an active Israeli spy in the U.S., working for the Mossad technology theft
division referred to as LEKEM. The Mossad frequently uses so-called sayanim in its
espionage, which means diaspora Jews that it recruits on the basis of a shared religion or
concern for the security of Israel. The threat coming from Israeli Embassy operatives inside
the United States is such that the Department of Defense once warned
that Jewish Americans in government would likely be the targets of their intelligence
approaches.
President John F. Kennedy had tried to stop the Israeli nuclear weapons program but was
assassinated before he could end it. By 1965, the Jewish state had nevertheless obtained the raw
material for a bomb consisting of U.S. government owned highly enriched weapons grade uranium
obtained from a company in Pennsylvania called NUMEC, which was founded in 1956 and owned by
Zalman Mordecai Shapiro, head of the Pittsburgh chapter of the Zionist Organization of America.
NUMEC was a supplier of enriched uranium for government projects but it was also from the start
a front for the Israeli nuclear program, with its chief funder David Lowenthal, a leading
Zionist, traveling to Israel at least once a month where he would meet with an old friend Meir
Amit, who headed Israeli intelligence.
With the uranium in hand, the stealing of the advanced technology needed to make a
nuclear weapon is where Milchan comes into the
story . Arnon Milchan was born in Israel but moved to the United States as a young man and
eventually wound up as the founder-owner of a major movie production company, New Regency
Films. In a November 25, 2013 interview on Israeli television Milchan admitted that he had
spent his many years in Hollywood as an agent for Israeli intelligence, helping obtain
embargoed technologies and materials that enabled Israel to develop a nuclear weapon.
Milchan, who clearly still has significant business interests in this country as
evidenced by Bohemian Rhapsody , explained in his interview that "I did it for my country and
I'm proud of it." He also said that "other big Hollywood names were connected to [his] covert
affairs." It is, to be sure, astonishing that Milchan should admit to his crimes at a time when
he was still traveling regularly to the U.S. and residing in California, but his belief in his
own invulnerability stems from the fact that the federal government failed to act against him
during the fifty years when he was mostly resident in the United States even though it knew
about his spying activity.
Among other successes, Milchan obtained through his company Heli Trading 800 krytons,
the sophisticated triggers for nuclear weapons. The devices were acquired from the California
top secret defense contractor MILCO International. Milchan personally recruited MILCO's
president Richard Kelly Smyth as an agent before turning him over to another Heli Trading
employee Benjamin Netanyahu for handling. Smyth was eventually arrested in 1985 and cooperated
in his interrogation by the FBI before being sentenced to prison, which means that the Federal
government knew all about both Milchan and Netanyahu at that time but did not even seek to
interview them and ultimately did nothing.
So Milchan was an Israeli spy who got away with it and is still making money off of the
country that he victimized. End of story, or is it? The Israeli liberal leaning newspaper
Haaretz has recently
featured an expose of his involvement in high level political corruption as well as in
nuclear proliferation involving South Africa when that country was under sanctions.
Haaretz observes how " the [Israel]-born [Hollywood] mogul made his real money
elsewhere: in deals for arms including planes, missiles and gear for making nuclear bombs in
which Israel, and later other countries, were parties. To make films there's no need for crony
capitalism, but to succeed in the arms business, government connections are obligatory."
Milchan has been involved in a
bit of controversy in Israel itself, where the police have recommended that he be charged
with bribery connected with the ongoing investigation of corruption by Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu. Milchan, it seems, spent one million shekels ($250,000) on luxury items that he gave
to Bibi as a reported quid pro quo to exempt his substantial U.S. derived income from
taxes when he returned to Israel to live in 2013-4.
Demonstrating that Milchan's corruption was international, the police investigation
determined that in 2014 Netanyahu approached then U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to
intervene and arrange for a long-term American visa for Milchan, who was at the time dealing
with problems relating to his U.S. residency status. Milchan reportedly made the arrangement by
going directly to Netanyahu's home with the customary boxes of expensive cigars and cases of
champagne and waited for the prime minister to come home. When Netanyahu arrived, Milchan
demanded that Bibi immediately contact Kerry to arrange a new visa. And Netanyahu did just
that, picking up the phone and dialing. In the event, the visa was granted and Milchan
continued to make more movies, and money, in Los Angeles.
... ... ...
Peres claims that he personally recruited Milchan as a spy and, from the age of 21,
Milchan used a family chemical business as cover to engage in arms and technology sales. He was
from the beginning involved in clandestine purchases in support of Israel's nuclear
program.
Milchan also became a buyer for weapons in cases where the Israeli government did not want
to have the purchases attributed to it. In all cases, Milchan took a commission on the sales,
hence the claim that his Hollywood fortune constituted only a small part of his wealth. He
sometimes found himself buying U.S. made weapons using Israeli government money that had come
from U.S. taxpayer provided military assistance, taking his 10% along the way.
Starting in the 1970s, Israel, operating covertly through Milchan, sold South Africa
embargoed weapons systems, receiving both money and uranium in return. South Africa knew how to
return a favor, allowing Israel in September 1979 to conduct a nuclear test on an island
administered by Pretoria in the Indian Ocean.
... ... ...
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that
seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its
email is [email protected]
It wasn’t just FBI that got called off. Customs also stumbled on this in-your-face
proliferation ring. The judiciary was utterly gelded. Smyth, ‘Mossad’s’
asset, got bail of a measly $100K for frickin WMD proliferation. Who can exfiltrate a
clandestine dealer in CCL items after the foreign end user refuses cooperation? So after
Smyth skips his derisory $100K bail for 15 years of fun & sun in Spain, he finally gets
parole and NO jail time cause the poor old guy was ever so ollld and frail! Who set all that
up? Peres. And with whom does Perez arrange compacts that suspend the functions of multiple
federal organizations and the courts?
Mossad is CIA’s wholesale source for cutouts because there’s nothing,
absolutely nothing they won’t do to goy cattle. If you want to get beyond mealy-mouthed
euphemisms like “Israel-first thinking within America’s establishment,”
what you need is a Schlesinger to re-inventory the family jewels and find out who in CIA ran
Milchan – because Milchan only did what CIA was scared to do itself. In this case, a
country with no NPT commitments and a clandestine development program is a dandy way to
develop and test the kind of munitions that got used at Baghdad Airport and the WTC. CIA has
a long history of using Israeli assets for its dirtiest work: domestic surveillance,
pedophile blackmail, illegal NBC weapons development and use, systematic and widespread
universal-jurisdiction murder and disappearance.
Bill Barr’s dad hired Epstein to teach nubile ephebes at Dalton with no degree but
oh yeah, Mossad ran him, right. Who at OFAC was the cognizant authority for the accounts at
BOA Huntington Beach and Union Bank? That’s your CIA focal point.
@That
Darn Jew CAV badge the weapon that has corrupted nearly every nation state in the western
world? Politicians make promises, and then within hours for unexplained reasons, reverse
them..Hmmm? Is the CAV Badge the weapon that has corrupted the intelligence services and
stable of politicians in nearly every nation in the world? Did Colin Powell flash a CAV badge
as he spoke to UN focus about the most likely presence of non existent WMDs that led to w__
in Iraq?
How can CAV badge victims be identified and isolated from politics?
Its more than spying its black male maybe?
The CAV badge could explain so many USA positive, American negative events?
Know what? Lot of people are asking how Jeff Epstein got all of his lucre. His Bear
Stearns past doesnt seem to completely “addy up”.
Wonder if he may have been supported financially by a foreign intel service to gather dirt
on billionaire clients, Corporate officers, and politicians for leverage purposes later by
said intel service?
Anyone think that could have been a role for this guy? Like I said……..he had
more properties than he should have been able to afford. The seven story 71st street mansion,
the 72 acre Island and mansions, the Palm beach mansions, the yachts, 727 airliner,
helicopters , other properties and holdings. Where did all his pesos come from?
By prokoking the the Soviets through his reviving Eisenhower’s proposal to give West
Germany nuclear weapons, JFK ‘s reckless desire to nuke up any anti Soviet country took
the world to the brink of nuclear war.
Behind all the “shocked, shocked I tell you!” diplomatic maneuvering, Cold war
America wanted to stop Israel from getting a nuclear weapons as much as it wanted to stop
South Africa from getting them: not at all.
Eisenhower gave Israel a nuclear reactor for goodness sake.
@That
Darn Jew that you had been tried for the Inner Ring and rejected. And then, if you are
drawn in, next week it will be something a little further from the rules, and next year
something further still, but all in the jolliest, friendliest spirit. It may end in a crash,
a scandal, and penal servitude; it may end in millions, a peerage and giving the prizes at
your old school. But you will be a scoundrel .
The more important points: the sine qua non : you must have wanted to be in
the inner ring, and you must have been identified as corruptible by the people who
decide who to suborn.
@niteranger
ordinating information collected abroad for the president. After the United States became
involved in World War II, the COI became the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) in June 1942,
with Donovan still in charge.”
OSS was disbanded at war’s end, but, consistent with Donovan’s urgings, in 1946
Harry Truman created its successor organization, the CIA. Allen W. Dulles was the first
civilian and longest serving head of CIA. Thus, men who had the greatest influence on the creation and evolution of the American Central
Intelligence Agency were, first, deeply influenced by Jewish interests and ideologues.
Gabbard is NOT a member of the CFR. She has by her own admission, attended some meetings
as an invited guest. According to her, it was to engage members and find out what their
inside game is. I don't know if Gabbard is for real. I voted for Trump because I perceived
him to be the anti-war and anti-intervention candidate. Period. So, as I said, I don't know
what to think about the lady. I do now understand however, why some individuals in olden
times became hermits.
I think as long as Neoconservatism is the official The USA foreign policy, the policy toward
Israel and its current status will not change. In a way Israel is a one large (and very costly)
military base of the USA in the Middle East and its important has grown due to the peak oil
immensely.
At the same time it is important to understand that Israel completely depends on the
USA for its security and as such is a vassal state. Not the other way around.
Notable quotes:
"... see the book Blood In The Water by Joan Mellen about the joint Israeli ... attack on the USS Liberty. ..."
"... the most heinous acts simply because they are connected in a web of corruption and venality. Maybe this is the moment of Peak Swamp? ..."
"... Have long time interest on how Israeli intelligence service became linked with the CIA. Of course, an easy determination was how CIA Jesus James Angleton became a central facilitator of the anti-American intelligence marriage with Israel.* ..."
"... For your consideration, I link below a video that features Andrew & Leslie Cockburn discussing their book, "Dangerous Liasons," which delved into Mossad & CIA love. ..."
"... Angleton is noted to have searched for Mary Pinchot Myers private diary after she was murdered on scene of a Georgetown canal's walking path. Killer never found. ..."
"... Fyi, Mary was JFK's lover & she suspected CIA involvement with his murder. Her ex-husband was Cord Myer Jr ..."
"... Partisan causes inevitably come under critical examination. And of course, for Israel, to be examined critically by America at large would be the end. So I'm optimistic. How much longer was the Soviet Union figured to last in 1985? ..."
Here is proof that Giraldi is correct regarding treasonous crimes having no consequences.
A commentator from Mondoweiss called in to ask a question on C-Span regarding Israel's nukes.
( Israeli government minister takes credit for 27 U.S. states passing anti-BDS laws –
https://mondoweiss.net/2019/07/israeli-government-minister/
)
Go to the 9:10 mark of the video.
It cannot be more obvious that the media and U.S. politicians are agents for Israel.
What you claim about JFK and Dimona may very well be true it seems like it probably is
true from what I have read about Yuval Neeman ..However, it wouldn't follow that JFK was
assassinated by the Israelies or anyone but Oswald. If the Conspiracy Theorists get the
physics of the JFK assassination wrong .there goes the GRAND CONSPIRACY .
Larger point: JFK CAME WITHIN 60 SECONDS OF NUKING US ALL ..We were saved from a
thermonuclear death by a lone Russian Commie Submarine Commander ..I really do find the JFK
worship disgusting
War-JFK's attempt to shut down the Israeli nuclear program is well documented, but I have
never claimed that they killed the president. It is just one possibility as the investigation
into the killing was bungled deliberately as to lay it all on a dead Oswald.
Have long time interest on how Israeli intelligence service became linked with the CIA. Of course, an easy
determination was how CIA Jesus James Angleton became a central facilitator of the anti-American intelligence marriage with
Israel.*
For your consideration, I link below a video that features Andrew & Leslie Cockburn
discussing their book, "Dangerous Liasons," which delved into Mossad & CIA love. Thank you, my Brothers!
* Angleton is noted to have searched for Mary Pinchot Myers private diary after she was
murdered on scene of a Georgetown canal's walking path. Killer never found.
Fyi, Mary was
JFK's lover & she suspected CIA involvement with his murder. Her ex-husband was Cord Myer
Jr
As soon as Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, the NUMEC operations were approved by the
Johnson Administration. In late 1970s, Congress [Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce] held hearings on the unaccounted uranium supposedly lost during the enrichment
process. A U.S. Government report had been issued concerning the loss. Nevertheless, there
were no further investigations concerning the missing uranium in the NUMEC plant operated by
Zionist Shapiro. President Kennedy was vehemently against Israel developing nuclear weapons
and expressed his dissatisfaction with Israel's efforts to develop a nuclear bomb to Golda
Meier. Moreover, The United States supported the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which
Israel has refused to sign as of today! Congress did nothing to discourage Israel. Indeed,
Congress rewarded Israel by increasing the amount of U.S. tax dollars given to aid
Israel!
It is disheartening that the US government has become a totally owned subsidiary of
Israel. The US government places Israeli interests far above the interests of its own
citizens. The benefits do not flow in both directions, though.
'How have you ass clowns changed anything about Israel???'
Progress is being made. If you go back forty years, Israel's legitimacy was all but
universally taken for granted; it wasn't even controversial.
Then up until Trump's election, support for Israel in American politics was a non-partisan
good; it was like being anti-Communist in 1955. Everyone loved Israel; see the seventeen
standing ovations.
Now, not one of the Democratic candidates agreed to address this year's AIPAC convention.
Kamala Harris has made sure she's the best choice for the Zionists, but even she didn't
appear. Israel has become a partisan cause -- it belongs to Trump and the Evangelical Right
now.
And that's good. Partisan causes inevitably come under critical examination. And of course, for Israel, to be examined critically by America at large would be the
end. So I'm optimistic. How much longer was the Soviet Union figured to last in 1985?
"... Yes, there is strong reason to believe that, during Tulsi's response to a question on Iran in the first debate, MSNBC technicians digitally implanted a pimple on Tulsi's chin. The "pimple" subsequently vanished. ..."
"... While placing a pimple on her chin is a childish prank, it is a childish prank played by one of the largest information company on the planet. It's not really a childish prank at that scale. ..."
"... Mics being turned off is another trick, not so childish, but still played out by a multibillion dollar institution. This is happening in a public policy event hosted by a news organization. ..."
Yes, there is strong reason to believe that, during Tulsi's response to a question on Iran
in the first debate, MSNBC technicians digitally implanted a pimple on Tulsi's chin. The
"pimple" subsequently vanished.
This bizarre behavior by MSNBC lends additional credence to claims by Andrew Yang and
Marianne Williamson that their mikes were turned off during portions of the debate.
Those responsible for this must be identified, fired, and, if feasible, prosecuted. Until
MSNBC cooperates in these regards, it should be treated like a pariah. Complaints to the
regulatory authorities are in order, and the public should be fully apprised of this. If this
strategy of digital manipulation is not nipped in the bud NOW, who knows what dangerous frauds
might await us in the future?
While placing a pimple on her chin is a childish prank, it is a childish prank played by one
of the largest information company on the planet. It's not really a childish prank at that
scale.
Mics being turned off is another trick, not so childish, but still played out by a
multibillion dollar institution. This is happening in a public policy event hosted by a news
organization.
It's rather ugly, IMO. And while I get the "distraction" angle, it's beyond that: it's a
trial balloon. When it comes to psyops; we ain't seen nothin' yet.
@mimi
I did an eyeroll when I first heard about it too. But then I started to understand. Tulsi is a
beautiful woman, inside and out from what I've seen. I'm quite sure that her outer beauty is
one thing that made lots of people google her.
Some people really are that superficial.
How
would you go about trying to make her less beautiful without being overtly obvious? Did that
pimple stop people from wanting to know who she is?
I really hope not. Personally, I think
she's beautiful with or without a zit on her chin, but her message is what makes her shine so
bright. They can't put a pimple on that.
"... Why are state owned industries bad things? When one debates it the way the argument has been framed - Left vs Right - it is hard to defend, ending in a "commie vs. fascist" diatribe. ..."
"... If it's framed by "Why should profit be made from essential services, water, electricity, telephone, rail, health services, especially when there's only one delivery mechanism, a pipe, a rail, a cable, a hospital?" (and one paid for and put in by the Government) then that's a different debate. ..."
"... Is Amazon a force for change? Yes. Should it have been allowed to part fund its growth by arbitraging tax savings between one US state and another? No. ..."
"... Should Uber be able to set up a taxi business? Yes. If there is an existing business in place, with infrastructure and investment, should new entrants be forced to adhere to the same rules and regulations that supported that existing business, and taxed to allow the established businesses to evolve, with taxes paying for the re-training of people, paying for investments, supporting infrastructure? I think so. ..."
"... When we have autonomous vans replacing delivery drivers, should we tax companies that use them to offset the social cost of laying off millions of people in the transportation sector to pay for re-training and infrastructure investments, or should we simply allow offshore companies to export jobs and money? ..."
"... We need to ditch the neoliberal policies that created free market capitalism and not replace it with socialism, but replace it with logical, pragmatic, socially-focused capitalism ..."
Why are state owned industries bad things? When one debates it the way the argument has
been framed - Left vs Right - it is hard to defend, ending in a "commie vs. fascist"
diatribe.
If it's framed by "Why should profit be made from essential services, water,
electricity, telephone, rail, health services, especially when there's only one delivery
mechanism, a pipe, a rail, a cable, a hospital?" (and one paid for and put in by the
Government) then that's a different debate.
Then the debate moves to "Govt's can't run
companies". Only then can we frame the debate about fixing the right problem. Get Govt's to
run essential services effectively, not giving up that they can't and allowing corporations
to profit from essential services – that profit is your taxes.
To win this argument the debate needs to not be the ideological argument of Left vs Right.
We need a new approach for the 21st Century that embraces change, technology and dynamism and
overlays it with pragmatism, social caring and a drive for growth.
Is Amazon a force for change? Yes. Should it have been allowed to part fund its growth by
arbitraging tax savings between one US state and another? No.
Should Uber be able to set up a
taxi business? Yes. If there is an existing business in place, with infrastructure and
investment, should new entrants be forced to adhere to the same rules and regulations that
supported that existing business, and taxed to allow the established businesses to evolve,
with taxes paying for the re-training of people, paying for investments, supporting
infrastructure? I think so.
When we have autonomous vans replacing delivery drivers, should
we tax companies that use them to offset the social cost of laying off millions of people in
the transportation sector to pay for re-training and infrastructure investments, or should we
simply allow offshore companies to export jobs and money?
I suggest we need a new approach. Not Left or Right. We need to ditch the neoliberal
policies that created free market capitalism and not replace it with socialism, but replace
it with logical, pragmatic, socially-focused capitalism. So long as our choice is left or
right, you get Trumped. I hope someone can find a new way.
You can be one of those who finds a better way. So can I, so can every one of
us, if we're willing to take on the responsibility of participating in the process at the
local level, as I said in my earlier post. I'm an old man now, but I've always been involved
in the political process. We haven't always achieved what we wanted, that's a fact of life.
But my country, Australia, is a better place today than it was 1n 1937 when I was born. The
USA has suffered a setback this week, more reason for the young people to get into the
process at the coalface, and build better parties that reflect their values.
I think there's a lot of truth to this; over hear we could say that many Trump voters are
the equivalent of the miners and steel workers who lost out under Thatcherism, and whom
Labour used to at least try to represent.
But the other horn of the dilemma in which such people find themselves is cultural. A
cultural revolution has taken place over the past fifty years which has weakened, and
threatens to destroy, the culture that many of these people feel comfortable with, and people
like Clinton tell them to be happy about that, or be called bigots. Working people whose
lodestars are faith, flag and family are derided, and dismissed as relics.
A party which combined a more Left-wing populist economic policy with a socially
conservative cultural position would absolutely clean up, and would help a great many poor
people. But the Left is too infatuated with racial, sexual, moral and social revolution to
care. The "rust-belt" poor look to the Democrats for aid, are are given transgender
lavatories. It's an insult.
You took a great many words to say what you actually mean: "Hilary Clinton is a corrupt
lifelong politician totally in bed with the bankers, world financiers, and rich elites,
whilst peddling a enough rubbish to attract the SJWs. She's been found out and that's why she
lost".
Nothing in the article directs hate at voters or groups of voters. It is, arguably,
disgusted with the Trump and Brexit campaigns but is full of sympathy for the plights of many
who voted for them.
Secondly, voting for Trump just to rebel against 'highly paid know-it-alls with vain moral
superiority' is just crazy. It might not be racist or misogynistic but it is stupid. Voting
to 'p..s' someone off is treating your vote, democratic right and responsibility with
distain.
The craziest part of all of this is that the highly paid people who you are rebelling
against will get a tax cut from Trump. It is the poor that will bear the brunt of his
presidency.
"Neo-fascist responses"
"Trump-style extremism"
"they answer it by bashing immigrants and people of colour, vilifying Muslims, and degrading
women"
You call my right to vote the way I choose "stupid".
You just don't get it. Millions of Americans voted exactly this way. A big middle finger to
the establishment, media, Wall Street, "experts", and yes moral posturing know-it-alls is a
great way to use your vote.
You completely misunderstand Trump. He is far more for the working man than Clinton. The
poor voted for him in droves. And for good reason.
There has been no real recovery for working people or most people in the west since the
great recession. White working class people in both countries are angry. They are angry that
they are no longer given a significantly preferential seat at the dinner table (or at least
compared to yesteryear), angry that they have to compete equally with everyone else.
In the UK apparently we must now concentrate on white working class people concerning
education. They are not discriminated against and on the contrary still are free from many
prejudices that non whites experience yet they under perform.
And why should they receive preferential treatment? Are we to be judged on the past
exploits of generations before us? Perhaps their forebearers served for the country... well
my son's great grandfather served the UK during WWII even though he was from another country
and what did they give him in return... sweet f*** all; a one way ticket home with a pat on
the back and a "good luck" with dealing with his wounds and rehabilitation. Neither did it
benefit his ancestors the slightest so why should it be taken into account for Britons
today?
Pretty superficial article, but some points are interesting. Especially the fact that the collapse of neoliberalism
like collapse of Bolshevism is connected with its inability to raise the standard of living of population in major Western
countries, despite looting of the USSR and Middle eastern countries since 1991. Spoils of victory in the Cold War never got to
common people. All was appropriated by greedy "New Class" of neoliberal oligarchs.
The same was true with Bolshevism in the USSR. The communist ideology was dead after WWII when it became clear that
"proletariat" is not a new class destined to take over and the "iron law of oligarchy" was discovered. Collapse happened
in 45 years since the end of WWII. Neoliberal ideology was dead in 2008. It would be interesting to see if neoliberalism
as a social system survives past 2050.
The level of degeneration of the USA elite probably exceeds the level of degeneration of Nomenklatura even now.
Notable quotes:
"... A big reason why liberal democracies in Europe have remained relatively stable since WWII is that most Europeans have had hope that their lives will improve. A big reason why the radical vote has recently been on the rise in several European countries is that part of the electorate has lost this hope. People are increasingly worried that not only their own lives but also the lives of their children will not improve and that the playing field is not level. ..."
"... As a result, the traditional liberal package of external liberalisation and internal redistribution has lost its appeal with the electorate, conceding ground to the alternative package of the radical right that consists of external protectionism and internal liberalisation ..."
"... Mr Mody said the bottom half of German society has not seen any increase in real incomes in a generation. ..."
"... The reforms pushed seven million people into part-time 'mini-jobs' paying €450 (£399) a month. It lead to corrosive "pauperisation". This remains the case even though the economy is humming and surging exports have pushed the current account surplus to 8.5pc of GDP." ..."
"... "British referendum on EU membership can be explained to a remarkable extent as a vote against globalisation much more than immigration " ..."
"... As an FYI to the author immigration is just the flip side of the same coin. Why were immigrants migrating? Often it's because they can no longer make a living where they left. Why? Often globalization impacts. ..."
"... The laws of biology and physics and whatever else say that the host that is being parasitised upon, cannot support the endless growth of the parasites attached upon it. The unfortunate host will eventually die. ..."
"... "negative effects of globalisation: foreign competition, factory closures, persistent unemployment, stagnating purchasing power, deteriorating infrastructures and public services" ..."
"... he ruling elites have broken away from the people. The obvious problem is the gap between the interests of the elites and the overwhelming majority of the people. ..."
"... One of the things we must do in Russia is never to forget that the purpose of the operation and existence of any government is to create a stable, normal, safe and predictable life for the people and to work towards a better future. ..."
"... "If you're not willing to kill everybody who has a different idea than yourself, you cannot have Frederick Hayek's free market. You cannot have Alan Greenspan or the Chicago School, you cannot have the economic freedom that is freedom for the rentiers and the FIRE (finance, insurance, real estate) sector to reduce the rest of the economy to serfdom." ~ Michael Hudson ..."
"... I'm surprised more people don't vote for neo-fascist parties like the Golden Dawn. Ordinary liberal politics has completely failed them. ..."
The more a local economy has been negatively affected by the two shocks, the more its
electors have shifted towards the radical right and its policy packages. These packages
typically combine the retrenchment against international openness and the liberalisation of the
internal market and more convincingly address the demand for protection by an electorate that,
after the austerity following the Crisis, no longer trusts alternatives based on more liberal
stances on foreign relations and the parallel promise of a stronger welfare state.
A big reason why liberal democracies in Europe have remained relatively stable since WWII is
that most Europeans have had hope that their lives will improve. A big reason why the radical
vote has recently been on the rise in several European countries is that part of the electorate
has lost this hope. People are increasingly worried that not only their own lives but also the
lives of their children will not improve and that the playing field is not level.
On the one hand, despite some progress in curtailing 'tax havens' in recent years, there has
never been as much wealth in tax havens as there is today (Zucman 2015). This is seen as unfair
because, if public goods and services (including those required to help the transition to a
'green economy') have to be provided in the regions where such hidden wealth comes from, lost
tax revenues have to be compensated for by higher taxes on law-abiding households.
On the other hand, fairness is also undermined by dwindling social mobility. In the last
decades, social mobility has slowed down across large parts of the industrialised world (OECD
2018), both within and between generations. Social mobility varies greatly across regions
within countries, correlates positively with economic activity, education, and social capital,
and negatively with inequality (Güell at al. 2018). Renewed migration from the South to
the North of Europe after the Crisis (Van Mol and de Valk 2016) is a testimony of the widening
relative lack of opportunities in the places that have suffered the most from competition from
low-wage countries.
Concluding Remarks
Globalisation has come accompanied by the Great Convergence between countries around the
world but also the Great Divergence between regions within several industrialised countries.
The same holds within the EU. In recent years, redistributive policies have had only a very
limited impact in terms of reversing growing regional inequality.
As a result, the traditional
liberal package of external liberalisation and internal redistribution has lost its appeal with
the electorate, conceding ground to the alternative package of the radical right that consists
of external protectionism and internal liberalisation.
This is both inefficient and unlikely to
lead to more regional convergence. What the political and policy debate in Europe is arguably
missing is a clearer focus on two of the main underlying causes of peoples' growing distrust in
national and international institutions: fiscal fairness and social mobility.
Right. It would be better to say "the traditional New Deal liberal package " has not lost
its appeal, it was killed off bit by bit starting with NAFTA. From a 2016 Thomas Frank essay
in Salon:
That appeal to [educated credentialed] class unity gives a hint of what Clintonism was
all about. To owners and shareholders, who would see labor costs go down as they took
advantage of unorganized Mexican labor and lax Mexican environmental enforcement, NAFTA held
fantastic promise. To American workers, it threatened to send their power, and hence their
wages, straight down the chute. To the mass of the professional-managerial class, people who
weren't directly threatened by the treaty, holding an opinion on NAFTA was a matter of
deferring to the correct experts -- economists in this case, 283 of whom had signed a
statement declaring the treaty "will be a net positive for the United States, both in terms
of employment creation and overall economic growth."
The predictions of people who opposed the agreement turned out to be far closer to what
eventually came to pass than did the rosy scenarios of those 283 economists and the
victorious President Clinton. NAFTA was supposed to encourage U.S. exports to Mexico; the
opposite is what happened, and in a huge way. NAFTA was supposed to increase employment in
the U.S.; a study from 2010 counts almost 700,000 jobs lost in America thanks to the treaty.
And, as feared, the agreement gave one class in America enormous leverage over the other:
employers now routinely threaten to move their operations to Mexico if their workers
organize. A surprisingly large number of them -- far more than in the pre-NAFTA days -- have
actually made good on the threat.
Twenty years later, the broader class divide over the subject persists as well.
According to a 2014 survey of attitudes toward NAFTA after two decades, public opinion
remains split. But among people with professional degrees -- which is to say, the liberal
class -- the positive view remains the default. Knowing that free-trade treaties are always
for the best -- even when they empirically are not -- seems to have become for the
well-graduated a badge of belonging.
The only internal redistribution that's happened in the past 25 – 30 yearsis from
the bottom 80% to the top 10% and especially to the top 1/10th of 1 %.
Not hard to imagine why the current internal redistribution model has lost its appeal with
the electorate.
I think there are two different globalizations that people are responding to.
1. Their jobs go away to somewhere in the globe that has lower wages, lower labor
protections, and lower environmental protections. So their community largely stays the same
but with dwindling job prospects and people slowly moving away.
2. The world comes to their community where they see immigrants (legal, illegal, refugees)
coming in and are willing to work harder for less, as well as having different appearance,
languages, religion, and customs. North America has always had this as we are built on
immigration. Europe is much more focused on terroire. If somebody or something has only been
there for a century, they are new.
If you combine both in a community, you have lit a stick of dynamite as the locals feel
trapped with no way out. Then you get Brexit and Trump. In the US, many jobs were sent
overseas and so new people coming in are viewed as competitors and agents of change instead
of just new hired help. The same happened in Britain. In mainland Europe with less inequality
and more job protection, it is more of just being overwhelmed by the sheer quantity of
newcomers in a society that does not prize that at all.
I saw the warning signs when Golden Dawn appeared in Greece
The liberals said it was just a one off, as they always do, until it isn't.
How did successful Germany turn into a country where extremism would flourish?
The Hartz IV reforms created the economic hardship that causes extremism to flourish.
"Germany is turning to soft nationalism. People on low incomes are voting against authority
because the consensus on equality and justice has broken down. It is the same pattern across
Europe," said Ashoka Mody, a former bail-out chief for the International Monetary Fund in
Europe.
Mr Mody said the bottom half of German society has not seen any increase in real
incomes in a generation. The Hartz IV reforms in 2003 and 2004 made it easier to fire
workers, leading to wage compression as companies threatened to move plants to Eastern
Europe.
The reforms pushed seven million people into part-time 'mini-jobs' paying €450
(£399) a month. It lead to corrosive "pauperisation". This remains the case even though
the economy is humming and surging exports have pushed the current account surplus to 8.5pc
of GDP."
This is a successful European country, imagine what the others look like.
"British referendum on EU membership can be explained to a remarkable extent as a vote
against globalisation much more than immigration "
As an FYI to the author immigration is just the flip side of the same coin. Why were
immigrants migrating? Often it's because they can no longer make a living where they left.
Why? Often globalization impacts.
Another recap about that really just mourns the lack of trust in the establishment, with
no answers. More "I can't believe people are sick to death of experts of dubious skills but
networking "
What it is just admitted that a system that can only work great for 20% of any given
population if they are born in the right region with the right last name just simply not work
except as an exercise in extraction?
And about the EU as if it could never be taken over by bigger authoritatians than the ones
already populating it.
Then see how much those who think it is some forever bastion of liberalism over sovereignity
likes it .
"Another recap about that really just mourns the lack of trust in the establishment,
with no answers."
Usually it involves replacing the establishment or creating an internal threat to
reinstate compliance in the establish (Strauss and Howe).
Strategies for initiate the former may be impossible in this era where the deep state can
read your thoughts through digital media so you would like it would trend to the latter.
Mmmmm, yes, migration, globalisation and such like.
But, unregulated migration into an established environment, say a country, say, UK, on one
hand furthers profits to those benefiting from low labour wages (mainly, friends of people
working for governments), but on the other leads to creation of parallel societies, where the
incoming population brings along the society they strived to escape from. The Don calls these
sh***hole societies. Why bring the f***ing thing here, why not leave it where you escaped
from.
But the real betrayal of the native population happens when all those unregulated migrants
are afforded immediate right to social security, full access to NHS and other aspects of
state support, services that they have not paid one penny in support before accessing that
particular government funded trough. And then the parasitic growth of their "family and
extended family" comes along under the banner of "human rights".
This is the damnation of the whole of Western Civilisation which had been hollowed out
from within by the most devious layer of parasitic growth, the government apparatus. The
people we pay for under the auspices that they are doing some work for us, are enforcing
things that treat the income generators, the tax paying society as serfs whose primary
function in life is to support the parasites (immigrants) and parasite enablers
(government).
The laws of biology and physics and whatever else say that the host that is being
parasitised upon, cannot support the endless growth of the parasites attached upon it. The
unfortunate host will eventually die.
Understanding of this concept is most certainly within mental capabilities of all those
employed as the "governing classes " that we are paying for through our taxes.
Until such time when legislation is enacted that each and every individual member of
"government classes " is made to pay, on an indemnity basis, through financial damages,
forced labour, organs stripping or custodial penalties, for every penny (or cent, sorry,
yanks), of damage they inflict on us taxpayers, we are all just barking.
This piece does an admirable job conflating globalisation and the ills caused by the
neoliberal capture of social democratic parties/leaders. Did people just happen to lose hope,
or were they actively betrayed? We are left to guess.
"negative effects of globalisation: foreign competition, factory closures, persistent
unemployment, stagnating purchasing power, deteriorating infrastructures and public
services"
Note that these ills could also be laid at the feet of the austerity movement, and the
elimination/privatisation of National Industrial Policy, both cornerstones of the neoliberal
infestation.
Not only is globalization not new, all of the issues that come with it are old news.
All of it.
Part of the problem is that the global economic order is still in service to the same old
same old. They have to rebrand every so often to keep the comfortable even more comfortable.
Those tasked with keeping the comfortable more comfortable have to present this crap as "new
ideas" for their own careerism or actually do not realize they haven't espoused a new idea in
500 years.
Putin's recent interview with Financial Times editor offers a clear-eyed perspective on
our changing global structure:
"What is happening in the West? What is the reason for the Trump phenomenon, as you said,
in the US? What is happening in Europe as well? The ruling elites have broken away from the
people. The obvious problem is the gap between the interests of the elites and the
overwhelming majority of the people.
Of course, we must always bear this in mind. One of the things we must do in Russia is
never to forget that the purpose of the operation and existence of any government is to
create a stable, normal, safe and predictable life for the people and to work towards a
better future.
You know, it seems to me that purely liberal or purely traditional ideas have never
existed. Probably, they did once exist in the history of humankind, but everything very
quickly ends in a deadlock if there is no diversity. Everything starts to become extreme one
way or another.
Various ideas and various opinions should have a chance to exist and manifest themselves,
but at the same time interests of the general public, those millions of people and their
lives, should never be forgotten. This is something that should not be overlooked.
Then, it seems to me, we would be able to avoid major political upheavals and troubles.
This applies to the liberal idea as well. It does not mean (I think, this is ceasing to be a
dominating factor) that it must be immediately destroyed. This point of view, this position
should also be treated with respect.
They cannot simply dictate anything to anyone just like they have been attempting to do
over the recent decades. Diktat can be seen everywhere: both in the media and in real life.
It is deemed unbecoming even to mention some topics. But why?
For this reason, I am not a fan of quickly shutting, tying, closing, disbanding
everything, arresting everybody or dispersing everybody. Of course, not. The liberal idea
cannot be destroyed either; it has the right to exist and it should even be supported in some
things. But you should not think that it has the right to be the absolute dominating factor.
That is the point. Please." ~ Vladmir Putin
He's talking about the end of neoliberalism, the economic fascism that has gripped the
world for over 40 years:
"If you're not willing to kill everybody who has a different idea than yourself, you
cannot have Frederick Hayek's free market. You cannot have Alan Greenspan or the Chicago
School, you cannot have the economic freedom that is freedom for the rentiers and the FIRE
(finance, insurance, real estate) sector to reduce the rest of the economy to serfdom." ~
Michael Hudson
Let's get back to using fiscal policy for public purpose again, to granting nations their
right to self-determination and stopping the latest desperate neoliberal attempt to change
international norms by installing fascist dictators (while pretending they are different) in
order to move the world backwards to a time when "efforts to institutionalize standards of
human and civil rights were seen as impingements on sovereignty, back to the days when no one
gave a second thought to oppressed peoples."
Very interesting article, and even more interesting conversation! There is a type of
argument that very accurately points out some ills that need addressing, and then goes on to
spout venom on the only system that might be able to address those ills.
It may be that the
governing classes are making life easy for themselves. How to address that is the hard and
difficult issue. Most of the protection of the small people comes from government.
Healthcare, schools, roads, water etc.(I'm in scandinavia).
If the government crumbles, the
small people have to leave. The most dreadful tyranny is better than a failed state with
warring factions.
The only viable way forward is to somehow improve the system while it is
(still) running. But this discussion I do not see anywhere.
If the discussion does not
happen, there will not be any suggestions for improvement, so everything stays the same.
Change is inevitable – it what state it will catch us is the important thing. A cashier
at a Catalonian family vineyard told me the future is local and global: the next level from
Catalonia will be EU. What are the steps needed to go there?
Same old, Same old. Government is self-corrupting and is loath to change. People had
enough July fourth 1776.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty
and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted
among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever
any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to
alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such
principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to
effect their Safety and Happiness."
FWIW: The fireworks we watch every Fourth of July holiday are symbolic!!!!
The cashier seems to be envisioning a neoliberal paradise where the nation-state no longer
exists. But who, then, collects the taxes that will pay for infrastructure, healthcare,
education, public housing, and unemployment insurance? The European Parliament?
Will Germans
and Finns be willing to pay high taxes in order to pay for those services for Greeks and
Spaniards?
Look at the unemployment rate in Greece the Germans would simply say that the
Greeks are lazy parasites and don't want to work (rather than understand that the economic
conditions don't allow for job creation), and they would vote for MEPs that vote to cut taxes
and welfare programs.
But maybe this was the plan all along you create this neoliberal paradise, and slowly but
surely, people will dismantle all but the bare bones of the welfare state.
I believe that one of the fundamental flaws in the logic behind the EU is this assumption
of mobility. Proponents of the EU imagine society to be how it is described in economics
textbooks: a bunch of individual actors seeking to maximize their incomes that don't seem to
exist in any geographic context. The reality is that people are born into families and
communities that speak a language. Most of them probably don't want to just pack up all of
their things, relocate, and leave their family and home behind every time they get a new job.
People throughout history have always had a very strong connection to the land on which they
were raised and the society into which they were brought up; more accurately, for most of
human history, this formed the entire existence, the entire universe, of most people
(excluding certain oppressed groups, such as slaves or the conquered).
Human beings are not able to move as freely as capital. While euros in Greece can be sent
to and used instantly in Germany, it is not so easy for a Greek person to leave the society
that their ancestors have lived in for thousands of years and move to a new country with a
new culture and language. For privileged people that get to travel, this doesn't sound so
bad, but for someone whose family has lived in the same place for centuries and never learned
to speak another language, this experience would be extremely difficult. For many people over
the age of 25, it might not even be a life worth living.
In the past, economic difficulties would lead to a depreciation of a nation's currency and
inflation. But within the current structure of the Eurozone, it results in deflation as euros
escape to the core countries (mainly Germany) and unemployment. Southern Europeans are
expected to leave everything they have ever known behind and move to the countries where
there is work, like Germany or Holland. Maybe for a well-educated worldly 18 year old, that's
not so bad, but what about a newly laid-off working class 35 year-old with a wife and kids
and no college degree? He's supposed to just pick up his family and leave his parents and
relatives behind, learn German, and spend the rest of his life and Germany? His kids now have
to be German? Would he even be able to get a job there, anyway? Doing what? And how is he
supposed to stop this from happening, how is he supposed to organize politically to keep jobs
at home? The Greek government can hardly do anything because the IMF, ECB, and European
Commission (all unelected officials) call the shots and don't give them any fiscal breathing
room (and we saw what happened the last time voters tried to assert their autonomy in the
bailout deal referendum), and the European Parliament doesn't have a serious budget to
actually do anything.
I'm surprised more people don't vote for neo-fascist parties like the
Golden Dawn. Ordinary liberal politics has completely failed them.
"... “‘Populism’ is the label that political elites attach to policies supported by ordinary citizens that they don’t like.” Populism is a movement against the status quo. It represents the beginnings of something new, though it is generally much clearer about what it is against than what it is for. It can be progressive or reactionary, but more usually both. ..."
The neoliberal era is being undermined from two directions. First, if its record of economic
growth has never been particularly strong, it is now dismal. Europe is barely larger than it
was on the eve of the financial crisis in 2007; the United States has done better but even its
growth has been anaemic. Economists such as Larry Summers believe that the prospect for the
future is most likely one of secular stagnation .
Worse, because the recovery has been so weak and fragile, there is a widespread belief that
another financial crisis may well beckon. In other words, the neoliberal era has delivered the
west back into the kind of crisis-ridden world that we last experienced in the 1930s. With this
background, it is hardly surprising that a majority in the west now believe their children will
be worse off than they were. Second, those who have lost out in the neoliberal era are no
longer prepared to acquiesce in their fate – they are increasingly in open revolt. We are
witnessing the end of the neoliberal era. It is not dead, but it is in its early death throes,
just as the social-democratic era was during the 1970s.
A sure sign of the declining influence of neoliberalism is the rising chorus of intellectual
voices raised against it. From the mid-70s through the 80s, the economic debate was
increasingly dominated by monetarists and free marketeers. But since the western financial
crisis, the centre of gravity of the intellectual debate has shifted profoundly. This is most
obvious in the United States, with economists such as Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman, Dani
Rodrik and Jeffrey Sachs becoming increasingly influential. Thomas Piketty's Capital in the
Twenty-First Century has been a massive seller. His work and that of Tony
Atkinson and Angus Deaton have pushed the question of the inequality to the top of the
political agenda. In the UK, Ha-Joon Chang , for long isolated within
the economics profession, has gained a following far greater than those who think economics is
a branch of mathematics.
Meanwhile, some of those who were previously strong advocates of a neoliberal approach, such
as Larry Summers and the Financial Times 's Martin Wolf, have become extremely critical.
The wind is in the sails of the critics of neoliberalism; the neoliberals and monetarists are
in retreat. In the UK, the media and political worlds are well behind the curve. Few recognise
that we are at the end of an era. Old attitudes and assumptions still predominate, whether on
the BBC's Today programme, in the rightwing press or the parliamentary Labour party.
As Thomas
Piketty has shown, in the absence of countervailing pressures, capitalism naturally gravitates towards increasing
inequality. In the period between 1945 and the late 70s, Cold War competition was arguably the biggest such constraint. Since
the collapse of the Soviet Union, there have been none. As the popular backlash grows increasingly irresistible, however, such a
winner-takes-all regime becomes politically unsustainable.
Large sections of the population in both the US and the UK are now in revolt against their lot, as graphically illustrated by
the support for Trump and Sanders in the US and the Brexit vote in the UK. This popular revolt is often described, in a somewhat
denigratory and dismissive fashion, as populism. Or, as Francis Fukuyama writes in a recent excellent essay
in
Foreign Affairs: “‘Populism’ is the label that political elites attach to policies supported by ordinary citizens that
they don’t like.” Populism is a movement against the status quo. It represents the beginnings of something new, though it is
generally much clearer about what it is against than what it is for. It can be progressive or reactionary, but more usually
both.
"... "Each successor generation is less likely than the previous to prioritize maintaining superior military power worldwide as a goal of U.S. foreign policy, to see U.S. military superiority as a very effective way of achieving U.S. foreign policy goals, and to support expanding defense spending. At the same time, support for international cooperation and free trade remains high across the generations. In fact, younger Americans are more inclined to support cooperative approaches to U.S. foreign policy and more likely to feel favorably towards trade and globalization." ..."
"... Last year, for the first time since the height of the Iraq war 13 years ago, the Army fell thousands of troops short of its recruiting goals. That trend was emphasized in a 2017 Department of Defense poll that found only 14 percent of respondents ages 16 to 24 said it was likely they'd serve in the military in the coming years. This has the Army so worried that it has been refocusing its recruitment efforts on creating an entirely new strategy aimed specifically at Generation Z. ..."
"... These days, significant numbers of young veterans have been returning disillusioned and ready to lobby Congress against wars they once, however unknowingly, bought into. Look no further than a new left-right alliance between two influential veterans groups, VoteVets and Concerned Veterans for America, to stop those forever wars. Their campaign, aimed specifically at getting Congress to weigh in on issues of war and peace, is emblematic of what may be a diverse potential movement coming together to oppose America's conflicts. Another veterans group, Common Defense, is similarly asking politicians to sign a pledge to end those wars. In just a couple of months, they've gotten on board 10 congressional sponsors, including freshmen heavyweights in the House of Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar. ..."
"... In February 2018, Sanders also became the first senator to risk introducing a war powers resolution to end American support for the brutal Saudi-led war in Yemen. In April 2019, with the sponsorship of other senators added to his, the bill ultimately passed the House and the Senate in an extremely rare showing of bipartisanship, only to be vetoed by President Trump. That such a bill might pass the House, no less a still-Republican Senate, even if not by a veto-proof majority, would have been unthinkable in 2016. So much has changed since the last election that support for the Yemen resolution has now become what Tara Golshan at Vox termed "a litmus test of the Democratic Party's progressive shift on foreign policy." ..."
"... And for the first time ever, three veterans of America's post-9/11 wars -- Seth Moulton and Tulsi Gabbard of the House of Representatives, and South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg -- are running for president, bringing their skepticism about American interventionism with them. The very inclusion of such viewpoints in the presidential race is bound to change the conversation, putting a spotlight on America's wars in the months to come. ..."
"... In May, for instance, Omar tweeted , "We have to recognize that foreign policy IS domestic policy. We can't invest in health care, climate resilience, or education if we continue to spend more than half of discretionary spending on endless wars and Pentagon contracts. When I say we need something equivalent to the Green New Deal for foreign policy, it's this." ..."
"... It is little recognized how hard American troops fought from 1965 to 1968. Our air mobile troops in particular made a great slaughter of NVA and VC while also taking heavy casualties. ..."
"... We were having such success that no one in the military thought the enemy could keep up the fight. Then, the Tet offensive with the beaten enemy attacking every city in the South. ..."
"... Perhaps there is no open anti-war movement because the Democratic party is now pro-war. ..."
"... President Obama, the Nobel peace prize winner, started a war with Libya, which had neither attacked nor threatened the US and which, by many accounts, was trying to improve relations with the US. GW Bush unnecessarily attacked Iraq and Clinton destroyed Haiti and bombed Yugoslavia, among other actions. ..."
Peace activism is rising, but that isn't translating into huge street demonstrations, writes Allegra Harpootlian.
W hen Donald Trump entered the Oval Office in January 2017, Americans took to the streets all across the country to protest their
instantly endangered rights. Conspicuously absent from the newfound civic engagement, despite more than a decade and a half of this
country's fruitless, destructive wars across the Greater Middle East and northern Africa, was antiwar sentiment, much less an actual
movement.
Those like me working against America's seemingly
endless
wars wondered why the subject merited so little discussion, attention, or protest. Was it because the still-spreading war on
terror remained shrouded in government secrecy? Was the lack of media coverage about what America was doing overseas to blame? Or
was it simply that most Americans didn't care about what was happening past the water's edge? If you had asked me two years ago,
I would have chosen "all of the above." Now, I'm not so sure.
After the enormous demonstrations
against the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the antiwar movement disappeared almost as suddenly as it began, with some even openly
declaring it dead. Critics
noted the long-term absence of significant protests against those wars, a lack of political will in Congress to deal with them,
and ultimately,
apathy on matters of war and peace when compared to issues like health care, gun control, or recently even
climate
change .
The pessimists have been right to point out that none of the plethora of marches on Washington since Donald Trump was elected
have had even a secondary focus on America's fruitless wars. They're certainly right to question why Congress, with the constitutional
duty to declare war, has until recently allowed both presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump to wage war as they wished without
even consulting them. They're right to feel nervous when a national
poll shows that more Americans think we're fighting a war in Iran (we're not) than a war in Somalia (
we are ).
But here's what I've been wondering recently: What if there's an antiwar movement growing right under our noses and we just haven't
noticed? What if we don't see it, in part, because it doesn't look like any antiwar movement we've even imagined?
If a movement is only a movement when people fill the streets, then maybe the critics are right. It might also be fair to say,
however, that protest marches do not always a movement make. Movements are
defined by their ability to challenge the status
quo and, right now, that's what might be beginning to happen when it comes to America's wars.
What if it's Parkland students
condemning American imperialism or groups fighting the
Muslim Ban that are
also fighting the war on terror? It's veterans not only trying to take on the wars they fought in, but putting themselves on
the front lines of the
gun control
,
climate change , and police brutality debates. It's
Congress
passing the first War Powers Resolution in almost 50 years. It's Democratic presidential candidates
signing a pledge to end America's endless wars.
For the last decade and a half, Americans -- and their elected representatives -- looked at our endless wars and essentially
shrugged. In 2019, however, an antiwar movement seems to be brewing. It just doesn't look like the ones that some remember from
the Vietnam era and others from the pre-invasion-of-Iraq moment. Instead, it's a movement that's being woven into just about every
other issue that Americans are fighting for right now -- which is exactly why it might actually work.
An estimated 100,000 people protested the war in Iraq in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 15, 2007 (Ragesoss, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia
Commons)
A Veteran's Antiwar Movement in the Making?
During the Vietnam War of the 1960s
and early 1970s, protests began with religious groups and peace organizations morally opposed to war. As that conflict intensified,
however, students began to join the movement, then civil rights leaders such as
Martin Luther King, Jr. got involved,
then war veterans who had witnessed the horror firsthand stepped in -- until, with a seemingly constant storm of protest in the
streets, Washington eventually withdrew from Indochina.
You might look at the lack of public outrage now, or perhaps the
exhaustion of having been outraged
and nothing changing, and think an antiwar movement doesn't exist. Certainly, there's nothing like the active one that fought against
America's involvement in Vietnam for so long and so persistently. Yet it's important to notice that, among some of the very same
groups (like veterans, students, and even politicians) that fought against that war, a healthy
skepticism about America's 21st century wars, the Pentagon, the military industrial complex, and even the very idea of American
exceptionalism is finally on the rise -- or so the
polls tell us.
"Arlington West of Santa Monica," a project of Veterans for Peace, puts reminders of the costs of war on the beach in Santa Monica,
California. (Lorie Shaull via Flickr)
Right after the midterms last year, an organization named Foundation for Liberty and American Greatness
reported mournfully that younger Americans were "turning on the country and forgetting its ideals," with nearly half believing
that this country isn't "great" and many eyeing the U.S. flag as "a sign of intolerance and hatred." With millennials and Generation
Z rapidly becoming the
largest voting bloc in America for the next 20 years, their priorities are taking center stage. When it comes to foreign policy
and war, as it happens, they're quite different from the generations that preceded them. According to the
Chicago Council of Global Affairs ,
"Each successor generation is less likely than the previous to prioritize maintaining superior military power worldwide as a
goal of U.S. foreign policy, to see U.S. military superiority as a very effective way of achieving U.S. foreign policy goals, and
to support expanding defense spending. At the same time, support for international cooperation and free trade remains high across
the generations. In fact, younger Americans are more inclined to support cooperative approaches to U.S. foreign policy and more
likely to feel favorably towards trade and globalization."
Although marches are the most public way to protest, another striking but understated way is simply not to engage with the systems
one doesn't agree with. For instance, the vast majority of today's teenagers aren't at all interested in joining the all-volunteer
military. Last year, for the first time since the height of the Iraq war 13 years ago, the Army
fell thousands of troops short
of its recruiting goals. That trend was emphasized in a 2017
Department of Defense poll that
found only 14 percent of respondents ages 16 to 24 said it was likely they'd serve in the military in the coming years. This has
the Army so worried that it has been refocusing its recruitment efforts on
creating an entirely new strategy aimed specifically at Generation Z.
In addition, we're finally seeing what happens when soldiers from America's post-9/11 wars come home infused with a sense of
hopelessness in relation to those conflicts. These days, significant numbers of young veterans have been returning
disillusioned and ready to lobby Congress
against wars they once, however unknowingly, bought into. Look no further than a new left-right
alliance between two
influential veterans groups, VoteVets and Concerned Veterans for America, to stop those forever wars. Their campaign, aimed specifically
at getting Congress to weigh in on issues of war and peace, is emblematic of what may be a diverse potential movement coming together
to oppose America's conflicts. Another veterans group, Common Defense, is similarly asking politicians to sign a
pledge to end those wars. In just a couple of months,
they've gotten on board 10 congressional sponsors, including freshmen heavyweights in the House of Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
and Ilhan Omar.
And this may just be the tip of a growing antiwar iceberg. A misconception about movement-building is that everyone is there
for the same reason, however broadly defined. That's often not the case and sometimes it's possible that you're in a movement and
don't even know it. If, for instance, I asked a room full of climate-change activists whether they also considered themselves part
of an antiwar movement, I can imagine the denials I'd get. And yet, whether they know it or not, sooner or later fighting climate
change will mean taking on the Pentagon's global footprint, too.
Think about it: not only is the U.S. military the world's
largest
institutional consumer of fossil fuels but, according to a
new report from Brown University's Costs of War Project, between 2001 and 2017, it released more than 1.2 billion metric tons
of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (400 million of which were related to the war on terror). That's equivalent to the emissions
of 257 million passenger cars, more than double the number currently on the road in the U.S.
A Growing Antiwar Movement in Congress
One way to sense the growth of antiwar sentiment in this country is to look not at the empty streets or even at veterans organizations
or recruitment polls, but at Congress. After all, one
indicator of a successful movement, however
incipient, is its power to influence and change those making the decisions in Washington. Since Donald Trump was elected, the most
visible evidence of growing antiwar sentiment is the way America's congressional policymakers have increasingly become engaged with
issues of war and peace. Politicians, after all, tend to follow the voters and, right now, growing numbers of them seem to be following
rising antiwar sentiment back home into an expanding set of debates about war and peace in the age of Trump.
In campaign season 2016, in an op-ed in The Washington Post , political scientist Elizabeth Saunders wondered whether foreign policy would play a significant role
in the presidential election. "Not likely," she concluded. "Voters do not pay much attention to foreign policy." And at the time,
she was on to something. For instance, Sen. Bernie Sanders, then competing for the Democratic presidential nomination against Hillary
Clinton, didn't
even prepare stock answers to basic national security questions, choosing instead, if asked at all, to quickly pivot back to
more familiar topics. In a debate with Clinton, for instance, he was asked whether he would keep troops in Afghanistan to deal with
the growing success of the Taliban. In his answer, he skipped Afghanistan entirely, while warning only vaguely against a "quagmire"
in Iraq and Syria.
Heading for 2020, Sanders is once again competing for the nomination, but instead of shying away from foreign policy, starting
in 2017, he became the face of what could be a
new American
way of thinking when it comes to how we see our role in the world.
In February 2018, Sanders also became the first senator to risk
introducing a war powers resolution to end American support for the
brutal Saudi-led war in Yemen. In April 2019, with the sponsorship of other senators added to his, the bill
ultimately passed
the House and the Senate in an extremely rare showing of bipartisanship, only to be
vetoed by President Trump. That
such a bill might pass the House, no less a still-Republican Senate, even if not by a veto-proof majority, would have been unthinkable
in 2016. So much has changed since the last election that support for the Yemen resolution has now become what Tara Golshan at
Vox termed "a litmus test of the Democratic Party's progressive shift on foreign policy."
Nor, strikingly enough, is Sanders the only Democratic presidential candidate now running on what is essentially an antiwar platform.
One of the main aspects of Elizabeth
Warren's foreign policy plan, for instance, is to "seriously review the country's military commitments overseas, and that includes
bringing U.S. troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq." Entrepreneur Andrew Yang and former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel have
joined Sanders and Warren in signing a pledge to end America's forever wars if elected.
Beto O'Rourke has called for the repeal
of Congress's 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force that presidents have cited ever since whenever they've sent American forces
into battle. Marianne Williamson , one of the
many (unlikely) Democratic candidates seeking the nomination, has even proposed a plan to transform America's "wartime economy into
a peace-time economy, repurposing the tremendous talents and infrastructure of [America's] military industrial complex to the work
of promoting life instead of death."
And for the first time ever, three veterans of America's post-9/11 wars -- Seth Moulton and Tulsi Gabbard of the House of Representatives,
and South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg -- are running for president, bringing their
skepticism about American interventionism with them. The very inclusion of such viewpoints in the presidential race is bound
to change the conversation, putting a spotlight on America's wars in the months to come.
Get on Board or Get Out of the Way
When trying to create a movement, there are three likely
outcomes : you will
be accepted by the establishment, or rejected for your efforts, or the establishment will be replaced, in part or in whole, by those
who agree with you. That last point is exactly what we've been seeing, at least among Democrats, in the Trump years. While 2020
Democratic candidates for president, some of whom have been in the political arena for decades, are gradually hopping on the end-the-endless-wars
bandwagon, the real antiwar momentum in Washington has begun to come from new members of Congress like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
(AOC) and Ilhan Omar who are unwilling to accept business as usual when it comes to either the Pentagon or the country's forever
wars. In doing so, moreover, they are responding to what their constituents actually want.
As far back as 2014, when a
University of Texas-Austin Energy Poll asked people where the U.S. government should spend their tax dollars, only 7 percent
of respondents under 35 said it should go toward military and defense spending. Instead, in a "pretty significant political shift"
at the time, they overwhelmingly opted for their tax dollars to go toward job creation and education. Such a trend has only become
more apparent as those
calling
for free public college, Medicare-for-all, or a Green New Deal have come to
realize that they could pay for such ideas if America would stop pouring
trillions of dollars into wars that never should have been launched.
The new members of the House of Representatives, in particular, part of the youngest, most diverse crew
to date , have begun to replace the old guard and are increasingly signalling their readiness to throw out policies that don't
work for the American people, especially those reinforcing the American war machine. They understand that by ending the wars and
beginning to scale back the military-industrial complex, this country could once again have the resources it needs to fix so many
other problems.
In May, for instance, Omar tweeted , "We
have to recognize that foreign policy IS domestic policy. We can't invest in health care, climate resilience, or education if we
continue to spend more than half of discretionary spending on endless wars and Pentagon contracts. When I say we need something
equivalent to the Green New Deal for foreign policy, it's this."
A few days before that, at a House Committee on Oversight and Reform hearing, Ocasio-Cortez
confronted executives from military contractor TransDigm about the way they were price-gouging the American taxpayer by selling
a $32 "non-vehicular clutch disc" to the Department of Defense for $1,443 per disc. "A pair of jeans can cost $32; imagine paying
over $1,000 for that," she said. "Are you aware of how many doses of insulin we could get for that margin? I could've gotten over
1,500 people insulin for the cost of the margin of your price gouging for these vehicular discs alone."
And while such ridiculous waste
isn't news to those of us who follow Pentagon spending closely, this was undoubtedly something many of her millions of supporters
hadn't thought about before. After the hearing,
Teen Vogue
created a list of the "5 most ridiculous things the United States military has spent money on," comedian
Sarah Silverman tweeted out the AOC
hearing clip to her 12.6 million followers, Will and Grace actress
Debra Messing publicly expressed her gratitude
to AOC, and according to Crowdtangle, a social media analytics tool, the
NowThis clip of her in that congressional
hearing garnered more than 20 million impressions.
Ocasio-Cortez calling out costs charged by military contractor TransDigm. (YouTube)
Not only are members of Congress beginning to call attention to such undercovered issues, but perhaps they're even starting to
accomplish something. Just two weeks after that contentious hearing, TransDigm
agreed to return $16.1 million
in excess profits to the Department of Defense. "We saved more money today for the American people than our committee's entire budget
for the year," said House Oversight Committee Chair Elijah Cummings.
Of course, antiwar demonstrators have yet to pour into the streets, even though the wars we're already involved in continue to
drag on and a possible new one with Iran looms on the horizon. Still, there seems to be a notable trend in antiwar opinion and activism.
Somewhere just under the surface of American life lurks a genuine, diverse antiwar movement that appears to be coalescing around
a common goal: getting Washington politicians to believe that antiwar policies are supportable, even potentially popular. Call me
an eternal optimist, but someday I can imagine such a movement helping end those disastrous wars.
Allegra Harpootlian is a media associate at
ReThink Media , where she works with leading experts
and organizations at the intersection of national security, politics, and the media. She principally focuses on U.S. drone policies
and related use-of-force issues. She is also a political partner with the
Truman National Security Project . Find her on Twitter
@ally_harp .
"How Obama demobilized the antiwar movement"
By Brad Plumer
August 29, 2013
Washington Post
"Reihan Salam points to a 2011 paper by sociologists Michael T. Heaney and Fabio Rojas, who find that antiwar protests shrunk
very quickly after Obama took office in 2008 -- mainly because Democrats were less likely to show up:
Drawing upon 5,398 surveys of demonstrators at antiwar protests, interviews with movement leaders, and ethnographic observation,
this article argues that the antiwar movement demobilized as Democrats, who had been motivated to participate by anti-Republican
sentiments, withdrew from antiwar protests when the Democratic Party achieved electoral success, if not policy success in ending
the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Heaney and Rojas begin by puzzling over a paradox. Obama ran as an antiwar candidate, but his first few years in office were
rather different: "As president, Obama maintained the occupation of Iraq and escalated the war in Afghanistan. The antiwar movement
should have been furious at Obama's 'betrayal' and reinvigorated its protest activity. Instead, attendance at antiwar rallies
declined precipitously and financial resources available to the movement dissipated.""
Rob , July 4, 2019 at 14:20
The author may be too young to realize that the overwhelming driving force in the anti-Vietnam War movement was hundreds
of thousands of young men who were at risk of being drafted and sent to fight, die and kill in that godforsaken war. As the
movement grew, it gathered in millions of others as well. Absent the military draft today, most of America's youth don't seem
to give half a damn about the current crimes of the U.S. military. As the saying goes: They have no skin in the game.
bardamu , July 3, 2019 at 20:21
There has again been some shift in Sanders' public positions, while Tulsi Gabbard occupies a position that was not represented
in '16, and HR Clinton was more openly bent on war than anyone currently at the table, though perhaps because that much of her
position had become so difficult to deny over the years.
That said, Clinton lost to Obama in '08 because she could not as effectively deny her militarism. There was at the time within
the Democratic Party more and clearer movement against the wars than there is now. One might remember the run for candidacy
of Dennis Kucinich, for example. The 8 years of the Obama regime were a consistent frustration and disappointment to any antiwar
or anticorporate voice within the Democratic Party, but complaints were muted because many would not speak against a Blue or
a Black president. More than at any prior time, corporate media spokespersons could endorse radically pro-corporate positions
and imply or accuse their opposition of racism.
That leaves it unclear, however, what any antiwar voices have to do with the Democratic Party itself, particularly if we
take "the party" to mean the political organization itself as opposed to the people whom it claims to represent. The Party and
the DNC were major engines in the rigging of the 2016 Democratic nomination–and also, lest we forget, contributors to the Donald
Trump nomination campaign.
It should not escape us, as we search for souls and soulfulness among these remnants of Democratic Parties Past, that any
turn of the party against war is surely due to Hillary Clinton's loss to presumed patsy candidate Donald Trump in 2016–the least
and second-least popular major presidential contenders in history, clearly, in whichever order one wishes to put them.
There is some value in realism, then. So as much as one hates to criticize a Bernie Sanders in anything like the present
field that he runs in, his is not a consistently antiwar position: he has gone back and forth. Tulsi Gabbard is the closest
thing to an antiwar candidate within the Party. And under even under the most favorable circumstances, 2020 is at best not her
year.
Most big money says war. scorched earth, steep hierarchy, and small constitution. Any who don't like it had best speak up
and act up.
I am for Tulsi, a Senator from Hawaii not a rep as this article says. Folk Music was in when the peace movement was strong
and building, the same for Folk Rock who songs also had words you could get without Google.
So my way of "hoping" for an Anti-War/Peace Movement is to have a Folk Revival in my mind.
Nathan Mulcahy , July 3, 2019 at 14:11
The answer to the question why anti war movement is dead is so simple and obvious but apparently invisible to most Dems/libs/progressives
(excuse my inability to discern the distinctions between labels). The answer points to our onetime "peace" president Obama.
As far as foreign interventions go (and domestic spying, among other things) Obama had continued Baby Bush's policy. Even worse,
Obama had given a bipartisan seal of approval (and legality) to most of Baby Bush's crimes. In other words, for 8 years, meaning
during the "peace" president's reign, the loyal "lefty" sheeple have held their mouth when it came to war and peace.
Obama and the Dems have very effectively killed the ant war movement
The establishment will always be pro-war because there's so much money in it. Street demonstrations will never change that,
as we recently learned with Iraq. The only strategy that has a chance of working is anti-enlistment. If they don't have the
troops they can't invade anywhere, and recruitment is already a problem. It needs to be a bigger problem.
Anonymot , July 3, 2019 at 11:51
Sorry, ALL of these Democrat wannabes save one is ignorant of foreign affairs, foreign policy and its destruction of what
they blather on about – domestic vote-getting sky pies. Oh yes, free everything: schools, health care, social justices and services.
It's as though the MIC has not stolen the money from the public's pockets to get rich by sending cheap fodder out there to get
killed and wounded, amputated physically and mentally.
Hillary signed the papers and talked the brainless idiocy that set the entire Middle East on fire, because she couldn't stand
the sight of a man with no shirt on and sitting on the Russian equivalent of a Harley. She hates men, because she drew a bad
one. Huma was better company. Since she didn't know anything beyond the superficial, she did whatever the "experts" whispered
in her ears: War! Obama was in the same boat. The target, via gaining total control of oil from Libya to Syria and Iran was
her Putin hate. So her experts set up the Ukraine. The "experts" are the MIC/CIA and our fearless, brainless, corrupt military.
They have whispered the same psychotic message since the Gulf of Tonkin. We've lost to everyone with whom we've crossed swords
and left them devastated and America diminished save for the few.
So I was a Sanders supporter until he backed the warrior woman and I, like millions of others backed off of her party. It's
still her party. Everyone just loves every victim of every kind. They all spout minor variations on the same themes while Trump
and his neocons quietly install their right wing empire. Except for one who I spotted when she had the independence to go look
for herself in Syria.
Tulsi Gabbard is the only candidate to be the candidate who has a balance of well thought through, realistic foreign policy
as well as the domestic non-extremist one. She has the hurdle of being a too-pretty woman, of being from the remotest state,
and not being a screamer. Even this article, written about peace by a woman fails to talk about her.
Tulsi has the registered voter count and a respectable budget, but the New York Times which is policy-controlled by a few
of Hillary's billionaire friends has consistently shut her out, because Tulsi left the corrupt Hillary-owned DNC to back Sanders
and Hillary never forgave her.
If you want to know who is against Trump and war, take 5 minutes and listen to what she really said during the 1st debate
where the CBS folks gave her little room to talk. It will change your outlook on what really is possible.
Hi Anonymot; I also exited my Sanders support after over 100 cash donations and over a years painful effort. I will never
call him Bernie again; now it is Sanders, since Bernie makes him sound cute and cute was not the word that came into my mind
as Mr. Sanders missed his world moment at the democratic election and backed Hillary Clinton (I can not vote for EVIL). Sanders
then proceeded to give part of my money to the DNC & to EVIL Hillary Clinton.
So then what now? Easy as Pie; NO MORE DEMOCRATS EVER. The DNC & DCCC used Election Fraud & Election Crimes blatantly to
beat Bernie Sanders. Right out in the open. The DNC & DCCC are War Mongering more then the Republicans which is saying allot.
The mass media and major Internet Plateforms like Goggle & Facebook are all owned by Evil Oligarchs that profit from WAR and
blatantly are today suppressing all dissenting opinions (anti Free Speech).
I stopped making cash donation to Tulsi Gabbard upon the realization that the Democrats were not at all a force for Life
or Good and instead were a criminal organization. The voting for the lessor of two EVILs is 100% STUPID.
I told Tim Canova I could not support any Democrat ever again as I told Tulsi Gabbard. Tulsi is still running as a criminal
democrat. If she would run independent of the DNC then I would start to donate cash to her again. End of my story about Tulsi.
I do like her antiwar dialog, but there is no; so called changing, the DNC from the inside. The Oligarchs own the DNC and are
not supportive of "We The People" or the Constitution, or the American Republic.
The end of Tim Canova's effort was he was overtly CHEATED AGAIN by the DNC's Election Fraud & Election Crimes in his 2018
run for congress against Hillary Clinton's 100% corrupt campaign manager; who congress seated even over Tim's asking them not
to seat her until his law suites on her election crimes against him were assessed. Election crimes and rigged voting machines
in Florida are a way of life now and have been for decades and decades.
All elections must be publicly funded. All votes must be on paper ballots and accessible for recounts and that is just the
very minimums needed to start changing the 100% corrupted election system we Americans have been railroaded into.
The supreme Court has recently ruled that gerrymandering is OK. The supreme court has proven to be a political organization
with their Bush Gore decision and now are just political hacks and as such need to be ELECTED not appointed. Their rulings that
Money is Free Speech & that Corporations are People has disenfranchised "We the People". That makes the Supreme Court a tool
to be used by the world money elite to overturn the constitution of the United States of America.
No More War. No More War. No More War.
DW Bartoo , July 3, 2019 at 16:40
Absolutely spot-on, superb comment, P .Brooks.
DW
Nathan Mulcahy , July 3, 2019 at 18:08
I saw the light (with what the Dems are really about) after Kucinich's candidacy. That made me one of the very few lefties
in my circle not to have voted for Obama even the first time around. I hear a lot of talk about trying to reform the party from
inside. Utter bu** sh**. "You cannot reform Mafia".
Ever since Kucinich, I have been voting Green. No, this is not a waste of my vote. Besides, I cannot be complicit to war
crimes – that's what it makes anyone who votes for either of the two parties.
Steven , July 3, 2019 at 13:56
Wow you said a mouthful. It's worse than that its a cottage industry that includes gun running, drug running and human trafficking
netting Trillions to the MIC, CIA and other alphabet agencies you can't fight the mark of the beast.
Seer , July 3, 2019 at 14:01
I fully back/endorse Gabbard, but
The battering of Bernie is not fair. He is NOT a Democrat, therefore him being able to get "inside" that party to run AS
a Dem put him in a tenuous situation. He really had no option other than to support HRC lest his movement, everyone's movement,
would get extra hammering by the neocons and status quo powers. He wouldn't be running, again, had he not done this. Yeah, it's
a bad taste, I get it, but had he disavowed HRC would the outcome -Trump- been any different? The BLAME goes fully on the DNC
and the Clintons. Full stop.
I do not see AOC as a full progressive. She is only doing enough to make it appear so. The Green New Deal is stolen from
the Green Party and is watered down. Think of this as "Obama Care" for the planet. As you should know, Gabbard's Off Fossil
Fuels Act (OFF) actually has real teeth in it: and is closer to the Green Party's positions.
I support movements and positions. PRIMARY is peace. Gabbard, though not a pacifist, has the right path on all of this: I've
been around long enough to understand exactly how she's approaching all of this. She is, however, taking on EVERYONE. As powerful
a person as she is (she has more fortitude than the entire lot of combined POTUS candidates put together) going to require MASSIVE
support; sadly, -to this point- this article doesn't help by implying that people aren't interested in foreign policy (it perpetuates
the blockout of it- people have to be reeducated on its importance- not something that the MIC wants), people aren't yet able
to see the connections. The education will occur will it happen in a timely way such that people would elect Gabbard? (things
can turn on a dime, history has shown this; she has the makeup that suggests that she's going to have a big role in making history).
I did not support Bernie (and so far have not- he's got ample support; if it comes down to it he WILL get my vote- and I've
held off voting for many years because there's been no real "peace" candidate on the plate). Gabbard, however, has my support
now, and likely till the day I die: I've been around long enough to know what constitutes a great leader, and not since the
late 60s have we had anyone like her. If Bernie gets the nomination it is my prediction that he will have Gabbard high on his
staff, if not as VP: a sure fire way to win is to have Gabbard as VP.
I'm going to leave this for folks to contemplate as to whether Gabbard is real or not:
In a context in which Rio de Janeiro's evangelical churches have been accused of laundering money for the drug trafficking
gangs, all elements of Afro-Brazilian culture including caipoeira, Jango drumming, and participation in Carnaval parades, have
been banned by the traffickers in many favelas.
[end excerpt]
"caipoeria," is something that Gabbard has practiced:
"I trained in different martial arts since I was a kid including Capoeira -- an amazing art created by slaves in Brazil who
were training to fight and resist against their slave masters, disguising their training with music, acrobatics, and dance.
Yesterday I joined my friends Mestre Kinha and others at Capoeira Besouro Hawai'i for their batizado ceremony and some fun!
" – Tulsi Gabbard December 9, 2018
The GOAL is to get her into the upper halls of governing power. If the people cannot see fit to it then I'll support Sanders
(in the end) so that he can do it.
Harpootlian claims to see what's going on, but, unfortunately, she's not able to look close enough.
Anonymot, thank you for leading out here with Gabbard and her message.
michael , July 4, 2019 at 08:10
If Gabbard had the MSM coverage Buttigieg has received she probably be leading in the polls. It is surprising(?) that this
supposedly anti-war author mentions corporatist Mayor Pete but not Gabbard.
David , July 4, 2019 at 19:55
She DOES (briefly)mention Gabbard, but she missed the fact that Gabbard is the most strongly anti-war candidate. She gets
it entirely wrong about Buttigieg, who is strikingly pro-war, and supports getting in to a war with Iran.
And sadly, Ms. Gabbard is mired at the 1% mark in the polls, even after having performed so well in the debate.
This seems to me an indication of the public's lack of caring about our foreign wars.
antonio Costa , July 3, 2019 at 19:06
The reason she's "mired" is because a number of polls don't include her!! However they include, Marianne Williamson.
How's that for inverse totalitarianism par excellence .
Skip Scott , July 4, 2019 at 07:05
I did see one poll that had her at 2%. And given the reputation of many polling outfits, I take any professed results with
a grain of salt. Tulsi's press coverage (what little she gets) has been mostly defamatory to the point of being libelous. If
her strong performance continues in the primary debates despite all efforts to sabotage her, I think she could make a strong
showing. That said, at some point she will have to renounce the DNC controlled democratic party and run as an Independent if
she wants to make the General Election debates for 2020.
"Hillary signed the papers and talked the brainless idiocy that set the entire Middle East on fire, because she couldn't
stand the sight of a man with no shirt on and sitting on the Russian equivalent of a Harley. She hates men "
If I were to psychologize, I would conjecture more un-gendered stereotype, namely that of a good student. He/she diligently
learns in all classes from the prescribed textbooks and reading materials, and, alas, American education on foreign affairs
is dominated by retirees from CIA and other armchair warriors. Of course, nothing wrong about good students in general, but
I mean the type that is obedient, devoid of originality and independent thinking. When admonished, he/she remembers the pain
for life and strives hard not to repeat it. E.g. as First Lady, Hillary kissed Arafat's wife to emulate Middle East custom,
and NY tabloids had a feast for months.
Concerning Tulsi, no Hillary-related conspiracy is needed to explain the behavior of the mass media. Tulsi is a heretic to
the establishment, and their idea is to be arbiters of what and who belongs to the "mainstream", and what is radical, marginal
etc. Tulsi richly deserves her treatment. Confronted with taunts like "so you would prefer X to stay in power" (Assad, Maduro
etc.) she replies that it should not be up to USA to decide who stays in power, especially if no better scenario is in sight.
The gall, the cheek!
Strangely enough, Tulsi gets this treatment in places like The Nation and Counterpunch. As the hitherto "radical left" got
a whiff of being admitted to the hallowed mainstream from time to time, they try to be "responsible".
Mary Jones-Giampalo , July 4, 2019 at 00:39
Yes! Thank You I was gritting my teeth reading this article #Tulsi2020
Eddie , July 3, 2019 at 11:42
The end of the anti-war movement expired when the snake-oil pitchman with the toothy smile and dark skin brought his chains
we could beleive in to the White House. The so-called progressives simply went to sleep while they never criticized Barack Obama
for escalating W. Bush's wars and tax cuts for the rich.
The fake left wing in the US remained silent when Obama dumped trillions of dollars into the vaults of his bankster pals
as he stole the very homes from the people who voted him into office. Then along came the next hope and change miracle worker
Bernie Sanders. Only instead of working miracles for the working class, Sanders showed his true colors when he fcuked his constituents
to support the hated Hillary Clinton.
Let's start facing reality. The two-party dictatorship does not care about you unless you can pony up the big bucks like
their masters in the oligarchy and the soulless corporations do. Unless and until workers end to the criminal stranglehold that
the big-business parties and the money class have on the government, things will continue to slide into the abyss.
DW Bartoo , July 3, 2019 at 11:33
An informed awareness of imperialism must also include an analysis of how "technology" is used and abused, from the use of
"superior" weaponry against people who do not have such weapons, from blunderbuss and sailing ships, to B-52s and napalm, up
to and including technology that may be "weaponized" against civilian populations WiTHIN a society, be it 24/7 surveillance
or robotics and AI that could permit elites to dispense with any "need", on the part of the elites, to tolerate the very existence
of a laborung class, or ANY who earn their wealth through actual work, from maids to surgeons, from machine operators to professors.
Any assumption, that any who "work", even lawyers or military officers, can consider their occupation or profession as "safe",
is to assume that the scapegoating will stop with those the highly paid regard as "losers", such comfortable assumption may
very well prove as illusory and ephemeral as an early morning mist before the hot and merciless Sun rises.
The very notions of unfettered greed and limitless power, resulting in total control, must be recognized as the prime drivers
of endless war and shock-doctrine capitalism which, combined, ARE imperialism, unhinged and insane.
michael , July 3, 2019 at 11:06
This article is weak. Anyone who could equate Mayor Pete or the eleven Democrat "ex"-military and CIA analysts who gained
seats in Congress in 2018 as anti-war is clueless. Tulsi Gabbard is anti-regime change war, but is in favor of fighting "terrorists"
(created mostly by our CIA and Israel with Saudi funding). Mike Gravel is the only true totally anti-war 'candidate' and he
supports Gabbard as the only anti-War of the Democrats.
In WWI, 90% of Americans who served were drafted, in WWII over 60% of Americans who served were drafted. The Vietnam War "peace
demonstrations" were more about the Draft, and skin-in-the-game, than about War. Nixon and Kissinger abolished the Draft (which
stopped most anti-war protests), but continued carpet bombing Vietnam and neighboring countries (Operations Menu, Freedom Deal,
Patio, etc), and Vietnamized the War which was already lost, although the killing continued through 1973. The abolition of the
Draft largely gutted the anti-war movement. Sporadic protests against Bush/ Cheney over Afghanistan and Iraq essentially disappeared
under Obama/ Hillary in Afghanistan and Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Sudan. Since their National Emergency proclamations
no longer ever end, we are in a position to attack Venezuela (Obama), Ukraine (Obama), South Sudan (Obama), Iran (Carter, Clinton),
Libya (Obama), Somalia (Obama), Yemen (Obama), Nicaragua (Trump) and even Burundi (Obama) and the Central African Republic (Obama).
The continuing support of death squads in Honduras and other Latin American countries ("stability is more important than democracy")
has contributed to the immigration crises over the last five years.
As Pelosi noted about Democratic progressives "there are like five of them". Obama not only failed to reverse any of the police
state and warmongering of Bush/Cheney, he expanded both police state (arresting and prosecuting Chelsea Manning for exposing
war crimes, as well as more whistleblowers than anyone in history), and wars in seven Arab Muslim countries. Black Americans,
who had always been an anti-War bloc prior to Obama, converted to the new America. The Congressional Democrats joined with Republicans
to give more to the military budget than requested by Trump. (Clinton squandered the Peace Dividend when the Soviet Union fell,
and Lee Camp has exposed the $21 TRILLION "lost" by the Pentagon.)
The young author see anti-war improvements that are not there. The US is more pro-war in its foreign policies than at any time
in its history. When there was a Draft, the public would not tolerate decades of war (lest their young men died). Sanctions
are now the first attack (usually by National Emergencies!); the 500,000 Iraqi children killed by Clinton's sanctions (Madeline
Albright: "we think it was worth it!") is just sadism and psychopathy at the top, which is necessary for War.
DW Bartoo , July 3, 2019 at 11:38
Superb comment, michael, very much agreed with and appreciated.
DW
Anonymot , July 3, 2019 at 12:06
You are absolutely right. Obama and Hillary were the brilliant ideas of the MIC/CIA when they realized that NO ONE the Republicans
put up after Bush baby's 2nd round. They chose 2 "victims" black & woman) who would do what they were told to do in order to
promote their causes (blacks & get-filthy rich.) The first loser would get the next round. And that's exactly what happened
until Hillary proved to be so unacceptable that she was rejected. We traded no new war for an administration leading us into
a neo-nazi dictatorship.
Seer , July 3, 2019 at 14:04
Thank you for this comment!
Mickey , July 3, 2019 at 10:47
Tulsi Gabbard is the only peace candidate in the Democratic Party
Many current crises have the potential to escalate into a major confrontation between the nuclear powers, similar to the
Cuban missile crisis, though there is no comparable sense of alarm. Then, tensions were at boiling point, when a small military
exchange could have led to nuclear annihilation. Today there are many more such flashpoint – Syria, the South China Sea, Iran,
Ukraine to name a few. Since the end of the Cold War there has been a gradual movement towards third world war. Condemnation
of an attack on Iran must include, foremost, the warning that it could lead the US into a confrontation with a Sino-Russian
alliance. The warning from history is states go to war over interests, but ultimately – and blindly – end up getting the very
war they need to avoid: even nuclear war, where the current trend is going. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
DW Bartoo , July 3, 2019 at 10:36
Many truly superb, well-informed, and very enlightening comments on this thread.
My very great appreciation to this site, to its authors, and to its exceptionally thoughtful and articulate commenters.
DW
DW Bartoo , July 3, 2019 at 10:20
I appreciate this author's perspective, research, and optimism.
Clearly, the young ARE far more open to embracing a future less warlike and hegemonic, while far too many of my generation
are wedded to childish myth and fantasy around U$ driven mayhem.
However, I would suggest that vision be broadened beyond opposition to war, which opposition, while important, must be expanded
to opposition to the larger issue of imperialism, itself.
Imperialism is not merely war, it includes economic warfare, both sanctions, internationally, and predatory debt loads, domestically,
in very many nations of the world, as well as privatization of the commons (which must be understood to include all resources
necessary to human existence).
Perpetual war, which profits only the few, is driven by precisely the same aims as pitting workers against each other, worldwide,
in a "game" of "race to the bottom", creating "credit" rather than raising wages, thus creating life-long indebtedness of the
many, which only benefits monopolized corporate interests, as does corporate ownership of such necessities as water, food production,
and most channels of communication, which permits corporations to easily shape public perception toward whatever ends suit corporate
purposes while also ensuring that deeper awareness of what is actually occurring is effectively stifled, deplatformed, or smeared
as dangerous foreign fake news or as hidden, or even as blatant, racial or religious hatred.
Above all, it is critically important that all these interrelated aspects of deliberate domination, control, and diminishment,
ARE talked about, openly, that we all may have better grasp of who really aligns with creating serious systemic change, especially
as traditionally assumed "tendencies" are shifting, quickly and even profoundly.
For example, as many here point out, the Democrats are now as much a war party as the Republicans, "traditionally" have been,
even as there is clear evidence that the Republican "base" is becoming less willing to go to war than are the Democratic "base",
as CNN and MSNBC media outlets strive to incite a new Cold War and champion and applaud aggression in Syria, Iran, and North
Korea.
It is the elite Democratic "leadership" and most Democratic Presidential hopefuls who now preach or excuse war and aggression,
with few actual exceptions, and none of them, including Tulsi Gabbard, have come anywhere near openly discussing or embracing,
the end of U$ imperialism.
Both neoliberal and neocon philosophies are absolutely dedicated to imperialism in all its destructive, even terminal, manifestations.
Seer , July 3, 2019 at 14:16
Exactly!
Gabbard has spoken out against sanctions. She understands that they're just another form of war.
The younger generations won't be able to financially support imperialist activities. And, they won't be, as the statements
to their enlistment numbers suggest, able to "man the guns." I'm thinking that TPTB are aware of this (which is why a lot of
drone and other automation of war machinery has been stepped up).
The recent alliance of Soros and Charles Koch, the Quincy Institute, is, I believe, a KEY turning point. Pretty much everything
Gabbard is saying/calling for is this institute's mission statement: and people ought to note that Gabbard has been in Charles
Koch's circle- might very well be that Gabbard has already influenced things in a positive way.
I also believe that all the great independent journalists, publishers (Assange taking the title here) and whistleblowers
(Manning taking the title here) have made a HUGE impact. Bless them all.
The US government consistently uses psychological operations on its own citizens to manufacture consent to kill anyone and
everyone. Meaningless propaganda phrases such as "Support Our Troops" and "National Security" and "War on Terror" are thrown
around to justify genocides and sieges and distract us from murder. There is no left wing or in American politics and there
has not been one since the inauguration of Ronald Reagan. All we have is neoconservatives and neoliberals representing the business
party for four decades. Killing is our business and business is good. Men are as monkeys with guns when it comes to politics
and religion.
One might be hard-pressed to find more outright perversions of reality in a mere two pages of text. Congratulations Congress,
you have indeed surpassed yourself.
So it's those dastardly Russians and Iranians who are responsible for the destabilization of the Middle East, "complicating
Israel's ability to defend itself from hostile action emanating from Syria." And apparently, it's the "ungoverned space" in
Syria that has "allowed" for the rise of terrorist factions in Syria, that (we must be reminded) are ever poised to attack "Western
targets, our allies and partners, and the U.S. homeland."
Good grief.
Bob Van Noy , July 3, 2019 at 08:29
Thank you Joe Lauria and Consortiumnews.
There is much wisdom and a good deal of personal experience being expressed on these pages. I especially want to thank IvyMike
and Dao Gen. Ivy Mike you're so right about our troops in Vietnam from 1965 to 1968, draftees and volunteers, they fought what
was clearly an internal civil war fought valiantly, beyond that point, Vietnam was a political mess for all involved. And Dao
Gen all of your points are accurate.
As for our legislators, please read the linked Foreign Affairs press release signed by over 400 leglislators On May 20th.,
2019 that address "threats to Syria" including the Russia threat. Clearly it will take action by the People and Peace candidates
to end this travesty of a foreign policy.
Vietnam a war triggered by the prevention of a mandated election by the USA which Ho Chi Minh was likely to win, who had
already recently been Premier of a unified Vietnam.
Sorry, being courageous in a vicious cause is not honorable.
Speaking a true history and responsibility is honorable.
Bob Van Noy , July 3, 2019 at 11:07
No need to be sorry James Clooney. I did not mention honor in my comment, I mentioned valiant (courage and determination).
American troupes ultimately fight honorably for each other not necessarily for country. This was the message and evaluation
of Captain Hal Moore To General Westmorland And Robert McNamera after the initial engagement of US troops and NVA and can be
viewed as a special feature of the largely inaccurate DVD "We Were Soldiers And Young).
The veterans group About Face is doing remarkable work against the imperial militarization that threatens to consume our
country and possibly the world. This threat includes militarization of US police, a growing nuclear arms race, and so-called
humanitarian wars. About Face is also working to train ordinary people as medics to take these skills into their communities
whose members are on the front lines of police brutality.
Tulsi Gabbard is the only candidate with a strong, enlightened understanding of the costs of our many imperial wars Costs to
ourselves in the US and costs to the people we invade in order to "save" them. I voted for McGovern in 1972. I would vote for
Tuldi's Gabbard in 2020 if given the chance.
Seer , July 3, 2019 at 14:35
Vote for her now by supporting her*! One cannot wait until the DNC (or other party) picks the candidate FOR us. Anyone serious
about peace ought to support her, and do it now and far into the future. I have always supported candidates who are champions
for peace, no matter their "party" or whatever: I did not, though I wish that I had, support Walter Jones -of Freedom Fries
fame- after he did a 180 (Gabbard knew Jones, and respected him); it took a lot of guts for him to do this, but his honest (like
Ron Paul proved) was proven and his voters accepted him (and likely shifted their views along with him).
* Yeah, one has to register giving money, but for a lousy $1 She has yet to qualify for the third debate (need 130k unique
donations): and yet Yang has! (nothing against him, but come on, he is not "Commander in Chief" material [and at this time it
is, as Gabbard repeats, the single most important part of being president]).
Mary Jones-Giampalo , July 4, 2019 at 00:43
Strongly agree Only Tulsi
triekc , July 3, 2019 at 07:14
Not surprising there was little or no antiwar sentiment in the newfound civic engagement after Trump's election, since the
majority of those participating were supporters of the war criminals Obama, Clinton, and their corporate, war mongering DEM
party. Those same people today, support Obama-chaperone Biden, or one of the other vetted corporate DEMs, including socialist-in-name-only
Sanders, who signed the DEM loyalty oath promising to continue austerity for the poor, socialism for rich, deregulation, militarism,
and global war hegemony. The only party with an antiwar blank was the Green Party, which captured >2% of the ~130 million votes
in the rigged election- even though Stein is as competent as Clinton, certainly more competent than Trump, and the Green platform,
unlike Sanders', explained how to pay for social and environmental programs by ending illegal wars in at least 7 countries,
closing 1000 military command posts located all over earth, removing air craft carrier task forces from every ocean, cutting
defense spending.
I believe the CIA operation "CARWASH" was under Obama, which gave us Ultra fascism in one of the largest economies in the
world, Brazil.
DW Bartoo , July 3, 2019 at 12:02
Superb comment, trieke, and I especially appreciate your mention of Jill Stein and the Green Party.
It is unfortunate that the the Green New Deal, championed by AOC is such a pale and intentionally pusillanimous copy of the
Green New Deal articulated by Stein, which pointedly made clear that blind and blythe economic expansion must cease, that realistic
natural constraints and carrying capacity be accepted and profligate energy squandering come to an end.
That a sane, humane, and sustainable economic system, wholly compatible with ecological responsibility can provide neaningful
endeavor, justly compensated, for all, as was coherently addressed and explained to any who cared to examine the substance of
that, actual, and realistic, original, GND.
Such a vision must be part of successfully challenging, and ending, U$ imperialism.
Seer , July 3, 2019 at 14:53
And Trump likely signed a GOP pledge. It's all superficial crap, nothing that is really written in stone.
I LOVE Stein. But for the sake of the planet we have little time to wait on getting the Green Party up to speed (to the clasp
the levers of power). Unless Gabbard comes out on top (well, the ultimate, and my favorite, long-shot would be Gravel, but reality
is something that I have to accept) it can only really be Sanders. I see a Sanders nomination as being the next best thing (and,
really, the last hope as it all falls WAY off the cliff after that). He would most certainly have Gabbard along (if not as VP,
which is the best strategy for winning, then as some other high-ranking, and meaningful cabinet member). Also, there are a lot
of folks that would be coming in on his coattails. It is THESE people that will make the most difference: although he's got
his flaws, Ro Kana would be a good top official. And, there are all the supporters who would help push. Sanders is WAY better
than HRC (Obama and, of course, Trump). He isn't my favorite, but he has enough lean in him to allow others to help him push
the door open: I'll accept him if that's what it take to get Gabbard into all of this.
Sometimes you DO have to infiltrate. Sanders is an infiltrator (not a Dem), though he treads lightly. Gabbard has already
proven her intentions: directly confronted the DNC and the HRC machine (and her direct attack on the MIC is made very clear);
and, she is indirectly endorsed by some of the best people out there who have run for POTUS: Jill Stein; Ron Paul; Mike Gravel.
We cannot wait for the Dems (and the MIC) to disarm. We need to get inside "the building" and disarm. IF Sanders or Gabbard
(and no Gravel) don't get the nomination THEN it is time to open up direct "warfare" and attack from the "outside" (at this
time there should be enough big defectors to start swinging the tide).
Eddie S , July 3, 2019 at 23:34
Yes trieke, I voted for Stein in 2016, and I plan on voting Green Party again in 2020. I see too many fellow progressives/liberals/leftists
(whatever the hell we want to call ourselves) agonizing about which compromised Democrat to vote-for, trying to weigh their
different liabilities, etc. I've come to believe that my duty as a voter is to vote for the POTUS candidate/party whose stances/platform
are closest to my views, and that's unequivocally the Green Party. My duty as a voter does NOT entail 'voting for a winner',
that's just part of the two-party-con that the Dems & Reps run.
jmg , July 3, 2019 at 07:06
The big difference is that, during the Vietnam years, people could *see* the war. People talked a lot about "photographs
that ended the Vietnam war", such as the napalm girl, etc.
The government noticed this. There were enormous pressures on the press, even a ban on returning coffin photos. Now, since
the two Iraq wars, people *don't see* the reality of war. The TV and press don't show Afghanistan, don't show Yemen, didn't
show the real Iraq excepting for Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange, who are in prison because of this.
And the wars go on:
"The US government and military are preventing the public from seeing photographs that depict the true horror of the Iraq
war."
For example, we all know that mainstream media is war propaganda now, itself at war on truth and, apart from some convenient
false flags to justify attacks, they very rarely let the very people suffering wars be heard to wake viewers up, and don't often
even show this uncensored reality of war anymore, not like the true images of this old, powerful video:
Happy Xmas (War Is Over! If You Want It)
So this is Xmas
And what have you done
-- John Lennon
mbob -- thank you -- has already put this very well, but it is above all the Dems, especially Obama and the Clintons, who
killed the antiwar movement. Obama was a fake, and his foreign policy became even more hawkish after Hillary resigned as SoS.
His reduction of Libya, the richest state in Africa, to a feudal chaotic zone in which slavery is once more prominent and his
attempt to demonize Syria, which has more semi-democracy and women's rights than any of the Islamic kingdoms the US supports
as its allies, and turn Syria into a jihadi terrorist hell, as well as Obama's bombing of other nations and his sanctions on
still other nations such as Venezuela, injured and killed at least as many people as did GW Bush's invasion of Iraq. Yet where
was the antiwar movement? In the 21st century the US antiwar movement has gained most of its strength from anti-Repub hatred.
The current uptick of antiwar feeling is probably due mostly to hatred of Trump. Yet Trump is the first president since Carter
not to invade or make a major attack on a foreign country. As a businessman, his policy is to use economic warfare instead of
military warfare.
I am not a Trump supporter, and strong sanctions are a war crime, and Trump is also slow to reduce some of Obama's overseas
bombing and other campaigns, yet ironically he is surely closer to being a "peace president" than Obama. Moreover, a major reason
Trump won in 2016 was that Hillary was regarded as the war and foreign intervention candidate, and in fact if Hillary had won,
she probably would have invaded Syria to set up her infamous "no-fly zone" there, and she might have bombed Iran by now. We
might even be in a war with Russia now. At the same time, under Trump the Dem leadership and the Dem-leaning MSM have pursued
an unabashedly neocon policy of attacking from the right Trumps attempts at detente with Russia and scorning his attempts to
negotiate a treaty with N Korea and to withdraw from Syria and Afghanistan. The main reason why Trump chose dangerous neocons
like Bolton and Pompeo as advisors was probably to shield himself a little from the incessant and sometimes xenophobic attacks
from the Dem leadership and the MSM. The Dem leadership seems motivated not only by hatred of Trump but also, and probably more
importantly, by a desire to get donations from the military-industrial complex and a desire to ingratiate itself with the Intel
Community and the surveillance state in order to get various favors. Look, for example, at Adam Schiff, cheerleader-in-chief
for the IC. The system of massive collusion between the Dem party elite and the US deep state was not as advanced during the
Vietnam War era as it is now. 2003 changed a lot of things.
The only Dem presidential candidates who are philosophically and securely antiwar are Gabbard and Gravel. Even Bernie (and
even more so, Warren) can't be trusted to stand up to the deep state if elected, and anyway, Bernie's support for the Russiagate
hoax by itself disqualifies him as an antiwar politician, while the Yemen bill he sponsored had a fatal loophole in it, as Bernie
well knew. I love Bernie, but he is neither antiwar nor anti-empire. As for Seth Moulton, mentioned in the article, he is my
Rep, and he makes some mild criticisms of the military, but he is a rabid hawk on Syria and Iran, and he recently voted for
a Repub amendment that would have punished Americans who donate to BDS organizations. And as for the younger generation of Dems,
they are not as antiwar as the article suggests. For every AOC among the newly elected Dems in 2018, there were almost two new
Dems who are military vets or who formerly worked for intel agencies. This does not bode well. As long at the deep state, the
Dem elite, and the MSM are tightly intertwined, there will be no major peace movement in the near future, even if a Dem becomes
president. In fact, a Dem president might hinder the formation of a true antiwar movement. Perhaps when China becomes more powerful
in ten or twenty years, the unipolar US empire and permanent war state will no longer look like a very good idea to a large
number of Americans, and the idea of a peace movement will once again become realistic. The media have a major role to play
in spreading truthful news about how the current US empire is hurting domestic living standards. Rather than hopey-hope wish
lists, no-holds-barred reporting will surely play a big role.
DW Bartoo , July 3, 2019 at 12:05
Absolutely superb comment, Dao Gen.
DW
Seer , July 3, 2019 at 15:07
Another fine example of why I think there is hope! (some very sharp commentators!)
A strong leader can make all the difference. The example gets set from the top: not that this is my preference, just that
it's the reality we have today. MLK Jr. was such a leader, though it was MANY great people that were in his movement/orbit that
were the primary architects. I suppose you could say it's a "rally around the flag" kind of deal. Just as Trump stunned the
System, I believe that it can be stunned from the "left" (the ultimate stunning would be from a Gravel win, but I'm thinking
that Gabbard would be the one that has what it takes to slip past).
I really wish that people would start asking candidates who they think have been good cabinet members for various positions.
This could help give an idea of the most important facet of an administration: who the POTUS selects as key cabinet members
tells pretty much everything you need to know. Sadly, Trump had a shot at selecting Gabbard and passed on her: as much as I
detest Trump, I gave him room in which to work away from the noecon/neolib death squads (to his credit he's mostly just stalemated
them- for a rookie politician you could say that this has been an impressive feat; he's tried to instigate new wars but has,
so far, "failed" [by design?]).
geeyp , July 3, 2019 at 01:19
"We saved more money today for the American people ." – Elijah Cummings. Yea? Well then, give it to us!! You owe us a return
of our money that you have wasted for years.
mark , July 3, 2019 at 00:17
Same old, same old, same old, same old.
Prospective candidates spewing out the same tired old hot air about how, this time, it really, really, really, really will be
different.
There won't be any more crazy multitrillion wars for Israel.
Honest.
Just like Dubya.
Just like Obomber.
Just like the Orange Baboon.
Whilst simultaneously begging for shekels from Adelson, Saban, Singer, Marcus.
And this is the "new anti war movement."
Yeah.
Tom Kath , July 3, 2019 at 00:04
Every extreme elicits an extreme response. Our current western pacifist obsession is no exception. By prohibiting argument,
disagreement, verbal conflict, and the occasional playground "dust up" on a personal level, you seem to make the seemingly less
personal war inevitable.
Life on earth is simply not possible without "a bit of biff".
An aware person may not react extremely to a extreme. USA slaughtered 5 to 10 million Vietnamese for no apparent reason other
than projection of power yet the Vietnamese trade with the USA today.
Who prohibits argument? Certainly not those with little power; it's the militarily and politically powerful that crush dissent,
(Tinamen Square , Occupy Wall Street). How much dissent does the military allow? Why is Assange being persecuted?
I believe even the most militant pacifist would welcome a lively debate on murder, death and genocide, as a channel for education
and edification.
Antonio Costa , July 2, 2019 at 20:53
Weak essay. AOC hops from cause to cause. She rarely/ever says anything about US regime change wars, and the bombing of children.
She's demonstrated no anti-war bona fides.
Only Tulsi Gabbard has forthright called for an end to regime change wars, the warmongers and reduction in our military.
The power is with the powerful. We'll not see an end to war, nor Medicare for All or much of anything regarding student debt.
These are deep systemic problems calling for systemic solutions beginning with how we live on the planet(GND is a red herring),
the GDP must become null and void if we are to behave as if plundering the planet is part of "progress". It needs to be replaced
to some that focuses on quality of life as the key to prosperity. The geopolitics of the world have to simply STOP IT. It's
not about coalitions between Russia and China and India to off-set the US imperialists. That's an old game for an empty planet.
The planet is full and exceeding it capacity and is on fire. Our geopolitics must end!
Not one of these candidates come close to focusing on the systemic problem(s) except Gabbard's focus on war because it attacks
the heart of the American Imperial Empire.
Maxime , July 3, 2019 at 09:24
I agree with you that you americans will probably not see the end of your system and the end of your problems any time soon.
BUT I disagree on that you seems to think it's inevitable. I'm not american, I'm french, and reading you saying you think
medicare for all, no student debt and end to endless wars are systemic problems linked to GDP and the current economic system
is well, amusing. We have medicare for all, in fact even better than your medicare, we have no student cost for our educating
system, and still in both cases often better results than yours, even if we are behind some of our northern neighbors, but they
don't pay for these either. And we don't wage endless wars, even if we have ourselves our own big war problems, after all we
were in Lybia, we are in Syria, we are in Mali and other parts of Africa.
We also have a big militaro-industrial complex, in fact very alike the american one. But we made clear since much longer
than we would not accept as much wars, in part because the lesson we got from WW2 and Cold War was to learn to live together
with our hated neighbor. You know, the one the other side of the Rhine. Today France is a diplomatic superpower, often the head
of the european spear onthe subject, we got feared elite military, and we are proud of that, but we would not even accept more
money (in proportion) given to our military complex.
And you know the best news (for the americans)? we have an history of warmongering going back millenias. We learn to love
Caesar and the "Guerre des Gaules", his invasion of Gauls. We learn how Franks invaded their neighbors and built the first post-roman
Empire. We learn how crusaders were called Franks, how we built our nation and his pride on ashes of european continental english
hopes and german holy empire aspirations. We learn how Napolean nearly achieved to built a new continental Empire, how we never
let them passed at Verdun, and how we rose in the face of a tyran in 1944.
All of this is still in our history books, and we're still proud of it. But today, if most of us were to be asked what we
were proud about recent wars France got into, it would be how our president vetoed USA when they tried to got UN into Irak and
forced them to invade illegally, and without us.
I think my country's revelation was Algeria's independance war. One bloody and largely filled with war crimes and crimes against
humanity. We're ashamed of it, and I think we, as a nation, learned from it that stopping wars on our soil wasn't enough. I
still don't understand how americans can still wage wars after Vietnam, but I am not american. Still, even the most warmongering
nation can learn. Let's hope you will be quicker than us, because we got millennias of bloody history before even the birth
of USA.
Eddie S , July 3, 2019 at 23:15
Thanks Maxime for a foreign perspective! I'm often curious what people in foreign countries think of our current politics
in the US,especially when I read analysis/commentaries by US writers (even ones I respect) who say "Oh most of our allies think
this or that" -- - maybe they're right or maybe they're wrong or somewhere in-between, but it's interesting getting a DIRECT
opinion from a fellow left-of-center citizen from a foreign state.
I agree with your points that European countries like France almost all have their own bloody history including an imperial
period, but the two big World Wars that killed SO many people and destroyed so many cities in Europe were so tragic and wasteful
that I suspect they DO continue to act as a significant deterrent to the saber-rattling that the US war mongers are able to
engage-in. For too many US citizens 'war' is just something that's mentioned & sometimes displayed on a screen, just like a
movie/TV program/video-game, and there's a non-reality to it because it's so far away and seldom directly affects them. Geography
has famously isolated us from the major death & destruction of war and enables too many armchair warriors to talk boldly and
vote for politicians who pander to those conceits. In a not-so-subtle way, the US IS the younger offspring of Europe, where
Europe has grown-up due to some hard lessons, while the US is going through its own destructive stage of 'lesson-learning'.
Hopefully this learning stage will be over soon and won't involve a world war.
DW Bartoo , July 3, 2019 at 12:48
Tulsi Gabbard is, indeed,pointing at part of a major organ of imperialism, Antonio Costa, yet habeas corpus, having the whole
body of imperialism produced is necessary for the considered judgement of a people long terrorized by fictitious "monsters"
and "demons", if they are to understand that shooting warfate is but one part of the heart, while the other is economic warfare.
Both brutally destructive, even if the second is hidden from public awareness or dismissed as "a price worth paying". Imperialism
pays no price (except "blow-back", which is merely "religious extremism" as explained by a fully complicit MSM).
And the "brain" behind it all?
That is corporate/military/political/deep state/media greed – and their desperate need/ambition for total, and absolute,
control.
Only seeing the whole body may reveal the true size of the threat and the vicious nature of the real danger.
Some may argue that it is "too soon", "too early", or "too costly", politically, for Gabbard, even if she, herself, might
see imperialism as the real monster and demon, to dare describe the whole beast.
Frankly, this time, Tulsi's candidacy, her "run" for President, is not likely to see her become the Dem nominee, most likely
that will be Kamala Harris (who will happily do the bidding of brute power), rather, it is to lay the firm and solid foundation
of actual difference, of rational perspective, and thoughtful, diplomatic international behavior.
To expose the whole, especially the role of the MSM, in furthering all the rest of the lumbering body of Zombie imperialism,
would be far more effective in creating an substantial "opening" for alternative possibilities, even a new political party,
next time.
Seer , July 3, 2019 at 15:31
I'm figuring that Warren and Harris will take one another out. Climbing to the top requires this. But, Gabbard doesn't stop
fighting, and if there's a fighter out there it is her: mentally and physically she is the total package.
Sanders' 2016 campaign was ignored, he wasn't supposed to go anywhere, but if not for the DNC's meddling he would be POTUS
right now (I have zero doubt over that). So too was Obama's climb from nowhere: of course, Obama was pushed up by the System,
the System that is NOT behind Gabbard. And then there's the clown at the helm (Trump). I refuse to ignore this history.
Gababard is by no means out. Let's not speak of such things, especially when her campaign, and message, is just starting
to burst out: the MSM is the last to admit the state of things unfavorable to the wealthy, but out on the Internet Gabbard is
very much alive. She is the best candidate (with the best platform of visibility) for peace. She has all the pieces. One comment
I read out on the internet (someone, I believe, not in the US) was that Gabbard was a gift to the Americans. Yes, I believe
this to be the case: if you really look closely you'll see exactly how this is correct. I believe that we cannot afford to treat
this gift with other than the utmost appreciation. Her sincerity when she says that she was/is willing to die for her fellow
soldiers (in reference to LBGT folks, though ALL apply) is total. She is totally committed to this battle: as a warrior in politics
she's proven herself with her support, the loyalty, for Sanders (at risk to her political career- and now look, she's running
for POTUS, she continues to come out on top!).
IvyMike , July 2, 2019 at 20:14
I burned my draft card, grew my hair out, and smoked pot and was anti war as heck. But the peace demonstrations (and riots)
in the 60's and 70's did not have much effect on how the U.S. Government prosecuted the Vietnam War. It is little recognized
how hard American troops fought from 1965 to 1968. Our air mobile troops in particular made a great slaughter of NVA and VC
while also taking heavy casualties.
We were having such success that no one in the military thought the enemy could keep up the fight. Then, the Tet offensive
with the beaten enemy attacking every city in the South.
Then the politicians and Generals knew, given the super power politics surrounding the war, that we had lost. We had failed
to recognize that we had not intervened in a Civil War, in truth Vietnam as a whole was fighting for freedom from Imperialism
and we had no friends in the South, just a corrupt puppet government. Instead of getting out, Nixon made the unforgivable choice
to slowly wind the war down until he could get out without losing, Peace With Honor the ultimate triumph of ego over humanity.
Americans had a chance to choose a peace candidate in 1972, instead Nixon won with a big majority.
The military has never been able to admit they were defeated on the battlefield by North Vietnam, blaming it instead on the
Liberal Media and the Anti War movement. Believing that lie they continue to fight unwinnable wars in which we have no national
interest at stake. The media and the people no longer fight against war, but it never really made a difference when we did.
Realist , July 3, 2019 at 05:17
I too hoped for a miracle and voted for George. But then I always voted for the loser in whatever state I happened to be
living in at the particular time. I think Carter was a rare winning pick by me but only once. I got disgusted with voting and
sat out the Clinton campaigns, only returning to vote against the Bush juggernaut. In retrospect, Perot should have won to make
a real difference. I sided with the winner in Obama, but the loser turned out to be America getting saddled with that two-faced
hypocrite. Nobel Peace Prize winner indeed! (What did he spend the money on?) When you listen to their campaign promises be
aware they are telegraphing how they plan to betray you.
triekc , July 3, 2019 at 07:45
American people in mass need to hit reset button. A yellow vest-like movement made up of tens of millions of woke people,
who understand the democrats and republicans are the left and right wing of the oligarch party,
US elections have been and continue to be rigged, and the US constitution was written to protect the property (such
as slaves) of oligarchs from the people, the founding oligarchs feared real democracy, evident by all the safeguards they built
into our government to protect against it, that remain in tact today.
We need a new 21st century constitution. Global capitalism needs to be greatly curtailed, or ended out right, replaced by
ecosocialism, conservation, restoration of earth focussed society
Seer , July 3, 2019 at 15:38
And just think that back then there was also Mike Gravel. The CIA did their work in the 60s to kill the anti-war movement:
killing all the great social leaders.
Why wars are "lost" is because hardly is there a time when there's an actual "mission statement" on what the end of a given
war will look like. Tulsi Gabbard has made it clear that she would NOT engage in any wars unless there was a clear objective,
a clear outcome lined out, and, of course, it was authorized by THE PEOPLE (Congress).
All wars are about resources. We cannot, however, admit this: the ruling capitalists won't allow that to be known/understood
lest they lose their power.
Realist , July 3, 2019 at 04:59
Ya got all that right, especially the part about the analysts essentially declaring the war lost after Tet. I remember that
offered a lot of hope on the campuses that the war would soon end (even though we lost), especially to those of us near graduation
and facing loss of that precious 2S deferment. Yet the big fool marched on, getting my generation needlessly slaughtered for
four or five more years.
And, yes, the 2 or 3 million dead Vietnamese did matter, to those with a conscience. Such a price to keep Vietnam out of
Russia's and China's orbit. Meanwhile they set an independent course after kicking us out of their land and even fought a war
with China. We should still be paying reparations for the levels of death and destruction we brought to a country half a world
away with absolutely no means or desire to threaten the United States. All our wars of choice, starting with Korea, have been
similar crimes against humanity. Turkey shoots against third world societies with no way to do us any harm. But every one of
them fought ferociously to the death to defend their land and their people. Inevitably, every occupier is sent packing as their
empire crumbles. Obviously, Americans have been too thick to learn this from mere history books. We will only learn from our
tragic mistakes. I see a lot of lessons on the upcoming schedule.
USA did not "intervene" in a civil war. USA paid France to continue it's imperial war and then took over when France fled
defeated. USA prevented a mandated election Ho Chi Minh would win and then continued western imperial warfare against the Vietnamese
( even though Vietnamese was/is bulwark against China's territorial expansion).
mauisurfer , July 2, 2019 at 20:12
The Watson study says: "Indeed, the DOD is the world's largest institutional user of petroleum and correspondingly,
the single largest producer of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the world.4"
This is a gross UNDERcount of emissions. It includes ONLY petroleum burned.
It does NOT count explosions from bombs, missiles, rockets, rifles, etc.
Perhaps someone could provide an estimate of this contribution to greenhouse gases???
Don't worry, Elizabeth Warren has a plan to operate the military on renewables! (she can continue to make sure her constituency,
which is Raytheon, is well served)
Raytheon, one of the biggest employers in Warren's state, where it's headquartered, "has a positive relationship with Sen.
Warren, and we interact with her and her staff regularly," Michael Doble, a spokesman for the company, said.
jo6pac , July 2, 2019 at 20:12
This awful news for the merchants of death and I'm sure they're working overtime to stop silliness;-). I do hope this isn't
killed by those that love the endless wars.
Thanks AH
mbob , July 2, 2019 at 20:10
Perhaps there is no open anti-war movement because the Democratic party is now pro-war. Rather than support President
Trump's efforts to end the Korean War, to reduce our involvement in the Middle East and to pursue a more peaceful path with
Russia, the Democratic party (with very, very few exceptions) is opposed to all these things.
The Democratic party places its hatred for Trump above its professed love of peace.
President Obama, the Nobel peace prize winner, started a war with Libya, which had neither attacked nor threatened the
US and which, by many accounts, was trying to improve relations with the US. GW Bush unnecessarily attacked Iraq and Clinton
destroyed Haiti and bombed Yugoslavia, among other actions.
From a peace perspective, Trump looks comparatively great (provided he doesn't attack Iraq or invade Venezuela). But, since
it's impossible to recognize Trump for anything positive, or to support him in any way, it's now impossible for Democrats to
promote peace. Doing so might help Trump. It would, of necessity, require acknowledging Trump's uniqueness among recent US Presidents
in not starting new wars.
Realist , July 3, 2019 at 03:28
I agree. mbob makes perfect sense in his analysis.
The Democrats must be brought back to reality with a sound repudiation by the voters, otherwise they are of no use to America
and will have no long-term future.
Obama escalated Afghanistan when he had a popular mandate to withdraw. He facilitated the the Syrian rebellion in conjunction
with ISIS funding Saudi Arabia and Qatar. He instigated the Zalaya (primarily Hillary) and the Ukraine rebellion.
Trump supports the Yemeni genocide.
But yes citizens have been directed to hate Trump the man/symptom rather than the enduring Imperial predatory capitalistic
system.
Opps sorry; so many interventions and invasions, under Obama, special forces trained Malian general overthrew the democratically
elected president of Mali, result, more war,death and destruction.
Robert , July 3, 2019 at 10:48
You are correct in your analysis. Allegra Harpootlian is searching for the peace lobby among Democrat supporters, where it
no longer resides.
As a result of corporate-controlled mainstream media and their support for Democrat elites, Democrat supporters have largely
been brainwashed into hatred for Donald Trump and everything he stands for. This hatred blinds them to the far more important
issue of peace.
Strangely, there is huge US support to remove troops from the ME, but this support resides with the overwhelming majority
of Donald Trump voters. Unfortunately, these are not individuals who typically go to peace demonstrations, but they are sincere
in bringing all US troops home from the ME. Donald Trump himself lobbied on this, and with the exceptions of his anti-Iranian
/ pro-Israel / pro-Saudi Arabia stance and withdrawal from JCPOA, he has not only backed down from military adventurism, but
is the first President since Eisenhower to raise the issue of the influence of the military-industrial complex.
In the face of strong opposition, he is the first President ever to enter North Korea and meet with Kim Jong Un to discuss
nuclear weapons. Mainstream media continues its war-mongering rhetoric, attacking Trump for his "weakness" in not retaliating
against Iran, or in meeting "secretly" with Putin.
Opposition to Trump's peace efforts are not limited to MSM, however, but are entrenched in Democrat and Republican elites,
who attack any orders he gives to withdraw from the ME. It was not Trump, but Democrat and Republican elites who invited NATO's
Stoltenberg to speak to Congress in an attempt to spite Trump.
In essence, you have President Trump and most of his supporters trying to withdraw from military engagements, with
active opposition from Democrats like Adam Schiff, and Republican elites, actively promoting war and military spending.
DJT is like a less-likeable Inspector Clouseau. Sometimes ineptitude is a blessing. You also have a few Republicans, like
journalist Tucker Carlson of Fox News, and Democrats, like Tulsi Gabbard, actively pushing the message of peace.
Erelis , July 3, 2019 at 20:45
I think you got it. The author is right in the sense that there is an anti-war movement, but that movement is in many ways
hidden. As bizarre as it may seen counter to CW wisdom, and in some way ironically crazy, one of the biggest segments of anti-war
sentiment are Trump supporters. After Trump's decision not to attack Iran, I went to various right wing commentators who attacked
Trump, and the reaction against these major right wing war mongers was to support Trump. And with right wing commentators who
supported Trump, absolute agreement. These is of course based on my objective reading reading and totally subjective. But I
believe I am right.
This made me realize there is an untapped anti-war sentiment on the right which is being totally missed. And a lack of imagination
and Trump derangment syndrome which blocks many on the anti-war Left to see it and use it for an anti-war movement. There was
an article in The Intercept that looked research on the correlation between military deaths and voting preference. Here is the
article:
And the thing is that Trump was in many ways the anti-war candidate. And those areas that had high military death rates voted
for Trump. I understand the tribal nature of political affiliation, but it seems what I have read and this article, there may
be indeed an untapped anti-war stance with Trump supporters.
And it really just challenges my own beliefs that the major obstacle to the war mongers are Trump supporters.
mbob – I couldn't have said it better myself. Except to add that in addition to destroying Libya, the Nobel Peace Prize winner
Obama, ably assisted by Hillary Clinton, also destroyed Honduras and the Ukraine.
Anarcissie , July 3, 2019 at 11:55
Historically, the Democratic Party has been pro-war and pro-imperialism at least since Wilson. The hatred for Trump on their
part seems to be based entirely on cultural issues -- he is not subservient enough to their gods.
But as for antiwar demonstrations, it's been proved in the streets that they don't accomplish anything. There were huge demonstrations
against the war in Vietnam, but it ground on until conservatives got tired of it. At least half a million people demonstrated
against the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and no one important cared. Evidently more fundamental issues than the war of the moment
are involved and I think that is where a lot of people are turning now. The ruling class will find this a lot harder to deal
with because it's decentralized and widely distributed. Hence the panic about Trump and the seething hatred of Sanders.
mbob , July 3, 2019 at 18:15
I attempted to make three points in my post. First, Democrats are now pro-war. Second, solely regarding peace, Trump looks
better than all other recent Presidents because he hasn't started any new wars. Third, the inability of Democrats (or the public
as a whole) to give Trump the benefit of a doubt, or to support him in any way, is contrary to the cause of peace.
Democrats should, without reservation, support Trump's effort to end the Korean War. They should support Trump's desire to
improve relations with Russia. They don't do either of those things. Why? Because it might hurt them politically.
Your comment does not challenge the first two points and reinforces the third.
As for Yemen, yes, Trump is wrong. Democrats rightly oppose him on Yemen -- but remarkably tepidly. Trump is wrong about
a lot of things. I don't like him. I didn't vote for him. But I will vote for him if Democrats nominate someone worse than him,
which they seem inclined to do. (Gabbard is better than Trump. Sanders probably. Maybe Warren. Of the three, only Warren receives
positive press. That makes me skeptical of her.)
Trump stood up to his advisors, Bolton and Pompeo, regarding both Iran and Venezuela. Obama, on the other hand, did not.
He followed the advice of his advisors, with disastrous consequences.
>>In addition to Tuesday's sanctions, the Treasury Department issued an advisory to maritime shipping companies, warning
them off transporting oil to Syria or risking their property and money seized if kept with financial institutions that follow
U.S. sanctions law.
"The United States will aggressively seek to impose sanctions against any party involved in shipping oil to Syria, or seeking
to evade our sanctions on Iranian oil," said Sigal Mandelker, the Treasury undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence,
in a release. "Shipping companies, insurers, vessel owners, managers, and operators should all be aware of the grave consequences
of engaging in sanctionable conduct involving Iranian oil shipments."<<
Today British marines seized a tanker near Gibraltar for the crime of transporting oil to Syria. And Trumpian peaceful military
seized Syrian oil fields. Traditional war is increasingly augmented by piracy, which is less bloody, but trades outright carnage
for deprivation of civilians. Giving "measured praise" for that makes me barf.
The problem here is that the US population is too brainwashing with jingoism and Exceptionalism to value Tulsi message. The
US army is mercenary army and unlike situation with the draft people generally do not care much when mercenaries die. That makes
any anti-war candidate vulnerable to "Russiagate" smear.
He/she need to have a strong domestic program to appeal to voters, So far Warren is in better position in this area then
Tulsi.
Notable quotes:
"... The Drudge Report website had its poll running while the debate was going on and it registered overwhelmingly in favor of Hawaiian Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard. Likewise, the Washington Examiner , a right-wing paper, opined that Gabbard had won by a knockout based on its own polling. Google's search engine reportedly saw a surge in searches linked to Tulsi Gabbard both during and after the debate. ..."
"... On the following day traditional conservative Pat Buchanan produced an article entitled "Memo for Trump: Trade Bolton for Tulsi," similar to a comment made by Republican consultant Frank Luntz "She's a long-shot to win the presidency, but Tulsi Gabbard is sounding like a prime candidate for Secretary of Defense." ..."
"... In response to a comment by neoliberal Congressman Tim Ryan who said that the U.S. has to remain "engaged" in places like Afghanistan, she referred to two American soldiers who had been killed that very day, saying "Is that what you will tell the parents of those two soldiers who were just killed in Afghanistan? Well, we just have to be engaged? As a soldier, I will tell you that answer is unacceptable." ..."
"... Tulsi also declared war on the Washington Establishment, saying that "For too long our leaders have failed us, taking us into one regime change war after the next, leading us into a new Cold War and arms race, costing us trillions of our hard-earned tax payer dollars and countless lives. This insanity must end." ..."
"... Blunt words, but it was a statement that few Americans whose livelihoods are not linked to "defense" or to the shamelessly corrupt U.S. Congress and media could disagree with, as it is clear that Washington is at the bottom of a deep hole and persists in digging ..."
"... In the collective judgment of America's Establishment, Tulsi Gabbard and anyone like her must be destroyed. She would not be the first victim of the political process shutting out undesirable opinions. One can go all the way back to Eugene McCarthy and his opposition to the Vietnam War back in 1968. ..."
"... And the beat goes on. In 2016, Debbie Wasserman Shultz, head of the Democratic National Committee, fixed the nomination process so that Bernie Sanders, a peace candidate, would be marginalized and super hawk Hillary Clinton would be selected. Fortunately, the odor emanating from anything having to do with the Clintons kept her from being elected or we would already be at war with Russia and possibly also with China. ..."
"... Tulsi Gabbard has let the genie of "end the forever wars" out of the bottle and it will be difficult to force it back in. She just might shake up the Democratic Party's priorities, leading to more questions about just what has been wrong with U.S. foreign policy over the past twenty years. ..."
"... Yes, to some critics, Tulsi Gabbard is not a perfect candidate . On most domestic issues she appears to be a typical liberal Democrat and is also conventional in terms of her accommodation with Jewish power, but she also breaks with the Democratic Party establishment with her pledge to pardon Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange and Edward Snowden. ..."
"... She also has more of a moral compass than Elizabeth Warren, who cleverly evades the whole issue of Middle East policy, or a Joe Biden who would kiss Benjamin Netanyahu's ass without any hesitation at all. Gabbard has openly criticized Netanyahu and she has also condemned Israel's killing of "unarmed civilians" in Gaza. As a Hindu, her view of Muslims is somewhat complicated based on the historical interaction of the two groups, but she has moderated her views recently. ..."
"... To be sure, Americans have heard much of the same before, much of it from out of the mouth of a gentleman named Donald Trump, but Tulsi Gabbard could well be the only genuine antiwar candidate that might truly be electable in the past fifty years. ..."
Last Wednesday’s debate among half of the announced Democratic Party candidates to become their party’s nominee for
president in 2020 was notable for its lack of drama. Many of those called on to speak had little to say apart from the usual
liberal bromides about health care, jobs, education and how the United States is a country of immigrants. On the following
day the mainstream media anointed Elizabeth Warren as the winner based on the coherency of her message even though she said
little that differed from what was being presented by most of the others on the stage. She just said it better, more
articulately.
The New York Times’
coverage was typical, praising Warren for her grasp of the issues and her ability to present the same
clearly and concisely, and citing a comment "They could teach
classes in how Warren talks about a problem and weaves in answers into a story. She's not just
wonk and stats." It then went on to lump most of the other candidates together, describing
their performances as "ha[ving] one or two strong answers, but none of them had the electric,
campaign-launching moment they were hoping for."
Inevitably, however, there was some disagreement on who had actually done best based on
viewer reactions as well as the perceptions of some of the media that might not exactly be
described as mainstream. The Drudge Report website
had
its poll running while the debate was going on and it registered overwhelmingly in favor of
Hawaiian Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard. Likewise, the Washington Examiner , a right-wing
paper, opined that Gabbard had won by a knockout based on its own polling. Google's search
engine reportedly saw a surge in searches linked to Tulsi Gabbard both during and after the
debate.
On the following day traditional conservative Pat Buchanan produced
an
article entitled "Memo for Trump: Trade Bolton for Tulsi," similar to a comment made by
Republican consultant Frank Luntz "She's a long-shot
to win the presidency, but Tulsi Gabbard is sounding like a prime candidate for Secretary of
Defense."
Tulsi, campaigning on her anti-war credentials, was indeed not like the other candidates,
confronting directly the issue of war and peace which the other potential candidates studiously
avoided. In response to a comment by neoliberal Congressman Tim Ryan who said that the U.S. has
to remain "engaged" in places like Afghanistan, she referred to two American soldiers who had
been killed that very day, saying "Is that what you will tell the parents of those two soldiers
who were just killed in Afghanistan? Well, we just have to be engaged? As a soldier, I will
tell you that answer is unacceptable."
At another point she expanded on her thinking about America's wars, saying "Let's deal with
the situation where we are, where this president and his chickenhawk cabinet have led us to the
brink of war with Iran. I served in the war in Iraq at the height of the war in 2005, a war
that took over 4,000 of my brothers and sisters in uniforms' lives. The American people need to
understand that this war with Iran would be far more devastating, far more costly than anything
that we ever saw in Iraq. It would take many more lives. It would exacerbate the refugee
crisis. And it wouldn't be just contained within Iran. This would turn into a regional war.
This is why it's so important that every one of us, every single American, stand up and say no
war with Iran."
Tulsi also declared war on the Washington Establishment,
saying
that "For too long our leaders have failed us, taking us into one regime change war after
the next, leading us into a new Cold War and arms race, costing us trillions of our hard-earned
tax payer dollars and countless lives. This insanity must end."
Blunt words, but it was a statement that few Americans whose livelihoods are not linked to
"defense" or to the shamelessly corrupt U.S. Congress and media could disagree with, as it is
clear that Washington is at the bottom of a deep hole and persists in digging. So why was there
such a difference between what ordinary Americans and the Establishment punditry were seeing on
their television screens? The difference was not so much in perception as in the desire to see
a certain outcome. Anti-war takes away a lot of people's rice bowls, be they directly employed
on "defense" or part of the vast army of lobbyists and think tank parasites that keep the money
flowing out of the taxpayers' pockets and into the pockets of Raytheon, General Dynamics,
Boeing and Lockheed Martin like a perpetual motion machine.
In the collective judgment of America's Establishment, Tulsi Gabbard and anyone like her
must be destroyed. She would not be the first victim of the political process shutting out
undesirable opinions. One can go all the way back to Eugene McCarthy and his opposition to the
Vietnam War back in 1968. McCarthy was right and Lyndon Johnson and the rest of the Democratic
Party were wrong. More recently, Congressman Ron Paul tried twice to bring some sanity to the
Republican Party. He too was marginalized deliberately by the GOP party apparatus working
hand-in-hand with the media, to include the final insult of his being denied any opportunity to
speak or have his delegates recognized at the 2012 nominating convention.
And the beat goes on. In 2016, Debbie Wasserman Shultz, head of the Democratic National
Committee, fixed the nomination process so that Bernie Sanders, a peace candidate, would be
marginalized and super hawk Hillary Clinton would be selected. Fortunately, the odor emanating
from anything having to do with the Clintons kept her from being elected or we would already be
at war with Russia and possibly also with China.
Tulsi Gabbard has let the genie of "end the forever wars" out of the bottle and it will be
difficult to force it back in. She just might shake up the Democratic Party's priorities,
leading to more questions about just what has been wrong with U.S. foreign policy over the past
twenty years. To qualify for the second round of debates she has to gain a couple of points in
her approval rating or bring in more donations, either of which is definitely possible based on
her performance. It is to be hoped that that will occur and that there will be no Debbie
Wasserman Schultz hiding somewhere in the process who will finagle the polling results.
Yes, to some critics, Tulsi Gabbard is
not a perfect candidate . On most domestic issues she appears to be a typical liberal
Democrat and is also conventional in terms of her accommodation with Jewish power, but she also
breaks with the Democratic Party establishment with her pledge to pardon Chelsea Manning,
Julian Assange and Edward Snowden.
She also has more of a moral compass than Elizabeth Warren,
who cleverly evades the whole issue of Middle East policy, or a Joe Biden who would kiss
Benjamin Netanyahu's ass without any hesitation at all. Gabbard has openly criticized Netanyahu
and she has also condemned Israel's killing of "unarmed civilians" in Gaza. As a Hindu, her
view of Muslims is somewhat complicated based on the historical interaction of the two groups,
but she has moderated her views recently.
To be sure, Americans have heard much of the same before, much of it from out of the
mouth of a gentleman named Donald Trump, but Tulsi Gabbard could well be the only genuine
antiwar candidate that might truly be electable in the past fifty years. It is essential
that we Americans who are concerned about the future of our country should listen to what she
has to say very carefully and to respond accordingly.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a
501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more
interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its
email is [email protected]
Even Margaret Thatcher, a master of the manly art of the parliamentary joust, would have
been left speechless at this American girl's audacious idiocy. Having no empathy
for woman-centric whining, The Iron Lady would have hand-bagged Ivanka with that famous little
bag of hers.
Ivanka at her serious best is Barbie doll hair, an overbite, Botox and
mind-numbing banalities. The two brilliant women she's preening before are not in the habit of
disgorging American-style jargon like "male-dominated," "intersectionality," "transsexuality."
Neither do May and Lagarde rabbit on about "women in politics," "women in business," women in
sport," "women in this or that."
"... The key point, is that this happened in the 1980's – 90's. Vast profit possibilities were opening up through digitalization, corporate outsourcing, globalization and the internet. The globalists urgently wanted that money, and had to have political compliance. They found it in Neoliberalism and hijacked both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party, creating "New Labour" (leader Tony Blair) through classless "modernization" following Margaret Thatcher's lead. ..."
"... Great blast by Jonathan Cook – I feel as if he has read my thoughts about the political system keeping the proles in an Orwellian state of serfdom for plunder and abuse under the guise of “democracy” and “freedom”. ..."
"... But the ideas of the Chicago School in cohorts with the Frankfurters and Tavistockers were already undermining our hopeful vision of the world while the think tanks at the foundations, councils and institutes were flooding the academies with the doctrines of hardhead uncompromising Capitalism to suck the blood off the proles into anaemic immiseration and apathetic insouciance. ..."
"... With the working class defeated and gone, where is the spirit of resistance to spring from? Not from the selfishness of the new generation of smartphone addicts whose world has shrunk to the atomic MEism and who refuse to open their eyes to what is staring in their face: debt slavery, for life. Maybe the French can do it again. Allez Gilets Jaunes! ..."
This is a very good article on UK politics, but I would have put more emphasis on the
background. Where we are today has everything to do with how we got here.
The UK has this basic left/right split (Labour/Conservative) reaching far back into its
class based history. Sad to say, but within 5 seconds a British person can determine the
class of the person they are dealing with (working/ middle/ upper) and act accordingly
– referencing their own social background.
Margaret Thatcher was a lower middle class grocer's daughter who gained a rare place at
Oxford University (on her own high intellectual merits), and took on the industrial wreckers
of the radical left (Arthur Scargill etc.). She consolidated her power with the failure of
the 1984-85 Miner's Strike. She introduced a new kind of Conservatism that was more classless
and open to the talents, adopting free market Neoliberalism along with Ronald Reagan. A large
section of the aspirational working class went for this (many already had middle class
salaries) and wanted that at least their children could join the middle class through the
university system.
The key point, is that this happened in the 1980's – 90's. Vast profit possibilities
were opening up through digitalization, corporate outsourcing, globalization and the
internet. The globalists urgently wanted that money, and had to have political compliance.
They found it in Neoliberalism and hijacked both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party,
creating "New Labour" (leader Tony Blair) through classless "modernization" following
Margaret Thatcher's lead.
The story now, is that the UK public realize that the Globalist/Zionist/SJW/Open
Frontiers/ Neoliberal crowd are not their friends . So they (the public) are backtracking
fast to find solid ground. In practice this means 1) Leave the Neoliberal/Globalist EU (which
has also been hijacked) using Brexit 2) Recover the traditional Socialist Labour Party of
working people through Jeremy Corbyn 3) Recover the traditional Conservative Party ( Britain
First) through Nigel Farage and his Brexit movement.
Hence the current and growing gulf that is separating the British public from its
Zio-Globalist elite + their media propagandists (BBC, Guardian etc.).
She introduced a new kind of Conservatism that was more classless …
Or just plain anti-working class.
It was actually Thatcher who started the neo-liberal revolution in Britain. To the extent
that she refused to finish it, the elites had Tony Blair in the wings waiting to go.
Great blast by Jonathan Cook – I feel as if he has read my thoughts about the
political system keeping the proles in an Orwellian state of serfdom for plunder and abuse
under the guise of “democracy” and “freedom”. Under this system if
anyone steps out of line is indeed sidelined for the “anti-semitic” treatment,
demonized, vilified and, virtually hanged and quartered on the public square of the
mendacious media.
In the good old days, when there was a militant working class and revolting (!) unionism,
we would get together at meetings, organize protests and strikes and confront bosses and
officialdom. There was camaraderie, solidarity, loyalty and confident defiance that we were
fighting for a better world for ourselves and our children – and also for people less
fortunate than us in other countries.
But the ideas of the Chicago School in cohorts with the Frankfurters and Tavistockers were
already undermining our hopeful vision of the world while the think tanks at the foundations,
councils and institutes were flooding the academies with the doctrines of hardhead
uncompromising Capitalism to suck the blood off the proles into anaemic immiseration and
apathetic insouciance.
... ... ... .
With the working class defeated and gone, where is the spirit of resistance to spring
from? Not from the selfishness of the new generation of smartphone addicts whose world has
shrunk to the atomic MEism and who refuse to open their eyes to what is staring in their
face: debt slavery, for life. Maybe the French can do it again. Allez Gilets Jaunes!
@Miro23
ic get pissed off and vote in the conservatives who then privatise everything. And this game
continues on and on. The British public are literally headless chickens running around not
knowing what on earth is going on. They’re not interested in getting to the bottom of
why society is the way it is. They’re all too comfortable with their mortgages, cars,
holidays twice a year, mobile phones, TV shows and football.
When all of this disappears,
then certainly, they will start asking questions, but when that time comes they will be
utterly powerless to do anything, as a minority in their own land. Greater Israel will be
built when that time comes.
No one at the time had much idea about Neoliberalism and none at all about Globalization.
This was all in the future.
And it was the British working class who were really cutting their own throats, by
wrecking British industry (their future employment), with constant political radicalism and
strikes.
"... Brand's fast-talking, plain-speaking criticism of the existing political order, calling it discredited, unaccountable and unrepresentative, was greeted with smirking condescension by the political and media establishment. Nonetheless, in an era before Donald Trump had become president of the United States, the British media were happy to indulge Brand for a while, seemingly believing he or his ideas might prove a ratings winner with younger audiences. ..."
"... Then he overstepped the mark. ..."
"... Instead of simply criticising the political system, Brand argued that it was in fact so rigged by the powerful, by corporate interests, that western democracy had become a charade. Elections were pointless . Our votes were simply a fig-leaf, concealing the fact that our political leaders were there to represent not us but the interests of globe-spanning corporations. Political and media elites had been captured by unshored corporate money. Our voices had become irrelevant. ..."
"... But just as Brand's rejection of the old politics began to articulate a wider mood, it was stopped in its tracks. ..."
"... These "New Labour" MPs were there, just as Brand had noted, to represent the interests of a corporate class, not ordinary people. ..."
"... It wasn't that Corbyn's election had shown Britain's political system was representative and accountable. It was simply evidence that corporate power had made itself vulnerable to a potential accident by preferring to work out of sight, in the shadows, to maintain the illusion of democracy. Corbyn was that accident. ..."
"... The system was still in place and it still had a chokehold on the political and media establishments that exist to uphold its interests. Which is why it has been mobilising these forces endlessly to damage Corbyn and avert the risk of a further, even more disastrous "accident", such as his becoming prime minister. ..."
"... Listing the ways the state-corporate media have sought to undermine Corbyn would sound preposterous to anyone not deeply immersed in these media-constructed narratives. But almost all of us have been exposed to this kind of " brainwashing under freedom " since birth. ..."
"... The initial attacks on Corbyn were for being poorly dressed, sexist, unstatesmanlike, a national security threat, a Communist spy – relentless, unsubstantiated smears the like of which no other party leader had ever faced. But over time the allegations became even more outrageously propagandistic as the campaign to undermine him not only failed but backfired – not least, because Labour membership rocketed under Corbyn to make the party the largest in Europe. ..."
"... As the establishment's need to keep him away from power has grown more urgent and desperate so has the nature of the attacks. ..."
In the preceding two years, it was hard to avoid on TV the figure of Russell Brand, a
comedian and minor film star who had reinvented himself, after years of battling addiction, as
a spiritual guru-cum-political revolutionary.
Brand's fast-talking, plain-speaking criticism of the existing political order, calling it
discredited, unaccountable and unrepresentative, was greeted with smirking condescension by the
political and media establishment. Nonetheless, in an era before Donald Trump had become
president of the United States, the British media were happy to indulge Brand for a while,
seemingly believing he or his ideas might prove a ratings winner with younger audiences.
But Brand started to look rather more impressive than anyone could have imagined. He took on
supposed media heavyweights like the BBC's Jeremy
Paxman and Channel 4's Jon
Snow and charmed and shamed them into submission – both with his compassion and his
thoughtful radicalism. Even in the gladiatorial-style battle of wits so beloved of modern TV,
he made these titans of the political interview look mediocre, shallow and out of touch. Videos
of these head-to-heads went viral, and Brand won hundreds of thousands of new followers.
Then he overstepped the mark.
Democracy as charade
Instead of simply criticising the political system, Brand argued that it was in fact so
rigged by the powerful, by corporate interests, that western democracy had become a charade.
Elections were pointless
. Our votes were simply a fig-leaf, concealing the fact that our political leaders were there
to represent not us but the interests of globe-spanning corporations. Political and media
elites had been captured by unshored corporate money. Our voices had become irrelevant.
Brand didn't just talk the talk. He started committing to direct action. He shamed our do-nothing
politicians and corporate media – the devastating Grenfell Tower fire had yet to happen
– by helping to gain attention for a group of poor tenants in London who were taking on
the might of a corporation that had become their landlord and wanted to evict them to develop
their homes for a much richer clientele. Brand's revolutionary words had turned into
revolutionary action.
But just as Brand's rejection of the old politics began to articulate a wider mood, it was
stopped in its tracks. After Corbyn was unexpectedly elected Labour leader, offering for the
first time in living memory a politics that listened to people before money, Brand's style of
rejectionism looked a little too cynical, or at least premature.
While Corbyn's victory marked a sea-change, it is worth recalling, however, that it occurred
only because of a mistake. Or perhaps two.
The Corbyn accident
First, a handful of Labour MPs agreed to nominate Corbyn for the leadership contest,
scraping him past the threshold needed to get on the ballot paper. Most backed him only because
they wanted to give the impression of an election that was fair and open. After his victory,
some loudly regretted having assisted him. None had
thought a representative of the tiny and besieged left wing of the parliamentary party stood a
chance of winning – not after Tony Blair and his acolytes had spent more than two decades
remaking Labour, using their own version of entryism to eradicate any vestiges of socialism in
the party. These "New Labour" MPs were there, just as Brand had noted, to represent the
interests of a corporate class, not ordinary people.
Corbyn had very different ideas from most of his colleagues. Over the years he had broken
with the consensus of the dominant Blairite faction time and again in parliamentary votes,
consistently taking a minority view that later proved to be on the
right side of history . He alone among the leadership contenders spoke unequivocally
against austerity, regarding it as a way to leech away more public money to enrich the
corporations and banks that had already pocketed vast sums from the public coffers – so
much so that by 2008 they had nearly bankrupted the entire western economic system.
And second, Corbyn won because of a recent change in the party's rulebook – one now
much regretted by party managers. A new internal balloting system gave more weight to the votes
of ordinary members than the parliamentary party. The members, unlike the party machine, wanted
Corbyn.
Corbyn's success didn't really prove Brand wrong. Even the best designed systems have flaws,
especially when the maintenance of the system's image as benevolent is considered vitally
important. It wasn't that Corbyn's election had shown Britain's political system was
representative and accountable. It was simply evidence that corporate power had made itself
vulnerable to a potential accident by preferring to work out of sight, in the shadows, to
maintain the illusion of democracy. Corbyn was that accident.
'Brainwashing under freedom'
Corbyn's success also wasn't evidence that the power structure he challenged had weakened.
The system was still in place and it still had a chokehold on the political and media
establishments that exist to uphold its interests. Which is why it has been mobilising these
forces endlessly to damage Corbyn and avert the risk of a further, even more disastrous
"accident", such as his becoming prime minister.
Listing the ways the state-corporate media have sought to undermine Corbyn would sound
preposterous to anyone not deeply immersed in these media-constructed narratives. But almost
all of us have been exposed to this kind of " brainwashing under freedom
" since birth.
The initial attacks on Corbyn were for being poorly dressed, sexist, unstatesmanlike, a
national security threat, a Communist spy – relentless, unsubstantiated smears the like
of which no other party leader had ever faced. But over time the allegations became even more
outrageously propagandistic as the campaign to undermine him not only failed but backfired
– not least, because Labour membership rocketed under Corbyn to make the party the
largest in Europe.
As the establishment's need to keep him away from power has grown more urgent and desperate
so has the nature of the attacks.
There were no Jews anywhere around most native Britons. And yet the Empire was banked most
importantly by Jews back to at least the post-Glorious Revolution closing the 17th century,
and that pattern of Jewish bankers being indispensable to the UK and the Brit WASP Empire
goes back to Oliver Cromwell.
You guys don't need a peace candidate you need a War Consigliere like the Godfather had! You
people are being attacked from all angles and you are evaluating which Dem or Rep is going to
fix the problems you face. Remember Bush Senior, (Iraq, Granada, Panama and CIA drug
trafficking), Clinton, (Oklahoma City, Waco, Yugoslavia, Mena, AR Drug Money Laundering), Bush
Junior, (9-11, Iraq, Afghanistan), Obama (Syria, Libya and Fast & Furious), Trump (Yet to
be seen).
What does that tell you people? They are all the same! ...
They tell you what they are going to do, (conspiracy theories, movies and fake news). They
bet on you do nothing and dependent on the fake elections.
Tulsi was the only participant who said something sensible. Which means that she won't be
a presidential candidate from any of the two main parties. Deep State won't let it
happen.
Was LBJ the same as JFK? Was Nixon the same as Carter? Was Bush II the same as Reagan? Was
Bush I the same as Gerald Ford?
No.
Why did Obama go through all the trouble of the JCPOA with Iran only to have orange clown
trash it?
Why didn't Obama deliver Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine? Why didn't the Jerusalem Boys
Choir sing praises to Obama?
I'll tell you why: Because they're NOT all the same. And as we get closer and closer to
planetary extinction, those differences become very significant.
"... But to me, she looks like – among other things – a clever manipulator in her, relatively short radius. Yet, although the US is no.1. as world power, she is no match for any real world politician, anywhere. Not just now; anytime in the future. ..."
"... Her "visibility" is a confluence of a few fleeting influences. Basically, fate has favored her for the time being (I'm not talking about morals etc.). But, to think that she's capable of much more is to entertain the idea that Trump is, all the time, playing 6-dimensional chess. ..."
"... Ivanka took her conversion to Judaism to an almost insane level. This comes from the Rabbi's involved in her conversion. She is an even more hard core Zionist than "daddy dearest", if that is even humanly possible ..."
"... Two days ago I commented on Breitbart that good or bad G20, Trump looked foolish toting Ivanka along. Response: Oh yeah, he should have brought AOC, that would have been much better, you idiot. Me: So Trump's only choice was Ivanka or AOC? None of the hundreds of attorneys or diplomats who have devoted careers to international trade negotiations? ..."
Because however loud the calls for Ivanka's ouster have gotten . Ivanka just digs those stilettoes in. She won't be budged.
She refuses to take a hint.
Amazing how deaf fathers can be when it comes to their daughters. Surprising he didn't dispose of Jared by making him Secy of
Education or some shizzle like that.
Ilana seems to think, referencing Wolff (and arguing with his position), that IKT is a sort of Machiavellian (although inexperienced)
woman greedy for power who, well, should not be underestimated.
Of course no one should be underestimated.
But to me, she looks like – among other things – a clever manipulator in her, relatively short radius. Yet, although the
US is no.1. as world power, she is no match for any real world politician, anywhere. Not just now; anytime in the future.
She seems to be one of those people who are lucky for a period of time, but soon disappear from the scene. Her "visibility"
is a confluence of a few fleeting influences. Basically, fate has favored her for the time being (I'm not talking about morals
etc.). But, to think that she's capable of much more is to entertain the idea that Trump is, all the time, playing 6-dimensional
chess.
Trump's(Ivanka)Hebrew name is "Yael." In the Book of Judges, a woman named Yael came upon the enemy king Sisera, who had
fled from battle with the Isralites. She fed and sheltered him until he fell asleep. Then she killed him by using a mallet to
drive a tent peg into his skull.
Ivanka took her conversion to Judaism to an almost insane level. This comes from the Rabbi's involved in her conversion.
She is an even more hard core Zionist than "daddy dearest", if that is even humanly possible. Ivanka believes she is now a
chosenite of the highest order and is therefore destined to rule over all us insignificant little Goys. Yael's greatest
concern is rising antisemitism here in the US of Israel.
Many of our MAGApedes still think Ivanka's great because Trump is God Emperor.
Two days ago I commented on Breitbart that good or bad G20, Trump looked foolish toting Ivanka along. Response: Oh yeah, he should have brought AOC, that would have been much better, you idiot. Me: So Trump's only choice was Ivanka or AOC? None of the hundreds of attorneys or diplomats who have devoted careers to
international trade negotiations?
Response: I would take Ivanka over any single "professional" negotiator of the past 30 years – hands down.
I think the sage commenters at Unz underestimate just how entrenched God Emperor's fanatic support remains. And apparently
this support extends to Jarvanka.
Let us not forget the words of General George Cornwallis in 1781.
"Your churches will be used to teach the Jew's religion and in less than two hundred years, the whole nation will be working
for divine world government. That government that they believe to be divine will be the British Empire. All religions will be
permeated with Judaism without even being noticed by the masses, and they will all be under the invisible all-seeing eye of
the Grand Architect of Freemasonry."
In the words of a speaker at a secret B'nai Brith meeting in Paris in 1936:
"Yet it remains our secret that those Gentiles who betray their own and most precious interests, by joining us in our
plot should never know that these associations are of our creation and that they serve our purpose
"One of the many triumphs of our Freemasonry is that those Gentiles who become members of our Lodges, should never suspect
that we are using them to build their own jails, upon whose terraces we shall erect the throne of our Universal King of
Israel; and should never know that we are commanding them to forge the chains of their own servility to our future King
of the World."
Cornwallis, apparently not wanting to face Washington, claimed to be ill on the day of the surrender, and sent Brigadier
General Charles O'Hara in his place to surrender his sword formally.
Washington had his second-in-command, Benjamin Lincoln,
accept Cornwallis' sword
Lets be a realistic a little bit here. In politics the overwhelming power is in power of presentation. The content with all the other details is of little consequence...
Dying Augustus did say: curtain is closing, I hope I did act well.
"... In the classroom, students are exposed to the teachings of Christ regarding the Gospel imperative – the care of the poor. Theology students are inspired to work for equality and social justice in their local and global communities. ..."
"... Even Pope Francis was not a fan although as Father Bergoglio he said, ..."
"... "The option for the poor comes from the first centuries of Christianity. It's the Gospel itself. If you were to read one of the sermons of the first fathers of the Church, from the second or third centuries, about how you should treat the poor, you'd say it was Maoist or Trotskyist. The Church has always had the honor of this preferential option for the poor." ..."
"... Another hero of mine, the great Oxford and Cambridge analytic philosopher, Elizabeth Anscombe -- a staunch Catholic (convert) -- condemned Truman and said he was a war criminal. ..."
"... to me, the central core of Christianity is the Sermon on the Mount and if you live by it, you will be a better person. ..."
"... looking after those in need makes good economic sense. The alternative is barbed wire, walls, security systems, guns, guards, prisons and gallows. Guess which approach is cheaper. ..."
"... A close friend of mine, now passed away, had a brother who became a Jesuit priest in his middle age after spending many years as an Air Force officer. I was amazed when I first met and talked with him, could not understand why he would do such a thing. But maybe I kind of understood later. He had left the AF and started in a seminary in the 80s not long after the murder of several Jesuits in El Salvador. ..."
"... De Oppresso Liber not only affected him but some other non-Jesuit Catholic religious orders also. Over 50 priests, nuns, and lay leaders were murdered by death squads in El Salvador. Many were not Jesuits, but they had been slandered as being reds because of their work with the poor. That included the now canonized Oscar Romero who was gunned down while saying mass. ..."
"... My wife's uncle was a Jesuit, taught at 3 Jesuit Universities and served as a Chaplain in the USN during WW-II; my father had 8 years of Jesuit education, as did I and one of my brothers; another of my brothers had 4. The pre-Arrupe and the post Arrupe Jesuits are two different religious orders bound by a common name. Flirtation with an ideology that solved the problems of humanity by impoverishing everyone but the commissars and burying the 100 million or so recalcitrants undermined the mission of the Church,; it lent legitimacy to corrupt political regimes; and it spread poverty to include ever more people even as the numbers of priests willing to labor in the fields were drying up. There is a reason that John Paul II sent a representative to attend Arrupe's funeral. ..."
A while back we were discussing the merits of a liberal arts education and the sad state of our current education system. As
part of that discussion, I looked at the current curriculum of my old prep school to see if it changed much from when I was there.
To my surprise and joy, it changed very little. Students are still required to take four years of theology good Jesuit theology.
I was struck by the entry for the current theology department at Fairfield Prep and now present it below.
In light of the current discussion about the rise of the new bolsheviki in the Democratic Party, I thought I'd share my thoughts
on the Ignatian approach to Roman Catholicism. I'm pretty sure many of you will consider the black robes to be quite red. I, on
the other hand, find the teachings and example of Saint Ignatius of Loyola to be far more profound and worthy of emulation than
anything Marx or Lenin ever dreamed of.
-- -- -- -- -- --
What is theology? Fundamentally, it's about conversation.
The Greek word Theós (God) combined with logos (word, or reason) describes what happens in theology classes at Fairfield Prep.
Talking about God, discovering God in the person of Jesus Christ, asking questions, having discussions and debates, and exploring
the truths of other world religions are some of the many things that happen in theology. Through exegetical analysis of Scripture,
learning the philosophies of the Saints (in particular, St. Ignatius of Loyola), contemplation, and reflection, theology students
at Fairfield Prep are drawn to a more intimate experience of the Divine in their own lives.
In the classroom, students are exposed to the teachings of Christ regarding the Gospel imperative – the care of the poor.
Theology students are inspired to work for equality and social justice in their local and global communities.
In the spirit of Christ, through Ignatian practices, students are encouraged to grow spiritually and religiously by orienting
themselves towards others. Practically speaking, students are called to "Find God in All Things." By recognizing the presence of
the Divine within others and the universe we live in, students may be inspired to develop a deeper appreciation and love for Creation
– in particular, care for our environment.
Morality, ethics, philosophy, history, science – they are all present within discussions of theology. Regardless of faith
background (or lack thereof) all students are encouraged to express their beliefs and share their life experiences in their own
ways. In theology, we are constantly working towards discovering Truth in our lives. Through science, history, literature, Scripture,
and the Sacraments, we understand that God can be found in all things and in all ways here at Fairfield Prep. Join us as we continue
the discussions, the questions, the reflections, and the actions that will make this world a more loving place for all.
- Mr. Corey J. Milazzo
Chair of the Theology Department
-- -- -- -- -- --
It's still there, the call to find God in all things and to be a man for others. I graduated a few years before Father Pedro
Arrupe presented his dissertation and made his presentation which became known as his "Men for Others" thesis. But his ideas already
ran through the halls and faculty of Fairfield Prep by the end of the 60s. Community service was an integral part of the curriculum
back then as were frequent retreats based on the Ignatian spiritual exercises. They still are. The Jesuits molded us into men
for others, social justice warriors, but with a keen sense of self-examination (the examen). When we graduated in the rose garden
of Bellarmine Hall under a beautiful June sun, we were charged with the familiar Jesuit call "ite inflammate omnia" (go forth and
set the world on fire).
That phrase in itself is provocative. It goes back to Saint Ignatius of Loyola himself. It may go back much further, back to
Saint Catherine of Siena. One of her most repeated quotes is "Be who God meant you to be and you will set the world on fire." Setting
the world on fire must have a different meaning back then. It sounds down right revolutionary these days.
In more recent times, Jesuits participated in the development of liberation theology, a blending of the Church's professed preference
for the poor and Marxism that is unsettling to many both in and outside the Church. This expression of strident social justice was
never supported by the Vatican, especially when liberation theologists aligned themselves with armed Marxist revolutions. Even
Pope Francis was not a fan although as Father Bergoglio he said,
"The option for the poor comes from the first centuries of Christianity. It's the Gospel itself. If you were to read
one of the sermons of the first fathers of the Church, from the second or third centuries, about how you should treat the poor,
you'd say it was Maoist or Trotskyist. The Church has always had the honor of this preferential option for the poor."
Pope Francis seeks reconciliation with rather than expulsion of the liberation theologists. This doesn't surprise me considering
the Jesuits' firmly held faith in the primacy of conscience, the belief that an informed conscience is the ultimate and final authority
on what is morally permissible, and it is the obligation of the individual to follow their conscience even if it contradicts or
acts against Church teaching.
I believe that, but I also believe the liberation theologists could benefit from a more rigorous examen to reach a higher sense
of discernment and a truly informed conscience.
I think the 1986 film "The Mission" captured some of these ideas and struggles very well with the interplay of Father Gabriel,
Roderigo Mendoza and both the secular and religious authorities of that time. As a product of a Jesuit and Special Forces education,
this film resonated with me.
I have long been fascinated by Liberation Theology. I don't actually know much about it - but what I perceive to be the polarity
between the "church hierarchy" which has a reputation of being complicit with the wealthy and with authoritarian regimes, vs
the renegade priests who embraced Liberation Theology has long interested me.
A friend from Mexico recommended the film 'The Crime of Father Amaro' to me - and told me that it depicted the reality of
Mexico better than any other film I might see. I enjoyed the film very much, and was even more sympathetic to Liberation Theology
after seeing it.
When I despair at humanity being able to save itself in its present crazy lust for self destruction, I still have faith in
the Catholic Church and its ability to save us. After the Chinese state, the world's oldest institution. It has a tradition,
especially an intellectual tradition, which is both immensely practical in this world and built for eternity.
Several people I most admire on the Left in Britain started life wanting to be Catholic Priests - one could be our next Chancellor
of the Exchequer, the feisty John McDonnel.
Because we live in a dogmatically secular, not to say aetheistical society, it is often easy to miss the continuing impact
of Catholicism and Catholic themes in our culture - especially in our most influential cultural tradition - cinema. The 20th
Centuy's greatest film-makers were all Catholics and used deeply Catholic themes in their work - John Ford, Alfred Hitchcock,
Fritz Lang and Louis Bunuel. Today I greatly admire the work of the McDonagh brothers - working class Irish Catholics from South
London - who made variously (they do not work together) - Calvary, In Bruges, and Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri.
Also the various Mexican mystical Catholics directing in Hollywood at the moment.
The vivid visual pagaentry and story telling of Catholicism continues to find rich realisation in film.
I am much taken by the work of Michael Hudson on the nature of Jesus' teaching and its economic component. "Forgive them
their sins" is one of his books.
See the full title above. His book and thesis is about debt. The translation of the Lord's Prayer is often given as "debts"
or "trespasses" and "debtors" or "those who trespass against us."
Steve Keen's review makes the same mistake in his gloss: "Michael Hudson reveals the real meaning of "Forgive us our sins."
It has far more to do with throwing the moneylenders out of the Temple than today's moneylenders would like you to know."
The conflation of debt and guilt (or sin) derives, I believe, from the root of both in some Germanic languages. This figures
prominently in _A Doll's House_ and differing attitudes to debt deriving from them.
I vaguely remember that sunny day back in the 60's, we were all aligned in formation and stood firmly to listen to Padre
Arrupe addressing us all. It was supposed to be a special event, but being almost a child at the time I was not aware of how
important and special that person and event were. With time I learned that Padre Arrupe was in Hiroshima, he was a doctor and
as such treated the survivors.
Every institution and group of people is far from homogenous, thanks to nature, that's the way it should be, but at the time
the option for the poor was not a unitary position of the Jesuits, in countries where inequality was and today is even more
rampant. And probably because of that we were not told that our most distinguished visitor was in Japan, and witnessed that
greatest of horrors.
That is why sometimes I smile when I read the Colonel distrust and disdain for bolsheviks and trotskyists. They are a lot closer
to your Jesuit education that what you think. In any case, I was very fortunate to be educated by that excellent group of people,
most of them from the Basque country, our first English teacher whom I shall never forget, a north American Maryknoll nun, not
a single mosquito would move in that class, discipline, and Beatles songs translated, we were allowed to do anything in class,
like frying an egg, but it had to be in English.
Unfortunately the countries where the Jesuits taught not only did not eliminate inequality, it only grew to disastrous levels.
A few of them joined the guerrillas, others were assassinated, AMDG.
The priest who married my wife and me gave us a framed quote from Fr. Arrupe on love. I read up on Fr. Arrupe and he has
been one of my heroes ever since. Another of my heroes is Fulton Sheen who believed the dropping of the atom bomb was immoral
and inaugurated the culture of death. Another hero of mine, the great Oxford and Cambridge analytic philosopher, Elizabeth Anscombe
-- a staunch Catholic (convert) -- condemned Truman and said he was a war criminal.
And while I respect all the aforementioned
my 93-year old father and all of his children and grandchildren are most likely alive today because of the dropping of the atom
bomb. My dad was in the U.S. Army 77th in Battle of Okinawa and afterwards was in training for the invasion when the Japanese
surrendered.
Had the Japanese not surrendered there most likely would have been much more devastation of the Japanese military
and civilian population. The numbers might have been orders of magnitude higher than those of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Here is Fr. Wilson Miscamble, C.S.C., a professor of history at the University of Notre Dame succinctly explaining why the
dropping of the atom bomb was the most reasonable and best option: https://youtu.be/BmIBbcxseXM
I am essentially an agnostic, with a devout Episcopalian wife and a best friend who is a retired professor of religion, so
I can't claim that they are wrong. But to me, the central core of Christianity is the Sermon on the Mount and if you live by
it, you will be a better person.
I am glad to see that the school is still debating what will make you a better person and I am sure many students will prosper
from it. When I was in Junior Highschool, in what was then a rather socialistic Sweden, we had 3 years of Christian education.
I still remember a lot of it.
This was very though-provoking TTG, thanks for your confession.
As I see it, the primacy of conscience and the obligation of the individual to follow their own is exactly right.
Our education system (both religious and secular) must teach a set of ethics and a code of civil conduct consistent with the
society which we wish to build. But thereafter the state must respect our right to live largely as we choose.
Yes, individuals should be encouraged to set the world alight. The problem comes when social justice is moved from the domain
of voluntary, individual choice to the imposition of obligatory, collective adherence, by the state. The Jesuit doctrine you
describe sounds a lot like "live and let live" - i.e. the humility to avoid judging others by your own standards. Political
SJW's have totally abandoned this critically important aspect of the doctrine. Their mission is to force us all to conform to
a collective set of norms far and away beyond what is necessary for a civil & free society. This makes them indistinguishable
from Bolshevik tyrants.
You were very fortunate to have received such an excellent education and it is encouraging that it still exists in some places.
It shouldn't be impossible to rebuild it elsewhere, but one aspect will be key; the teaching of real tolerance for others. This
is very different from the faux tolerance of Liberalism, which holds that you can be of any color, faith, gender etc - just
so long as you think the same way I do. A process of de-snowflakization will be necessary; teaching people that feeling offense
is a normal emotion, not something to be avoided at all costs. After all, the Bill of Rights does not enshrine the right to
not be offended.
I'll mention a judge who demanded the 10 commandments be placed in his court and disobeyed order to remove them. This disease
is certainly not limited to one side. Capital L liberals and capital C conservatives share the affliction, a misappropriation
of religion or doctrine, which stripped of humility (all the worthy ones have a bit), become "...oneself with a thunderbolt".
IMO in a free society citizens can volunteer to aid the poor all they want to. However, it is not the government's job to
take on the task and to force others to "give" in ways that they would not do so on their own. That's the philosophical
difference between the Bolshies and free people.
Additionally, I am convinced that free markets create more wealth so that people can volunteer to help those in need.
With the Bolshies, minimal wealth is created and everyone loses and suffers. History has shown us that and theory says it
must be that way. There is no way to "get socialism right". The global poverty rate has been in steep decline as more of the
world develops into free market economies and older free market societies donate wealth and other aid to societies in need.
I attended a secular prep school K-12, but the message was the same, "Take your talents, maximize them and light the
world on fire". Sundays at home were dedicated to religious discussions and readings - all day until dinner.
looking after those in need makes good economic sense. The alternative is barbed wire, walls, security systems, guns, guards,
prisons and gallows. Guess which approach is cheaper.
To put that another way, visit historic parts of Europe. Those high walls, barred windows and spiked iron fences were. not
there for fake decorations when originally built.
Immigration business is big business and plenty of autocrats are quite happy to saddle the gullible with their nation's dissidents
rather than deal with "the good economic sense" of looking after those in need. Castro comes to mind and all those well off
tourists from Europe and Canada who've been going there for decades have only been subsidizing oppression while they get a sunny
dog-and-pony show vacation amongst the ruins of Havana.
A close friend of mine, now passed away, had a brother who became a Jesuit priest in his middle age after spending many years
as an Air Force officer. I was amazed when I first met and talked with him, could not understand why he would do such a thing.
But maybe I kind of understood later. He had left the AF and started in a seminary in the 80s not long after the murder of several
Jesuits in El Salvador.
De Oppresso Liber not only affected him but some other non-Jesuit Catholic religious orders also. Over 50 priests,
nuns, and lay leaders were murdered by death squads in El Salvador. Many were not Jesuits, but they had been slandered as being
reds because of their work with the poor. That included the now canonized Oscar Romero who was gunned down while saying mass.
Would MS-13 be as extensive as they are today if those priests had not been murdered and their efforts to end the civil war
peacefully had been realized?
Totally off topic --
A week or so ago I was in Greenwich, CT for the Boys & Girls Club annual Golf tournament/benefit. It was held at a golf club
on the border of New York State, on land sandwiched between the massive holdings of the Brunswick School (the Winkelvoss brothers
graduated from Brunswick), and also Sacred Heart academy for Girls.
That's just the name-dropping part.
Here's my question: driving to and around Greenwich one cannot help but be impressed by the orderliness of the place, and
also of the stones. It seems to be carved into a very large mountain of stone. Further, there are constructed walls of dressed
stone surrounding very many of the institutions and homes in the area.
This morning I heard yet another recitation of the complaint, "We _ _ _ _ _'s built the United States that you white people
are getting rich on."
So I wondered: Who built those stone walls in Greenwich, CT?
Who tamed that stone mountain that characterizes so much of the state?
The person I visited in CT grew up in western and central Maryland, where his German (and Mennonite) farmer ancestors plowed
fields around and through acres of stone. If they could not grow a crop on the stony fields, they gathered them in and built
their houses, barns and hedge-walls, so many of which are still standing, solid as the day they were built. Western Maryland's
agricultural landscape is still neat as a pin, carefully and intelligently husbanded to produce apples, peaches, etc.
I hope this is not as far off-topic as it appears on the surface: the Jesuits have one tradition, but the Benedictines made
an equally important contribution to the advancement of civilization: Ora et Labora: Pray and work. As I grew up in Catholic
institutions, I learned and practiced that work IS prayer (and prayer is work). The medieval cathedrals were work and prayer
made manifest in stone.
Off topic, but an interesting observation of yours, artemesia. Those stone walls were built by colonial and early American
farm families. The soil of all of New England and Connecticut in particular was gifted with countless rocks and stones when
the last glacier retreated from North America. You cannot till a piece of land without removing most of the rocks from the soil.
The farm families removed the rocks and used them to build the stone walls you saw in Greenwich. I've moved tons of rocks doing
just that as a youth and as a farm hand. Building a proper dry stone wall to withstand the winter frost heaves is an art known
by many New Englanders. Living in Virginia, I am astounded by the lack of rocks for building such walls. I cannot bring myself
to buy them by the pallet as is the practice here. Paying for rocks is not something a New Englander can easily stomach.
If you have the opportunity to travel West take a side trip to Walnut Grove, Minnesota. Home of (one of) the Laura Ingells
Wilder Museum. They even have a recreated sod home (real sod) just like the one that familiy lived in more than 100 years ago.
There is some interesting background on the settling of the forntier as it moved ever westward. On the other hand, if you go
South, visit Lincoln's birthplace in Kentucky. The actual log cabin is within a nathional monument outside Hodgenville Kentucky
and one of his family's farm's where he spent part of his boyhood is a few miles away. In Trappist, just outside Bardstown,
about 45 miles away, is the Abbey of Gethsemani, which opened in 1848. None of these are much celebrated in our modern and diverse
school systems but all were important parts in the growth of the Republic.
My wife's uncle was a Jesuit, taught at 3 Jesuit Universities and served as a Chaplain in the USN during WW-II; my father
had 8 years of Jesuit education, as did I and one of my brothers; another of my brothers had 4. The pre-Arrupe and the post
Arrupe Jesuits are two different religious orders bound by a common name. Flirtation with an ideology that solved the problems
of humanity by impoverishing everyone but the commissars and burying the 100 million or so recalcitrants undermined the mission
of the Church,; it lent legitimacy to corrupt political regimes; and it spread poverty to include ever more people even as the
numbers of priests willing to labor in the fields were drying up. There is a reason that John Paul II sent a representative
to attend Arrupe's funeral.
In the end, the Jesuits foray into practical politics under ambiguous slogans such as "preferential option for the poor" led
to the Robert Drinans and the waffling Catholic prelates and politicians who find ways to justify or look past any behavior
contrary to the established doctrine of the Church so long as they can present themselves as being hard at work on behalf of
the poor. There are too many examples to enumerate.
And I will note in passing that while the religious implications of the work with the poor will vary with the individual, the
work will remain steady: the poor we will have always with us.
To all those here who claim that the only thing communist and socialist systems spread is poverty, i would like you to show
some data/statististics, instead of just your own claims.
I use to frequent a Twitter account where many photos of life under the former GDR are shared, and does not seem that they
were doing absolutely so bad, on the contrary, what really happened is that after joining FDR, which implied the dismantling
of the whole GDR industry for FDR holdings´beneffit, increasing poverty rates started to spread along what at all lights seemed
a prosperous and free nation.
Then you have the Chinese, who have taken out of poverty more people than anybody else in the world in the least time ( about
these, yes there are statistics...), and all that even with their mixed but still communist system...
I do not swallow the mythical, by Western propaganda standards, ruin of the USSR, since at the heights of 1985, economic
indicators were there better than in many Western nations on productiveness and progress at all levels.
The USSR was imploded from outside and within by the inestimable help of a bunch of traitors to the will of the people, whom
even in the last referendum expressed clearly their will to conserve the Soviet system, will which was betrayed by Yeltsin and
his minions who usurped the popular will by coup d´etat.
Yeltsin didn't stage the coup d'etat. It was hard line CPSU and KGB. Yeltsin stumbled into his spot in the collapse of the
coup attempt. Although I will grant you that Russia/Soviet Union and China made great economic strides considering where they
started.
I believe that, but I also believe the liberation theologists could benefit from a more rigorous examen to reach a higher
sense of discernment and a truly informed conscience.
I detect here an implied critic to the liberation theologists.... Since you are in a sincerity exercise, could you expnad
a bit on what you are trying to mean by this?
I would be interested.
Also, and since you seem to have been educated by US Jesuits at prep-school, do you consider that due the background of the
US, the genuine Ignatian message and character has been fully developed and then conserved there? I mean, do you thing is this
possible, in such an anti-communist country by definition, which promotes a society based on "winners and losers" not finding
in this binary distribution more cause than own ability to prospere within the system, whatever the means?
Finally, and if this is not asking already too much, what do you mean by DOL-AMDG?
Elsi, I know of no country where the Ignatian message has been fully developed and conserved. As for the liberation theologists,
I believe many of them got too caught up in the Marxist call for totally changing society often through violent means. While
the Church and the Marxist revolutionaries may often work towards the same goal of giving preference to the poor, the ultimate
reasons for working towards that goal is not at all the same. I reject the idea of a vanguard party be it Marxist or autocratic
priesthood.
"i would like you to show some data/statistics, instead of just your own claims." Statistics lie. Everyone has their own
including your communist government. You do not make demands here. You are an enemy and merely tolerated here for the moment.
The problem I see with monotheism is that it confuses the absolute with the ideal. Logically a spiritual absolute would be
that essence of sentience, from which we rise, not an ideal of wisdom and judgment, from which we fell. More the new born, than
the wise old man. Consciousness seeking knowledge, than any form or brand of it. The light shining through the film than the
images on it. So what we do with this gift is not pre-ordained.
Good and bad are not a cosmic dual between the forces of righteousness and evil, but the basic biological binary of beneficial
and detrimental. So society and the moral codes it requires are a constant dynamic of the raw organic and emotional energies
rising up, as civil and cultural forms coalesce in. Liberal and conservative, youth and age.
It is that we have this linear idealist monism, that we don't see the dynamic as two sides of a larger cycle and so each side
sees themselves on the road to nirvana and the other side as misbegotten fools.
It really is more of the yin and yang, than God Almighty.
You were blessed with such an education. Saldy for the Republic and many of her citizens far too many educated by the puclic
school system have been provided nothing like this as religion has been expelled from primary and seconday education; it and
American history are denigrated daily, to our nation's detriment. College graduates moving into the teaching field in the '40s-60s
had the benefit of being taught by early true believers in Marxism who had not yet seen the realities of what evil that ideology
was doing to people in the USSR and eventually the nations of the Warsaw Pact and China. The number of unrepentent marxists
has only increased as new generations have come of age. They have all found it far easier to deconstruct than to build. They
were certainly not about to follow in the footsteps of men such as yourself or our host.
"an informed conscience is the ultimate and final authority on what is morally permissible"
There is always an historical grievance to point to that will serve as a foundation of victimhood, especially when coupled
with a rejection of religious principles. "I live, therefore I deserve" is about all the doctrine one is taught today. You can
tear down a lot of civilizations with that ideological starting point.
"... That distrust of the establishment has had highly visible political consequences: Farage, Trump, and Le Pen on the right; but also in new parties on the left ..."
In the years that followed, the crash, the crisis of the eurozone and the worldwide drop in
the price of oil and other commodities combined to put a huge dent in global trade. Since 2012,
the IMF reported in its World Economic Outlook for October 2016
, trade was growing at 3% a year – less than half the average of the previous three
decades. That month, Martin Wolf argued in a column that globalisation had "lost dynamism", due
to a slackening of the world economy, the "exhaustion" of new markets to exploit and a rise in
protectionist policies around the world. In an interview earlier this year, Wolf suggested
to me that, though he remained convinced globalisation had not been the decisive factor in
rising inequality, he had nonetheless not fully foreseen when he was writing Why Globalization
Works how "radical the implications" of worsening inequality "might be for the US, and
therefore the world".
Among these implications appears to be a rising distrust of the establishment that is blamed
for the inequality. "We have a very big political problem in many of our countries," he said.
"The elites – the policymaking business and financial elites – are
increasingly disliked . You need to make policy which brings people to think again that
their societies are run in a decent and civilised way."
That distrust of the establishment has had highly visible political consequences: Farage,
Trump, and Le Pen on the right; but also in new parties on the left, such as Spain's Podemos,
and curious populist hybrids, such as Italy's
Five Star Movement . As in 1997, but to an even greater degree, the volatile political
scene reflects public anxiety over "the process that has come to be called
'globalisation'".
If the critics of globalisation could be dismissed before because of their lack of economics
training, or ignored because they were in distant countries, or kept out of sight by a wall of
police, their sudden political ascendancy in the rich countries of the west cannot be so easily
discounted today.
Even Margaret Thatcher, a master of the manly art of the parliamentary joust, would have
been left speechless at this American girl's audacious idiocy. Having no empathy
for woman-centric whining, The Iron Lady would have hand-bagged Ivanka with that famous little
bag of hers.
Ivanka at her serious best is Barbie doll hair, an overbite, Botox and
mind-numbing banalities. The two brilliant women she's preening before are not in the habit of
disgorging American-style jargon like "male-dominated," "intersectionality," "transsexuality."
Neither do May and Lagarde rabbit on about "women in politics," "women in business," women in
sport," "women in this or that."
It is also rigged to silence real journalists like Julian Assange who are trying to
overturn the access journalism prized by the corporate media – with its reliance on
official sources and insiders for stories – to divulge the secrets of the national
security states we live in.
His case is really Kafaesque. Sweden wanted his extradition to Sweden and issued an European
arrest warrant for him to be arrested and taken to Sweden. He sought asyl in the embassy of
Ecuador. People kept saying for years that he was a criminal evading justice because of that.
The British police kept the embassy under surveillance for seven years without interruptions in
order to arrest him and send him to Sweden.
Finally after seven years he was forced to leave the embassy. He should have been sent
immediately to Sweden. After all, this was the reason why the British had initially arrested
him, had limited his movements, had sought to arrest him after he went to the embassy.
Everything happened because of an allegued crime in Sweden. But when he was arrested Sweden
didn't care to demand that he be taken to Sweden. They had issued an European arrest warrant
and this means that they should have a case against him that would justify him being arrested
in England. The material against him should be ready and they should send it again to England.
But they haven't done that until now.
I'm not sure of the details but I think that the first time that they issued an arrest
warrant, this was done by the Swedish prosecuting attorney and not by a judge. Many people
complained that this was not legal, but it was said that the French version of European
agreements would allow this to happen. Now, the Swedish prosecuting attorney would like to
reopen the case against Assange, but this time apparently the case has to be assessed by a
judge and some months after Assange was arrested the Swedes haven't yet demanded that he be
taken to Sweden. Sweden sought Assange for 8 or 9 years to arrest him. This is the reason he
spent 7 years in the embassy. Now he was arrested but Sweden doesn't want him (at least until
now).
"Intelligence firepower"? You mean like so smart that she just knew that there was no way
a nine year old kid with an internet connection could debunk her Cherokee ancestry
claims?
"... Her courage and convictions were hardened in the burning cauldron of an unjust war. Call it burning resentment if you prefer. It's real and it's what makes her tick. ..."
"... by Al Qaeda. For that unrecanted heresy she was vilified by Republicans and Democrats alike. ..."
"... In the Democratic Party debates, she cut that posturing hypocrite Tim Ryan off at the knees in a matter of seconds. A few home truths about U.S. soldiers dying for no good reason was all it took to dispatch him and his mealy-mouthed platitudes. ..."
"... Watch her do the same to DJT if she gets the nomination and he continues to pander to the neocons. ..."
Yes, to some critics, Tulsi Gabbard is not a perfect candidate.
Tulsi is a candidate for political office, not sainthood. Much like Trump in 2016, being
patently less cynical than her rivals makes her the obvious choice.
the only genuine antiwar candidate that might truly be electable
Operative word in the above sentence: "genuine."
Her courage and convictions were hardened in the burning cauldron of an unjust war. Call it
burning resentment if you prefer. It's real and it's what makes her tick.
She went to Syria and proclaimed that rule by Assad was better for Syrians than rule by Al
Qaeda. For that unrecanted heresy she was vilified by Republicans and Democrats alike.
In the Democratic Party debates, she cut that posturing hypocrite Tim Ryan off at the knees
in a matter of seconds. A few home truths about U.S. soldiers dying for no good reason was all
it took to dispatch him and his mealy-mouthed platitudes.
What was Ryan going to do? Tell Tulsi she didn't know what she was talking about?
Watch her do the same to DJT if she gets the nomination and he continues to pander to the
neocons.
Gabbard did well but if I had to vote tomorrow it would be for Elizabeth Warren ..she's
got the real intelligence firepower combined with some old fashioned common sense. None of
them are going to directly attack the jew lobby during the campaign .why bring on
smear jobs and fake stories when it doesnt matter what they say, only what they do when
elected.
Would never vote for Joe "I am Zionist" Biden, he's just a paler shade of Trump .or to be
even clearer Biden is the DC establishment whereas Trump is the NJ Mafia,
The moderator-filtered t "debate" showed viewers the level of selective-issue political
control. The fact that Tulsi was able to overcome this control and discuss the issue of
neoliberal wars for the
How many Americans aren't so thoroughly disgusted with our entire D.N.C. by now , they have
to pin their nose (to avoid the stink) while sitting through one more . Establishment Elite,
corporate " con job " debate ?
How many , Phil ?
Like just about EVERYBODY .
How many Americans aren't so thoroughly disgusted with NBC . and all its LIES . that even if
the broadcasters PAID them, tomorrow , they would STILL refuse to watch their network ?.
Like just about EVERYBODY .
Tulsi is not simply the ONLY candidate who MATTERS .she is the only candidate, alive, who
has a shot in rescuing our country from its descent into corporatist "warmongering" hell .
@Brabantian lectorate
has been fooled so many times before, no big harm in getting fooled again, although not very
smart (as Einstein once remarked about repeating same same while expecting a different
result).
Hopefully by a "peace" or pseudo-peace candidate to at least keep that narrative going in
the general population even if once elected the new president turns around and betrays the
pre-election promises. Now if there were some way to make those politicians pay for
dishonouring their word.
But as I may have asked in another comment, could the electorate be as cynical and
hypocritical as these politicians they cast votes for?
Bingo! For a smart dude, PG should know (and I am sure he does) that the problem is
systemic. No candidate, if s/he expects to get anywhere, is going to call out Aipac or bring
up the issue of Jewish influence and power.
On Tucker Carlson, Tulsi named Netanyahu and Saudi Arabia as the main pushers for war with
Iran. No, she isn't perfect. No American politician dare say more. But she's the best we have
and deserves our support. If she does gain a large following, as Bernie Sanders did, and is
cheated out of the nomination, as Bernie was, I hope she has the guts, as Bernie didn't, to
form a third, Peace Party, and run on it. So she splits the Democrats and they lose? So what!
What difference does it make what Democrat or Republican Zio-whore becomes President?
Trump was a roaring lion for America First, right up until his inauguration. President
Tulsi will also "see the light" about how Israel is our most important ally. Ever see the
photo of the 10 rabbis flanking Trump's desk in the Oval office? It could just as easily been
a scene out of The Sopranos, with the family forcing some schmuck to "legally" sign over his
business.
As Giraldi wrote, there is no such thing as a perfect candidate. But who can compare with
her in this moribund democrat field? Politics is the art of the possible. When Trump first
announced in 2015, no pundit outside of Ann Coulter said he had a chance. And look how he
demolished that republican field consisting of 16 brain dead neocons. If given half a chance,
Tulsi could do the same. And the fact that she is a veteran works in her favor. Just because
she was in Iraq, does not mean that she supported the US aggression. Like thousands of other
vets, she obviously did not.
@Commentator Mike ou're
right but consider the obstacles she has to overcome – her desperate need to bypass the
hostile media in order to make her point to the American masses who will care little or
nothing about a few hundreds of thousands of dead foreigners but, when it comes to American
dead, they are rather more receptive.
Same thing is true on Israel – if she is to have any chance she has to grit her
teeth and stay pretty mum on that topic. They already know where she stands after her remarks
about Netanyahu; her meeting with Assad and her wish for better relations with Russia –
they will do everything in their power to destroy her.
My Congressman, Tim Ryan, was up there. He's a likeable guy, and he plays ball, probably
because he has to after succeeding Jim Traficant, who was expelled from Congress. He's
criticized locally for not bringing back more pork, and his local cliche-ridden talks sound
as though they were scripted by the Democrat Central Committee. I'll give him credit for
avoiding misconduct that could lead to indictment, no small achievement in this
preternaturally corrupt area. I think he's reasonably honest, but just not a firebrand.
There's unsubstantiated speculation here he's been positioning himself for hire as a
lobbyist.
If she does gain a large following, as Bernie Sanders did, and is cheated out of the
nomination, as Bernie was, I hope she has the guts, as Bernie didn't, to form a third,
Peace Party, and run on it.
Yes. My question, when to start preparing for an outside run? If she's making steady
progress, she won't move until after the convention. Would threatening an independent run
help or hurt her before then?
to TKK:
I've never had a female boss so I can't comment on your question. No, Tulsi can't win the
Presidency, it'd be a miracle if she did, but I'm saying that if she does get a huge
following, gets cheated out of the nomination, and has the guts to form a Third Party, she'd
shake up the rotten rigged system and give us some hope.
"... why can't Tulsi Gabbard pretend to be "one of them" (e.g., by taking money from Raytheon, being a member of the CFR, claiming that al-Qaeda did 9/11, etc.) but then actually oppose the self-destructive wars and risky provocations? ..."
"... If orange clown can be honest about his feelings of animosity toward Iran during his campaign, why can't Tulsi Gabbard be honest about her feelings about pointless and self-destructive wars? ..."
"... If Ed Snowden and Chelsea Manning can betray the "deep state" why can't Tulsi Gabbard? ..."
"... somebody is going to be president anyway, whether we like it or not, and the wars – especially the looming WW3 – is the biggest threat ..."
If orange clown can pretend to be one of "us" and then immediately turn around and
enthusiastically stab "us" in the back, why can't Tulsi Gabbard pretend to be "one of them"
(e.g., by taking money from Raytheon, being a member of the CFR, claiming that al-Qaeda did
9/11, etc.) but then actually oppose the self-destructive wars and risky provocations?
If orange clown can be honest about his feelings of animosity toward Iran during his
campaign, why can't Tulsi Gabbard be honest about her feelings about pointless and
self-destructive wars?
If Ed Snowden and Chelsea Manning can betray the "deep state" why can't Tulsi Gabbard?
The cynicism I see in some of the comments here disparaging Gabbard is "over the top" IMO; somebody is going to be
president anyway, whether we like it or not, and the wars – especially the looming WW3 – is the biggest threat. So why not support someone who
appears to be genuinely opposed to the wars?
To mis-paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, you go to war with the candidate you don't
have.
Unless Ms. Gabbard can figure out some way to raise and cycle a billion dollars through
media ads in the MSM, they're going to largely ignore her or even demonise her, because it is
the Praetorian Media who now decide who will be the the American President.
Presidential elections are a joke. It's best to vote for 3rd candidate to express your
opposition to the Status quo: I won't be voting Trump again and fall for that sting. Will
vote Tulsi whether she's on ballot or not.
She will never make it as she is too honest about foreign policy and the USA lies.
"... He supported the attacks on Serbia, Libya and Afghanistan. He signed Rubio's letter denouncing the BDS movement. He called for regime change in Syria. ..."
Bernie Sanders a "peace candidate?" Hardly. His opposition to the Iraq invasion was just a
hiccup, and he voted several times to continue funding the Iraq occupation.
He supported the
attacks on Serbia, Libya and Afghanistan. He signed Rubio's letter denouncing the BDS movement.
He called for regime change in Syria.
I heard this on the Anti-Zionist Christian station TruNews, which may not be the most
reliable source. But their correspondent, who just returned from the G-20, is reporting that
there is some scuttlebutt afoot that Tucker Carlson may replace John Bolton as Trump's NSA.
This may have arisen as Bolton was dispatched to Mongolia while Trump was meeting Kim Jong-un
at the DPRK border, with Tucker on hand to view it all up close. Then Tucker had a cordial
interview with Trump which is appearing in installments on his show. It's no secret that Trump
has about had it with Bolton's constant war mongering.
It was further reported that Carlson has ambitions to run for the presidency in 2024. Tucker
knows that he is on a short leash at Fox, and must pull his punches somewhat if he wants to
keep his job. Only his high ratings may be saving him. I would not rule out that he may be
looking for new worlds to conquer. It's nice to see Mr. Trump apparently throwing war hawk
Hannity under the bus in favor of Tucker. If nothing else, Trump is a master at keeping
everyone guessing.
Your connection is not secure says: "Wake up people. The military works for the evil
masters. They don't really want war of course, they want peace – particularly between
your ears."
It's all about welfare- welfare specifically for the military industrial complex , that
is.
The armed forces are just a bunch of heavily entrenched welfare recipients who get uniforms,
guns, bombs etc. , and are always angling for more money so that they to get more uniforms,
guns, bombs etc., to be happily provided by the "private" inc. sycophants, otherwise
collectively known as "weapons manufacturers".
Council on Foreign Relations Tulsi Gabbard U.S. President? You have to be very gullible,
to say the least, to believe that she is going to end America's endless wars.
Yes, indeed. The Deep State will only be beaten by force.
I vote for rotting from within. Not as dramatic as force, but more effective and long
lasting. I'll enjoy the show when they start, Cronus-like, knocking one another
off though.
"Intelligence firepower"? You mean like so smart that she just knew that there was no way
a nine year old kid with an internet connection could debunk her Cherokee ancestry
claims?
With all due respect Mr. Smith things have really gone down hill after Bush Sr. I'm talking
about direct attacks on the rights of American citizens. Bush Sr. (R) with his CIA drug dealing
with the help of Noriega. He purchased weapons with the proceeds to arm terrorist guerrilla
groups in Nicaragua. Bill Clinton (D) helped Bush Sr. as governor of Arkansas by covering up
any investigation targeting the operation and laundering their money through a state owned
bank. Bush Jr. (R) secured lands in Afghanistan in order to restart athe heroine trade by
growing poppy fields to process and ship back to the US. Obama (R) made sure the Mexican drug
cartels were well armed in order to launch a drug war that supported the Merida Initiative,
which allowed armed DEA, CIA and Mercenaries into Mexican territory. Trump (R) will be the
clean up hitter that will usher in the dollar collapse.
Mr. Smith do you really believe it is a coincidence that Rep 8 yrs, Dem 8yrs, Rep 8yrs, Dem
8yrs, Rep 3 yrs are voted in? Please sir, don't fool yourself because in the next election I
will bet money the orange fool will be president for another 4 years unless the owners don't
want him there. But we can safely say that history tells us he will. All I'm saying that people
like you, waiting for someone to throw you a rope because you've fallen into deep water are
waiting on a rescue boat that doesn't care if you drown.
Your best bet for change was thrown away when Dr. Ron Paul failed to be nominated. Us dumb
asses in Mexico didn't need another election fraud this time around! The people started YouTube
channels that reported the "real" news (Chapucero – Quesadillas de Verdades –
Charro Politico – Sin Censura, etc.). Those channels made a big difference, countering
the negative reporting by Mexican and US MSM that the Presidential Candidate for MORENA as
"Leftist", "Communist", "Socialist", "Like Hugo Chavez", "Dangerous", etc.
With all of the US propaganda, Mexican propaganda, the negative MSM and Elite financing,
Mexicans knew they had to get out and vote in record numbers and they did! Otherwise a close
election was seen as another loss and the end of Mexico as a country. People were ready to
fight and die if necessary. They had seen the Energy Reforms forced down our throat by the
corrupt PRI/PAN parties (Mex version o DEM/REP), with the help of Hillary Clinton and the US
State Department. They drafting the changes needed to the Mexican Constitution to allow a vote.
Totally against the Law in Mexico and I'm sure the laws of the US.
There is a saying that goes something like, "If you're not ready to die for Freedom, take it
out of your Vocabulary"!
If Ron Unz is reading I might suggest he could do a little something to cover the passing of
probably one of the best Antiwar writers(Justin Raimondo) of this generation. Nobody has gotten
things more right, even before the wars developed – he predicted a war with Iraq even
before Sept 11, 2001, and it's aftermath into sectarian violence. His archives are second to
none in naming the names of who steered the war machine into the Middle East and across the
globe. I could gone on, but the link does a better job. RIP Justin.
Amazing how for these Americans, even this Tulsi, the lives of US soldiers are more
important than countless civilians they murder during the course of their wars. But even that
is a lie. They don't even care about their own soldiers once they're of no use to them any
more, if you consider the rate of alcoholism, drug addiction, unemployment, homelessness,
mental health issues, and suicide among the veterans.
And also, when it serves their purpose,
then suddenly the life of some innocent somewhere half way round the world getting abused by a
government they dislike becomes important, and the human rights card is played so they can go
and kill more than they save. I thought that to these leftist American politicians everyone is
equal so why don't they express concern about how many Afghans they have killed over there?
Oh
yes, but if they left them alone there wouldn't be those columns of young Afghans making their
way to the West for these liberals to practice their empathy and hospitality on. And who would
be guarding those poppy fields and ensuring maximum production for pharmaceutical companies and
the black market? And when an Afghan immigrant like Omar Mateen sets off on a murder spree on
US soil who is to blame?
Do they even question their wars, or their immigration policy, or
Islamic culture of intolerance, or anything at all? Some may then question gun laws, but even
that is another lie, because guns are as as available as ever. No they just shrug their
shoulders as its just part and parcel, and it's only good for the media to keep people in fear
and sell their sensational news.
And if you question any of this then you're most likely to be
called a racist or supremacist or whatever vile word they can conjure up with which to browbeat
you.
Wars are necessary for the maintaining and expanding the US controlled neoliberal empire. Wars is the health of military
industrial complex.
The Deep State will bury any candidate who will try to change the USA forign policy. Looks
what happened to Trump. He got Russiagate just for vey modest proposal of detente with Russia
(of course not only for that, but still...)
Notable quotes:
"... The first is "The War Fraud Accountability Act of 2020″ Retroactive to 2002, it states that any and all individuals who conspired to defraud the United States into illegal war of aggression should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. Moreover, any and all assets owned by these individuals shall be made forfeit . to pay down the cost of the wars they lied us into. ..."
Those are interesting proposals but wishful thinking: wars are necessary for Electing Tulsi Gabbard as our next Commander in Chief will not solve our biggest problems
alone.
Her candidacy, I believe , must be augmented by two new laws which should be demanded by the
taxpayer and enforced by her administration on "day one".
The first is "The War Fraud Accountability Act of 2020″ Retroactive to 2002, it states
that any and all individuals who conspired to defraud the United States into illegal war of
aggression should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. Moreover, any and all
assets owned by these individuals shall be made forfeit . to pay down the cost of the wars they
lied us into.
If they lied us into war .they pay for it NOT the US taxpayer.
The second is " The Terror Fraud Accountability Act of 2020″ also retroactive to 2001,
it states that any and all individuals found to have engaged in plotting, planning, or staging
"false terror events" will be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. Moreover, any
and all of the assets owned by these individuals shall be made forfeit to pay down the cost of
our War on Terror.
Americans should not have to sacrifice one cent of their tax dollars to pay for their own
defrauding by "staged" or "phony" terror events.
I believe that were Tulsi to be elected, she should set up two new task forces designed
especially for these reasons, Try to think of them as the " Office of Special Plans" IN
REVERSO.!.
Moreover she should hold weekly press briefings to notify the taxpayer of her progress, and
also how much of our 23 trillion in losses , FROM THEIR LIES, she has been able to recoup.
Getting these two initiatives up and running is the most potent force the taxpayers have in
cleaning out the fraud and larceny in DC, .ending our illegal wars overseas .. and
(finally)holding our "establishment elite " accountable for "LYING US INTO THEM"
It is way overdue for the American Taxpayer to take back control of our government from
those who ALMOST BANKRUPTED OUR ENTIRE NATION BY LYING US INTO ILLEGAL WARS.
It is not enough any more just to complain or "kvetch" about our problems .put on your
thinking caps .and start coming up with solutions and initiatives .start fighting for your
freedom, your finances and your future.
Elect the leaders YOU WANT and tell them exactly what you want them to do!
Tulsi has promised us all "SERVICE OVER SELF"
There you go !
I say that means not only ENDING our ILLEGAL, CRIMINAL WARS .but GETTING AS MUCH OF OUR
MONEY BACK from those who lied us into them !
ACCOUNTABILITY FOR WAR FRAUD it is $23,000,000,000,000.00. in "heinous debt" .overdue!
"... So, the two biggest issues in US politics--Forever Wars and the utter strangulation of politics by Big Money are what she wants to take on. And on those two issues alone, I've decided to work for her campaign! ..."
Doing Due Diligence on Tulsi Gabbard by watching the 1:20 long interview by Jimmy Dore of which
the first 20 minutes are excellent. At the 21 minute mark, Dore asks how can we end these
endless wars. Paraphrasing Gabbard: Failure is not an option: We must end these
interventionist wars as they suck the life blood out of doing the positive things that
must be done to benefit Americans.
Prior to the above, Dore as an aside mentions that Howard Dean, the Podestas, Clintons,
and others are all about keeping the flow of Big Money into politics at the expense of
everything else--that's their absolute #1 concern, to which you'll hear Gabbard agree!
So, the two biggest issues in US politics--Forever Wars and the utter strangulation of
politics by Big Money are what she wants to take on. And on those two issues alone, I've
decided to work for her campaign!
@74 karlof1 - " I've decided to work for [Tulsi Gabbard's] campaign"
This is excellent. As someone who has never had any national experience in politics, I
would be interested to know how one offers this kind of support - if you ever have time to
say, but don't break a leg over it.
One sees in politics how good moral character gets compromised by involvement in the
system. But we also know that one's own contribution to universal sanity can never be known
or measured - or discounted! Therefore, we do what we can. Who knows, perhaps your
involvement is the final butterfly-wing stroke that keeps her honest and upright and making a
difference.
Well done. And thank you.
~~
ps..please don't worry that people are not taking up your links or comments, just because
you don't see feedback here. Keep it all coming as well as you can, but please don't limit
your contributions to feedback. Many of the pieces you post are so friggin' long that it
takes the rest of the night to absorb them all ;)
I'm glad you donate the time of your retirement to offer all the things you do. I still
work, and it's a struggle to keep up with things. Your reading list overlaps mine very
nicely, and I ride on your coat-tails a lot - you along with many commenters here save me a
lot of time in pinpointing articles of value.
In fact, beyond b's superlative work - which he keeps producing even though we all
appreciate it so intently that we usually forget to praise him for it - I'd say the offering
of links from the top analysts and journalists, combined with the gems from the left field,
are a signature mark of this forum.
So please keep the summaries coming, and never lose heart or doubt that people are reading
them and placing value on them.
Someone pinch me and tell me I'm not dreaming! If this is true (my knee-jerk reaction is to
dismiss it), then it is
HUGE! EARTH SHATTERING !
In one of the most remarkable partnerships in modern American political history, Soros
and Charles Koch, the more active of the two brothers, are joining to finance a new
foreign-policy think tank in Washington. It will promote an approach to the world based on
diplomacy and restraint rather than threats, sanctions, and bombing. (...) It will be
called the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, an homage to John Quincy Adams, who
in a seminal speech on Independence Day in 1821 declared that the United States "goes not
abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and
independence of all. (...) Among (Trita) Parsi's co-founders are several well-known critics
of American foreign policy, including Suzanne DiMaggio, who has spent decades promoting
negotiated alternatives to conflict with China, Iran, and North Korea; the historian and
essayist Stephen Wertheim; and the anti-militarist author and retired Army colonel Andrew
Bacevich. "The Quincy Institute will invite both progressives and anti-interventionist
conservatives to consider a new, less militarized approach to policy," Bacevich said, when
asked why he signed up. "We oppose endless, counterproductive war. We want to restore the
pursuit of peace to the nation's foreign policy agenda."
i thought it was april fools for a second, until i then thought it is probably a pile of
steaming b.s. but hey - if it can be used as fertilizer to grow a few brains in an otherwise
constant 24/7 war party mindset, i am up for it... call me when something actually happens as
a result of any soros-koch stink tank agenda..
People who run "debates" are the same people (the DNC and the MSM and the USA MIC who controls both) who have charged
that our "democracy" was compromised by Russian interference via Facebook posts and the publishing of DNC documents that no one
has disputed the validity thereof.
As pathetic as Dems "debate" format is, it does give people an actual look at the candidates,
in many cases for the first time. It does change some minds and move the numbers. After all, Tulsi was the person who introduced
Bernie at the DNC convention in 2016. She's the person who left the DNC because she saw what scumbags they were.
For a candidate speaking out about the endless wars but the MSM and associates are performing their marginalization
magic.
More exposure for Gabbard can only help her. She did a fine job in her debate, I'm sure her
numbers will climb a bit.
election is a mighty high bar. she needs about 750 new donors a day, every day, if indeed
the cutoff date is 60ish days from now.
i wonder how many will make it? for that matter, i wonder how many already have? Biden,
O'Rourke, Sanders, Warren, Harris, Buttigieg for sure. Booker, Castro, Gillibrand probably.
Klobuchar maybe?
most of the rest are just taking up space, as far as I can tell -- they're contributing
nothing to the debate at all, and they have no hope of winning substantial support.
meanwhile, i wouldn't be surprised if both Biden and O'Rourke are done and out before the
next debate, destroyed by their own negatives. on the other hand, ego is a powerful thing,
and even the ones whose stars are declining may insist on sticking it out through New
Hampshire at least, in which case there could be a dozen or more still in the race come
September, hopefully including TG.
This is WSWS with their outdated dreams of "working class dictatorship" but some points and observation are very apt and
to the point.
Notable quotes:
"... The fraud of a "progressive" Democratic Party and presidential candidate was summed up in the near-universal declaration of the media that Senator Kamala Harris had emerged as the clear winner, part of a coordinated effort to promote her candidacy ..."
"... Harris climbed to the Senate by serving for years in the Bay Area of California as a law-and-order district attorney and state attorney general, defending police killers and bankers engaged in foreclosure fraud, including Trump's current treasury secretary, Steven Mnuchin. A member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, she has been among the most rabid of Democrats in attacking Trump as a stooge of Russian President Putin. In Thursday's debate, her main foray into foreign policy was to denounce Trump for being soft on Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. ..."
"... She is being promoted most enthusiastically by those sections of the ruling class, whose views are promoted by the New York Times ..."
"... The Obama administration also deported more immigrants than any other, a fact that was raised in a question to Vice President Biden, who confined himself to empty declarations of sympathy for the victims of Trump's persecution, while denying any comparison between Trump and Obama. ..."
"... If these ladies and gentlemen decide not to engage on foreign policy, the reason is clear: the Democrats know that the American people are adamantly opposed to new military interventions. They therefore seek to conceal the preparations of American imperialism for major wars, whether regional conflicts with Iran, North Korea or Venezuela, or conflicts with nuclear-armed global rivals like China and Russia. ..."
"... On the first night, Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, asked to name the greatest global security threat, replied, "The greatest threat that we face is the fact we are at a greater risk of nuclear war today than ever before in history." This remarkable declaration was passed over in silence by the moderators and the other candidates, and the subject was not raised on the second night at all, including by Bernie Sanders. ..."
Four hours of nationally televised debates Wednesday and Thursday among 20 Democratic
presidential candidates demonstrated the gigantic disconnect between the claims of this
pro-war, pro-corporate party to be driven by concerns for the well-being of working people
and the reality of poverty and oppression in America, for which the Democratic Party is no
less responsible than the Republicans.
The stage-managed spectacle mounted by NBC marked the formal beginning of an electoral
process dominated by big money and thoroughly manipulated by the corporate-controlled
media.
The attempt to contain the growing left-wing opposition in the working class and channel
it behind the second oldest capitalist party in the world necessarily assumed the form of
lies and demagogy. For the most part, the vying politicians, all of them in the top 10
percent on the income ladder, made promises to provide healthcare, jobs, decent schools,
tuition-free college and a clean environment for all, knowing full well they had no intention
of carrying them out.
No one -- neither the millionaire media talking heads asking the questions nor the
candidates -- dared to mention the fact that that Democratic Party has just voted to give
Trump an additional $4.9 billion to round up, detain and torture hundreds of thousands of
immigrants, including children, in the growing network of concentration camps being set up
within the US. Facts, as they say, are stubborn things, and this one demonstrates the
complicity of the Democratic Party in the fascistic policies of the Trump administration.
The second night of the debate featured the front-runners, former Vice President Joe Biden
and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. Biden has a long record of reactionary politics,
including in the Obama administration. Sanders is continuing in this election his role in
2016 of channeling growing support for socialism into the framework of a right-wing
party.
The fraud of a "progressive" Democratic Party and presidential candidate was summed up in
the near-universal declaration of the media that Senator Kamala Harris had emerged as the
clear winner, part of a coordinated effort to promote her candidacy. The African-American
senator was lauded for attacking Biden for statements boasting of his ability in the past to
collaborate with segregationist senators and his past opposition to busing for school
integration.
It was Harris who adopted the most transparently bogus posture of left-radicalism in
Thursday night's debate, repeatedly declaring her agreement with Bernie Sanders and raising
her hand, along with Sanders, to support the abolition of private health insurance in favor
of a single-payer system. By Friday morning, however, she had reversed that stand, claiming
she had "misheard" the question and declaring her support for the continuation of private
insurance.
Harris climbed to the Senate by serving for years in the Bay Area of California as a
law-and-order district attorney and state attorney general, defending police killers and
bankers engaged in foreclosure fraud, including Trump's current treasury secretary, Steven
Mnuchin. A member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, she has been among the most rabid of
Democrats in attacking Trump as a stooge of Russian President Putin. In Thursday's debate,
her main foray into foreign policy was to denounce Trump for being soft on Putin and North
Korean leader Kim Jong-un.
She is being promoted most enthusiastically by those sections of the ruling class,
whose views are promoted by the New York Times , who want the Democratic campaign to
be dominated by racial and gender politics so as to mobilize the party's wealthy upper-middle
class base and divert and divide the mass working class anger over social
inequality.
Many of the candidates fondly recalled the Obama administration. But those eight years saw
the greatest transfer of wealth from working people to the super-rich in American history.
The pace was set by the initial $700 billion bailout of Wall Street, which was expanded to
uncounted trillions in the course of 2009, combined with the bailout of the auto companies at
the expense of the autoworkers, who suffered massive cuts in benefits and a 50 percent cut in
pay for new hires, rubber-stamped by the United Auto Workers.
The Obama administration also deported more immigrants than any other, a fact that was
raised in a question to Vice President Biden, who confined himself to empty declarations of
sympathy for the victims of Trump's persecution, while denying any comparison between Trump
and Obama.
Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado attacked Biden for claiming credit for a bipartisan
budget deal in 2011 with Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell. Far from a genuine
compromise, he said, the deal "was a complete victory for the Tea Party. It extended the Bush
tax cuts permanently," as well as putting in place major cuts in social spending which
continue to this day. Bennet neglected to mention that he had voted for the deal himself when
it passed the Senate by a huge majority.
It was remarkable, under conditions where President Trump himself declared that the United
States was only 10 minutes away from launching a major assault on Iran earlier this month,
that the 20 Democratic candidates spent almost no time discussing foreign policy.
In the course of four hours, there were only a few minutes devoted to the world outside
the United States. The silence on the rest of the world cannot be dismissed as mere
parochialism.
Many of the Democratic presidential candidates are deeply implicated in either the
policy-making or combat operations of US imperialism. The 20 candidates include two who were
deployed as military officers to Iraq and Afghanistan, Buttigieg and Tulsi Gabbard; Biden,
vice president for eight years and the former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee; and five senators who are members of high-profile national security committees:
Harris and Bennet on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten
Gillibrand on the Armed Services Committee, and Cory Booker on the Foreign Relations
Committee.
If these ladies and gentlemen decide not to engage on foreign policy, the reason is
clear: the Democrats know that the American people are adamantly opposed to new military
interventions. They therefore seek to conceal the preparations of American imperialism for
major wars, whether regional conflicts with Iran, North Korea or Venezuela, or conflicts with
nuclear-armed global rivals like China and Russia.
In the handful of comments that were made on foreign policy, the Democratic candidates
struck a belligerent note. On Wednesday, four of the ten candidates declared the main global
threat to the United States to be China, while New York Mayor Bill de Blasio opted for
Russia. Many candidates referred to the need to combat Russian interference in the US
election -- recycling the phony claims that Russian "meddling" helped Trump into the White
House in 2016.
On the first night, Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, asked to name the greatest
global security threat, replied, "The greatest threat that we face is the fact we are at a
greater risk of nuclear war today than ever before in history." This remarkable declaration
was passed over in silence by the moderators and the other candidates, and the subject was
not raised on the second night at all, including by Bernie Sanders.
"... Connected to Trump as the 'winner', it was Tulsi Gabbard who stood out from the rest of the candidates. Interestingly, reliable polling data just out from the Drudge Report shows that Gabbard emerged as the winner of the debate on ideas and policies overall. She won some 40% of the vote, and when compared to the candidates whom the other 60% was divided, it was a landslide. ..."
"... Before anyone dismisses Gabbard, it's critical to understand that mainstream media lost most of its credibility over the lat election. This is the age of underdogs and dark horses ..."
"... When the subject moved to Afghanistan and occupation, Gabbard was on confident and really on fire. This is significant because while historically Gabbard's anti-imperialist line on occupation would be associated with (normally later broken) Democratic Party talking points, it was here that Trump defeated Clinton at the polls, when Trump won the anti-war vote in 2016. ..."
"... Gabbard destroyed Ryan on Afghanistan, and Booker's attempt to attack Gabbard fell tremendously short and felt very artificial, saying that Gabbard's position on LGBTQ 'isn't enough', but then switching incoherently to the subject of African Americans, Jim Crow, and lynchings – a misfire and very much off-topic. ..."
"... Trump's hardline on Cuba and Venezuela is appealing to the Florida wing of the Latino constituency (to the extent we can speak of a single constituency), and this is where the Democratic Party understands it needs to fight in order to win Florida. ..."
"... There hasn't been a Republican candidate to win the Presidency without winning Florida in many generations, and the Republican victory of Rick Scott in the state's most expensive senatorial race against Democrat incumbent Bill Nelson in 2018 shows that Republicans are aiming to win Florida in 2020. The Democratic Party concern is palpable and well founded. ..."
"... At face value, Trump and Democrats seem to be 6's and 7's over immigration. But when we really look at what the real deal is, we find yet another alignment of the Democrat's position to that of Trump's. How can this be? ..."
"... To understand this is to understand the overall trajectory now that the US empire is all but finished. Its historical aim now is to be able to disentangle from the Mid-East, a prominent Trump position which used to be Obama's until it wasn't, and on the Democratic side today is only being carried forward by Tulsi Gabbard. The so-called neo-isolationism of the US isn't so much that, as it is a return to the Monroe Doctrine. This author has written about this several years before Trump took office, in the article ' From Pax Americana to Pan Americana '. Here this author argued that the US must transform from a Sea Power into a Land Power. This isn't isolationism, but a right-sized regional hegemon, a regional hegemon for the Americas. ..."
"... Trump's rhetoric on the immigration question and Mexico has never failed to mention that the mid-to-long term solution is not only that Mexico enforces its own borders to its south, but that the Mexican economy grows – and this requires investment. ..."
"... While Trump is nominally strict on immigration, it was under Obama that the US deported the most migrants in history. This is a fact that Democrats ignore in their talking points and attacks on Trump's 'inhuman policy' that tears families apart. And so in a strange departure from what might otherwise occur to us, it was Obama's policy that was worse by the numbers for pro-migration advocates, and it's been Trump who has openly called for investment into Latin America with a named reason being to stem the migration 'crisis'. ..."
"... But this Marshall Plan for Latin America was already introduced by none other than Mexican President AMLO himself, in talks with Trump. ..."
"... What Tulsi Gabbard, the clear winner of the debate, will do next is to appropriate Julian Castro's 'Marshall Plan' line on Mexico and Central America. It dog-whistles numerous Trump talking points in relation to Mexico, as well as taking a 'less migration is good migration' approach to what is no doubt a real problem, without engaging in reactionary attacks on the migrants themselves. To get 'to the source' of the problem, as Castro explains, requires investment into Latin America. ..."
"... Gabbard is the dark horse, and along with Yang (in the second night's debate) will no doubt pull ahead of the conventionally pre-selected winners that were supposed to be Booker, Sanders, Warren and especially Biden. We will see much more focus on Gabbard now in virtual spaces, even while the mainstream media will continue to wrongly focus on Biden and Booker. Booker played his left-most game in the debate, but as prospective voters sort him on questions as far and ranging as Palestine, war, and labor (economy) – they will find him sorely lacking. ..."
"... With 60% of American generally supporting Trump's approach to the economy, these are his highest approval ratings, and ones which Americans care about and highly prioritize. Gabbard would be wise to approach the question of distribution, winners and losers of the economic boom, and focus on the 1% vs. the 99%. Doing so will help her move beyond her initial base of support as the anti-war candidate. ..."
The single truth that many mainstream Democrats will have a very difficult time
acknowledging coming out of the June 26 th Democratic Party Presidential Debate, is
that Donald Trump's positions on China and Latin America have become a Democratic Party line.
Is this is a mere matter of pandering to the polling data on questions like Latin America and
China? Even if just that, it would be a Trump success in and of itself.
But it also raises whether Trump has indeed accomplished more – a tectonic shift, a
sea-change in elite policy formation focus from Russia and the Mid-east over to China and Latin
America. The ties between the DNC and China still appear too strong, and so the reality would
seem to tend to rotate around a pandering to the polling data.
From China to solving the migration problem through a 'Marshall Plan' for Latin America and
more, Trump's nominal views on these questions found expression as dominating themes in the
debate.
In the war of positions, this is a victory for Trump.
The June 26th Democratic Party Presidential Debate was astounding in its representation of a
major paradigm shift in the United States.
Before anyone dismisses Gabbard, it's critical to understand that mainstream media lost most
of its credibility over the lat election. This is the age of underdogs and dark horses
When the subject moved to Afghanistan and occupation, Gabbard was on confident and really on
fire. This is significant because while historically Gabbard's anti-imperialist line on
occupation would be associated with (normally later broken) Democratic Party talking points, it
was here that Trump defeated Clinton at the polls, when Trump won the anti-war vote in
2016.
Worth noting as well as that in the aftermath of the debate last night, Gabbard's new social
media campaign on Twitter features her name scrolling across the bottom of the screen in
undeniable Trump 2016 campaign font. Coincidence? Nothing in politics is coincidental –
nothing.
Gabbard destroyed Ryan on Afghanistan, and Booker's attempt to attack Gabbard fell
tremendously short and felt very artificial, saying that Gabbard's position on LGBTQ 'isn't
enough', but then switching incoherently to the subject of African Americans, Jim Crow, and
lynchings – a misfire and very much off-topic.
CHINA
Of the ten candidates debating, four responded that China was the primary threat to the US
– but this was the single-most consistent answer. Delaney, Klobuchar, Castro, and Ryan
all answered this way.
This was a win for Trump's entire line for the last thirty something years.
De Blasio stood out as the lone Russiagater, definitely representing the mindset of his New
York City electorate and the coastal media establishment.
Gabbard, meanwhile, was wise to name ecological threats as this helped her maintain her
position as an anti-war candidate.
The pivot to a focus on China is much less dangerous than the focus on Russia. TheUS does
not really believe it can challenge China in a military sense, and their anti-Chinese rhetoric,
while full of sword rattling and imperial bravado, amounts to noise and little more. There is
some hope in American quarters about curtailing China's economic strength, but the focus on
China appears more as a question of a state requiring the spectre of an anthropomorphized
threat in the abstract, in order to justify the existence of a state and a military budget, and
to make a foreigner responsible for matters of wealth disparity and a lack of employment
opportunities in the US – a prominent tactic and talking point in market-driven societies
based in private property norms.
But the pivot to a focus on China was tremendous and not expected, given the relationship
historically between China and the Democratic Party – a friendly one.
Until now, it's been just the conservative corners of the alt-light in the US-centric
internet who view the 'rising Chinese threat' as a serious concern for the US. This trope was
primarily focused on the twin threat of Chinese rising military prowess and its population
size, along with the US practice of outsourcing American jobs to China – a policy that
saw short term consumer savings, and mid-to-long term slashes to US wages and employment. It
created a trade imbalance which the US can only resolving by defaulting on and then drawing its
guns to force a new deal.
Taken all together, this means that whoever Trump gets into the big race with, it will not
be a question of 'whether' China is a threat, but how to 'best contain' the Chinese threat.
This is a victory from 'go' for Trump.
LATIN AMERICA
Here is another major subject where Trump's influence on the entire discourse has prevailed,
though it's a little less obvious and requires a minor bifurcation to reveal.
We are of course obliged to mention that the location of the debate in Miami Florida was
strategic given its representation of Latinos in the US – traditionally Cuban and more
recently Venezuelan Republicans as hardline anti-communists and cold-warriors, who see their
children increasingly becoming more 'center-left' as they have Americanized and become
'Latinos' in the US. They are still at odds geopolitically with Latinos, primarily
Mexican-Americans from the American southwest, who tend to be friendlier to socialist ideas and
have represented the far-left of the Democratic Party on economic issues as well as
anti-imperialism, even if sharing with Cuban-Americans some more socially conservative values.
This communitarian axis of Latinos in the US, however, has grown and become a real force of its
own.
Trump's hardline on Cuba and Venezuela is appealing to the Florida wing of the Latino
constituency (to the extent we can speak of a single constituency), and this is where the
Democratic Party understands it needs to fight in order to win Florida.
There hasn't been a Republican candidate to win the Presidency without winning Florida in
many generations, and
the Republican victory of Rick Scott in the state's most expensive senatorial race against
Democrat incumbent Bill Nelson in 2018 shows that Republicans are aiming to win Florida in
2020. The Democratic Party concern is palpable and well founded.
So we find the extraordinary focus on Latinos was represented in the ultimately surprising
display of whole Spanish language answers from both Beto O'Rourke and Cory Booker, and a few
questions wholly or partly in Spanish from the moderators. The entire debate was brought to
viewers not just by NBC but also by Spanish language network Telemundo.
At face value, Trump and Democrats seem to be 6's and 7's over immigration. But when we
really look at what the real deal is, we find yet another alignment of the Democrat's position
to that of Trump's. How can this be?
To understand this is to understand the overall trajectory now that the US empire is all but
finished. Its historical aim now is to be able to disentangle from the Mid-East, a prominent
Trump position which used to be Obama's until it wasn't, and on the Democratic side today is
only being carried forward by Tulsi Gabbard. The so-called neo-isolationism of the US isn't so
much that, as it is a return to the Monroe Doctrine. This author has written about this several
years before Trump took office, in the article ' From Pax Americana to
Pan Americana '. Here this author argued that the US must transform from a Sea Power
into a Land Power. This isn't isolationism, but a right-sized regional hegemon, a regional
hegemon for the Americas.
Trump's rhetoric on the immigration question and Mexico has never failed to mention that the
mid-to-long term solution is not only that Mexico enforces its own borders to its south, but
that the Mexican economy grows – and this requires investment.
The trade-offs are several fold. For one, the US goes back to its China position, and wants
Latin American countries to agree to reduce the
Chinese influence in exchange for real industrial capital investments from the United
States into Latin America.
This is not to say that the Democratic Party has ignored Latin America to date, far from it.
It was under Obama's two terms that the US worked the most to reverse the Pink Tide in Latin
America, and this came with a few 'own goals' when the ultimate consequence of the
regime-change operation in Honduras was to stoke a human wave migration crisis. This was, in
short, the American version of the Libya scenario.
While Trump is nominally strict on immigration, it was under Obama that the US deported the
most migrants in history. This is a fact that Democrats ignore in their talking points and
attacks on Trump's 'inhuman policy' that tears families apart. And so in a strange departure
from what might otherwise occur to us, it was Obama's policy that was worse by the numbers for
pro-migration advocates, and it's been Trump who has openly called for investment into Latin
America with a named reason being to stem the migration 'crisis'.
And it's this exact talking point that numerous Democratic Party candidates picked up on,
and a very telling term was introduced by Julian Castro – a Marshall Plan for Latin
America. Cory Booker stood beside and nodded in apparent agreement, and that the words came
from the token Latino (no, not Beto), Castro was both intentional and symbolically telling.
While Bolton and Pompeo have operated under the 'Monroe Doctrine' term, this is so entirely
distasteful for all of Latin America that it offends anyone and everyone, even the US's own
lackeys, puppets, and proxies in the region.
"Why it matters: AMLO has worked energetically since taking office to sell the White
House on a "Marshall Plan" of support to address the region's growing migrant crisis. The US
commitment is a preliminary sign that he's at least being heard
While he campaigned as a compassionate voice on immigration, Mexico's new left-wing
leader spied the need for a grand solution. The US funding will contribute to a $30 billion
aid package envisioned by AMLO
AMLO even dangled the prospect of Chinese investment to bring Trump to the table,
according to the NY Times -- reasoning that the US might be more willing to pay up if it
feared that China might try to expand its influence in the region by opening its
wallet."
Since them, numerous articles have popped up describing Trump's potential 'Marshall Plan'
for Central America.
WHAT NEXT? CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
What Tulsi Gabbard, the clear winner of the debate, will do next is to appropriate Julian
Castro's 'Marshall Plan' line on Mexico and Central America. It dog-whistles numerous Trump
talking points in relation to Mexico, as well as taking a 'less migration is good migration'
approach to what is no doubt a real problem, without engaging in reactionary attacks on the
migrants themselves. To get 'to the source' of the problem, as Castro explains, requires
investment into Latin America.
Gabbard will be well positioned to nominally attack Trump's policy implementation along
human rights grounds, while not being specific on anything except getting 'to the source of the
problem'.
Gabbard is the dark horse, and along with Yang (in the second night's debate) will no doubt
pull ahead of the conventionally pre-selected winners that were supposed to be Booker, Sanders,
Warren and especially Biden. We will see much more focus on Gabbard now in virtual spaces, even
while the mainstream media will continue to wrongly focus on Biden and Booker. Booker played
his left-most game in the debate, but as prospective voters sort him on questions as far and
ranging as Palestine, war, and labor (economy) – they will find him sorely lacking.
With 60% of American generally supporting Trump's approach to the economy, these are his
highest approval ratings, and ones which Americans care about and highly prioritize. Gabbard
would be wise to approach the question of distribution, winners and losers of the economic
boom, and focus on the 1% vs. the 99%. Doing so will help her move beyond her initial base of
support as the anti-war candidate.
This will angle the populist line, and position her well not only against all other
Democrats, but even against Trump himself should she win the nomination. It's a long shot, but
remember indeed: this is the age of underdogs and dark horses.
"... The secretary of state delivered this appallingly Orwellian official assessment of the US government within hours of the five explosions on two tankers, well before any credible investigation establishing more than minimal facts could be carried out. As is his habit, Mike Pompeo flatly lied about whatever might be real in the Gulf of Oman, and most American media ran with the lies as if they were or might be true. There is almost no chance that Mike Pompeo and the US government are telling the truth about this event, as widespread domestic and international skepticism attests. ..."
"... Pompeo's official assessment was false even in its staging. For most of his four-minute appearance, Pompeo stood framed by two pictures behind him, each showing a tanker with a fire amidships. This was a deliberate visual lie. The two pictures showed the same tanker, the Norwegian-owned Front Altair , from different angles. The other tanker, Japanese-owned Kokuka Courageous , did not catch fire and was not shown. ..."
"... Pompeo did not identify the unnamed intelligence entities, if any, within the government who made this assessment. He offered no evidence to support the assessment. He did offer something of an argument that began: ..."
"... He didn't say what intelligence. He didn't say whose intelligence. American intelligence assets and technology are all over the region generating reams of intelligence day in, day out. Then there are the intelligence agencies of the Arab police states bordering the Persian Gulf. They, too, are busy collecting intelligence 24/7, although they are sometimes loath to share. Pompeo didn't mention it, but according to CNN an unnamed US official admitted that the US had a Reaper Drone in the air near the two tankers before they were attacked. He also claimed that Iran had fired a missile at the drone, but missed. As CNN inanely spins it, "it is the first claim that the US has information of Iranian movements prior to the attack." As if the US doesn't have information on Iranian movements all the time . More accurately, this is the first admission that the US had operational weaponry in the area prior to the attack. ..."
"... Pompeo did not name a single weapon used. Early reporting claimed the attackers used torpedoes or mines, a claim that became inoperative as it became clear that all the damage to the tankers was well above the waterline. There is little reason to believe Pompeo had any actual knowledge of what weapons were used, unless one was a Reaper Drone. ..."
"... There are NO confirmed "recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping," and even if there were, they would prove nothing. Pompeo's embarrassingly irrelevant list that follows includes six examples, only one of which involved a shipping attack ..."
"... Instead of "recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping," Pompeo offers Iran's decades-old threat to close the Strait of Hormuz (which it's never done), together with three attacks by the Houthis on Saudi Arabia, an unattributed rocket attack on the US Embassy in Baghdad, and an unattributed car bomb in Afghanistan. Seriously, if that's all he's got, he's got nothing. But he's not done with the disinformation exercise: ..."
"... The US is stumbling down a path toward war with no justification ..."
It is the assessment of the United States Government that the Islamic Republic of Iran is
responsible for the attacks that occurred in the Gulf of Oman today. This assessment is based
on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed to execute the operation,
recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping, and the fact that no proxy group operating in the
area has the resources and proficiency to act with such a high degree of sophistication.
This is only the latest in a series of attacks instigated by the Islamic Republic of Iran
and its surrogates against American and allied interests, and they should be understood in
the context of 40 years of unprovoked aggression against freedom-loving nations.
The secretary of state delivered this appallingly Orwellian official assessment of the US
government within hours of the five explosions on two tankers, well before any credible
investigation establishing more than minimal facts could be carried out. As is his habit, Mike
Pompeo flatly lied about whatever might be real in the Gulf of Oman, and most American media
ran with the lies as if they were or might be true. There is almost no chance that Mike Pompeo
and the US government are telling the truth about this event, as widespread domestic and
international skepticism attests.
Pompeo's official assessment was false even in its staging. For most of his four-minute
appearance, Pompeo stood framed by two pictures behind him, each showing a tanker with a fire
amidships. This was a deliberate visual lie. The two pictures showed the same tanker, the
Norwegian-owned Front Altair , from different angles. The other tanker, Japanese-owned
Kokuka Courageous , did not catch fire and was not shown.
First, what actually happened, as best we can tell five days later? In the early morning of
June 13, two unrelated tankers were heading south out of the Strait of Hormuz, sailing in open
water in the Gulf of Oman, roughly 20 miles off the south coast of Iran. The tankers were most
likely outside Iran's territorial waters, but within Iran's contiguous zone as defined by the
UN Convention on
the Law of the Sea . At different times, some 30 miles apart, the two tankers were attacked
by weapons unknown, launched by parties unknown, for reasons unknown. The first reported
distress call was 6:12 a.m. local time. No one has yet claimed responsibility for either
attack. The crew of each tanker abandoned ship soon after the explosions and were rescued by
ships in the area, including Iranian naval vessels, who took the Front Altair crew to an
Iranian port.
Even this much was not certain in the early afternoon of June 13 when Mike Pompeo came to
the lectern at the State Department to deliver his verdict:
It is the assessment of the United States Government that the Islamic Republic of Iran is
responsible for the attacks that occurred in the Gulf of Oman today.
Pompeo did not identify the unnamed intelligence entities, if any, within the government who
made this assessment. He offered no evidence to support the assessment. He did offer something
of an argument that began:
This assessment is based on intelligence .
He didn't say what intelligence. He didn't say whose intelligence. American intelligence
assets and technology are all over the region generating reams of intelligence day in, day out.
Then there are the intelligence agencies of the Arab police states bordering the Persian Gulf.
They, too, are busy collecting intelligence 24/7, although they are sometimes loath to share.
Pompeo didn't mention it, but according to CNN an unnamed US official admitted that the US had
a Reaper Drone in the air near the two tankers before they were attacked. He also claimed that
Iran had fired a missile at the drone, but missed. As CNN inanely spins it, "it is the first
claim that the US has information of Iranian movements prior to the attack." As if the US
doesn't have information on Iranian movements all the time . More accurately, this is the first admission that the US had
operational weaponry in the area prior to the attack. After intelligence, Pompeo continued:
This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used .
Pompeo did not name a single weapon used. Early reporting claimed the attackers used
torpedoes or mines, a claim that became inoperative as it became clear that all the damage to
the tankers was well above the waterline. There is little reason to believe Pompeo had any
actual knowledge of what weapons were used, unless one was a Reaper Drone. He went on:
This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed
to execute the operation
The "level of expertise needed" to carry out these attacks on a pair of sitting duck tankers
does not appear to be that great. Yes, the Iranian military probably has the expertise, as do
the militaries of the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq, Israel, or others with a stake
in provoking a crisis in the region. And those who lack the expertise still have the money with
which to hire expert surrogates. The number of credible suspects, known and unknown, with an
interest in doing harm to Iran is easily in double figures. Leading any serious list should be
the US. That's perfectly logical, so Pompeo tried to divert attention from the obvious:
This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed
to execute the operation, recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping .
There are NO confirmed "recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping," and even if there were,
they would prove nothing. Pompeo's embarrassingly irrelevant list that follows includes six
examples, only one of which involved a shipping attack. The one example was the May 12, 2019,
attack on four ships at anchor in the deep water port of Fujairah. Even the multinational
investigation organized by the UAE could not determine who did it. The UAE reported to the UN
Security Council that the perpetrator was likely some unnamed "state actor." The logical
suspects and their surrogates are the same as those for the most recent attack.
Instead of "recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping," Pompeo offers Iran's decades-old
threat to close the Strait of Hormuz (which it's never done), together with three attacks by
the Houthis on Saudi Arabia, an unattributed rocket attack on the US Embassy in Baghdad, and an
unattributed car bomb in Afghanistan. Seriously, if that's all he's got, he's got nothing. But
he's not done with the disinformation exercise:
This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed
to execute the operation, recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping, and the fact that no
proxy group operating in the area has the resources and proficiency to act with such a high
degree of sophistication.
The whole proxy group thing is redundant, covered by "the level of expertise needed"
mentioned earlier. Pompeo doesn't name any proxy group here, he doesn't explain how he could
know there's no proxy group that could carry out such an attack, and he just throws word
garbage at the wall and hopes something sticks that will make you believe – no evidence
necessary – that Iran is evil beyond redemption:
Taken as a whole, these unprovoked attacks present a clear threat to international peace
and security, a blatant assault on the freedom of navigation, and an unacceptable campaign of
escalating tension by Iran.
The attacks in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Afghanistan have all been provoked by the US and its
allies. The US has long been a clear threat to international peace and security, except when
the US was actually trashing peace and security, as it did in Iraq, as it seems to want to do
in Iran. There is, indeed, "an unacceptable campaign of escalating tension," but it's a
campaign by the US. The current phase began when the Trump administration pulled out of the
multinational nuclear deal with Iran. The US wages economic warfare on Iran even though Iran
continues to abide by the Trump-trashed treaty. All the other signatories and inspectors
confirm that Iran has abided by the agreement. But Iran is approaching a point of violation,
which it has been warning about for some time. The other signatories allow the US to bully them
into enforcing US sanctions at their own cost against a country in compliance with its
promises. China, Russia, France, GB, Germany, and the EU are all craven in the face of US
threats. That's what the US wants from Iran.
Lately, Trump and Pompeo and their ilk have been whining about not wanting war and claiming
they want to negotiate, while doing nothing to make negotiation more possible. Iran has
observed US actions and has rejected negotiating with an imperial power with a decades-long
record of bad faith. Lacking any serious act of good faith by the US, does Iran have any other
rational choice? Pompeo makes absolutely clear just how irrational, how dishonest, how
implacable and untrustworthy the US is when he accuses Iran of:
40 years of unprovoked aggression against freedom-loving nations.
This is Big Lie country. Forty years ago, the Iranians committed their original sin –
they overthrew one of the world's most brutal dictatorships, imposed on them by the US. Then
they took Americans hostage, and the US has been playing the victim ever since, out of all
proportion to reality or justice. But the Pompeos of this world still milk it for all it's
worth. What about "unprovoked aggression," who does that? The US list is long and criminal,
including its support of Saddam Hussein's war of aggression against Iran. Iran's list of
"unprovoked aggressions" is pretty much zero, unless you go back to the Persian Empire. No
wonder Pompeo took no question on his statement. The Big Lie is supposed to be enough.
The US is stumbling down a path toward war with no justification. Democrats should have
objected forcefully and continuously long since. Democrats in the House should have put peace
with Iran on the table as soon as they came into the majority. They should do it now.
Democratic presidential candidates should join Tulsi Gabbard and Elizabeth Warren in
forthrightly opposing war with Iran. Leading a huge public outcry may not keep the president
from lying us into war with Iran any more than it kept the president from lying us into war
with Iraq. But an absence of outcry will just make it easier for this rogue nation to commit a
whole new set of war crimes.
Intellectually, the case for normal relations with Iran is easy. There is literally no good
reason to maintain hostility, not even the possibility, remote as it is, of an Iranian nuclear
weapon (especially now that Trump is helping the Saudis go nuclear). But politically, the case
for normal relations with Iran is hard, especially because forty years of propaganda demonizing
Iran has deep roots. To make a sane case on Iran takes real courage: one has to speak truth to
a nation that believes its lies to itself.
William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism,
and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from
Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an
Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences. This article was first
published in Reader Supported
News . Read
other articles by William .
This is true to a centran limita at which trust is lost and after that even truthful coverage of events by the MSM is viewed
with high suspection...
Notable quotes:
"... So, if people become emotional and angry during an academic debate then it is obvious -- following Festinger's research -- that they don't really think that what they're saying is true; they simply want it to be true so that everything makes sense and so that their "sense of self" remains positive. ..."
One of the more useful concepts to come out of psychology has been "cognitive dissonance,"
an idea developed by the Jewish-American scholar Leon Festinger (1919-1989). According to
Festinger, we all require, to varying degrees, "cognitive consonance" -- a clear, structured
worldview in which reality makes sense. This makes us feel secure; we feel less stressed if
everything's clear cut.
But, of course, there's much we don't know; a lot of which we cannot be certain. And this
makes us feel anxious. Many people deal with this via comforting illusion: by creating a
clearly structured world-view, and related sense of self, and successfully suppressing the
doubts they unconsciously harbour about its accuracy.
When people are confronted with the inconsistencies in their thought system and model of who
they are, they will experience "cognitive dissonance," and all the feelings of insecurity and
helplessness that come with it. This will "trigger" profound negative emotions and, depending
on individual personality, they may run away and hide or lash out, perceiving the messenger of
their "cognitive dissonance" as an existential threat.
So, if people become emotional and angry during an academic debate then it is obvious --
following Festinger's research -- that they don't really think that what they're saying is
true; they simply want it to be true so that everything makes sense and so that their "sense of
self" remains positive.
"... Mao only understood power. He sensed Khrushchev as 'weak' and acted as if he wanted to be the new Stalin. He also made international statements that made the US-USSR relations much worse. He berated Khrushchev for seeking co-existence with the West and pressed on for more World Revolution. ..."
"... It was all so stupid. China and Russia could have gotten along well if not for Mao's impetuosity. Of course, Khrushchev could be reckless, contradictory, and erratic, and his mixed signals to the West also heightened tensions. Also, he was caught between a rock and a hard place where the Eastern Bloc was concerned. He wanted to de-Stalinize, but this could lead to events like the Hungarian Uprising. ..."
Abrams is giving the West too much credit for the Sino-Soviet rift of the late 5os and 60s.
That was NOT the doing of the CIA or Western Europe. It was 90% the fault of Mao who tried
to shove Khrushchev aside as the head of world communism. Because Stalin had treated Mao
badly, Khrushchev wanted to make amends and treated Mao with respect. But Mao turned out to
be a total a-hole. There are two kinds of people: Those who appreciate friendly gestures and
those who seek kindness as 'weakness'.
It's like Hitler saw Chamberlain's offer as weakness and pushed ahead. Being kind is nice,
but one should never be kind to psychopaths, and Khrushchev was nice to the wrong person.
Mao only understood power. He sensed Khrushchev as 'weak' and acted as if he wanted to be
the new Stalin. He also made international statements that made the US-USSR relations much
worse. He berated Khrushchev for seeking co-existence with the West and pressed on for more
World Revolution.
He also ignored Soviet advice not to attempt radical economic policies (that were soon to
bring China to economic ruin -- at least Stalin's collectivization led to rise of industry;
in contrast, Mao managed to destroy both agriculture and heavy industry).
When Stalin was alive, he didn't treat Mao with any respect, and Mao disliked Stalin but
still respected him because Mao understood Power. With Stalin gone, Khrushchev showed Mao
some respect, but Mao felt no respect for Khrushchev who was regarded as a weakling and
sucker.
It was all so stupid. China and Russia could have gotten along well if not for Mao's
impetuosity. Of course, Khrushchev could be reckless, contradictory, and erratic, and his
mixed signals to the West also heightened tensions. Also, he was caught between a rock and a
hard place where the Eastern Bloc was concerned. He wanted to de-Stalinize, but this could
lead to events like the Hungarian Uprising.
Anyway, Putin and Xi, perhaps having grown up in less turbulent times, are more stable and
mature in character and temperament than Mao and Khrushchev. They don't see the Russo-China
relations as a zero sum game of ego but a way for which both sides can come to the table
halfway, which is all one can hope for.
"... " China by contrast has historically conducted statecraft based on the concept of a civilization state – under which its strength is not measured by the weakness and subjugation of others but by its internal achievements. " ..."
"... In my view the Usa had an excellent opportunity to enact in a positive way after WW2 but blew it. The main reason was the failure to live up to the above quoted characterisation of the Chinese. To encourage potential achievers in the best sense of the word. ..."
"... Instead the Us oligarchy held back independent and creative thinking and brainwashed the population, in a way that weakened them. Jfk tried to encourage his countrymen but other forces prevailed. ..."
A.B. Abrams: In the introduction to this work I highlight that a fundamental shift in world
order was facilitated by the modernization and industrialization of two Eastern nations –
Japan under the Meiji Restoration and the USSR under the Stalinist industrialization program.
Before these two events the West had retained an effective monopoly on the modern industrial
economy and on modern military force. Russia's image is still affected by the legacy of the
Soviet Union – in particular the way Soviet proliferation of both modern industries and
modern weapons across much of the region was key to containing Western ambitions in the Cold
War. Post-Soviet Russia has a somewhat unique position – with a cultural heritage
influenced by Mongolia and Central Asia as well as by Europe. Politically Russia remains
distinct from the Western Bloc, and perceptions of the country in East Asia have been heavily
influenced by this. Perhaps today one the greatest distinctions is Russia's eschewing of the
principle of sovereignty under international law and its adherence to a non-interventionist
foreign policy. Where for example the U.S., Europe and Canada will attempt to intervene in the
internal affairs of other parties – whether by cutting off parts for
armaments ,
imposing economic sanctions or even launching military interventions under humanitarian
pretexts – Russia lacks a history of such behavior which has made it a welcome presence
even for traditionally Western aligned nations such as the Philippines, Indonesia and South
Korea.
While the Western Bloc attempted to isolate the USSR from East and Southeast Asia by
supporting the spread of anticommunist thought, this pretext for shunning Russia collapsed in
1991. Today the West has had to resort to other means to attempt to contain and demonize the
country – whether labelling it a human rights abuser or threatening its economic and
defense partners with sanctions and other repercussions. The success of these measures in the
Asia-Pacific has varied – but as regional economies have come to rely less on the West
for trade and grown increasingly interdependent Western leverage over them and their foreign
policies has diminished.
Even when considered as a Western nation, the type of conservative Western civilization
which Russia may be seen to represent today differs starkly from that of Western Europe and
North America. Regarding a Russia Pivot to Asia, support for such a plan appears to have
increased from 2014 when relations with the Western Bloc effectively broke down. Indeed, the
Russia's future as a pacific power could be a very bright one – and as part of the up and
coming northeast Asian region it borders many of the economies which appear set to dominate in
the 21 st century – namely China, Japan and the Koreas. Peter the Great is
known to have issued in a new era of Russian prosperity by recognizing the importance of
Europe's rise and redefining Russia as a European power – moving the capital to St
Petersburg. Today a similar though perhaps less extreme pivot Eastwards towards friendlier and
more prosperous nations may be key to Russia's future.
The Saker: We hear many observers speak of an informal but very profound and even
game-changing partnership between Putin's Russia and Xi's China. The Chinese even speak of a "
strategic comprehensive partnership of coordination for the new era ". How would you
characterize the current relationship between these two countries and what prospects do you see
for a future Russian-Chinese partnership?
A.B. Abrams: A Sino-Russian alliance has long been seen in both the U.S. and in Europe as
one of the greatest threats to the West's global primacy and to Western-led world order. As
early as 1951 U.S. negotiators meeting with Chinese delegations to end the Korean War were
instructed to focus on the differences in the positions of Moscow and Beijing in an attempt to
form a rift between the two. Close Sino-Soviet cooperation seriously stifled Western designs
for the Korean Peninsula and the wider region during that period, and it was repeatedly
emphasized that the key to a Western victory was to bring about a Sino-Soviet split. Achieving
this goal by the early 1960s and bringing the two powers very near to a total conflict
significantly increased prospects for a Western victory in the Cold War, with the end of the
previously united front seriously undermining nationalist and leftist movements opposing
Western designs from Africa and the Middle East to Vietnam and Korea. Both states learned the
true consequences of this in the late 1980s and early 1990s when there was a real risk of total
collapse under Western pressure. Attempts to bring an end to China's national revolution
through destabilization failed in 1989, although the USSR was less fortunate and the results
for the Russian population in the following decade were grave indeed.
Today the Sino-Russian partnership has become truly comprehensive, and while Western experts
from Henry Kissinger to the late Zbigniew Brzezinski among others have emphasized the
importance of bringing about a new split in this partnership this strategy remains unlikely to
work a second time. Both Beijing and Moscow learned from the dark period of the post-Cold War
years that the closer they are together the safer they will be, and that any rift between them
will only provide their adversaries with the key to bringing about their downfall. It is
difficult to comprehend the importance of the Sino-Russian partnership for the security of both
states without understanding the enormity of the Western threat – with maximum pressure
being exerted on multiple fronts from finance and information to military and cyberspace. Where
in the early 1950s it was only the Soviet nuclear deterrent which kept both states safe from
very real Western plans for massive nuclear attacks, so too today is the synergy in the
respective strengths of China and Russia key to protecting the sovereignty and security of the
two nations from a very real and imminent threat. A few examples of the nature of this threat
include growing investments in social engineering through social media – the results of
have been seen in Hong Kong, Taiwan and Ukraine, a lowering threshold for nuclear weapons use
by the United States – which it currently trains Western allies outside the NPT to
deploy, and even reports from Russian and Korean sources of investments in biological warfare
– reportedly being tested in
Georgia, Eastern Europe and South Korea .
The partnership between Russia and China has become truly comprehensive, and is perhaps best
exemplified by their military relations. From 2016 joint military exercises have involved the
sharing of extremely
sensitive information on missile and early warning systems – one of the most well
kept defense secrets of any nuclear power which even NATO powers do not share with one another.
Russia's defense sector has played a key role in the modernization of the Chinese People's
Liberation Army, while Chinese investment has been essential to allowing Russia to continue
research and development on next generation systems needed to retain parity with the United
States. There is reportedly cooperation between the two in developing next generation weapons
technologies for systems such as hypersonic cruise and anti aircraft missiles and new strategic
bombers and fighter jets which both states plan to field by the mid-2020s. With the combined
defense spending of both states a small fraction of that of the Western powers, which
themselves cooperate closely in next generation defense projects, it is logical that the two
should pool their resources and research and development efforts to most efficiently advance
their own security.
Cooperation in political affairs has also been considerable, and the two parties have
effectively presented a united front against the designs of the Western Bloc. In 2017 both
issued strong warnings to the United States and its allies that they would not tolerate an
invasion of North Korea – which was followed by the
deployment of advanced air defense systems by both states near the Korean border with
coverage of much of the peninsula's airspace. Following Pyongyang's testing of its
first nuclear delivery system capable of reaching the United States , and renewed American
threats against the East Asian country, China and Russia staged near simultaneous
exercises near the peninsula using naval and marine units in a clear warning to the U.S.
against military intervention. China's Navy has on several occasions deployed to the
Mediterranean for joint drills with Russian forces – each time following a period of high
tension with the Western Bloc over Syria.
In April 2018, a period of particularly high tensions between Russia and the Western Bloc
over Western threats both to take military action against the Syrian government and to
retaliate for an alleged but unproven Russian chemical weapons attack on British soil, the
Chinese Defense Minister Wei Fenghe traveled to Russia and more explicitly stated that the
Sino-Russian partnership was aimed at countering Western designs. Referring to the Sino-Russian
defense partnership as "as stable as Mount Tai" he
stated : "the Chinese side has come to show Americans the close ties between the Armed
Forces of China and Russia, especially in this situation. We have come to support you." A week
later China announced
large-scale live fire naval drills in the Taiwan Strait – which according to several
analysts were scheduled to coincide with a buildup of Western forces near Syria. Presenting a
potential second front was key to deterring the Western powers from taking further action
against Russia or its ally Syria. These are but a few examples Sino-Russian cooperation, which
is set to grow only closer with time.
The Saker: The US remains the most formidable military power in Asia, but this military
power is being eroded as a result of severe miscalculations of the US political leadership. How
serious a crisis do you think the US is now facing in Asia and how do you assess the risks of a
military confrontation between the US and the various Asian powers (China, the Philippines, the
DPRK, etc,).
A.B. Abrams: Firstly I would dispute that the United States is the most formidable military
power in the region, as while it does retain a massive arsenal there are several indicators
that it lost this position to China during the 2010s. Looking at combat readiness levels, the
average age of weapons in their inventories, morale both publicly and in the armed forces, and
most importantly the correlation of their forces, China appears to have an advantage should war
break out in the Asia-Pacific. It is important to remember that the for the Untied States and
its European allies in particular wars aren't fought on a chessboard. Only a small fraction of
their military might can be deployed to the Asia-Pacific within a month of a conflict breaking
out, while over 95% of Chinese forces are already on the region and are trained and armed
almost exclusively for war in the conditions of the Asia-Pacific. In real terms the balance of
military power regionally is in China's favor, and although the U.S. has tried to counter this
with a military 'Pivot to Asia' initiative from 2011 this has ultimately failed due to both the
drag from defense commitments elsewhere and the unexpected and pace at which China has
expanded and
modernized its armed forces.
For the time being the risk of direct military confrontation remains low, and while there
was a risk in 2017 of American and allied action against the DPRK Pyongyang has effectively
taken this option off the table with the development of a viable and growing arsenal of
thermonuclear weapons and associated delivery systems alongside the modernization of its
conventional capabilities. While the U.S. may have attempted to call a Chinese and Russian
bluff by launching a limited strike – which seriously risked spiraling into something
much larger – it is for the benefit of all regional parties including South Korea that
the DPRK now has the ability to deter the United States without relying on external support.
This was a historically unprecedented event, and as military technology has evolved it has
allowed a small power for the first time to deter a superpower without relying on allied
intervention. Changes in military technology such as the proliferation of the nuclear tipped
ICBM make a shooting war less likely, but also alters the nature of warfare to place greater
emphasis on information war, economic war and other new fields which will increasingly decide
the global balance of power. Where America's answer to the resistance of China and North Korea
in the 1950s to douse them with napalm, today winning over their populations through soft
power, promoting internal dissent, placing pressure on their living standards and ensuring
continued Western dominance of key technologies has become the new means of fighting.
That being said, there is a major threat of conflict in the Asia-Pacific of a different
nature. Several organizations including the United Nations and the defense ministries of
Russia, Singapore and Indonesia among others have warned of the dangers posed by Islamic
terrorism to stability in the region. Radical Islamism, as most recently attested to by Saudi Arabia's crown prince , played a key
role in allowing the Western Bloc to cement its dominance over the Middle East and North Africa
– undermining Russian and Soviet aligned governments including Algeria, Libya, Egypt and
Syria – in most cases with direct Western support. CIA Deputy Director Graham Fuller in
this respect referred to the agency's "policy of guiding the evolution of Islam and of helping
them against our adversaries." Several officials, from the higher brass of the Russian, Syrian
and Iranian militaries to the former President of
Afghanistan and the President
of Turkey , have all alleged Western support for radical terror groups including the
Islamic State for the sake of destabilizing their adversaries. As the Asia-Pacific has
increasingly slipped out of the Western sphere of influence, it is likely that this asset will
increasingly be put into play. The consequences of the spread of jihadism from the Middle East
have been relatively limited until now, but growing signs of danger can be seen in Xinjiang,
Myanmar, the Philippines and Indonesia. It is this less direct means of waging war which
arguably poses the greatest threat.
The Saker: Do you think that we will see the day when US forces will have to leave South
Korean, Japan or Taiwan?
A.B. Abrams: Other than a limited contingent of Marines recently deployed to guard
the American Institute , U.S. forces are not currently stationed in Taiwan. The massive
force deployed there in the 1950s was scaled down and American nuclear weapons removed in 1974
in response to China's acceptance of an alliance with the United States against the Soviet
Union. Taiwan's military situation is highly precarious and the disparity in its strength
relative to the Chinese mainland grows considerably by the year. Even a large American military
presence is unlikely to change this – and just 130km from the Chinese mainland they would
be extremely vulnerable and could be quickly isolated from external support in the event of a
cross straits war. We could, however, see a small American contingent deployed as a 'trigger
wire' – which will effectively send a signal to Beijing that the territory is under
American protection and that an attempt to recapture Taiwan will involve the United States.
Given trends in public opinion in Taiwan, and the very considerable pro-Western sentiments
among the younger generations in particular, it is likely that Taipei will look to a greater
rather than a lesser Western military presence on its soil in future.
Japan and particularly South Korea see more nuanced public opinion towards the U.S., and
negative perceptions of an American military presence may well grow in future – though
for different reasons in each country. Elected officials alone, however, are insufficient to
move the American presence – as best demonstrated by the short tenure of Prime Minister
Hatoyama in Japan and the frustration of President Moon's efforts to restrict American
deployments of THAAD missile
systems in his first year. It would take a massive mobilization of public opinion –
backed by business interests and perhaps the military – to force such a change. This
remains possible however, particularly as both economies grow increasingly reliant on China for
trade and as the U.S. is seen to have acted increasingly erratically in response to challenges
from Beijing and Pyongyang which has undermined its credibility. As to a voluntary withdrawal
by the United States, this remains extremely unlikely. President Donald Trump ran as one of the
most non-interventionist candidates in recent history, but even under him and with considerable
public support prospects for a significant reduction in the American presence, much less a
complete withdrawal, have remained slim.
The Saker: Some circles in Russia are trying very hard to frighten the Russian public
opinion against China alleging things like "China want to loot (or even conquer!) Siberia",
"China will built up its military and attack Russia" or "China with its huge economy will
simply absorb small Russia". In your opinion are any of these fears founded and, if yes, which
ones and why?
A.B. Abrams: A growth in Sinophobic sentiment in Russia only serves to weaken the nation and
empower its adversaries by potentially threatening its relations with its most critical
strategic partner. The same is applicable vice-versa regarding Russophobia in China. Given the
somewhat Europhilic nature of the Russian state in a number of periods, including in the 1990s,
and the considerable European soft influences in modern Russia, there are grounds for building
up of such sentiment. Indeed Radio Free Europe, a U.S. government funded nonprofit broadcasting
corporation with the stated purpose of "advancing the goals of U.S. foreign policy," notably
published sinophobic content aimed at depicting the Russian people as
victims of Chinese business interests to coincide with the Putin-XI summit in June 2019.
However, an understanding of the modern Chinese state and its interests indicates that it does
not pose a threat to Russia – and to the contrary is vital to Russia's national security
interests. While Russia historically has cultural ties to the Western nations, the West has
shown Russian considerable hostility throughout its recent history – as perhaps is most
evident in the 1990s when Russia briefly submitted itself and sought to become part of the
Western led order with terrible consequences. China by contrast has historically conducted
statecraft based on the concept of a civilization state – under which its strength is not
measured by the weakness and subjugation of others but by its internal achievements. A powerful
and independent Russia capable of protecting a genuine rules based world order and holding
lawless actors in check is strongly in the Chinese interest. It is clear that in Russia such an
understanding exists on a state level, although there is no doubt that there will be efforts by
external parties to turn public opinion against China to the detriment of the interests of both
states.
The idea that China would seek to economically subjugate Russia, much less invade it, is
ludicrous. It was from Europe were the major invasions of Russian territory came – vast
European coalitions led by France and Germany respectively with a third American led attack
planned and prepared for but stalled by the Soviet acquisition of a nuclear deterrent. More
recently from the West came sanctions, the austerity program of the 1990s, the militarization
of Eastern Europe, and the demonization of the Russian nation – all intended to subjugate
and if possible shatter it. Even at the height of its power, China did not colonize the
Koreans, Vietnamese or Japanese nor did it seek to conquer Central Asia. Assuming China will
have the same goals and interests as a Western state would if they were in a similar position
of strength is to ignore the lessons of history, and the nature of the Chinese national
character and national interest.
The Saker: The Russian military is currently vastly more capable (even if numerically much
smaller) than the Chinese. Does anybody in China see a military threat from Russia?
A.B. Abrams: There may be marginalized extreme nationalists in China who see a national
security from almost everybody, but in mainstream discourse there are no such perceptions. To
the contrary, Russia's immense contribution to Chinese security is widely recognized –
not only in terms of technological transfers but also in terms of the value of the joint front
the two powers have formed. Russia not only lacks a history of annexing East Asian countries or
projecting force against them, but it is also heavily reliant on China in particular both to
keep its defense sector active and to undermine Western attempts to isolate it. Russian
aggression against China is unthinkable for Moscow – even if China did not possess its
current military strength and nuclear deterrence capabilities. This is something widely
understood in China and elsewhere.
I would dispute that Russia's military is vastly more capable than China's own, as other
than nuclear weapons there is a similar level of capabilities in most sectors in both
countries. While Russia has a lead in many key technologies such as hypersonic missiles, air
defenses and submarines to name a few prominent examples, China has been able to purchase and
integrate many of these into its own armed forces alongside the products of its own defense
sector. Russia's most prominent fighter jet for example, the Flanker (in all derivatives from
Su-27 to J-11D), is in fact fielded in larger numbers by China than by Russia itself –
and those in Chinese service have access to both indigenous as well as Russian munitions and
subsystems. Furthermore, there are some less critical but still significant sectors where China
does appear to retain a lead – for example it deployed combat jets equipped with a new
generation of active electronically scanned array radars and air to air missiles from 2017
(J-20 and in
2018 J-10C ) – while Russia has only done so this in July 2019 with the
induction of the MiG-35. Whether this is due to a Chinese technological advantage, or to a
greater availability of funds to deploy its new technologies faster, remains uncertain.
Russia's ability to provide China with its most vital technologies, and China's willingness to
rely so heavily on Russian technology to comprise so much of its inventory, demonstrates the
level of trust between the two countries
The Saker: Do you think that China could become a military threat to other countries in the
region (especially Taiwan, India, Vietnam, the Philippines, etc.)?
A.B. Abrams: I would direct you to a quote by Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Bin Mohamed
from March this year. He stated: "we always say, we have had China as a neighbor for 2,000
years, we were never conquered by them. But the Europeans came in 1509, in two years, they
conquered Malaysia." This coming from a nationalist leader considered one of the most
sinophobic in Southeast Asia, whose country has an ongoing territorial dispute with China in
the South China Sea, bears testament to the nature of claims of a Chinese threat. It is
critical not to make the mistake of imposing Western norms when trying to understand Chinese
statecraft. Unlike the European states, China is not and has never been dependent on conquering
others to enrich itself – but rather was a civilization state which measured its wealth
by what it could its own people could produce. A harmonious relationship with India, Vietnam,
the Philippines and others in which all states' sovereign and territorial integrity is
respected is in the Chinese interest.
A second aspect which must be considered, and which bears testament to China's intentions,
is the orientation of the country's armed forces. While the militaries of the United States and
European powers such as Britain, the Netherlands, Belgium and France among others are heavily
skewed to prioritize power projection overseas, China's military has made disproportionately
small investments in power projection and is overwhelmingly tailored to territorial defense.
While the United States has over 300 tanker aircraft deigned to refuel its combat jets midair
and attack faraway lands, China has just three purpose-built tankers – less than
Malaysia, Chile or Pakistan. The ratio of
logistical to combat units further indicates that China's armed forces, in stark contrast
to the Western powers, are heavily oriented towards defense and fighting near their
borders.
This all being said, China does pose an imminent threat to the government in Taipei –
although I would disagree with your categorization of Taiwan as a country. Officially the
Republic of China (ROC- as opposed to the Beijing based People's Republic of China), Taipei has
not declared itself a separate country but rather the rightful government of the entire Chinese
nation. Taipei remains technically at war with the mainland, a conflict would have ended in
1950 if the U.S. had not placed the ROC under its protection. The fast growing strength of the
mainland has shifted the balance of power dramatically should the conflict again break out into
open hostilities. China has only to gain from playing the long game with Taiwan however –
providing scholarships and jobs for its people to live on the mainland and thus undermining the
demonization of the country and hostility towards a peaceful reunification. Taiwan's economic
reliance on the mainland has also grown considerably, and these softer methods of bridging the
gaps between the ROC and the mainland are key to facilitating unification. Meanwhile the
military balance in the Taiwan Strait only grows more favorable for Beijing by the year –
meaning there is no urgency to take military action. While China will insist on unification, it
will seek to avoid doing so violently unless provoked.
The Saker: In conclusion: where in Asia do you see the next major conflict take place and
why?
A.B. Abrams: The conflict in the Asia-Pacific is ongoing, but the nature of conflict has
changed. We see an ongoing and so far highly successful de-radicalization effort in Xinjiang
– which was taken in direct response to Western attempts to turn the province into 'China's Syria or
China's Libya,' in the words of Chinese state media, using similar means. We see a harsh
Western response to
the Made in China 2025 initiative under which the country has sought to compete in key
technological fields formerly monopolized by the Western Bloc and Japan – and the result
of this will have a considerable impact on the balance of economic power in the coming years.
We see direct economic warfare and technological competition between China and the United
States – although the latter has so far refrained from escalating too far due to the
potentially devastating impact reprisals could have. We further see an information war in full
swing, with Sinophobic stories often citing 'anonymous sources' being propagated by Western
media to target not only their own populations – but also to influence public opinion in
Southeast Asia and elsewhere. Influence over third parties remains vital to isolating China and
cementing the Western sphere of influence. Use of social media and social engineering, as the
events of the past decade have demonstrated from the Middle East in 2011 to Hong Kong today,
remains key and will only grow in its potency in the coming years. We also see a major arms
race, with the Western Bloc investing heavily in an all new generation of weapons designed to
leave existing Chinese and allied defenses obsolete – from laser air defenses to
neutralize China's nuclear deterrent to sixth generation stealth fighters, new heavy bombers,
new applications of artificial intelligence technologies and new hypersonic missiles.
All these are fronts of the major conflict currently underway, and the Obama and Trump
administrations have stepped up their offensives to bring about a new 'end of history' much
like that of the 1990s – only this time it is likely to be permanent. To prevail, China
and Russia will need to cooperate at least as closely if not more so as the Western powers do
among themselves.
The Saker: thank you very much for your time and answers!
That being said, there is a major threat of conflict in the Asia-Pacific of a different
nature. Several organizations including the United Nations and the defense ministries of
Russia, Singapore and Indonesia among others have warned of the dangers posed by Islamic
terrorism to stability in the region. Radical Islamism, as most recently attested to by
Saudi Arabia's crown prince, played a key role in allowing the Western Bloc to cement its
dominance over the Middle East and North Africa – undermining Russian and Soviet
aligned governments including Algeria, Libya, Egypt and Syria – in most cases with
direct Western support. CIA Deputy Director Graham Fuller in this respect referred to the
agency's "policy of guiding the evolution of Islam and of helping them against our
adversaries." Several officials, from the higher brass of the Russian, Syrian and Iranian
militaries to the former President of Afghanistan and the President of Turkey, have all
alleged Western support for radical terror groups including the Islamic State for the sake
of destabilizing their adversaries. As the Asia-Pacific has increasingly slipped out of the
Western sphere of influence, it is likely that this asset will increasingly be put into
play. The consequences of the spread of jihadism from the Middle East have been relatively
limited until now, but growing signs of danger can be seen in Xinjiang, Myanmar, the
Philippines and Indonesia. It is this less direct means of waging war which arguably poses
the greatest threat.
There is hardly such a thing called "Islamic Terrorism." In most egregious cases, such as
IS, etc., it can be shown that those lowlifes have been the mercenaries of the evil West and
their accursed implant in the ME (and nowadays the hindutvars too), collectively the avowed
enemies of true monotheism, Islam. I am including the recent Colombo attacks here.
How can any so-called "muslim" who is a tool-of-evil of the enemies of Islam, be a true
muslim? How then can it be termed "Islamic Terror"? Perhaps "Islamic Apostate Terror" would
be more suitable.
Of course, there are many other non-IS muslims who are called "terrorists." The
Palestinians, the Kashmiris, etc. For us muslims, they are simply freedom fighters.
Finally, there are a few muslims who do kill in the name Islam the Charlie Hebdo killers,
Bombay\Dhaka attackers, etc. Some of them are justified (due to intense provocations) and
others not at all. I will leave it for others to judge which falls under which category.
Perhaps the listed order will help decipher that.
It must be conceded, when it comes to setting the narrative of pure deceit, the West (and
its minions, the Jooscum and their lickspittle, the hindutvars), like in all things bad, can
be satanically good. We muslims are being decimated in the propaganda war.
We still got our True Monotheism though. The pagan/godless enemies of the Almighty One are
doomed to fail against it. God willing.
The American system ran on immigration that kept discontent about massive inequality under
control because a substantial proportion of the lowest SES were immigrants just glad to be in
the US. The tAmerican ruling class decided they could make more money by offshoring
everything that could be offshored and mass immigration to keep wags from going up in the non
offshorable parts of the economy.
China and America's venal globalising elite had converging agendas, but could not fool the
common people of America and their tribune . Even the military had began to get alarmed about
the economic growth and technological progress of China, which had been benefiting from
officially sanctioned preferential treatment by the US since Carter.
Free ride is over for China, we will see China's economic and military strength
progressively tested. What America built it can break.
China was made an economic superpower by the US elites. Not because they felt sorry for China
and wanted to speed up conversion to democracy by switching them to capitalist way of doing
business first.
They made them an economic superpower, because the US elites have lost their marbles. They
simply didn't see it coming. They wanted to turn China into one giant cheap sweatshop in
order to exploit their population with a low paying manufacturing jobs, which were never
supposed to make China reach.
But they did, because no matter how much the lost generation of the western elites were
foaming at their mouths about knowledge based economy, value added economy, high tech jobs
and the other crap, it is obvious that manufacturing remains a basis for any strong economy.
That doesn't look like it's going to change even when you add robots to the mixture.
I think that Napoleon was right when he warned the world about waking up the sleeping
dragon. First they made them an economic superpower, and now they want to contain them
militarily. Good luck with that.
There is a reason why China wants to build the silk road. Silk road implies land. The US
military has never been any good at land warfare. Neither where their predecessors –
the British. China, on the other hand, showed in Korea that even then, with a backward army,
equipped with handouts from the Soviet Union, they can pretty much trash the US army.
With the silk road initiative, China will seize the control of the entire Euro-Asian land
mass – the most populous and economically productive region of the world and will be
more than happy to let the US play pirates on the seas.
Abrams is giving the West too much credit for the Sino-Soviet rift of the late 5os and 60s.
That was NOT the doing of the CIA or Western Europe. It was 90% the fault of Mao who tried
to shove Khrushchev aside as the head of world communism. Because Stalin had treated Mao
badly, Krushchev wanted to make amends and treated Mao with respect. But Mao turned out to be
a total a-hole. There are two kinds of people: Those who appreciate friendly gestures and
those who seek kindness as 'weakness'.
It's like Hitler saw Chamberlain's offer as weakness
and pushed ahead. Being kind is nice, but one should never be kind to psychopaths, and
Khrushchev was nice to the wrong person.
Mao only understood power. He sensed Khrushchev as
'weak' and acted as if he wanted to be the new Stalin. He also made international statements
that made the US-USSR relations much worse. He berated Khrushchev for seeking co-existence
with the West and pressed on for more World Revolution.
He also ignored Soviet advice not to
attempt radical economic policies (that were soon to bring China to economic ruin -- at least
Stalin's collectivization led to rise of industry; in contrast, Mao managed to destroy both
agriculture and heavy industry).
When Stalin was alive, he didn't treat Mao with any respect,
and Mao disliked Stalin but still respected him because Mao understood Power. With Stalin
gone, Khrushchev showed Mao some respect, but Mao felt no respect for Khrushchev who was
regarded as a weakling and sucker.
It was all so stupid. China and Russia could have gotten along well if not for Mao's
impetuosity. Of course, Khrushchev could be reckless, contradictory, and erratic, and his
mixed signals to the West also heightened tensions. Also, he was caught between a rock and a
hard place where the Eastern Bloc was concerned. He wanted to de-Stalinize, but this could
lead to events like the Hungarian Uprising.
Anyway, Putin and Xi, perhaps having grown up in less turbulent times, are more stable and
mature in character and temperament than Mao and Khrushchev. They don't see the Russo-China
relations as a zero sum game of ego but a way for which both sides can come to the table
halfway, which is all one can hope for.
@Priss Factor You are probably right about Hitler seeing (Neville) Chamberlain as weak.
But Hitler was a dupe for Britains much smarter and devious elites, who successfully played
him to do their bidding. Hitler, along with the major members of the nazis, had been
significantly influenced by Neville's elder cousin who spurred the nazis towards 'the
ultimate solution'.
Instead of being weak in the manner Hitler may have thought, Neville saved Hitler from his
own generals.
In historical turns , when Britain has appeared weak, it mostly is a deliberate faint.
Be it in Gallipoli, St Petersburg in 1919, Norway or Singapore in WW2.
Commendable contribution by Mr Abrams to enlighten the confused western establishment.
" China by contrast has historically conducted statecraft based on the concept of a
civilization state – under which its strength is not measured by the weakness and
subjugation of others but by its internal achievements. "
In my view the Usa had an excellent opportunity to enact in a positive way after WW2 but
blew it. The main reason was the failure to live up to the above quoted characterisation of
the Chinese. To encourage potential achievers in the best sense of the word.
Instead the Us oligarchy held back independent and creative thinking and brainwashed the
population, in a way that weakened them.
Jfk tried to encourage his countrymen but other forces prevailed.
Americans cannot understand our relations with China by looking at events just the past 75
years. During the century before, European imperial powers and the United States treated
China as a open borders business opportunity backed by foreign military force. China was
infested by mini-colonies to profit from China's riches. The "Opium Wars" shock decent
Americans.
All Wars Are Evil. Period. "Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns
in foreign policy." – Henry Kissinger
Picture if you will Jesus. Seriously? Can you imagine Jesus firing a machine gun at a
group of people? Can you picture Jesus in an F-16 lobbing missiles at innocents?
Do you see Jesus piloting a drone and killing Muslims, other non-believers, or anyone for
that matter? Can you picture Jesus as a sniper?
Impossible.
Because if God loved wars, He'd be wrong; but He's not wrong, so He doesn't love wars.
Some point to the various killings in the Old Testament to somehow "prove" that God always
had a blood lust, and that He often commanded the ancient Hebrews to kill in wars.
What they don't understand is that the Hebrews then were an extension of God's army on
earth. God used them to remove the wicked from the face of the earth. So when they killed on
God's order in specific and directed circumstances – which cannot be transferred to
today's circumstances – it was God's doing, not theirs.
"The LORD your God is the one who goes with you, to fight for you " Deuteronomy
20:4
But, as the prophet Zechariah prophesied, with the advent of Christ everything would
change.
" 'Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit,' says the LORD Almighty." Zechariah
4:6
JESUS AND THE NEW COVENANT
Now it's no longer by the might of the sword nor
by the
power of one's army , but by the Spirit of Christ that things truly change for the
better.
"The wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God." James 1:20
Ever since Jesus's birth, death, and resurrection the world has not been the same.
"If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new
has come." 2 Corinthians 5: 17
If anyone really knows Christ, he knows there is no such thing as a Just War or a
Just War
Doctrine. Jesus's sacrifice
on the cross was for the renewal of the world through peace – hence His name the Prince
of Peace – and for the salvation of
man's soul through the New Covenant in His blood – hence life eternal, not death and
destruction.
"Then Jesus said to him, 'Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up
the sword shall perish by the sword.' " Matthew 26: 52
"You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.' But I
say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the
other to him also. " Matthew 5: 38,39
"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.
But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be
sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good,
and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous." Matthew 5: 43-45
"If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those
who love them." Luke 6:32
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God." Matthew
5:9
AGGRESSOR AND DEFENDER
If everyone understood Christ, there would be no war. Unfortunately, many don't.
Therefore, every so often an aggressive war to dominate and subjugate others may come
about.
In such an instance, the only country that can claim the moral high ground is the
defending country, whose governing authority has a divine mandate to defend its citizenry
from the onslaught of wrongdoers and aggressors.
"The authorities that exist have been established by God. .. for rulers do not
bear the sword for no reason They are God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on
the wrongdoer." Romans 13: 2,4
That's why, in any given war, the aggressor always tries to camouflage its belligerent
intentions by projecting a semblance of moral superiority before embarking on its dark
deed.
And though the government of the defending country has a godly injunction to protect its
people, its better option, for the good of all, would be to avoid a devastating war at all
costs.
"Strive for peace with everyone " Hebrews 12:14
"It is to one's honor to avoid strife." Proverbs 20:3
FACTS OF THE AGGRESSOR'S WAR TO REMEMBER
Those who push for war in our time cleverly conceal through propaganda their ulterior
motives, and the reality of war's devastating effects on humanity.
1) Dead innocents. 95% of all war casualties are innocent civilians. What if you were one
of those civilians?
"Their feet run to evil, And they hasten to shed innocent blood; Their thoughts are
thoughts of iniquity, Devastation and destruction are in their highways." Isaiah 59:7
2) Hidden agenda. In war there's always a hidden agenda that the public at large is never
aware of: territorial expansion, control of another country's resources, control of access to
trade to favor a certain group, currency domination, keeping the military industrial machine
humming, etc. In one word: Money or Mammon.
"Who devise evil things in their hearts; They continually stir up wars." Psalm
140:2
3) Personal dislike. If a foreign country's leader refuses to kowtow to the current
Empire's whims and wishes, then the Empire (presently the
US, manipulated or not by third
parties ) goes on the attack. That foreign country's leader is sullied in the Empire's
mass media in order to prepare the imperial citizenry to acquiesce in sending their children
to be killed in a senseless war . More often than
not, such a war tees off by way of a false flag operation
(such as 9/11
and the Gulf
of Tonkin incident ), designed and executed by the Empire to deceive its citizens and
demonize the adversary.
"All wars are based on deception," wrote Sun Tzu in The Art of War
.
"Deceit is in the heart of those who devise evil." Proverbs 12:20
4) Senseless aggression. There is no greater act of stupidity than when soldiers on the
aggressor's side kill for no apparent reason. They obey like dumb myrmidons just because
low-life politicians with hidden
agendas decide they should murder those their government hates. In all other
circumstances, their senseless killings of the defending soldiers and of innocent civilians
would and should be called terrorism
.
"Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." Romans 12:21
5) Economic breakdown. Countries that go to war not only destroy the economies of the
nations they attack, but they also wreck
theirs .
"Whoever satisfies others will himself be satisfied." Proverbs 11:25
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you." Matthew
7:12
"Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows." Galatians
6:7
6) Godlessness. In the aftermaths of wars people rebuild and forget God. Europe suffered
two World Wars, and the Christian foundation on which that civilization was built has been
severely shaken and is in dire need of repair – the Church there is in a coma.
"Sin when it is fully grown brings forth death." James 1:15
7) Blowback. Countries that participate in aggressive wars or send their soldiers to kill
in foreign wars are at the receiving end of wars' repercussions. Destructive heresies and
habits quickly materialize and drastically alter their societies for the worst: atheism
, feminism
, mammonism
, drug use, suicide (especially by veterans whose consciences are disturbed because of the
murders they committed), societal violence, destruction of the family unit, perversion, etc.
In other words, the souls of those who participate in and/or agree to these aggressive wars
are plunged into darkness or spiritual death, which then engenders ruins in the natural
world.
"For the wages of sin is death." Romans 6:23
CONCLUSION
If non-Christians want to become murderers and/or kill themselves in foolish, aggressive
wars, that's their free-will
prerogative. But we, true Christians, will opt out as we fight for peace with all our
strength.
"Thou shall not kill." Exodus 20:13
If you are in the military and you say you're a Christian, start taking all of the
aforementioned verses seriously and begin to think for yourself, especially if your country
is the aggressor.
If it is, immediately put this into practice:
"They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks."
Isaiah 2:4
"... More importantly, Ryan's campaign using the word "isolationism" to describe the simple common sense impulse to withdraw from a costly, deadly military occupation which isn't accomplishing anything highlights an increasingly common tactic of tarring anything other than endless military expansionism as strange and aberrant instead of normal and good. ..."
"... Under our current Orwellian doublespeak paradigm where forever war is the new normal, the opposite of war is no longer peace, but isolationism. This removal of a desirable opposite of war from the establishment-authorised lexicon causes war to always be the desirable option. ..."
"... A few months after Bush's address, Antiwar 's Rich Rubino wrote an article titled " Non-Interventionism is Not Isolationism ", explaining the difference between a nation which withdraws entirely from the world and a nation which simply resists the temptation to use military aggression except in self defense. ..."
"... "Isolationism dictates that a country should have no relations with the rest of the world," Rubino explained. "In its purest form this would mean that ambassadors would not be shared with other nations, communications with foreign governments would be mainly perfunctory, and commercial relations would be non-existent." ..."
"... "A non-interventionist supports commercial relations," Rubino contrasted. "In fact, in terms of trade, many non-interventionists share libertarian proclivities and would unilaterally obliterate all tariffs and custom duties, and would be open to trade with all willing nations. In addition, non-interventionists welcome cultural exchanges and the exchange of ambassadors with all willing nations." ..."
"... "A non-interventionist believes that the U.S. should not intercede in conflicts between other nations or conflicts within nations," wrote Rubino. "In recent history, non-interventionists have proved prophetic in warning of the dangers of the U.S. entangling itself in alliances. The U.S. has suffered deleterious effects and effectuated enmity among other governments, citizenries, and non-state actors as a result of its overseas interventions. The U.S. interventions in both Iran and Iraq have led to cataclysmic consequences." ..."
"... Calling an aversion to endless military violence "isolationism" is the same as calling an aversion to mugging people "agoraphobia". ..."
"... Another dishonest label you'll get thrown at you when debating the forever war is "pacifism". "Some wars are bad, but I'm not a pacifist; sometimes war is necessary," supporters of a given interventionist military action will tell you. They'll say this while defending Trump's potentially catastrophic Iran warmongering or promoting a moronic regime change invasion of Syria, or defending disastrous US military interventions in the past like Iraq. ..."
"... All Wars Are Evil. Period. "Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy." – Henry Kissinger ..."
"... Can you imagine Jesus firing a machine gun at a group of people? Can you picture Jesus in an F-16 lobbing missiles at innocents? ..."
"... instead of getting us out of Syria, Trump got us further in. Trump is driving us to ww3. ..."
"... funny how people, fresh from the broken promises "build that wall" etc, quickly forget all that and begin IMMEDIATELY projecting trustworthiness on yet ANOTHER candidate. I'Il vote for Tulsi when she says no more Israeli wars for America. ..."
"... if there's even a small chance Tulsi can get us out of the forever wars i will be compelled to vote for her, as Trump clearly has no intention on doing so. yes, it is that important ..."
"... As for this next election? Is Ron Paul running as an independent? No? Well then, 'fool me once...' Don't get me wrong: I hope Gabbard is genuine and she's absolutely right to push non-interventionism...but the rest of her platform sucks. There's also the fact that she's a CFR member ..."
"... Just as they did with Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Pat Buchanan, the MSM and the swamp have already effectively buried Gabbard. It's unlikely that she'll make the next debate cut as the DNC and MSM will toss her out. ..."
"... All the MSM is talking about post-debates, even on Faux Noise, is Harris's race-baiting of old senile Biden. ..."
After getting curb stomped on the debate
stage by Tulsi Gabbard, the campaign for Tim "Who the fuck is Tim Ryan?" Ryan
posted a statement decrying the Hawaii congresswoman's
desire to end a pointless 18-year military occupation as "isolationism".
"While making a point as to why America can't cede its international leadership and retreat from around the world, Tim was
interrupted by Rep. Tulsi Gabbard," the statement reads.
"When he tried to answer her, she contorted a factual point Tim was making -- about the Taliban being complicit in the 9/11
attacks by providing training, bases and refuge for Al Qaeda and its leaders. The characterization that Tim Ryan doesn't know
who is responsible for the attacks on 9/11 is simply unfair reporting. Further, we continue to reject Gabbard's isolationism and
her misguided beliefs on foreign policy . We refuse to be lectured by someone who thinks it's ok to dine with murderous dictators
like Syria's Bashar Al-Assad who used chemical weapons on his own people."
Ryan's campaign is lying. During an exchange that was explicitly about the Taliban in Afghanistan, Ryan plainly said "When we
weren't in there, they started flying planes into our buildings." At best, Ryan can argue that when he said "they" he had suddenly
shifted from talking about the Taliban to talking about Al Qaeda without bothering to say so, in which case he obviously can't legitimately
claim that Gabbard "contorted" anything he had said. At worst, he was simply unaware at the time of the very clear distinction between
the Afghan military and political body called the Taliban and the multinational extremist organization called Al Qaeda.
More importantly, Ryan's campaign using the word "isolationism" to describe the simple common sense impulse to withdraw from a
costly, deadly military occupation which isn't accomplishing anything highlights an increasingly common tactic of tarring anything
other than endless military expansionism as strange and aberrant instead of normal and good.
Under our current Orwellian doublespeak
paradigm where forever war is the new normal, the opposite of war is no longer peace, but isolationism. This removal of a desirable
opposite of war from the establishment-authorised lexicon causes war to always be the desirable option.
This is entirely by design. This bit of word magic has been employed for a long time to tar any idea which deviates from the neoconservative
agenda of total global unipolarity via violent imperialism as something freakish and dangerous. In
his farewell address to the nation , war criminal George W Bush said the following:
"In the face of threats from abroad, it can be tempting to seek comfort by turning inward. But we must reject isolationism
and its companion, protectionism. Retreating behind our borders would only invite danger. In the 21st century, security and prosperity
at home depend on the expansion of liberty abroad. If America does not lead the cause of freedom, that cause will not be led."
A few months after Bush's address, Antiwar 's Rich Rubino wrote an article titled "
Non-Interventionism
is Not Isolationism ", explaining the difference between a nation which withdraws entirely from the world and a nation which
simply resists the temptation to use military aggression except in self defense.
"Isolationism dictates that a country should have no relations with the rest of the world," Rubino explained. "In its purest
form this would mean that ambassadors would not be shared with other nations, communications with foreign governments would be
mainly perfunctory, and commercial relations would be non-existent."
"A non-interventionist supports commercial relations," Rubino contrasted. "In fact, in terms of trade, many non-interventionists
share libertarian proclivities and would unilaterally obliterate all tariffs and custom duties, and would be open to trade with
all willing nations. In addition, non-interventionists welcome cultural exchanges and the exchange of ambassadors with all willing
nations."
"A non-interventionist believes that the U.S. should not intercede in conflicts between other nations or conflicts within
nations," wrote Rubino. "In recent history, non-interventionists have proved prophetic in warning of the dangers of the U.S. entangling
itself in alliances. The U.S. has suffered deleterious effects and effectuated enmity among other governments, citizenries, and
non-state actors as a result of its overseas interventions. The U.S. interventions in both Iran and Iraq have led to cataclysmic
consequences."
Calling an aversion to endless military violence "isolationism" is the same as calling an aversion to mugging people "agoraphobia".
Yet you'll see this ridiculous label applied to both Gabbard and Trump, neither of whom are isolationists by any stretch of the imagination,
or even proper non-interventionists. Gabbard supports most US military alliances and continues to voice full support for the bogus
"war on terror" implemented by the Bush administration which serves no purpose other than to facilitate endless military expansionism;
Trump is openly pushing regime change interventionism in both Venezuela and Iran while declining to make good on his promises to
withdraw the US military from Syria and Afghanistan.
Another dishonest label you'll get thrown at you when debating the forever war is "pacifism". "Some wars are bad, but I'm
not a pacifist; sometimes war is necessary," supporters of a given interventionist military action will tell you. They'll say this
while defending Trump's potentially catastrophic Iran warmongering or promoting a moronic regime change invasion of Syria, or defending
disastrous US military interventions in the past like Iraq.
This is bullshit for a couple of reasons. Firstly, virtually no one is a pure pacifist who opposes war under any and all possible
circumstances; anyone who claims that they can't imagine any possible scenario in which they'd support using some kind of coordinated
violence either hasn't imagined very hard or is fooling themselves. If your loved ones were going to be raped, tortured and killed
by hostile forces unless an opposing group took up arms to defend them, for example, you would support that. Hell, you would probably
join in. Secondly, equating opposition to US-led regime change interventionism, which is literally always disastrous and literally
never helpful, is not even a tiny bit remotely like opposing all war under any possible circumstance.
Another common distortion you'll see is the specious argument that a given opponent of US interventionism "isn't anti-war" because
they don't oppose all war under any and all circumstances.
This tweet by The Intercept 's Mehdi Hasan
is a perfect example, claiming that Gabbard is not anti-war because she supports Syria's sovereign right to defend itself with the
help of its allies from the violent extremist factions which overran the country with western backing. Again, virtually no one is
opposed to all war under any and all circumstances; if a coalition of foreign governments had helped flood Hasan's own country of
Britain with extremist militias who'd been murdering their way across the UK with the ultimate goal of toppling London, both Tulsi
Gabbard and Hasan would support fighting back against those militias.
The label "anti-war" can for these reasons be a little misleading. The term anti-interventionist or non-interventionist comes
closest to describing the value system of most people who oppose the warmongering of the western empire, because they understand
that calls for military interventionism which go mainstream in today's environment are almost universally based on imperialist agendas
grabbing at power, profit, and global hegemony. The label "isolationist" comes nowhere close.
It all comes down to sovereignty. An anti-interventionist believes that a country has the right to defend itself, but it doesn't
have the right to conquer, capture, infiltrate or overthrow other nations whether covertly or overtly. At the "end" of colonialism
we all agreed we were done with that, except that the nationless manipulators have found far trickier ways to seize a country's will
and resources without actually planting a flag there. We need to get clearer on these distinctions and get louder about defending
them as the only sane, coherent way to run foreign policy.
* * *
The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing
list for my website , which will get you an email notification for everything
I publish. My work is
entirely
reader-supported , so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on
Facebook , following my antics on
Twitter , throwing some money into my hat on
Patreon or
Paypal , purchasing some of my
sweet merchandise , buying my new book
Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone ,
or my previous book
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I'm trying to do with this platform,
click
here . Everyone, racist platforms excluded,
has my permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I've written) in any way they like free of charge.
"If America does not lead the cause of freedom, that cause will not be led."
Fascinating belief, has he been to Libya lately, perhaps attended an open air slave Market in a country that was very developed
before the US decided to 'free' it.
When we weren't there, they flew planes into our buildings?
Excuse me mutant, but I believe we paid Israel our jewtax that year like all the others and they still flew planes into our
buildings. And then danced in the streets about it. Sick people.
All Wars Are Evil. Period. "Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy." –
Henry Kissinger
Picture if you will Jesus. Seriously? Can you imagine Jesus firing a machine gun at a group of people? Can
you picture Jesus in an F-16 lobbing missiles at innocents?
Do you see Jesus piloting a drone and killing Muslims, other non-believers, or anyone for that matter? Can you picture Jesus
as a sniper?
Soooo,,, If my favorite evening activity, is to sit on the front porch steps, while the dog and the cats run around, with my
shotgun leaning up next to me,,, Is that Isolationist, or Protectionist,,,
instead of getting us out of Syria, Trump got us further in. Trump is driving us to ww3. we can't do **** if we're
glazed over in a nuclear holocaust. maybe Tulsi is lying through her teeth, but i am so pissed Trump went full neocon
funny how people, fresh from the broken promises "build that wall" etc, quickly forget all that and begin IMMEDIATELY
projecting trustworthiness on yet ANOTHER candidate. I'Il vote for Tulsi when she says no more Israeli wars for America.
If you read her positions on various issues, a quick survey shows that she supports the New Green Deal, more gun control (ban
on assault rifles, etc.), Medicare for all. Stopped reading at that point.
We refuse to be lectured by someone who thinks it's ok to dine with murderous dictators like Syria's Bashar Al-Assad
who used chemical weapons on his own people.
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only
for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus
becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the
lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State. ~ Joseph Goebbels
The better educated among us know exactly as to who Goebblels was referring to. Even a dullard should be able to figure out
who benefits from all of our Middle East adventures.
"Under our current Orwellian doublespeak paradigm where forever war is the new normal, the opposite of war is no longer
peace, but isolationism. "
Under military might WAS the old world order... Under the new world order the strength is in cyber warfare .
If under technology the profiteers can control the masses through crowd control ( which they can-" Department of Defense has
developed a non-lethal crowd control device called the
Active Denial System (ADS) . The ADS works by firing a high-powered beam of 95 GHz waves at a target that is, millimeter wavelengths.
Anyone caught in the beam will feel like their skin is burning.) your spending power ( they can through e- commetce and digital
banking) and isolation cells called homes ( they can through directed microwaves from GWEN stations).... We already are isolated
and exposed at the same time.
That war is an exceptable means of engagement as a solution to world power is a confirmation of the psychological warfare imposed
on us since the creation of our Nation.
Either we reel it in and back now or we destroy ourselves from within.
"
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
if there's even a small chance Tulsi can get us out of the forever wars i will be compelled to vote for her, as Trump clearly
has no intention on doing so. yes, it is that important
Idiot, Tulsi is a sovereign nationalist on the left. You have just never seen one before. If you were truly anti-globalist
you'd would realize left and right are invented to divide us. The politics are global and national, so wake the **** up
""War Is the U.S. Racket!"" They are not good at it, there "great at it". My entire life 63yrs,they been fighting someone or
something. When times where rough in the 1800s,Hell! they fought themselves(Civil War. As I said b4 No one seems to ask, Where
does the gold go of the vanquished foe? Truly Is A Well Practiced Racket.
Good article with several salient points, thought I would ask "what's wrong with a little isolationism?" Peace through internal
strength is desirable, but good fences make good neighbors and charity begins at home!
The gradual twisting of language really is one of most insidious tactics employed by the NWO Luciferians. I think we'd all
like to see the traitorous Neocons gone for good. Better yet, strip them of their American citizenship and ill-gotten wealth and
banish them to Israel. Let them earn their citizenship serving in a front-line IDF rifle company.
As for this next election? Is Ron Paul running as an independent? No? Well then, 'fool me once...' Don't get me wrong:
I hope Gabbard is genuine and she's absolutely right to push non-interventionism...but the rest of her platform sucks. There's
also the fact that she's a CFR member and avowed gun-grabber, to boot. Two HUGE red flags!
She almost strikes me as a half-assed 'Manchurian Candidate.' So, if she's elected (a big 'if' at this point) I ask
myself 'what happens after the next (probably nuclear) false flag?' How quickly will she disavow her present stance on non-interventionism?
How quickly and viciously will the 2nd Amendment be raped? Besides, I'm not foolish enough to believe that one person can turn
the SS Deep State away from it's final disastrous course.
These word games were already in use looong ago. Tulsi Gabbard is using Obama's line about fighting the wrong war. She
would have taken out Al Qaeda, captured Bin Laden, and put a dog leash on him. So that she could make a green economy, a
new century of virtue signalling tyranny. No thanks.
Just as they did with Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Pat Buchanan, the MSM and the swamp have already effectively buried
Gabbard. It's unlikely that she'll make the next debate cut as the DNC and MSM will toss her out.
All the MSM is talking about post-debates, even on Faux Noise, is Harris's race-baiting of old senile Biden.
I went to some of the so-called liberal websites and blogs and the only mention of Gabbard is in the context of her being a
Putin stooge. This combined with the fact that virtually all establishment Republicans are eager to fight any war for Israel clearly
shows that it will take something other than the ballot box to end Uncle Scam's endless wars.
"... For Raimondo, being called names while in the service of trying to end U.S. wars of choice was like rocket fuel. Particularly when neoconservative David Frum launched his "unpatriotic" broadside at National Review on March 24, 2003, five days after the U.S. launched what would be the most disastrous invasion of another country since Vietnam. Being accused of "appeasing the enemy" could only mean they were getting under the warmongers' skin at a time when the rest of Washington was mobilized like lemmings for battle. ..."
"... His penultimate column on May 3 was classic Raimondo, blasting John Bolton for saber rattling for U.S. intervention in Venezuela, and entitled "Will the Real Moron Stand Up?" ..."
"... For writers who were skeptical of U.S. national security policy after 9/11 -- especially those on the Right end of the spectrum, whether they be libertarians or conservatives -- there were few outlets, at least with a substantial audience, to publish. Antiwar.com , which had been around since 1995, became a hub for Left and Right critics. Justin, though, provided the juice. His willingness to mix it up, to say what needed to be said, in unvarnished, funny, often un-politically correct language (in any given column he would be calling officials and media "shrieking monkeys," "whores," "harpies") was for many both a motivator and a balm at a time when it seemed like every column one wrote against the status quo was one step closer to career-ending purgatory. ..."
"... Surrounded by brave iconoclasts and B.S.-beaters like Phil Giraldi, Jeff Huber and Raimondo charged my courage and batteries as a writer. Justin was especially supportive, and though there were things he would say that I would never have the guts to (I tried to flex more on the reporting side, and less on the polemics), he seemed to appreciate having me as a junior member of the suicide squad. ..."
"... Why? You can read in detail here , but much of it was because of Antiwar.com 's mission to criticize U.S. war policies, its linking to government watch lists at the time, and Justin's writing, particularly on five Israelis who were detained by the FBI in New Jersey after they were spotted by witnesses on a rooftop celebrating and taking pictures in sight of the burning NYC towers on 9/11 and later deported. ..."
"... Kelley Beaucar Vlahos is ..."
"... Executive Editor at ..."
"... and former columnist at Antiwar.com. Follow her on Twitter @Vlahos_at_TAC ..."
"... He challenged conventional wisdom because he thought conventional wisdom is often wrong, which it is. As his work created more journalists and citizens who are willing to do this, his life's work was important ..."
"... And he managed to write and publish one of the best most comprehensive biographies on Murray Rothbard ever written as well, only one of the most important American thinkers of the 20th century. He will be greatly missed, at Antiwar, and everywhere else. RIP. ..."
The Antiwar.com co-founder, who died
Thursday, was one of the toughest fighters for the cause. We all benefitted.
Justin
Raimondo gives Presentation at the National Summit to Reassess the U.S.-Israel "Special
Relationship" on March 7, 2014 at the National Press Club. (You Tube) WASHINGTON -- Justin
Raimondo -- author, activist and consummate critic of the U.S. war machine–passed away at
the age of 67 on Thursday. While many of you might know him as the co-founder and prolific
columnist at Antiwar.com , he was once
branded a "unpatriotic conservative" at the start of the Iraq War, and a potential "threat to
national security" a year later.
For Raimondo, being called names while in the service of trying to end U.S. wars of choice
was like rocket fuel. Particularly when neoconservative David Frum launched his "unpatriotic"
broadside at
National Review on March 24, 2003, five days after the U.S. launched what would be the
most disastrous invasion of another country since Vietnam. Being accused of "appeasing the
enemy" could only mean they were getting under the warmongers' skin at a time when the rest of
Washington was mobilized like lemmings for battle.
"He loved it," said Eric Garris, who co-founded Antiwar.com with Raimondo. Garris was his close friend and
co-conspirator in dozens of political and anti-war campaigns from 1976 until his death
yesterday. "Justin loved to be attacked -- he viewed it usually as a badge of honor."
Word of Raimondo's death didn't quite come as a surprise to people who had been following
him online -- they knew he had been battling cancer for two years, and his volatile presence on
Twitter had dropped off to an occasional flash, then nothing, for the last few months. His
penultimate column on May 3 was classic Raimondo, blasting John Bolton for saber rattling for
U.S. intervention in Venezuela, and entitled
"Will the Real Moron Stand Up?"
For writers who were skeptical of U.S. national security policy after 9/11 -- especially
those on the Right end of the spectrum, whether they be libertarians or conservatives -- there
were few outlets, at least with a substantial audience, to publish. Antiwar.com , which had been around since 1995, became a hub for Left
and Right critics. Justin, though, provided the juice. His willingness to mix it up, to say
what needed to be said, in unvarnished, funny, often un-politically correct language (in any
given column he would be calling officials and media "shrieking monkeys," "whores," "harpies")
was for many both a motivator and a balm at a time when it seemed like every column one wrote
against the status quo was one step closer to career-ending purgatory.
"We were really very much in the wilderness," Garris recalled to me this morning. But
Raimondo surged -- doing stints on Fox News, MSNBC, even CNN at the time. He wrote quite a
bit forTACtoo, from its inception through
2016. "He had the ability to reach people and/or piss them off so much. He was such a
powerful force."
This is where I come in. Having begun writing for TAC in 2007 I was happy when Garris
reached out in
2009 to see if I wanted to do some regular columns for Antiwar.com . As one of those "misfits among misfits," I can say that
my decision to do so was both therapeutic (what better venue to rage against the machine?) and
a most fulfilling stage in my career as a journalist. Some of us might recall the atmosphere in
Washington during those times: stiflingly conformist and relentlessly punitive towards those
who did not toe the line. Surrounded by brave iconoclasts and B.S.-beaters like Phil Giraldi,
Jeff Huber and
Raimondo charged my courage and batteries as a writer. Justin was especially supportive, and
though there were things he would say that I would never have the guts to (I tried to flex more
on the reporting side, and less on the polemics), he seemed to appreciate having me as a junior
member of the suicide squad.
There was a moment I was put to the test. I was in the middle of my daughter's Girls Scout
meeting in 2013 when I got a call from Garris. I stepped out in the hall. Would I please write
a piece on Antiwar.com suing the FBI for
secretly investigating Antiwar.com in the
early days of the war, in part because of some of the things Justin had written and said? My
mind reeled. Would bringing attention to this bring further heat on the website? Would it bring
heat on me?
I read the FBI memo at the center of their planned lawsuit and agreed to write it. Frankly,
I knew in my heart I wouldn't be worth my salt as a journalist if I went wobbly on this. The
government had opened secret files on Garris and Raimondo, and at one point the FBI agent
writing the April 30, 2004 memo on Antiwar.com recommended further monitoring of the website in the form
of a "preliminary investigation to determine if [redaction] are engaging in, or have engaged
in, activities which constitute a threat to national security."
Why? You can read in detail
here , but much of it was because of Antiwar.com 's mission to criticize U.S. war policies, its linking to
government watch lists at the time, and Justin's writing, particularly on five Israelis who
were detained by the FBI in New
Jersey after they were spotted by witnesses on a rooftop celebrating and taking pictures in
sight of the burning NYC towers on 9/11 and later deported.
The ACLU had taken up their case, rightly, as an example of the government's hostile
attitude against the 1st Amendment. The government had taken advantage of its new 9/11
authorities and the country's war-time footing to spy and harass dissidents just like the old
days. Garris and Raimondo won, but their efforts to have all of the government records expunged
is still tied up in appeals . Garris said Justin was at least able to see the latest
June
12 hearing i n the Ninth Circuit.
"He saw the hearing and he got to see that what he was doing was worth something," Garris
said, audibly choking back tears. When they met, Raimondo was a libertarian gay rights
activist. Later on they would help convince Buchanan to run for president in 1992 and Raimondo
led his campaign office in San Francisco (Garris said Buchanan had sent a touching note about
Justin's death this morning). When gay protesters had surrounded and "assaulted" the San
Francisco headquarters at the time, Garris recalled, Raimondo ran out loaded for bear. "He gave
them the what-for," he said, laughing.
That was the image many of us are conjuring today. Raimondo the fighter. Raimondo the brave.
Of course not everyone agreed with him. His enemies over the years have tarred him as a racist
and anti-semite. On the other hand, he easily came to blows with his friends over a point of
view or a passage in a column–a tweet even. His bridge-burning with colleagues and fellow
travelers was notorious. "He was very vocal and contentious person who people either hated or
loved or both," Garris told me. "I've gotten a lot of emails and comments today about him that
said, you know I hated him but he was a hero."
But in the end, after 68 years of being a rebel and contrarian, he was forced to sheath the
sword. He was just too sick. "He just fought and fought, to keep going to get the words out,"
Garris said. He last saw him on Saturday. They knew it would be the last time
.
"I am going to miss him so much. My life would have been completely different if I hadn't
met him."
I know I feel that way, and millions of readers and fans (and foes) do too. RIP.
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos isExecutive Editor at TAC and former columnist
at Antiwar.com.
Follow her on Twitter @Vlahos_at_TAC
I was hoping he could stay around. But let those of us who miss him redouble our efforts to
the mission we shared so that it grows stronger in the wake of our loss.
He challenged conventional wisdom because he thought conventional wisdom is often wrong,
which it is. As his work created more journalists and citizens who are willing to do this,
his life's work was important.
Reading Reclaiming the American Right well over 10 years ago (but years after first being
published), I was shocked at how intellectually challenging, substantiated with historical
fact, and fascinating it was.
Clearly, I had let the Rush Limbaugh School of Total
Immersion™, 3 hours a day, inform my views of what, exactly, the American Right,
post-WWII really was and is and continues to be to this day a little too much, no offense
to Rush and the golden EIB. I still like listening to him.
The scholarship in that book is
FAR beyond any silly Jonah Goldberg tome, no matter how snazzy the title, from "Liberal
Fascism" to his latest, with the copied James Burnham title, "Suicide of the West".
Raimondo was a incredibly well read, superbly talented writer who was self-taught on
America's history in general and the post-WWII conservative history in particular.
And he managed to write and publish one of the best most comprehensive biographies on Murray Rothbard ever written as
well, only one of the most important American thinkers of the 20th century. He will be greatly missed, at Antiwar, and
everywhere else. RIP.
on are zombies and stupid.
Have a good one, know what I mean...
Let's see if they can keep Bernie in the same cage they put Tulsi in. I can't imagine
they'll be helpful or even polite to him. I expect "debate" questions such as:
Senator Sanders, are you current in your communist party dues?
Bernie, when did you last speak to Vladimir Putin?
How often are you wrong about FDR?
Is your wife still laundering money for beach houses through small liberal arts colleges?
Do you know how to pay for anything, or do you regularly leave restaurants without paying
your bill?
Bonus question: explain why anyone should continue to pay attention to you when your views
are shared by everyone on stage?
Miss Gabbard just served two tours in the ME, one as enlisted in the HI National Guard.
Brave Mr. Bolton kept the dirty communists from endangering the US supply of Chesapeake
crab while serving in the Maryland Guard. Rumor also has it that he helped Tompall Glaser
write the song Streets of Baltimore. Some say they saw Mr. Bolton single handily defending
Memorial Stadium from a combined VC/NVA attack during an Orioles game. The Cubans would have
conquered the Pimlico Race Course if not for the combat skill of PFC Bolton.
We’ll see how neoliberal MSM will spin this, but I would say Sanders emerged unscathed, Harris attacked and "wounded" Biden, Biden
sounded like a lightweight, Gillibrand seems to be a very unpleasant person although different form Harris...
Notable quotes:
"... as if polling on donald trump and stuff is just so interesting ..."
"... Kamala Harris got more floor time than anyone else. Harris ended Biden's campaign. The debate is rigged against Bernie Sanders. ..."
"... Did Harris get the debate questions in advance? ..."
"... Her manner of speaking is like someone who doesn’t care, doesn’t take the whole thing seriously. It’s like someone who is cheaply casually condescending on the whole thing, on her having to be there. That’s what I perceived. It is deeply disqualifying from any leadership position. “Food fight”? We at that level now? That makes her cool? My god, what garbage. ..."
"... Harris will alienate The Deplorables, the military, the White Working Class or even black people, who know her as Kamala The Cop. ..."
Pathetic, the whole scene is pathetic. What a way to run a putative democracy, bring back the league of women voters to run
the debates and that idiot with the graphs during commercial breaks while watching this online, I want to break his freaking head
sorry.
I had the idea that your sensibilities were rather more refined than that, knowing anything about or not.
Her manner of speaking is like someone who doesn’t care, doesn’t take the whole thing seriously. It’s like someone who
is cheaply casually condescending on the whole thing, on her having to be there. That’s what I perceived. It is deeply disqualifying
from any leadership position. “Food fight”? We at that level now? That makes her cool? My god, what garbage.
FWIW, Boot Edge Edge’s prehensile sincerity was masterful in my view – shows some real talent.
I’m just observing this out of academic interest and hope we’ll all have a chance to vote for Bernie in the general. But from
tonight, Boot Edge Edge to me stood out as a talent – and everyone else (besides Bernie who was reliably on message and will keep
going more or less the same after this) was garbage or unnecessary (Biden is a disgrace), and the first debate was better.
Cal2, June 27, 2019 at 11:19 pm
In that case, Donald Trump gets our votes, as well as keeping all the potential crossovers, who had supported Trump last time,
and would have voted for Sanders-Gabbard.
Harris will alienate The Deplorables, the military, the White Working Class or even black people, who know her as Kamala
The Cop.
Sanders-Harris would be political suicide for the Democrats.
"... Jeffrey Epstein's story is similarly abusive. The convicted sex offender prostituted dozens of underage girls and should have spent the rest of his life in jail. Again this is no 'one-off' abuse of an underage child, he was a serial sex predator. ..."
"... According to Joseph Recarey, the lead Palm Beach detective on the case, Epstein was essentially operating a "sexual pyramid scheme." ..."
"... The Vox writes that the girls and women who reported abuse by Epstein, meanwhile, were markedly powerless. Most of them "came from disadvantaged families, single-parent homes or foster care, Many of the girls were one step away from homelessness." ..."
Jeffrey Epstein's story is similarly abusive. The convicted sex offender prostituted dozens of underage girls and should have
spent the rest of his life in jail. Again this is no 'one-off'
abuse of an underage child, he was a serial sex predator.
According to Joseph Recarey, the lead Palm Beach detective on the case, Epstein was essentially operating a "sexual pyramid scheme."
The Vox
writes that the girls and women who reported abuse by Epstein, meanwhile, were markedly powerless. Most of them "came from disadvantaged
families, single-parent homes or foster care, Many of the girls were one step away from homelessness."
In November 2017 the genius comedian Larry David was criticized in the
Jewish press for admitting on Saturday Night Live that many of those
accused of sexual harassment in Hollywood are Jewish.
... Alan Dershowitz , who was a member
of Epstein's legal team and was later accused by one of the victims' lawyers of himself participating in the
sex trafficking ring .
It is interesting that Trump destiny now depends on geopolitical events he can't control namely actions of Iran and China.
Trump foreign policy appears to be driven by a combination of resentment and arrogance -- not a good combination for survival of
Trump and/or mankind
Was with Iran might result in high oil prices would kill the already anemic global growth and cause a recession (I guess
the volatility in oil prices will go through the roof at that point), Iran can destabilize the global economy by destroying most
of the oil production infrastructure around the gulf.
While Lyndon Johnson had chosen not running for reelection in 1968 because anti-war sentiment was high, G W Bush who was
reelected and the USA have now contractor army and casualties without draft does not matter much.
Notable quotes:
"... More likely they attack Saudi Arabia directly. Same impact, more justifiable if not outright popular. No one likes Prince Bone Saw. ..."
"... Iran could take those 10 million barrels a day away in 15 minutes. ..."
China will play a large roll in whether trump get re-elected.
If they decide they prefer his dysfunctional governance to his opponent, then they will engage
in a trade deal that will allow to trump to declare victory. It will likely be a very
superficial victory.
If they decide they would prefer to engage with a different administration, they will likely
refrain from a trade deal until after the election.
Have you asked yourself why Putin preferred trump? The answer is not pretty (for trump, or the
USA).
This is probably an absurd point of view. But in my opinion, it might be in Iran's interest
to drag the U.S into war, probably as indirectly as possible. That way they might
significantly reduce the chance of Trump being re-elected. (Obviously lives will be
sacrificed in this scenario)
The question is if it would work and would a Democrat president stop the war and go into the
same JCPOA deal again. Who knows. Very unpredictable.
Well, Mike, as absurd IMO is that Iran would risk self-destruction to get rid of Trump. He's
certainly a PITA for them, but closing the Strait of Hormuz to crash the global economy and
to blame it on Trump wouldn't work: Trump could blame it all on Iran while keeping on cooking
a controlled conflict with them, showing the world that the US doesn't depend on oil from any
other continent.
This would be a very difficult situation for a Democrat to step in and to
promise a better solution. The US would be relatively well off compared to Asia and Europe
and even could emerge out of such a constellation relatively more powerful.
But it could also
end up in a terrible mess. As you wrote: Who knows. Very unpredictable.
On Thursday, June 27, Justin Raimondo passed away after a long battle with lung cancer. He
was 67. Justin was a lifelong fighter for peace and liberty. In 1995, he co-founded Antiwar.com
with Eric Garris.
He served as Antiwar.com's editorial director and top columnist, writing over 3,000 articles for the website.
He can never be replaced and will be missed by countless numbers of fans and followers
A few days ago the
BBC reported on an extraordinary French identity theft scam. For two years starting in late
2015, an individual or individuals impersonating France's defence minister, Jean-Yves Le Drian,
scammed an estimated €80m from wealthy French patriots.
The victims of this fraud were tricked into believing that they were being contacted by
France's Defence Minister who was requesting money to help pay ransom for journalists held
hostage by Islamists in the Middle East. Since France officially does not pay ransom to
terrorists, the fake minster assured the victims that payments could not be traced and asked
for the funds to be wired to a bank in China.
The BBC deemed the operation "one of the most outlandish and successful rackets of recent
times."
You may not be surprised that the accused evil genius behind this con is a French-Israeli
character of Tunisian Jewish background named Gilbert Chikli. Chikli grew up in the
working-class Belleville neighbourhood of northeast Paris.
In 2015, Chikli was found guilty of scamming money from French corporations by pretending to
be their chief executive. By the time the verdict was reached, Chikli was safely ensconced in
the Jewish State, which refuses to extradite its nationals.
Chikli's luck ran out in August 2017 when he made the mistake of travelling to Ukraine where
he was arrested at the request of the French police. Chikli told police he was on a pilgrimage
to the tomb of a well-known rabbi. But a search into his phone's communication revealed that he
went to Ukraine to buy a silicone mask
The alleged crime saga didn't end there. Recently reports began to arrive at French
embassies around the world that once again a fake Le Drian, now French foreign minster, was
trying to squeeze money out of influential 'friends of France'. In February, three
French-Israeli citizens were arrested near Tel Aviv in connection with this new swindle.
Chikli's racket is astonishing, creative; criminologists may decide that it borders on
genius. Although Chikli didn't invent the art of the swindle, he ratcheted it up to a higher
level.
What I find remarkable about Chikli's operation is not the stunning amounts of money, the
sophistication, or even the chutzpah involved: it is the fact that Chikli 's scam was dependent
upon the humane compassion of others. He banked on the fact that humans feel and care for each
other. We are dealing with a disgraceful blow against the most precious aspect of humanity,
that which sustains kindness and brotherhood.
"... She is the only candidate who has made ending the wars a centerpiece of her campaign, which will likely lead to her undoing ..."
"... The only bright spot in the second debate was Senator Bernie Sanders's single mention of the word Yemen -- specifically ending U.S. support for that war and shifting war powers back where they belong -- with Congress. Still, most of the candidates had just about nothing to say on this or other war-related topics. Their silence was instructive. ..."
"... Ironically, then, two more American soldiers were killed in another meaningless firefight in the long meaningless war in Afghanistan on the day of the first Democratic presidential primary debate. Indeed, were it not for this horrendous event -- the deaths of the 3,550th and 3,551st coalition troops in an 18-year-old war -- Afghanistan might not have ever made it onto Rachel Maddow's debate questions list. ..."
"... Maddow's question on the first night was one of precious few posed on the subject of foreign policy at all. Moreover, it spurred the most interesting, engaging, and enlightening exchange of either evening -- between Gabbard and Ohio Representative Tim Ryan. ..."
"... Is that what you will tell the parents of those two soldiers who were just killed in Afghanistan? Well, we just have to be engaged? As a soldier, I will tell you that answer is unacceptable. We have to bring our troops home from Afghanistan We have spent so much money. Money that's coming out of every one of our pockets We are no better off in Afghanistan today than we were when this war began. This is why it is so important to have a president -- commander in chief who knows the cost of war and is ready to do the job on day one. ..."
"... In a few tight sentences, Gabbard distilled decades' worth of antiwar critique and summarized what I've been writing for years -- only I've killed many trees composing more than 20,000 words on the topic. The brevity of her terse comment, coupled with her unique platform as a veteran, only added to its power. Bravo, Tulsi, bravo! ..."
"... Gabbard, shamefully, is the only one among an absurdly large field of candidates who has put foreign policy, specifically ending the forever wars, at the top of her presidential campaign agenda. Well, unlike just about all of her opponents, she did fight in those very conflicts. The pity is that with an electorate so utterly apathetic about war, her priorities, while noble, might just doom her campaign before it even really starts. That's instructive, if pitiful. ..."
She is the only candidate who has made ending the wars a centerpiece
of her campaign, which will likely lead to her undoing
Tim Ryan and Tulsi Gabbard during the first night of the the Democratic debate. (YouTube/NBC News/screenshot) Democrats, liberals,
progressives -- call them what you will -- don't really do foreign policy. Sure, if cornered, they'll spout a few choice talking
points, and probably find a way to make them all about bashing President Donald Trump -- ignoring the uncomfortable fact that their
very own Barack Obama led and expanded America's countless wars for eight long years.
This was ever so apparent in the first two nights of Democratic primary debates this week. Foreign policy hardly registered for
these candidates with one noteworthy exception: Hawaii Representative Tulsi Gabbard -- herself an (anti-war) combat veteran and army
officer.
Now primary debates are more show than substance; this has long been the case. Still, to watch the first night's Democratic primary
debates, it was possible to forget that the United States remains mired in several air and ground wars from West Africa to Central
Asia. In a two-hour long debate, with 10 would-be nominees plus the moderators, the word Afghanistan was
uttered just nine
times -- you know, once for every two years American troops have been killing and dying there. Iraq was uttered just twice -- both
times by Gabbard. Syria, where Americans have died and still fight, was mentioned not once. Yemen, the world's worst humanitarian
disaster, courtesy of a U.S.-supported Saudi terror campaign didn't get mentioned a single time, either.
Night two was mostly worse! Afghanistan was uttered just three times, and there was no question specifically related to the war.
Biden did say, in passing, that he doesn't think there should be "combat troops" in Afghanistan -- but notice the qualifier "combat."
That's a cop-out that allows him to keep advisers and "support" troops in the country indefinitely. These are the games most Democrats
play. And by the way, all those supposedly non-combat troops, well, they can and do get killed too.
The only bright spot in the second debate was Senator Bernie Sanders's single mention of the word Yemen -- specifically ending
U.S. support for that war and shifting war powers back where they belong -- with Congress. Still, most of the candidates had just
about nothing to say on this or other war-related topics. Their silence was instructive.
Ironically, then, two more American soldiers were
killed in another meaningless firefight in the long meaningless war in Afghanistan on the day of the first Democratic presidential
primary debate. Indeed, were it not for this horrendous event -- the deaths of the 3,550th and 3,551st coalition troops in an 18-year-old
war -- Afghanistan might not have ever made it onto Rachel Maddow's debate questions list.
I mourn each and every service-member's death in that unwinnable war; to say nothing of the far more numerous Afghan civilian
fatalities. Still, in a macabre sort of way, I was glad the topic came up, even under such dismal circumstances. After all, Maddow's
question on the first night was one of precious few posed on the subject of foreign policy at all. Moreover, it spurred the most
interesting, engaging, and enlightening
exchange of either evening -- between Gabbard and Ohio Representative Tim Ryan.
Reminding the audience of the recent troop deaths in the country, Maddow asked Ryan, "Why isn't [the Afghanistan war] over? Why
can't presidents of very different parties and very different temperaments get us out of there? And how could you?" Ryan had a ready,
if wholly conventional and obtuse, answer: "The lesson" of these many years of wars is clear, he opined; the United States must stay
"engaged," "completely engaged," in fact, even if "no one likes" it and it's "tedious." I heard this, vomited a bit into my mouth,
and thought "spare me!"
Ryan's platitudes didn't answer the question, for starters, and hardly engaged with American goals, interests, exit strategies,
or a basic cost-benefit analysis in the war. In the space of a single sentence, Ryan proved himself just another neoliberal militarist,
you know, the "reluctant" Democratic imperialist type. He made it clear he's Hilary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Chuck Schumer rolled
into one, except instead of cynically voting for the 2003 Iraq war, he was defending an off-the-rails Afghanistan war in its 18th
year.
Gabbard pounced, and delivered the finest foreign policy screed of the night. And more power to her. Interrupting Ryan, she poignantly
asked:
Is that what you will tell the parents of those two soldiers who were just killed in Afghanistan? Well, we just have to be
engaged? As a soldier, I will tell you that answer is unacceptable. We have to bring our troops home from Afghanistan We have
spent so much money. Money that's coming out of every one of our pockets We are no better off in Afghanistan today than we were
when this war began. This is why it is so important to have a president -- commander in chief who knows the cost of war and is
ready to do the job on day one.
In a few tight sentences, Gabbard distilled decades' worth of antiwar critique and summarized what I've been
writing for years -- only I've killed many trees composing more than 20,000 words on the topic. The brevity of her terse comment,
coupled with her unique platform as a veteran, only added to its power. Bravo, Tulsi, bravo!
Ryan was visibly shaken and felt compelled to retort with a standard series of worn out tropes. And Gabbard was ready for each
one, almost as though she'd heard them all before (and probably has). The U.S. military has to stay, Ryan pleaded, because: "if the
United States isn't engaged the Taliban will grow and they will have bigger, bolder terrorist acts." Gabbard cut him right off. "The
Taliban was there long before we came in. They'll be there long [after] we leave," she thundered.
But because we didn't "squash them," before 9/11 Ryan complained, "they started flying planes into our buildings." This,
of course, is the recycled and easily refuted
safe haven myth -- the notion
that the Taliban would again host transnational terrorists the moment our paltry 14,500 troops head back to Milwaukee. It's ridiculous.
There's no evidence to support this desperate claim and it fails to explain why the United States doesn't station several thousand
troops in the dozens of global locales with a more serious al-Qaeda or ISIS presence than Afghanistan does. Gabbard would
have none of it. "The Taliban didn't attack us on 9/11," she reminded Ryan, "al-Qaeda did." It's an important distinction, lost on
mainstream interventionist Democrats and Republicans alike.
Ryan couldn't possibly open his mind to such complexity, nuance, and, ultimately, realism. He clearly worships at the temple of
war inertia; his worldview hostage to the absurd notion that the U.S. military has little choice but to fight everywhere, anywhere,
because, well, that's what it's always done. Which leads us to what should be an obvious conclusion: Ryan, and all who think
like him, should be immediately disqualified by true progressives and libertarians alike. His time has past. Ryan and his ilk have
left a scorched region and a shaken American republic for the rest of us.
Still, there was one more interesting query for the first night's candidates. What is the greatest geopolitical threat to the
United States today, asked Maddow. All 10 Democratic hopefuls took a crack at it, though almost none followed directions and kept
their answers to a single word or phrase. For the most part, the answers were ridiculous, outdated, or elementary, spanning Russia,
China, even Trump. But none of the debaters listed terrorism as the biggest threat -- a huge sea change from answers that candidates
undoubtedly would have given just four or eight years ago.
Which begs the question: why, if terrorism isn't the priority, do far too many of these presidential aspirants seem willing to
continue America's fruitless, forever fight for the Greater Middle East? It's a mystery, partly explained by the overwhelming power
of the America's military-industrial-congressional-media complex. Good old President Dwight D. Eisenhower is rolling in his grave,
I assure you.
Gabbard, shamefully, is the only one among an absurdly large field of candidates who has put foreign policy, specifically
ending the forever wars, at the top of her presidential campaign agenda. Well, unlike just about all of her opponents, she did
fight in those very conflicts. The pity is that with an electorate so utterly apathetic about war, her priorities, while noble,
might just doom her campaign before it even really starts. That's instructive, if pitiful.
I, too, served in a series of unwinnable, unnecessary, unethical wars. Like her, I've chosen to publicly dissent in not just strategic,
but in moral, language. I join her in her rejection of U.S. militarism, imperialism, and the flimsy justifications for the Afghanistan
war -- America's longest war in its history.
As for the other candidates, when one of them (likely) wins, let's hope they are prepared the question Tulsi so powerfully posed
to Ryan: what will they tell the parents of the next soldier that dies in America's hopeless Afghanistan war?
Danny Sjursen is a retired U.S. Army Major and regular contributor to The American Conservative. His work has also appeared
in Harper's, the Los Angeles Times, The Nation , Tom Dispatch, The Huffington Post, Truthdig and The Hill .
He served combat tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught history at his alma mater, West Point.
He is the author of a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War, Ghostriders of Baghdad: Soldiers,
Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge . He co-hosts the progressive veterans' podcast " Fortress on a Hill ." Follow him on Twitter at @SkepticalVet .
It wasn't surprising that Hawaii's Representative Tulsi Gabbard, an outspoken advocate of
realism in foreign policy, exploited every opportunity to highlight her opposition to what she
considers America's promiscuous warmaking policies of recent decades. She decried the country
"going from one regime-change war to the next. This insanity must end." But other Democrats
also echoed that sentiment, particularly with regard to the growing tensions between the Trump
administration and Iran. Bill de Blasio said he would oppose another Mideast war unless it is
authorized by Congress. He added, "We learned a lesson in Vietnam that we seem to have
forgotten." Sanders also decried the possible drift to war with Iran as well as America's
involvement in the civil war in Yemen. He expressed pride in his opposition to the Iraq war and
chided Biden for supporting that 2003 invasion.
Three candidates -- Klobuchar, New Jersey Senator Cory Booker, and Gabbard -- criticized
Trump for getting out of the Iran nuclear deal. "I would sign back on," said Gabbard, saying a
war with Iran would quickly ignite the entire region and would be "far more devastating and
costly" than the Iraq war. When Ryan suggested we must remain engaged in the Middle East,
Gabbard called that "unacceptable" and added the United States has nothing to show for its
18-year mililtary campaign in Afghanistan. At the conclusion of the debate, Gabbard became the
most searched candidate on Google, according to a report on Fox News that cited Google Trends
data. Could this mean a gap persists between the foreign policy sentiments of many Americans
and the foreign policy activities of their government in Washington?
Tulsi Gabbard being interviewed by Tucker Carlson after the debate. During the debate, Tulsi
made clear she was against war with Iran and getting back to the JCPOA deal. In the interview
with Carlson, she makes clear that she opposes the sanctions on Iran.
The reason why is simple: the party is not about politics, nor is it about the will of the
people or anything else. It is about power and money. It is about keeping the donors happy.
It is ethically bankrupt. That is what their true purpose is. Sanders and Gabbard rock the
boat and the party establishment will never forgive them for that.
Gillebrand:
Capitalism is Okey-Dokey, but greed is bad?
Keynes:
"Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives
will somehow work together for the benefit of all."
Will neoliberal MSM "Ron Paul" Tulsi ? "Merchants of death" control Washington and they will fiercely attack
anybody who attempt to change the current neocon policies even one bit. Looks at color revolution launched against Trump
despite the fact that he folded three month after inauguration.
Notable quotes:
"... Nope. That denunciation of John Bolton interventionism came from Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii during Wednesday night's Democratic debate. At 38, she was the youngest candidate on stage. ..."
"... Gabbard proceeded to rip both the "president and his chickenhawk cabinet (who) have led us to the brink of war with Iran." ..."
"... "The Taliban didn't attack us on 9/11," Gabbard replied, "Al-Qaida attacked us on 9/11. That's why I and so many other people joined the military, to go after al-Qaida, not the Taliban." ..."
"... By debate's end, Gabbard was the runaway winner in both the Drudge Report and Washington Examiner polls and was far in front among all the Democratic candidates whose names were being searched on Google. ..."
"... If she can rise a few points above her 1-2% in the polls, she could be assured a spot in the second round of debates. ..."
"... If she makes it into the second round, Gabbard could become the catalyst for the kind of globalist vs. nationalist debate that broke out between Trump and Bush Republicans in 2016, a debate that contributed to Trump's victory at the Cleveland convention and in November. ..."
"... Given more airtime, she will present problems for the GOP as well. For the foreign policy Tulsi Gabbard is calling for is not far off from the foreign policy Donald Trump promised in 2016 but has since failed to deliver. ..."
"... Rather than engaging Russia as Trump promised, we have been sanctioning Russia, arming Ukraine, sending warships into the Black Sea, beefing up NATO in the Baltic and trashing arms control treaties Ronald Reagan and other presidents negotiated in the Cold War ..."
"... At the end of the Cold War, we were the lone superpower. Who forfeited our preeminence? Who bled us of 7,000 U.S. lives and $6 trillion in endless Middle East wars? Who got us into this Cold War II? ..."
"... They're already trying to 'Ron Paul' her, which means we should support her, CFR, and Zionist associations notwithstanding. She's the only one saying 'Enough!' to the insanity of Eternal War, as America's infrastructure crumbles, and our progeny are enslaved to trillions of un-payable debt. ..."
"... Does Pat Buchanan know? During a radio interview he assured me that his friend Dick Cheney wouldn't do something like that. I asked Pat's friend Paul Craig Roberts what he thought. Craig said Pat just can't go there or he'll never appear in the MSM again. Then Pat got purged anyway. https://www.veteranstodayarchives.com/2012/02/20/pat-buchanan-avoids-911-truth-gets-fired-anyway/ ..."
"... Hi Kevin. I am a big fan of yours but I think that you should market your beliefs about Israel's role in 911 a bit more modestly. While the evidence is compelling, it is not air-tight. ..."
"... This also applies to the Zio-Judaic role in the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy. You posit (in your otherwise excellent article on the Raptors' proposed visit Israel) that the Zions basically killed both Kennedys. While this position may be correct, it is an allegation that, at present, cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Your confidence therefore seems excessive. This weakness might therefore turn off average folks to your otherwise astute insights. ..."
"... The media is so terrified of Tulsi that they digitally added a zit to her face during the debate while she was discussing foreign policy to try to subliminally turn people off to her anti-war message. Here's an article on it showing videos of it happening: ..."
"... Tulsi Gabbard's foreign policy ideas are anathema to the war-prone Washington establishment and the media class, not to speak of the Israel firster. The anti-Gabbard slur is already underway. ..."
"For too long our leaders have failed us, taking us into one regime change war after the
next, leading us into a new Cold War and arms race, costing us trillions of our hard-earned tax
payer dollars and countless lives. This insanity must end."
Donald Trump, circa 2016?
Nope. That denunciation of John Bolton interventionism came from Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard
of Hawaii during Wednesday night's Democratic debate. At 38, she was the youngest candidate on
stage.
Gabbard proceeded to rip both the "president and his chickenhawk cabinet (who) have led us
to the brink of war with Iran."
In a fiery exchange, Congressman Tim Ryan of Ohio countered that America cannot disengage
from Afghanistan: "When we weren't in there they started flying planes into our buildings."
"The Taliban didn't attack us on 9/11," Gabbard replied, "Al-Qaida attacked us on 9/11.
That's why I and so many other people joined the military, to go after al-Qaida, not the
Taliban."
When Ryan insisted we must stay engaged, Gabbard shot back:
"Is that what you will tell the parents of those two soldiers who were just killed in
Afghanistan? 'Well, we just have to be engaged.' As a solider, I will tell you, that answer is
unacceptable. We are no better off in Afghanistan that we were when this war began."
By debate's end, Gabbard was the runaway winner in both the Drudge Report and Washington
Examiner polls and was far in front among all the Democratic candidates whose names were being
searched on Google.
Though given less than seven minutes of speaking time in a two-hour debate, she could not
have used that time more effectively. And her performance may shake up the Democratic race.
If she can rise a few points above her 1-2% in the polls, she could be assured a spot in the
second round of debates.
If she is, moderators will now go to her with questions of foreign policy issues that would
not have been raised without her presence, and these questions will expose the hidden divisions
in the Democratic Party.
Leading Democratic candidates could be asked to declare what U.S. policy should be -- not
only toward Afghanistan but Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jared Kushner's "Deal of
the Century," and Trump's seeming rejection of the two-state solution.
If she makes it into the second round, Gabbard could become the catalyst for the kind of
globalist vs. nationalist debate that broke out between Trump and Bush Republicans in 2016, a
debate that contributed to Trump's victory at the Cleveland convention and in November.
The problem Gabbard presents for Democrats is that, as was shown in the joust with Ryan, she
takes positions that split her party, while her rivals prefer to talk about what unites the
party, like the terribleness of Trump, free college tuition and soaking the rich.
Given more airtime, she will present problems for the GOP as well. For the foreign policy
Tulsi Gabbard is calling for is not far off from the foreign policy Donald Trump promised in
2016 but has since failed to deliver.
We still have 2,000 troops in Syria, 5,000 in Iraq, 14,000 in Afghanistan. We just moved an
aircraft carrier task force, B-52s and 1,000 troops to the Persian Gulf to confront Iran. We
are about to impose sanctions on the Iranian foreign minister with whom we would need to
negotiate to avoid a war.
Jared Kushner is talking up a U.S.-led consortium to raise $50 billion for the Palestinians
in return for their forfeiture of sovereignty and an end to their dream of a nation-state on
the West Bank and Gaza with Jerusalem as its capital.
John Bolton is talking of regime change in Caracas and confronting the "troika of tyranny"
in Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela.
Rather than engaging Russia as Trump promised, we have been sanctioning Russia, arming
Ukraine, sending warships into the Black Sea, beefing up NATO in the Baltic and trashing arms
control treaties Ronald Reagan and other presidents negotiated in the Cold War
U.S. policy has managed to push our great adversaries, Russia and China, together as they
have not been since the first Stalin-Mao decade of the Cold War.
This June, Vladimir Putin traveled to Beijing where he and Xi Jinping met in the Great Hall
of the People to warn that in this time of "growing global instability and uncertainty," Russia
and China will "deepen their consultations on strategic stability issues."
Xi presented Putin with China's new Friendship Medal. Putin responded: "Cooperation with
China is one of Russia's top priorities and it has reached an unprecedented level."
At the end of the Cold War, we were the lone superpower. Who forfeited our preeminence? Who
bled us of 7,000 U.S. lives and $6 trillion in endless Middle East wars? Who got us into this
Cold War II?
Was all this the doing of those damnable isolationists again?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made
and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
They're already trying to 'Ron Paul' her, which means we should support her, CFR, and Zionist
associations notwithstanding. She's the only one saying 'Enough!' to the insanity of Eternal War, as America's
infrastructure crumbles, and our progeny are enslaved to trillions of un-payable debt.
Perhaps there's no way we can dislodge the Zionist fiend slurping from America's jugular,
but at least we can use our voice to say 'no' to it. And support the only person who's
willing to strike at the root, the Eternal Wars for Israel.
By debate's end, Gabbard was the runaway winner in both the Drudge Report and Washington
Examiner polls and was far in front among all the Democratic candidates whose names were
being searched on Google.
Which got the MIC to paint a giant target on her. The Atlantic Council is not going to be
happy with this kind of anti war shtick entering the debates, and their patrons own the
media.
Does Tulsi know she's lying when she says "al-Qaeda attacked us on 9/11"? I suspect she does,
and that her disgust with the big lie behind the 9/11-wars-for-Israel has something to do
with her anti-interventionism.
I would hope Gabbard has more sense than to accept any position in Trumps administration.
Trump is the kiss of death for any decent person who works for or with him.
Hi Kevin. I am a big fan of yours but I think that you should market your beliefs
about Israel's role in 911 a bit more modestly. While the evidence is compelling, it is not
air-tight.
This also applies to the Zio-Judaic role in the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy.
You posit (in your otherwise excellent article on the Raptors' proposed visit Israel) that
the Zions basically killed both Kennedys. While this position may be correct, it is an
allegation that, at present, cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Your confidence
therefore seems excessive. This weakness might therefore turn off average folks to your
otherwise astute insights.
As for Tulsi Gabbard, who you suggest is "lying" about her belief in what/who caused 911,
I bet that she (like myself) rejects the Official 911 report but is unsure of what/who did
exactly what on Sept. 11, 2001. Mysteries remain. The puzzle is incomplete.
Allow me to respectfully advise you to stick with what you know for certain, as you do it
quite well.
As for the mysteries concerning 911 and Israel's role, it may be more fruitful to concede
that the evidence has not only been partially destroyed but that a coverup has occurred. And
yes, there's overwhelming evidence pointing to Israeli involvement. And no honest person can
deny that.
The media is so terrified of Tulsi that they digitally added a zit to her face during the
debate while she was discussing foreign policy to try to subliminally turn people off to her
anti-war message.
Here's an article on it showing videos of it happening:
@Robert
Dolan As if Hillary 'War with Russia' Clinton would have been different.
Trumps foreign policies in obedience to 'that shitty little country' are disgusting, no
doubt, but we would still have all of that and much worse under Hillary.
It's a charming idea; Pat Buchanan is ventilating. Tulsi Gabbard as Trump's national security
adviser; what a treat! But poor Tulsi, she wouldn't survive very long in the Zionist
environment, which dominates Trump's White House.
Tulsi Gabbard's foreign policy ideas are
anathema to the war-prone Washington establishment and the media class, not to speak of the
Israel firster. The anti-Gabbard slur is already underway.
Tulsi Gabbard was half right by saying that the Taliban didn't do 9/11, but Al-Qaida did,
which is false. None of them committed the murderous attack. Everybody with a clear mind can
see of the web of lies and inconsistencies that the 9/11 Commission Report has solidified.
The American people have to come to grips with the fact that it was an inside job, and those
responsible are still all alive and kicking. The problem with the whole truth is that nobody
can afford to tell it, because it would be his or her political death.
So, Tulsi Gabbard was wise sticking to the half-truth.
@Kevin
Barrett 'Does Tulsi know she's lying when she says "al-Qaeda attacked us on 9/11"?'
She has been showing signs of hedging since her campaign began. I can't make up my mind
how bad that is. If she went on telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth
– such as that Mr Assad has done little or nothing to deserve the abuse heaped on him
– she might simply be ruling herself out as a candidate.
On the other hand, once a candidate starts telling herself, "Oh, it's worth one or two
little white lies to get myself elected, because I can do so much good then", it's the start
of a long slippery slope.
That specific statement can be justified, to my mind, with a little Jesuitical
equivocation. Because no one has ever really pinned down who or what "Al Qaeda" is – or
even whether such an organization exists at all.
If she said, "No one can be certain who was responsible for 9/11, but it's time we had a
really thorough, impartial investigation", she would alienate a huge section of the
voters.
There's almost always something like this tucked into Mr. Buchanan's columns. The other
day, he was still celebrating Uncle Sam's rescue of medical students from the "Marxist thugs"
in Grenada. That little "our" is the key. Pronoun propaganda is one of the ways that this
website's "Mr. Paleoconservative" helps to keep Americans identifying with Uncle Sam.
Another fundamental way that Mr. Buchanan actually supports the Establishment is by
channeling and harmlessly blowing off dissent through "Red v Blue" politics. Enjoy columns
like this one in the meantime, but keep in mind that he's also going to tell you to believe
the puppet show and vote (almost certainly GOP) in November 2020. Even if someone who says
things like Ms. Gabbard is elected, there will be ample drama in and about Washington to
excuse the lack of meaningful change and fire people up for the next Most Important Election
Ever in 2022.
And note this:
"For the foreign policy Tulsi Gabbard is calling for is not far off from the foreign
policy Donald Trump promised in 2016 but has since failed to deliver."
Oh, a mere logistical problem due to people like John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, and Elliot
Abrams somehow crashing the MAGA party? Mr. Buchanan should have written "the foreign policy
Donald Trump lied about in 2016." But that might lead people to doubt the system.
If she can rise a few points above her 1-2% in the polls, she could be assured a spot in
the second round of debates.
Oi Vey! If Tulsi starts to rise in the polls then then (((they'll))) create a new dossier
and claim she's colluding with Russia or the Taliban to steal the 2020 election. I wouldn't
be surprised if elements of Trump's administration did the very same things to Tulsi as
Obongo's did to Trump.
Was all this the doing of those damnable isolationists again?
Pat knows (((who))) but has lost the will to say it. But we know. The goyim know.
@mark
green We, we all have our opinions. I think you're most charitable to Mr. Barrett's
fictions. Zio-terrorists (I'm not using the word Zionist, since I am Zionist – sort of
-because I support the idea of Jewish nation-state as a democratic country) may have
contributed (just freely associating), say, max 30% to 9/11, while the possibility of their
involvement in the assassination of JFK is way below 5%.
I'm about halfway through Putin's financial Times interview and suggest it be read by
all. There is much to be gleaned from it with a view to the 2020 Election Cycle and
candidate's positions. Just consider the following very small excerpt and its implications
for policy formulation by candidates:
"What we should be talking about is not how to make North Korea disarm, but how to ensure
the unconditional security of North Korea and how to make any country, including North Korea
feel safe and protected by international law that is strictly honoured by all members of
the international community . This is what we should be thinking about." [My
Emphasis]
Putin's insights into Trump's 2016 election strategy, IMO, is very enlightening and
essential reading as the conditions that contributed to Trump's victory have worsened under
his tenure and can be used against him if wisely pursued.
Let's see if they can keep Bernie in the same cage they put Tulsi in. I can't imagine
they'll be helpful or even polite to him. I expect "debate" questions such as:
Senator Sanders, are you current in your communist party dues?
Bernie, when did you last speak to Vladimir Putin?
How often are you wrong about FDR?
Is your wife still laundering money for beach houses through small liberal arts colleges?
Do you know how to pay for anything, or do you regularly leave restaurants without paying
your bill?
Bonus question: explain why anyone should continue to pay attention to you when your views
are shared by everyone on stage?
Miss Gabbard just served two tours in the ME, one as enlisted in the HI National Guard.
Brave Mr. Bolton kept the dirty communists from endangering the US supply of Chesapeake
crab while serving in the Maryland Guard. Rumor also has it that he helped Tompall Glaser
write the song Streets of Baltimore. Some say they saw Mr. Bolton single handily defending
Memorial Stadium from a combined VC/NVA attack during an Orioles game. The Cubans would have
conquered the Pimlico Race Course if not for the combat skill of PFC Bolton.
I don't know either. But it's been the main stream party line for a while now. "Bernie
should drop out because he's old, white, male, and his opinions are not unique. He's not even
a real Democrat. And he doesn't support the party. So why is he running for president as a
Democrat and picking fights with Biden/Warren/Beto?"
The one that gets me is Bernie the Bomber. Somehow when the pundit class talks about
Bernie and Tulsi, it's only to mention how they coddle dictators.
Coddle (the wrong) dictators. Real Dems coddle our CIA approved dictators. Bernie and
Tulsi coddle those filthy democratically elected "dictators" that want to retain natural
resources for the benefit of their own nations and not for the enrichment of multinationals.
They're monsters!
Seriously though, only the Dems would have a superstar like Bernie and put all their
efforts into sabotaging him. Even the RNC and right wing media was willing to suck it up and
get behind Trump when it was clear he was going to win and had a huge base of support. But,
as is said often now, "the Dems would rather lose to a Republican than win with a
progressive".
Is the CIA's purpose to protect national security or financial security? They seem
confused at times on their purpose and if they were disbanded would the country notice?
Doesn't the Defense Intelligence Agency do most of the heavy security lifting?
Looking at the CIA actions from the Dulles Brothers onwards, I would say that it is to
protect and support all members of the Oligarchy of Money from the 1% to Big Oil to Big
Finance from that pesky Democratic Government and the troublesome Rule of Law.
Actually protecting the United States and never mind Americans themselves is like #47 on
its to-do list.
Did you notice the shift in Bernie's message tonight? He said they needed to have the guts
to take on Wall Street, the Military Industrial Complex, and Big Pharma. I didn't hear him
complain about big banks. I think he's been compromised!
"... If I were a particularly cynical analyst, it might look to me like global capitalism, starting right around 1990, freed by the collapse of the U.S.S.R. to do whatever the hell it wanted, more or less immediately started dismantling uncooperative power structures throughout the Greater Middle East. My cynical theory would kind of make sense of the "catastrophic policy blunders" that the United States has supposedly made in Iraq, Libya, and throughout the region, not to mention the whole "Global War on Terror," and what it is currently doing to Syria, and Iran. ..."
"... Take a look at that map again. What you're looking at is global capitalism cleaning up after winning the Cold War. And yes, I do mean global capitalism, not the United States of America (i.e., the "nation" most Americans think they live in, despite all evidence to the contrary). I know it hurts to accept the fact that "America" is nothing but a simulation projected onto an enormous marketplace but seriously, do you honestly believe that the U.S. government and its military serve the interests of the American people? If so, go ahead, review the history of their activities since the Second World War, and explain to me how they have benefited Americans not the corporatist ruling classes, regular working class Americans, many of whom can't afford to see a doctor, or buy a house, or educate their kids, not without assuming a lifetime of debt to some global financial institution. ..."
"... OK, so I digressed a little. The point is, "America" is not at war with Iran. Global capitalism is at war with Iran. The supranational corporatist empire. Yes, it wears an American face, and waves a big American flag, but it is no more "American" than the corporations it comprises, or the governments those corporations own, or the military forces those governments control, or the transnational banks that keep the whole show running. ..."
If I were a particularly cynical analyst, it might look to me like global capitalism,
starting right around 1990, freed by the collapse of the U.S.S.R. to do whatever the hell it
wanted, more or less immediately started dismantling uncooperative power structures throughout
the Greater Middle East. My cynical theory would kind of make sense of the "catastrophic policy
blunders" that the United States has supposedly made in Iraq, Libya, and throughout the region,
not to mention the whole "Global War on Terror," and what it is currently doing to Syria, and
Iran.
Take a good look at
this Smithsonian map of where the U.S.A. is "combating terrorism." Note how the U.S.
military (i.e., global capitalism's unofficial "enforcer") has catastrophically blundered its
way into more or less every nation depicted. Or ask our "allies" in Saudi Arabia, Israel,
Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and so on. OK, you might have to reach
them in New York or London, or in the South of France this time of year, but, go ahead, ask
them about the horrors they've been suffering on account of our "catastrophic blunders."
See, according to this crackpot conspiracy theory that I would put forth if I were a
geopolitical analyst instead of just a political satirist, there have been no "catastrophic
policy blunders," not for global capitalism. The Restructuring of the Greater Middle East is
proceeding exactly according to plan. The regional ruling classes are playing ball, and those
who wouldn't have been regime-changed, or are being regime-changed, or are scheduled for regime
change.
Sure, for the actual people of the region, and for regular Americans, the last thirty years
of wars, "strategic" bombings, sanctions, fomented coups, and other such shenanigans have been
a pointless waste of lives and money but global capitalism doesn't care about people or the
"sovereign nations" they believe they live in, except to the extent they are useful. Global
capitalism has no nations. All it has are market territories, which are either open for
business or not.
Take a look at that map again. What you're looking at is global capitalism cleaning up after
winning the Cold War. And yes, I do mean global capitalism, not the United States of
America (i.e., the "nation" most Americans think they live in, despite all evidence to the
contrary). I know it hurts to accept the fact that "America" is nothing but a simulation
projected onto an enormous marketplace but seriously, do you honestly believe that the U.S.
government and its military serve the interests of the American people? If so, go ahead, review
the history of their activities since the Second World War, and explain to me how they have
benefited Americans not the corporatist ruling classes, regular working class Americans, many
of whom can't afford to see a doctor, or buy a house, or educate their kids, not without
assuming a lifetime of debt to some global financial institution.
OK, so I digressed a little. The point is, "America" is not at war with Iran. Global
capitalism is at war with Iran. The supranational corporatist empire. Yes, it wears an American
face, and waves a big American flag, but it is no more "American" than the corporations it
comprises, or the governments those corporations own, or the military forces those governments
control, or the transnational banks that keep the whole show running.
This is what Iran and Syria are up against. This is what Russia is up against. Global
capitalism doesn't want to nuke them, or occupy them. It wants to privatize them, like it is
privatizing the rest of the world, like it has already privatized America according to my
crackpot theory, of course.
if I were a geopolitical analyst, I might be able to discern a pattern there, and
possibly even some sort of strategy.
Sounds good.
Some other people did it before, wrote it down etc. but it's always good to see that
stuff.
it might look to me like global capitalism, starting right around 1990, freed by the
collapse of the U.S.S.R. to do whatever the hell it wanted, more or less immediately
started dismantling uncooperative power structures throughout the Greater Middle East.
.there have been no "catastrophic policy blunders," not for global capitalism. The
Restructuring of the Greater Middle East is proceeding exactly according to plan. The
regional ruling classes are playing ball, and those who wouldn't have been regime-changed,
or are being regime-changed, or are scheduled for regime change.
Sure, for the actual people of the region, and for regular Americans, the last thirty years
of wars, "strategic" bombings, sanctions, fomented coups, and other such shenanigans have
been a pointless waste of lives and money but global capitalism doesn't care about people
or the "sovereign nations" they believe they live in, except to the extent they are useful.
Global capitalism has no nations. All it has are market territories, which are either open
for business or not.
Spot on.
Now .there IS a bit of oversight in the article re competing groups of people on top of
that "Global capitalist" bunch.
It's a bit more complicated than "Global capitalism".
Jewish heavily influenced, perhaps even controlled, Anglo-Saxon "setup" .. or Russian
"setup" or Chinese "setup".
Only one of them can be on the top, and they don't like each other much.
And they all have nuclear weapons.
"Global capitalism" idea is optimistic. The global overwhelming force against little
players. No chance of MAD there so not that bad.NOPE IMHO.
There is a chance of MAD.
That is the problem . Well, at least for some people.
Globalists are not Capitalists. There is no competition. Just a hand full of monopolies.
These stateless corporate monopolists are better understood as Feudalists. They would have
everything. We would have nothing. That's what privatization is. It's the Lords ripping off
the proles.
I was a union man in my youth. We liked Capitalism. We just wanted our fair share of the
loot. The working class today knows nothing about organizing. They don't even know they are
working class. They think they are black or white. Woke or Deplorable.
ALL OF US non billionaires are coming up on serious hard times. Serious enough that we
might have to put aside our differences. The government is corrupt. It will not save us.
Instead it will continue to work to divide us.
Another great article by C J Hopkins.
Hopkins (correctly) posits that behind US actions, wars etc lies the global capitalist
class.
"Global capitalism has no nations. All it has are market territories, which are either open
for business or not"
This is correct -- but requires an important caveat.
Intrinsic to capitalism is imperialism. They are the head & tail of the same coin.
Global capitalists may unite in their rapacious attacks on average citizens the world over.
However, they will disunite when it comes to beating a competitor to a market.
The "West" has no (real) ideological differences with China, Russia & Iran. This is a
fight between an existing hegemon & it's allies & a rising hegemon (China) & it's
allies.
In many ways it's similar to the WW I situation: an established imperial country, the UK,
& it's allies against a country with imperial pretensions -- Germany (& it's
allies)
To put it in a nice little homily: the Capitalist wolves prefer to eat sheep (us) -- but,
will happily eat each other should they perceive a sufficient interest in doing so.
Globalists are not Capitalists. There is no competition. Just a hand full of
monopolies.
In most key sectors, competition ends up producing monopolies or their near-equivalent,
oligopolies. The many are weeded out (or swallowed up) by the few . The
situation is roughly the same with democracy, which historically has always resulted in
oligarchy, as occurred in ancient Rome and Athens.
Globalists are not Capitalists. There is no competition. Just a hand full of monopolies.
These stateless corporate monopolists are better understood as Feudalists. They would have
everything. We would have nothing. That's what privatization is. It's the Lords ripping off
the proles.
You are right in expecting that in Capitalism there would be competition – the
traditional view that prices would remain low because of competition, the less competitive
removed from the field, and so on. But that was primitive laisser-faire Capitalism on a fair
playing field that hardly existed but in theory. Occasionally there were some "good"
capitalists – say the mill-owner in a Lancashire town who gave employment to the
locals, built houses, donated to charity and went to the Sunday church service with his
workers. But even that "good" capitalist was in it for the profit, which comes from taking
possession for himself of the value added by his workers to a commodity.
But modern Capitalism does not function that way. There are no mill-owners, just absentee
investor playing in, usually rigged, stock market casinos. Industrial capitalism has been
changed into financial Capitalism without borders and loyalty to worker or country. In fact,
it has gone global to play country against country for more profit.
Anyway, the USA has evolved into a Fascist state (an advanced state of capitalism, a.k.a.
corporatocracy) as Chomsky stated many years ago. Seen from abroad here's a view from the
horse's mouth ( The Guardian is official organ of Globalist Fascism).
'Christian Zionism' is the direct fruit of Anglo-Saxon Puritanism broadly understood. Over its
life, it has manifested itself in many ways. The beliefs were so powerful even before the
Puritan revolution that groups of English Dissenter/Low Church Protestants existed that taught
that the original natives of Britain, barbarians in every sense, had been uplifted by the
arrival of the 10 Lost Tribes of Israel – this was taught to prove that the English had
Hebrew blood and so were the Chosen Race, which meant that Anglophone Protestantism (Low
Church) was the true faith.
By the dawn of the Victorian age, standard Brit WASP Judaizing had become secular and had
discovered that Arabs are also Semites linguistically and culturally. That allowed many of the
Brit WASP Elites to adopt Arabs and/or Mohammedanism as their pet Semite to elevate over the
vast majority of British Isles natives that they despised.
The religiously pro-Jewish original focus of the culture produced by the Judaizing heresy
that was Anglo-Saxon Puritanism was still alive and very powerful at the dawn of the 20th
century. That is how the Oxford UP came to publish the Scofield Study Bible.
Churches across the South were remarkably free of any taint of overt Judaizing in the WASP
vein until well after WW2. The growth was slow but steady until after the Reagan years, when it
exploded. I have seen no signs of a regression in the 21st century.
You also are way off about the economic notions held by rural Evangelicals in the South.
Elsewhere, British military intelligence ... erm, sorry, its mouthpiece The Fraudian
attacks Tulsi Gabbard over her supposed overlap with the Republican Party and her level of
wokeness which, not surprisingly, The Fraudian finds low and therefore starts worrying like a
dried-up dog mummy with teeth bites already all over it.
"... "[We need] a Commander in Chief [who will stop] these failed interventionist wars of regime change that have cost our country so much in human lives, untold suffering, and trillions of dollars." ..."
"... "Trump Nikki Haley...Mike Pompeo... The people around John Bolton. These people are advocating for strengthening our economy, and if the only way they can do that is by building that economy based on building and selling weapons to countries that are using them to slaughter and murder innocent people, then we need new leaders in this country. The American people deserve better than that." ..."
"Sadly, the system in this country is rigged in favor of wealthy elites who have purchased
tremendous influence in our government."
"We have to put an end to the culture of selfishness and corruption that allows greedy
Wall Street banks and executives to rip off working people without any consequences."
"[We need] a Commander in Chief [who will stop] these failed interventionist wars of
regime change that have cost our country so much in human lives, untold suffering, and
trillions of dollars."
"Will you stand for the humanity of the Yemeni people? Will you stand against Saudi
Arabia's genocidal war? Or will you continue to support this war that has caused 22 million
Yemeni people to be in desperate need of humanitarian aid? To cause these 85,000 children to
have died from starvation, to have caused the dropping of U.S.-made bombs on innocent
civilians, killing tens of thousands of people. This is such an urgent action that must be
taken by the United States Congress to assert its authority and end United States support for
this genocidal war in Yemen."
"Trump Nikki Haley...Mike Pompeo... The people around John Bolton. These people are
advocating for strengthening our economy, and if the only way they can do that is by building
that economy based on building and selling weapons to countries that are using them to
slaughter and murder innocent people, then we need new leaders in this country. The American
people deserve better than that."
"I don't smoke marijuana. I never have... But I believe firmly in every person's freedom
to make their own choices, and that people should not be thrown in jail and incarcerated or
made into criminals for choosing to smoke marijuana whether it be for medicinal and
non-medicinal purposes.
There's no question that this overall war on drugs has not only been a failure, it has
created and exacerbated a number of other problems that continue to afflict people in this
country..."
Quoted in: For Tulsi Gabbard, Marijuana Sits At Nexus Of Good Policy And Smart Politics,
Forbes, nu Tom Angell (7 March 2019)
"We are in a situation today where we, here in the United States and the world, are at a
greater risk of nuclear catastrophe than ever before in history. My commitment in fighting to end these counterproductive regime change wars is based on
these experiences and my understanding [of] the cost of war and who pays the price.
Yes, it is our service members. It is our troops. It is our military families. It is the
people in these countries, where these wars are waged, whose suffering ends up far worse
after we launch these regime change wars... The skepticism, and the questions that I
raised, were very specific around incidents that the Trump administration was trying to use
as an excuse to launch a U.S. military attack in Syria.
I served in a war in Iraq, a war that was launched based on lies and a war that was
launched without evidence. And so the American people were duped... As a soldier, as an
American, as a member of Congress, it is my duty and my responsibility to exercise
skepticism any time anyone tries to send our service members into harm's way or use our
military to go in and start a new war."
Quoted by Kevin Gosztola in CNN Foreign Policy Gatekeepers Vilify Tulsi Gabbard for Her
Anti-Intervention Dissent, Mintpress News (13 March 2019)
"... Thanks for the posting b about how manipulated the public is by the MSM. ..."
"... Bravo Tulsi ! The msm will hit hard on you, as they will be forced to take the numbers into account. Consider it as stripes... ..."
"... It is interesting how the NYTimes has now gone full in for Warren. They had at least three positive opinion columns for her yesterday, plus a front page spread that could have been written by the Warren campaign itself. This while having many negative Biden pieces, the last few days. The neoliberals really wanted Biden, but see he is unelectable so have gotten behind the next Obama. Looks like Wall Street is expecting a crash and want to make sure they are bailed out and not put in jail again. ..."
"... What do you expect from the Warshington Post. ..."
"... Tulsi served in the Anbar province. She understands the difference between Sunni and Shia which is why she is against war with Iran, Syria, and Libya. She also understands the corrupt nature of the US relationship with Saudi Arabia and speaks out against it. ..."
"... This is a big big NO NO in DC. Saudi Arabia is seen as part of the empire. Al Qaeda and ISIS serve their purpose as shock troops for the US empire. ..."
"... Richard Shultz, a professor of international politics at Tufts who's long been a key national security state intellectual, wrote in 2004 that "A very senior [Special Operations Forces] officer who had served on the Joint Staff in the 1990s told me that more than once he heard terrorist strikes characterized as 'a small price to pay for being a superpower.'" ..."
"... It is pretty clear to me that Tulsi doesn't believe this. This is why she is so hated by the MSM. She is former military and largely believes in military spending and fighting Sunni extremists including distancing the US from their sponsor Saudi Arabia and throwing out the US traitors who also support them. I don't believe in US military spending myself but Tulsi is the only honest person running. The rest of them are all completely corrupt. I do believe she would change US foreign policy for the better. Of course this is why she won't be allowed in office. ..."
"... I forget the exact details, but I remember that in the last election, a TV network was asked why it did not give more coverage to Bernie Sanders. The reply was that Sanders was not a real contender because he had almost no chance of winning. Well that's a self-fulfilling prophecy if it's made by those in control of the media (let's forget for a moment that his own party also conspired against him). ..."
"... It will be interesting to see if Tulsi Gabbard can attract enough support that she cannot be dismissed that easily. Funnily enough, by blocking the more centrist candidates like Sanders, the Democrat leadership has made room for Gabbard who is much more radical (by American standards). ..."
"... her first point was that we are spending enormous amounts of our tax dollars on unnecessary wars. Of course the media wanted instead to hear about what new boondoggle programs they might propose, not something as mundane (and unprofitable for some) as reducing military budget to reduce taxation and free up money for other programs. ..."
"... This morning I saw the clip of Gabbard taking apart Ryan and felt that she did pretty well overall. I'm hopeful that interest in her will grow as I think she is one of very few in Washington who are trustworthy. ..."
"... I am sickened by the neocon chicken hawks, laptop bombardiers, armchair generals and admirals who thank war veterans for their service while glorifying legalized murder and mayhem at the same time. ..."
"... I will eagerly vote for the first candidate to observe that U.S. lawmaking and U.S. elections are hopelessly corrupt and worthless, and can't be used to fix themsleves or any other issue. ..."
"... Maybe you should have a look at Tulsi Gabbards voting record. She is literally one of the very few who constantly votes against military funding. ..."
"... "Tulsi believes the United States would be far better off spending the trillions of dollars wasted in interventionist wars on more pressing domestic issues in America, like infrastructure, college debt, healthcare, etc." ..."
"... When Gabbard is forthright and hits hard with well-informed, well-thought out positions; delivered calmly and with composure; regardless of how far from the mainstream they fall; she scores. This is a boxer who can win. But Gabbard has to resist the temptation to fall in line with political weaseling. ..."
"... I have been watching Gabbard for a long time now. As you mentioned there is no perfect candidate. But she is the lesser evil at this point. The elephant in the room is as usual Israel. Did she sign that pledge when she got into office? How much money has she received from AIPAC. Being a CFR member is a problem as well. Where does she stand with respect to the Palestinians? ..."
"... While I agree with those who state that it is all a sham and that she doesn't have a chance, I still think that she is a test to show the extent to which the yankee populace has been suborned into the structure's propaganda bullshit. ..."
The mainstream media seem to judge the Democratic primary debate last night quite
differently than the general public.
Quartz cites multiple polls which show that Tulsi Gabbard won
the debate :
[T]wo candidates seemed to pique a lot of interest among US voters, at least when judged by
who Americans searched for on Google: New Jersey senator Cory Booker and Hawaii
Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard.
Gabbard was lost for much of the debate. That may not have been her fault -- she wasn't asked
many questions -- ....
Duh!
The New York Timesmain piece
about the debate mentions Gabbard only once - in paragraph 32 of the 45 paragraphs long piece.
It does not reveal anything about her actual political position:
There was little discussion of foreign policy until near the end of the debate when two
little-known House lawmakers, Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii and Tim Ryan of Ohio, clashed over how
aggressively to target the Taliban.
The New York Times also has some 'experts' discussing
winners and losers. Gabbard is only mentioned at the very end, and by a Republican pollster, as
a potential candidate for Secretary of Defense.
NBC News
ranks the candidates' performance. It puts Gabbard on place 8 and inserts a snide:
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii: Seized an opportunity to highlight her military experience in
Afghanistan and her signature anti-intervention foreign policy views, without being tainted
by her past sympathetic comments on Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad.
Most of the above media have long avoided to mention Gabbard and to discuss her political
positions. It is quite evident that the mainstream media do not like her anti-regime-change
views and are afraid of even writing about them.
Tulsi Gabbard's campaign posted a video of her parts of the
debate. She received some good applause.
Posted by b on June 27, 2019 at 11:19 AM |
Permalink
She humiliated Tim Ryan when he asserted that the Taliban attacked the U.S. on 9/11, pointing
out that it was Al Qaeda. Ryan responded that the Taliban protected Al Qaeda. Gabbard then
said something to the effect, "Try Saudi Arabia."
I thought it was hypocritical that none of the other candidates thanked Gabbard for her
service because you know if it had been some guy who is a Major in the National Guard with a
bunch of commendations people would be elbowing each other out of the way to lick his
boots.
Tulsi - "You know who is protecting al-Qaeda right now? It's Saudi Arabia"
MSNBC time given to each candidate:
#1 Booker: 9.68 minutes
#3 Warren: 8.35 minutes
#7 Gabbard: 5.35 minutes
Tulsi was the only candidate to get a negative question directed at her, though she
handled it very well.
MSDNC also framed a trick question who is for the elimination of ALL private healthcare.
Tulsi didn't raise her hand because she is for private insurance for supplemental surgery
such as plastic surgery, like Bernie. Tulsi and Bernie are the only ones for true Medicare
for All. Warren raised her hand but previously has stated she would be for something like
combining a public option and medicare for all, so she is now for cosmetic elective plastic
surgery being covered under Medicare for All?
It is interesting how the NYTimes has now gone full in for Warren. They had at least three
positive opinion columns for her yesterday, plus a front page spread that could have been
written by the Warren campaign itself. This while having many negative Biden pieces, the last
few days. The neoliberals really wanted Biden, but see he is unelectable so have gotten
behind the next Obama. Looks like Wall Street is expecting a crash and want to make sure they
are bailed out and not put in jail again.
--
Tulsi served two tours of duty in the Middle East (Iraq / Kuwait)
In France main newspaper le Figaro, their Washington correspondent said it was Warren who won
the debate, and he only mentiones Tulsi Gabbard once, she stood out because of her red vest, he
wrote, nothing about content. So there you are.
Tulsi is against "regime change war" which she defines as essentially wars that USA lose.
If Tulsi were a serious anti-war candidate, she would be talking about significant
reductions in the military budget. She's not.
Tulsi has drunk the Kool-Aid about Russian interference in US elections. Her nominally
anti-war stance helps her to "sell" neo-McCarthyism to those that think her anti-regime
change war is "courageous".
Furthermore, she is very passive and "reasonable" about her views, making it easy for MSM
to ignore her because every candidate will say that they are for peace and against dumb
wars.
<> <> <> <> <>
Anyone looking to any duopoly candidate for salvation is deluded.
Tulsi Gabbard is allowed some brief MSM exposure.
To demonstrate that plurality of opinion is alive and well and going strong - toot toot!
rah rah! - in the Dem party. A show, a charade. She may be quite genuine and believe what she states, which seems like common sense, ok.
And she is good at it. Her opinions - tagged with Xtreme hopiness - will be shown to be
inconguent with the majority, etc.
In any case she can't win the nomination, she is an 'actor extra' on the fringes. From her promo site:
In this new century, everyone has clean water to drink, clean air to breathe and access
to nourishing food; everyone receives the medical care they need, has a roof over their head,
receives the education they need and is able to find good paying, fulfilling work. People
have financial security and don't have to worry about making ends meet in their old
age.
Our children, and children for generations to come, never worry again about nuclear war
and no parent has to wonder where they will hide their children when the missiles strike. Our
economy is not dependent on war, but is driven instead by innovation, green technology and
renewable industries.
Tulsi served in the Anbar province. She understands the difference between Sunni and Shia
which is why she is against war with Iran, Syria, and Libya. She also understands the corrupt
nature of the US relationship with Saudi Arabia and speaks out against it.
This is a big big
NO NO in DC. Saudi Arabia is seen as part of the empire. Al Qaeda and ISIS serve their
purpose as shock troops for the US empire.
If a few buildings have to come down and a few
thousand people killed that is a small price to pay for the US being a global hegemonic
empire... from counterpunch... Richard Shultz, a professor of international politics at Tufts
who's long been a key national security state intellectual, wrote in 2004 that "A very senior
[Special Operations Forces] officer who had served on the Joint Staff in the 1990s told me
that more than once he heard terrorist strikes characterized as 'a small price to pay for
being a superpower.'"
It is pretty clear to me that Tulsi doesn't believe this. This is why she is so hated by the
MSM. She is former military and largely believes in military spending and fighting Sunni
extremists including distancing the US from their sponsor Saudi Arabia and throwing out the
US traitors who also support them. I don't believe in US military spending myself but Tulsi
is the only honest person running. The rest of them are all completely corrupt. I do believe
she would change US foreign policy for the better. Of course this is why she won't be allowed
in office.
I forget the exact details, but I remember that in the last election, a TV network was asked
why it did not give more coverage to Bernie Sanders. The reply was that Sanders was not a
real contender because he had almost no chance of winning.
Well that's a self-fulfilling prophecy if it's made by those in control of the media
(let's forget for a moment that his own party also conspired against him).
It will be interesting to see if Tulsi Gabbard can attract enough support that she cannot
be dismissed that easily. Funnily enough, by blocking the more centrist candidates like
Sanders, the Democrat leadership has made room for Gabbard who is much more radical (by
American standards).
I cringed when Tulsi launched into patriotic spiel about her service and could not bear to
watch as they went on to over-look her.
But then I realized that she had carefully considered the possibility that she may only be
asked one question and that that if there was one point to make that that was it - she unlike
most of the others has been willing to put herself at risk do do what she thought was the
right thing, serving her country at disadvantage to herself (though there may have been some
politics in it, but never mind) as opposed to say "pocahontes" lady for example. She's pretty
sharp and would represent us well I think.
@Posted by: Zachary Smith | Jun 27, 2019 1:01:12 PM | 15
Excellent point Zachary. In the first question they asked her about what she might do to
improve the economy for the benefit of the un-rich, her first point was that we are spending
enormous amounts of our tax dollars on unnecessary wars. Of course the media wanted instead
to hear about what new boondoggle programs they might propose, not something as mundane (and
unprofitable for some) as reducing military budget to reduce taxation and free up money for
other programs.
We're not allowed to consider candidates who would endeavor to make things better for the
majority at the expense of the minority, which is why Tulsi Gabbard will never be allowed to
the the nominee, regardless of how much her policy positions would resonate with voters were
they to actually be exposed to them.
The democrats are as as polluted as the republicans.
They refuse to see that Warren is far too hysterical to have any chance in a face to face
with Trump while Tulsi Gabbard will knock him Trump off.
The dems have been stupid enough to support Clinton that everybody disliked, now they will
redo the same mistake and lose again
If Tulsi were a serious anti-war candidate, she would be talking about significant
reductions in the military budget. She's not.
This is absurd. The things she talks about ALL THE TIME is how we're spending trillions on
regime change wars and how that money could be better used paying for health care, education,
the environment, etc. That is the entire focus of her campaign. And, by the way, she is the
*only* candidate to speak out against sanctions on Venezuela (and one of maybe two or three
to speak out against the US coup), saying that Venezuelans should determine their own future
without outside interference.
My first take on Tulsi's performance (the first hour) was not positive. I thought her early
spiel sounded too pro "soldier" and thus pro military, I was wishing she or someone would dig
deeper into the "border crisis" and explain the U.S. role in central America especially in
the 1980s, naming names (Abrams, North, etc)and telling the American people that most of the
refugees are coming from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, not Mexico. This morning I saw the clip of Gabbard taking apart Ryan and felt that she did pretty well
overall. I'm hopeful that interest in her will grow as I think she is one of very few in
Washington who are trustworthy.
Gabbard knows the primary race is rigged yet she stays in it and is remarkably measured as
she is both attacked and shunned by the "popular people". If the primary race bogs and she
stays in she could gain. I hope she is talking to Sanders.
As a Vietnam war veteran I found Tulsi Gabbard's antiwar war stance on target and thoroughly
refreshing. The only thing I am dismayed over was the short time she was given to make her
point.
I am sickened by the neocon chicken hawks, laptop bombardiers, armchair generals and
admirals who thank war veterans for their service while glorifying legalized murder and
mayhem at the same time.
There is a nauseating stench about war that cannot be dismissed nor
forgotten by anyone who has seen it and experienced it up close. Gabbard knows this from her
own tours of duty in Iraq and Kuwait. Nations do not become great by filling up their
cemeteries with the corpses of its potentially best and brightest.
I will eagerly vote for the first candidate to observe that U.S. lawmaking and U.S. elections
are hopelessly corrupt and worthless, and can't be used to fix themsleves or any other issue.
Unfortunately Tulsi Gabbard isn't that person, but she could not be ignored by the
Democrat oligarchs if she kept traveling and talking to foreign leaders, especially 'enemy'
ones. I hope she realizes that her 'Evil Assad lover' meeting is a gift that keeps on giving
to her. I doubt if I would even recognize her name today if that had never happened.
Can you imagine the heads that would explode if she went to China or Russia? Or went to
North and South Korea? And [sigh] Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel? Venezuela? She doesn't have
to do ANYTHING there. Just have a nice cup of tea with the leader and/or evil dictator and
listen for about half-an-hour, and then leave. Then come back and tell the NYT and WaPo that
she had a MOST interesting conversation with the leader but she would prefer not to discuss
details with the press. She would get instant 24x7 hate coverage by the MSM. Even
Trump would have to tweet about her.
Sometimes you just have to go guerilla in order to take on the 800 lb. swamp gorilla.
How would a media owned by munitions manufacturers behave any differently to someone whose
position threatens them making money off death and destruction? The 'national' media is owned
by the war industry, nothing more, nothing less.
Julian Castro, repeal of the federal law that makes "illegal entry"
Amy Klobuchar bashed Trump for saying he would bring down drug prices, something she said
the president has yet to do. "That's what we call at home all foam and no beer," Klobuchar
said.
Tulsi Gabbard, During a heated exchanged with Ryan, Gabbard pointed out that the Taliban
did not attack the World Trade Center on 9/11. "That's why I and other people joined the
military," she continued, "to go after Al Qaeda. Not the Taliban."
...and the losers, as:
Elizabeth Warren, seemed to disappear in the second half of the debate.
Tim Ryan, ran into Tulsi Gabbard
Beto O'Rourke, lacked substance in his answers.
----
Listened to the debate, too many issues that just allowed posturing without needing a real
policy response.
I like the part where Tulsi said that we can't say to the parents of the two US
service-men that had just been killed by the Taliban that we should just stay engaged, we
need to bring the troops home and, instead, spend the money on building up America.
-----
What is the biggest geo-politic threat facing America (framed as a specific foreign policy
question):
Delaney = China & Nuclear Weapons (no cheer)
Inslee = Donald Trump (biggest cheer)
Gabbard = Greatest risk of Nuclear War than ever before (no cheer)
Klobuchar = China & Iran (no cheer)
O'Rourke = Climate Change (modest cheer)
Warren = Climate Change (no cheer)
Booker = Nuclear proliferation & Climate Change (no cheer)
Castro = China & Climate Change (no cheer)
Ryan = China (half-hearted attempted applause)
De Blasio = Russia (2nd biggest cheer)
I think, Klobuchar noticed the response De Basio got and started to bash Russia later in
the debate.
-----
Closing statements:
Delaney (a bit spacey, wasn't paying attention, aspirational, American dream)
De Blasio (heart & soul of the party, track record, health care, working people first,
slogan = it matters)
Inslee (climate crisis, the only candidate to make this the top priority)
Ryan (oh, dear I won't even try)
Gabbard (against the rich & powerful, this must end, every single person gets the
health care they need, environment, well-paying jobs, justice for all)
Castro (immigrant story, health, jobs, slogan = adios to Donald Trump)
Klubacher (listens and acts, always wins, can beat Trump, not the establishment candidate,
not funded by corporate interests, slogan = govern for you)
Booker (rising to our best, he will beat Trump, best of who we are)
O'Rourke (emosh, for the children, new kind of politics)
Warren (emosh, great honour, modest background, American dream, we can make the country
work)
-----
I think Delaney and Ryan are toast. Unfortunately, De Blasio could go far on the anti-Russia dog whistle.
-----
Jackrabbit has a point about what can you expect from a single person being elected.
But he is wrong about Tulsi Gabbard's policy on military spending:
"Tulsi believes the United States would be far better off spending the trillions of
dollars wasted in interventionist wars on more pressing domestic issues in America, like
infrastructure, college debt, healthcare, etc."
The US is engaged in more conflicts than at any time since the end of WWII, at the same
time its military is beginning to fail, and its economy is on a precipice. There is no real
political movement anywhere in the US that is effectively addressing these issues.
I don't see Americans organising to take control of their government, to stop the wars or
anything like that.
The only hope that American's have is to send a message that the wars have got to stop, to
vote for a candidate that is committed and best able to stop those wars, and for those voters
to hold that candidate to account.
The only candidate that fits that bill is Tulsi Gabbard.
If you wish to opt-out, then organise, rise up and take control.....ehh, what's that?....I
thought not!
If all you are going to do is watch the TV, eat chips, drink beer and moan, then the very
least thing that you can do is vote for Tulsi Gabbard!
Tulsi Gabbard volunteered to go kill brown people on the other side of the world. If she
renounces her service to the Empire and regrets her part in mass murder, that would get my
attention.
But it doesn't matter. If she doesn't play ball she will get the Dennis Kucinich
treatment. Anybody remember him, or has he fallen down the memory hole? He loudly opposed
Uncle Sam's foreign policy and even introduced an impeachment bill against W Bush after the
2003 invasion of Iraq.
The Empire struck back by re-drawing congressional districts. That forced him to run
against another Dummycrat congressional incumbent in the primary, and he lost. All
politicians are required to get with the program; they are either co-opted or shoved out.
The only exception I can think of is Eleanor Holmes Norton, the non-voting delegate in
Congress who represents the District of Columbia. The establishment can afford to ignore her
because her vote doesn't count, just like all the other D.C. residents.
The thirty-odd reactions here to Tulsi Gabbard are a perfect example of how & why the
left is so hopelessly fragmented.
People, for the umptieth time, it is impossible to ever find 100 point zero zero zero
percent overlap or coverage with any candidate for any office, ever.
But that fact does not justify throwing them all at the stake.
You are burning to ashes your own chances of ever seeing a society that even remotely
resembles your ideals.
Gotta love living in a Dollar Democracy where one dollar = one vote. Voting only legitimizes
an illegitimate regime. "None of the above" would be an interesting ballot option, and about
as realistic as retiring at age 55, which we were promised decades ago.
Hey, Trailer Trash. She was a medic. She did not volunteer to go kill people. Also, to the claim that she has no policy positions: good grief, are you capable of
navigating a site? She has tons of clearly worded policy positions.
Finally, the VoteSmart site is clearly compromised if that's what it is saying about
Gabbard. Her positions are vastly different from those stated.
>She was a medic. She did not volunteer to go kill people.
> Posted by: Linda Hagge | Jun 27, 2019 3:14:41 PM | 48
The entire purpose of US War Department is to kill people and break things when vassals
refuse to obey. Everybody who signs up understands and accepts that basic fact. My nephew
actually stated to me that he signed up for the Marines so he could kill people legally.
People who want to patch up the sick and wounded sign up for Médecins Sans
Frontières or similar, not Uncle Sam's mass murder machine.
@Virgile (21) If you think that Sen. Warren is "hysterical" and would not have a chance
facing off against Trump, then I can only assume that you have not seen her in action. She is
incredibly well-informed, quick on her feet and unflappable. She would make Trump look like
the clown that he is.
I recommend that all Americans actually visit a party caucus at the county of district
level to see how the party bosses "select" their presidential candidate. It is a sobering but
depressing experience.
As for those who are waiting for the perfect leader - remember that such a leader would
likely be murdered by those who have money in the game.
When Gabbard is forthright and hits hard with well-informed, well-thought out positions;
delivered calmly and with composure; regardless of how far from the mainstream they fall; she
scores. This is a boxer who can win. But Gabbard has to resist the temptation to fall in line
with political weaseling.
Politicians are told that they must go where the voters' are,
triangulating so as not to offend, trying to cover all the bases, trying to confirm voters'
biases (heavily propagandized and managed biases, via media, etc., so that it becomes an easy
game for those in on the game): a real leader speaks to where he or she knows that the people
need to go, relying on the people to catch up, relying on some kind of faith to keep going
when that takes a while to happen.
The forthright and courageous Tulsi Gabbard wins minds and hearts.
I would without doubt prefer Tulsi over any of the other candidates on that stage, but I
still don't know how seriously to take her. Sure, she talks a good game about ending
régime-change wars, but she also seems to think that the 'War on Terra' (as Pepe
Escobar used to call it) is an actual thing, when in fact, it's just a big psy-op . We
all know that 9/11 was a false-flag that was staged to justify the serial destruction of all
the mid-east countries that refuse to bow down before Tel Aviv and Washington; and that 'Al
Qaeda' is really just a Saudi-funded, CIA-trained dupe-group used either to justify our
presence in the ME, or else to directly attack countries like Syria.
Does Tulsi really not know this? If she doesn't, then she's stupid. And if she does and
she's choosing to keep quiet about it for some reason, then who's she fooling? The neocons?
Or us?
So that's what bothers me about Tulsi. Still, I think she'd be preferable to four more
years of Zion Don (though I realize that isn't saying much).
I have been watching Gabbard for a long time now. As you mentioned there is no perfect
candidate. But she is the lesser evil at this point. The elephant in the room is as usual Israel. Did she sign that pledge when she got into
office? How much money has she received from AIPAC. Being a CFR member is a problem as well.
Where does she stand with respect to the Palestinians?
Once she repeats the line of "Israel has a right to defend itself" nonsense, it's all
downhill from there. You cannot make a new foreign policy direction once you signed that
pledge. You have to continue with the master plan. Obama was told that, so was Trump. That
has been proven and it's not up for debate.
Sadly, I still believe this is all a show for the masses. Nothing will change. The country
is doomed and the Empire will take its direction either good or bad, without any inputs from
the rest of us.
Several years ago, we placed on the ballot a referendum to stop Big Timber from
indiscriminately using helicopters or other contrivances to spray insecticides onto us, all
we own and our natural surround. Big Timber outspent us @10,000:1 and employed the usual
campaign of corporate lies to get us to vote against our health and other interests, which
included editorials in favor of Big Timber by the leading Oregon newspapers. At least we had
the opportunity to vote on the issue. When living in Santa Clara County, California during
the 1970s, we had no choice and got sprayed daily with Malathion insecticide to try and
destroy drosophila--the common fruit fly--which we all knew was an impossible task and would
have lost if put to a vote. We won at the ballot box and preserved our health and that of our
communities and the visitors we need to attract to survive in our tourism heavy economy.
The bottom line is voting matters! Arguments to the contrary only serve the interests
of the Current Oligarchy. And I grow oh so weary of reading that crap on this site, which
makes the people writing such tripe to have the appearance of Trolls!
sorry, I see my links are a b repeat -- but hey she deserves the headlines
exiled off mainstree , Jun 27, 2019 6:43:32 PM |
83
While I agree with those who state that it is all a sham and that she doesn't have a chance,
I still think that she is a test to show the extent to which the yankee populace has been suborned into the structure's
propaganda bullshit.
I think that if they do sideline her she
should stand as a third party candidate. I also suspect that the more people actually see her
and that the more intelligent element will support her. The better she does, the more
difficult it will be for the structure to maintain absolute power. After all there is little
significant difference between corporate democrats and corporate republicans.
I wanted Tulsi to be genuine but in doing some research I am sharing just a little of what I found: she is a current member of
the Counsel on Foreign Relations ...
If you want to know about and understand US foreign policy or have any hope of influencing
that policy you need to take an interest in the Council of Foreign Affairs.
I have frequently read and sought out articles on their journal, I would imagine b and
many commentators here have done so.
If you want a President that can deal with foreign affairs then they have to engage with
the foreign affairs establishment and do it before you become President otherwise you don't
stand a chance.
"She stressed that she co-sponsored a House resolution reaffirming US commitment to "a
negotiated settlement leading to a sustainable two-state solution that re-affirms Israel's
right to exist as a democratic, Jewish state and establishes a demilitarized democratic
Palestinian state living side-by-side in peace and security."
That resolution also reaffirmed the US commitment to Israel and the US policy of vetoing
one-sided or anti-Israel UN Security Council resolutions, and condemned boycott and
divestment campaigns that target Israel."
Although she has condemned settlement activity, but sponsoring a bill to condemn BDS is a
nonstarter in my book. Too bad.
"... I thought she would stand out from the field as she is the only candidate who seems to GENUINELY think our "interventionist" foreign policy is madness, and beyond counterproductive. ..."
"... Now Ron Paul once stood out from the field in presidential debates, and also won all of these Drudge Report polls. At some point, the Powers that Be decided enough with that and succeeded in re-labeling him a kook, racist, pacifist, Russia lover, isolationist and traitor. ..."
"Of all the candidates who are running for president, I'm the one who is most qualified to
fulfill that responsibility to walk into the Oval Office and serve as commander-in-chief.
And
I think you heard tonight some of the reasons why those who lack the experience, lack the
understanding, and conviction would, unfortunately, put our country in a place where we'd end
up waging more wars, costing us more lives and tax-payer dollars .
This is why I'm running
for president, to be that person, to be that change in our foreign policy and those
regime-change wars, new cold wars nuclear arms races and invest our precious dollars into
serving the needs of our people. "
I thought she would stand out from the field as she is the only candidate who seems to
GENUINELY think our "interventionist" foreign policy is madness, and beyond
counterproductive.
She also seems to not be backing down from her positions and appears capable of defending
her position in easy-to-understand and grasp sentences.
Now Ron Paul once stood out from the field in presidential debates, and also won all of
these Drudge Report polls. At some point, the Powers that Be decided enough with that and
succeeded in re-labeling him a kook, racist, pacifist, Russia lover, isolationist and
traitor.
The Most Qualified to be Prezzy would be the first of these cockbags to admit that
Obobo weaponized the government against his opponents. But none of them will. And by ignoring
the 800 pound gorilla in the room, they ALL prove that none of them are even close to
"qualified" to lead anything.
As they
take the stage for the first Democratic debates of the 2020 presidential campaign, the 20
participating candidates should be ready for one frequently asked question: How will you pay
for it? Democrats often pledge to finance their most ambitious plans -- Medicare for All,
debt-free college, a Green New Deal -- with tax increases on the wealthy and corporations.
That is both sensible and fair. But candidates hoping to distinguish themselves in the
limited time they will be allotted should also consider taking a stand against the United
States' bloated defense budget.
This month, the House Armed Services Committee
advanced a $733 billion defense budget on a mostly party-line vote. According to
Defense News , the lack of Republican support for the bill
illustrated "the stark divide in defense policy between the two parties." Yet that divide
is far narrower than you might think. The bill's price tag is just $17 billion less than the
$750 billion that
President Trump requested ; it still was, as Representative Adam Smith (D-WA) boasted,
the "largest" defense budget in history. There remains a near-universal commitment in both
parties to massive defense spending -- a case of Washington bipartisanship that the country
would be better off without.
A timely new
report from the Center for International Policy's Sustainable Defense Task Force offers
an alternative path forward. In the report, "A Sustainable Defense: More Security, Less
Spending," the nonpartisan group of military and budget experts outlines a strategy that it
says would save $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years without harming national-security
interests. In fact, through a sober reassessment of the biggest threats to the United States
in the 21st century, including climate change and cyberattacks, the proposal would keep the
country safer than an outdated approach that relies on perpetual spending increases.
One more century of warfare like the 20th century, and the USA might be bankrupt
Notable quotes:
"... So her sell point of getting rid USA from useless wars off shore seems on pint but we all know that ain't gonna realized except takes a hike in her time, if she got a chance of course ..."
"... She can talk to her heart's content, but American forces won't go home as long as dollar is the world's favourite currency. ..."
"... If Gabbard can stay with the brain-dead false narrative that 'Crazed Arabs' took down the towers and building 7 in perfect free fall without taking months to plant and wire the bombs, then maybe the Zio-Cons may let her live. ..."
While it would appear that the mainstream media has crowned Senator Elizabeth Warren the winner of
last night's first Democratic primary debate, on a more quantitative and objective level, it would
seem there was another female candidate that stood out to the American audience.
Before the debate, Warren was indeed the 'most-searched' Democratic candidate on Google...
But as the debate began and the clown-show escalated, one candidate dominated the search...
As Fox News reports,
Tulsi Gabbard, an Army National Guard veteran who served
in Iraq, grabbed the attention of the viewers every time she spoke about foreign policy and the
military.
During the debate, she called for scaling back of U.S. military presence abroad and accused
"this president and his chicken hawk cabinet have led us to the brink of war with Iran."
Gabbard's military experience gave her authority in a harsh exchange with Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan,
who said the U.S. must maintain forces in Afghanistan to ensure the Taliban is kept in check.
"When we weren't in there, they started flying planes into our buildings," Ryan said.
"The Taliban didn't attack us on 9/11, Al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11," Gabbard replied.
The data show that
the moment that generated the most search traffic for Gabbard was
when she was making her closing argument
.
"Assuming the Google "trend" isn't a manifestation of their algorithms then it
appears that most adults are interested in a calm, stoic, but non-clown like candidate"
Tulsi got some agenda correct 90% others 10% among 99 problems,
you can't compromise one after another nor give away your gun
right for some hotchpotch noises
They promise big and bigger
in campaign times yes?
So her sell point of getting rid USA from useless wars off
shore seems on pint but we all know that ain't gonna realized
except takes a hike in her time, if she got a chance of course
If Gabbard can stay with the brain-dead false narrative that
'Crazed Arabs' took down the towers and building 7 in perfect free
fall without taking months to plant and wire the bombs, then maybe
the Zio-Cons may let her live.
Her mentioning the Saudis, (Israels
secret partner) however, was a little risky, unless the Zionists
are getting ready to throw the Saudis under the bus?
While I fully agree with the idea, heck, FACT, that it wasn't a
bunch of Bedouins in street clothes that took down the towers
it also has to be taken into account that the CIA uses proxies
all the time. I upvoted you, though. The 9/11 story is a
truly fascinating one.
the CIA uses proxies all the time' ....... agree, but
nothing hit building '7' the 47 story Solomon building , so
who were the proxies for that free fall controlled demo?
And probably, if we just impeach the Walrus of Death nothing will change . Its a freight
train to war. It moves slowly at first but its hell to try and stop.
This awesome demonstration of American resolve was meant to be punishment for the vicious
slaughter of an expensive U.S. military drone, which was peacefully invading Iranian airspace,
and not at all attempting to provoke the Iranians into blowing it out of the sky with a missile
so the U.S. military could "retaliate."
The military-industrial complex would never dream of doing anything like that, not even to
further the destabilization and restructuring of the Greater Middle East that they've been
systematically carrying out the since the collapse of the former Soviet Union, which more on
that in just a moment.
"... His problem has always been a lack of focus, vision and discipline. He may be generally against stupid wars, but like Obama he doesn't have the experience in dealing with the establishment or the strategic knowledge to push back against what can seem like very strong, common sense arguments in favor of intervention. ..."
Rand Paul: Trump's Antiwar Counterweight The president called off airstrikes against Iran, and we have the Kentucky senator
and Tucker Carlson to thank.•
The United States almost
started a war with Iran only for President Donald Trump to change his mind at the last minute. Reports
indicate that the usual suspect, National Security Adviser John Bolton, was the main advocate for airstrikes, with the backing
of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and CIA head Gina Haspel, as well as encouragement from Senate war hawks Lindsey Graham and
Tom Cotton . Earlier on Thursday,
responding to news that Iran had reportedly downed an unmanned American drone, Trump
said , "Look, I said I want to get
out of these endless wars, I campaigned on that, I want to get out." Trump's cautiousness seemed as much a response to the Washington
chorus crying for military action as the event itself. More importantly, if the swamp wants war -- who has the president's back in
pushing peace?
This might be the most important question in American politics right now. Advertisement TAC 's Barbara Boland
reported in early June that the purpose of wedging the
now-outgoing
Patrick Shanahan into his acting defense secretary position was to put Bolton at the top of the foreign policy food chain (the incoming
Mark Esper could
fill a similar role). "He's likely to default to whatever Pompeo or Bolton wants," retired U.S. Army colonel and defense analyst
Douglas Macgregor said of Shanahan. "Pompeo and Bolton have agendas. They're not Trump's, but in the absence of strong leadership,
Shanahan is unlikely to put up much resistance." In mid-June, Pompeo blamed
alleged attacks on two oil tankers in the Gulf
of Oman on Iran.
TAC
noted that Pompeo "did not cite specific evidence as to why the U.S. believes Iran, or its proxies, are responsible for the attacks."
One oil tanker owner said the
U.S. account
was wrong . Some
wondered whether
this could be another Gulf of Tonkin incident. Despite
claiming to not want
a military confrontation since joining the Trump administration, it's no secret that
Pompeo and
Bolton
have
wanted
war with Iran
for
some time .
Luckily -- as the world was reminded Thursday night -- one person who says he doesn't want war happens to be their boss. "I'm not
somebody that wants to go in to war, because war hurts economies, war kills people most importantly -- by far most importantly,"
Trump told
Fox News in mid-May when asked about Iran. The
likely death toll was reportedly
also a major factor in why the president called off airstrikes Thursday night.
Trump appears to understand the hawkish nature of the Washington foreign policy establishment that surrounds him. "Don't kid yourself,
you do have a military industrial complex. They do like war," Trump told Fox News. "I say, 'I want to bring our troops back home,'
the place went crazy . You have people here in Washington they never want to leave, they always want to fight." "No, I don't want
to fight," Trump added.
Trump's impulses, if not always his policy actions, are generally anti-war. Unfortunately, most in his immediate orbit do not
share those inclinations, with unrepentant Iraq war cheerleader Bolton topping the list. But as Bolton's influence reportedly
grows , who is
the only person the president talks to who shares his more restrained "America First" foreign policy vision?
"While Trump tolerates his hawkish advisers, the [Trump] aide added, he shares a real bond with Paul," Politico reported in August. "He
actually at gut level has the same instincts as Rand Paul," the White House aide reportedly said. (I
covered Politico
's revelations at the time for TAC. )
Politico noted, "Trump has stopped short of calling for regime change [in Iran] even though Secretary of State Mike Pompeo,
Secretary of Defense James Mattis, and Bolton support it, aligning with Paul instead, according to a GOP foreign policy expert in
frequent contact with the White House." "'Rand Paul has persuaded the president that we are not for regime change in Iran,' this
person said, because adopting that position would instigate another war in the Middle East," Politico reported.
That was 10 months ago. Today, in addition to almost bombing Iran on Thursday, the saber rattling and accusations are ratcheting
up along with the troop
deployments
, no doubt making Pompeo and Bolton happy and likely reflecting their handiwork. But despite these moves, Trump's gut still seems
to be closer to Paul's realism than what Republican hawks seek. Politico reported on May 20, "The
president has fashioned himself far more in the mold of Paul than the hawkish Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who was shocked by Trump's
plans to pull out of Syria and only was able to convince Trump to leave a small force in the country."
Politico further noted: "Trump's hiring of John Bolton as national security adviser may have changed the approach inside
the White House, but Trump's dovish core hasn't changed, senators said. Perhaps that can't prevent conflict with Iran if it strikes
first, but they said they were confident that Trump's aggressive posture is far more about a Trumpian brand of diplomacy than it
is about marching to war." Let's hope. Amid the constant tug-of-war for Trump's favor between his hawkish advisers and his realist
champion s , the president still hasn't launched a war against Iran or anyone else. But Trump will continue to need sound minds and
advice.
The Daily Beast
reports
that in addition to Paul's counsel, the president might also be getting the right encouragement from Tucker Carlson. "A source
familiar with the conversations told The Daily Beast that, in recent weeks, the Fox News host has privately advised Trump against
taking military action against Iran," The Daily Beast notes. "And a senior administration official said that during the president's
recent conversations with the Fox primetime host, Carlson has bashed the more 'hawkish members' of his administration." The president
obviously needs all the backup he can get. Because unless I'm missing something and sane foreign policy thinkers like Andrew Bacevich
or Jim Webb have had some secret correspondence with the president, there is almost no one else talking to Trump who wants to avoid
war.
Rand Paul's continuing role as unofficial adviser to the president might be his most important. Some might ask what
one man could possibly accomplish. Just ask
John Bolton
.
Do remind me, who appointed Bolton, Pompeo, Bloody Gina, Abrams and the rest of the unindicted war criminals?
Who could fire all of the above with a single stroke of the pen, for any reason or no reason at all?
Who continues to sputter and rant about Iran, a country that scrupulously complied with the JCPOA until the United States unilaterally
abrogated it?
Who continues to gleefully assist the Saudi and Emirati tyrants to commit genocide in Yemen?
Who blocked the sale of landmine removal equipment to Syria?
Trump, that's who. And that is only a partial list of his crimes. And now this [expletive deleted] wants a medal for not starting
another stupid war?
Even taking his words at face value, what he did was the equivalent of waving a loaded gun in front of someone's house and
threatening to shoot the occupants, then expecting to be praised because he was persuaded to not actually open fire.
The problem is that the alternatives (95% of the establishment hawks in either party) would wave the gun, threaten to shoot, then
actually pull the trigger.
Yeah, it's not great that Trump had to be persuaded out of military action, but praise the Lord that America has a president
who *can* be persuaded out of militarism (and routinely has).
There's a lot of perfect being the enemy of good going around on this issue.
The troika of evil (Bolton, Pompeo, Bloody Gina) are set on ever more hemming in Trump's options. Trump simply has to get rid
of these sociopaths or he will be forced into a war which will probably cost him both his reelection and legacy.
I cannot comprehend how people can be saying that Trump's instincts are against going to war. Yes, it's nice that Rand Paul gets
to talk to the President, and Tucker Carlson, too. But the people that trump hired as his policy advisors are Bolton and
Pompeo. Not only are they well known warmongers who have been on record for a long time as advocating regime change in Tehran,
Bolton is probably the most extreme of them all. He practically makes Lindsay Graham look like a pacifist. How can you say that
somebody who hired Bolton and Pompeo has anti-war instincts? It makes no sense. Even Trump's most ardent critics don't think Trump
is that stupid . You have to assume that he basically endorses their approach, even if at a tactical level he might occasionally
disagree.
A part of the answer is that these were the only candidates available who were twisted enough to support Trump withdrawing from
the Iran nuclear accord. Even within Israel, while Netanyahu was lying to Trump, Congress and Americans about Iran cheating on
the deal, Israeli intelligence agencies and the IDF supported the nuclear accord and had enough assets in Iran to confirm that
Iran was not cheating. According to the then head of the IDF, Gadi Eisenkot, the nuclear agreement simplified the defence of Israel
and prevented Iran from getting nukes for another 10-15 years. Trump, unfortunately, had campaigned on withdrawing from the deal,
and, in order to satisfy pressure from Netanyahu (and to the detriment of Israel's security), withdrew from it. My take is that
Trump fundamentally disagrees with Bolton and Pompeo. He demonstrated this by calling off the attack on Iran and he demonstrated
this by discounting the "threat" to the US by N Korea testing short-range missiles. My worry is that Bolton has positioned the
US armada in place to deliberately create a hot zone just waiting for a spark, and he has assets in place to create false-flag
attacks, some of which we have already seen (flying US drones over Iranian territory, placing bombs on oil tankers, or worse).
Maybe he had them there to create a deterrent effect and aid his strong arm negotiation tactics. Could also be it was just on
the basis of recommendations by others in the establishment.
His problem has always been a lack of focus, vision and discipline. He may be generally against stupid wars, but like Obama
he doesn't have the experience in dealing with the establishment or the strategic knowledge to push back against what can seem
like very strong, common sense arguments in favor of intervention.
Justify your actions by the need to protect the weak and vulnerable. This is the first rule
of political rhetoric. If you bomb Syria, do not admit you did it to install your puppet regime
or to lay a pipeline. Say you did it to save the Aleppo kids gassed by Assad the Butcher. If
you occupy Afghanistan, do not admit you make a handsome profit smuggling heroin; say you came
to protect the women. If you want to put your people under total surveillance, say you did it
to prevent hate groups target the powerless and diverse.
Remember: you do not need to ask children, women or immigrants whether they want your
protection. If pushed, you can always find a few suitable profiles to look at the cameras and
repeat a short text. With all my dislike for R2P (Responsibility to Protect) hypocrisy, I can't
possibly blame the allegedly protected for the disaster caused by the unwanted protectors.
This thought came to my mind during my recent visit to France for the publication of my new
book In The Name of
Christ . France is going through a rapid shrinking of freedom. All the nations experience
that, but France leads. For years they had laws that banned things displeasing to Jews; and now
they expand these laws punishing not only saying or writing but also thinking, implying or
winking. The bill criminalising anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism may be voted on very soon. As
the law voted in 2015 (after the Charlie Hebdo attack ), against the
"apology of terrorism", the new law will allow the government to seize anyone, just for a tweet
or a post on Facebook, and send a person for 18 months to "preventive imprisonment", even
before he comes to a court. The judge will sanction him on the basis of "intimate conviction"
of his "hidden intentions".
This fight against alleged antisemitism has become – like in the UK – a powerful
tool of the ruling elites against the people. It is used against the Gilets Jaunes (the
Yellow Vests), and against the opposition in general. The authorities apply the R2P principle
to assault French freedom, that is they allegedly protect the Jews, as if Jews need protection,
and in the name of Jews they steal freedom of all.
With a certain poetic license, one can proclaim the Jews are innocent of this assault, like
the Aleppo kids are not guilty of bombing Syria and Afghan women are not guilty of American
occupation. The Jews have been used as proverbial victims, but so were children and women. The
guilt and responsibility is of those who use them as a pretext.
You may argue that the comparison is forced, for the French Jewish bodies actively
participate in this campaign against French freedom. Yes, that's true, but these organisations
are voluntary self-appointed guardians of Jewish interest. Jews didn't vote for them, didn't
elect them. The government was free to disregard them saying they do not represent their Jewish
citizens. Actually, that was the traditional French approach, refusing to deal with Jewish
organisations saying the French Jews are French and they do not need an intermediary. If the
government preferred to listen to them, it is only because they say what the government wants
to hear.
In Annecy, one of France's prettiest medieval towns I had met Maître Viguier, the
lawyer for Mr Alain Soral, and over the pot of cheese fondue the place is famous for he told me
an amazing story.
In the course of their demo, the Yellow Vests had burned a picture of a French TV
personality, Bernard Henri Levi (BHL for short), and of some other worthies. This event had
been depicted in a jolly video clip that you can watch with pleasure and the clip had been
uploaded on a website associated with Alain Soral.
The CRIF (or/and LICRA and other bodies) had accused Mr Soral of antisemitism, a criminal
offence, on the strength of this fact, and demanded 2 years of prison + 30,000 euros, requested
as punishment + 82,500 as compensations for the "victims". The Maître said the elites try
to unite the Jewish people against Gilets Jaunes and against ordinary French people. Other
supporters of the GJ, Jean Bricmont and M. Chouard are the next on the list, after Soral.
The CRIF said that the rap was in coded language. The burned picture of BHL suggests a
great fire to burn every Jew. "Between 1940 and 1945, the Nazis called the Jews 'vermin' and
'parasites' that should be exterminated", they say. And that's why the word "parasites" in the
clip necessarily refers to Jews that should be exterminated. A very weak logic; Socrates
would send these CRIF sophists back to the holes they usually hide from sunlight. Whatever the
Nazis said, they have no copyright on the word 'parasites'. In the Soviet Union after the
October 1917 Revolution, when Jews occupied quite a prominent place in the society, the most
popular revolutionary song said the parasites have no right to rule the land.
Parasites are those who do not toil but consume; and this is not a specific Jewish feature.
By claiming that Jews are the parasites, the self-proclaimed Jewish organisations indulge in
vile antisemitism, I told them.
What's wrong in burning a picture of BHL? BHL is a French citizen who is entitled to his
views. However, none of his views could or should be accepted as "the Jewish position". The
French Jews, and certainly the Jews of the world, hold a wide variety of views, some of them
agree with BHL in some points and some disagree, sometimes disagree strongly. Mr BHL had been a
fervent supporter, or even an instigator of the NATO attack on Libya in 2011 that had made this
rather prosperous North African country a failed state ruled by Islamist armed gangs. Mr BHL
had been a fervent supporter or an instigator of the Kiev 2014 coup that deposed the legitimate
president of the Ukraine and had brought followers of the Nazi Quisling Stepan Bandera to
power. Mr BHL had tried to ignite the ire of his French compatriots against the GJ. These and
other strong views of Mr BHL had caused indignation of some French citizens who expressed their
indignation by burning his photo. These acts by Mr BHL and his adversaries are perfectly
legitimate within the limits of free public discourse.
What is not and can't be legitimate is an attempt by the CRIF to create a false impression
as if those opinions and acts by Mr BHL were an expression of the Jewish position. This is an
obnoxious anti-Semitic lie. The Jews of France, of Israel and of the world didn't necessarily
wish Libya to be bombed or Kiev upturned; the Jews have no united single political position on
French elections or on French political movements. Some French Jews support the GJ, and some
reject them. Some vote for Mr Macron and some for Mme Le Pen or Mr Soral.
It's only vicious anti-Semites who claim that all Jews follow and support BHL. This nasty
claim had been upheld by a self-proclaimed "Jewish organisation" CRIF.
Let me reiterate: the body called CRIF does not represent French Jews, for it was not
elected by French Jews. Its leadership is not accepted by French or any other Jews. It is a
political organisation with its own goals; its goals do not coincide with those of majority of
Jews in France or elsewhere.
While it is possible to argue that in some cases CRIFF acts in the interests of the Jews by
fighting anti-Jewish prejudice, in this particular case the CRIF acts against the Jewish
interests, as this action is likely to enforce the anti-Jewish prejudice of all Jews acting
together for some dubious goal like break-up of Libya or Ukraine or for other controversial
goal.
The Jews qua Jews have no position on these topics. Mr BHL is neither an elected
representative nor a spiritual authority for the Jews in France or anywhere else. He does not
dress as an observant Jew, he does not observe Jewish laws and customs; his family famously
includes apostates; his actions were always those of a free agent; he never consulted with
Jewish authorities, spiritual or temporal.
He is perfectly entitled to his views and opinions; however he may not claim he acts in the
Jewish interests or represents the Jews. Even less so CRIF may present a protest against BHL as
an act against Jewish people as the whole; as an act of anti-Semitism. If somebody is
anti-Semitic it is CRIF that suggest that an attack of BHL is an attack on the Jewish people.
If this would be a case, should we consider a condemnation of the Black comedian Mr
Dieudonné – an act of anti-black racism?
It is perfectly legal to burn the image of BHL in Israel; and I intend to do it tomorrow in
Tel Aviv on the Gordon Beach, I told them. No court in Israel would accuse me of anti-Semitism
if I burn his picture; or a picture of Mr Netanyahu who is anyway an elected representative of
the Jewish state of Israel. While Israeli flag is protected from desecration, an image of a
person of a Jewish origin is not. It is free to burn or despoil it in any way you like.
I am certain that French citizens are not less free than Israeli citizens, and I hope that
the French court will reject the frivolous claim of the self-proclaimed Jewish body called
CRIFF against Mr Alain Soral. It would be good if Mr BHL would find courage to support Mr Soral
against CRIF by affirming that he was not and is not acting as a legitimate representative or
spiritual authority of the French Jews. It would be even better if the French Republic would
accuse CRIF for encouraging anti-Jewish prejudice by frivolous claims.
If the French Republic finds it necessary to condemn Mr Alain Soral for whatever reason, let
her do it without pretence of acting for the Jewish cause. Keep Jews out of this polemics! The
Jews have enough troubles of their own without being used as a sort of supreme argument in an
intra-French dispute.
This is what I said to the French lawyer, and he produced my argument in the French court.
You can read all this argumentation
here in French or just watch a conversation (in English with French translation) I had with
a popular French presenter Jean-Michel Vernochet and the charming poet, political thinker and
my translator Mme Maria Poumier:
I think it would be better for everyone, Jews included, if the organized Jewish community had
less influence in the highest levels of society in western countries. I also think it would
be helpful if it wasn't such a taboo to criticize them and their culture. Every other ethnic,
racial, and religious group that I know of is subject to criticism. Jews should join the
party.
I want what's best for all people, including Jews. Thank you to Israel Shamir, Gilad
Atzmon, Ron Unz and others for reminding us that there are decent people of Jewish heritage
out there.
I seriously doubt a non Jew in the US government thought up the idea of criminalizing
BDS, which neither the government nor the public gets any benefit from.
You don't have to be German to be a Nazi, and likewise, you don't have to be Jewish to be
a Zionist. Lots of non-Jews in Congress want to criminalize BDS.
@Pinche Perro You are
correct, sir, but any criticism of The Chosen–however constructive or
well-meaning–summons Zombie Hitler and the 4 Horsemen of the Holocaust...
Arms Dealers and Lobbyists Get Rich as Yemen Burns See the Top 4 U.S. contractors' profits explode, all while their
weapons have been used against civilian targets for years. •
June
25, 2019
And make no mistake: U.S. defense contractors and their lobbyists and supporters in government are getting rich in the process.
"Our role is not to make policy, our role is to comply with it," John Harris, CEO of defense contractor Raytheon International,
said
to CNBC in February. But his statement vastly understates the role that defense contractors and lobbyists play in Washington's
halls of power, where their influence on policy directly impacts their bottom lines. Since 2015, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab
Emirates have waged war against Yemen, killing and injuring thousands of Yemeni civilians. An estimated
90,000 people have been killed, according
to one international tracker.
Nearly 90
coalition airstrikes have hit
homes , schools, markets,
hospitals, and mosques since 2015, according to Human Rights Watch. In 2018, the coalition bombed a wedding, killing 22 people, including
eight children. Another strike hit a
bus , killing at
least 26 children.
American-origin munitions produced by companies like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, and Raytheon were identified at
the site of over two dozen attacks throughout Yemen. Indeed, the United States is the single largest arms supplier to the Middle
East and has been for decades, according to a report by
the Congressional Research Service. From 2014 to 2018, the United States supplied 68 percent of Saudi Arabia's arms imports, 64 percent
of the UAE's imports, and 65 percent of Qatar's imports. Some of this weaponry was subsequently stolen or sold to
al-Qaeda linked groups in the Arabian Peninsula
, where they could be used against the U.S. military, according to
reports . The Saudi use of
U.S.-made jets, bombs, and missiles
against Yemeni civilian centers constitutes a war crime. It was an American laser-guided
MK-82 bomb that killed the children
on the bus; Raytheon's technology killed the 22 people attending the wedding in 2018 as well as a family traveling in their car;
and another American-made MK-82 bomb
ended the lives of at least 80 men, women, and children in a Yemeni marketplace in March 2016. Yet American defense contractors
continue to spend millions of dollars to lobby Washington to maintain the flow of arms to these countries.
"Companies like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, and other defense contractors see countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE as huge
potential markets," Stephen Miles, director of Win Without War , told
TAC . "They see them as massive opportunities to make a lot of money; that's why they're investing billions and billions of dollars.
This is a huge revenue stream to these companies." Boeing, Raytheon, and General Dynamics have all highlighted business with Saudi
Arabia in their shareholder reports.
"Operations and maintenance have become a very profitable niche market for U.S. corporations,"
said Richard Aboulafia, a vice president at Teal Group. He added that defense contractors can make as much as 150 percent more profit
off of operations and maintenance than from the original arms sale. U.S. weapons supply
57 percent of the military aircraft used by the Royal
Saudi Air Force, and mechanics and technicians hired by American companies repair and maintain their fighter jets and helicopters.
In 2018 alone, the United States made $4.5 billion worth of arms deals to
Saudi Arabia and $1.2
billion to the United Arab
Emirates , a report by William Hartung and Christina Arabia found.
From the report
: "Lockheed Martin was involved in deals worth $25 billion; Boeing, $7.1 billion in deals; Raytheon, $5.5 billion in deals; Northrop
Grumman had one deal worth $2.5 billion; and BAE systems had a $1.3 billion deal." "Because of the nature of U.S. arms control law,
most of these sales have to get government approval, and we've absolutely seen lobbyists weighing in heavily on this," Miles said.
"The last time I saw the numbers, the arms industry had nearly 1,000 registered lobbyists.
They're not on the Hill lobbying Congress about how many schools we should open next year. They're lobbying for defense contractors.
The past 18 years of endless wars have been incredibly lucrative for the arms industry, and they have a vested industry in seeing
these wars continue, and not curtailing the cash cow that has been for them." The defense industry
spent $125 million on lobbying
in 2018. Of that, Boeing spent
$15 million on lobbyists, Lockheed Martin spent
$13.2 million , General Dynamics
$11.9 million , and Raytheon
$4.4 million ,
according to the Lobbying
Disclosure Act website.
Writes Ben Freeman:
According to a new report firms registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act have reported receiving more than $40 million
from Saudi Arabia in 2017 and 2018. Saudi lobbyists and public relations professionals have contacted Congress, the executive
branch, media outlets and think tanks more than 4,000 times. Much of this work has been focused on ensuring that sales of U.S.
arms to Saudi Arabia continue unabated and blocking congressional actions that would end U.S. support for the Saudi-led coalition
in Yemen. Lobbyists, lawyers and public relations firms working for the Saudis have also reported doling out more than $4.5 million
in campaign contributions in the past two years, including at least $6,000 to Trump. In many cases, these contributions have gone
to members of Congress they've contacted regarding the Yemen war. In fact, some contributions have gone to members of Congress
on the exact same day they were contacted by Saudi lobbyists, and some were made to key members just before, and even on the day
of, important Yemen votes.
Over a dozen lobbying firms employed by defense contractors have also been working on behalf of the Saudi or Emiratis, efficiently
lobbying for both the arms buyers and sellers in one fell swoop .
One of these lobbying firms, the McKeon Group, led by former Republican congressman and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee
Howard McKeon, represents both Saudi Arabia and the American defense contractors Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Orbital ATK,
MBDA, and L3 Technologies. Lockheed Martin and Northrup Grumman are the biggest suppliers of arms to Saudi Arabia. In 2018, the McKeon
Group took $1,697,000 from 10 defense
contractors " to, among
other objectives, continue the flow of arms to Saudi Arabia," reports National Memo. Freeman
details multiple examples where lobbyists working on behalf of the Saudis met with a senator's staff and then made a substantial
contribution to that senator's campaign within days of a key vote to keep the United States in the Yemen war.
American Defense International (ADI) represents the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia's coalition partner in the war against
Yemen, as well as several American
defense contractors, including General Dynamics, Northrup Grumman, Raytheon, L3 Technologies, and General Atomics.
Not to be outdone by the McKeon Group, ADI's lobbyists have also aggressively pursued possible swing votes in the U.S. Senate
for the hefty sum of $45,000 a month, paid for by the
UAE . ADI lobbyists discussed
the "situation in Yemen" and the "Paveway sale to the UAE," the same bomb used in the deadly wedding strike, with the office of Senator
Martin Heinrich, a member of the Armed Services Committee, according to FARA
reports .
ADI's lobbyists also met
with Congressman Steve Scalise's legislative director to advise his office to vote against the congressional resolution on Yemen.
For their lobbying, Raytheon paid ADI
$120,000 in 2018. In addition to the
overt influence exercised by lobbyists for the defense industry, many former arms industry executives are embedded in influential
posts throughout the Trump administration: from former Airbus, Huntington Ingalls, and Raytheon lobbyist Charles Faulkner at the
State Department, who pushed Mike Pompeo
to support arms sales in the Yemen war ; to former Boeing executive and erstwhile head of the Department of Defense Patrick Shanahan;
to his interim replacement Mark Esper, secretary of the Army and another former lobbyist for Raytheon.
The war in Yemen has been good for American defense contractors' bottom lines. Since the conflict began, General Dynamics' stock
price has risen from about $135 to $169 per share, Raytheon's from about $108 to more than $180, and Boeing's from about $150 to
$360, according to In
These Times. Their analysis found that those four companies have had at least $30.1 billion in Saudi military contracts approved
by the State Department over the last 10 years. In April, President Donald Trump vetoed a resolution that would have ended American
support for the Saudi-UAE coalition war against Yemen. Such efforts have failed to meet the 60-vote veto-proof threshold needed in
the Senate. There are a few senators who didn't vote for the War Powers resolution "that will probably vote for the Raytheon sales,"
Brittany Benowitz, a lawyer and former adviser to a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told TAC. "I think you'll
continue to see horrific bombings and as the famine rages on, people will start to ask, 'Why are we a part of this war?' Unfortunately,
I don't think that will start to happen anytime soon." Barbara Boland is TAC's foreign policy and national security reporter.
Follow her on Twitter @BBatDC
Yes indeed, we are the #1 arms exporter and very proud about it. Meanwhile, Rubio, Pompeo, et. al. are also proud about how they
are finally clamping down on the nefarious arrangement that Venezuela and Cuba have to prop up their regimes.
Venezuela gives Cuba low cost oil and Cuba sends them about 25,000 doctors for free medical care to help prop up Maduro. Hmm
... sounds like one is exporting medical services in return for energy, pure, unabridged evil. Our second best export is misinformation
and lies.
I know, someone will give the State Dept line that the doctors are underpaid and the oil is below market price. The point is
that both countries export what they have more of in order to get what they need. This is the basics of any trade relationship.
Both countries are better off after the transaction and now both countries are suffering because of our benighted intervention.
I keep wondering when God is going to punish us for our appalling arrogance, pride, and our unwavering faith in our own righteousness.
God is certainly punishing me. I wish I was one of the blissfully ignorant.
The biggest business of America is war. The symptom of how all pervasive this has become is there is a new definition of defeat:
the only war that is lost, is one that ends. The new victory is now war without end.
If the Saudis have not yet routed the Houthis, I am doubt they ever will. Without invading the country and holding ground, I am
unclear of the point of constantly bombing.
The Houthis won their civil conflict, best allow them to constitute a government and deal with it.
The Saudis have invaded Yemen, but they and their mercenaries keep getting ambushed and ganked. The Yemeni tribes have a very
long and successful history of guerrilla warfare.
Admittedly, it's mostly the mercenaries, as the Saudis don't like a centralized military in particular and don't like fighting
opponents who can shoot back in general.
"Our role is not to make policy, our role is to comply with it," John Harris, CEO of defense contractor Raytheon International,
said to CNBC in February.
Yeah and Wells Fargo were just practicing "innovation" that the financial companies have told us they need to do.
The Republic is a total failure. It cares nothing for the Constitution the representatives are sworn to uphold and abide by. It's
all about the symbiosis of power in gov. and money in business. Those two factions exchange what they other needs to gain more
power and money at the expense of the taxpayers and countries abroad being destroyed. It's pretty simple if you ask 'cui bono'
and then follow the money. This time following the money may take the USA/world to thermo-nuclear war which psychos like Bolton,
Pompeo, Pence, Netanyahu, the MIC and all the other neo-cons want. Currently the war policy against Iran seems to be tied up in
Christian-Zionist eschatology to bring about the second coming of Jesus Christ. Does it get any more loony than this? Metaphysics
driving political and foreign policy is really a recipe for a disaster and may actually bring about loosing the Four Horseman
of the Apocalypse on the world, but that's OK I guess because Wash. sees the 'big picture.'
"... Trump plays politics by trying to appease two camps, the AngloZionists, as well as Americans that bought into his 'Middle East' wars were a mistake. ..."
"... There has never been a war won by air power alone, If Trump bombs Iran, they will fight back and it will take a ground invasion to subdue them. While that war will compete with Bush’s invasion of Iraq as being America’s stupidest war ever, it will be much more costly in American blood and treasure and could easily turn into WWIII. ..."
"... Yeah, sorry Trump, I support you but you are not going to sell me on war with Iran....HORRIBLE idea. HORRIBLE. One of the worst things you could do as president. ..."
"... Fix the potholes first. ..."
"... Sorry I voted for Trumpster. He Flip-Flopped on almost everything he campaigned on. Now he is DEEP STATE. SA sponsors most the terrorism but gets a pass. ..."
Trump basically acknowledges Bolton as warmonger on NBC, that has hawks and doves in his
administration 'likes to hear both sides'.
So here Trump plays politics by trying to appease two camps, the AngloZionists, as well as
Americans that bought into his 'Middle East' wars were a mistake.
Trump has become pure politician no longer the outsider, he's dancing on both sides when
he needs to like now in a re-election mode.
There has never been a war won by air power alone, If Trump bombs Iran, they will fight
back and it will take a ground invasion to subdue them. While that war will compete with
Bush’s invasion of Iraq as being America’s stupidest war ever, it will be much
more costly in American blood and treasure and could easily turn into WWIII.
Instead of starting a war no one wants over Iran merely acting like a sovereign nation, we
should remove all the sanctions and just leave them alone. Our meddling everywhere needs to
stop.
Yeah, sorry Trump, I support you but you are not going to sell me on war with
Iran....HORRIBLE idea. HORRIBLE. One of the worst things you could do as president.
Sorry I voted for Trumpster. He Flip-Flopped on almost everything he campaigned on. Now he
is DEEP STATE. SA sponsors most the terrorism but gets a pass.
Madeline Albright responded to the question "1 million dead Iraqi babies is that an
acceptable number for the US"? Like a true American woman and mother she said, "yes its
acceptable."
You mean 'Like a true ((American)) woman and mother'
Looks like Bolton is dyed-in-the-wool imperialist. He believes the United States can do what wants without regard to
international law, treaties or the роlitical commitments of previous administrations.
Notable quotes:
"... Israel is an Anglo American aircraft carrier to control the Eastern Mediterranean ..."
...Zionists know what they want, are willing to work together towards their goals, and put their money where their mouth
is. In contrast, for a few pennies the goyim will renounce any principle they pretend to cherish, and go on happily proclaiming
the opposite even if a short while down the road it'll get their own children killed.
The real sad part about this notion of the goy as a mere beast in human form is maybe not that it got codified for eternity
in the Talmud, but rather that there may be some truth to it? Another way of saying this is raising the question whether the goyim
deserve better, given what we see around us.
Israel is an Anglo American aircraft carrier to control the Eastern Mediterranean and prevent a Turko Egyptian and possibly Persian
invasion of Greece & the West
We must not let President Trump, John Bolton or any member of the State Department pull us
into war with Iran. Now, I've introduced a bill called the "No More Presidential Wars
Act" to stop Trump -- and all Presidents, Democrats and Republicans alike -- from pulling
us into a war without approval from Congress.
"... But if a ground war is ruled out, then Iran is engaged in the sort of limited conflict in which it has long experience. A senior Iraqi official once said to me that the Iranians "have a PhD" in this type of part political, part military warfare. They are tactics that have worked well for Tehran in Lebanon, Iraq and Syria over the past 40 years. The Iranians have many pressure points against the US, and above all against its Saudi and Emirati allies in the Gulf. ..."
"... Saddam Hussein sought to throttle Iran's oil exports and Iran tried to do the same to Iraq. The US and its allies weighed in openly on Saddam Hussein's side – an episode swiftly forgotten by them after the Iraqi leader invaded Kuwait in 1990. From 1987 on, re-registered Kuwaiti tankers were being escorted through the Gulf by US warships. There were US airstrikes against Iranian ships and shore facilities, culminating in the accidental but very avoidable shooting down of an Iranian civil airliner with 290 passengers on board by the USS Vincennes in 1988. Iran was forced to sue for peace in its war with Iraq. ..."
But the dilemma for Trump is at a deeper level. His sanctions against Iran, reimposed after
he withdrew the US from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018, are devastating the Iranian economy. The
US Treasury is a more lethal international power than the Pentagon. The EU and other countries
have stuck with the deal, but they have in practice come to tolerate the economic blockade of
Iran.
Iran was left with no choice but to escalate the conflict. It wants to make sure that the
US, the European and Asian powers, and US regional allies Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates,
feel some pain. Tehran never expected much from the EU states, which are still signed up to the
2015 nuclear deal, and has found its low expectations are being fulfilled.
A fundamental misunderstanding of the US-Iran confrontation is shared by many commentators.
It may seem self-evident that the US has an interest in using its vast military superiority
over Iran to get what it wants. But after the failure of the US ground forces to win in Iraq
and Afghanistan, not to mention Somalia, no US leader can start a land war in the Middle East
without endangering their political survival at home.
Trump took this lesson to heart long before he became president. He is a genuine
isolationist in the American tradition. The Democrats and much of the US media have portrayed
Trump as a warmonger, though he has yet to start a war. His national security adviser John
Bolton and secretary of state Mike Pompeo issue bloodcurdling threats against Iran, but Trump
evidently views such bellicose rhetoric as simply one more way of ramping up the pressure on
Iran.
But if a ground war is ruled out, then Iran is engaged in the sort of limited conflict in
which it has long experience. A senior Iraqi official once said to me that the Iranians "have a
PhD" in this type of part political, part military warfare. They are tactics that have worked
well for Tehran in Lebanon, Iraq and Syria over the past 40 years. The Iranians have many
pressure points against the US, and above all against its Saudi and Emirati allies in the
Gulf.
The Iranians could overplay their hand: Trump is an isolationist, but he is also a populist
national leader who claims in his first campaign rallies for the next presidential election to
"have made America great again". Such boasts make it difficult to not retaliate against Iran, a
country he has demonised as the source of all the troubles in the Middle East.
One US military option looks superficially attractive but conceals many pitfalls. This is to
try to carry out operations along the lines of the limited military conflict between the US and
Iran called the "tanker war". This was part of the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s and the US came
out the winner.
Saddam Hussein sought to throttle Iran's oil exports and Iran tried to do the same to Iraq.
The US and its allies weighed in openly on Saddam Hussein's side – an episode swiftly
forgotten by them after the Iraqi leader invaded Kuwait in 1990. From 1987 on, re-registered
Kuwaiti tankers were being escorted through the Gulf by US warships. There were US airstrikes
against Iranian ships and shore facilities, culminating in the accidental but very avoidable
shooting down of an Iranian civil airliner with 290 passengers on board by the USS Vincennes in
1988. Iran was forced to sue for peace in its war with Iraq.
Some retired American generals speak about staging a repeat of the tanker war today but
circumstances have changed. Iran's main opponent in 1988 was Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Iran was
well on its way to losing the war, in which there was only one front
"Trump took this lesson to heart long before he became president. He is a genuine
isolationist in the American tradition."
Mr. Cockburn does not understand the meaning of isolationist. Trump has been pro-empire
since the day he took office.
I have better stuff in my blog:
June 22, 2019 – Iran
People familiar with US military history know what just happened off Iran. American
aircraft and drones have violated Iranian airspace every week for years, either by accident
or because American officers like to screw with them, especially when lots of high-level
American officials want war with Iran. Complaints were filed and ignored, so the Iranians
shot one down. Note there is no international airspace in the Strait of Hormuz. Half belongs
to Iran and the other to UAE and Oman. It is an international waterway, so all ships have the
right to transit, but aircraft require permission from one of these nations.
The American people are clueless about this stuff since most only know what our
warmongering media tells them, as Jimmy Dore explains in this video. I was shocked and
pleased that President Trump saw through this ruse and bravely did nothing. If we bomb Iran
they will hit back, maybe openly with a missile barrage, or covertly using Shia militias in
Iraq, Bahrain, and Afghanistan. The USA has tens of thousands of soldiers and contractors all
over the Arab world. I'm sure local teams have spent years scouting targets and preparing to
attack after a green light from Tehran. Trump wisely cancelled this chaos, at least until
after his reelection.
"He is a genuine isolationist" Oh please; Mr. Cockburn, you're old enough to have heard of
projection. There is nothing genuine about Trump's public persona, except for his
greed and egotism. He's a world-class grifter and charlatan–i.e., still not to be
underestimated. His calculation will probably be "Can I get re-elected without jumping into
the breach? Then that's fine too. If the polls look awful, I'll roll the dice and be a
War-Time President like Dubya."
At least, Mr. Cockburn understands that the "crippling sanctions" (the way Americans are
always proud of those show that they're just knee-capping mafiosi) are leaving Iran no choice
but to fight back. So the decision may not be in Donald's hands; he may be smarter than his
media caricature, and yet not as smart as he thought.
Once American servicemen start dying for this rather nebulous cause, it will be the
reaction of American voters that will ultimately determine the extent and duration of yet
another Middle East military, nation re-engineering "adventure".
"Note there is no international airspace in the Strait of Hormuz. Half belongs to Iran and
the other to UAE and Oman. It is an international waterway, so all ships have the right to
transit, but aircraft require permission from one of these nations."
You might want to examine the UNCLOS agreement. It's created some sticky issues in the
South China Seas and in the straight in question, Iran and Oman are leaning very heavily on
that the policy. In their view it is for use exclusively for noncombatant enterprise as part
of their claim as territorial waters, they have a say in its use.
Madeline Albright responded to the question "1 million dead Iraqi babies is that an
acceptable number for the US"? Like a true American woman and mother she said, "yes its
acceptable."
You mean 'Like a true ((American)) woman and mother'
U.S. Navy photo by
Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class John Philip Wagner, Jr./Released◄►◄►▲▼ Remove from
Library B Show Comment Next
New Comment Next New Reply Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This
Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public
Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to
recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information'
checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour. Email Comment Ignore Commenter Follow
Commenter Add to Library
Bookmark Toggle All ToC ▲▼ Search
Text Case Sensitive
Exact Words
Include Comments
Search Clear Cancel
Sooner or later the US "maximum pressure" on Iran would inevitably be met by "maximum
counter-pressure". Sparks are ominously bound to fly.
For the past few days, intelligence circles across Eurasia had been prodding Tehran to
consider a quite straightforward scenario. There would be no need to shut down the Strait of
Hormuz if Quds Force commander, General Qasem Soleimani, the ultimate Pentagon bête
noire, explained in detail, on global media, that Washington simply does not have the military
capacity to keep the Strait open.
would destroy the American economy by detonating the $1.2 quadrillion derivatives market;
and that would collapse the world banking system, crushing the world's $80 trillion GDP and
causing an unprecedented depression.
Soleimani should also state bluntly that Iran may in fact shut down the Strait of Hormuz if
the nation is prevented from exporting essential two million barrels of oil a day, mostly to
Asia. Exports, which before illegal US sanctions and de facto blockade would normally reach 2.5
million barrels a day, now may be down to only 400,000.
Soleimani's intervention would align with consistent signs already coming from the IRGC. The
Persian Gulf is being described as an imminent "shooting gallery." Brigadier General Hossein
Salami stressed that Iran's
ballistic missiles are capable of hitting "carriers in the sea" with pinpoint precision.
The whole northern border of the Persian Gulf, on Iranian territory, is lined up with anti-ship
missiles – as I confirmed
with IRGC-related sources.
We'll let you know when it's closed
Then, it happened.
Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, Major General Mohammad Baqeri,
went straight
to the point ; "If the Islamic Republic of Iran were determined to prevent export of oil
from the Persian Gulf, that determination would be realized in full and announced in public, in
view of the power of the country and its Armed Forces."
The facts are stark. Tehran simply won't accept all-out economic war lying down –
prevented to export the oil that protects its economic survival. The Strait of Hormuz question
has been officially addressed. Now it's time for the derivatives.
Presenting detailed derivatives analysis plus military analysis to global media would force
the media pack, mostly Western, to go to Warren Buffett to see if it is true. And it is true.
Soleimani, according to this scenario, should say as much and recommend that the media go talk
to Warren Buffett.
The extent of a possible derivatives crisis is an uber-taboo theme for the Washington
consensus institutions. According to one of my American banking sources, the most accurate
figure – $1.2 quadrillion – comes from a Swiss banker, off the record. He should
know; the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) – the central bank of central banks
– is in Basle.
The key point is it doesn't matter how the Strait of Hormuz is blocked.
It could be a false flag. Or it could be because the Iranian government feels it's going to
be attacked and then sinks a cargo ship or two. What matters is the final result; any blocking
of the energy flow will lead the price of oil to reach $200 a barrel, $500 or even, according
to some Goldman Sachs projections, $1,000.
Another US banking source explains; "The key in the analysis is what is called notional.
They are so far out of the money that they are said to mean nothing. But in a crisis the
notional can become real. For example, if I buy a call for a million barrels of oil at $300 a
barrel, my cost will not be very great as it is thought to be inconceivable that the price will
go that high. That is notional. But if the Strait is closed, that can become a stupendous
figure."
BIS will only commit, officially, to indicate the total notional amount outstanding for
contracts in derivatives markers is an estimated $542.4 trillion. But this is just an
estimate.
The banking source adds, "Even here it is the notional that has meaning. Huge amounts are
interest rate derivatives. Most are notional but if oil goes to a thousand dollars a barrel,
then this will affect interest rates if 45% of the world's GDP is oil. This is what is called
in business a contingent liability."
Goldman Sachs has projected a feasible, possible $1,000 a barrel a few weeks after the
Strait of Hormuz being shut down. This figure, times 100 million barrels of oil produced per
day, leads us to 45% of the $80 trillion global GDP. It's self-evident the world economy would
collapse based on just that alone.
War dogs barking mad
As much as 30% of the world's oil supply transits the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.
Wily Persian Gulf traders – who know better – are virtually unanimous; if Tehran
was really responsible for the Gulf of Oman tanker incident, oil prices would be going through
the roof by now. They aren't.
Iran's territorial waters in the Strait of Hormuz amount to 12 nautical miles (22 km). Since
1959, Iran recognizes only non-military naval transit.
Since 1972, Oman's territorial waters in the Strait of Hormuz also amount to 12 nautical
miles. At its narrowest, the width of the Strait is 21 nautical miles (39 km). That means,
crucially, that half of the Strait of Hormuz is in Iranian territorial waters, and the other
half in Oman's. There are no "international waters".
And that adds to Tehran now openly saying that Iran may decide to close the Strait of Hormuz
publicly – and not by stealth.
Iran's indirect, asymmetric warfare response to any US adventure will be very painful. Prof.
Mohammad Marandi of the University of Tehran once again reconfirmed, "even a limited strike
will be met by a major and disproportionate response." And that means gloves off, big time;
anything from really blowing up tankers to, in Marandi's words, "Saudi and UAE oil facilities
in flames".
Hezbollah will launch tens of thousands of missiles against Israel. As
Hezbollah's secretary-general Hasan Nasrallah has been stressing in his speeches, "war on
Iran will not remain within that country's borders, rather it will mean that the entire [Middle
East] region will be set ablaze. All of the American forces and interests in the region will be
wiped out, and with them the conspirators, first among them Israel and the Saudi ruling
family."
It's quite enlightening to pay close attention to what this Israel intel op is saying .
The dogs of war though are barking mad .
Earlier this week, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo jetted to CENTCOM in Tampa to discuss
"regional security concerns and ongoing operations" with – skeptical – generals, a
euphemism for "maxim pressure" eventually leading to war on Iran.
Iranian diplomacy, discreetly, has already informed the EU – and the Swiss –
about their ability to crash the entire world economy. But still that was not enough to remove
US sanctions.
War zone in effect
As it stands in Trumpland, former CIA Mike "We lied, We cheated, We stole" Pompeo
– America's "top diplomat" – is virtually running the Pentagon. "Acting" secretary
Shanahan performed self-immolation. Pompeo continues to actively sell the notion the
"intelligence community is convinced" Iran is responsible for the Gulf of Oman tanker incident.
Washington is ablaze with rumors of an ominous double bill in the near future; Pompeo as head
of the Pentagon and Psycho John Bolton as Secretary of State. That would spell out War.
Yet even before sparks start to fly, Iran could declare that the Persian Gulf is in a state
of war; declare that the Strait of Hormuz is a war zone; and then ban all "hostile" military
and civilian traffic in its half of the Strait. Without firing a single shot, no shipping
company on the planet would have oil tankers transiting the Persian Gulf.
American government arrogance under the control of sickos has not shied away from the belief
that destroying countries that do not cave in to Washington's demand of "surrender or perish"
-- an ultimatum made in Israel. Indeed it regards that despicable policy as an entitlement
– to protect the "international community". Iran may well be the nation that will do
away with the nations of turbaned lapdogs and absolute monarchs who have been kept in power
by the dozens of US military bases in the area. Maybe a serious jolt of the global economy is
long overdue, to bring the Washington dogs of perpetual war to come to their senses.
Was Iran succumbing to the JCPOA provisions and abiding by them not sufficient
capitulation for the insane leaders in Washington?
I hope we don't go into another stupid war. Bring all our troops home from all around
the world. Just protect this Republic. We're not the policemen of the world.
@joeshittheragman
It astonishes me that people are still using the phrase "policemen of the world" to define US
behavior.
The last time I recall The US even remotely acting as the "worlds's policeman" was in
1991, when we pushed Saddam out of Kuwait.
The Iraq 2003 "debacle", the Libya"shit show" and the Syria" fiasco" have all proven, over
time, to be acts of wanton carnage and illegal aggression, . not "police work".
The United States, under Neocon tutelage , is no "policeman" .not by any stretch
It is more like a humongous version of "Bernie Madoff meets Son of Sam."
We have become a grotesque, misshapen empire .of lies fraud .,illegal war, .mass murder
..and heinous f#cking debt.
You have to hand it to the Iranians for basically announcing their intentions to destroy the
US economy via the derivatives market that the US financial industry largely produced. Kill
them with their own weapon.
A show down between the US and some entity is inevitable. Be it Iran, China or Russia, the
US will be over extended and their very expensive weaponry will, I believe, come up wanting
on all counts. The MIC has been scamming the country for decades. The military brass is just
bluster. When it comes down to an actual confrontation, the US military will come up short as
BS won't cut it.
Yes, they will destroy lots of stuff and kill lots of people but then their toys will run
out and then what? Missiles will take out the aircraft carriers and the world will see that
the emperor is naked.
In June of 2014, as the forces of the Islamic State swept toward Baghdad, President
Barack Obama began to recommit American military forces to Iraq. He also observed that
"Iran can play a constructive role, if it sends the same message to the Iraqi government
that we're sending, which is that Iraq only holds together if it is inclusive." In an
instantly famous article by Atlantic magazine correspondent and White House amanuensis
Jeffrey Goldberg, Obama indicated that Saudi Arabia and other Arab states had to learn to
"share" the Middle East with Iran.
In imagining a kind of strategic partnership with Tehran, Obama is recycling a deeply
held belief of late-Cold War "realists" like former National Security Adviser Brent
Scowcroft. "For U.S. strategy, Iran should be viewed as a potential natural partner in
the region, as it was until 1979," when Shah Reza Pahlavi was toppled in the Khomeini
revolution." "Envisioning 2030: U.S. Strategy for a Post-Western World," foresaw that "a
post-Mullah dominated government shedding Shia political ideology could easily return to
being a net contributor to stability by 2030
https://en.mehrnews.com/news/143606/Mearsheimer-S-Arabia-a-threat-not-Iran
"The truth is that it is the United States that is a direct threat to Iran, not the other
way around. The Trump administration, with much prompting from Israel and Saudi Arabia, has
its gunsights on Iran. The aim is regime change.
America does not seem to think the Iranian regieme can do anything except bluster as they
are slowly smothered.
Famous last words -- review what Bernanke said just before subprime exploded: 2007 --
Bernanke: Subprime Mortgage Woes
Won't Seriously Hurt Economy -- that said, I have no idea what will happen if Iran
decides to interfere with shipping in the straits -- or how likely that is.
The biggest long-term threat to the US is the end of the petrodollar scheme -- due to its
unmatched worldwide political and military hegemony, and 'safe haven' status, the dollar has
largely been insulated from the consequences of what are in reality staggering, almost
structural (at this point) US deficits -- but that can't and won't go on forever.
In reality, the US is today far less dependent on imported oil than most people probably
imagine, and therefore far less vulnerable to any import supply issue.
Israel and the zio/US has interfered in Iran since the 1953 CIA/Mossad coup and at intervals
ever since then and have brought this problem on by the zio/US and Israeli meddling in the
affairs of Iran and an all out war via illegal sanctions which in fact are a form of war.
Iran has not started a war in over 300 years and is not the problem , the problem is the
warmongers in the zio/US and Israel and will not end as long as the warmongers remain in
power.
A good start to ending these problems would be to abolish the CIA!
@MLK
Yes, the sanctions on Iran are having an effect, and the recent Iranian actions acknowledge
this; but that does not mean Iran is weak. Iran is telling the U.S. that it is NOT Venezuela
or North Korea. Kim is all bark, but no bite; Trump was quite right to call him "little
rocket man." Even he, with his singular lack of style and grace, is not doing this to the
Iranian leadership.
The economic sanctions against Iran already constitute acts of war. The Iranians have just
demonstrated that they can disrupt oil flow from the Middle East in retaliation, and not just
in the Street of Hormuz. In addition, they have now shown that they can take down American
aircraft, stealth or not, with precision. This means Iran is able and willing to strike back
and escalate as it sees fit, both economically and militarily. If the U.S. don't relent, Iran
WILL send the oil prices through the roof, and it will humiliate the U.S. on the world stage
if they are stupid enough to go to war over it.
The Iranian messages are simple, clear, and consistent. Compare this to the confused
cacophony that emerges from the clown troupe in Washington, and you can easily tell which
side has been caught unawares by recent events.
This is a watershed moment for Trump – he will either assert himself, return to
reason, and keep the peace; or he will stay aboard the sinking ship. No good options for him
personally, of course; his choices are impeachment, assassination, or staying in office while
presiding over the final act of the U.S. empire.
The US is committed to conflict not only most obviously against Iran, but also with
Russia.
US, or rather a bunch of lunatics infesting Trump's Admin, might be committed, but it
absolutely doesn't mean that the US has resources for that. In fact, US doesn't have
resources to fight Iran, let alone Russia. By now most of it is nothing more than
chest-thumping and posturing. Today Bolton's statement is a further proof of that.
Instead, Bush saw that situation, within the unique moment of US no longer constrained
by a rival superpower, as an opportunity to exert US global dominance.
The much derided Chomsky
There were once two gangsters in town, the USA and USSR, there's relative peace cuz each
was constrained by the rival's threat.
NOW that the USSR is gone, the remaining gangster
is running amok with total impunity.
Now I dunno if the USSR was a 'gangster' ,
as for uncle scam, .. needs no introduction I presume ?
"Iran's ability to target and destroy the high-altitude American drone, which was
developed to evade the very surface-to-air missiles used to bring it down, surprised some
Defense Department officials, who interpreted it as a show of how difficult Tehran can make
things for the United States as it deploys more troops and steps up surveillance in the
region.– "
@Wally
It's all cashflow and OPM, on the hope of hitting the big-time when prices spike. A giant
house of cards waiting to implode, and that is before one takes into account all the hugely
negative externalities associated with fracking that give it any hope of profitability, which
would vapourise if the costs of the externalities were charged to the operators.
According to preliminary data for 2018, oil demand surpassed 20 mmb/d for the first time
since 2007 and will be just shy of the 2005 peak (20,524 mb/d versus 20,802 mb/d in
2005).
It's really tragic to see two brotherly ideologies Capitalism and Islam (both want to rule
the world) go at each other throats in this manner. After all, they have fought shoulder to
shoulder a holly jihad against socialism in such far flung places as Afghanistan, Iraq and
now Syria.
I think that based on this latest conflict, people can see what a principled country US
is. People used to think that US hates only socialist revolutions. Until Iran's Islamic
revolution came along – and US was against it too. So, it's safe to say that US are
against ANY revolutions – be they Socialist or Islamic. I guess we can call them
contra-revolutionaries.
At least 95% of the American people do not want war with Iran. For that matter the same
percentage did not want war with Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam or Korea. But the powers that be
do not ask the American people if they want to go to war, they just do it based on the
authority they assume is theirs. Meanwhile, our elected representatives who do have the
authority to start or prevent wars turn a deaf ear to their constituents because the voices
they hear in protest are weak or muted. Let's face it, the wars since WWII have affected only
a relatively minor segment of our population. A hell of a lot more people die in traffic
accidents than on the battlefield so what's to get excited about. Keeping a large standing
army, navy and air force is good for the economy, the troops have to be provided the latest
best of everything and as for the troops themselves for many it's not a bad way to make a
living with a retirement and health care system better than many jobs in the civilian sector.
So my message to the American people is if you really do not want war with Iran you had
better speak up louder than you are now.
CAN IRAN ENTER ITO NEGOTIATION WITH IRAN? IT CANT. BECAUSE ISRAEL WITH NO FOOT IN THE DOOR OF
THE HELL IS WAGING THE WAR AND GETTING US PUNISHED .
UC Berkeley journalism professor Sandy Tolan, Los Angeles Times, December 1, 2002–
[Richard] Perle, in the same 1998 article, told Forward that a coalition of pro-Israeli
groups was 'at the forefront with the legislation with regard to Iran. One can only speculate
what it might accomplish if it decided to focus its attention on Saddam Hussein.' Now,
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has joined the call against Tehran, arguing in a November
interview with the Times of London that the U.S. should shift its focus to Iran 'the day
after' the Iraq war ends
[Hide MORE]
-- -- -
They want to foment revolution in Iran and use that to isolate and possibly attack Syria in
[Lebanon's] Bekaa Valley, and force Syria out," says former Assistant Secretary of State for
Near East Affairs Edward S. Walker, now president of the Middle East Institute. http://prospect.org/article/just-beginning
03/14/03
--
in 2003 Morris Amitay and fellow neocon Michael Ledeen founded the Coalition for Democracy
in Iran, an advocacy group pushing for regime change in Iran . According to the website, it
will be un-American,immoral and unproductive to engage with any segment of the regime .
During a may 2003 conference at the AEI on the future of Iran,Amitay sharply criticized the
U.S State Department's efforts to engage the Islamic Republic ,claimed the criticism of Newt
Gingrich did not go far enough . Amiaty was introduced by M Ledeen as the "Godfather" of
AIPAC Amitay admitted that direct action against Iran would be difficult before 2004
election.
Nostalgia for the last shah's son, Reza Pahlavi ? has again risen," says Reuel Marc
Gerecht, a former CIA officer who, like Ledeen and Perle, is ensconced at the AEI. "We must
be prepared, however, to take the battle more directly to the mullahs," says Gerecht, adding
that the United States must consider strikes at both Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps and
allies in Lebanon. "In fact, we have only two meaningful options: Confront clerical Iran and
its proxies militarily or ring it with an oil embargo." http://prospect.org/article/just-beginning
March 14,2003
"Neoconservatives in the Bush Administration have long targeted Iran. Richard Perle,
former Defense Policy Board member, and David Frum, of the neo-com Weekly Standard,
co-authored "An End to Evil," which calls for the overthrow of the "terrorist mullahs of
Iran." Michael Ladeen of the influential American Enterprise Institute argues that "Tehran is
a city just waiting for us." http://www.counterpunch.org/2004/05/26/the-oil-connection/
According to the 2016 documentary Zero Days by director Alex Gibney, Israel's incessant
public threats to attack Iran coupled with intense secret demands for cyber warfare targeting
Iran were the catalyst for massive new US black budget spending
NSA Director (1999-2005) and CIA Director (2006-2009) Michael Hayden claimed in Zero Days
that the goal of any Israeli air attack against Iran's nuclear facilities would be to drag
the United States into war.
"Our belief was that if they [Israel] went on their own, knowing the limitations No, they're
a very good air force, alright? But it's small and the distances are great, and the targets
dispersed and hardened, alright? If they would have attempted a raid on a military plane, we
would have been assuming that they were assuming we would finish that which they started. In
other words, there would be many of us in government thinking that the purpose of the raid
wasn't to destroy the Iranian nuclear system, but the purpose of the raid was to put us [the
United States] at war with Iran."
https://original.antiwar.com/smith-grant/2018/11/06/israel-and-the-trillion-dollar-2005-2018-us-intelligence-budget
Emergence of ISIS is linked to US efforts to weaken Iran
-In "The Redirection", written in 2008(!) – years before the 2011 uprising, Seymour
Hersh wrote of plans to use extremists in Syria.
Excerpts:
To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in
effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has
coöperated with Saudi Arabia's government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations
that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The
U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A
by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse
a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.
Nasr compared the current situation to the period in which Al Qaeda first emerged. In the
nineteen-eighties and the early nineties, the Saudi government offered to subsidize the
covert American C.I.A. proxy war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Hundreds of young
Saudis were sent into the border areas of Pakistan, where they set up religious schools,
training bases, and recruiting facilities. Then, as now, many of the operatives who were paid
with Saudi money were Salafis. Among them, of course, were Osama bin Laden and his
associates, who founded Al Qaeda, in 1988.
This time, "
@Simply
Simon In the old days, the orders for the US government were coming down from the
Tri-Lateral Commission and the 6-7 major companies. Rockefeller took the TLC underground
ground with himself. The oil companies continue asking the US government for protecting the
ME/NA resources. Then Neocons replaced the TLC which their focus was twofold.
1. Destabilize the regions for protecting Israel
2. Control the resources militarily
3. Keep the Chinese out and cut their access to the resources
Guess what, Chinese have penetrated the regions constructively and quietly. America with its
unjustified fucking wars is being hated even more than 1953.
@KA
Very true! Unfortunately the presidents were misinformed or uninformed about the proxies
created by the CIA. The first created to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan manned and financed
by the Saudis, recruited by Mossad and intelligence was provided by the CIA. Sound really
really good to the Americans since it was free of charge with no loss of life! Then during
the Iraq war its neighbor Syria was getting destabilized so the CIA replicated Al-Qaeda and
formed a new gang which called themselves ISIS. The function of ISIS was to overthrow
Al-Bashar of Syria. The secondary mission for both groups was to bug Iran from its western
and eastern front.
Manning both of these groups with Sunnis was the biggest mistake that KSA, Mossad and the CIA
made. See the Sunnis are not fighters without sophisticated weapons from the West. On the
other Shiites can fight with a sword and empty handed if they have to. They remind me of VC's
in Vietnam. The Shiites decimated the ISIS and most of AlQaeda now the US is trying to get
credit for that but they know better now. So my recommendation to the US is please don't
aggravate the Shiites otherwise they will embarrass us just the VC's
@Monty
Ahwazi{ All insurance companies will drop their coverage of the oil tankers
immediately.}
During the Iran-Iraq war, US re-flagged Kuwaiti tankers and ran them under US flag and
protection through the straight.
Same thing can be done again.
And if insurance companies drop coverage, US Treasury will provide the coverage: some US
insurance company will be "convinced" by US Gov to provide the coverage and US Treasury will
guarantee _any_ losses incurred by the insurance company or companies.
US can always add to the national debt ( .i.e. print more dollars).
So, no: declaration won't do.
Only destroying stuff works.
{You guys sitting here and making up these nonsensical policies}
Nobody is making policy here: we are not a government.
We are exchanging opinions.
btw: where are you sitting?
Are your personal opinions considered 'policy', because you are ..what?
@anon
That was buried deep in the article. (Thanks for posting link.) Next lines, the NYT is
skeptical of US claims. Too bad this isn't first pararaphs!)
Lt. Gen. Joseph Guastella, the Air Force commander for the Central Command region in the
Middle East, said the attack could have endangered "innocent civilians," even though
officials at Central Command continued to assert that the drone was over international
waters. He said that the closest that the drone got to the Iranian coast was 21 miles.
Late Thursday, the Defense Department released additional imagery in an email to support
its case that the drone never entered Iranian airspace. But the department incorrectly
called the flight path of the drone the location of the shooting down and offered little
context for an image that appeared to be the drone exploding in midair.
It was the latest attempt by the Pentagon to try to prove that Iran has been the
aggressor in a series of international incidents.
@Zumbuddi
Thank you. If the US were a real [HONEST] policeman, they would have stopped Kuwait from
stealing Iraqi oil. But no, Bush was a dirty cop, on the take.
@dearieme
Read "JFK and the Unspeakable" by James W. Douglass. JFK was getting us out of Vietnam. In
his time, there was not massive amounts of US troops in Vietnam, only advisors. JFK planned
to get all the troops out after he was re-elected.
It was during Johnson's presidency that the Vietnam war became a huge war for the US.
Johnson set up the Gulf of Tonkin false flag on August 2 1964. This started the huge draft of
young men for Vietnam war that dragged on till the early 1970s.
Johnson also allowed Israel to do a false flag on the US on June 8 1967. Israel attacked
the USS Liberty. 34 servicemen killed and 174 injured. Israel wanted to kill them all and
blame it on Egypt, so US would nuke Egypt. Lovely nation is little Israel. The song " Love is
all you need" by the Beatles was released on June 7 1967. Summer of Love, Hippies in San
Francisco, all planned to get Americans into drugs and forget about what Israel is doing in
the Middle East. It worked, nobody noticed what Israel did since we have a "free" 500 Zion BC
press in the US in 1967 and we still do these days.
Iran is pretty self sufficient with minimal foreign debt. Their Central Bank is under their
control and works for the people. They should just hunker down and hope Trumps crew is out of
a job after the elections next year
If the US strikes they can block the straits. However, the US would probably knock out the
refineries so that will hurt
They shot down the drone because it was collecting intelligence on targets the US plans to
strike. Thats defensive not provocative
If the US wants to go at Iran they will manufacture something. People are so dumbed down
they can made to believe anything, as events 18 years ago and since have proven
Hopefully this is just distraction to cover up some nefarious plan to loot the working
class some more. Or maybe getting the straits closed is part of the plan. Who knows?
THE TICK TOCKS WHY TRUMP DIDN'T BOMB IRAN NYT'S PETER BAKER, MAGGIE HABERMAN and THOMAS
GIBBONS-NEFF:
"Urged to Launch an Attack, Trump Listened to the Skeptics Who Said It Would Be a Costly
Mistake": "He heard from his generals and his diplomats. Lawmakers weighed in and so did his
advisers. But among the voices that rang powerfully for President Trump was that of one of
his favorite Fox News hosts: Tucker Carlson.
"While national security advisers were urging a military strike against Iran, Mr. Carlson
in recent days had told Mr. Trump that responding to Tehran's provocations with force was
crazy. The hawks did not have the president's best interests at heart, he said. And if Mr.
Trump got into a war with Iran, he could kiss his chances of re-election goodbye.
"The 150-dead casualty estimate came not from a general but from a lawyer, according to the
official. The estimate was developed by Pentagon lawyers drafting worst-case scenarios that,
the official said, did not account for whether the strike was carried out during daytime,
when more people might be present at the targets, or in the dark hours before sunrise, as the
military planned.
"That estimate was passed to the White House counsel, Pat A. Cipollone, without being cleared
with [Patrick] Shanahan or General [Joseph] Dunford. It was then conveyed to the president by
the White House lawyers, at which point Mr. Trump changed his mind and called off the
strike." NYT NYT A1
"That estimate was passed to the White House counsel, Pat A. Cipollone, without being cleared
with [Patrick] Shanahan or General [Joseph] Dunford. It was then conveyed to the president by
the White House lawyers, at which point Mr. Trump changed his mind and called off the
strike." NYT NYT A1
Saddam was given plenty of time, and plenty of resolutions to pack up his troops and go
home
.
Saddam was given the assurance by US ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie, that the USA
supported his retaliatory action against Kuwait. Same usual trap and deliberate provocation;
all the rest is obfuscation.
@AnonFromTN
The loss of two American aircraft carriers appears to be the assumption you are making to
guarantee an Iranian victory.
Such a loss is by no means assured.
The idea that American willpower will collapse in the event of the loss of two capital
ships is your second assumption, and it's both a fanciful and dangerous assumption.
I'm not myself terribly impressed by American military power, but comparing naval combat
to counterinsurgency operations is absurd.
Your economic assumptions appear to come from the permabear school. Actual economies and
governments don't work that way. A major reduction in global supplies will result in
compulsory conservation, rationing, price controls, etc. This was done in recent memory in
the 1970s in both North America and Western Europe, when you were still behind the Iron
Curtain and perhaps not aware.
@alexander
Saddam was given plenty of time, and plenty of resolutions to pack up his troops and go
home."
Efforts by Egypt to arrive an Arab initiated solution was ignored and dismissed by USA
Initial Saudi effort to find a face saving exit by Saddam was met with resistance and then
a manufactured satellite image of Saddam massing his soldiers for invasion of Saudi was
widely disseminated by US.
Saddam crimes was no less or more egregious than what Israel was enjoying with US dollars
and with US support and with impunity ( It was still occupying Pastien and Parts of Syria and
Lebanon )
It was Levy the Israeli FM who threatened that his country would attack Iraq if US did
not.
War against Saddam was orchestrated by Jewish members of Thatcher and by Democrats of USA
) Solarz – NY Senator was one of the guys and the AIPAC whose president Mr. Dine
confessed the crimes )
@alexander
UN has been abused by USA taking the advantage of the collapse of Soviet . (This is what
Wolf0owitz told Wesley Clarke in 1992 in Feb : This was the time we can and we should take
care of these countries Iran Iraq Syria Libya and Yemen while Russia is still weakened and
unable to help its erstwhile vassals states) .
USA had no right to ask Saddam to leave . Subsequent behaviors of USA has proved it.
Israel also in addition has no right to exist .
If correction had to come from Iran Hezbollah and Syria- then so be it. That news would be
best thing that would happen to humanity within last 200 yrs .
@Iris
but -- but -- but (sputters Alexander the otherwise sage commenter), The UN -- that's the
U-nited Nations!! fer pete's ache, Agreed!! ( Agreed is Diplomatese for: "Please stop
twisting my arm; Please stop bankrupting my country; Please stop threatening to tell my wife
-- ).
in other words, the UN is a toy and a ploy for someone like G H W Bush salivating at the
once in a lifetime opportunity to exert world dominance -- 'scuse me: "Create a New World
Order" -- in the context of a power vacuum / dissolution of the Soviet Empire, previously the
only counterbalance to US superpower status.
No doubt the UN was got on board. It acted like the paid-for- judge and show-trial in a
case the prosecutor had already rigged.
imho, what is more significant, and what it takes years to unearth, is the decision making
and back-room dealing that came BEFORE the UN was induced to stamp its imprimatur.
Tony Blair endorsed Bush the Lesser's war on Iraq. Does that grant it legitimacy, or in
any way explain why US waged that war?
I don't care about numbers.
50 (proper) sea mines backed up by 20 air/land-sea missiles do the job. Block the Hormuz.
I am sure the regime in Tehran has that number.
Does anyone?
Don't think so.
Mines in particular.
While missiles could be tricky to produce even smart sea mines are not.
A lot of explosive-check.
A couple of sensors (acoustic/magnetic)-check.
A couple of hardened micro controller boards-check.
That's it.
In this very game there are, really, only two elements that interest me:
Tactical nukes.
Selective draft.
What hehe really interests me is the escalation from "tactical" to "strategic".
@Thorfinnsson
Let me make this clear: there won't be Iranian victory. Iran will pay a hefty price. There
will be the defeat of the Empire, though, a major climb down. The worst (for the Empire) part
would be that the whole world would see that the king has no clothes. Then the backlash
against the Empire (hated by 6/7th of the Earth population) starts, and that would be
extremely painful for everyone in the US, guilty and innocent alike (myself included).
Compulsory rationing and price controls were possible when the governments actually
governed. When the whole governments and legislatures are full of corporations' marionettes,
as is the case now in the US and EU, these measures are impossible. Profiteers will have
their day. They will crush Western economies and therefore themselves, but never
underestimate the blinding force of greed. The same greedy bastards are supplying the US
military with airplanes that have trouble flying and with ships costing untold billions that
break down in the Panama canal, of all places. The same greedy scum destroyed the US industry
and moved all production to China, in effect spelling the doom of the only country that could
have protected their loot from other thieves. That's the problem with greed: it makes people
incredibly shortsighted.
So what? That nice lessons are being imparted slowly to the Israeli slave USA.
USA does what other countries are accused of before invading . USA throws out any qualms
any morality any legality . It uses UN . Right now it is illegally supplying arms to Saudi to
Israel and to the rebels in Syria. These are the reasons US have gone to wars against other
countries for. Now some countries are standing up and saying – those days are gone ,
you can't attack any country anymore just because someone has been raped or someone has been
distributing Viagra.
As a matter of fact, the whole world began to ask, you are willing to launch your military
to eject Saddam from Kuwait Bravo! ..Now what are willing to do about Israels illegal seizure
of Palestinian territory in the West bank .It is more or less the exact same crime, Isn't
it?
George Bush Senior was the last US President in American History to withhold all loans to
Israel, until it ceased and desisted from illegal settlement activity in the Palestinian
Territories.
Many believe it was his willingness to hold Israel to the same standard as everyone else,
which cost him his second term.
@Thorfinnsson
Iran shot down a US Navy RQ-4A intel drone that cost $250: A model that is marketed as being
hard to shoot down since it has an 11 mile high altitude ceiling and a long operational
range. That a coastal AA missile battery knocked it down with one shot answers several
questions.
"... Mr. Macri has slashed subsidies for electricity, fuel and transportation, causing prices to skyrocket, and recently prompting Ms. Genovesi, 48, to cut off her gas service, rendering her stove lifeless. Like most of her neighbors, she illegally taps into the power lines that run along the rutted dirt streets. ..."
"... "It's a neoliberal government," she says. "It's a government that does not favor the people." ..."
"... The tribulations playing out under the disintegrating roofs of the poor are a predictable dimension of Mr. Macri's turn away from left-wing populism. He vowed to shrink Argentina's monumental deficits by diminishing the largess of the state. The trouble is that Argentines have yet to collect on the other element the president promised: the economic revival that was supposed to follow the pain. ..."
"... But as Mr. Macri seeks re-election this year, Argentines increasingly lament that they are absorbing all strife and no progress. Even businesses that have benefited from his reforms complain that he has botched the execution, leaving the nation to confront the same concoction of misery that has plagued it for decades. The economy is contracting. Inflation is running above 50 percent, and joblessness is stuck above 9 percent ..."
"... Poverty afflicts a third of the population, and the figure is climbing. ..."
"... Mr. Macri sold his administration as an evolved form of governance for these times, a crucial dose of market forces tempered by social programs. ..."
"... In the most generous reading, the medicine has yet to take effect. But in the view of beleaguered Argentines, the country has merely slipped back into the rut that has framed national life for as long as most people can remember. ..."
"... "We live patching things up," said Roberto Nicoli, 62, who runs a silverware company outside the capital, Buenos Aires. "We never fix things. I always say, 'Whenever we start doing better, I will start getting ready for the next crisis.'" ..."
"... "When our president Cristina was here, they sent people to help us," she says. "Now, if there's problems, nobody helps us. Poor people feel abandoned." ..."
On the ragged streets of the shantytown across the road, where stinking outhouses sit alongside shacks fashioned from rusted sheets
of tin, families have surrendered hopes that sewage lines will ever reach them.
They do not struggle to fashion an explanation for their declining fortunes: Since taking office more than three years ago, President
Mauricio Macri has broken with the budget-busting populism that has dominated Argentina for much of the past century, embracing the
grim arithmetic of economic orthodoxy.
Mr. Macri has slashed subsidies for electricity, fuel and transportation, causing prices to skyrocket, and recently prompting
Ms. Genovesi, 48, to cut off her gas service, rendering her stove lifeless. Like most of her neighbors, she illegally taps into the
power lines that run along the rutted dirt streets.
"It's a neoliberal government," she says. "It's a government that does not favor the people."
The tribulations playing out under the disintegrating roofs of the poor are a predictable dimension of Mr. Macri's turn away
from left-wing populism. He vowed to shrink Argentina's monumental deficits by diminishing the largess of the state. The trouble
is that Argentines have yet to collect on the other element the president promised: the economic revival that was supposed to follow
the pain.
Mr. Macri's supporters heralded his 2015 election as a miraculous outbreak of normalcy in a country with a well-earned reputation
for histrionics. He would cease the reckless spending that had brought Argentina infamy for defaulting on its debts eight times.
Sober-minded austerity would win the trust of international financiers, bringing investment that would yield jobs and fresh opportunities.
But as Mr. Macri seeks re-election this year, Argentines increasingly lament that they are absorbing all strife and no progress.
Even businesses that have benefited from his reforms complain that he has botched the execution, leaving the nation to confront the
same concoction of misery that has plagued it for decades. The economy is contracting. Inflation is running above 50 percent, and
joblessness is stuck above 9 percent.
Poverty afflicts a third of the population, and the figure is climbing.
Far beyond this country of 44 million people, Mr. Macri's tenure is testing ideas that will shape economic policy in an age of
recrimination over widening inequality. His presidency was supposed to offer an escape from the wreckage of profligate spending while
laying down an alternative path for countries grappling with the worldwide rise of populism. Now, his presidency threatens to become
a gateway back to populism. The Argentine economy is contracting. Inflation is running above 50 percent, and joblessness is stuck
above 9 percent. Poverty afflicts a third of the population. Credit Sarah Pabst for The New York Times
Image
The Argentine economy is contracting. Inflation is running above 50 percent, and joblessness is stuck above 9 percent. Poverty afflicts
a third of the population. Credit Sarah Pabst for The New York Times
As the October election approaches, Mr. Macri is contending with the growing prospect of a challenge from the president he succeeded,
Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, who faces a
series of criminal indictments for corruption . Her unbridled spending helped deliver the crisis that Mr. Macri inherited. Her
return would resonate as a rebuke of his market-oriented reforms while potentially yanking Argentina back to its accustomed preserve:
left-wing populism, in uncomfortable proximity to insolvency.
The Argentine peso lost half of its value against the dollar last year, prompting the central bank to lift interest rates to a
commerce-suffocating level above 60 percent. Argentina was forced to secure a $57 billion
rescue from the International
Monetary Fund , a profound indignity given that the fund is widely despised here for the austerity it imposed in the late 1990s,
turning an economic downturn into a depression.
For Mr. Macri, time does not appear to be in abundant supply. The spending cuts he delivered hit the populace immediately. The
promised benefits of his reforms -- a stable currency, tamer inflation, fresh investment and jobs -- could take years to materialize,
leaving Argentines angry and yearning for the past.
In much of South America, left-wing governments have taken power in recent decades as an angry corrective to dogmatic prescriptions
from Washington, where the Treasury and the I.M.F. have focused on the confidence of global investors as the key to development.
Left-wing populism has aimed to redistribute the gains from the wealthy to everyone else. It has aided the poor, while generating
its own woes --
corruption and depression in
Brazil , runaway inflation and financial ruin in Argentina. In Venezuela, uninhibited spending has turned the country with the
world's largest proven oil reserves into a land where
children starve .
Mr. Macri sold his administration as an evolved form of governance for these times, a crucial dose of market forces tempered
by social programs.
In the most generous reading, the medicine has yet to take effect. But in the view of beleaguered Argentines, the country
has merely slipped back into the rut that has framed national life for as long as most people can remember.
"We live patching things up," said Roberto Nicoli, 62, who runs a silverware company outside the capital, Buenos Aires. "We
never fix things. I always say, 'Whenever we start doing better, I will start getting ready for the next crisis.'"
Cultivating wealth
... ... ...
In the beginning, there was Juan Domingo Perón, the charismatic Army general who was president from 1946 to 1955, and then again
from 1973 to 1974. He employed an authoritarian hand and muscular state power to champion the poor. He and his wife, Eva Duarte --
widely known by her nickname, Evita -- would dominate political life long after they died, inspiring politicians across the ideological
spectrum to claim their mantle.
Among the most ardent Peronists were Néstor Kirchner, the president from 2003 to 2007, and his wife, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner,
who took office in 2007, remaining until Mr. Macri was elected in 2015.
Their version of Peronism -- what became known as Kirchnerism -- was decidedly left-wing, disdaining global trade as a malevolent
force. They expanded cash grants to the poor and imposed taxes on farm exports in a bid to keep Argentine food prices low.
As the country's farmers tell it, Kirchnerism is just a fancy term for the confiscation of their wealth and the scattering of
the spoils to the unproductive masses. They point to Ms. Kirchner's 35 percent tax on soybean exports.
"We had a saying," Mr. Tropini says. "'For every three trucks that went to the port, one was for Cristina Kirchner.'"
reduction in export taxes.
"You could breathe finally," Mr. Tropini, the farmer, says.
He was free of the Kirchners, yet stuck with nature. Floods in 2016 wiped out more than half of his crops. A drought last year
wreaked even more havoc.
"This harvest, this year," he says, "is a gift from God."
But if the heavens are now cooperating, and if the people running Buenos Aires represent change, Mr. Tropini is critical of Mr.
Macri's failure to overcome the economic crisis.
A weaker currency makes Argentine soybeans more competitive, but it also increases the cost of the diesel fuel Mr. Tropini needs
to run his machinery. High interest rates make it impossible for him to buy another combine, which would allow him to expand his
farm.
In the first years of Mr. Macri's administration, the government lifted controls on the value of the peso while relaxing export
taxes. The masters of international finance delivered a surge of investment. The economy expanded by nearly 3 percent in 2017, and
then accelerated in the first months of last year.
But as investors grew wary of Argentina's deficits, they fled, sending the peso plunging and inflation soaring. As the rout continued
last year, the central bank mounted a futile effort to support the currency, selling its stash of dollars to try to halt the peso's
descent. As the reserves dwindled, investors absorbed the spectacle of a government failing to restore order. The exodus of money
intensified, and another potential default loomed, leading a chastened Mr. Macri to accept a rescue from the dreaded IMF.
Administration officials described the unraveling as akin to a natural disaster: unforeseeable and unavoidable. The drought hurt
agriculture.
Money was flowing out of developing countries as the Federal Reserve continued to lift interest rates in the United States, making
the American dollar a more attractive investment.
But the impact of the Fed's tightening had been widely anticipated. Economists fault the government for mishaps and complacency
that left the country especially vulnerable.
.... ... ...
Among the most consequential errors was the government's decision to include Argentina's central bank in a December 2017 announcement
that it was raising its inflation target. The markets took that as a signal that the government was surrendering its war on inflation
while opting for a traditional gambit: printing money rather than cutting spending.
... ... ...
The government insists that better days are ahead. The spending cuts have dropped the budget deficit to a manageable 3 percent
of annual economic output. Argentina is again integrated into the global economy.
"We haven't improved, but the foundations of the economy and society are much healthier," said Miguel Braun, secretary of economic
policy at the Treasury Ministry. "Argentina is in a better place to generate a couple of decades of growth."
... ... ...
Their television flashes dire warnings, like "Danger of Hyper Inflation." Throughout the neighborhood, people decry the sense
that they have been forsaken by the government.
Trucks used to come to castrate male dogs to control the packs of feral animals running loose. Not anymore. Health programs for
children are less accessible than they were before, they said.
Daisy Quiroz, 71, a retired maid, lives in a house that regularly floods in the rainy season.
"When our president Cristina was here, they sent people to help us," she says. "Now, if there's problems, nobody helps us.
Poor people feel abandoned."
... ... ...
Daniel Politi contributed reporting from Buenos Aires. Peter S. Goodman is a London-based European economics correspondent.
He was previously a national economic correspondent in New York. He has also worked at The Washington Post as a China correspondent,
and was global editor in chief of the International Business Times. @
petersgoodman
Iran's envoy to the United Nations has called on the international community to end "unlawful destabilizing measures" by the US,
declaring that while Iran does not seek war, it "reserves the right to counter any hostile act."
Iranian envoy to the UN Majid Takht Ravanchi has condemned continuing US provocations that culminated Thursday morning in the
downing of an American surveillance drone by the Iranian air force over Hormozgan province.
The drone "had turned off its identification equipment and [was] engaged in a clear spying operation," Ravanchi confirmed in a
letter to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, adding that the aircraft had ignored "repeated radio warnings" in order to enter
Iranian airspace near the Strait of Hormuz.
"... "Iran cannot sit idly by as the American imperialist machine encroaches on their territory, threatens their sovereignty, and endangers their very way of life," said Bolton, warning that America's fanatical leadership, steadfast devotion to flexing their muscles in the region, and alleged access to nuclear weapons necessitated that Iran strike back with a vigorous show of force as soon -- and as hard -- as possible. ..."
"... "The only thing these Westerners understand is violence, so it's imperative that Iran sends a clear message that they won't be walked over. Let's not forget, the U.S. defied a diplomatically negotiated treaty for seemingly no reason at all -- these are dangerous radicals that cannot be reasoned with. ..."
Demanding that the Middle Eastern nation retaliate immediately in self-defense against the
existential threat posed by America's military operations, National Security Adviser John
Bolton called for a forceful Iranian response Friday to continuing United States aggression.
"Iran cannot sit idly by as the American imperialist machine encroaches on their territory,
threatens their sovereignty, and endangers their very way of life," said Bolton, warning that
America's fanatical leadership, steadfast devotion to flexing their muscles in the region, and
alleged access to nuclear weapons necessitated that Iran strike back with a vigorous show of
force as soon -- and as hard -- as possible.
"The only thing these Westerners understand is violence, so it's imperative that Iran sends
a clear message that they won't be walked over. Let's not forget, the U.S. defied a
diplomatically negotiated treaty for seemingly no reason at all -- these are dangerous radicals
that cannot be reasoned with.
They've been given every opportunity to back down, but their goal is total domination of the
region, and Iran won't stand for that."
At press time, Bolton said that the only option left on the table was for Iran to launch a
full-fledged military strike against the Great Satan.
WASHINGTON -- Maintaining that the unmanned aerial vehicle was simply going about its day
without posing a threat to anyone, U.S. Department of State officials claimed Thursday that
one of their drones was minding its own business on its way to church when Iran attacked it
out of nowhere. "This was an outrageous, unprovoked attack by the Islamic Republic of Iran on
an innocent drone who merely wanted to attend mass in peace," said acting Secretary of State
Mike Pompeo, emphasizing the drone's upstanding moral character by pointing out its history
of donating to charity, volunteering at soup kitchens, and making homemade cookies for school
bake sales. "We're talking about a drone that sings in the church choir and coaches little
league baseball games on the weekends -- an absolute pillar of the community. This is an
upstanding family drone who did nothing to deserve any sort of attack. What kind of world do
we live in where an innocent drone can't fly through Iranian air space on its way to church?"
At press time, Department of Defense officials confirmed that their request for Iran to
return the drone's body back to the U.S. for a proper burial had gone unanswered.
It is a very lightly written article but it touches on a very sensitive nerve rather hard. I liked the entire premise of this
story and have ome to agree with the writer that Americans hardly care who dies wherever as long as they can find themselves shoping
goods they dont need with the money they don't have and stuffing their mouth with food they don't deserve.
"... "Iran cannot sit idly by as the American imperialist machine encroaches on their territory, threatens their sovereignty, and endangers their very way of life," said Bolton, warning that America's fanatical leadership, steadfast devotion to flexing their muscles in the region, and alleged access to nuclear weapons necessitated that Iran strike back with a vigorous show of force as soon -- and as hard -- as possible. ..."
"... "The only thing these Westerners understand is violence, so it's imperative that Iran sends a clear message that they won't be walked over. Let's not forget, the U.S. defied a diplomatically negotiated treaty for seemingly no reason at all -- these are dangerous radicals that cannot be reasoned with. ..."
Demanding that the Middle Eastern nation retaliate immediately in self-defense against the
existential threat posed by America's military operations, National Security Adviser John
Bolton called for a forceful Iranian response Friday to continuing United States aggression.
"Iran cannot sit idly by as the American imperialist machine encroaches on their territory,
threatens their sovereignty, and endangers their very way of life," said Bolton, warning that
America's fanatical leadership, steadfast devotion to flexing their muscles in the region, and
alleged access to nuclear weapons necessitated that Iran strike back with a vigorous show of
force as soon -- and as hard -- as possible.
"The only thing these Westerners understand is violence, so it's imperative that Iran sends
a clear message that they won't be walked over. Let's not forget, the U.S. defied a
diplomatically negotiated treaty for seemingly no reason at all -- these are dangerous radicals
that cannot be reasoned with.
They've been given every opportunity to back down, but their goal is total domination of the
region, and Iran won't stand for that."
At press time, Bolton said that the only option left on the table was for Iran to launch a
full-fledged military strike against the Great Satan.
WASHINGTON -- Maintaining that the unmanned aerial vehicle was simply going about its day
without posing a threat to anyone, U.S. Department of State officials claimed Thursday that
one of their drones was minding its own business on its way to church when Iran attacked it
out of nowhere. "This was an outrageous, unprovoked attack by the Islamic Republic of Iran on
an innocent drone who merely wanted to attend mass in peace," said acting Secretary of State
Mike Pompeo, emphasizing the drone's upstanding moral character by pointing out its history
of donating to charity, volunteering at soup kitchens, and making homemade cookies for school
bake sales. "We're talking about a drone that sings in the church choir and coaches little
league baseball games on the weekends -- an absolute pillar of the community. This is an
upstanding family drone who did nothing to deserve any sort of attack. What kind of world do
we live in where an innocent drone can't fly through Iranian air space on its way to church?"
At press time, Department of Defense officials confirmed that their request for Iran to
return the drone's body back to the U.S. for a proper burial had gone unanswered.
It is a very lightly written article but it touches on a very sensitive nerve rather hard. I liked the entire premise of this
story and have ome to agree with the writer that Americans hardly care who dies wherever as long as they can find themselves shoping
goods they dont need with the money they don't have and stuffing their mouth with food they don't deserve.
The first thing to say here is that we have no means to know what really happened. At the
very least, there are two possible hypotheses which could explain what took place:
1) a US provocation: it is quite possible that somebody in the US chain of command decided
that Iran should be put under pressure and that having US UAV fly right next to, or even just
inside, the international border of Iran would be a great way to show Iran that the US is ready
to attack. If that is the case, this was a semi-success (the Iranians had to switch on their
radars and attack the UAV which is very good for US intelligence gathering) and a semi-failure
(since the Iranians were clearly unimpressed by the US show of resolve).
2) an Iranian provocation: yup, that is a theoretical possibility which cannot reject
prima facie : in this scenario it was indeed the Iranians who blew up the two tankers
last week and they also deliberately shot down the US UAV over international waters. The goal?
Simple: to show that the Iranians are willing and ready to escalate and that they are confident
that they will prevail.
Now, in the real world, there are many more options, including even mixes of various
options. What matters is now not this, as much as Trump's reaction:
Now, whether this was a US provocation or an Iranian one – Trump's reaction was the
only correct one. Why? Because the risks involved in any US "more than symbolic strike" would
be so great as to void any rationale for such a strike in the first place. Think of it: we can
be very confident that the Iranian military installations along the Persian Gulf and the
southern border of Iran are highly redundant and that no matter how successful any limited US
missile strike would have been, the actual military capabilities of Iran would not have been
affected. The only way for the US to effectively degrade Iranian capabilities would be to have
a sustained, multi-day, attack on the entire southern periphery of Iran. In other words, a real
war. Anything short of that would simply be meaningless. The consequences of such an attack,
however, would be, in Putin's words "catastrophic" for the entire region.
If this was an Iranian provocation, then it was one designed to impress upon the Empire that
Iran is also very much "locked, cocked and ready to rock". But if that is the case, there is
zero change that any limited strike would achieve anything. In fact, any symbolic US attack
would only signal to the Iranians that the US has cold feet and that all the US sabre-rattling
is totally useless.
I have not said such a thing in many months, but in this case I can only admit that Trump
did the right thing. No limited attack also makes sense even if we assume that the Empire has
made the decision to attack Iran and is just waiting for the perfect time. Why? Because the
longer the Iranian feel that an attack is possible, the more time, energy and money they need
to spend remaining on very high alert.
The basic theory of attack and defense clearly states that the attacking side can gain as a
major advantage if it can leave the other side in the dark about its plans and if the costs of
being ready for a surprise attack are lower than the costs of being on high alert (those
interested in the role and importance of surprise attack in the theory of deterrence can read
Richard Betts' excellent book "
the longer the Iranian feel that an attack is possible, the more time, energy and money
they need to spend remaining on very high alert.
Yep. Men and material getting tired. Tired men and material make mistakes.
Smart.
As I've said plenty of times before, the "beauty" of the setup is that TPTBs simply create a
climate for a mistake resulting in loss of life of American personnel. BANG.
Or, you put two combat forces next to each other and ramp up the tension. Just a matter of time.
I am currently very slightly optimistic (48-52%) that the US will not attack Iran in the
short term. In the long term, however, I consider that an AngloZionist attack is a quasi certainty.
Yep. Short term being 3 months (related to the first paragraph).
Sean Hannity lives in the largest Mansion in Lloyd Neck I have driven past his Mansion to get
a look as to just how big it is IT'S HUGE ..Lloyd Neck has the most expensive zip code in the
US ..Hannity the Chicken-Hawk thinks he is even tougher Chicken-Hawk War Hawk now that he
studies MMA Serra Brazilian Ji-jitsu on Jericho Turnpike ..Yesterday Sean Hannity"My
philosophy is you hit me .I hit you back ten times harder" .of course, Sean will be hiding in
his mega-Mansion in Lloyd Neck .as the US Cargo Planes land in Virginia with a 100 stainless
steel coffins containing the bodies headless bodies of Native Born White American Working
Class Young Men Donald and Melania step inside the cargo bay to view the stainless steel
coffins ..
Military action needs to support the underlying political goals. And, the political goal is
to stop the Iranian regime from threatening and destabilizing the region.
Would killing 150+ Iranians help dislodge the violent regime? No. Thus, the proposed
strike did not align with the political goal. Trump was right to cancel it.
Think of it as the Putin Playbook. Did Putin go for mass casualties when Turkey shot down
one of its fighters in 2015? No. Both Putin and Trump show similar strength. Restraint
against precipitous, ill conceived, and overly bloody actions.
_____
Trump realizes that the Iranian people are the victims of sociopath Kahmeni. There will be
a response with minimal bloodshed. Instead it will focus on the regime. Deepening the divide
between the Iranian people and their despotic leaders prepares the path for internal
forces to replace those leaders.
Oil storage is a likely choice. The tanks are large and spilled oil is highly visible. It
would demonstrate the inability of the regime to stop the U.S. Storage facilities are visible
to the public, so the government would have trouble denying or misrepresenting the event.
Port facilities would also be a good choice, although that would be harder to time for few to
no casualties.
That's going overboard on precision though. And what's with the oil refinery in Pennsylvania going up into balls of flame. I hope this
won't get dragooned into an "Iranian sleeper cell attack".
The provocations have to be such that domestic acquiescence in elite war profit taking will
not be disturbed. That requires a series of propaganda events ramping up for domestic
consumption.
10 minutes from striking is worryingly close, and Trump's disclosures on the matter are
troubling. Apparently it was only at this late hour that Trump came around to asking for
specifics on how many Iranians his order would kill. The generals told him approximately
150.
This was the game-changer, and Trump was nominally ordering this attack over the shoot
down of a single US surveillance drone, and he rightly noticed that killing 150 people was
not very proportionate to that, fortunately, he called the attack off before the first
missiles were fired.
Trump went on to issue a flurry of Tweets saying Iran would never be allowed to have
nuclear weapons, which of course this entire almost-attack had not a thing to do with. He
also bragged about how much damage the US sanctions have done to Iran and how weakened Iran
already is.
Troublingly though, administration hawks were still able to get Trump to sign off on the
attack earlier on Thursday, and his assurances on Twitter suggest that the loss of the
single drone really didn't enter into it as a big issue for him. This raises ongoing
concerns that having called off the Thursday attack, Trump might be sold on a lesser attack
at any time, or at least something nominally different that gets carried out before he gets
around to asking about the casualties.
Why would you end your mis-analysis where you justify war with the word PEACE? Spelling it out in all CAPS? You are seriously proposing that the US has the right to judge the government of another
country and to deliberately destabilize that country in order to oerturn its governemtn?
Do you realize that economic sanctions are considered to be acts of war? In other words, you support acts of war and think that is PEACE? Are you insane?
Military action needs to support the underlying political goals. And, the political goal
is to stop the Iranian regime from threatening and destabilizing the region.
Yeah. Makes total sense from an Israeli/Saudi perspective. When bullshit is all there is,
Hollywood logic can be used to explain the world!
Trump realizes that the Iranian people are the victims of sociopath Kahmeni.
I hope you have been given a sheet with talking points, otherwise I pity you.
The Deep State never rests.
Dual treason sandwich via Reuters for Mr. Trump. It's really like living in a Nazi regime, with Heydrich walking the corridors,
blackmailing and manipulating and "disposing of" problem factors.
Iran's top national security official has denied a Reuters report claiming that Tehran
had received a low-key message via Oman from the US warning of an imminent attack on the
Islamic Republic.
"The US didn't send any message," Keyvan Khosravi, spokesman for the National Security
Council, told Iranian television.
The comment dismissed a previous report by Reuters, which cited unnamed Iranian
officials as saying that Donald Trump had warned Tehran of a military strike and also gave
a time to respond. The message was reportedly delivered via Oman and followed the downing
of a US spy UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) earlier in the week.
Hmm, so they shot down a drone; would they be able to shoot down every American plane that
entered their airspace? A good reason to call off the strike; if the Iranians had a missile
lock on every American plane. Having all their planes shot down would be an even worse defeat
for the United States than just calling off an attack.
Putin checks Trump.
The Iranians might be deciding to stand firm against US sanctions and other provocations as
de facto acts of war before the sanctions do materially impact the Iranian
economy and its military capability.
Recall the chicanery through which the United States surreptitiously provoked Japan into
attacking the United States at Pearl Harbor so that FDR, a committed Anglophile, could enter
the European war through the back door to save his British friends.
1. Via economic sanctions, the United States and its European colonial allies
systematically denied Japan the resources it needed to sustain its population and its
industrial economy.
2. Japan decided that it would have to act to obtain those resources or, accept its
eventual demise as a nation state.
3. FDR hinted to the Dutch that the newly-positioned naval resources at Pearl Harbor would
attack and cut the Japanese lines-of-communication per chance Japan struck south to obtain
oil, rubber, and other resources in Southeast Asia. This was intentionally leaked to the
Japanese.
4. The United States monitored the locations and progress of the Japanese fleet en route
to Pearl Harbor to protect its exposed flank per the above. Japanese naval resources were
under a communications blackout. However, the Japanese merchant marine supporting those
forces were not. The US monitored their locations as a proxy for the location of the Japanese
fleet. The rest is history
The Iranians are in a similar position: either fight now at the peak of their military
power or, fight for survival later at a significant economic and military disadvantage. Like
the Japanese, the Iranians would be wise to do the former. This strategy optimizes their
chances for national survival.
The first thing in is missiles that target air defense batteries. I doubt
the US is worried about Iran shooting down every plane. The drone probably was flying a
steady even course and took no evasive maneuvers unlike an attacking aircraft. The success
rate of surface to air missiles is not very high.
@TheJester1. Via economic sanctions, the United States and its European colonial
allies systematically denied Japan the resources it needed to sustain its population and its
industrial economy.
BS. The embargo was because Japan continued to occupy part of China. All they had to do
was go back home. Did FDR do it to get us into the war? Maybe, but Hitler was under no
obligation to declare war on the US since Japan did not declare war on the USSR when Hitler
attacked the USSR.
No limited attack also makes sense even if we assume that the Empire has made the
decision to attack Iran and is just waiting for the perfect time. Why? Because the longer
the Iranian feel that an attack is possible, the more time, energy and money they need to
spend remaining on very high alert.
Then
this might also be a strategic PSYOP destined to lull the Iranians into a false sense of
security. If that is the plan, it will fail: the Iranians have lived with a AngloZionist
bullseye painted on their heads ever since 1979 and they are used to live under constant
threat of war.
Trump Claims He Canceled an Airstrike Against Iran at the Very Last Minute
I one hundred percent support letting The Orange One continue on with his awesome cowboy
delusions as long as it keeps a war from starting.
My reaction:
"Wow, sir! You have such self-control! Those Iranians don't know how close they were to you
just kicking them back to the Stone Age! It's great that the better (wiser and more patient)
side of you won out in the end – you are awesome!"
WASHINGTON -- Maintaining that the unmanned aerial vehicle was simply going about its day
without posing a threat to anyone, U.S. Department of State officials claimed Thursday that
one of their drones was minding its own business on its way to church when Iran attacked it
out of nowhere. "This was an outrageous, unprovoked attack by the Islamic Republic of Iran on
an innocent drone who merely wanted to attend mass in peace," said acting Secretary of State
Mike Pompeo, emphasizing the drone's upstanding moral character by pointing out its history
of donating to charity, volunteering at soup kitchens, and making homemade cookies for school
bake sales. "We're talking about a drone that sings in the church choir and coaches little
league baseball games on the weekends -- an absolute pillar of the community. This is an
upstanding family drone who did nothing to deserve any sort of attack. What kind of world do
we live in where an innocent drone can't fly through Iranian air space on its way to church?"
At press time, Department of Defense officials confirmed that their request for Iran to
return the drone's body back to the U.S. for a proper burial had gone unanswered.
@MarkinLA Read Frazier Hunt, The Untold Story of Douglas MacArthur.
TheJester is right.
Yes, China was under Japanese occupation. The Chinese Communists were fighting the Japs.
The USA was supporting the side that was not fighting the Japs but the Communists, being, the
USA, fanatically anti-communist.
My guess is that the USA forced Japan into war because of the economic potential of China,
i.e. they wanted to take Japan's place.
And the USA didn't side with Hitler but with the other side because they didn't know
Indian independence would come immediately after the War. So they sided with the Brits
because of the apparent economic potential of the British Empire. If India had gained
independence just before the war the USA would have sided with Hitler, because then, without
India, German Europe would have had a greater economic potential than the British Empire.
The Iranians claim that a manned spy plane was next to the drone (i.e. that it also was in
their territory) but that they chose not to shoot it down since 35 soldiers were on board.
"Along with the American drone was an American P8 aircraft with 35 on board, and it was
also violating our airspace and we could have downed it too," he said, adding, "But we did
not do [shoot down] it, because our aim was to warn the terrorist forces of the US."
To me, a total cynic, it looks like the Americans attempted a repeat of the incident when
they deliberately misled their sailors so that they sailed into Iranian territorial waters. I
guess they messed up the GPS for them.
"Iran releases video of captured American sailor crying "
I too would cry if I realised that my superiors had set me up as a sacrificial lamb.
Let's not forget the attempt to sink the USS Liberty. That was a joint operation between
the US Deep State and Israel to try and get the US to attack Egypt.
"'But Sir, It's an American Ship.' 'Never Mind, Hit Her!' When Israel Attacked USS
Liberty"
@TheJester But why were sanctions imposed on Japan? Because Japan was acting in violation
of international law? Well yes due to Japanese imperial aggression against China. In 1935-40
Japan was no angelic virgin. It committed unprovoked aggression against China, committed
massive war crimes and crimes against humanity. Yes FDR likely wanted to have USA enter the
Pacific war to enable war against Hitler but the crippling sanctions against Japan had a
legitimate basis. To punish Japan for aggression in China
It looks like the Americans are having a false flag feast.
The positions in Iraq – whether directly or indirectly connected to the US
interests in Iraq – for example Baghdad, Basra and al-Taji base to Northwest of Baghdad
and Nineveh operations command headquarters in Northern Iraq have come under Katyusha missile
attacks in recent day, the Al-Akhbar newspaper reported.
The paper reiterated that the missile attacks have taken place as a result of recent
regional tensions, and said that the US officials are trying to portray the attacks as
messages by Iran after al-Fujaira and the Sea of Oman mishaps.
It noted that no group has claimed responsibility for the recent missile attacks on Iraqi
cities.
Sources close to Hashd al-Sha'abi Commander Abu Mohandes al-Mahdi, meantime, categorically
dismissed any accusations against the Iraqi popular and resistance forces, and said that the
Americans themselves are most probably behind some of these attacks because some of the
missiles are made in the US.
@HEREDOT Mr. Saker left out the inconvenient fact that while that drone was indeed flying
over Iranian air space, a much larger target, the Poseidon P8 was flying nearby. The P8 is a
converted Boeing 737, making for a much larger radar profile for that missile. The P8 has
many ASW capabilities, and also can control drones.
It's usual crew numbers nine, but this one had 35 sacrificial lambs packed onboard, to be
murdered by the (((Deep State))) to push Trump into the corner, with the (((MSM))) screaming
that it was Iran's fault, no proof needed or lies fabricated–just like the illegal
invasion of Iraq–to give Israel what it's demanding that its American colony do: Bomb,
bomb, bomb Iran.
My guess is that the American thugs behind this latest FF attempt were hoping the
Iranian surface-to-air missile would of shifted its initial target–the drone– and
went for the much larger P8.
That Butcher Boy Bolton and his fellow homicidal maniacs failed means that more Americans
are being lined up in their cross-hairs, ready to be sacrificed for the glory of Apartheid
Israel.
If that is the plan, it will fail: the Iranians have lived with a AngloZionist bullseye
painted on their heads ever since 1979 and they are used to live under constant threat of
war.
Wrong, Saker, the Iranians have been getting attacked by America and the Brits since we
overthrew their democratically elected prez in 1953, because he had the audacity to think and
say that the majority of Iran's oil revenues should be going to Iranians, not Wall Street
.
@BengaliCanadianDude Agreed. If Israel want to attack Iran, go ahead, but they won't,
because they know they'd get their asses kicked unless Uncle Sucker was leading the way.
Or maybe Israel could send in its fearsome DIAPER BRIGADES to wreak havoc in
Tehran?
The diaper reference is not a joke, it's fact that the IDF has issued combat nappies to
their troops, who let loose their bladder anytime they engage REAL men with guns who shoot
back. But let's give credit where its due, when it comes to shooting Palestinian kids with
slingshots or medics, Israel is #1.
@peterAUS Iran has been living with the same threat since 1979. The result is a hugely
popular military and IRGC which is one of the best career choices in the country. It's a way
of life for the nation to be under siege by now and for Shia Muslims the idea of being ready
to fight to the death always hovers due to the history of Islam with respect to the
Sunni/Shia divide. This disagreement is extreme, to be a Muslim and understand it is to feel
horror! ; and despair at the idea any reconciliation is even possible between the two sects
and a shared history does not make for a shared point of view. Shias have always been
outnumbered and it was us who were targeted for extreme violence in the end (or the
begginning) when a dispute over leadership turned bitter. Successive Islamic powers have
attempted to exterminate Shias and the latest incarnation of the Salafis begginning with
Wahhabism (nurtured by the Rothschild controlled British SS at the end of the Ottoman Empire)
and lately morphed into Takfirism which is Daesh and their ilk, have always sought out Shias
first and foremost for attack.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is firstly an Islamic Republic in full revolutionary mode,
(as opposed to 'fundamentalist') it is also in a close second the "Capital" of Shia Islam and
what I have described is the history of Iran and the times the Persian state was not an
Islamic one are no less a part of the historical memory of the nation. Even those times
(which invariably ended in defeat for Persia) reinforce the idea that it is as an Islamic
state Iran stands best chance of survival and the confidence that if they remain true to
these principles they will prevail is backed by an unbroken history of successful defense as
a righteous Islamic state. This may be beyond many of the younger generation and ignored by
the wealthy older generation Iranians but it must be ingrained in the political and social
cosnciousness of the political and religious and intellectual elite.
Iran is ready. They have always been ready in one sense. Saddan Hussein who attacked them
when they were at their weakest and still lived to regret it could attest to that if he was
still around to talk. That war in which the USA gave full and unconditional support to their
protege Saddam who only became their enemy when he became a better man and leader later on in
time, was a wake up call to Iranian leadership and the nation as one. They knew that they
needed missiles and a very strong defensive posture and that is what they have. F^ck with
them at your peril I say.
I doubt myself the USA will attack Iran, at least as long as they have ships and troops
within 1000 miles of Iran. That includes towing their static aircraft carrier "Israel" out of
range as well.
@2stateshmustate agree, the comment that "the USA is taking the events to the UN is
loaded with false something or other..
Iran initiated the UN hearing AFAIK and IRAN says it will present evidence that it was the
USA's intention.. to do the deeds ..<=personally, my feeling is neither Russia nor China
will veto .. anything about these deeds.. the only veto will come from Article II of the COUS
, present leader [one Mr. Trumpy]. who is elected not by popular vote of the govern people
in America but instead by the hidden behind the scene, state to state vote of the
electoral college.. .. <== you mean all that to-do every four years to elect a president:
democrats vs republicans beating each other up, newspapers collecting billions in
contribution dollars to publish fake I hate you slogans, and he saids, you saids: dey all
be fake news, propaganda erotic ? yep.. sure enough is. dem guys dat rites dem
Konstitutions ain't no dummies deys knows vat ve good fore dem. Read Article II, sections 2
and 3.. you see..
Popular vote elects the Article I folks ( 525 in all: 425 members of the house of
congressional districts (Art. 1, Section 2), and 100 Senators (amendment 17, proposed 1912,
approved 1913federal reserve(act of congress), income tax (amendment 16) both also 1913
),
=>but Article I (section 2 and amendment 17 ) folks have no power to act.. as powerless
buffoons ..they are authorized only to approve a few things, try cases of Treason, and make
the laws, fund the actions, wants and needs demanded by Article II persons. It takes 2/3 of
each a divided Senate and 2/3 of a divided House [Art. I, sec 7[2,3] to over-power the Art II
privilege of veto.. and
==get this=> Article II persons are charged to enforce the law( Art II, section
2 [3] he[the President} shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. Where is
Hillary? I see no words making such duty to enforce the law optional (so does the AG have an
option that the President does not, .) ?
I am in full agreement with the author about who was most likely behind the attacks on the
ships and how the two separate attacks were done. Even down to accepting the possibility Iran
was behind some or all of this as provocation for the reasons given. If so it would mean they
are hurting badly and need to bring things to a head fast. This does not fit with my
observations of Iranian leadership which has always demonstrated a very long term and
patient, typically oriental approach to logjams in diplomacy and nothing has happened to
suggest they are suddenly feeling extremely more pain than previously. In short it is
possible but I doubt it.
To my mind the things which speak against the Iranians having attacked the tankers the
second time at least are substantial: Both ships were Japanese owned. This attack as such was
against Japanese interests WHILST the Japanese PM (Japanese death cult and mafia associations
and all) was making a historical visit to Tehran! What sort of dung for brains clowns would
invite someone for dinner and then send the kids out to set fire to their car whilst they
dined? Of course Washington would do something like this (shooting missiles at Syria whilst
enjoying a lovely piece of cake with their Chinese ally ffs ) but Iran? Give me a break.
Secondly if Iran was guilty, how come the USA is lying like a cheap rug from the get go?
The video the US Navy quickly produced is PROOF they are lying. The black and white imagery
does NOT hide the distinctly different paint jobs on the ship depicted and the actual one
involved. Whatever that video is, it is NOT a video of either of the ships involved in the
second incident. So if Iran was guilty why is the USA using fabricated evidence to assert
it?
The claim that the Iranians tried unsuccesfully to shoot down a Reaper drone which was
according to the USA monitoring the ship BEFORE IT WAS ATTACKED was what stuck in my craw
from the start. What the hell was a REAPER Drone doing monitoring that particular ship at
that particular time? Is this a common practice? Reaper drones are NOT recon drones they
carry hellfire missiles and kill things! When you consider the reports by the crew, as
relayed by the Japanese company owner about a flying object just before the explosion and the
pictures of the damage which clearly show fairly small holes about half way between the
gunwale and waterline the conclusion these were small missiles is hard to avoid. Indeed
HELLFIRE missiles would fit the bill nicely.
As for attacking Iran I do not believe that the USA will dare start anything, especially
now, so long as they have troops and ships within range of Iranian missiles. Iranian missiles
power is immense and an unknown because they do not know where it all is, and they do know
much of it is very, very well hardened against attack. IF they do start a war with Iran
whilst they have assets in the region, invluding "Israel" then they have completely lost
their minds and I'd say the war will end very fast and hard for them. Not even going nuclear
will do it. They are deluded if they think so. Nukes are not magic, they are just big bombs
and even the radiation component is not a big deal these days. (few realise it but modern
nukes are quite 'clean') Iran is a vast country and well dug in over millenia. However
unleashing a full nuclear war against a non nuclear state will end the USA forever as a world
citizen in every way. There is no solution for the USA except to make peace or back off. They
can plan and scheme all they like but Allah is the best of planners.
@Fran Macadam Well if that line of turkeys pecking at the crumbs of provocations
unfolding which purport to involve Iran keep on gobbling on cue they are going to realise too
late they just walked into the slaughter house. Iran will send home many thousands of their
boys and girls in body bags and sink their ships but the real hurt will be the end of the US
economy. They'll be missing even allegorical crumbs when they only have dirt to eat.
@MarkinLA Japan continued to occupy part of China (and viciously so, clearly stamping on
the foot of white-colonial interests with their homegrown late-comer colonialism) but i
mainly started to challenge US power in the Pacific, and with strong determination.
Israel does not have the ability to deceive the US, and why would it need to with Trump in
power? American fracking technology has greatly limited Iranian ability to cause trouble. If
it was the Iranians that did the limpet mine attack on international shipping then what would
their objective have been? Clearly they don't want more any real war or even more sanctions.
What they do want is create demand for their oil and sell it at a good price. The price of
oil is already up from the mere tension over the limpet mine and shootdown and had there been
US military action oil prices would have gone much higher. I see this whole affair as a sign
that the Iranian regieme is getting desperate, because America's slow smothering strategy is
working. Iran wants to breack out of its current situation and Trump is walking them into
that.
Israel will do nothing, the partisan supporters of Israel in the US can be kept quiet on
the immigration Issue by throwing them a bone (as Trump has been doing). Iran want to rase
oil prices and create demand for its oil, that is all. Hitting Iran, but quite lightly, is
the best option for Trump if he wants to win reelection. And so he will hit Iran at a time of
his choosing, which will probabally be closer to the election. The armed forces of America or
any other country are not for enforcing international law or notions of fair play, but rather
for defending that country's interests. Iran and Trump's agendas converge on a clash well
short of all out war in the very near future.
Occam's Razor suggests Trump got news that the drone was indeed inside Iranian airspace and
decided for once to call BS.
Besides, in the great scheme of things, one lost drone doesn't make up for the USS
Vincennes killing 290 people on Iran Air 655 by shooting it down in Iranian Airspace. When
the Empire warned that civil aircraft were not safe in the airspace, it wasn't the Iranian
forces they were warning about.
@Miggle Sorry, "My guess" covers all that follows. It's only my guess that the USA would
have sided with Hitler if they'd known India would not be part of the British Empire.
@TheJester But it wasn't wise for the Japanese as they were completely defeated.
The key difference between Japan and Iran is that the Japanese Empire was an aggressor,
endlessly invading its neighbours. Iran has not fought an offensive war in 40 years.
Also have to question you on the time element. Time is on the side of the Asian countries.
It's countries, like Israel, who see this as peak time for military action. Iran has survived
40 years of sanctions and can certainly survive this time, especially with the support of
Russia and China. Yet they still must react to military planes threatening their air space.
Plus they have no control over oil tankers being targeted by third parties.
The more I see of this, the more convinced I am that the US as a society is clinically
insane.
Its borders are under attack by what can only be described as an invasion is taking place
with millions off illegal immigrants pour across the border to commit crime, steal jobs or
mooch of the welfare programs.
Its cities are decaying with armies of homeless, shit and drugs flooding the streets in
ever greater numbers while the working class people flee in great waves.
Masked and armed criminals roam the streets of major US cities, attack anyone they deem to
be a wrong thinker when not busy rioting, stealing and chanting for the deaths of others.
Its economy is in a bi-polar mood. On one hand the GDP is as high as ever with tons of new
jobs getting created, on the other hand the physical economy is shrinking as stores closes
and houses go unsold due to half the nation being unable to buy anything but food and
clothes.
In the face of all of these problems, the US Government has decided to put its full
attention on overthrowing the government of Venezuela and starting a war with Iran because
somehow, those two nations who posed no danger to the US have been declared high priority
targets that requires the full spectrum attention and political intervention by the US.
@A123 "There will be a response with minimal bloodshed." Yes, we are noted for the
delicate, nearly bloodless nature of our military reactions, merely focusing on regimes with
the full-throated applause of the grateful populaces. It would be a cake-walk, to quote our
valiant SecDef Rumsfeld prior to our 2003 Iraqi minimally bloody response.
And speaking of armchair generalship, I wonder where Trump's multi-starred consultant got
the figure "150" in answer to the question of civilian casualties. This is the kind of
clear-sighted strategic vision that has a U. S. victory in Afghanistan just around the
corner, to quote our junior Clausewitz's.
But it is also plausible (if by no means certain) that at least two groups could have
opposed such a strike:
1) The planners at CENTCOM and/or the Pentagon.
Yes, it's reported that the Pentagon advised Trump not to retaliate militarily for the
drone shoot down.
Given advanced missile technologies, surface warships of any stripe are sitting ducks. I'm
guessing that Iran has a plethora of missile batteries up and down its coast. If Iran
launched a barrage of missiles simultaneously (10? 20? 30?) at a single surface warship in
the Persian Gulf, what would be the probability that the ship's self-defense systems could
neutralize them all?
If a single multi-billion dollar warship were sunk, the credibility of U.S. naval "power
projection" would evaporate. In that context, the Pentagon's reluctance may be because they'd
rather not establish that their hyper-expensive blue-water surface Navy is an
anachronism.
There is a very simple solution to all this, and the sooner it happens the better.
Everyone who conspired to defraud the US taxpayer into illegal wars (dating back to 2002),
should be forced to pay for the cost of the wars they lied us into.
All the assets of these "deceivers" should be "seized" .to pay down the 22 trillion war
debt their lies created.
If there is anything left over , it should be placed in an " Iran War Escrow Account
".
This would ensure that the burden of the war costs falls directly on "their" shoulders and
NOT the US taxpayers.
This seems like a just and fair solution for everybody ., doesn't it ?
An authentic act of war before even before firing the first bullet. First, make the
economy scream in the tradition of yet another thug masquerading as head of state (Nixon).
Second, starve them into submission. Does the first Iraq war resulting in the death of an
estimated half a million children denied essential medicines ring a bell? Venezuela is
similarly being starved into surrender. Meanwhile Guaido is embezzling the humanitarian aid
intended for his needy countrymen.
All said, the history of our country's lies and deception going back a long ways, more
than speaks for itself.
@Justsaying Of course, starvation is a favorite tactic of OUR international Communist
overlords. They've used it for decades and killed hundreds of millions of people using it.
It's cheap and easy.
On direct orders from Donald Trump ..the US Military is illegally occupying the sovereign
Nation of Syria .and Trump took a direct order from JEW ONLY ISRAEL to do this think about it
A case can be made that the US strategy is not to go to war with Iran .but rather, use the
boogey man of Iran to justify a 100 year illegal US Military occupation of Syria on behalf of
JEW ONLY ISRAEL .
The late Fat Cockroach Christopher Hitchens justified murdering thousands of Iraqis
because it would be good for the Kurds Well, here is what I say:THE CRYPTO JEW KURDS WERE
NEVER WORTH IT .Kurdish autonomy in northern Iraq always meant an IDF presence in Northern
Iraq
The best analysis of the 225 million dollar MQ-4C drone(more expensive than the F-35) shoot
down in my opinion is that of Jim Stone:
"The drone shot down was an MQ-4C, which is basically a more advanced clone of the Global
Hawk. A better score for Iran than a Global Hawk. ADDITIONALLY IMPORTANT: Iran was the one
that recovered the debris, the U.S. navy did not, which means Iran was telling the truth
about where it was flying to begin with. If they got it, it fell on their turf. It is really
blown to smithereens, a direct hit. That's good for Iran because it proves their missile
systems can do it, but it is bad because they don't have any big pieces. Additionally, there
was an American P-8 spy plane accompanying the drone, Iran was able to differentiate between
the two, and hit the drone. The P-8 was a much easier target. Iran obviously opted not to hit
it because killing it's crew would have meant war."
What everyone needs to be aware of here is "stealth" technology is a total farce, and can
be defeated with long wave radar, basically the same system used by England during WWII. The
drone shot down was considered a Max Stealth aircraft, same as the F-35. The F-35 and F-22
are basically "hanger queens"(many hours of maintenance required for every hour of flying
time), and with their stealth capabilities being defeatable, they are pretty much worthless.
Trump did not pull the trigger on this because he figured out the whole thing could go real
bad real quick.
Everyone who conspired to defraud the US taxpayer into illegal wars (dating back to
2002), should be forced to pay for the cost of the wars they lied us into.
Everyone who conspired to defraud the US taxpayer into illegal wars, their heirs and all
who profited from (dating back to 1812), should be forced to pay for the cost of the wars
they lied us into.
@Justsaying You are correct. This is economic and siege warfare. Flying bullets, etc.,
add to the drama and consequences, but the war on Iran began many years ago. The vicious
clowns are up to the same old tricks, but bullshitting only the willing gulls.
No, it's not. Clearly the Nazis were on the defensive . Lying Abe Lincoln was, in
fact, much worse than the Nazis ever thought of being; in a totally different category
even.
Iran has not started a war in over 300 years and is not a terrorist nation and does not
export terrorism, that title belongs the the unholy trinity of the zio/US and Israel and
Britain, the creators and funders and suppliers of AL CIADA aka ISIS and all the various off
shoots thereof.
This war on Iran is a zionist project of the zionists who control the governments of the
zio/US and zio/Britain as has been the case in every war in Iraq and Libya and Syria and
Yemen and Lebanon , Israel has been the agent provocateur in every one of these wars!
The zionists have a goal of a satanic zionist NWO and are hell bent to get there if they
have to kill off all the goyim and muslims to accomplish it and they are well on their
way!
Read the book Blood In The Water by Joan Mellen on the zio/US and Israeli attack on the
USS Liberty for a look at how these two terrorist nations operate!
A handful of psychopaths determine our destiny. What makes us different from
animals?
I don't think other animals have psychopaths of the same species ruling over them nor do
they have hasbara clowns spouting sewage and doing worse 24/7, such as the alphanumeric zero,
above.
Mr. Saker left out the inconvenient fact that while that drone was indeed flying over
Iranian air space, a much larger target, the Poseidon P8 was flying nearby. The P8 is a
converted Boeing 737, making for a much larger radar profile for that missile. The P8 has
many ASW capabilities, and also can control drones.
If this is true the stupid bastards in control of this country better take note. If the
missile, that Iran says they developed, is cabable of distinguishing between a P8 and a drone
the US may have a big problem.
More likely, Trump and his Neocons knew that Iran had proof that the spy drone was shot down
over Iran's territory, that the truth would come out after the U.S. strike, earning the
world's condemnation and making Trump et al look like warmongering fools. That's what they
are, of course, but it gave Trump the chance to pose as a big humanitarian, stopping the
strike because, since it was only a plane, with no Americans on board, he didn't want to
"disproportionately" kill anybody. Yeah. Just wait until the Israeli puppets send another
plane with Americans on board, it'll give Israel and our traitorous Neocons the war they've
been lusting after for a decade or more.
In fact it's my understanding that the Japanese were bending over backwards in an attempt
to avoid war with the US but the Wall Street Commie catamite FDR and his henchmen foiled and
insulted them at every turn. The story of how they were repeatedly humiliated would raise the
hackles of the least sensitive among us.
The big picture is that the Wall Street and London Commies were aiming for world hegemony
even at their own populations' expense, of course, and Japan and Germany had to be castrated
even if populated and run by angels and innocent choir boys to ensure that they could be
turned into industrial slave states. It's apparent that the scum of the Earth won't rest
until they've accomplished their goals as we can clearly see here.
Sean Hannity lives in the largest Mansion in Lloyd Neck I have driven past his Mansion
to get a look as to just how big it is IT'S HUGE ..Lloyd Neck has the most expensive zip
code in the US
A simple Google search reveals Hannity sold his Lloyd Neck home in 2014, and has lived in
Oyster Bay for several years. Also, Lloyd Neck isn't even in Forbes' Top 50 Most Expensive
Zip Codes; the list is headed by four communities in California and one in Florida.
I'm not saying Sean isn't a pussy and a faggot, but your facts are suspect.
Israel is just another 'settlers" country. It might be successful or it might fail like South
Africa and Rhodesia. The survival of Israel as the settler country hinges on the USA
unconditional support as yet another (stealth) USA state, and the continuation of the role of the
USA as the world hegemon and the center of the global neoliberal empire. . The USA position as
for Israel might eventually change with the collapse of neoliberalism.
One problem that creates negative attitude to Israel around the world (according to
BBC data
only the USA and a couple of African countries having the majority of population that views
Israel positively) is, as one commenter observed, the situation in which "The Children of the
Holocaust survivors, born into Israel, have now become the "Holocaust-ers of Palestine"
When Israeli prime ministers are in trouble, facing difficult elections or a corruption
scandal, the temptation has typically been for them to unleash a military operation to bolster
their standing. In recent years, Gaza has served as a favourite punching bag.
Benjamin Netanyahu is confronting both difficulties at once: a second round of elections in
September that he may struggle to win; and an attorney general who is widely expected to indict
him on corruption charges shortly afterwards.
Netanyahu is in an unusually tight spot, even by the standards of an often chaotic and
fractious Israeli political system. After a decade in power, his electoral magic may be
deserting him. There are already rumblings of discontent among his allies on the far right.
Given his desperate straits, some observers fear that he may need to pull a new kind of
rabbit out of the hat.
In the past two elections, Netanyahu rode to success after issuing dramatic last-minute
statements. In 2015, he agitated against the fifth of Israel's citizens who are Palestinian
asserting their democratic rights, warning that they were "coming out in droves to vote".
Back in April, he declared his intention to annex large chunks of the occupied West Bank, in
violation of international law, during the next parliament.
Amos Harel, a veteran military analyst with Haaretz newspaper, observed last week that
Netanyahu may decide words are no longer enough to win. Action is needed, possibly in the form
of an announcement on the eve of September's ballot that as much as two-thirds of the West Bank
is to be annexed.
Washington does not look like it will stand in his way.
Shortly before April's election, the Trump administration offered Netanyahu a campaign
fillip by recognising Israel's illegal annexation of the Golan Heights, territory Israel seized
from Syria in 1967.
This month David Friedman, US ambassador to Israel and one of the chief architects of Donald
Trump's long-delayed "deal of the century" peace plan, appeared to offer a similar, early
election boost.
In interviews, he claimed Israel was "on the side of God" – unlike, or so it was
implied, the Palestinians. He further argued that Israel had the "right to retain" much of the
West Bank.
Both statements suggest that the Trump administration will not object to any Israeli moves
towards annexation, especially if it ensures their favoured candidate returns to power.
Whatever Friedman suggests, it is not God who has intervened on Israel's behalf. The hands
that have carefully cleared a path over many decades to the West Bank's annexation are all too
human.
Israeli officials have been preparing for this moment for more than half a century, since
the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza were seized back in 1967.
That point is underscored by an innovative interactive map of the occupied territories. This
valuable new resource is a joint project of the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem and
Forensic Architecture, a London-based team that uses new technology to visualise and map
political violence and environmental destruction.
Titled Conquer
and Divide , it reveals in detail how Israel has "torn apart Palestinian space, divided the
Palestinian population into dozens of disconnected enclaves and unravelled its social, cultural
and economic fabric".
The map proves beyond doubt that Israel's colonisation of the West Bank was never
accidental, defensive or reluctant. It was coldly calculated and intricately planned, with one
goal in mind – and the moment to realise that goal is fast approaching.
Annexation is not a right-wing project that has hijacked the benign intentions of Israel's
founding generation. Annexation was on the cards from the occupation's very beginnings in 1967,
when the so-called centre-left – now presented as a peace-loving alternative to Netanyahu
– ran the government.
The map shows how Israeli military planners created a complex web of pretexts to seize
Palestinian land: closed military zones today cover a third of the West Bank; firing ranges
impact 38 Palestinian communities; nature reserves are located on 6 per cent of the territory;
nearly a quarter has been declared Israeli "state" land; some 250 settlements have been
established; dozens of permanent checkpoints severely limit movement; and hundreds of
kilometres of walls and fences have been completed.
These interlocking land seizures seamlessly carved up the territory, establishing the walls
of dozens of tightly contained prisons for Palestinians in their own homeland.
Two Nasa satellite images of the region separated by 30 years – from 1987 and 2017
– reveal how Israel's settlements and transport infrastructure have gradually scarred the
West Bank's landscape, clearing away natural vegetation and replacing it with concrete.
The land grabs were not simply about acquisition of territory. They were a weapon, along
with increasingly draconian movement restrictions, to force the native Palestinian population
to submit, to recognise its defeat, to give up hope.
In the immediate wake of the West Bank's occupation, defence minister Moshe Dayan, Israel's
hero of the hour and one of the architects of the settlement project, observed that
Palestinians should be made "to live like dogs, and whoever wants to can leave – and we
shall see where this process leads".
Although Israel has concentrated Palestinians in 165 disconnected areas across the West
Bank, its actions effectively won the international community's seal of approval in 1995. The
Oslo accords cemented Israel's absolute control over 62 per cent of the West Bank, containing
the Palestinians' key agricultural land and water sources, which was classified as Area C.
Occupations are intended to be temporary – and the Oslo accords promised the same.
Gradually, the Palestinians would be allowed to take back more of their territory to build a
state. But Israel made sure both the occupation and the land thefts sanctioned by Oslo
continued.
The new map reveals more than just the methods Israel used to commandeer the West Bank.
Decades of land seizures highlight a trajectory, plotting a course that indicates the project
is still not complete.
ORDER IT NOW
If Netanyahu partially annexes the West Bank – Area C – it will be simply
another stage in Israel's tireless efforts to immiserate the Palestinian population and bully
them into leaving. This is a war of attrition – what Israelis have long understood as
"creeping annexation", carried out by stealth to avoid a backlash from the international
community.
Ultimately, Israel wants the Palestinians gone entirely, squeezed out into neighbouring Arab
states, such as Egypt and Jordan. That next chapter is likely to begin in earnest if Trump ever
gets the chance to unveil his "deal of the century".
A version of this article first appeared in the National, Abu Dhabi.
This study shows us that the pro-Israel narrative has become so firmly entrenched in the
American mainstream media that it is almost impossible for news consumers to discern the
truth about the situation in Israel and Palestine. This has greatly benefitted Washington
which has made it abundantly clear that it sides with Israel in this fifty year-old
conflict.
If Netanyahu partially annexes the West Bank – Area C – it will be simply
another stage in Israel's tireless efforts to immiserate the Palestinian population and
bully them into leaving. This is a war of attrition – what Israelis have long
understood as "creeping annexation", carried out by stealth to avoid a backlash from the
international community.
Ultimately, Israel wants the Palestinians gone entirely, squeezed out into neighbouring
Arab states, such as Egypt and Jordan. That next chapter is likely to begin in earnest if
Trump ever gets the chance to unveil his "deal of the century".
This is probably true-and? I don't see Palestinians as a real people; they're just a bunch
of Arabs & it is absolutely irrelevant whether they are in Syria, Egypt or Arabia. They
themselves say they're not a "real" people:
On the other hand, real peoples like Uyghurs & Tibetans are swamped by the
Chinese, which is a real tragedy & only, huh, Richard Gere complains.
So, what the big deal with "Palestinians"? Why would they have a "right to exist"on some
shitty piece o land Jews seem to be obsessively addicted to in past 2 millennia?
And then, what with Amazonian Indians, Eskimos, Ostyaks, Okinawans, ..? What about
expulsion of 13 million Germans in what are now parts of Poland, Czechia, Russia .?
Israelis should have expelled all of them in 1967. & there would be peace.
There is one point in the article that is not completely accurate. J. Cook writes: "Israeli
officials have been preparing for this moment for more than half a century, since the West
Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza were seized back in 1967."
In fact, Ilan Pappe shows in his book "The biggest Prison on Earth" (2017) that plans to
occupy the whole land were much older. The plans weren't made because Israel took Palestinian
lands in 1967. Israel took lands in 1967 because of the plans to colonize it. Those plans
were older.
So, Pappe says in a more general way in his book that " . since 1948 and even more since
1956, Israel's military and political elites was looking for the right historical moment to
occupy the West Bank." (p. XIV). He also says more specifically: "The strategy was presented
by the CoGS to the army on 1 May 1963 and was meant to prepare the army for controlling the
West Bank as an occupied military area" (p. XIII).
All talk about "peace", about "coexistence", about a "two state solution" are (and were)
made in bad faith. About Pappe's book: I don't want to reccomend it for a casual reading. It
may be valuable historically because it deals with historical material from archives. But
it's basically a book about the Israeli burocracy, about laws, rules which would make sure
that Israel controls the conquested territory which it never thought of giving back. It's a
dry book. He has other books that which are much more agreeable to read like his short book
"Ten Myths About Israel".
My own analysis is that the choice of Iran is more or less incidental.
For reasons I won't repeat, Israel always has to have an enemy. Between one thing and
another, Iran is the most attractive target at the moment.
Should she be reduced to quivering submission or blood-soaked anarchy, Israel will just
pick another victim for us to attack. My guess is that it would be Turkey, but first things
first.
"7 Countries in 5 years" and the first Arab Spring dress rehearsal designed to culminate in
an Iranian overthrow. Wayback time machine for warnings of what was and was to come: http://www.arkofcrisis.com/id51.html
@Colin
Wright no the Iran War will not be "incidental":
1) as it'll likely set the rest of the Middle East on fire, the Iran War will greatly
facilitate the Greater Israel Project; esp. as cover for a Final Solution of Israhell's
Palestinian Arab Problem.
2) Iran no longer takes 'Murkan debtbucks for oil. That must be put down, as international
demand for the 'Murkan debtbuck-that-buys-oil is what prevents the domestic debtbuck from
going to hyperinflationary collapse. Oil-producing Iraq dropped the 'Murkan debtbuck and so
did Libya. See what happened to them?
& expect Drumpf to announce his "great discovery about 9/11" any day now:
"Iran did it!" and as Linh D. says, the MAGA-idiots will believe it.
@Haxo
Angmark'no the Iran War will not be "incidental" '
My point is that what's at the heart of this is Israel's need for an enemy. Iran could
vanish tomorrow; it'd just mean Israel would have to start the work up on someone else.
Since we're in the endless war era, another war for Israel is on the horizon, but hardly
anyone seems alarmed, least of all Americans, for they've come to see themselves, quite
casually and indifferently, as only asskicking agents of war, and never its victims.
Please, don't be stupid. The "white man" goyim are not your enemies. We're all in
this together.
If we were that bad, we'd end everyone else tomorrow.
@Escher
If all it takes are some cocaine-addicted pedophiles who molested child actors like Corey
Faim to make some cheesy films for Americans to be brainwashed, perhaps they DESERVE this.
Definitely Jews themselves are not brainwashed.
Nor are Hindus in America. You won't see many Indian-Americans running out to die in Iran
because of the latest film about Nazis.
Muslims-and I worked in a Muslim country-won't care. Emirate Arabs will continue making
money.
Asian-Americans will not care, though clearly our author might be the exception.
Hispanics won't care.
So tell me, why do whites care? What meaning is missing in their lives that can only be
filled by stupid Hollywood films.
Trump's foreign policy is that of the neocons and Israel , the B-52's are fuelled and armed
just waiting for the false flag/pretext to bomb Iran back into the stone age , there will be
no invasion as the costs will be too high . There is speculation that the US is waiting for
Boris Johnson to become Prime Minister as unlike Theresa May he will come out strongly in
favor of military action against Iran .
"Above, I named Jews as the instigators of war against Iran, which made some readers
cringe" Try not to let it bother you. It's pretty obvious that most of the people that read
this website are learning and having a lifetime of indoctrination undone. Many are scared out
of their wits at even having a negative thought about Jews in private. I know the feeling. I
felt similarly growing up.
Growing up I was I was bombarded with non-stop anti-German hatred in the media and
everywhere else. This probably would not have bothered me except that both my parents grew up
in Germany during the war. That meant that like 99% of the other Germans, they were
patriotic. Both of them experienced some harassment when they came to the US, but my mother
liked the USA until we noticed a change around 1970. My father had a more difficult time at
work, but he survived and did very well, but he too noticed a change around that time. That
is the time period Norman Finkelstein identifies as the beginning of the "Holocaust
Industry". Finkelstein explains, that after Israel's victory in the 1967 war, Israel was
considered a valuable ally to the US when they defeated the Soviet backed Arabs. The Jews in
the US became more bold and the word "Holocaust" was abducted by them and was redefined to
refer to what supposedly happened to them during the war. There was an explosion of holocaust
movies, newspaper and magazine articles, everywhere you were bombarded with this propaganda.
In school too. On top of that, we lived in New York, which the Jews openly dominated by the
1970's. My parents also noticed how some Jews mocked Christianity and how Christianity was
being torn down. I think Europeans are more alert than Americans in regards to some things.
When I think about how Christianity has been destroyed in the west I can credit my parents
with seeing it coming.
My parents hardly noticed Jews until they began this full blown propaganda campaign that
went on for decades and I don't think it ever really ended. If it bothered you, it bothered
you less as the years passed by. I asked my mom, and during the National Socialist period,
she knew some Jews but they were a small minority so she had little interaction with them and
their was very little discussion of them. So, in other words, my parents growing up didn't
have negative thoughts about Jews, certainly not strong ones. That changed when the Holocaust
Industry took off and the Jews showed their hatred for the Germans everywhere, and as I said,
it never really stopped. Back then, while having some feelings for my parents homeland, I was
often arguing with them and going against them and Germany. And like the frightened readers
on this website, I knew better than to say, or even think a negative thought about Jews. I
always knew there were many things wrong with the WW II narrative but I think I really became
aware of the lies when I wrote an email to David Irving and he replied in 2007. With the
advent of the internet and reading some important books, you have to be a coward or liar to
deny the hatred and lies that many powerful Jews peddle and how they shove these lies down
everyone else's throats. I'm not as timid as I used to be.
Not only are we fighting Israels wars in the mideast, but the zionists who control the US can
attack and kill 34 and wound 174 Americans on the USS Liberty and got away with it and then
Israel and the zionist controlled deep state attacked the WTC on 911 and killed some 3000
Americans and got away with that also, and plunged America into 18 years and counting of
unending war!
In regards to the USS Liberty see the book Blood In The Water by Joan Mellen, can be had
on amazon.
"... Trump issued an executive order, according to which a schedule of tariffs will be implemented unless Mexico polices its borders and ups its dismal rate of deportation, currently at 10 to 20 percent. ..."
"... Beginning on June 10, " a 5 percent tariff was placed on all imports from Mexico, to be increased by five percentage points each month until it hits 25 percent in October." ..."
"... Lo and behold, Mexico quickly promised to arrest Central American migrants headed north. Agreements may soon materialize with Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, to which Trump has already cut off foreign aid, in March ..."
"... How free and fair is trade anyway? Are unfettered markets at work when Canada, for instance, taxes purchases of American goods starting at $20, while America starts taxing Canadian goods at $1000? Hardly. ..."
"... There needs to be a huge turnaround in the number of illegals crossing the border if Trump wants to avoid being a one term president. It's hard to see the republicans staying relevant as well if the current numbers continue. They might hold the Senate for a little while but the presidency and a majority in Congress will be out of reach forever. ..."
"... In 2018, there were 70 million refugees, seeking safety from the world's conflict zone. One person was forced to flee their home because of war and violence every two seconds. ..."
"... Trump should have made reducing LEGAL immigration (and building the Wall to stop illegals) his #1 priority as soon as he was inaugurated. Instead, he dithered with personnel issues, then Obmacare (betrayed by rot-in-hell you bastard McCain), then tax cuts, Kavanaugh, loss of House, the End. ..."
If President Trump doesn't waver, his border deal with Mexico will be a victory. The Mexicans have agreed to quit serving as conduits
to hundreds of thousands of central Americans headed for the U.S.A.
Despite protests from Democrats, stateside -- Mexico has agreed to significantly increase enforcement on its borders.
At first, Mexico was as defiant as the Democrats -- and some Republicans.
Democrats certainly can be counted on to argue for the other side -- any side other than the so-called sovereign people they swore
to represent.
In fairness to the Democrats, Republicans are only notionally committed to the tough policing of the border. And certainly not
if policing the porous border entails threatening trade tariffs against our neighborly narco-state. Some Republican senators even
considered a vote to block the tariffs.
Nevertheless, to the hooting and hollering of the cretins in Congress and media, Trump went ahead and threatened Mexico with tariffs
.
More than that. The president didn't just tweet out "strong words" and taunts.
Since Mexico, the party duopoly, and his own courts have forced his hand, the president proceeded to "retrieve from his arsenal
a time bomb of ruinous proportions."
Or, so the Economist hyperventilated.
Trump issued an executive order, according to which a schedule of tariffs will be implemented unless Mexico polices its borders
and ups its dismal rate of deportation, currently at 10 to 20 percent.
Beginning on June 10, "
a 5 percent tariff was placed on all imports from Mexico, to be increased by five percentage points each month until it hits
25 percent in October."
Lo and behold, Mexico quickly
promised
to arrest Central American migrants headed north. Agreements may soon materialize with Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, to which
Trump has already cut off foreign aid, in March
It remains for Trump to stick with tough love for Mexico and the rest. If the torrent of grifters from Central America does not
let up, neither should the tariffs be lifted or aid restored.
Trump's trade and tariff tactics are about winning negotiations for Americans; they're not aimed at flouting the putative free-market.
How free and fair is trade anyway? Are unfettered markets at work when Canada, for instance, taxes purchases of American goods
starting at $20, while America starts taxing Canadian goods at $1000? Hardly.
Free trade is an unknown ideal, to echo Ayn Rand's observations. What goes for "free trade," rather, is trade managed by bureaucratic
juggernauts -- national and international -- central planners concerned with regulating, not freeing, trade; whose goal it is to
harmonize labor, health, and environmental laws throughout the developed world. The undeveloped and developing worlds generally exploit
labor, despoil land and kill off critters as they please.
The American market economy is massive. Trump knows its might. The difference between the president and his detractors is that
Trump is prepared to harness the power of American markets to benefit the American people.
But what of the "billions of dollars in imports from Mexico" that are at stake, as one media shill
shrieked
.
Give me a break. The truth about what Fake News call a major trading partner, Mexico, is that it's a trade pygmy -- a fact known
all too well to Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador and his foreign minister, Marcelo Ebrard.
The reason these leaders were quick to the negotiating table once a schedule of tariffs had been decided upon by the president
is this.
Via the Economist :
"Only about 15 percent of the United States' exports go to Mexico, but a whopping 80 percent of Mexico's exports head the other
way. 'There is nothing we have in our arsenal that is equivalent to what the United States can do to us,' says Andrés Rozental, a
Mexican former diplomat and minister."
Next, President Trump must compel Mexico to accept "safe third-country status." Translated, this means that the U.S. can expel
any and all "asylum seekers" if they pass through Mexico, as Mexico becomes their lawful, first port-of-call.
Thinking people should realize that Trump's victory here is a Pyrrhic one. For what the president has had to do is convince the
Mexican president to deploy his national guards to do the work American immigration police is not allowed to do.
The U.S. must turn to Mexico to police its border because the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has, to all intents and purposes, outlawed
immigration laws.
Congressional quislings, for their part, have sat back and grumbled about the need for new laws. But as Daniel Horowitz
argues
convincingly, this is "a separation of powers problem." Unless the Trump administration understands that the problem lies with
the lower-court judges [exceeding their constitutional authority] and not the law -- there will be no fix.
For President Trump, the executive order serves as a way around the courts' violation of the constitutionally enshrined federal
scheme, within which the role -- nay, the obligation -- of the commander in chief -- is to defend the country.
Although they're temporary fixes, executive orders can serve to nullify unjust laws. As I argued in my 2016 book,
"The Trump Revolution: The Donald's Creative Destruction Reconstructed," executive
orders are Trump's political power tool -- justice's Jaws of Life, if you will -- to be used by the Executive to pry the people free
from judicial oppression.
Understand: The right of a nation to stop The World from flooding its communities amounts to upholding a negative right. In other
words, by stopping trespassers at their borders, Americans are not robbing invaders of the trinity of life, liberty and property.
All Americans are asserting is their right to be left alone. What we are saying to The World is what we tell our disobedient toddlers
every day, "No. You can't go there."
If you believe Mexico is going to squelch the flow of humans into America -- the same humans who are wiring $25BILLION per year
back to family members in Mexico -- I've got a fleet of taco trucks with square tires to sell you.
There needs to be a huge turnaround in the number of illegals crossing the border if Trump wants to avoid being a one term
president. It's hard to see the republicans staying relevant as well if the current numbers continue. They might hold the Senate
for a little while but the presidency and a majority in Congress will be out of reach forever.
The more this nonsense carries on, the more I empathize with Stalin. Sometimes you gotta bulldoze your way through. Democracy
produces nothing but obstacles. Time to put the keys into the caterpillar.
I applaud this move by Trump, and will of course vote for him in 2020 (for a patriot, what is the alternative?). But unless we
end the LEGAL immigration invasion, all this is for nought, and Trump will likely be the last non-leftist Republican President.
I have fought immigration for 40 years without success, except for CA Prop 187 in 1994, quickly overturned by a dirty Muslim
immigrant Federal judge. Immigration of racial and cultural and (now it's clear to everyone, as I knew by the 80s in CA) ideological
aliens is simple invasion, imperialism by non-military means. We needed Pat Buchanan in the 90s; instead, the stupid Christianists,
with whom I used to argue in the 80s-90s-00s endlessly wrt their insane priorities, worried more about abortion and queers (how'd
that work out, morons?) than alien conquest – with the obvious result that "globohomo" is stronger than ever – AND we have another
50+ MILLION race aliens voting 8-1 Democrat.
Sadly, Trump and the all-GOP 2017-18 Congress were America's very last chance to stop the invasion and save our (and the GOP's)
future. Trump blew it, utterly. Now the USA as a unitary, Occidental, Constitutional, capitalist nation-state cannot be salvaged
and/or restored. The only hope for American patriots is White conservative territorial ingathering and eventual racial secession
and new sovereignty.
Unless the Trump administration understands that the problem lies with the lower-court judges [exceeding their constitutional
authority] and not the law -- there will be no fix.
This is the crux. And this is true, too..
Free trade is an unknown ideal, to echo Ayn Rand's observations. What goes for "free trade," rather, is trade managed by
bureaucratic juggernauts -- national and international -- central planners concerned with regulating, not freeing, trade; whose
goal it is to harmonize labor, health, and environmental laws throughout the developed world. The undeveloped and developing
worlds generally exploit labor, despoil land and kill off critters as they please.
In 2018, there were 70 million refugees, seeking safety from the world's conflict zone. One person was forced to flee their home
because of war and violence every two seconds.
"And I'll huff and puff and bow your house down," said the Big, Bad Wolf.
When stories about the record number of illegals flooding in stop hitting the news cycle, and we no longer get possibly Ebola
infected Congolese with wads of $100 bills, I might believe your assumptions.
Africans Coming Across The Southern Border Have "Rolls Of $100 Bills"
One more thought: Remember that hot air the Big, Bad Orange wolf blew that ICE was going to start rounding up millions of
illegals
on Tuesday? Here it is Friday and no action.
How many times will people fall for Trump's BS promises where nothing gets done or he backtracks?
Madame Mercer, I suspect the real reason behind your story is that Trump is the best POTUS for Israel since the traitor
LBJ and that a certain group wants to keep Tubby the Grifter in the WH so he can keep acting as Israel's de facto real estate
agent.
The simpleton Mercer misses what is really going on. The re-election push is on and Trump will roll out "plans" to deal with immigration.
They will never come into fruition as they are mere "boob bait for bubba". The drug cartels run Mexico and people trafficking
is a bigger business than drug trafficking. If you think they are going to stop, you are as delusional as Ms Mercer. By the way
the politicians work for the drug cartels in Mexico. Of course the advice that Mercer gave to South Africa led to the current
situation where the ANC runs the country and whites are disenfranchised. But what else would you expect from a Jew who sell the
goyim down the river every chance they get.
@sarz Grade:
D+ (every other President since Kennedy: F)
Trump should have made reducing LEGAL immigration (and building the Wall to stop illegals) his #1 priority as soon as he was
inaugurated. Instead, he dithered with personnel issues, then Obmacare (betrayed by rot-in-hell you bastard McCain), then tax
cuts, Kavanaugh, loss of House, the End.
America is gone as not only a White nation, but within 25 years, even a semi-civilized and First World one. Diversity is what
destroyed us. We could have integrated (more or less) the blacks, but the sheer numbers of mostly clannish nonwhite colonizers
since 1968 has doomed us. America was its White, Christian, Anglo-Nordic majority. Without that majority, American dies.
Yong is a typical neoliberal candidate, a creature of Silicon Valley. His cult of entrepreneurship looks silly, because this is
neoliberal myth which is destructive for the society (a lot of Silicon Valley startup are useless or harmful). Politically he is tend
to lean libertarian.
He own success look pretty accidental. He is a despicable venture capitalist himself. His NGO is essentially trying to compensate
for the neoliberalism flaws: they want fully trains candidate for the jobs and do not want tot "train on the job" candidates, who has
potential to be more productive in a long run.
Notable quotes:
"... After graduation, he worked as a corporate lawyer; as a Silicon Valley businessman; as the CEO of a GMAT prep company; and lastly, as the director of Venture for America, an NGO that provided training and seed money for aspiring entrepreneurs. ..."
"... Moore's Law basically already came to an end. While, there are possibly new architectures to explore, i don't see how AI will continue to advance without sharp increases in processing power. ..."
"... I believe it is also immoral to brain drain countries. ..."
"... Considering the fact that 99% of the U.S. government is appointed(by the deciders), and the rest is pre-approved for voting so you can play 'democracy' on special Tuesdays, it doesn't look too good for populism or populists like Andrew or Tulsi. They want another Obama – another shit eating grin to sell a load of false claims and empty promises. ..."
"... Even a big name like Kamala Harris, who has lots of money, a strong organization, tons of endorsements and close to double digit poll numbers, will have to drop out after Iowa and New Hampshire if she doesn't secure, at minimum, no less than third place in either state. Without the momentum a strong finish in these two states provide, campaigns wither and die. The money stops flowing. Volunteers quit. The press pool shrinks. ..."
"... Andrew Yang isn't even polling at 1% in either Iowa or New Hampshire (or anywhere else). He has no ground game. He has no organization. He hasn't raised much money. He has no fired up volunteers willing to make countless phone calls and trudge through the snow to knock on doors. Basically, he has nothing. ..."
"... Moreover, UBI is a terrible idea if it is proposed as a replacement for current social welfare programs, which provide a great deal more value to recipients than $1000 a month. A strict libertarian interpretation of the UBI concept would, in exchange for $1k a month, get rid of food stamps, section 8 housing, AFDC, cash welfare benefits, Medicaid, Medicare, the earned income tax credit and even mortgage interest deductions. There are more moderate proposals. But, ultimately, UBI has to be paid for somehow, either by raising taxes or eliminating much of the welfare state. ..."
"... The narcissistic, self-congratulatory rambling about the superior traits of people who live in coastal cities sounds very much like that Zuckerberg guy, or Chelsea Clinton – in other words, a "progressive" type who want to set up re-education camps for the masses of unwashed, reactionary "white people" – for their own good, of course. ..."
"... The war on terror is a self induced psychosis that is eating away at the moral core of america. Opiods, underage sex, porn are merely diversions. Blessed are the blessed. ..."
"... $12k a year isn't going to free anybody, it's just going to accelerate white genocide (more money for heroin and opiate pills and alcohol). In a world of $1500 a month apartments you're still living on the street with $12k income. ..."
"... Yang says he is against the income tax in principle because you shouldn't tax what you want more of (work) and rich people find loop holes around it anyway. ..."
"... Well, who else offers a better solution? Trump who is to busy being a legendary Isreali president ..."
"... A vomit-inducing brew of Establishment globalists, SJW-appeasing identity politicians, bland corporate stooges, Russiagate conspiracy theorists, and "liberal interventionists" who call Christians "Easter worshippers." ..."
"... America is being continually being deindustrialised by outsourcing every thing to China and Mexico etc. ..."
Andrew Yang – THE WAR ON NORMAL PEOPLE (
2018 )
Rating: 5 /5
You can access all of my latest book, film, and video game reviews
at this link , as well as an ordered, categorized list of
all my book reviews and ratings here: https://akarlin.com/books
I
I don't normally read the vapid hagiographies that characterize most political manifestoes. The two exceptions are Trump's
ART OF THE DEAL , and Putin's FROM THE FIRST PERSON .
The former was a genuinely well-written book that provided many insights into real estate development, and really explained the logic
behind Trump's showman "style" of politics (see Scott Alexander's
great review ). Though it wasn't
a Trump manifesto as such, having been written three decades ago by a guy who now actually hates The Donald, it was probably the
closest thing to one amidst the meme wars of 2016. The Putin book was a relatively dull series of interviews, though it still accounts
for a significant percentage of what we know about Putin's career before the Presidency and remains required reading for any serious
Russia watcher. That said, I imagine the vast majority of such books hew to the pattern of Hillary Clinton's
HARD CHOICES , which was apparently so bad that Amazon was forced to mass delete one star reviews to avoid embarrassing their
favored candidate.
So why did I make an exception for Andrew Yang's
THE WAR ON NORMAL PEOPLE ? Well, part of it is that he is my favorite candidate to date (as a proponent of Universal Basic Income
(UBI) since 2015 , there is nothing particularly illogical
or contradictory about that). His rational, common sense positions on a bewildering amount of issues help. But what really impressed
me is a Twitter post that highlighted his familiarity with the work of Peter Turchin:
At this point, it was obvious that reading the rest of THE WAR ON NORMAL PEOPLE would not be a waste of time, even if Yang's campaign
was to otherwise pete out (ha-ha). And good thing I did. While I consider myself relatively well read, especially on "futurist" topics,
I was nonetheless continuously regaled with all manner of original insights and things that I didn't know before.
II
The Yang bio only takes up one chapter. This is a good thing. I don't feel people should be writing about themselves unless they're
over 60, or have done something pretty impressive, or participated in a war or something. Quite the welcome contrast to Obama, who
wrote an entire memoir on the subject at the age of 34.
Yang is highly intelligent. Both of his parents went to grad school, and his father made 69 patents over the course of his career.
His brother is a professor. "Good genes, very good genes." He got admitted to Stanford and Brown. He is obviously well read, and
the literature he reads is K-selected. Apart from Turchin's book, he also cites Yuval Hari (HOMO DEUS) and Martin Ford (RISE OF THE
ROBOTS). After graduation, he worked as a corporate lawyer; as a Silicon Valley businessman; as the CEO of a GMAT prep company;
and lastly, as the director of Venture for America, an NGO that provided training and seed money for aspiring entrepreneurs.
One curious, endearingly personal note is that it seems he was bullied at school:
"Hey, Yang, what's it like having such a small dick? Everyone knows Chinese guys have small dicks. Do you need tweezers to
masturbate?" Most of this was in middle school. I had a few natural responses: I became quite self-conscious. I started wondering
if I did indeed have a small dick. Last, I became very, very angry.
I admit I chuckled a bit at the idea that there
is perhaps
a 6% chance (today's odds on PredictIt) that high school taunts about anatomy might end up playing a role in creating America's
next President. Many of these bullied Asian-Americans tend to become bitter and withdraw into communities such as the SJWs at
/r/azidentity or the Chinese nationalists at
/r/Sino . Yang didn't go down that path. That said, as someone raised
in an Asian-American family, bused tables at a Chinese restaurant as a teen, and who has
maintained strong ties to the wider Asian-American
community, those ideological currents must have influenced him to at least some extent.
His father immigrated from Taiwan. Geopolitics regardless, many Taiwanese-Americans are very proud of Chinese progress. The early
base of Yang's support was predominantly Asian-American, and I was told that many of his earliest foreign fans were Chinese. I have
a friend who was slightly acquainted with Yang before he became famous, and he confirmed
my impressions – based on the
exclusively positive mentions
of China on his Twitter, and his website – that Yang is a strong Sinophile. As we saw with Trump and Russia – or for that matter,
with Gabbard and Syria – being unseemingly friendly with or even just objective towards countries that have been declared strategic
competitors, rivals, or enemies of the US isn't all that great for your political capital. You heard it here first: If Yang somehow
wins the Dem nomination, the possibility of a "Chinagate" cannot be excluded. III
As Yang recounts it, his travels throughout America opened his eyes to the yawning gap between the flourishing coasts and its
depressed hinterlands. From the chapter "Life in the Bubble":
We joked at Venture for America that "smart" people in the United States will do one of six things in six places: finance,
consulting, law, technology, medicine, or academia in New York, San Francisco, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, or Washington, DC.
Other parts of the book consist of depressive travelogues about cities in the Rustbelt, with their abandoned malls, dilapidated
infrastructure, brain drain, opioid epidemics, and casinos filled with people who probably shouldn't be gambling.
So he is quite aware of the distinction in outcomes between the "Belmont" and "Fishtown" of Charles Murray's
COMING APART (for a summary, see " Trump's
America " in The Wall Street Journal).
Moreover, I am reasonably sure that Yang is more or less directly familiar with Murray's thesis:
Think of your five best friends. The odds of them all being college graduates if you took a random sampling of Americans would
be about one-third of 1 percent, or 0.0036. The likelihood of four or more of them being college graduates would be only about
4 percent. If that described you, you're among the educated class (even without necessarily knowing it; in your context, you're
perfectly normal).
This argument that America is developing into a meritocratic caste system is directly lifted from COMING APART, as is the "bubble"
metaphor used to describe its Brahmins. E.g., see Charles Murray's
Bubble Quiz .
Today, thanks to assortative mating in a handful of cities, intellect, attractiveness, education, and wealth are all converging
in the same families and neighborhoods. I look at my friends' children, and many of them resemble unicorns: brilliant, beautiful,
socially precocious creatures who have gotten the best of all possible resources since the day they were born.
I imagine them in 10 or 15 years traveling to other parts of the country, and I know that they are going to feel like, and
be received as, strangers in a strange land. They will have thriving online lives and not even remember a car that didn't drive
itself.
They may feel they have nothing in common with the people before them. Their ties to the greater national fabric will be minimal.
Their empathy and desire to subsidize and address the distress of the general public will likely be lower and lower.
That pretty much cinches it. "Assortative mating" isn't the sort of term that everyone throws around; although it is a biological
term, its popularization in sociology was led by Murray and other "HBD realists." While I understand and sympathize that these people
are generally "unhandshakeworthy", and hence uncitable by someone running for the Dem nomination, I think it is legitimate to think
of THE WAR ON NORMAL PEOPLE as the solutions set to the problems posed by COMING APART.
IV
Here are some of the main problems and challenges that Yang talks about:
1. Automation . I won't go on here at length, as this has already been widely covered in the media. I recommend Martin
Ford's book RISE OF THE ROBOTS, or at least this 15 minute
video , for a full treatment. But the basic thing to take away is that automation is coming for many jobs, and it won't just
be manufacturing ones this time round. Some things that struck me as noteworthy:
There are now less than 400 NYSE floor traders, down from 5,500. Legal review: Humans have 60% accuracy, AI already at 85%. Friend
of Yang's who works in a ride-sharing company says that according to internal projections, half of all rides will accrue to autonomous
vehicles by 2022.
This will eliminate jobs in truck driving, the ride-sharing sector (Uber, Lyft, etc.), and more and more repetitive cognitive
white-collar work.
2. Unsatisfactory jobs . There will be jobs to take the place of automated ones, but these will be low productivity jobs
with lower salaries (which will further incentivize companies to automate them away). Perhaps uniquely for a politician, Yang is
sympathetic to people who can no longer be bothered to pull themselves up by the bootstraps, as conservative orthodoxy dictates.
Imagine a 21-year-old college dropout who is not excited to make sandwiches at Jimmy John's and prefers his gaming community.
You could say to him, "Hey, this Jimmy John's job could go places. Sure you make $8 an hour now. But maybe if you stick with it
for a few years you could become a manager. Eventually, you could make $35,000 or so if you really excel and are willing to work
long and hard hours, including waking up at 5 a.m. to slice up tomatoes and cucumbers every morning, and commit to it." The above
is possibly true. Or, the retail district around his Jimmy John's could shrink and a management job might never open up. Or Jimmy
John's could bring in an automated system that gets rid of cashiers and front-of-house staff two years from now. Or his manager
could just choose someone else.
3. Video games . This explains why NEETs like the above have turned to video games; young men without college degrees now
spend 75% of the time they used to spend working with gaming. This is easy, because the marginal cost of video games is near zero;
as Yang sagely points out, they are an "inferior good" in economic terms. However, he also notes – as a onetime gamer – that while
playing games for hours on end might seem "sad", their satisfaction level is high, especially relative to their low social status
and high rates of unemployment.
4. Disability . More and more people, especially discouraged workers, are entering the disability rolls. This is an understandable
reaction to the loss of good jobs. However, since most disability applications are more or less fake – rates have been soaring, even
as the rate of workplace accidents plummets – this encourages a culture of dishonesty, and disincentivizes people from rejoining
the workforce since they would then lose their disability "basic income." There are no solid ways to disprove some common ailments,
so getting a note from a doctor is relatively easy. This is a way of life for many depressed rustbelt communities.
5. Other social maladies . These include:
Abandoned malls creating derelict no-go zones. The poverty of communities left behind by falling manufacturing employment, soon
to be repeated on an even bigger scale as automation takes off. Rising white middle-aged mortality, in which he cites
Case & Deaton's research . He is woke to
the opioid crisis: " Many of the deaths are from opiate overdoses. Approximately 59,000 Americans died of drug overdoses in
2016, up 19 percent from the then-record 52,404 reported in 2015. For the first time, drug overdoses have surpassed car accidents
as the leading cause of accidental death in the United States. " I assume he's likelier to make progress on it
than Kushner
. " An army of drug dealers in suits marketed addictive opioids to doctors, getting paid hundreds of thousands to do it.
"
V
In the final "problems"-related chapter, he mentions the work of Russian-American biologist/historian Peter Turchin, one of the
founders of cliodynamics, a new multidiscplinary field that aims to mathematize the cycles of history*.
In his book Ages of Discord, the scholar Peter Turchin proposes a structural-demographic theory of political instability based
on societies throughout history. He suggests that there are three main preconditions to revolution:
(1) elite oversupply and disunity,
(2) popular misery based on falling living standards, and
(3) a state in fiscal crisis.
Most of the variables that he measures began trending negatively between 1965 and 1980 and are now reaching near-crisis levels.
By his analysis, "the US right now has much in common with the Antebellum 1850s [before the Civil War] and, more surprisingly,
with France on the eve of the French Revolution." He projects increased turmoil through 2020 and warns that "we are rapidly approaching
a historical cusp at which American society will be particularly vulnerable to violent upheaval."
Turchin isn't one of those "doomers" who have predicted all ten of America's past zero collapses since he began predicting.
But he
did predict the rise of Islamic State in Iraq back in 2005 :
Western intrusion will eventually generate a counter-response, possibly in the form of a new theocratic Caliphate (War and
Peace and War, Penguin, 2005).
And he predicted that populism and social instability in the US would increase through to the 2020s. This was well before either
Trump or Sanders came on the radar.
So given this impressive predictive record, it's certainly worth listening to what Turchin has to say.
In addition to Turchin's analysis, Yang also mentions that there will be racial ressentiments:
A highly disproportionate number of the people at the top will be educated whites, Jews, and Asians. America is projected to
become majority minority by 2045. African Americans and Latinos will almost certainly make up a disproportionate number of the
less privileged in the wake of automation, as they currently enjoy lower levels of wealth and education.
and suggests that SJW policing of speech will complicate frank discussions of these problems:
Contributing to the discord will be a climate that equates opposing ideas or speech to violence and hate. Righteousness can
fuel abhorrent behavior, and many react with a shocking level of vitriol and contempt for conflicting viewpoints and the people
who hold them. Hatred is easy, as is condemnation.
This could set the stage for RACE WAR NOW as economic dislocations produced by automation further turbocharge preexisting trends
towards inequality and polarization:
After the riots, things continue to deteriorate. Hundreds of thousands stop paying taxes because they refuse to support a government
that "killed the working man." A man in a bunker surrounded by dozens of guns releases a video saying, "Come and get your taxes,
IRS man!" that goes viral. Anti-Semitic violence breaks out targeting those who "own the robots." A white nationalist party arises
that openly advocates "returning America to its roots" and "traditional gender roles" and wins several state races in the South.
Incidentally, I would say that this explains the context behind Yang's "whites will shoot up Asian-Americans in another generation"
video .
VI
Yang's signature issue is UBI, so it makes sense that he devotes two entire chapters to the topic. Despite its current association
with libertarians, crypto evangelists, NEETS, gamers, digital nomads, and various other eccentrics who have only begun spawning on
a reasonably large scale these past 1-2 decades, it was once much more mainstream**.
It's hard to fathom now, but the idea of a guaranteed annual income was mainstream political wisdom in the United States in
the late 1960s and early 1970s. Medicare and Medicaid had just been passed in 1965, and the country had an appetite for solutions
for social problems. In May 1968, over 1,000 university economists signed a letter supporting a guaranteed annual income. In 1969,
President Nixon proposed the Family Assistance Plan, which would provide cash benefits of about $10,000 per family and serve as
a guaranteed annual income with some eligibility requirements; this bill was supported by 79 percent of respondents polled at
the time. The Family Assistance Plan passed the House of Representatives by a wide margin -- 243 to 155 -- but then stalled in
the Senate due to, of all things, Democrats who wanted an even more robust plan.
But then the Reagan Revolution rolled out, economists produced (now discredited) studies that UBI depressed work hours and increased
the divorce rate, and the general public lost interest.
The literature that Yang has amassed tells a different story. He mentions a study by Evelyn Forget (2005) in Canada, who found
the effect on work to be "minimal." The only groups of people that worked substantially less were new mothers and teens, which seems
to be a perfectly fine outcome. There was also a rise in high school graduation rates, a reduction in hospital visits, less domestic
violence, and fewer cases of mental illness. Another study by Akee on Native Americans who got basic income from casino earnings
found that children became more conscientious and agreeable.
I was genuinely surprised to learn that there is one major country that has already adopted UBI: Iran. During the 2011 reforms,
it eliminated inefficient food and gas subsidies, and replaced them with basic income of $16,000 per year. ( Strictly speaking,
this is not quite accurate on Yang's part; this is far too much for a middle-income country like Iran, and as I subsequently confirmed,
$16,000 is their basic income NORMED to US standards, i.e. what Americans would get under a scheme that drew on a similar share of
the national income ). But in any case, there was apparently no reduction in hours worked. I don't know what effect it had on
Iranian economic productivity, and Yang doesn't go into it. I would imagine that doing such analyses on the Iranian economy would
be complicated by the relative opacity of its national accounts, as well as by the (much larger) economic shocks created by US sanctions
over this past decade.
Either way, the general picture – so far as we can say based on the limited UBI experiments to date – is that they don't have
much effect either way on employment or GDP, but they do increase happiness and general welfare. But in any case, when the current
President thinks it is very normal to mark Easter with an economic growth update
perhaps it is time to stop worshipping the latest quarterly GDP figures, as was suggested by Simon Kuznets in 1934, the inventor
of the GDP:
economic welfare cannot be adequately measured unless the personal distribution of income is known. And no income measurement
undertakes to estimate the reverse side of income, that is, the intensity and unpleasantness of effort going into the earning
of income. The welfare of a nation can, therefore, scarcely be inferred from a measurement of national income as defined above.
In Yang's vision, the size of American UBI – the "Freedom Dividend", as he calls it – will be $12,000 for each American aged 18-64,
subsequently indexed to inflation. This is just above the current poverty line of $11,700.
But will it be affordable?
An analysis by the Roosevelt Institute of this $12,000 per year per adult proposal found that adopting it would permanently
grow the economy by 12.56 to 13.10 percent -- or about $2.5 trillion by 2025 -- and it would increase the labor force by 4.5 to
4.7 million people. Putting money into people's hands and keeping it there would be a perpetual boost and support to job growth
and the economy. The cost would be about an additional $1.3 trillion per year on top of existing welfare programs, most of which
would be folded into the plan, as well as increased taxable revenue and cost savings.
The cost of $1.3 trillion seems like an awful lot. For reference, the federal budget is about $4 trillion and the entire U.S.
economy about $19 trillion. But there are myriad ways to pay for it. The most sensible way to pay for it in my view would be with
a value-added tax (VAT) -- a consumption tax -- that would generate income from the people and businesses that benefit from society
the most.
A VAT would result in slightly higher prices. But technological advancement would continue to drive down the cost of most things.
And with the backdrop of a universal basic income of $12,000, the only way a VAT of 10 percent makes you worse off is if you consume
more than $120,000 in goods and services per year, which means you're doing fine and are likely at the top of the income distribution.
This counters one of the central "leftist" arguments against UBI – that it is regressive, and falls disproportionately on the
poor. Sure, they'll be paying 10% more for most goods and services. But their income will also increase by at least 50%, and by around
100% if they work part-time. It will be rich consumers who lose out.
For people who consider this farcical, consider the bailouts that took place during the financial crisis. You may not recall
that the U.S. government printed over $4 trillion in new money for its quantitative easing program following the 2008 financial
collapse. This money went to the balance sheets of the banks and depressed interest rates. It punished savers and retirees. There
was little to no inflation.
This one is for the inflation bears.
VII
While UBI is the mainstay of Yang's policy platform, he has many other excellent ideas, which he elucidates in the three final
chapters.
1. Raise government worker retirement packages, with President getting $4 million per year . This is to be coupled with a lifetime
prohibition on making money from their office through speeches, etc.
I very strongly agree with this, and have proposed this on many occasions in the past as well. Admittedly, I was talking about
Russia, but it really applies to any country. Politicians and bureaucrats get less money than businessmen, even though they are often
just as talented. This is a truism nigh well everywhere. This makes them resentful. Many of them want to close the gap. In the more
corrupt countries, they do that directly, from pressuring companies to "contribute" to their family's accounts (at best) to directly
"raiding" successful companies and stealing from government accounts. In less corrupt countries, they tend to be slaves to lobbyist
interests, on the unspoken understanding that they would be rewarded for their service once out of office (this describes the US).
I suppose that in a few countries they might genuine "servants of the people" but the number of such countries isn't all that high.
As it is, the only country that I am aware of that runs similar policies is Singapore, where Ministers get close to $1 million
per year. As a high IQ authoritarian state, it is able to resist populist demotism.
2. Stop corporate welfare . This one, I wager, would play well with both Bernie and Trump supporters:
Here's an idea for a dramatic rule -- for every $100 million a company is fined by the Department of Justice or bailed out
by the federal government, both its CEO and its largest individual shareholder will spend one month in jail. Call the new law
the Public Protection against Market Abuse Act. If it's a foreign company, this would apply to the head of the U.S. operation
and the largest American shareholder. There would be a legal tribunal and due process in each case. The president would have the
ability to pardon, suspend, shorten, or otherwise modify the period or sentence. The president would also have the ability to
claw back the assets of any such individual to repay the public.
3. Education realism . He notes that while tertiary enrollment is rising, its efficiency is falling.
That is, only 59 percent of students who started college in 2009 had completed a bachelor's degree by 2015, and this level
has been more or less consistent the past number of years. For those who attended private, selective colleges, this number will
seem jarringly low; the same number at selective schools is 88 percent. Among schools with open admissions policies the rate is
only 32 percent, and among for-profit universities the six-year graduation rate is 23 percent.
This is inevitable. Only 25% of students
can benefit from a university education, as there is only so much space on the right hand side of the IQ bell curve. Only choice
is to fail more and more students, to lower standards, or to abandon the fiction that everyone is suited for university.
While Yang can't exactly couch it in such terms, he is – unlike the increasing number of Democrats agitating for free college
– obviously woke to the Education Question:
(a) Administrative staff at US universities is blooming, and they are passing on the costs to the captive student market. Meanwhile,
they use their tax exempt status to run hedge funds.
One way to change this would be a law stipulating that any private university with an endowment over $5 billion will lose its
tax-exempt status unless it spends its full endowment income from the previous year on direct educational expenses, student support,
or domestic expansion. This would spur Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Princeton, MIT, Penn, Northwestern, and others to spend billions
each year directly on their students and expansion within the United States. There could be a Harvard center in Ohio or Michigan
as well as the new one they just opened in Shanghai.
Incidentally, describing the Ivy League colleges as hedge funds with a university attached is something that Ron Unz has also
done, though his solution was to suggest forcing Harvard
to eliminate its fees .
(b) He talks of the need for more vocational training and apprenticeships.
(c) Massive open online courses (MOOCs) are largely ineffective. While I wasn't expecting miracles, I was still surprised to learn
that Udacity's course completion rate is only around 4%. They are not a panacea.
(d) He is especially hard on government "retraining" programs for displaced workers:
The reality is more often displaced workers spending government funds or racking up debt at the University of Phoenix or another
for-profit institution in desperate bids to stay relevant and marketable.
In particular, he agrees that "learn to code" is useless advice for the vast majority of these people. They would be better off
with a UBI.
4. Mandate "serenity" settings for smartphones and social media . Currently it's a pain to get notifications settings down to
a manageable level. Would be good to have an all-in-one option.
5. Social credits . No, this is not the quasi-totalitarian Chinese scheme to coercively promote good behavior. This is similar
to a thing called "time banking", which are already exisiting voluntary associations in the US where people get credits within communities
by performing useful tasks, e.g. minor home repairs, walking dogs, etc. The idea is to have the government allocate these credits
towards solving some major problem, e.g. "100 million DSCs to reduce obesity levels in Mississippi", and let normal people sort out
the details in a more efficient way than bureaucrats could dictate. Apart from the direct benefits, it should also help people feel
more useful and enhance life satisfactino. I am not fully convinced having the government being involved in this is such a good idea,
but I will reserve judgment until I learn more about it.
6. Primary care doctors helped by AI in healthcare . This will also help keep costs down, and lessen the strain on overworked
doctors.
Martin Ford, the author of Rise of the Robots, suggests that we create a new class of health care provider armed with AI --
college graduates or master's students unburdened by additional years of costly specialization, who would nonetheless be equipped
to head out to rural areas. They could help people monitor chronic conditions like obesity and diabetes and refer particularly
hairy problems to more experienced doctors. Call them primary care specialists. AI will soon be at a point where technology, in
conjunction with a non-doctor, could offer the same quality of care as a doctor in the vast majority of cases. In one study, IBM's
Watson made the same recommendation as human doctors did in 99 percent of 1,000 medical cases and made suggestions human doctors
missed in 30 percent of them. AI can reference more cases than the most experienced physician while keeping up to date with the
latest journals and studies.
In return for a less hectic pace and greater freedom to focus on patients as opposed to paperwork, doctors will need to take a
salary hit:
What's required is an honest conversation in which we say to people who are interested in becoming doctors, "If you become
a doctor, you'll be respected, admired, and heal people each day. You will live a comfortable life. But medicine will not be a
path to riches. On the bright side, we're not going to burn you out by forcing you to see a million patients a day and fill out
paperwork all the time. We're going to supplement you with an army of empathetic people equipped with AI who will handle most
routine cases. We'll only call you when the case genuinely requires distincthuman judgment or empathy. We want you to become the
best and most human version of yourself, not Dr. Speed Demon who can bang out a nine-minute appointment. Let's leave that to Watson."
VIII
It should be blindingly obvious, but yes, Yang is really the only US Presidential candidate that interests me at this point in
time. I consider his policies to be head and shoulders above those of any other candidate. Note that many of his other great ideas,
such as banning robocalls, regulating social media as a public utility, and promoting nuclear power are not even in this book. The
one mostly blank spot on his policy agenda – admittedly, a very big one – is his stance on foreign policy.
In my view, Yang correctly identifies that a war is being waged on "normal people." And he has a battlefield strategy – a mixture
of paternalistic technocracy and capitalism with a human face – that has at least some chance of turning the tables.
I mean look, here is the situation come 2020:
1. An orange man turned POTATUS whose foreign policy agenda is set by neocons and AIPAC, and who has gone from calling for a Wall
to calling for millions of LEGAL immigrants to work in factories that will soon be swept away by automation. Yang, at least, will
favor cognitively elitist immigration, i.e. which actually creates
tons of value and will continue to be viable in the age of automation.
2. A vomit-inducing brew of Establishment globalists, SJW-appeasing identity politicians, bland corporate stooges, Russiagate
conspiracy theorists, and "liberal interventionists" who call Christians "
Easter worshippers ." Sure, there's one other decent
candidate there, but she doesn't seem to have policies between foreign policy and has a <1% chance of getting elected, while Yang
has at least a distant shot at it.
3. While I like people such as Tucker Carlson, the problem is that he is not running. It doesn't seem that there will be any challenger
to Trump from the Dissident Right. Fortunately, there is no great contradiction, as Yang and Carlson also seem to like each other.
Furthermore, while both Yang and Carlson are concerned with automation, the Freedom Dividend is clearly a better and more adaptive
policy than the latter's Neo-Luddism.
Most likely, Yang will not win the Dem nomination, and will fade from the scene by this time next year. (Just like Audacious Epigone,
I bet on Kamala Harris on PredictIt). This does not mean he will fade from history. Automation isn't going anywhere, and pressure
for UBI will continue to build up (and not just in the US). It is reasonable to posit that Yang will continue to serve as a figurehead
for it within the US. However, at the rate that "contradictions" are piling up in US society, it is unclear if it will come about
in time to prevent mayhem.
The choice is essentially to cut and run or to stand and fight. We must convert from a mindset of scarcity to a mindset of
abundance. The revolution will happen either before or after the breakdown of society. We must choose before.
On the off chance that Yang actually makes it, I hope this book review will convince at least a few people into helping bring
that about and launch fully automated luxury cyborg space human capitalism.
** I also learned that Thomas Paine was a fan, writing in 1796: Out of a collected fund from landowners, "there shall be paid
to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for
the loss of his or her natural inheritance, to every person, rich or poor."
Karlin, how do you reconcile your support for UBI with your equally strong support for the Putin entitlement reform?
"But the basic thing to take away is that automation is coming for many jobs, and it won't just be manufacturing ones
this time round."
Stagnant productivity for eight years and counting. This is not just a problem unique to Russia, Brazil, Italy, etc.
"is clearly a better and more adaptive policy than the latter's Neo-Luddism"
I actually find Tucker much more Woke than UBI advocates. The central challenges of our generation are basically not about
GDP, though more is helpful. Like Ron Unz, I support free college, though obviously for a small minority.
i don't dislike the guy and in a better world i could more easily vote for a left-liberal Ron Paul than a right-libertarian one
but the western world's root problem is it has a hostile elite (banking mafia) and Yang would be a sedative when (imo) we need
acceleration.
automation
all the arguments about automation apply to immigration
a meritocratic caste system
quibbling but a genuinely meritocratic system would block high IQ sociopaths from the ruling class and promote stewardship
instead.
how do you reconcile your support for UBI with your equally strong support for the Putin entitlement reform?
Pensions privilege older generations. This is perfectly fine, since people should be able to enjoy their twilight years in
moderate comfort. But a retirement age of 60M/55W becomes absurd once life expectancy approaches 80 years by 2030 (i.e. the date
at which this reform will end). I would note that further note that the increase in the pensions age was also paired with general
pensions increases, which further mitigated its welfare impact. Apart from that, I don't really see how a 55 year old woman *absolutely
needs* a basic income more than a 30 year old working couple trying to pay for an apartment, kids, etc.
I actually find Tucker much more Woke than UBI advocates.
How is banning robots going to help?
Like Ron Unz, I support free college, though obviously for a small minority.
It's a subsidy to people who are generally already very well off (though also brighter than average, so I am not opposed for
eugenic reasons). However, it seems that the much bigger problem is spiraling costs. Putting taxpayers on the hook for infinity
administrators and Gender Studies departments doesn't seem like a good idea.
– Apr 17–23: 1% (poll includes 21% Undecideds; if omitted Yang up to 2% ?)
– Apr 15–21: 2% (huge sample size; margin of error +/1%, implying Yang at 1-3% ).
– Apr 12–15: 3% without Biden in poll; 2% with Biden in poll
– Apr 11–15: 1% without Biden in poll; <1% with Biden in poll (poll includes 20% Undecideds when Biden not included
and 14% Undecideds when Biden included)
– Apr 11–14: 3%
– Apr 8–14: 2% without Biden in poll; 1% with Biden in poll
– Apr 1–7: 1%
These 1-3% numbers are right where Buttigieg's were in March (<1% to 4% across 17 polls), before the media began promoting
him in the first week of April.
Buttigieg's last four national poll results: 7%, 9%, 17%/21%, 8%/11% (latter two are "with Biden / without Biden"), conducted
April 11 to April 23.
Maybe I'm a little slow on the uptake, but I still don't see how a UBI won't just cause inflation or rising rents. Even so, I'm
glad at least one candidate in the race is now discussing the problems of AI and robotics. Within 10 years, a majority of people
in the country may well be unemployed and probably unemployable, too. It's high time we started talking about this looming problem,
so I'm grateful to Yang for that.
I used to be more convinced of the automation argument, but now I'm not so sure. Think about Robin Hanson's experience with prediction
markets. They work well, so he puzzled over why they aren't used more. Why, for instance, will a company not want to set up a
prediction market on whether a project will meet a deadline? He says it's because they say they would like to know in advance
if the deadline will be met, but don't really want this because if they are saying one thing and the prediction market is saying
another they will look like fools. I think there's a similar phenomenon with employers. Employers say they want two things, to
make profit and for their workers to be well-off. What if those conflict? It's natural to think that the former will always dominate
in their decision making process. So they should want to replace their workers with machines. But what do they really want? If
the "employer" is just a guy who wants an Uber ride he really does want the whole thing to go as efficiently as possible. In those
kinds of areas automation will be most welcomed. But what of the manager at a large company? He says he wants the company to make
a profit, but his main concern is keeping his job and being promoted. The workers are his job, replacing them could end up replacing
him. Reducing their numbers could make his position seem less important. So if presented with the opportunity to automate their
workforce he's going to clap and say "great demonstration, but I'm worried the robot will fail for edge case X, Y, and Z so come
back when you can fix them."
@Digital Samizdat I
agree – it would probably cause a lot of inflation. There would obviously be groups of people adopting it as a reproductive strategy
too, living together like sardines and pooling their resources.
I'd rather have real money – money that holds it value. I think that would be a killer foreign policy. No aid, just real money
that people can use to save.
I think the only remote chance for something like UBI to work would be to totally gut the government and fire all bureaucrats,
but that is beyond the power a president. While Congress might conceivably vote for something like UBI, they would not vote to
end these systems of patronage.
@Alexander Turok There's
an expectation that we are on the course to the singularity, but Moore's Law basically already came to an end. While, there
are possibly new architectures to explore, i don't see how AI will continue to advance without sharp increases in processing power.
I think it is interesting that he used the term "assortative mating", but many of his policy positions seem blank-slatist. Is
it just camouflage?
For instance, the idea that Puerto Rico should become a state (though not unique to him, and probably going to happen anyway.)
Or the idea that all foreign undergrads should stay (or was it only in STEM?) One might be able to delude oneself that having
smart foreign overlords would be a sound economic policy, but an undergrad degree doesn't actually have much validity as a cognitive
separator, anymore. Many Africans get them. I think by now, it might mean like an average IQ of 100, which certainly isn't worth
the cost of increasing diversity and rootlessness. America is full of degree mills. I believe it is also immoral to brain
drain countries.
Considering the fact that 99% of the U.S. government is appointed(by the deciders), and the rest is pre-approved for voting
so you can play 'democracy' on special Tuesdays, it doesn't look too good for populism or populists like Andrew or Tulsi. They
want another Obama – another shit eating grin to sell a load of false claims and empty promises.
That said, though, what exactly is your beef with Bernie Sanders? Is it that he's allegedly sucking up to neoliberalism.txt?
Or is it something else?
I could very well be willing to vote for Yang if it looks like he has a realistic shot at the Democratic presidential nomination.
If he doesn't, though, then I would probably feel compelled to choose among the candidates who actually do have a realistic shot
at this.
The one thing that I have an issue with in Yang's platform is making the US President's pension four million dollars per year.
I mean, with a 25-year retirement, that would equal to 100 million dollars. Based on the success of the Clintons in giving speeches
and publishing and selling books, one would think that politicians -- or at least prominent politicians -- in the US already have
enough means to become extremely wealthy after they leave office. Maybe less prominent US politicians (such as Congressmen and
Senators) should be given a nicer retirement package, though.
Is having a much nicer retirement package actually going to stop Republican advocacy of policies such as tax cuts for the rich?
Or are Republicans simply going to be even more motivated to push for this if their own incomes and pensions are going to become
much larger?
I haven't heard of politicians in the US resorting to stealing money or taking bribes from businesses–though maybe I am missing
something here. Trump could certainly benefit from his Presidency, but that's because he's a businessman and still kept his businesses
within his family.
@songbird Nomorobo
does help, especially for business phones where you need to answer unrecognized numbers in case they might be a business prospect.
For private phones get rid of your land line and use only a mobile smart phone. Those provide a do not disturb mode in which the
phone only rings if the call is coming from someone in your contact list, otherwise the call goes straight to voice mail. A real
caller will leave a message. Problem pretty much solved.
Politicians and bureaucrats get less money than businessmen, even though they are often just as talented.
Every article you write has to have at least one bit of unmitigated bullshit. This is that piece. Politics and bureaucracy
are the grimy sump of both societies and economies, filled with hucksters, malingerers, has-beens, never-weres, and, in the bureaucracy
especially, the clueless and useless. The notion that their already budget shredding pensions are too low is utterly farcical.
It's almost as farcical as the "justification" for such a notion, that the cure for the insatiable greed of those in public
employ is to give them even more of other people's hard-earned.
"You will hear everlastingly that the rich man cannot be bribed. The fact is, of course, that the rich man is bribed; he has
been bribed already. That is why he is a rich man." -- G.K Chesterton
It will be even more so if getting a degree means you get to stay in the US.
On both literacy and computer operations, foreign-educated immigrants with a college or advanced degree perform so poorly
that they score at the level of natives who have only a high school diploma.
On numeracy, foreign-educated immigrants with a college or advanced degree perform closer to the level of natives who have
some college education, but not a bachelor's.
Despite their reputation for specializing in STEM fields, about one in six foreign-degree holders score "below basic" in
numeracy.
The skill gap between foreign and U.S. degree holders persists even among immigrants who have had at least five years in the
United States to learn English.
how did you arrive at the figure of 7%? he has a 0% chance of winning, and that should be obvious. this is a non-trivial difference.
see, normally, as long as you have a chance in something, it can't be 0%. but the democrat primary is rigged. it's not a fair
contest. so his chances are not even 1%. they are literally 0%.
of course i'm being pedantic, and one could say that yang raises important issues that could be discussed, so he's worth talking
about either way. but anatoly prides himself on accuracy in his posts, and that 7% figure is bogus, bro.
setting aside the mechanics of the democrat superdelegate system, which will eliminate any guy like him on purpose, his popularity
polling will never be more than like 2% against a field of other democrats. nobody is interested in a Chinese guy. plus they have
no charisma. that's important, guys. hard to understand yet again, how the political analysis is so wrong here.
Ron Paul had a much better chance, and he didn't have much chance. and that was in the republican party, where an insurgent
can, once in a blue moon, have a real shot.
Ross Perot had a better chance. he was actually in an election. and 100% of every political analyst correctly said he had zero
chance. which was accurate.
The infatuation with AI makes people overlook three AI's built-in glitches.
1) AI is software. Software bugs. Software doesn't autocorrect bugs. Men correct bugs. A bugging self-driving car leads its passengers
to death. A man driving a car can steer away from death.
2) Humans love to behave in erratic ways, it is just impossible to program AI to respond to all possible erratic human behaviour.
Therefore, instead of adapting AI to humans, humans will be forced to adapt to AI, and relinquish a lot of their liberty as humans.
3) Humans have moral qualms (not everybody is Hillary Clinton), AI being strictly utilitarian, will necessarily be "psychopathic".
In short AI is the promise of communism raised by several orders of magnitude. Welcome to the "Brave New World".
1) AI is software. Software bugs. Software doesn't autocorrect bugs. Men correct bugs. A bugging self-driving car leads
its passengers to death. A man driving a car can steer away from death.
Agreed, but it is much worse. The newer Ai program themselves, and the creators don't understand it.
Based on the success of the Clintons in giving speeches and publishing and selling books, one would think that politicians–or
at least prominent politicians–in the US already have enough means to become extremely wealthy after they leave office.
Yes, but the point is that the route to this wealth is a certain set of policies favoring those who are likely to pay for those
speeches. It's basically a kind of delayed corruption.
I don't care what you read on Five Thirty Eight. Andrew Yang is running a mock candidacy. He's basically comic relief.
Do you even understand how the American caucus and primary systems work? Even a big name like Kamala Harris, who has lots
of money, a strong organization, tons of endorsements and close to double digit poll numbers, will have to drop out after Iowa
and New Hampshire if she doesn't secure, at minimum, no less than third place in either state. Without the momentum a strong finish
in these two states provide, campaigns wither and die. The money stops flowing. Volunteers quit. The press pool shrinks.
Harris is strong in her home state of California and also in South Carolina where she has a network of sorority sisters who
are helping her get out the black vote. But it will all be for naught if she doesn't do well in Iowa or New Hampshire.
Andrew Yang isn't even polling at 1% in either Iowa or New Hampshire (or anywhere else). He has no ground game. He has
no organization. He hasn't raised much money. He has no fired up volunteers willing to make countless phone calls and trudge through
the snow to knock on doors. Basically, he has nothing.
Moreover, UBI is a terrible idea if it is proposed as a replacement for current social welfare programs, which provide
a great deal more value to recipients than $1000 a month. A strict libertarian interpretation of the UBI concept would, in exchange
for $1k a month, get rid of food stamps, section 8 housing, AFDC, cash welfare benefits, Medicaid, Medicare, the earned income
tax credit and even mortgage interest deductions. There are more moderate proposals. But, ultimately, UBI has to be paid for somehow,
either by raising taxes or eliminating much of the welfare state.
@Digital Samizdat I
suspect the inflation objection against UBI is probably exaggerated – although I would agree that in the short term there may
be some price gouging.
It's about time the US got State & Federal consumer protection, with real teeth. It's not socialism but
pragmatics & justice. Private actors should not be allowed to exploit their market position at the expense of the Nation & it's
citizens.
I have no fundamental objections to ubi. However, it should be roled out in the context of some kind of jobs guarentee. Many
people want to work. Meaningful work helps provide meaningful lives. The US has a great need of public infrastructure.
These should be real needs, not bridges to nowhere.
Such jobs are not inflationary. Nor does the government need to borrow $$ to fund it. Like president Lincoln, they can print the
money. If the government spends a dollar to buy a dollar's worth of (real) labour or production it is not inflationary. It is,
on the contrary, a stimulus.
The book review says that Yang states that drug overdose has replaced auto accidents as the leading cause of accidental deaths.
However, 60,000 annual drug deaths is only 1/4 the number who die annually as a result of medical negligence. (2016 Hopkins study).
Yang is smart enough to know this 250,000 finding. He should acknowledge the 250,000 number, attribute it to overworked doctors,
and propose policies to dramatically increase the number of physicians .let's say, double the number. This would take 7 years
to kick-in, but still, could well get him elected. Voters care about medical access. Short of banning leafblowers, this would
be the most popular election policy conceivable.
@Robert Dolan "No .actually
..if UBI were instituted whites would no doubt be excluded."
Oh, yes, no doubt !
There's a racialist answer to all/any question/s. Like astrology, racialism it's unfalseafiable.
@Germanicus I've seen
horrible examples of computer bugs sitting there for decades (!) undetected, and then finally blowing up. I think it's inevitable,
but I'm definitely not looking forward to this.
@songbird "I believe
it is also immoral to brain drain countries."
I agree. Immoral to the foreign country & immoral to one's own country.
It's also selfish & short-sighted.
If we deported all "Syrian refugees", Syria would suddenly triple its population at least. Many black dudes from the African
bushes would be suddenly Syrian, because according to the media, these are all "Syrian refugees".
I find it hard to believe there are intelligent people at large who could come up with more than 5,000 words about Andrew Yang.
The narcissistic, self-congratulatory rambling about the superior traits of people who live in coastal cities sounds very
much like that Zuckerberg guy, or Chelsea Clinton – in other words, a "progressive" type who want to set up re-education camps
for the masses of unwashed, reactionary "white people" – for their own good, of course.
Finally, hand-wringing concern over the economic damage soon be done to the troglodytes by automation, and by technical progress
in general, is very tiresome. Some of this article sounds like the lyrics to a Bruce Springsteen song from the 80's.
@OkechukwuKamala
Harris, who has lots of money, a strong organization, tons of endorsements and close to double digit poll numbers, will have to
drop out after Iowa and New Hampshire if she doesn't secure, at minimum, no less than third place in either state.
Perhaps not surprisingly, California has moved up its primary from June to March (Super Tuesday):
3 Feb – Iowa (caucus)
11 Feb – New Hampshire
22 Feb – Nevada (caucus)
29 Feb – South Carolina
3 Mar – Alabama, Arkansas, California , Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,
Vermont, Virginia
So I don't think Kamal Harris will be dropping out before 3 March, no matter how poorly she does in Iowa and New Hampshire.
That said, though, what exactly is your beef with Bernie Sanders? Is it that he's allegedly sucking up to neoliberalism.txt?
I am fine with Bernie Sanders. I will have my remaining student loan (~$10,000) written off, it's a minor issue but I wouldn't
mind having an extra $200 per month. He will probably be non-interventionist, and he is not a Russia hawk by US standards. He
will (if he follows his program) preside over some of the biggest capital misallocations in US history, which I imagine will have
a sad ending, but if that is what American voters want, that's perfectly ok by me.
Based on the success of the Clintons in giving speeches and publishing and selling books, one would think that politicians–or
at least prominent politicians–in the US already have enough means to become extremely wealthy after they leave office.
It's coupled with a lifetime prohibition on making money from their office through speeches, etc. I should add that.
2. Incorrect. He is polling in a range from 1%-4%. About same as Buttigieg before MSM started amplifying him in early April.
3. Correct, most of the welfare state as concerns 18-64 year olds – the people eligible for UBI – will be eliminated. That's
one major cost saving. The other is the 10% VAT (typical rate in Europe being 20%).
He should acknowledge the 250,000 number, attribute it to overworked doctors, and propose policies to dramatically increase
the number of physicians
Actually he does do all that.
(1) He suggests training many more primary care doctors, without the costly specializations that massively inflate their costs
in the US.
Intermediate level doctor + Dr. Watson AI = solutions to 99% of health problems (this is literally the percentage of cases
in which Dr. Watson agreed with human doctors; in a remaining 30% of cases, the AI made suggestions that humans missed). The most
qualified specialists can then deal with only the most complicated cases.
(2) As it happens, he has ideas on overworked doctors as well:
The best approach is what they do at the Cleveland Clinic -- doctors simply get paid flat salaries. When doctors aren't
worried about billing, they can focus on patients. Dr. Delos Cosgrove, the CEO of the Cleveland Clinic, said, "I think you
have to recognize that people do what you pay them to do. If you pay doctors to do more of something, then that's what they'll
do. If you put the emphasis on looking after patients, they'll do that." The Cleveland Clinic is consistently ranked among
the top hospitals in the country. And physician turnover is only 3.5 percent per year, much lower than normal. The Cleveland
Clinic has achieved financial success in part by universalizing a sense of cost control. They put price tags on things so everyone
knows how much it costs to, say, open up a new set of sutures. They don't allow redundant tests. They include doctors in purchasing
decisions. Everyone is interested in the company's financial sustainability because they feel a sense of ownership and mission.
Plus, if the hospital does well, you're more likely to get a raise.
What's required is an honest conversation in which we say to people who are interested in becoming doctors, "If you become
a doctor, you'll be respected, admired, and heal people each day. You will live a comfortable life. But medicine will not be
a path to riches. On the bright side, we're not going to burn you out by forcing you to see a million patients a day and fill
out paperwork all the time. We're going to supplement you with an army of empathetic people equipped with AI who will handle
most routine cases. We'll only call you when the case genuinely requires distincthuman judgment or empathy. We want you to
become the best and most human version of yourself, not Dr. Speed Demon who can bang out a nine-minute appointment. Let's leave
that to Watson."
I'm sure that many doctors would enjoy this shift in role and embrace becoming better, more empathetic clinicians. Changing
their incentives would change everything.
@animalogic While I
am not a huge fan either , it is far better
for the host country than massive illegal immigration (Merkel's Boner) or massive legal migration (POTATUS). Which seem to be
the only choices on offer atm in developed white countries.
The war on terror is a self induced psychosis that is eating away at the moral core of america. Opiods, underage sex, porn
are merely diversions. Blessed are the blessed.
Yang has ideological appeal for a considerable number of people who will not be voting in the Democratic primary. In most states
(all except California?), if you want to vote for Republican candidates in the down ballot races you will not be able to vote
for Yang.
The more accurate solution to healthcare is the financially incentivizing those in med school to focus on general practice with
by way ending their educational debt. It is the hyper focus on specialization for illness that could be prevented by more general
practitioners.
The GDP question requires over hauling GDP valuation from potential sales to actual sales. You want to get a look at the real
economy stop counting what's on the shelf as goods sold (my abbreviated version of the current method).
Stop importing people and train the one's you have – period.
$12k a year isn't going to free anybody, it's just going to accelerate white genocide (more money for heroin and opiate pills
and alcohol). In a world of $1500 a month apartments you're still living on the street with $12k income.
As for the big "Medicare for everybody!" scam, using your Medicare at all will eat up that $12k fast! I have Medicare, and
just walking into my local health providers for a checkup means I'm going to be facing up to $2k in co-pays ($800 co-pay for a
standard blood test, $100 to have an assistant check your blood pressure, $100 to see the doctor, repeat co-pays to come back
and get the results of standard blood tests, and what I call the sodomy charge: an additional $500 "for choosing _____"(enter
name of our local monopolistic health provider).
I would prefer getting a one-time check of say $3,000 and using it to get out of the country.
@reiner Tor Not exactly.
The new rules simply prevent the superdelegates from voting if any given candidate already has at least 51% or more of the
normal primary delegates at the start of the convention. But if no one does, then the superdelegates get to vote. Many have
speculated that that's precisely why they're flooding the Democrat primaries with so many candidates this year: to prevent Bernie
Sanders (or somebody else objectionable to the oligarchy) from winning on the first ballot, so that the superdelegates can still
pick the nominee. Pretty sneaky!
Moreover, UBI is a terrible idea if it is proposed as a replacement for current social welfare programs, which provide a
great deal more value to recipients than $1000 a month. A strict libertarian interpretation of the UBI concept would, in exchange
for $1k a month, get rid of food stamps, section 8 housing, AFDC, cash welfare benefits, Medicaid, Medicare, the earned income
tax credit and even mortgage interest deductions.
That's another good point. If UBI simply replaces stuff like Medicare, then it could just become another subsidy for the big
corporations–another form of privatization by stealth.
@Mr. Hack Phone companies
make too much money off bothersome telephone calls, and they fly jets to D.C. to lobby for what they want. We poor schmucks who
answer the calls don't have jets to fly to D.C. to schmooze with the lobbyists.
The problem is easily solvable, outlaw "spoofing of caller IDs" and actually enforce the law on robocalls.
Yang is clearly the most intelligent and sensible candidate, even if I am not 100% sold on some of his ideas and/or politics.
That said, I feel like his slate of policy proposals are what you propose when you don't really want actual democracy (at least
at the federal level) in the future – for his stuff to stick, we'd need a Congress that mostly confined itself to taxes and spending,
rather than the endless investigations, pandering, and outrage that animates it today, while a technocratic elite really runs
things.
In reality though, even if he could get some of this enacted, you'd have the Democrats constantly proposing jacking up the
benefits and/or increasing them for favored groups, and Republicans trying to strangle it by undoing any taxes levied on corporations
to help fund it. Neither party can resist "doing something" and reverting to type.
Well Yang won me over in his interview with Ben Shappiro. On the show they talked about the income tax and Yang says he is
against the income tax in principle because you shouldn't tax what you want more of (work) and rich people find loop holes around
it anyway.
Well, who else offers a better solution? Trump who is to busy being a legendary Isreali president or Bernie who is
a literal socialist? I am skeptical about a lot of things, but I'm not going to be such a nihilist that I get stuck in the what
if loophole.
@Digital Samizdat I
believe that you are incorrect with regard to the rules for superdelegate voting. Superdelegates cannot vote in the 1st round.
If no candidate get 50% plus one in the 1st round, then they can start voting beginning in the 2nd round. Which is when it will
hit the fan.
How could UBI not end in a price dictate?
Germany basically has it already.
1/3 of it gives you 40m² living space.
1/3 of it gives you about 75.000 Calories / month.
1/3 for all the rest of costs.
UBI is bait and switch. Eventually it will be genocide. They will reduce you to starvation wages. It is the endgame of the masters
of mankind Fools will hand over everything they have and close their own cell doors, rub their hands waiting for three square
meals a day. Trust these people? Nimrod himself tried the control dynamic of UBI before, didn't end well in Babel, wont end well
for the globe either. Take heart though, being monitored and his majesty will end the evil plot. It is more endgame than those
elitist, eugenecist elect, of society than they know.
Not sure which racial group bullied Yang. It's possible it was white kids but blacks treat Asians far worse than whites to the
point of regular physical assaults. Whites kids might occasionally taunt Asians and other non-white kids but it almost never escalates
to physical assault.
So many Asians share a similar racial worldview to white liberals since they have little experience with feral ghetto blacks
(not the mythical TV negro), so they tend to romanticize them.
I'm not against UBI, especially for struggling whites, but I believe Yang said this would be financed with a VAT tax which
to me defeats the whole purpose. Whites have been shouldering the crushing tax burden for decades and it's gone to subsidizing
black and brown welfare parasites and wars for Israel. They shouldn't have to pay additional taxes to receive UBI.
@Anatoly Karlin Yang
hasn't told us what the VAT rate would be but based on others who've proposed it previously then I assume 15-17%. And you wouldn't
need to buy 120K worth of shit per year for your losses to exceed your gains. At 10% you'd be paying 12K in VAT taxes and getting
1K in benefits, so I'd say that's upside down. But if you meant 1% you might be correct.
Even if working poor people spend a VAT taxable amount of 3K per year that would amount to $300.00 at a 10% rate, so their
true net gain from Yang's UBI program would be a measly $700.00 which is better than nothing but won't lift them out of poverty
or a hand to mouth existence.
@Johnny Rico Don't
expect Blacks to pay attention till about Dec. 2019 or Jan. 2020 at the earliest.
(My recollection is it wasn't until late 2007 that Blacks began to seriously line up behind Obama, and only really consolidated
by Jan./Feb. 2008. And yet, by about May/June 2008, Blacks had secured Obama the nomination thru racial block-voting especially
in the South. You can still find articles and data from throughout 2007, including late 2007, that show Black ambivalence towards
Obama -- which is I think where Harris is now. It's a little different because Obama was this overtly strange-seeming, foreign-name-having
person whereas Harris is a more recognizable personality [just not a pleasant one] with a US-seeming name; a viable Stacy Abrams
candidacy would have Black enthusiasm a lot better, sooner.)
South Carolina Primary [Feb. 29, 2020] (
link ) Four polls conducted between beginning of Feb. and end of April, all mid sample size (n=300 to n=750); of which the averages
are :
– Biden 35%
– Sanders 14% – Harris 11%
– Booker 7.5%
– O'Rourke 6%
– Warren 6%
– Buttigeg 2% (mathematically; 0% in three pre-April polls; then the media began promoting him in early April, after which he
scored 7%)
– Yang 1%
– Others 10%
The three things that stand out to me:
In California, support for Sanders, Harris, and Buttigieg are all higher. Harris has home-state recognition, Buttigieg is the
Gay Candidate with the flamboyant surname (as of the time of polling, he had been recently promoted by the media; may fade by
summer), and Sanders does not sell well to Blacks (Clinton took 75% of SC's delegates in Feb. 2016 despite Sanders' momentum at
the time and big New Hampshire win; Clinton's final, convention delegate count was 60%, meaning she hugely outperformed in South
Carolina).
Their empathy and desire to subsidize and address the distress of the general public will likely be lower and lower.
It looks like a new aristocracy inbreeding and looking down on the "Deplorables".
Perhaps uniquely for a politician, Yang is sympathetic to people who can no longer be bothered to pull themselves up by
the bootstraps, as conservative orthodoxy dictates.
True enough – elite sympathy with the deplorables is minimal to non-existent.
2. A vomit-inducing brew of Establishment globalists, SJW-appeasing identity politicians, bland corporate stooges, Russiagate
conspiracy theorists, and "liberal interventionists" who call Christians "Easter worshippers."
There's a good Telegraph article on PC gymnastics to avoid the word "Christian".
Compare and contrast the reaction of Hillary Clinton to the two tragedies. On Sunday, she tweeted, "I'm praying for everyone
affected by today's horrific attacks on Easter worshippers and travelers in Sri Lanka." Easter worshippers? That's a clunking
new euphemism for Christians. When the mosques in Christchurch were targeted, did Clinton talk of Ramadan worshippers? No,
she wrote, "My heart breaks for New Zealand and the global Muslim community."
The zio/US government lies about everything, unemployment is around 22% and America is being continually being deindustrialised
by outsourcing every thing to China and Mexico etc., and America is being destroyed via the illegal immigration hordes that
are crossing the southern border, and all of this is going according to plan as laid out in The Protocols of Zion!
The middle class is being destroyed and the satanic zionists are in the saddle on the gray horse of death and are ridding down
the normal American people and turning America into Orwell Oceania!
To top it all off the zionists have their judas goat Trump leading the naive Americans to destruction!
From the standpoint of Information Warfare, it is very critical when a new event happens to
put forward one's version of the "truth" first before any other possible competing theories can
arise. This could be why Pompeo or someone like him would chose to immediately come out with
accusations thrown around as facts with no evidence to support them and no respect for the
great Western concepts of "innocence until proven guilty" or the "right to a fair trial".
Pompeo's objective here is not the truth but to take that virgin intellectual territory
regarding the interpretation of this issue before anyone else can, because once a concept has
become normalized in the minds of the masses it is very difficult to change it and many people
in Washington cannot risk blowing the chance to waste thousands of American lives invading Iran
based on an ultimately false but widely accepted/believed narrative.
Not surprisingly foreign and especially Russian media has quickly attempted to counter the
"Iran obviously did it" narrative before it becomes an accepted fact. Shockingly Slavic
infowarriors actually decided
to speak to the captain of a tanker that was hit to get his opinion rather than simply
assert that Iran didn't do it because they are a long time buddy of Moscow. The captain's
testimony of what happened strongly contradicts the version of reality that Washington is
pushing. And over all Russia as usual takes the reasonable position of "let's gather the
evidence and then see who did it", which is good PR for itself as a nation beyond this single
issue.
In terms of finding the actual guilty party the media on both sides has thus far ignored the
simple fact that if Iran wanted to sink a tanker it would be sunk. No civilian vessel is going
to withstand an attack from a 21st century navy by having a particularly thick hull and the
idea that the Iranians need to physically attach bombs to boats is mental. Physically planting
bombs is for goofball inept terrorists, not a professional military. After all, even the West
acknowledges that
the Iranians use the best Russian goodies that they can afford and Russian 21 st
century arms will sink civilian ship guaranteed. The Iranians have everything they need to
smoke any civilian vessel on the planet guaranteed from much farther away than 3 feet.
If Iran's goal was to scare or intimidate the tanker they could have just shot at it with
rifles or done something else to spook the crew and get a media response. When looked at from
the standpoint of military logic, these "attacks" seem baffling as Iran could have just
destroyed the boats or directly tried to terrorize them to make a statement.
In a pointed critique of President Trump's foreign policy leadership, Senate Minority Leader
Chuck Schumer stated to members of the press Thursday that "the American people deserve a
president who can more credibly justify war with Iran."
"What the American people need is a president who can make a much more convincing case for
going to war with Iran," said Schumer (D-NY), adding that the Trump administration's corruption
and dishonesty have "proven time and time again" that it lacks the conviction necessary to act
as an effective cheerleader for the conflict.
"Donald Trump is completely unfit to assume the mantle of telling the American people what
they need to hear in order to convince them a war with Iran is a good idea.
One of the key duties of the president is to gain the trust of the people so that they feel
comfortable going along with whatever he says. President Trump's failure to serve as a credible
advocate for this war is yet another instance in which he has disappointed not only his
colleagues in Washington, but also the entire nation."
Schumer later concluded his statement with a vow that he and his fellow Democrats will
continue working toward a more palatable case in favor of bombing Iran.
"... If one does even a cursory check of what dictators around the world are up to recently, you'll find that the U.S. doesn't care in the slightest whether they are bad or good, whether they're using their free time to kill thousands of innocent people or to harmonize their rock garden. ..."
We now know that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction. We now know that the crushing of Libya
had nothing to do with "stopping a bad man."
If one does even a cursory check of what dictators around the world are up to recently, you'll find that the U.S. doesn't
care in the slightest whether they are bad or good, whether they're using their free time to kill thousands of innocent people or
to harmonize their rock garden.
In a pointed critique of President Trump's foreign policy leadership, Senate Minority Leader
Chuck Schumer stated to members of the press Thursday that "the American people deserve a
president who can more credibly justify war with Iran."
"What the American people need is a president who can make a much more convincing case for
going to war with Iran," said Schumer (D-NY), adding that the Trump administration's corruption
and dishonesty have "proven time and time again" that it lacks the conviction necessary to act
as an effective cheerleader for the conflict.
"Donald Trump is completely unfit to assume the mantle of telling the American people what
they need to hear in order to convince them a war with Iran is a good idea.
One of the key duties of the president is to gain the trust of the people so that they feel
comfortable going along with whatever he says. President Trump's failure to serve as a credible
advocate for this war is yet another instance in which he has disappointed not only his
colleagues in Washington, but also the entire nation."
Schumer later concluded his statement with a vow that he and his fellow Democrats will
continue working toward a more palatable case in favor of bombing Iran.
"... If one does even a cursory check of what dictators around the world are up to recently, you'll find that the U.S. doesn't care in the slightest whether they are bad or good, whether they're using their free time to kill thousands of innocent people or to harmonize their rock garden. ..."
We now know that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction. We now know that the crushing of Libya
had nothing to do with "stopping a bad man."
If one does even a cursory check of what dictators around the world are up to recently, you'll find that the U.S. doesn't
care in the slightest whether they are bad or good, whether they're using their free time to kill thousands of innocent people or
to harmonize their rock garden.
Bias, Lies & Videotape: Doubts Dog 'Confirmed' Syria Chemical Attacks Disturbing new evidence suggests 2018 incident
might've been staged, putting everything else, including U.S. retaliation, into question. By
Scott Ritter •
June 20, 2019
It also calls into question all the other conclusions and reports by the
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical
Weapons (OPCW) , which was assigned in 2014 "to establish facts surrounding allegations of the use of toxic chemicals, reportedly
chlorine, for hostile purposes in the Syrian Arab Republic."
As you recall, the Trump administration initiated a coordinated bombing of Syrian government facilities with the UK and France
within days of the
Douma incident and
before
a full investigation of the scene could be completed, charging Assad with the "barbaric act" of using "banned chemical weapons"
to kill dozens of people on the scene. Bomb first, ask questions later.
The OPCW began their investigation days
after the strikes . The group drew on witness testimonies, environmental and biomedical sample analysis results, and additional
digital information from witnesses (i.e. video and still photography), as well as toxicological and ballistic analyses. In July 2018,
the OPCW released an
interim report
on Douma that said "no organophosphorus nerve agents or their degradation products were detected, either in the environmental
samples or in plasma samples from the alleged casualties," but that chlorine, which is not a banned chemical weapon, was detected
there.
Advertisement
The report cited ballistic tests that indicated that the canisters found at two locations on the scene were dropped from the air
(witnesses blamed Assad's forces), but investigations were ongoing.
The final report in March
reiterated the ballistics data, and the conclusions were just as underwhelming, saying that all of the evidence gathered there provides
"reasonable grounds that the use of a toxic chemical as a weapon took place," due in part to traces of chlorine and explosives at
the impact sites.
Now, the leaked
internal report apparently suppressed by the OPCW says there is a "high probability" that a pair of chlorine gas cylinders that
had been claimed as the source of the toxic chemical had been planted there by hand and not dropped by aircraft. This was based on
extensive engineering assessments and computer modeling as well as all of the evidence previously afforded to the OPCW.
What does this mean? To my mind, the canisters were planted by the opposition in an effort to frame the Syrian government.
The OPCW has confirmed with the validity of this shocking document and has offered statements to reporters, including Peter Hitchens,
who published
the organization's response to him on May 16.
The ramifications of this turn of events extend far beyond simply disproving the allegations concerning the events in April 2018.
The credibility of the OPCW itself and every report and conclusion
it has released concerning allegations of chemical weapons use by the Syrian government are now suspect. The extent to which
the OPCW has, almost exclusively, relied upon
the same Syrian opposition sources who are now suspected of fabricating the Douma events raises serious questions about both
the methodology and motivation of an organization that had been
awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2013 for
"its extensive efforts to eliminate chemical weapons."
In a
response to Agence France-Presse (AFP) , OPCW director general Fernando Arias acknowledged there is an internal probe into the
memo leak but that he continues to "stand by the impartial and professional conclusions" of the group's original report. He played
down the role of the memo's author, Ian Henderson, and said his alternative hypotheses were not included in the final OPCW report
because they "pointed at possible attribution" and were therefore outside the scope of the OPCW's fact finding mission in Syria.
Self-produced videos and witness statements provided by the pro-opposition Violations Documentation Center, Syrian Civil Defense
(also known as the White Helmets), and the Syrian American Medical Society (SAMS)
, a non-profit organization that operates hospitals in opposition-controlled Syria, represented the heart and soul of the case
against the Syrian government regarding the events in Douma. To my mind, the internal memo now suggests that these actors were engaging
in a systemic effort to disseminate disinformation that would facilitate Western military intervention with the goal of removing
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from power.
This theory has been advanced by pro-Assad forces and their Russian partners for some time. But independent reporting on the ground
since the Douma incident has sussed out many of the same concerns. From James Harkin, director of the Center for Investigative Journalism
and a fellow at Harvard University's Shorenstein Center, who traveled to the site of the attacks and
reported for The Intercept
in February of this year:
The imperative to grab the fleeting attention of an international audience certainly seems to have influenced the presentation
of the evidence. In the videos and photos that appeared that evening, most analysts and observers agree that there were some signs
that the bodies and gas canisters had been moved or tampered with after the event for maximum impact. The Syrian media activists
who'd arrived at the apartment block with the dead people weren't the first to arrive on the scene; they'd heard about the deaths
from White Helmet workers and doctors at the hospital.
The relationship between the OPCW and the Syrian opposition can be traced back to 2013. That was when the OPCW was given the responsibility
of eliminating Syria's declared arsenal of chemical weapons; this task was largely completed by 2014. However, the Syrian opposition
began making persistent allegations of chemical weapon attacks by the Syrian government in which chlorine, a substance not covered
by Syria's obligation to be disarmed of chemical weapons, was used. In response, the OPCW established the
Fact Finding Mission (FFM) in 2014 "to establish facts surrounding
allegations of the use of toxic chemicals, reportedly chlorine, for hostile purposes in the Syrian Arab Republic."
The priority of effort for the FFM early on was to investigate allegations of the use of chlorine as a weapon. Since, according
to its May 2014
summary, "all reported incidents took place at locations that the Syrian Government considers to be outside its effective control,"
the FFM determined that the success of its mission was contingent upon "identification of key actors, such as local authorities and/or
representatives of armed opposition groups in charge of the territories in which these locations are situated; the establishment
of contacts with these groups in an atmosphere of mutual trust and confidence that allows the mandate and objectives of the FFM to
be communicated."
So from its very inception, the FFM had to rely on the anti-Assad opposition and its supporters for nearly everything. The document
that governed the
conduct of the FFM's work in Syria was premised on the fact that the mission would be dependent in part upon "opposition representatives"
to coordinate, along with the United Nations, the "security, logistical and operational aspects of the OPCW FFM," including liaising
"for the purposes of making available persons for interviews."
One could sense the bias resulting from such an arrangement when, acting on information provided to it by the opposition regarding
an "alleged attack with chlorine" on the towns of Kafr Zeyta and Al-Lataminah, the FFM changed its original plans to investigate
an alleged chlorine attack on the town of Harasta. This decision, the FFM reported, "was welcomed by the opposition." When the FFM
attempted to inspect Kafr Zeyta, however, it was attacked by opposition forces, with one of its vehicles destroyed by a roadside
bomb, one inspector wounded, and several inspectors detained by opposition fighters.
The inability to go to Kafr Zeyta precluded the group from "presenting definitive conclusions," according to the report. But that
did not stop the FFM from saying that the information given to them from these opposition sources, "including treating physicians
with whom the FFM was able to establish contact," and public domain material, "lends credence to the view that toxic chemicals, most
likely pulmonary irritating agents such as chlorine, have been used in a systematic manner in a number of attacks" against Kafr Zeyta.
So the conclusion/non-conclusion was based not on any onsite investigation, but rather videos produced by the opposition and subsequently
released via social media and
interviews
also likely set up by opposition groups (White Helmets, SAMS, etc.), which we know, according to their own documents, served
as the key liaisons for the FFM on the ground.
All of this is worrisome. It is unclear at this point how many Syrian chemical attacks have been truly confirmed since the start
of the war. In February of this year, the Global Policy Institute
released a report
saying there were 336 such reports, but they were broken down into "confirmed," "credibly substantiated," and "comprehensively confirmed."
Out of the total, 111 were given the rigorous "comprehensively confirmed" tag, which, according to the group, meant the incidents
were "were investigated and confirmed by competent international bodies or backed up by at least three highly reliable independent
sources of evidence."
They do not go into further detail about those bodies and sources, but are sure to thank the White Helmets and their "implementing
partner" Mayday Rescue and Violations Documentation
Center, among other groups, as "friends and partners" in the study. So it becomes clear, looking at the Kafr Zeytan inspection and
beyond, that the same opposition sources that are informing the now-dubious OPCW reports are also delivering data and "assistance"
to outside groups reaching international audiences, too.
The role of the OPCW in sustaining the claims made by the obviously biased Syrian opposition sources cannot be understated --
by confirming the allegations of chemical weapons use in Douma, the OPCW lent credibility to claims that otherwise should not --
and indeed would not -- have been granted, and in doing so violated the very operating procedures that had been put in place by the
OPCW to protect the credibility of the organization and its findings.
There is an old prosecutorial rule -- one lie, all lies -- that comes into play in this case. With the leaked internal report
out there, suggesting that the sources in the Douma investigation were agenda-driven and dishonest, all information ever provided
to the OPCW by the White Helmets, SAMS, and other Syrian opposition groups must now, in my mind, be viewed as tainted and therefore
unusable.
Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control
treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD.
The OPCW reaction clearly considering the investigation into the leak instead of apologizing for not publishing this report is
revealing its bias.
There has been a push from 'the West' to have the OPCW also attributing responsibility. Given the bias already on display this
will further politicize the OPCW.
As soon as such organizations become propaganda tools their credibility goes into the wind.
Given what we know of the Skripal hoax and the Tories attitude to the truth with their government funded 'Integrity Initiative'
through the Institute of Statecraft' that exactly what the British Intelligence intended.
One may note the specific personal links through Orbis/Steele/Miller between the 'Integrity Initiative' and the fake 'Trump
Dossier' and one ought to be alarmed by 'services' of a British intelligence out of control, but given the FBI/CIA involvement
and exploitation of that fake 'Trump Dossier' it looks that the US has a quite similar problem.
"... Early in any psychology course, students are taught to be very cautious about accepting people's reports. A simple trick is to stage some sort of interruption to the lecture by confederates, and later ask the students to write down what they witnessed. Typically, they will misremember the events, sequences and even the number of people who staged the tableaux. Don't trust witnesses, is the message. ..."
"... The three assumptions -- lack of rationality, stubbornness, and costs -- imply that there is slim chance that people can ever learn or be educated out of their biases; ..."
"... So, are we as hopeless as some psychologists claim we are? In fact, probably not. Not all the initial claims have been substantiated. For example, it seems we are not as loss averse as previously claimed. Does our susceptibility to printed visual illusions show that we lack judgement in real life? ..."
"... Well the sad fact is that there's nobody in the position to protect "governments" from their own biases, and "scientists" from theirs ..."
"... Long ago a lawyer acquaintance, referring to a specific judge, told me that the judge seemed to "make shit up as he was going along". I have long held psychiatry fits that statement very well. ..."
"... Here we have a real scientist fighting the nonsense spreading from (neoclassical) economics into other realms of science/academia. ..."
"... Behavioral economics is a sideline by-product of neoclassical micro-economic theory. It tries to cope with experimental data that is inconsistent with that theory. ..."
"... Everything in neoclassical economics is a travesty. "Rational choice theory" and its application in "micro economics" is false from the ground up. It basically assumes that people are gobbling up resources without plan, meaning or relevant circumstances. Neoclassical micro economic theory is so false and illogical that I would not know where to start in a comment, so I should like to refer to a whole book about it: Keen, Steve: "Debunking economics". ..."
"... As the theory is totally wrong it is really not surprising that countless experiments show that people do not behave the way neoclassical theory predicts. How do economists react to this? Of course they assume that people are "irrational" because they do not behave according to their studied theory. (Why would you ever change your basic theory because of some tedious facts?) ..."
"... The title of the 1st ed. of Keen's book was "Debunking Economics: The Naked Emperor of the Social Sciences" which was simply a perfect title. ..."
Early in any psychology course, students are taught to be very cautious about accepting people's reports. A simple trick is
to stage some sort of interruption to the lecture by confederates, and later ask the students to write down what they witnessed.
Typically, they will misremember the events, sequences and even the number of people who staged the tableaux. Don't trust witnesses,
is the message.
Another approach is to show visual illusions, such as getting estimates of line lengths in the Muller-Lyer illusion, or studying
simple line lengths under social pressure, as in the Asch experiment, or trying to solve the Peter Wason logic problems, or the puzzles
set by Kahneman and Tversky. All these appear to show severe limitations of human judgment. Psychology is full of cautionary tales
about the foibles of common folk.
As a consequence of this softening up, psychology students come to regard themselves and most people as fallible, malleable, unreliable,
biased and generally irrational. No wonder psychologists feel superior to the average citizen, since they understand human limitations
and, with their superior training, hope to rise above such lowly superstitions.
However, society still functions, people overcome errors and many things work well most of the time. Have psychologists, for one
reason or another, misunderstood people, and been too quick to assume that they are incapable of rational thought?
He is particularly interested in the economic consequences of apparent irrationality, and whether our presumed biases really result
in us making bad economic decisions. If so, some argue we need a benign force, say a government, to protect us from our lack of capacity.
Perhaps we need a tattoo on our forehead: Diminished Responsibility.
The argument leading from cognitive biases to governmental paternalism -- in short, the irrationality argument -- consists
of three assumptions and one conclusion:
1. Lack of rationality. Experiments have shown that people's intuitions are systematically biased.
2. Stubbornness. Like visual illusions, biases are persistent and hardly corrigible by education.
3. Substantial costs. Biases may incur substantial welfare-relevant costs such as lower wealth, health, or happiness.
4. Biases justify governmental paternalism. To protect people from theirbiases, governments should "nudge" the public
toward better behavior.
The three assumptions -- lack of rationality, stubbornness, and costs -- imply that there is slim chance that people can ever
learn or be educated out of their biases; instead governments need to step in with a policy called libertarian paternalism (Thaler
and Sunstein, 2003).
So, are we as hopeless as some psychologists claim we are? In fact, probably not. Not all the initial claims have been substantiated.
For example, it seems we are not as loss averse as previously claimed. Does our susceptibility to printed visual illusions show that
we lack judgement in real life?
In Shepard's (1990) words, "to fool a visual system that has a full binocular and freely mobile view of a well-illuminated scene
is next to impossible" (p. 122). Thus, in psychology, the visual system is seen more as a genius than a fool in making intelligent
inferences, and inferences, after all, are necessary for making sense of the images on the retina.
Most crucially, can people make probability judgements? Let us see. Try solving this one:
A disease has a base rate of .1, and a test is performed that has a hit rate of .9 (the conditional probability of a positive
test given disease) and a false positive rate of .1 (the conditional probability of a positive test given no disease). What is
the probability that a random person with a positive test result actually has the disease?
Most people fail this test, including 79% of gynaecologists giving breast screening tests. Some researchers have drawn the conclusion
that people are fundamentally unable to deal with conditional probabilities. On the contrary, there is a way of laying out the problem
such that most people have no difficulty with it. Watch what it looks like when presented as natural frequencies:
Among every 100 people, 10 are expected to have a disease. Among those 10, nine are expected to correctly test positive. Among
the 90 people without the disease, nine are expected to falsely test positive. What proportion of those who test positive actually
have the disease?
In this format the positive test result gives us 9 people with the disease and 9 people without the disease, so the chance that
a positive test result shows a real disease is 50/50. Only 13% of gynaecologists fail this presentation.
Summing up the virtues of natural frequencies, Gigerenzer says:
When college students were given a 2-hour course in natural frequencies, the number of correct Bayesian inferences increased
from 10% to 90%; most important, this 90% rate was maintained 3 months after training (Sedlmeier and Gigerenzer, 2001). Meta-analyses
have also documented the "de-biasing" effect, and natural frequencies are now a technical term in evidence-based medicine (Akiet
al., 2011; McDowell and Jacobs, 2017). These results are consistent with a long literature on techniques for successfully teaching
statistical reasoning (e.g., Fonget al., 1986). In sum, humans can learn Bayesian inference quickly if the information is presented
in natural frequencies.
If the problem is set out in a simple format, almost all of us can all do conditional probabilities.
I taught my medical students about the base rate screening problem in the late 1970s, based on: Robyn Dawes (1962) "A note on
base rates and psychometric efficiency". Decades later, alarmed by the positive scan detection of an unexplained mass, I confided
my fears to a psychiatrist friend. He did a quick differential diagnosis on bowel cancer, showing I had no relevant symptoms, and
reminded me I had lectured him as a student on base rates decades before, so I ought to relax. Indeed, it was false positive.
Here are the relevant figures, set out in terms of natural frequencies
Every test has a false positive rate (every step is being taken to reduce these), and when screening is used for entire populations
many patients have to undergo further investigations, sometimes including surgery.
Setting out frequencies in a logical sequence can often prevent misunderstandings. Say a man on trial for having murdered his
spouse has previously physically abused her. Should his previous history of abuse not be raised in Court because only 1 woman in
2500 cases of abuse is murdered by her abuser? Of course, whatever a defence lawyer may argue and a Court may accept, this is back
to front. OJ Simpson was not on trial for spousal abuse, but for the murder of his former partner. The relevant question is: what
is the probability that a man murdered his partner, given that she has been murdered and that he previously battered her.
Accepting the figures used by the defence lawyer, if 1 in 2500 women are murdered every year by their abusive male partners, how
many women are murdered by men who did not previously abuse them? Using government figures that 5 women in 100,000 are murdered every
year then putting everything onto the same 100,000 population, the frequencies look like this:
So, 40 to 5, it is 8 times more probable that abused women are murdered by their abuser. A relevant issue to raise in Court about
the past history of an accused man.
Are people's presumed biases costly, in the sense of making them vulnerable to exploitation, such that they can be turned into
a money pump, or is it a case of "once bitten, twice shy"? In fact, there is no evidence that these apparently persistent logical
errors actually result in people continually making costly errors. That presumption turns out to be a bias bias.
Gigerenzer goes on to show that people are in fact correct in their understanding of the randomness of short sequences of coin
tosses, and Kahneman and Tversky wrong. Elegantly, he also shows that the "hot hand" of successful players in basketball is a real
phenomenon, and not a stubborn illusion as claimed.
With equal elegance he disposes of a result I had depended upon since Slovic (1982), which is that people over-estimate the frequency
of rare risks and under-estimate the frequency of common risks. This finding has led to the belief that people are no good at estimating
risk. Who could doubt that a TV series about Chernobyl will lead citizens to have an exaggerated fear of nuclear power stations?
The original Slovic study was based on 39 college students, not exactly a fair sample of humanity. The conceit of psychologists
knows no bounds. Gigerenzer looks at the data and shows that it is yet another example of regression to the mean. This is an apparent
effect which arises whenever the predictor is less than perfect (the most common case), an unsystematic error effect, which is already
evident when you calculate the correlation coefficient. Parental height and their children's heights are positively but not perfectly
correlated at about r = 0.5. Predictions made in either direction will under-predict in either direction, simply because they are
not perfect, and do not capture all the variation. Try drawing out the correlation as an ellipse to see the effect of regression,
compared to the perfect case of the straight line of r= 1.0
What diminishes in the presence of noise is the variability of the estimates, both the estimates of the height of the sons based
on that of their fathers, and vice versa. Regression toward the mean is a result of unsystematic, not systematic error (Stigler,1999).
Gigerenzer also looks at the supposed finding that people are over-confidence in predictions, and finds that it is another regression
to the mean problem.
Gigerenzer then goes on to consider that old favourite, that most people think they are better than average, which supposedly
cannot be the case, because average people are average.
Consider the finding that most drivers think they drive better than average. If better driving is interpreted as meaning fewer
accidents, then most drivers' beliefs are actually true. The number of accidents per person has a skewed distribution, and an
analysis of U.S. accident statistics showed that some 80% of drivers have fewer accidents than the average number of accidents
(Mousavi and Gigerenzer, 2011)
Then he looks at the classical demonstration of framing, that is to say, the way people appear to be easily swayed by how the
same facts are "framed" or presented to the person who has to make a decision.
A patient suffering from a serious heart disease considers high-risk surgery and asks a doctor about its prospects.
The doctor can frame the answer in two ways:
Positive Frame: Five years after surgery, 90% of patients are alive.
Negative Frame: Five years after surgery, 10% of patients are dead.
Should the patient listen to how the doctor frames the answer? Behavioral economists say no because both frames are logically
equivalent (Kahneman, 2011). Nevertheless, people do listen. More are willing to agree to a medical procedure if the doctor uses
positive framing (90% alive) than if negative framing is used (10% dead) (Moxeyet al., 2003). Framing effects challenge the assumption
of stable preferences, leading to preference reversals. Thaler and Sunstein (2008) who presented the above surgery problem, concluded
that "framing works because people tend to be somewhat mindless, passive decisionmakers" (p. 40)
Gigerenzer points out that in this particular example, subjects are having to make their judgements without knowing a key fact:
how many survive without surgery. If you know that you have a datum which is more influential. These are the sorts of questions patients
will often ask about, and discuss with other patients, or with several doctors. Furthermore, you don't have to spin a statistic.
You could simply say: "Five years after surgery, 90% of patients are alive and 10% are dead".
Gigerenzer gives an explanation which is very relevant to current discussions about the meaning of intelligence, and about the
power of intelligence tests:
In sum, the principle of logical equivalence or "description invariance" is a poor guide to understanding how human intelligence
deals with an uncertain world where not everything is stated explicitly. It misses the very nature of intelligence, the ability
to go beyond the information given (Bruner, 1973)
The key is to take uncertainty seriously, take heuristics seriously, and beware of the bias bias.
One important conclusion I draw from this entire paper is that the logical puzzles enjoyed by Kahneman, Tversky, Stanovich and
others are rightly rejected by psychometricians as usually being poor indicators of real ability. They fail because they are designed
to lead people up the garden path, and depend on idiosyncratic interpretations.
Critics of examinations of either intellectual ability or scholastic attainment are fond of claiming that the items are "arbitrary".
Not really. Scholastic tests have to be close to the curriculum in question, but still need to a have question forms which are simple
to understand so that the stress lies in how students formulate the answer, not in how they decipher the structure of the question.
Intellectual tests have to avoid particular curricula and restrict themselves to the common ground of what most people in a community
understand. Questions have to be super-simple, so that the correct answer follows easily from the question, with minimal ambiguity.
Furthermore, in the case of national scholastic tests, and particularly in the case of intelligence tests, legal authorities will
pore over the test, looking at each item for suspected biases of a sexual, racial or socio-economic nature. Designing an intelligence
test is a difficult and expensive matter. Many putative new tests of intelligence never even get to the legal hurdle, because they
flounder on matters of reliability and validity, and reveal themselves to be little better than the current range of assessments.
In conclusion, both in psychology and behavioural economics, some researchers have probably been too keen to allege bias in cases
where there are unsystematic errors, or no errors at all. The corrective is to learn about base rates, and to use natural frequencies
as a guide to good decision-making.
Don't bother boosting your IQ. Boost your understanding of natural frequencies.
Good concrete advice. Perhaps even more useful for those who need to explain things like this to others than for those seeking
to understand for themselves.
"intelligence deals with an uncertain world where not everything is stated explicitly. It misses the very nature of intelligence,
the ability to go beyond the information given (Bruner, 1973)"
"The key is to take uncertainty seriously, take heuristics seriously, and beware of the bias bias."
Actually I think this is an example of an increasingly common genre of malapropism, where the writer gropes for the right word,
finds one that is similar, and settles for that. The worst of it is that readers intuitively understand what was intended, and
then adopt the marginally incorrect usage themselves. That's perhaps how the world and his dog came to say "literally" when they
mean "figuratively". Maybe a topic for a future article?
In 2009 Google finished engineering a reverse search engine to find out what kind of searches people did most often. Seth Davidowitz
and Steven Pinker wrote a very fascinating/entertaining book using the tool called Everybody Lies
Everybody Lies offers fascinating, surprising, and sometimes laugh-out-loud insights into everything from economics to ethics
to sports to race to sex, gender, and more, all drawn from the world of big data. What percentage of white voters didn't vote
for Barack Obama because he's black? Does where you go to school effect how successful you are in life? Do parents secretly
favor boy children over girls? Do violent films affect the crime rate? Can you beat the stock market? How regularly do we lie
about our sex lives, and who's more self-conscious about sex, men or women?
Investigating these questions and a host of others, Seth Stephens-Davidowitz offers revelations that can help us understand
ourselves and our lives better. Drawing on studies and experiments on how we really live and think, he demonstrates in fascinating
and often funny ways the extent to which all the world is indeed a lab. With conclusions ranging from strange-but-true to thought-provoking
to disturbing, he explores the power of this digital truth serum and its deeper potential – revealing biases deeply embedded
within us, information we can use to change our culture, and the questions we're afraid to ask that might be essential to our
health – both emotional and physical. All of us are touched by big data every day, and its influence is multiplying. Everybody
Lies challenges us to think differently about how we see it and the world.
I shall treat this posting (for which many thanks, doc) as an invitation to sing a much-loved song: everybody should read Gigerenzer's
Reckoning with Risk. With great clarity it teaches what everyone ought to know about probability.
(It could also serve as a model for writing in English about technical subjects. Americans and Britons should study the English
of this German – he knows how, you know.)
Inspired by "The original Slovic study was based on 39 college students" I shall also sing another favorite song. Much of Psychology
is based on what small numbers of American undergraduates report they think they think.
" Gigerenzer points out that in this particular example, subjects are having to make their judgements without knowing a key fact:
how many survive without surgery. "
This one reminds of the false dichotomy. The patient has additional options! Like changing diet, and behaviours such as exercise,
elimination of occupational stress , etc.
The statistical outcomes for a person change when the person changes their circumstances/conditions.
@Tom
Welsh A disposition (conveyance) of an awkwardly shaped chunk out of a vast estate contained reference to "the slither of
ground bounded on or towards the north east and extending two hundred and twenty four meters or thereby along a chain link fence "
Not poor clients (either side) nor cheap lawyers. And who never erred?
Better than deliberately inserting "errors" to guarantee a stream of tidy up work (not unknown in the "professional" world)
in future.
Good article. 79% of gynaecologists fail a simple conditional probability test?! Many if not most medical research papers use
advanced statistics. Medical doctors must read these papers to fully understand their field. So, if medical doctors don't fully
understand them, they are not properly doing their job. Those papers use mathematical expressions, not English. Converting them
to another form of English, instead of using the mathematical expressions isn't a solution.
Regarding witnesses: When that jet crashed into Rockaway several years ago, a high percentage of witnesses said that they saw
smoke before the crash. But there was actually no smoke. The witnesses were adjusting what they saw to conform to their past experience
of seeing movie and newsreel footage of planes smoking in the air before a crash. Children actually make very good witnesses.
Regarding the chart. Missing, up there in the vicinity of cancer and heart disease. The third-leading cause of death. 250,000
per year, according to a 2016 Hopkins study. Medical negligence.
1. Lack of rationality. Experiments have shown that people's intuitions are systematically biased.
2. Stubbornness. Like visual illusions, biases are persistent and hardly corrigible by education.
3. Substantial costs. Biases may incur substantial welfare-relevant costs such as lower wealth, health, or happiness.
4. Biases justify governmental paternalism. To protect people from theirbiases, governments should "nudge" the public toward
better behavior.
Well the sad fact is that there's nobody in the position to protect "governments" from their own biases, and "scientists"
from theirs.
So, behind the smoke of all words and rationalisations, the law is unchanged: everyone strives to gain and exert as much power
as possible over as many others as possible. Most do that without writing papers to say it is right, others write papers,
others books. Anyway, the fundamental law would stay as it is even if all this writing labour was spared, wouldn't it?
But then another fundamental law, the law of framing all one's drives as moral and beneffective comes into play the papers
and the books are useful, after all.
An interesting article. However, I think that the only thing we have to know about how illogical psychiatry is this:
In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) asked all members attending its convention to vote on whether they believed
homosexuality to be a mental disorder. 5,854 psychiatrists voted to remove homosexuality from the DSM, and 3,810 to retain
it.
The APA then compromised, removing homosexuality from the DSM but replacing it, in effect, with "sexual orientation disturbance"
for people "in conflict with" their sexual orientation. Not until 1987 did homosexuality completely fall out of the DSM.
The article makes no mention of the fact that no "new science" was brought to support the resolution.
It appears that the psychiatrists were voting based on feelings rather than science. Since that time, the now 50+ genders have
been accepted as "normal" by the APA. My family has had members in multiple generations suffering from mental illness. None were
"cured". I know others with the same circumstances.
How does one conclude that being repulsed by the prime directive of every
living organism – reproduce yourself – is "normal"? That is not to say these people are horrible or evil, just not normal. How
can someone, who thinks (s)he is a cat be mentally ill, but a grown man thinking he is a female child is not?
Long ago a lawyer acquaintance, referring to a specific judge, told me that the judge seemed to "make shit up as he was going
along". I have long held psychiatry fits that statement very well.
Thank you for this article. I find the information about the interpretation of statistical data very interesting. My take on the
background of the article is this:
Here we have a real scientist fighting the nonsense spreading from (neoclassical) economics into other realms of science/academia.
Behavioral economics is a sideline by-product of neoclassical micro-economic theory. It tries to cope with experimental
data that is inconsistent with that theory.
Everything in neoclassical economics is a travesty. "Rational choice theory" and its application in "micro economics" is
false from the ground up. It basically assumes that people are gobbling up resources without plan, meaning or relevant circumstances.
Neoclassical micro economic theory is so false and illogical that I would not know where to start in a comment, so I should like
to refer to a whole book about it:
Keen, Steve: "Debunking economics".
As the theory is totally wrong it is really not surprising that countless experiments show that people do not behave the
way neoclassical theory predicts. How do economists react to this? Of course they assume that people are "irrational" because
they do not behave according to their studied theory. (Why would you ever change your basic theory because of some tedious facts?)
We live in a strange world in which such people have control over university faculties, journals, famous prizes. But at least
we have some scientists who defend their area of knowledge against the spreading nonsense produced by economists.
The title of the 1st ed. of Keen's book was "Debunking Economics: The Naked Emperor of the Social Sciences" which was simply
a perfect title.
There is so much disinformation that it is difficult to judge the Israeli news report below
that the US is planning a military attack on Iran. Israel wants the US to attack Iran and the
report could be an attempt to push events in that direction.
There is no valid reason for Washington to serve Israeli interests.
It would be extremely irresponsible for Washington to risk starting another war.
As Russian and Chinese interests could be threatened by a US war with Iran, the situation
could become uncontrollable.
If there is a real prospect of a US attack on Iran, it would be a responsible action for
Russia and China to block it in advance by taking a firm position.
U.N. officials: U.S. planning a 'tactical assault' in Iran
By SHLOMO SHAMIR/MAARIV ONLINE
06/17/2019
The military action under consideration would be an aerial bombardment of an Iranian
facility linked to its nuclear program, the officials further claimed.
Is the US going to attack Iran soon?
Diplomatic sources at the UN headquarters in New York revealed to Maariv that they are
assessing the United States' plans to carry out a tactical assault on Iran in response to the
tanker attack in the Persian Gulf on Thursday.
According to the officials, since Friday, the White House has been holding incessant
discussions involving senior military commanders, Pentagon representatives and advisers to
President Donald Trump.
The military action under consideration would be an aerial bombardment of an Iranian
facility linked to its nuclear program, the officials further claimed.
"The bombing will be massive but will be limited to a specific target," said a Western
diplomat.
"... Tyler Durden on Zero Hedge reports that the ability to falsify reality is growing by leaps and bounds. Thoughtless geeks have now developed technology that makes fake reality indistinguishable from real reality ..."
"... This new artificial intelligence capability allows competent programmers to create audio and video of anyone, saying absolutely anything. ..."
"... The creations are called “deepfakes” and however outrageous they may be, they’re virtually indistinguishable from the real thing. No sooner had we adjusted to a world where our reality seemed fake, then things that are fake became our reality. ..."
"... “We’re outgunned,” said a UC Berkeley digital-forensics expert, “The number of people now working on video-synthesis outnumber those working on detecting deepfakes by 100-1.” . . . Already two-thirds of Americans say altered images and videos have become a major problem for understanding the basic facts of current events. ..."
"... Misinformation researchers warn of growing “reality apathy” whereby it takes so much effort to distinguish between what’s real and fake that we simply give up and rely on our base instincts, tribal biases, impulses. Immersed in our leader’s deceits, we come to believe in nothing. Two oil tankers burst into flames, billowing smoke. ..."
"... Without truth there is no liberty, no freedom, no independent thought, and no awareness. There is only The Matrix. ..."
"... The most difficult thing in the world today is to ascertain the truth. It is what I attempt to do for readers. Those who rely on this website should support it. This site has very loyal supporters, which is why it exists. But it has far more users than supporters. The cavalier attitude toward truth on the part of so many readers is not encouraging of the survival of truth. ..."
Tyler Durden on Zero Hedge reports that the ability to falsify reality is growing by
leaps and bounds. Thoughtless geeks have now developed technology that makes fake reality
indistinguishable from real reality :
"I don't think we're well prepared at all. And I don't think the public is aware of what's
coming," said the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. He was discussing the rapid
advance of synthesis technology. This new artificial intelligence capability allows
competent programmers to create audio and video of anyone, saying absolutely
anything.
The creations are called “deepfakes” and however outrageous they may be,
they’re virtually indistinguishable from the real thing. No sooner had we adjusted to a
world where our reality seemed fake, then things that are fake became our reality.
“We’re outgunned,” said a UC Berkeley digital-forensics expert,
“The number of people now working on video-synthesis outnumber those working on
detecting deepfakes by 100-1.” . . . Already two-thirds of Americans say altered images
and videos have become a major problem for understanding the basic facts of current
events.
Misinformation researchers warn of growing “reality apathy” whereby it
takes so much effort to distinguish between what’s real and fake that we simply give up
and rely on our base instincts, tribal biases, impulses. Immersed in our leader’s
deceits, we come to believe in nothing. Two oil tankers burst into flames, billowing
smoke.
On cue, a suspicious Iranian Revolutionary Guard boat appeared on grainy video. Viral
images flooded earth’s nine billion screens. Each side told a different story. No one
quite knew who to trust. Conspiracy theories filled the void, as we each clung to what we
most want to believe.
Why is it that tech geeks take pride in developing technology that makes truth even harder
to find? What is wrong with their character as humans that they create methods of destroying
the ability to know truth? How is this different from releasing an undetectable substance into
the air that wipes out life?
The only use of this technology is to allow the police state complete control. It is now
possible to put words and deeds into the mouths and actions of anyone and use the faked
evidence to convict them of the simulated crime.
Without truth there is no liberty, no freedom, no independent thought, and no awareness.
There is only The Matrix.
How has America so lost the way that corporations, investors, and scientists are motivated
to develop truth-destroying technology? Aren’t these mindless idiots our real
enemies?
The most difficult thing in the world today is to ascertain the truth. It is what I
attempt to do for readers. Those who rely on this website should support it. This site has very
loyal supporters, which is why it exists. But it has far more users than supporters. The
cavalier attitude toward truth on the part of so many readers is not encouraging of the
survival of truth.
The border situation is so outrageous it appears like something out of a black comedy. "We
are in a full blown emergency," said acting Customs and Border Protection Commissioner John
Sanders, "and I cannot say this stronger: the system is broken". [ 32% increase
in migrants encountered or arrested at the southern border in May, by Priscilla
Alvarez, CNN, June 5, 2019] Why is this happening? Migrants all
over the world from Guatemala
to
Angola know the loopholes in immigration border enforcement imposed by a
treasonous Leftist
kritarchy , especially the claim of "
credible fear " potentially qualifying people for asylum.
[ While everyone sleeps, the courts are abolishing all immigration enforcement, by Daniel Horowitz, Conservative Review, March 11, 2019] Thus, most migrants
are not sneaking across the border: they are eagerly turning themselves in at ports of entry,
knowing they will soon be released into the country on the promise, which they intend to break,
that they will show up for adjudication.
Remember, President Trump has the authority to solve this problem without Congress. The
Supreme Court has already ruled that the president can impose a
travel ban on certain countries . Conservative Review's Daniel Horowitz argues the
president has inherent powers under Article II to exclude asylum applicants from entering the
country, authority that has been reaffirmed by Congress and repeatedly sanctioned by the
Supreme Court. [ No
judge has jurisdiction to erase our border, ConservativeReview, November 26,
2018]
But Trump won't do it -- partially because he has inexplicably surrounded himself with
political foes who won't back strong action . Instead, he's blaming the Democrats for not
undertaking the "simple" measure of closing the "loopholes."
The most optimistic explanation: Trump intends to use immigration as an election issue in
2020. Yet his fecklessness in office will be as unappealing to many voters as the Democrats'
extremism. [ Trump Is
Vulnerable to Biden on Immigration, by Michael Brendan Dougherty, National
Review, June 11, 2019] After all, Trump
began his campaign vowing to solve the immigration problem almost exactly four years ago --
but essentially nothing has been done.
The "maximum pressure campaign," as it has been called, puts Iran in the position of either
accepting a humiliating surrender or striking out where it can [ Maximum
pressure on Iran Means Maximum Risk of War, by Ilan Goldenberg, Foreign
Policy, June 14, 2019].
... ... ...
There is also a deeper fundamental question. Our country is crumbling. The border is
non-existent; entire communities are being overrun. There’s something perverse about even
entertaining a dangerous and costly military intervention halfway around the world. It’s
akin to a Roman emperor declaring he will conquer India while barbarians are crossing the
Rhine.
Essentially Sen. Graham is treating Israel as yet another US state. If we make this
assumption, then the USA policy toward Israel at least looks more logical.
"The two generals were referring to the fact that the U.S. already has airmen stationed
permanently at Israel's Mashabim Air Base in spite of the fact that the two countries have
no defense agreement of any kind. The Americans, though few in number, would serve as a
trip wire to guarantee that Washington would become involved in any war that Israel chooses
to start"
Israel will soon get their long sought US-Israel Defense Treaty if Lindsey Graham can pull
it off and congress I am sure will be all for it. There aren't words to describe what such a
treaty would do to the US -- -it's signing up any and all wars Israel wants to create ..it
will be the end of the US.
HEARD YESTERDAY -- Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) confirmed to Jewish Insider a July trip to
Israel to work out details for a U.S.-Israel defense treaty to counter the Iranian
threat. He later elaborated on his plans during a speech at the Endowment for Middle East
Truth in Washington D.C. on Wednesday night.
"So, here's the next thing, here's our marching orders. I'm going to Israel in July. We're
going to sit down and we're going to talk about what a security agreement would look like,"
he said. "But I think it's important to send a signal in the 21st century. If you're
intending to destroy Israel, you have to go through us. And it will not turn out well for
you."
"... Its political benefit: minimizing the number of U.S. "boots on the ground" and so American casualties in the never-ending war on terror, as well as any public outcry about Washington's many conflicts. ..."
"... Its economic benefit: plenty of high-profit business for weapons makers for whom the president can now declare a national security emergency whenever he likes and so sell their warplanes and munitions to preferred dictatorships in the Middle East (no congressional approval required). ..."
"... Think of all this as a cult of bombing on a global scale. America's wars are increasingly waged from the air, not on the ground, a reality that makes the prospect of ending them ever more daunting. The question is: What's driving this process? ..."
"... In a bizarre fashion, you might even say that, in the twenty-first century, the bomb and missile count replaced the Vietnam-era body count as a metric of (false) progress . Using data supplied by the U.S. military, the Council on Foreign Relations estimated that the U.S. dropped at least 26,172 bombs in seven countries in 2016, the bulk of them in Iraq and Syria. Against Raqqa alone, ISIS's "capital," the U.S. and its allies dropped more than 20,000 bombs in 2017, reducing that provincial Syrian city to literal rubble . Combined with artillery fire, the bombing of Raqqa killed more than 1,600 civilians, according to Amnesty International . ..."
"... U.S. air campaigns today, deadly as they are, pale in comparison to past ones like the Tokyo firebombing of 1945, which killed more than 100,000 civilians; the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki later that year (roughly 250,000); the death toll against German civilians in World War II (at least 600,000); or civilians in the Vietnam War. (Estimates vary, but when napalm and the long-term effects of cluster munitions and defoliants like Agent Orange are added to conventional high-explosive bombs, the death toll in Southeast Asia may well have exceeded one million.) ..."
"... the U.S. may control the air, but that dominance simply hasn't led to ultimate success. In the case of Afghanistan, weapons like the Mother of All Bombs, or MOAB (the most powerful non-nuclear bomb in the U.S. military's arsenal), have been celebrated as game changers even when they change nothing. (Indeed, the Taliban only continues to grow stronger , as does the branch of the Islamic State in Afghanistan.) As is often the case when it comes to U.S. air power, such destruction leads neither to victory, nor closure of any sort; only to yet more destruction. ..."
"... Just because U.S. warplanes and drones can strike almost anywhere on the globe with relative impunity doesn't mean that they should. Given the history of air power since World War II, ease of access should never be mistaken for efficacious results. ..."
"... Bombing alone will never be the key to victory. If that were true, the U.S. would have easily won in Korea and Vietnam, as well as in Afghanistan and Iraq. ..."
"... Despite total air supremacy, the recent Iraq War was a disaster even as the Afghan War staggers on into its 18th catastrophic year. ..."
"... No matter how much it's advertised as "precise," "discriminate," and "measured," bombing (or using missiles like the Tomahawk ) rarely is. The deaths of innocents are guaranteed. Air power and those deaths are joined at the hip, while such killings only generate anger and blowback, thereby prolonging the wars they are meant to end. ..."
"... A paradox emerges from almost 18 years of the war on terror: the imprecision of air power only leads to repetitious cycles of violence and, even when air strikes prove precise, there always turn out to be fresh targets, fresh terrorists, fresh insurgents to strike. ..."
"... Using air power to send political messages about resolve or seriousness rarely works. If it did, the U.S. would have swept to victory in Vietnam. In Lyndon Johnson's presidency, for instance, Operation Rolling Thunder (1965-1968), a graduated campaign of bombing, was meant to, but didn't, convince the North Vietnamese to give up their goal of expelling the foreign invaders -- us -- from South Vietnam. ..."
"... Air power is enormously expensive. Spending on aircraft, helicopters, and their munitions accounted for roughly half the cost of the Vietnam War. ..."
"... Aerial surveillance (as with drones), while useful, can also be misleading. Command of the high ground is not synonymous with god-like "total situational awareness ." ..."
"... Air power is inherently offensive. That means it's more consistent with imperial power projection than with national defense ..."
"... Despite the fantasies of those sending out the planes, air power often lengthens wars rather than shortening them. ..."
"... Air power, even of the shock-and-awe variety, loses its impact over time. The enemy, lacking it, nonetheless learns to adapt by developing countermeasures -- both active (like missiles) and passive (like camouflage and dispersion), even as those being bombed become more resilient and resolute. ..."
"... Pounding peasants from two miles up is not exactly an ideal way to occupy the moral high ground in war. ..."
"... all the happy talk about the techno-wonders of modern air power obscures its darker facets, especially its ability to lock America into what are effectively one-way wars with dead-end results. ..."
"... War's inherent nature -- its unpredictability, horrors, and tendency to outlast its original causes and goals -- isn't changed when the bombs and missiles are guided by GPS. Washington's enemies in its war on terror, moreover, have learned to adapt to air power in a grimly Darwinian fashion and have the advantage of fighting on their own turf. ..."
From Syria to Yemen in the Middle East, Libya to Somalia in Africa, Afghanistan to Pakistan
in South Asia, an American aerial curtain has descended across a huge swath of the planet. Its
stated purpose: combatting terrorism. Its primary method: constant surveillance and bombing --
and yet more bombing.
Its political benefit: minimizing the number of U.S. "boots on the ground" and so
American casualties in the never-ending war on terror, as well as any public outcry about Washington's many
conflicts.
Its economic benefit: plenty of high-profit business for weapons makers for whom the president can now
declare a national security emergency whenever he likes and so sell their warplanes and
munitions to preferred dictatorships in the Middle East (no congressional approval
required).
Its reality for various foreign peoples: a steady diet of "
Made in USA " bombs and missiles bursting here, there, and everywhere.
Think of all this as a cult of bombing on a global scale. America's wars
are increasingly waged from the air, not on the ground, a reality that makes the prospect of
ending them ever more daunting. The question is: What's driving this process?
For many of America's decision-makers, air power has clearly become something of an
abstraction. After all, except for the 9/11 attacks by those four hijacked commercial
airliners, Americans haven't
been the target of such strikes since World War II. On Washington's battlefields across the
Greater Middle East and northern Africa, air power is always almost literally a one-way affair.
There are no enemy air forces or significant air defenses. The skies are the exclusive property
of the U.S. Air Force (and allied air forces), which means that we're no longer talking about
"war" in the normal sense. No wonder Washington policymakers and military officials see it as
our strong suit, our asymmetrical
advantage , our way of settling scores with evildoers, real and imagined.
Bombs away!
In a bizarre fashion, you might even say that, in the twenty-first century, the bomb and
missile count replaced the Vietnam-era body count as a metric of (false) progress . Using data
supplied by the U.S. military, the Council on Foreign Relations estimated that the U.S. dropped
at least 26,172 bombs in seven
countries in 2016, the bulk of them in Iraq and Syria. Against Raqqa alone, ISIS's "capital,"
the U.S. and its allies dropped more than
20,000 bombs in 2017, reducing that provincial Syrian city to
literal rubble . Combined with artillery fire, the bombing of Raqqa killed more than 1,600
civilians, according to
Amnesty International .
Meanwhile, since Donald Trump has become president, after claiming that he would get us out
of our various never-ending wars, U.S. bombing has surged, not only against the Islamic State
in Syria and Iraq but in
Afghanistan as well. It has driven up the
civilian death toll there even as "friendly" Afghan forces are sometimes mistaken for the
enemy
and killed , too. Air strikes from Somalia
to
Yemen have also been on the rise under Trump, while civilian casualties due to U.S. bombing
continue to be
underreported in the American media and
downplayed by the Trump administration.
U.S. air campaigns today, deadly as they are, pale in comparison to past ones like the Tokyo firebombing of 1945,
which killed more than 100,000 civilians; the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki later
that year (roughly 250,000); the death toll against German civilians in World War II (at least
600,000); or civilians in the Vietnam War. (Estimates vary, but when napalm and the long-term
effects of cluster
munitions and defoliants like Agent Orange are added to
conventional high-explosive bombs, the death toll in Southeast Asia may
well have exceeded one million.) Today's air strikes are more limited than in those past
campaigns and may be more accurate, but never confuse a 500-pound bomb with a surgeon's
scalpel, even rhetorically. When " surgical " is applied to bombing in today's
age of lasers, GPS, and other precision-guidance technologies, it only obscures the very real
human carnage being produced by all these American-made bombs and missiles.
This country's propensity for believing that its ability to rain hellfire from the sky provides a
winning methodology for its wars has proven to be a fantasy of our age. Whether in Korea in the
early 1950s, Vietnam in the 1960s, or more recently in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, the
U.S. may control the air, but that dominance simply hasn't led to ultimate success. In the case
of Afghanistan, weapons like the Mother of All Bombs, or MOAB (the most powerful
non-nuclear bomb in the U.S. military's arsenal), have been celebrated as game changers even
when they change nothing. (Indeed, the Taliban only continues to grow stronger
, as does the branch of the Islamic State in Afghanistan.) As is often the case when it comes
to U.S. air power, such destruction leads neither to victory, nor closure of any sort; only to
yet more destruction.
Such results are contrary to the rationale for air power that I absorbed in a career spent
in the U.S. Air Force. (I retired in 2005.) The fundamental tenets of air power
that I learned, which are still taught today, speak of decisiveness. They promise that air
power, defined as "flexible and versatile," will have "synergistic effects" with other military
operations. When bombing is "concentrated," "persistent," and "executed" properly (meaning not
micro-managed by know-nothing politicians), air power should be fundamental to ultimate
victory. As we used to insist, putting bombs on target is really what it's all about. End of
story -- and of thought.
Given the banality and vacuity of those official Air Force tenets, given the
twenty-first-century history of air power gone to hell and back, and based on my own experience
teaching such history and strategy in and outside the military, I'd like to offer some air
power tenets of my own. These are the ones the Air Force didn't teach me, but that our leaders
might consider before launching their next "decisive" air campaign.
Ten Cautionary Tenets
About Air Power
1. Just because U.S. warplanes and drones can strike almost anywhere on the globe with
relative impunity doesn't mean that they should. Given the history of air power since World
War II, ease of access should never be mistaken for efficacious results.
2. Bombing alone will never be the key to victory. If that were true, the U.S. would
have easily won in Korea and Vietnam, as well as in Afghanistan and Iraq. American air
power pulverized both North Korea and Vietnam (not to speak of neighboring
Laos and Cambodia ), yet the Korean War ended in a stalemate and the Vietnam War in
defeat. (It tells you the world about such thinking that air power enthusiasts, reconsidering
the Vietnam debacle, tend to argue the U.S. should have bombed even more -- lots
more .) Despite total air supremacy, the recent Iraq War was a disaster even as the
Afghan War staggers on into its 18th catastrophic year.
3. No matter how much it's advertised as "precise," "discriminate," and "measured,"
bombing (or using missiles like the Tomahawk ) rarely is. The deaths of
innocents are guaranteed. Air power and those deaths are joined at the hip, while such
killings only generate anger and blowback, thereby prolonging the wars they are meant to
end.
Consider, for instance, the "decapitation" strikes launched against Iraqi autocrat Saddam
Hussein and his top officials in the opening moments of the Bush administration's invasion of
2003. Despite the hype about that being the beginning of the most precise air campaign in all
of history, 50 of those attacks, supposedly based on the best intelligence around, failed to
take out Saddam or a single one of his targeted officials. They did, however, cause "dozens"
of civilian deaths. Think of it as a monstrous repeat of the precision air attacks launched
on Belgrade in 1999 against Slobodan Milosevic and his
regime that hit the Chinese
embassy instead, killing three journalists.
Here, then, is the question of the day: Why is it that, despite all the "precision" talk
about it, air power so regularly proves at best a blunt instrument of destruction? As a
start, intelligence is often faulty. Then bombs and missiles, even "smart" ones, do go
astray. And even when U.S. forces actually kill high-value targets (HVTs), there are
always more HVTs out there. A paradox emerges from almost 18 years of the war on terror:
the imprecision of air power only leads to repetitious cycles of violence and, even when air
strikes prove precise, there always turn out to be fresh targets, fresh terrorists, fresh
insurgents to strike.
4. Using air power to send political messages about resolve or seriousness rarely
works. If it did, the U.S. would have swept to victory in Vietnam. In Lyndon Johnson's
presidency, for instance, Operation Rolling Thunder (1965-1968), a
graduated campaign of bombing, was meant to, but didn't, convince the North Vietnamese to
give up their goal of expelling the foreign invaders -- us -- from South Vietnam.
Fast-forward to our era and consider recent signals sent to North
Korea and
Iran by the Trump administration via B-52 bomber deployments, among other military
"messages." There's no evidence that either country modified its behavior significantly in
the face of the menace of those
baby-boomer-era airplanes.
5. Air power is enormously expensive. Spending on aircraft, helicopters, and their
munitions accounted for roughly half the cost of the Vietnam War. Similarly, in the
present moment, making operational and then maintaining Lockheed Martin's boondoggle
of a jet fighter, the F-35, is expected to cost at least
$1.45 trillion over its lifetime. The new B-21 stealth bomber will cost more than $100 billion
simply to buy. Naval air wings on aircraft carriers cost billions each year to maintain and
operate. These days, when the sky's the limit for
the Pentagon budget, such costs may be (barely) tolerable. When the money finally begins to
run out, however, the military will likely suffer a serious hangover from its wildly
extravagant spending on air power.
6. Aerial surveillance (as with drones), while useful, can also be misleading. Command
of the high ground is not synonymous with god-like "total situational
awareness ." It can instead prove to be a kind of delusion, while war practiced in
its spirit often becomes little more than an exercise in destruction. You simply can't
negotiate a truce or take prisoners or foster other options when you're high above a
potential battlefield and your main recourse is blowing up people and things.
7. Air power is inherently offensive. That means it's more consistent with imperial
power projection than with national defense . As such, it fuels imperial ventures, while
fostering the kind of "
global reach, global power " thinking that has in these years had Air Force generals in
its grip.
8. Despite the fantasies of those sending out the planes, air power often lengthens
wars rather than shortening them. Consider Vietnam again. In the early 1960s, the Air
Force argued that it alone could resolve that conflict at the lowest cost (mainly in American
bodies). With enough bombs, napalm, and defoliants, victory was a sure thing and U.S. ground
troops a kind of afterthought. (Initially, they were sent in mainly to protect the airfields
from which those planes took off.) But bombing solved nothing and then the Army and the
Marines decided that, if the Air Force couldn't win, they sure as hell could. The result was
escalation and disaster that left in the dust the original vision of a war won quickly and on
the cheap due to American air supremacy.
9. Air power, even of the shock-and-awe variety, loses its impact
over time. The enemy, lacking it, nonetheless learns to adapt by developing countermeasures
-- both active (like missiles) and passive (like camouflage and dispersion), even as those
being bombed become more resilient and resolute.
10. Pounding peasants from two miles up is not exactly an ideal way to occupy the
moral high ground in war.
The Road to Perdition
If I had to reduce these tenets to a single maxim, it would be this: all the happy talk
about the techno-wonders of modern air power obscures its darker facets, especially its ability
to lock America into what are effectively one-way wars with dead-end results.
For this reason, precision warfare is truly an oxymoron. War isn't precise. It's nasty,
bloody, and murderous. War's inherent nature -- its unpredictability, horrors, and tendency
to outlast its original causes and goals -- isn't changed when the bombs and missiles are
guided by GPS. Washington's enemies in its war on terror, moreover, have learned to adapt to
air power in a grimly Darwinian fashion and have the advantage of fighting on their own
turf.
Who doesn't know the old riddle: If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear
it, does it make a sound? Here's a twenty-first-century air power variant on it: If foreign
children die from American bombs but no U.S. media outlets report their deaths, will anyone
grieve? Far too often, the answer here in the U.S. is no and so our wars go on into an endless
future of global destruction.
In reality, this country might do better to simply ground its many fighter planes, bombers, and
drones. Paradoxically, instead of gaining the high ground, they are keeping us on a low road to
perdition.
In December of 2017, Daniel Ellsberg published a book,
"The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner" . Among many other things,
he revealed the actual Strangelovian nature of our military establishment. Most enlightening
is his revelation that many in the high command of our nuclear triggers do not trust, or even
have contempt for, civilian oversight and control of the military. They covertly regard the
presidential leadership as naïve and inept, though it would be professional suicide to
admit such an attitude openly.
Comes now 𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕹𝖊𝖜
𝖄𝖔𝖗𝖐 𝕿𝖎𝖒𝖊𝖘 with the
revelation that the Pentagon's Cyber Command has attacked Russia's power grid with software
"implants" designed to destroy that grid the instant a mouse click is given, thereby possibly
initiating global war. Most alarmingly, the details of this secret action were kept from the
President, lest he countermand the operation or leak it to the Russians.
So now we have a general staff that is conducting critical international military
operations on its own, with no civilian input, permission or hindrances of any kind. A
formula for national suicide, executed by a tiny junta of unelected officers who decide to
play nuclear Russian roulette.
We seem to be ineluctably and irreversibly trapped in a state of national dementia.
Just remember this: The U.S. had the technological advantage in Viet Nam, and blasted that
country, along with Cambodia, and Laos, with 7.5 million tons of bombs, (more than the entire
WWII campaign of 2.25 million tons), and the Vietnamese were still able to kick our *** out
of the country by 1975.
There is a 11th tenet: air force operations need airports or aircraft carriers, and these
are very vulnerable to modern, high precision missiles. If the enemy has plenty of missiles,
your fighters and bombers can be impeded to take off and land, or even be destroyed. Modern
aircrafts need very sophisticated and working infrastructures to be operational.
In the case of a full war with Iran, I see all hostile bases and airports destroyed or
damaged by Iranian, Hezbollah and Syrian missiles. They have tens of thousand of them - it is
30 years they have been accumulating missiles in prevision of a possible forthcoming war.
You are right. Also, there are many nations with subs and probably more countries have
acquired nukes than are willing to admit. I strongly suspect Iran already has nukes. If North
Korea has them, I see no reason that Iran wouldn't be even further ahead. They have been
under threat of US attacks for my entire lifetime. Anyway, I would not put it past some other
countries to hit US coastal cities and then deny any knowledge about who did it. There are
many capable and many people have been made enemies by our foreign policy. Surely these
people have treaties to help each other should be attack. And why would they make these
treaties public and antagonize the US military further. I'm sure there are many well kept
secrets out there. We must evolve, or the US and Israel could find it is us against the
world.
War is hell. It has always been so. The failure here is that since World War II all US
wars have been fatuously political. Actions have not been taken to win but to posture about
moral greatness and the ability to force the enemy to deal without destroying his capacity to
resist.
How can you say the US lost in Vietnam when the entire country could have been removed
from the face of the Earth? Yes the price of such removal would have been very high but it
could have been done. Do such considerations mean that if one withdraws one has lost?
The US won the war in the Pacific but it is now considered an excessive use of force that
the US used nuclear weapons to conclude the war. Perhaps the US did not use enough force then
to successfully conclude the Vietnam war? Perhaps, it failed to field the right kind of
force?
The definition of lost is an interesting one. The practical answer is that the US did lose
in many places because it was unwilling to pay the price of victory as publicly expressed.
Yet it could have won if it paid the price.
So an interesting question for military types is to ask how to lower the price. What kind
of weapons would have been needed to quickly sweep the enemy into oblivion in Vietnam let us
say, given the limits of the war? Could the war have been won without ground troops and
choppers but with half a million computer controlled drones armed with machine guns and
grenades flying in swarms close to the ground?
The factories to produce those weapons could have been located in Thailand or Taiwan or
Japan and the product shipped to Vietnam. Since only machines would be destroyed and the
drones are obviously meant to substitute for ground troops then how about a million or two
million of the drones in place of the half a million ground troops? Could the US, with
anachronistic technology to be sure, have won the war for a price that would have been
acceptable to the US?
The idea here is that one constructs an army, robot or otherwise, than can destroy the
enemy it is going to fight at a price which is acceptable. This is actually a form of
asymmetric warfare which requires a thorough understanding of the enemy and his capabilities.
The US did not enter Vietnam with such an army but with one not meant to serve in Vietnam and
whose losses would be deeply resented at home. The price of victory was too high.
But this does not mean that the US cannot win. It only means that the commitment to win in
a poorly thought out war must be great enough to pay the price of victory. This may be a
stupid thing to do but it does not mean that it cannot be done. One cannot assume that the US
will never again show sufficient commitment to win.
Victory means you get to write your own ******** version of history.The most devastating
civilian bombing campaign in human history is not even mentioned in this article. The US fire
bombing of 30 major cities in Korea with the death toll estimated at between 1.2 million and
1.6 million. I bet most US citizens aren't even aware of this atrocity or that the military
requested Truman to authorize the use of nuclear warheads which he, thankfully, declined to
do.
What does the word "victory" mean? It means whatever the rulers want it to mean. In this
case, "victory" is synonymous with prolongation and expansion of warmaking around the world.
Victory does not mean an end to combat. In fact, victory, in the classic sense, means defeat,
at least from the standpoint of those who profit from war. If someone were to come up with a
cure for cancer, it would mean a huge defeat for the cancer industry. Millions would lose
their jobs. CEO's would lose their fat pay packages. Therefore, we need to be clearheaded
about this, and recognize that victory is not what you think it is.
Talked with a guy recently. He is a pilot. He flies planes over Afghanistan. He is a
private contractor.
The program began under the Air Force. It then was taken over by the Army. It is now a
private contractor.
There are approx 400 pilots in country at a time with 3 rotations. He told me what he gets
paid. $200,000 and up.
They go up with a NSA agent running the equipment in back. He state that the dumbass
really does not know what the plane is capable of. They collect all video, audio, infrared,
and more? (You have to sense when to stop asking questions)
I just wanted to know the logistics of the info gathered.
So, the info is gathered. The NSA officer then gets with the CIA and the State Dept to see
what they can release to the end user. The end user is the SOCOM. After it has been through
review then the info is released to SOCOM.
So with all of this info on "goatherders" we still cannot pinpoint and defeat the "enemy"?
No. Too many avenues of profit and deceit and infighting. It will always be. May justice here
and abroad win in the end.
Concentrate on the true enemies. It is not your black, or Jewish, or brown, or Muslim
neighbor. It is the owners of the Fed, Dow chemical, the Rockefellers, McDonnel Douglas and
on and on and on and on and on and on..............
The ROAD to perdition passes through APARTHEID Israhell.
"It does not take a genius to figure out that the United States... has no vital
interests at stake in places like Syria, Libya, Iran and Iraq. Who is driving the process
and benefiting? Israel is clearly the intended beneficiary... " – Philip Giraldi,
Former CIA officer.
First let me be clear; I greatly admired the principles that Americans used to espouse, in
my lifetime; I am very fond of the majority of the people; I've spent in total some of years
living there, in different States; it is I suppose mostly the silent majority, the 'middle
Americans' that I am most fond of certainly not the 'elite', the super rich 1% 'ters it has as
a Country dramatically changed since 9/11 .and sadly the Catch 22 that defines America today is
best summed up thus:
"The United States is exceptional, just like every country is. But it has problems just like
every other country has. It ought to be able to learn from other countries but it refuses,
because it believes it's exceptional "
The above is a recent quote by eighty one year old Jared Mason Diamond, an American
historian.
Let's talk specifics.
According to a Middle Eastern English language newspaper of 12 June, "the US appears
confident that boosting its military presence in the Gulf is having an impact on Iran's
behaviour in the region but insisted that the end goal is still to bring Tehran to the
negotiating table".
What does it mean when the US, at its most arrogant, says, "it is having an impact on Iran"?
What bullshit. Iran, ancient Persia (the second oldest civilisation on the planet after China)
doesn't give a damn what America says or does; never did since its 1979 revolution. Nor does
China for that matter.
Who is threatening who?
In the case of Iran, is Iran in the Gulf of Mexico with its Navy or is the huge American
Navy in the Persian Gulf supported by numerous US Military Bases in the region threatening
Iran?
Now yesterday new very serious news, a lie, was confirmed by Pompeo: "It is the assessment
of the United States that the Islamic Republic of Iran is responsible for the attacks."on the
two oil tankers the other side of the Strait of Hormuz, in the Gulf of Oman.
Why would Iran?
Without any doubt this is a false flag operation to blame Iran in order to create
circumstances for Neocons like Pompeo and 'President Bolton' to start a war with Iran.
Where and what is President Trump? Does he really know what's going on?
Let American madmen Neocon Zionists have their wish (as dictated by Netanyahu); let the US
attack Iran .and then see what happens!
While the US attempts to start yet a new war also ask yourself why there are upwards of
nearly a thousand US Military bases around the world?
There is no doubt that US, with Israel, are the two most dangerous terrorist States that
exist today in the world and that they both threaten world peace, even nuclear Armageddon, more
than any countries on earth. Yet anyone who says the truth is labelled 'a conspiracy theorist '
or 'a Russian sympathiser'. I am neither.
America is today like a wounded animal as it faces its gradual decline as an Empire, much
like the Roman, Ottoman and British Empires did.
But let's forget at this time Iran (also Syria and Venezuela et al and regime changing), how
about talking of this US Administration's threat to British democracy?
The Guardian reported on the 9th June: "Labour has accused Donald Trump's top official, Mike
Pompeo, of trying to stop Jeremy Corbyn becoming Prime Minister, after he was caught on tape
telling Jewish leaders that he would "push back" against the party's leadership. In a recording
leaked to the Washington Post, the US secretary of state was asked what he would do if Corbyn
were to be elected as prime minister, after sustained criticism over Labour's handling of
accusations of antisemitism within the party."
Pompeo added "It could be that Mr Corbyn manages to run the gauntlet and get elected," he
said on the recording. "It's possible. You should know, we won't wait for him to do those
things to begin to push back. We will do our level best. It's too risky and too important and
too hard once it's already happened."
Is this not the most serious threat ever to the world's oldest parliamentary democracy, that
has been in existence from the early 13th century. America as an independent country has been
around since only the latter part of the 18th Century!
That said, America is today singularly the most powerful State on earth with a military
bigger than the rest of the world's countries combined; She spends trillions of dollars a year
on defence, security and wars; with a global state surveillance reach that can see and hear
anyone with a phone and a laptop at any time, and we Brits, our precious BBC in particular,
remain silent despite the US's top diplomat implying that the US will act to undermine a
potential democratically elected leader of the UK if needs be.
If needs be for who?
What happened to British reporters and media? Why is this not front page news? Why are their
few protestations?
The crimes of the United States have been recorded in history. Abd is the empire of
persecution, He will be tried by history. History and god will not forgive.
US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, UK Who Is Behind the False Flag in Gulf of Oman
They all are. Even if they weren't directly operationally involved in the actual
attacks, they are all clearly involved in the propaganda. It is impossible that anyone with
functioning critical faculties can honestly claim to be convinced that the Iranians did the
attack.
As chief diplomat Pompeo's comments on Corbyn don't particularly surprise me -- monumental
arrogance, hypocracy & contempt, just another day . That Zionists are behind it all? Big
fucking surprise. That their (the UK Zionists') behaviour amounts to some kind of
constructive treason, but will remain invisible is also no surprise.
What does surprise me a little (it shouldn't but I suffer bouts of irrational optimism ) is
the muted British response. This should go way beyond Party politics. It is a national
insult, a display of casual disdain & utter contempt for the sovereignty of another
nation -- & this nation is said to be the US's greatest ally!
The UK should be frothing at the mouth with anger!
The UK has sold it's collective soul .
"... Well I saw/heard Tulsi on Joe Rogan too and was very impressed, her heart is in the right place and she is anti war. However what worries me most is that Israel is only waiting for one more surgical strike on it's enemies per Israel's shopping list revealed by Gen. Wesley Clark and we all know that is Iran. The US will probably have to sacrifice a warship to Mossad in October to kick this one off. ..."
Well I saw/heard Tulsi on Joe Rogan too and was very impressed, her heart is in the right
place and she is anti war. However what worries me most is that Israel is only waiting for
one more surgical strike on it's enemies per Israel's shopping list revealed by Gen. Wesley
Clark and we all know that is Iran. The US will probably have to sacrifice a warship to
Mossad in October to kick this one off.
Tulsi in all liklihood will be swept away by events and I have a sneaky suspicion she is
the 'wildcard candidate' insurance for the 'kingmakers' after all she has kissed the AIPAC
arse is member of CFR etc – she was after all on the fast track before she cried
'foul'.
She is far more honest than most but sadly is still compromised and there is no getting
around that one. She owes them and they never forget. My 'outside choice' is the formidably
'loose cannon' Robert David Steele and his partnering with Cynthia McKinney.
The Zionists are in open war with them both. If they can wake up the black voters en masse
to who runs America now it could cause the biggest shock to the US system since the McCarthy
purge. Steele is appealing to 'Truthers', independents, and Alt Right Constitutionalists and
McKinney to the working class and Black vote.
Trump is trying to exploit the same groups but next time around they will be wiser. The
problem now is the Evangelist 'Christian Zionist' rump. Kushner/Trump and Netanyahu have got
them all at fever pitch for the 2nd coming.
"... This is why it wouldn't matter even if we got Sanders/Gabbard by some miracle. If we got a Sanders/Gabbard presidency, you can be sure congress would start doing everything they can to make sure absolutely nothing happened to change the status quo. It would be like what the Rs did to Obama, but it would be both Ds and Rs pushing back and nothing would change. ..."
The Democrats engineered another win for Trump. Now why is that?
The why is because the democrats are not really against the things he is doing. Oh sure they
will give some speeches about how they don't like what he is doing, but so far enough democrats
have voted with republicans on almost every bill that has come up. The only one that they
didn't vote for was to rescind the ACA. Deregulation of the banks? Yup. More unconstitutional
spying on us? Yup. The military budget? Yup. Confirming his horrible cabinet picks? Yup again
except for DeVos. Warren voted for Ben Carson. Why? She said that she was afraid that Trump
would pick someone worse. How about just keep voting no until he chose someone qualified? His
horrible right wing judges? Yup. Schumer continues to make deals with McConnell to get them
done. DiFi and of course Manchin and other blue dawgs are right there voting with them. I don't
remember which democrat told McConnell that he should have let all of congress in on the tax
bill because he could have gotten 70 or more votes on it.
This after McConnell refused to let Obama's judges get a vote and then there's Garland and
the kabuki confirmation hearing for Kavanaugh.
Democrats are passing bills to keep Trump from pulling the troops out of Afghanistan and
Syria and we saw what happened when he tried to pull them out of Syria. And made nice with Kim
and Vlad.
So yeah if ByeDone or Warren doesn't get the nod then they will be just fine with Trump
again. And since ByeDone's latest gaffes they are now pushing Warren as coming from behind. I
think Harris was supposed to be the nominee, but she isn't going anywhere.
This is their world, after all. They're fighting for the future, and they have more of
it to fight for.
At the same time, I've noticed a flurry of anti-centrist and Biden-warning articles
coming from all directions.
What I know for sure, is that at this point Trump is set to win in 2020 and the backlash
from the Russia Hoax is just getting started. I don't think it matters which way Barr
decides to play it. The establishment is going to take the hit. There is an army of
potential voters out there who will not vote for more of the same, and that includes Trump.
Nor will they waste their votes on the established third party slush pile. Only a bold
vision from an uncompromising candidate will bring this army forward, and many voters will
join them. There are only a few candidates who can bring it. But they all pretended to fall
for the Russia Hoax. Or, maybe they are just that dumb.
There are enough Millennial votes to carry the win, and the Left will provide back-up.
Who knows with the so-called Progressives? In Congress, they'll vote for anything with a
back-end pay-off that keeps them in DC. On the street, they may be genuine and will vote
with the uncompromised. Tulsi Gabbard can carry this off. She is the first Millennial
presidential candidate -- if she can get past the media black-out.
Bottom line: The Democrats engineered another win for Trump. Now why is that?
up 32 users have voted. --
America is a pathetic nation; a fascist state fueled by the greed, malice, and stupidity
of her own people.
- strife delivery
Democrats are passing bills to keep Trump from pulling the troops out of Afghanistan and
Syria and we saw what happened when he tried to pull them out of Syria.
This is why it wouldn't matter even if we got Sanders/Gabbard by some miracle. If we got a
Sanders/Gabbard presidency, you can be sure congress would start doing everything they can to
make sure absolutely nothing happened to change the status quo. It would be like what the Rs
did to Obama, but it would be both Ds and Rs pushing back and nothing would change.
I give her and the Left a pass on that grey area. Tulsi has never embraced the Russia Hoax
to the extent that Sanders and Warren have -- and still do. One thing I don't need is a
purity pledge from members of the Left who try to climb on the political stage with the
American duopoly, who in turn throw every lie and ugly smear they can at them.
The Russia Hoax is falling apart on its own. The Democrats have been deeply stained by it.
Americans grow increasingly shocked and disgusted with the media monopolies. They have all
lost the trust of the American people. The candidates are trying to evolve as fast as they
can on this issue. It will come up in the debates. Answer wrong and watch out, but that will
change week by week as the public begins to realize what happened in 2016.
bringing the evidence, but my stars, the hundreds of subtweeters gave her an education.
okay, it's a grey area for you, as likely is her voting to sanction russia for stealing
crimea, sanctioning north korea for...whatever.
@Pluto's Republic Russiagate from early on, Prof Stephen Cohen, is a backer and
contributor to Tulsi Gabbard. If she's good enough for the Prof on this issue, she's good
enough for me.
She might be alone among candidates in calling for a substantial pullback in the hostility
directed at Russia by the US, a thawing of the new cold war. And how many of the Ds running
for prez have explicitly called out the undue influence of the MIC?
I see her overall as a young pol, still in her 30s, evolving in the right direction in a
number of areas. I wish she had been perfect on this issue from the get go, but I must take
my candidate with all her flaws.
"... Threats are cheap, but Mr. Trump can't really follow through without turning farmers, Wall Street and the stock market, Walmart and much of the IT sector against him at election time if his tariffs on China increase the cost of living and doing business. His diplomatic threat is really that the US will cut its own economic throat, imposing sanctions on its own importers and investors if China does not acquiesce. ..."
"... China has a great sweetener that I think President Xi Jinping should offer: It can nominate Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. We know that he wants what his predecessor Barack Obama got. And doesn't he deserve it more? After all, he is helping to bring Eurasia together, driving China and Russia into an alliance with neighboring counties, reaching out to Europe. ..."
President Trump has threatened China's President Xi that if they don't meet and talk at the
upcoming G20 meetings in Japan, June 29-30, the United States will not soften its tariff war
and economic sanctions against Chinese exports and technology.
Some meeting between Chinese and U.S. leaders will indeed take place, but it cannot be
anything like a real negotiation. Such meetings normally are planned in advance, by specialized
officials working together to prepare an agreement to be announced by their heads of state. No
such preparation has taken place, or can take place. Mr. Trump doesn't delegate authority.
He opens negotiations with a threat. That costs nothing, and you never know (or at least, he
never knows) whether he can get a freebee. His threat is that the U.S. can hurt its adversary
unless that country agrees to abide by America's wish-list. But in this case the list is so
unrealistic that the media are embarrassed to talk about it. The US is making impossible
demands for economic surrender – that no country could accept. What appears on the
surface to be only a trade war is really a full-fledged Cold War 2.0.
America's wish list: other countries' neoliberal subservience
At stake is whether China will agree to do what Russia did in the 1990s: put a Yeltsin-like
puppet of neoliberal planners in place to shift control of its economy from its government to
the U.S. financial sector and its planners. So the fight really is over what kind of planning
China and the rest of the world should have: by governments to raise prosperity, or by the
financial sector to extract revenue and impose austerity.
U.S. diplomacy aims to make other countries dependent on its agricultural exports, its oil
(or oil in countries that U.S. majors and allies control), information and military technology.
This trade dependency will enable U.S. strategists to impose sanctions that would deprive
economies of basic food, energy, communications and replacement parts if they resist U.S.
demands.
The objective is to gain financial control of global resources and make trade "partners" pay
interest, licensing fees and high prices for products in which the United States enjoys
monopoly pricing "rights" for intellectual property. A trade war thus aims to make other
countries dependent on U.S.-controlled food, oil, banking and finance, or high-technology goods
whose disruption will cause austerity and suffering until the trade "partner" surrenders.
China's willingness to give Trump a "win"
Threats are cheap, but Mr. Trump can't really follow through without turning farmers, Wall
Street and the stock market, Walmart and much of the IT sector against him at election time if
his tariffs on China increase the cost of living and doing business. His diplomatic threat is
really that the US will cut its own economic throat, imposing sanctions on its own importers
and investors if China does not acquiesce.
It is easy to see what China's answer will be. It will stand aside and let the US
self-destruct. Its negotiators are quite happy to "offer" whatever China has planned to do
anyway, and let Trump brag that this is a "concession" he has won.
China has a great sweetener that I think President Xi Jinping should offer: It can nominate
Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. We know that he wants what his predecessor Barack Obama
got. And doesn't he deserve it more? After all, he is helping to bring Eurasia together,
driving China and Russia into an alliance with neighboring counties, reaching out to
Europe.
Trump may be too narcissistic to realize the irony here. Catalyzing Asian and European trade
independence, financial independence, food independence and IT independence from the threat of
U.S. sanctions will leave the U.S. isolated in the emerging multilateralism.
America's wish for a neoliberal Chinese Yeltsin (and another Russian Yeltsin for that
matter)
A good diplomat does not make demands to which the only answer can be "No." There is no way
that China will dismantle its mixed economy and turn it over to U.S. and other global
investors. It is no secret that the United States achieved world industrial supremacy in the
late 19 th and early 20 th century by heavy public-sector subsidy of
education, roads, communication and other basic infrastructure. Today's privatized,
financialized and "Thatcherized" economies are high-cost and inefficient.
Yet U.S. officials persist in their dream of promoting some neoliberal Chinese leader or
"free market" party to wreak the damage that Yeltsin and his American advisors wrought on
Russia. The U.S. idea of a "win-win" agreement is one in which China will be "permitted" to
grow as long as it agrees to become a U.S. financial and trade satellite, not an independent
competitor.
Trump's trade tantrum is that other countries are simply following the same economic
strategy that once made America great, but which neoliberals have destroyed here and in much of
Europe. U.S. negotiators are unwilling to acknowledge that the United States has lost its
competitive industrial advantage and become a high-cost rentier economy. Its GDP is
"empty," consisting mainly of the Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) rents, profits and
capital gains while the nation's infrastructure decays and its labor is reduced to a prat-time
"gig" economy. Under these conditions the effect of trade threats can only be to speed up the
drive by other countries to become economically self-reliant.
The crux of the "trade" dispute is never discussed: the Chinese refusal to allow the
international financial services sector to penetrate the Chinese economy and operate freely.
Get it? The Chinese won't let the Jews in to loot the place and the Jews are pissed.
Trumpstein, the cryto Jew, has promised his sponsors to rectify the situation. The Chinese
witnessed what happened when Yeltsin allowed the IMF to parachute Jeffrey Sachs and his Jew
Boys into Russia in 1991 Jews looted the place mercilessly, calling it democracy and
capitalism, and Russia is still recovering. The Chinese have a bright future, as long as they
keep the Jews out.
I agree.
I am afraid spokes person Trump and those he is speaking for have it wrong. They believe
external trade is interfering with the La-Zi-Faire fat cat monopoly powered corporations the
CPI (congress, president and Israeli governance represent.
Few western companies can compete because only monopoly endowed Global corporations are
allowed or licensed to compete. Individual ability, the creative mind of the lone rangers
with highly disruptive inventions and ideas, are not allowed access to the knowledge or money
to play. Making people pay for sleazy operating systems when better ones are free, allowing
big corporations to hack the data of everyone, and on and on.
Even when a person finds a way to play and actually produces a product or concept, the
financial condition of the inventor is so weak or the barriers to promote his product is so
strong that as soon as the idea or product is patented or copyrighted it somehow absorbed
into one of the monopoly powered giants; in other words, competition is only allowed if the
competitor gives the profits to one of the monopoly powered giants. China should be
complaining, at least their competitors can produce, in the USA governed America unlicensed
competition is denied.
Copyright, patents, standardized testing and licensing every breath have terminated
competition in America.
America still competes with Americans as long as the business does not compete with the
global corporations.
The problem Trump thinks he can solve, is not sourced in India, China, Iran, Russia, or
any other nation. The problem is at home, in government policy, laws that turn capitalistic
competition into monopolistic fat-cat wealth storing private domain havens. Education by
degree and license by examination and standardization of performance are used to restrict
competition. Education, is a bureaucracy and no matter its efficiency; a degree cannot
provide competitive performance. The USA governance over America has served only the interest
of monopoly endowed corporations and their oligarch owners and investors. Trump is trying to
overcome foreign competition, by threat and blocking maneuvers, to deny foreigners the fruits
of their competitive successes I do not believe he can be successful. Already the Russian and
Chinese have developed a new currency and banking system to circumvent the Trump block. Work
around-s are in progress everywhere.. Soon even the USA will not be allowed to compete I
fear.
It is not a matter of where the competition comes from, its that the monopoly powers have
used the behavior enforcing rule making capacity of the USA to deny native American
creativity; creativity that America needs to be competitive. USA policy continues to be to
enrich a few by channeling and encapsulating all effort within the confines of the monopoly
holders instead of encouraging every back yard to be a new competitor. It will be many years
before Americans will be able to compete..
What Trump is now demanding reminds me of the brutally efficient system that Trump grew up
in: New York City business. (Author Tom Wolfe has a great line in his book The Bonfire Of The
Vanities that the strange, unrelenting background droning sound one hears in NYC is that of
"people constantly braying for money").
New York City real estate in particular is an area of business that is so brutally
competitive, unscrupulous , and backstabbing that it is best described as war under another
name. It is a business arena where a close friend one day can turn into a staunch enemy the
next. Trust is rare.
New York real estate, in fact, brings to mind the old saying about sausage making: You
would never eat it if you saw it being made. Yet deals are made. In fact, a lot of them. This
is the milieu Trump comes from.
Trump isn't one of those more genteel, old-time American negotiators of prior years the
author of this article speaks fondly of. These are the very same people who so readily agreed
to disasters like NAFTA or allowed, for instance, Or allowed Japan to levy two hundred
percent duties on things like American made Harley Davidson motorcycles while the USA was
pressured (or bribed) to apply few if any comparable duties on Japanese motorcycles or
automobiles (or virtually anything else Japan sold in the USA). These toothless. genteel
types also stood back for decades and allowed Japan to use red tape (like obscure safety
regulations for instance) to make it almost impossibly difficult to sell American products
like automobiles in Japan.
These very same US negotiators, politicians, and bureaucrats have more recently stood back
and allowed China to absolutely devastate American manufacturing.
Screw China, It's now payback time. The Chinese are shaking in their boots because the
previously hoodwinked and comatose Americans are finally waking up. No more wimpy Obama or
Bush looking out for our interests. It is now Truly Scary Trump instead.
Wait until the negotiations are concluded to see if they are successful. The sausage that
comes out of them might be very appealing for the first time in many, many decades.
" His diplomatic threat is really that the US will cut its own economic throat, imposing
sanctions on its own importers and investors if China does not acquiesce "
I get that the US financial system is up to no good with their positions on China but the
criticisms Trump made of China are correct. They have lots of tariffs on finished goods from
the US. They require technology transfer to do business there. Their government and industry
are tied at the hip and they are manipulating their currency. All these things are true and
if we keep trading with them with the same terms we have been we would lose ALL our
industrial infrastructure. Now we hear over and over how we can't build anything but the
Chinese went from being dirt farmers to the largest industrial power in a fairly short period
of time. Could we not do the same at least for our own countries market? Certainly global
trade destruction between countries is not a good thing but we'd be fools to keep on as we
are now. At some point when you dig a hole you have to stop to get yourself out.
I don't think we have a choice if we wish to continue to be an industrialized country. All
those that say China will do fine without us are not taking into account how all the other
countries who are being handled the exact same way as we are, are going to handle China's
trade with them. Will they keep allowing China to have large tariffs on their products while
they Chinese ship whatever they wish into theirs? I'm not so sure they will. If the US starts
refusing the Chinese free entry without reciprocal trade then I can easily see others
following our lead.
We should have stopped this many years ago but as bad as the situation is now it will only
get worse if we don't act.
Let them remove their tariffs. We should take every single anti-trade act and tariff they
have on us, weigh them on China and "then" negotiate. If they don't wish to it's their
country they can do what they please and so can we.
"The crux of the "trade" dispute is never discussed: the Chinese refusal to allow the
international financial services sector to penetrate the Chinese economy and operate freely.
Get it? "
Absolutely. Like inviting a handful of worms into your apple -- economy hollowed out in an
eye blink.
However, there is another side to this "trade dispute" coin.
FIRE want to economicly destroy China. The neocon', MIC, security sector wants to destroy
China's 2025 plan to become high-tech world leaders. 5G, AI, semi conductors etc are some of
the areas that China's public/private sectors are voraciously pushing. Hence, the
(wonderfully "free market") US attacks on Heiwai.
These short term US gambles are more than likely to pay off by the medium-long term
undermining of US hegemony via Eurasian integration led by China & Russia.
And all the time we are left wondering whether the US will choose the "Samson Option" rather
than accept reduced status. (Insane with power lust, the US can't even accept "first among
equals")
The US is making impossible demands for economic surrender – that no country could
accept. What appears on the surface to be only a trade war is really a full-fledged Cold
War 2.0
.
Typical mobster protection racket threats. Now the US has moved from waging military wars
on behalf of their Jewish owners to aggressively push their neoliberal economic warfare for
them. The facade for promoting democracy and human rights is no longer required.
And to call attempts at starving the population and murdering children by denying them
essential medicines as has happened in Iraq and now is going on in Iran and Venezuela, a Cold
War 2.0 is a gross understatement. It is a flagrant act of war. America is launching a war of
attrition on the world and who better to spearhead that war than an idiot manipulated by
Zionist Jews? The fact that many countries remain silent is testament to their surrender. But
China may prove to be a different proposition.
"the United States achieved world industrial supremacy in the late 19th and early 20th
century" That is a myth. The US may have had the highest GDP because it was the leader in
manufacturing, as China is now, but Europe and in particular Germany was far ahead of the US
in technology and science. If you compare China to the US today the situation is very similar
to comparing the US to Germany before 1939. Germany was far ahead of the US in the number of
Nobel Prizes received thru 1945 and very few of the Americans that did receive the Nobel
Prize were native born. The US received a few Nobel Prizes starting in the 1940's because
some recent European immigrants that became US citizens received it for work they had done in
Europe. The three biggest technological breakthroughs of WW II were the jet, the rocket and
the atomic bomb. Germany invented the jet, built the first modern rockets and the German
scientist Otto Hahn split the atom in 1939 (for which he received the Nobel Prize in 1944)
kicking off the USA's atomic bomb project and Germany's limited attempt. The people that
eventually achieved success in the US were almost all recent European immigrants (Bethe,
Teller, etc.), many being Jewish.
I basically agree with the rest of the article. I believe Trump's tactics make sense. The
problem is it's too late. The US economy can't be fixed by anyone. The US has 22 trillion
dollars in debt and will never be able to pay it back. The dollar is going to take a deep
dive within the next few years and it will lose its status as the reserve currency. I believe
this based upon what people like Peter Schiff, Paul Craig Roberts, David Stockman and Ron
Paul say.
I think the two biggest events of the last 75 years were WW II, completely changing the
countries that run the world and the emergence of a backwards and dirt poor China to become
an economic powerhouse and I think they will get stronger.
The US is making impossible demands for economic surrender – that no country could
accept.
Yes country. If the world was one big free trade area, it there were no bloks or even no
countries in the sense we understand them then the population of the would be wealthier, on
average. But countries are not primarily economic units, even if one can look at them as
such.
Nation states exist and have the emergent quality that they to survive against other
nation states and the best way to do that is to gain extra power relative to other states, or
at least maintain their position. Why would America agree to terms of trade that do not
maintain its position relative to China.
U.S. negotiators are unwilling to acknowledge that the United States has lost its
competitive industrial advantage
There is no absolute standards by which such an advantage could be judged. The terms of
trade that are finally settled on will be a compromise and reflect the interests of both, and
the total balance of forces between the two.
The combination of both nations will make it extremely difficult for Washington to impose
its hegemonic agenda without serious repercussions as two of the world's leading military
forces seek to increase the level of co-operation between their nations.
Trump's Trade Tariff Theatre 2018 results:
Country/Trade Balance/2018 vs. 2017
Mexico: trade DEFICIT -$81.5 billion; up 14.9% from 2017;
Canada: trade DEFICIT -$19.8 billion; up 15.8% from 2017;
China: trade DEFICIT -$375.6 billion; up 11.6% from 2017;
South Korea: trade DEFICIT -$17.9 billion; down 22.4% from 2017;
Japan: trade DEFICIT -$67.7 billion; down 1.8% from 2017
Germany: trade DEFICIT -$68.3 billion; up 7.2% from 2017;
France: trade DEFICIT -$16.2 billion; up 5.8% from 2017;
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: trade DEFICIT -$10.5 billion; up 313.3% from 2017;
Russia: trade DEFICIT -$14.1 billion; up 40.9% from 2017;
Asia: trade DEFICIT -$622.2 billion; up 8.8% from 2017;
Europe: trade DEFICIT -$202.4 billion; up 16.6% from 2017;
World: trade DEFICIT -$795.7 billion; up 10.4% from 2017
To all of the "free traders", the media ,and academia ,i have this simple question:
why i cant purchase a Toyota work van(the best and must popular of the world),neither here in
the USA nor abroad and bring it in?
how come that even in Cuba there are more of those Toyota work van than here in all
continental USA.
In 25 year i has to purchase more than 6 work vans,and like Penelope i have been waiting for
the Toyota ,and still waiting.
They ,the free traders,did not has allowed not even one.
The problem with the zio/US is the control of the US by the zionists and this control is
derived via the zionist privately owned FED and IRS that they got installed in 1913 and then
came the debt and wars and the hijacking of the foreign policy by the satanic zionists and
the US gov was started on a down hill slide pushed started by the zionists!
The trade policy of the zio/US has turned Russia into the largest grain exporter in the
world and turned Russia into an agriculture miracle , this can be shown by watch videos of
Russian agriculture on youtube. Germany is also in Russia building cars and other industrial
products for Russia thus bypassing the zio/US trade sanctions and last but not least Russia
is trading in non dollars in trade with more and more countries such as China thus
effectively rendering the dollar non and void in international trade.
So the people of the zio/US can thank their zionist masters for the demise of America and
true to form the zionist parasites are killing their American host
Join Mike Maloney as he examines the latest moves in the US/China trade war, and visits
some compelling arguments from the Foundation for Economic Education.
The "Chinese dragon" of the last two decades may be faltering but it is still hailed by
many as an economic miracle. Far from a great advance for Chinese workers, however, it is the
direct result of a consolidation of power in the hands of a small clique of powerful
families, families that have actively collaborated with Western financial oligarchs.
"Threats are cheap, but Mr. Trump can't really follow through without turning farmers, Wall
Street and the stock market, Walmart and much of the IT sector against him at election time
if his tariffs on China increase the cost of living and doing business. "
Tariffs are taxes and both governments like collecting taxes.
Farmers. Farmers sell a commodity so if they cannot sell to China one result is they will
sell to other customers while China buys more from other producers.
Cost of living. DC does not care. There is a solid inflation lobby in the fed that
supports increasing the cost of living.
"Walmart and much of the IT sector against him." I am not buying it.
Well, more accurate to say that Germany and Britain invented the jet engine independently
of each other. Just as they both invented radar independently of each other as well.
As it is, the post-war jet engine was based primarily on the British design of Frank
Whittle, though some of the German ideas were also later incorporated.
Every time you think the corporatocracy's manufactured anti-Semitism hysteria cannot
possibly get more absurd, they somehow manage to outdo themselves. OK, stay with me now,
because this is a weird one.
Apparently, American Hitler and his cronies are conspiring with some secret group of "Jewish
leaders" to stop British Hitler from becoming prime minister and wiping out all the Jews in
Great Britain. Weird, right? But that's not the weird part, because maybe American Hitler wants
to wipe out all the Jews in Great Britain himself, rather than leaving it to British Hitler
Hitlers being notoriously jealous regarding their genocidal accomplishments.
No, the weird part is that everyone knows that American Hitler does not make a move without
the approval of Russian Hitler, who is also obsessed with wiping out the Jews, and with
destroying the fabric of Western democracy. So why would Russian Hitler want to let American
Hitler and his goons thwart the ascendancy of British Hitler, who, in addition to wanting to
wipe out all the Jews, also wants to destroy democracy by fascistically refunding the NHS,
renationalizing the rail system, and so on?
Kirt
says: June
13, 2019 at 2:40 pm GMT Very logical analysis! Obviously the work of a racist, anti-Semite,
white, male, patriarchalist, Putin-puppet. Did I forget homophobic? That too!
This is a classic, even for Hopkins. In the US most people cannot really comprehend that, if
by some miracle, Bernie Sanders or Tulsi Gabbard became President, the same relentless attack
visited on Trump by the 'Deep State' would be directed at them as well. It doesn't matter
that they are very different from Trump. This article (in hilarious fashion) explains that
perfectly.
The only relevant fact in the case of the U.K. (and Washington D.C.) is "Which lobby
directly interferes with the governance of the country"?
It's the Israel lobby – doh!
Do stop trying to complicate and apologize for a disgraceful state of affairs. The
parasitic Israel lobby needs to be monitored and called out wherever it finds a host.
"... They lie. They lie to pour money to military contractors. They lie to enforce American hegemony. They lie to send children to the slaughter. They lie for their relection campaign. They lie, they lie, they lie. https:// twitter.com/thedailybeast/ status/1139481358139559936 ..."
"... This campaign is just heating up and with the looming threat of war with Iran, a new cold war with China, and the terrifying emptiness that is Joe Biden's candidacy, we need Mike on stage more than ever to speak truth to power. ..."
"... The elite class of this country has no qualms about shipping you off to Afghanistan or watching your house submerged in order to make sure their investments aren't taxed and they can still buy a third home. Don't believe them when they tell you they care. They don't. ..."
"... For so many, opposition to Trump is centered on a dislike of his aesthetic. Obviously Trump is gauche and tasteless. But who cares? Care about his policies, his racism, his appointees. You're not going to sway anyone, or save any lives, by pointing out his typos. ..."
"... The elite class has no loyalty to common people -- they're only interested in "justice" so long as it doesn't affect their pocketbooks. It's either win this idiot's money or earn the votes of the poor and voiceless. https:// twitter.com/IbrahimAS97/st atus/1137145949606879232 ..."
"... Joe Biden's a bum. A right-wing chauvinist, good time prick, arrogant bastard creep who thinks that because he's got a $3,000 suit and the cachet of a lifetime sinecure in the Senate we should bow down to his beaming smile. A real racist piece of work. https:// twitter.com/WalkerBragman/ status/1125121786021019654 ..."
"... The most consistent through line of Biden's career is his lack of respect for a woman's autonomy. Not only does he pet and paw at women publicly, but he refuses to work to make abortion easier by supporting the monstrous Hyde Amendment. https:// twitter.com/NARAL/status/1 136272132231577606 ..."
"... Why is it that after Democrats' experiment with centrism -- which gave us mass incarceration, financial deregulation, and the destruction of our working class -- so many candidates are eager to return to the halcyon days of Bill Clinton's triangulations? It's all about the Benjamins. ..."
"... If international law was applied as written, George W. Bush and Donald Trump would be charged with crimes against humanity. Let's build a world where they have to. http:// bit.ly/Gravelanche ..."
"... Joe Biden voted to send your kids to Iraq and Afghanistan, to let the big banks grow bigger, to let the credit card companies squeeze you, to ship your job overseas. What makes you think he's in your corner now? ..."
"... Mike Gravel: "It hurts to be part of the leadership of a nation and a citizen of a nation that is killing innocent human beings. That hurts so much we should all cry over it." Joe Biden: "I voted to go into Iraq, and I'd vote to do it again." ..."
"... The strategy of those who own the world and want to keep it is simple, captured well in a memo on Cuba written by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs in 1960: 1) Starve them out. 2) Feign concern. 3) Make war. 4) Make MONEY. https:// buff.ly/2EGKtAq pic.twitter.com/qZqv0tNSn8 ..."
"... American money and arms have supported bloodshed everywhere from Angola to Yemen. We've propped up dictators, instigated civil wars, and funded death squads. Isn't it time we just gave peace a chance? http:// bit.ly/Gravelanche ..."
"... On this Memorial Day, we should remember not only the fallen American soldiers but indeed the fallen of every side in every war. War is the most destructive force known to man, and Memorial Day should serve as a reminder: we must say "never again" to its death and destruction. ..."
"... The essential moral crisis of this country is this: we spend billions in Afghanistan and then act like we can't afford a good education for our children or decent healthcare for all. Our leaders are lying to us, and they know it. ..."
"... When Republicans are in power, Democrats call them warmongers. When Democrats are in power, Republicans call them warmongers. The truth is: they're both right. Send someone to the debate stage to speak that truth. http:// bit.ly/Gravelanche ..."
Though we didn't qualify for June (we didn't expect to) we're more than on track to
qualify for the July debates. Donations are surging and we expect to hit 65,000 by the end of
the month or earlier. Our strategy will be shared with supporters soon! Find the press
release here. pic.twitter.com/KEMt2qFfuN
Sen. Mike Gravel 8:55 AM - 14 Jun 2019
We're going to be doing a tour of the Midwest (Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois,
Michigan) later this month. Mike is probably going to do a speech in Iowa as well. Do you
have ideas for what we should do? Are you willing to host an event? Email us at
[email protected]!
They lie. They lie to pour money to military contractors. They lie to enforce American
hegemony. They lie to send children to the slaughter. They lie for their relection campaign.
They lie, they lie, they lie. https://
twitter.com/thedailybeast/ status/1139481358139559936
This campaign is just heating up and with the looming threat of war with Iran, a new cold
war with China, and the terrifying emptiness that is Joe Biden's candidacy, we need Mike on
stage more than ever to speak truth to power. Your dollar gets him there. https:// secure.actblue.com/donate/mikegra
vel2020?refcode=campaignupdate&amount=1
Sen. Mike Gravel 11:56 AM - 13 Jun 2019
No war with Iran!
Sen. Mike Gravel 7:30 AM - 13 Jun 2019
Campaign HQ: [story about John Bolton on the news] Mike: [chanting] hague, hague- Teens:
hague, HAGUE Twitter: [shaking their fists] HAGUE, HAGUE, HAGUE!
We're facing a global wave of right-wing authoritarianism, bankrolled by legions of elites
desperate to retain their wealth and power. If your answer to this threat is "the power of
hope" instead of transformative policy, you're a worthless shill named Beto O'Rourke.
If you live in Virginia House of Delegates District 50 make sure to get out today to vote!
National fights matter but more important than that is supporting progressive candidates like
@carterforva at
every level of our government, the people taking politics into our hands. https:// twitter.com/carterforva/st
atus/1138378422634369024
You can't recognize Pride Month and also support sending tens of billions of dollars in
weapons to a kingdom that beheads gay people.
Sen. Mike Gravel 3:20 PM - 10 Jun 2019
Wall Street didn't welcome the New Deal, it didn't welcome the Great Society, it didn't
welcome Obamacare. Of course shills will tell you the logical next steps forward -- like
Medicare for All -- are "impractical" or "political suicide." They'll fight you every inch of
the way.
Sen. Mike Gravel 12:40 PM - 10 Jun 2019
The elite class of this country has no qualms about shipping you off to Afghanistan or
watching your house submerged in order to make sure their investments aren't taxed and they
can still buy a third home. Don't believe them when they tell you they care. They don't.
Sen. Mike Gravel 10:45 AM - 10 Jun 2019
Just as you can't control whether one is born rich or poor, you can't control whether
you're strong or intelligent. A comfortable life shouldn't depend on that. As Rawls wrote:
having a certain trait doesn't entitle you to live well. EVERYONE has a right to live
well.
Sen. Mike Gravel 5:20 AM - 10 Jun 2019
For so many, opposition to Trump is centered on a dislike of his aesthetic. Obviously
Trump is gauche and tasteless. But who cares? Care about his policies, his racism, his
appointees. You're not going to sway anyone, or save any lives, by pointing out his
typos.
Sen. Mike Gravel 5:00 AM - 10 Jun 2019
We're currently preparing our Pentagon Rolling Papers for shipping! Our apologies for the
wait. Picture below! pic.twitter.com/TnKv6TjbpJ
In a time when the global fight is between progressivism and fascism, history will not
look kindly on those who declared themselves "moderates."
Sen. Mike Gravel 8:14 AM - 9 Jun 2019
The elite class has no loyalty to common people -- they're only interested in "justice" so
long as it doesn't affect their pocketbooks. It's either win this idiot's money or earn the
votes of the poor and voiceless. https://
twitter.com/IbrahimAS97/st atus/1137145949606879232
Marianne Williamson 6:33 AM - 8 Jun 2019
The DNC should be helping all the candidates to get our word out to the voters, not just
its handpicked choices. We shouldn't have to fight our way in. Yang and I got into the
debates; now let's help Gravel. https://
twitter.com/tipping6103746 8/status/1137350407339032576
Sen. Mike Gravel 2:10 PM - 7 Jun 2019
Millions of Americans are living day to day scared to death they'll get sick and be robbed
blind by heartless crooks like these. It makes ME sick. It's an abomination. https:// twitter.com/Gizmodo/status
/1136585123900604416
Joe Biden's a bum. A right-wing chauvinist, good time prick, arrogant bastard creep who
thinks that because he's got a $3,000 suit and the cachet of a lifetime sinecure in the
Senate we should bow down to his beaming smile. A real racist piece of work. https:// twitter.com/WalkerBragman/
status/1125121786021019654
Sen. Mike Gravel 2:52 PM - 5 Jun 2019
The legacy of U.S. imperialism is dictatorship, massacres, and genocide. We need to face
up to our legacy abroad -- and that means reparations for the Global South and worldwide
military withdrawal. The U.S. must become a moral international actor. Anything else is
suicide. https://
twitter.com/means_tv/statu s/1125717447380803584
Sen. Mike Gravel 1:45 PM - 5 Jun 2019
The most consistent through line of Biden's career is his lack of respect for a woman's
autonomy. Not only does he pet and paw at women publicly, but he refuses to work to make
abortion easier by supporting the monstrous Hyde Amendment. https:// twitter.com/NARAL/status/1 136272132231577606
Sen. Mike Gravel 8:40 AM - 5 Jun 2019
Why is it that after Democrats' experiment with centrism -- which gave us mass
incarceration, financial deregulation, and the destruction of our working class -- so many
candidates are eager to return to the halcyon days of Bill Clinton's triangulations? It's all
about the Benjamins.
Sen. Mike Gravel 7:20 AM - 5 Jun 2019
Savage capitalism has devastated our communities, treating social relations as commodities
and reducing everything to an item to be bartered and sold. We need politicians willing to
admit that, to constrain the market and restore decimated towns riven by opioids and
joblessness.
Sen. Mike Gravel 5:30 AM - 5 Jun 2019
The idea that America doesn't have a radical history is a lie forced on us by a dishonest
and venal establishment -- erasing figures like Hubert Harrison, pretending the American
Dream always meant radical individualism. The truth: Americans have always strived for
radical equality.
Sen. Mike Gravel 4:00 PM - 4 Jun 2019
Mike will not be on Fox News tonight. Don't worry, they canceled to cover something
something very newsworthy and vital: Trump's pomp & circumstance state visit to the Queen
in jolly old England. Chip in a buck to help get Mike on the debate stage! https:// buff.ly/2KF3mcd
Sen. Mike Gravel 1:32 PM - 4 Jun 2019
Lee Zeldin is a disgrace who spends his time harassing his female Muslim colleagues and
once defended Trump by calling President Obama a racist. Teaming up with him is one rung
above teaming up with Steve King, and @DWStweets and @RepLawrence should be ashamed.
https:// twitter.com/AJCGlobal/stat
us/1135637608283934720
Sen. Mike Gravel 11:14 AM - 4 Jun 2019
But all of that lies in the future. Today, we wish American Muslims and Muslims around the
world a day of peace and tranquility. #EidMubarak
Sen. Mike Gravel 11:14 AM - 4 Jun 2019
We need a foreign policy that sees Jews and Muslims as equal citizens in Israel, and is
willing to find a path to peace without condoning land grabs by Netanyahu. We need to stop
funding the slaughter of Muslims in Yemen. And we need to end FBI domestic surveillance of
Muslims.
Sen. Mike Gravel 11:14 AM - 4 Jun 2019
We need to protect the right to free speech by refusing to discriminate against those who
support BDS. We need to end Trump's Muslim and refugee bans. And we need a national office in
the White House to address the surge in hate crimes, especially against Muslims.
Sen. Mike Gravel 11:14 AM - 4 Jun 2019
Sen. Gravel wants to wish every Muslim a wonderful Eid al-Fitr. American Muslims ought to
be valued members of our American community: but for too long we have pursued an Islamophobic
path here and abroad. We need to build a nation that embraces all who live within it.
Sen. Mike Gravel 4:30 AM - 4 Jun 2019
Our authoritarian policies are self-perpetuating: they create problems that justify more
authoritarian policies. If we hadn't deposed Central American leaders, worked with drug
cartels, and supported the Contras, Central Americans wouldn't need to come to America.
Sen. Mike Gravel 12:44 PM - 3 Jun 2019
ICE, the American Gestapo, should be dismantled and abolished on Day 1 of any Democratic
presidency. It has done nothing but fill immigrants' lives with terror and, when it does
detain immigrants, treat them so poorly that some die. A criminal investigation is needed.
https:// twitter.com/kenklippenstei
n/status/1135579639617851394
Sen. Mike Gravel 11:20 AM - 3 Jun 2019
No matter who the Democrats nominate, Republicans will attack them as radical and
socialist. That's a given. The only real choice Democrats have is whether or not to inspire
people in the process with policies that improve people's lives.
Sen. Mike Gravel 10:16 AM - 3 Jun 2019
The idea of apolitical institutions within politics, like the Supreme Court, is a fantasy
that Republicans use to dupe Democrats. Appointing "apolitical justices" (as if any
constitutional question can be apolitical), as Buttigieg suggests, is idiotic.
Our punitive, militaristic approach to drugs has destabilized Latin America, criminalized
our own neighborhoods, and enabled the police to grossly abuse their power. It has done
nothing but harm to our communities. The War on Drugs must end immediately.
Sen. Mike Gravel 8:08 PM - 1 Jun 2019
While the GOP stole one Supreme Court seat, placed a rapist on another, rigged the Census,
implemented power-grabs in WI and NC, and passed voter ID laws, Democratic "opposition" has
meant Pelosi asking Melania and Pence to step in. It's pathetic. Take the fight to Trump.
Sen. Mike Gravel 11:15 AM - 1 Jun 2019
A bit late on this, but we're proud to announce that we've exceeded 40,000 donors! We need
just 25,000 more to qualify for the July debates. Help Mike climb the mountain by getting
your loved one to donate! Just $1 will do (though $4.20 is preferred)! http:// bit.ly/Gravelanchepic.twitter.com/OCjOEXk5ea
Sen. Mike Gravel 5:00 PM - 31 May 2019
Our condolences to @ericswalwell , @SenGillibrand , @sethmoulton , and @amyklobuchar (all fake
progressives and stooges for corporate power) for polling below us in the new Harvard/Harris
poll. There's always next time!
Sen. Mike Gravel 2:20 PM - 31 May 2019
If international law was applied as written, George W. Bush and Donald Trump would be
charged with crimes against humanity. Let's build a world where they have to. http:// bit.ly/Gravelanche
Sen. Mike Gravel 10:34 AM - 31 May 2019
U.S. out of Afghanistan. U.S. out of Iraq. U.S. out of Berlin. U.S. out of Okinawa. U.S.
out of Niger. U.S. out of Syria. U.S. out of Cameroon. U.S. out of South Korea. This list
isn't close to complete. Get Mike in the debates. Get the U.S. out. https:// buff.ly/2KF3mcd
Sen. Mike Gravel 10:20 AM - 31 May 2019
Joe Biden voted to send your kids to Iraq and Afghanistan, to let the big banks grow
bigger, to let the credit card companies squeeze you, to ship your job overseas. What makes
you think he's in your corner now?
Sen. Mike Gravel 9:10 AM - 31 May 2019
Mike Gravel: "It hurts to be part of the leadership of a nation and a citizen of a nation
that is killing innocent human beings. That hurts so much we should all cry over it." Joe
Biden: "I voted to go into Iraq, and I'd vote to do it again."
Sen. Mike Gravel 6:30 AM - 31 May 2019
Ours is a country led by hollow men like Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg, "leaders" who think
of nothing but their own egos, who will do nothing as we're drowned by floods, starved by
drought, choked by poisoned air. That is the way the world ends.
Sen. Mike Gravel 10:41 AM - 30 May 2019
Jacobin Magazine has an excellent, comprehensive piece on Mike's political history. From
highs to lows, this piece is an exhaustive look at his time in the Senate: the courageous
stands he took and the compromises he made. And the conclusion is clear: help get Mike on the
stage. https:// twitter.com/jacobinmag/sta
tus/1133931536082882560
Sen. Mike Gravel 8:47 AM - 30 May 2019
We're proud to be endorsed by the inimitable Mick Wallace, Teachta Dála for Wexford
and (most likely) an MEP-elect for Ireland South. Mick is a proud fighter against imperialism
and for progressive causes, and we're honored to have his support. https:// twitter.com/wallacemick/st
atus/1133989813772857345
Sen. Mike Gravel 5:33 AM - 30 May 2019
Dick Cheney should spend the rest of his life in prison.
Sen. Mike Gravel 2:11 PM - 29 May 2019
The strategy of those who own the world and want to keep it is simple, captured well in a
memo on Cuba written by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs in
1960: 1) Starve them out. 2) Feign concern. 3) Make war. 4) Make MONEY. https:// buff.ly/2EGKtAqpic.twitter.com/qZqv0tNSn8
Sen. Mike Gravel 2:10 PM - 29 May 2019
The embargo against Cuba has always had one goal: to cripple vital sectors of its economy
and then step back to claim their system cannot work. It's an ideological project, the
consequences for ordinary people, Cuban and American, be damned. https:// buff.ly/30SBzsX
Sen. Mike Gravel 10:34 AM - 29 May 2019
Russian internet trolls aren't the reason we have a racist authoritarian as president.
Blaming other countries for our own diseased national consciousness is straight from our
foreign policy playbook -- a posture that has materialized into drone strikes, sanctions, and
invasions.
Sen. Mike Gravel 10:00 AM - 29 May 2019
When was the last time nominating a boring establishment candidate with no enthusiastic
support, a huge amount of baggage, and several past scandals backfired for the Democratic
Party?
Sen. Mike Gravel 8:30 AM - 29 May 2019
Joe Biden Donald Trump
creepy around women racist history "tough on crime" brash no policies authoritarian
Sen. Mike Gravel 7:20 AM - 29 May 2019
So much of the reason people like Joe Biden is because he "acts like a normal president."
What have normal presidents given us? A country in such turmoil that nearly half of voters
supported Donald Trump. It's insane to try the same thing and expect better results.
Sen. Mike Gravel 5:20 AM - 29 May 2019
Not only is Joe Biden's creepiness around young girls not something to be dismissed
lightly, his refusal to fully apologize and change his ways is indicative of how little he
cares about sexual assault. We deserve a meaningful improvement over Donald Trump: Joe ain't
it.
Our wars abroad have only made us less safe: they've killed foreign civilians, diminished
the perception of America in the world, and tightened the stranglehold of the
military-industrial complex. Donate so Mike can say that on the debate stage. http:// bit.ly/Gravelanche
Sen. Mike Gravel 9:14 AM - 28 May 2019
if you want a vision of the future under Cory Booker, imagine a boot stamping on a human
face - forever. and every once in a while it stops for an inspirational lecture on how we
should never stop dreaming
Sen. Mike Gravel 7:12 AM - 28 May 2019
There's no Hail Mary pass that saves the day from fascism - it doesn't turn around at the
last second. The world is walking down a path it has trodden before; the result last time was
war and the death of a hundred million. Waiting around isn't going to stop it, action
will.
Sen. Mike Gravel 7:00 PM - 27 May 2019
American money and arms have supported bloodshed everywhere from Angola to Yemen. We've
propped up dictators, instigated civil wars, and funded death squads. Isn't it time we just
gave peace a chance? http://
bit.ly/Gravelanche
Sen. Mike Gravel 5:30 PM - 27 May 2019
McDonald's workers, like workers all over the world, are tired of being paid less they
produce and being harassed. I urge everyone to join them in their struggle and remind you to
never cross a picket line. Raise the minimum wage, end workplace harassment at work.
#fightfor15
Sen. Mike Gravel 4:30 PM - 27 May 2019
How can there be justice in a country where Bill Kristol has a net worth of $5 million
while 20 percent of people have less than nothing?
Sen. Mike Gravel 3:00 PM - 27 May 2019
On this Memorial Day, we should remember not only the fallen American soldiers but indeed
the fallen of every side in every war. War is the most destructive force known to man, and
Memorial Day should serve as a reminder: we must say "never again" to its death and
destruction.
Sen. Mike Gravel 1:30 PM - 27 May 2019
The essential moral crisis of this country is this: we spend billions in Afghanistan and
then act like we can't afford a good education for our children or decent healthcare for all.
Our leaders are lying to us, and they know it.
Sen. Mike Gravel 11:00 AM - 27 May 2019
Six migrant children have died under the custody of the U.S. Border Patrol since December.
This growing trail of death is caused by our authoritarian, racist border policy, and the
blame lies with Donald Trump, Stephen Miller, and other racists. Humane immigration reform
now!
Sen. Mike Gravel 8:30 AM - 27 May 2019
When Republicans are in power, Democrats call them warmongers. When Democrats are in
power, Republicans call them warmongers. The truth is: they're both right. Send someone to
the debate stage to speak that truth. http:// bit.ly/Gravelanche
Sen. Mike Gravel 7:00 AM - 27 May 2019
Congratulations on a wonderful victory yesterday for a few allies in Europe, like
@catarina_mart
and @mmatias_ . The
results show that the fascist tide is being beaten back and left-wing populism is on the rise
-- a welcome development.
Every time you think the corporatocracy's manufactured anti-Semitism hysteria cannot
possibly get more absurd, they somehow manage to outdo themselves. OK, stay with me now,
because this is a weird one.
Apparently, American Hitler and his cronies are conspiring with some secret group of "Jewish
leaders" to stop British Hitler from becoming prime minister and wiping out all the Jews in
Great Britain. Weird, right? But that's not the weird part, because maybe American Hitler wants
to wipe out all the Jews in Great Britain himself, rather than leaving it to British Hitler
Hitlers being notoriously jealous regarding their genocidal accomplishments.
No, the weird part is that everyone knows that American Hitler does not make a move without
the approval of Russian Hitler, who is also obsessed with wiping out the Jews, and with
destroying the fabric of Western democracy. So why would Russian Hitler want to let American
Hitler and his goons thwart the ascendancy of British Hitler, who, in addition to wanting to
wipe out all the Jews, also wants to destroy democracy by fascistically refunding the NHS,
renationalizing the rail system, and so on?
Kirt
says: June
13, 2019 at 2:40 pm GMT Very logical analysis! Obviously the work of a racist, anti-Semite,
white, male, patriarchalist, Putin-puppet. Did I forget homophobic? That too!
This is a classic, even for Hopkins. In the US most people cannot really comprehend that, if
by some miracle, Bernie Sanders or Tulsi Gabbard became President, the same relentless attack
visited on Trump by the 'Deep State' would be directed at them as well. It doesn't matter
that they are very different from Trump. This article (in hilarious fashion) explains that
perfectly.
The only relevant fact in the case of the U.K. (and Washington D.C.) is "Which lobby
directly interferes with the governance of the country"?
It's the Israel lobby – doh!
Do stop trying to complicate and apologize for a disgraceful state of affairs. The
parasitic Israel lobby needs to be monitored and called out wherever it finds a host.
"... After nearly 40 years of privatization and restructuring, British society is on the brink of being permanently transformed into the type of savage, neo-feudal, corporatist nightmare that the USA already is. ..."
"... Thus, they need to Hitlerize Corbyn, so they can fold him into their official narrative, Democracy vs. The Putin-Nazis ..."
"... In the USA, the populist insurgency is primarily a right-wing phenomenon (because, again, there is no Left to speak of). Thus, the neoliberal ruling classes are focused on Hitlerizing Donald Trump, and stigmatizing the millions of Americans who voted for him as a bunch of Nazis. Hitlerizing Trump has been ridiculously easy (he almost Hitlerizes himself), but the ultimate goal is to delegitimize the populist sentiment that put him into office. That sentiment is primarily neo-nationalist. So it's a one-front counter-insurgency op (i.e., neoliberalism versus neo-nationalism). ..."
"... And this is why Corbyn had to be Hitlerized, and why Putin, Trump, Assad, Gabbard, Assange, the "Yellow Vest" protesters in France, and anyone else opposing global neoliberalism has to be Hitlerized. ..."
I realize that both the neoliberal establishment and the neo-fascist fringe disagree with
me, and that both are determined (for different reasons) to conflate the two in the public's
mind, but that's my take, and I'm sticking to it. I don't think the world is controlled by "the
Jews." I think it's controlled by global capitalism.
Go ahead, call me a conspiracy theorist. Here's how the anti-Semitism panic in the United
Kingdom looks to me.
After nearly 40 years of privatization and restructuring, British society is on the brink of
being permanently transformed into the type of savage, neo-feudal, corporatist nightmare that
the USA already is. The global capitalist ruling classes are extremely pleased about this state
of affairs. They would now like to finish up privatizing Britain, so they can get on with
privatizing the rest of Europe. The last thing they need at this critical juncture is Jeremy Corbyn to become prime minister and start attempting to remake their nascent neoliberal
marketplace into a society you know, where healthcare is guaranteed to all, you don't need a
mortgage to buy a train ticket, and people don't have to eat out of trash bins.
Unlike in the USA, where there is no functional political Left, and where the
non-parliamentary "two-party system" is almost totally controlled by the corporatocracy, in the
UK, there are still a few old-fashioned socialists, and they have taken back the Labour Party
from the neoliberal Blairite stooges that had been managing the transformation of Britain into
the aforementioned neo-feudal nightmare. Jeremy Corbyn is the leader of these socialists. So
the corporatocracy needs to destroy him, take back control of the Labour Party, and turn it
back into a fake left party, like the Democratic Party in the USA, so they can concentrate on
crushing the right-wing populists. Thus, they need to Hitlerize Corbyn, so they can fold him
into their official narrative, Democracy vs. The
Putin-Nazis.
And, see, this is what makes the corporatocracy's War on Populism so seemingly
psychotic at least to anyone paying attention.
In the USA, the populist insurgency is primarily a right-wing phenomenon (because, again,
there is no Left to speak of). Thus, the neoliberal ruling classes are focused on Hitlerizing
Donald Trump, and stigmatizing the millions of Americans who voted for him as a bunch of Nazis.
Hitlerizing Trump has been ridiculously easy (he almost Hitlerizes himself), but the ultimate
goal is to delegitimize the populist sentiment that put him into office. That sentiment is
primarily neo-nationalist. So it's a one-front counter-insurgency op (i.e., neoliberalism
versus neo-nationalism).
In the UK, things are not that simple. There, the neoliberal ruling classes are waging a
counter-insurgency op against populist forces on two major fronts: (1) the Brexiters (i.e.,
nationalism); and (2) the Corbynists (i.e., socialism). They're getting hit from both the left
and right, which is screwing up the official narrative (according to which the "enemies of
democracy" are supposed to be right-wing neo-nationalists). So, as contradictory and absurd as
it sounds, they needed to conflate both left and right populism into one big scary Hitlerian
enemy. Thus, they needed to Hitlerize Corbyn. Presto Labour Anti-Semitism crisis!
Now, anyone who is isn't a gibbering idiot knows that Jeremy Corbyn is not an anti-Semite
and the Labour Party is not a hive of Nazis. It's a testament to the power of the corporate
media that such a statement even needs to be made but, of course, that's the point of the smear
campaign the neoliberal corporate media have been waging for the last three years.
Smear campaigns are simple and effective. The goal is to force your target and his allies
into proclaiming things like, "I am not an anti-Semite," or "I've never had sex with underage
boys," or whatever smear you want to force them to deny. You don't have to prove your target
guilty. You're just trying to conjure up a "reality" in which every time someone thinks of your
target they associate him with the content of your smears.
The corporate media have done just that, to Jeremy Corbyn, to Donald Trump, to Putin, and to
assorted lesser figures.
They did it to Sanders in 2016. They are
doing it now to Tulsi Gabbard . The goal is not only to smear these targets, but also, and
more so, to conjure a "world" that reifies the narrative of their smears a binary "good versus
evil" world, a world in which whatever they want to accuse their targets of being linked to
(e.g., terrorism, fascism, racism, or whatever) is the official enemy of all that is good.
Since the Brexit referendum and the election of Trump, the ruling classes have conjured up a
world where "democracy" is perpetually under attack by a global conspiracy of "Russians" and
"Nazis" (just as they previously conjured up a world where it was perpetually under attack by
"terrorists"). They have conjured up a post-Orwellian reality in which "democracy" (i.e.,
global capitalism) is the only alternative to "neo-fascism" (i.e., anything opposed to global
capitalism).
And this is why Corbyn had to be Hitlerized, and why Putin, Trump, Assad, Gabbard, Assange,
the "Yellow Vest" protesters in France, and anyone else opposing global neoliberalism has to be
Hitlerized. Socialism, nationalism it makes no difference, not to the global capitalist ruling
classes. There are always only two sides in these "worlds" that the ruling classes conjure up
for us, and there can be only one official enemy. The official enemy of the moment is
"fascism." Therefore, all the "bad guys" are Hitler, or Nazis, or racists, or anti-Semites, or
some other variation of Hitler.
The fact that this "reality" they have conjured up for us is completely psychotic makes it
no less real. And it is only going to get more insane until the corporatocracy restores
"normality." So, go ahead, if you consider yourself "normal," and try to force your mind to
believe that Jews are no longer safe in Great Britain, or in Germany, or France, or the USA,
and that Donald Trump is a Russian asset, and is also literally Adolf Hitler, and an
anti-Semitic white supremacist who is conspiring with Israel and Saudi Arabia in their campaign
to destroy Iran and Syria, which are allies of his Russian masters, as is Venezuela, which he
is also menacing, and that Jeremy Corbyn's secret plan is to turn the UK into Nazi Germany,
with the support of Trump, who is trying to destroy him, and that the Yellow Vests are
Russian-backed fascists, and that Julian Assange is a rapist spy who conspired with Russia to
get Trump elected, which is why Trump wants to prosecute him, just as soon as he finishes
wiping out the Jews, or protecting them from Jeremy Corbyn, or from Iran, or brainwashing Black
Americans into reelecting him in 2020 with a handful of Russian Facebook ads.
Go ahead, try to reconcile all that or whatever, don't. Just take whatever medication you
happen to be on, crank up CNN, MSNBC, or any other corporate media channel, and report me to
the Internet Police for posting dangerous "extremist" content. You know, in your heart, I
probably deserve it.
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist
based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play
Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant Paperbacks. He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .
They won't need to talk about Gabbard after the first debates, unless she can get polling
over 2% there will be no more for her. Like all the other 20 she will get her maybe broken 10
minutes of fame in the first debate, it won't be enough to really make a rational case for
anything probably. The Dems aren't generous like R's in having second tier debates, they cull
fast. Sanders yea he'll be around.
The problem with Warren's definition of capitalism, is when she describes herself as
capitalist, she pretends she literally has no idea what capitalism is. The ingenue! In her
description: it's about individuals trading, or corporations trading, or individuals trading
with corporations. When back in the world we live in it's about power and raw power
relations. Her definition of capitalism IS WAY WAY WAY more inaccurate than any definition
Bernie has of socialism which does approach some definitions of socialism. It's just zero
correspondence with reality for Warren.
Tucker Carlson asked whether someone can be elected if Google and Facebook don't want them
to be. His answer was No.
I think a similar question can be asked: "Can someone be elected if the DNC don't want
them to be?". Unfortunately for this election cycle I think the answer will also be No.
But it will set the stage for something bigger, and worse (from the PTB point of view).
Those who make gradual change impossible make revolutionary change inevitable" JFK
So if we haven't all been Raptured Up, 2024 is Year Zero for our New Thermidor.
Indeed she does. That New York Mag article was quite an accomplished hit-piece; now Tulsi
is possibly a Manchurian candidate from a twisted Krishna cult! Aside from the accurate quote
on the Blob cited by Lambert, this is perhaps the most disgusting piece of s**t on Gabbard
I've read yet -- and that's saying something. The reason is that it is so detailed and
skilled; it really demonstrates your point that they want to destroy her. The article
*pretends* to be sympathetic to her anti-interventionist stance in places (thus the Blob
quote), but the author actually draws selectively from her life -- mainly from past
acquaintances and relatives (who seem antagonistic) and almost nothing from Gabbard herself
-- to paint a picture of a strange and perhaps unstable character unknown to the general
public. Some of the questions raised might be legitimate, but that was not the purpose here.
Rather, bits and pieces of her life were selected to construct a finely crafted narrative
designed to destroy whatever credibility her anti-war position might have had among educated
liberal readers.
For those who want to know about Gabbard, watch the Joe Rogan interviews. For those who
want to deconstruct a first-rate character assassination, I highly recommend this article.
You are right, John. The nomenklatura are pulling out all the stops.
I agree, this article had "hit job" written all over it. The author spent as much time
discussing her father's guru as it did her from what I could tell. A piss-poor, and obvious,
attempt at Guilt By Association.
I actually went into "skim mode" after this leading paragraph statement,
Here are the details: Bashar al-Assad is a depraved dictator best known for his
willingness to murder his own people, including many children, with chemical weapons.
It was pretty obvious to me that the rest of the article would carry as much lie as this
statement so clearly did. It's too unfortunate that too many will fall for all this
tripe.
Gabbard (D)(1): "Tulsi Gabbard Had a Very Strange Childhood" [ New York
Magazine ]. " A Hindu veteran and millennial congresswoman of Samoan descent hailing from
Hawaii, [Gabbard] brings together disparate constituencies: most noticeably, Bernie Sanders
fans who love that she resigned from the Democratic National Committee to endorse him in 2016,
but also libertarians who appreciate her noninterventionism, Indian-Americans taken by her
professed Hinduism, veterans attracted to her credibility on issues of war and peace, and
racists who interpret various statements she has made to be promising indications of
Islamophobia.
That she is polling at one percent, sandwiched between Andrew Yang and Amy Klobuchar,
suggests that bringing together these constituencies is not nearly enough, but the intensity of
emotion she provokes on all sides sets her apart. When FiveThirtyEight asked 60 Democratic
Party activists whom they didn't want to win, Tulsi Gabbard came in first out of 17
candidates." • Also, Gabbard is a self-described introvert (a plus in my book). And then
there's this:
The most obvious obstacle between any noninterventionist candidate and mainstream success
is D.C.'s foreign-policy Establishment -- the think-tankers and politicians and media
personalities and intelligence professionals and defense-company contractors and, very often,
intelligence professionals turned defense-company contractors who determine the bounds of
acceptable thinking on war and peace. In parts of D.C., this Establishment is called "the
Blob," and to stray beyond its edges is to risk being deemed "unserious," which as a woman
candidate one must be very careful not to be.
The Blob may in 2019 acknowledge that past American wars of regime change for which it
enthusiastically advocated have been disastrous, but it somehow maintains faith in the
tantalizing possibilities presented by new ones.
The Blob loves to "stand for" things, especially "leadership" and "democracy." The Blob
loves to assign moral blame, loves signaling virtue while failing to follow up on civilian
deaths, and definitely needs you to be clear on "who the enemy is" -- a kind of obsessive
deontological approach in which naming things is more important than cataloguing the effects
of any particular policy.
It's fair to say that whoever The Blob is for -- ***cough*** Hillary Clinton ***cough*** --
should be approached with a hermaneutic of suspicion.
Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard took the media to task for what she called
biased and misleading coverage of her campaign, arguing the facts no longer matter to some
outlets. Speaking at an event in New York recently, Tulsi said the press had given up on any
semblance of balanced or accurate reporting, replacing news coverage with panels of jabbering
pundits.
Instead of factual reporting, she said: "We see opinions, we see panels of people on all
the news channels – I don't care which one you watch – sharing their
opinions."
tulsi mocking george stephanopoulos is one of the greatest things you'll hear from any
of the candidates pic.twitter.com/aIBxWyZ5t1
The 2020 hopeful also described what she said were intentional smear efforts against her
campaign in the media.
"Me and my campaign have been on the receiving end of very intentional smear efforts
trying to undermine our campaign coming through, you know, NBC News quoting articles that are
completely baseless," Gabbard said.
She referred to a recent interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, wherein the pundit
echoed the suggestion that Gabbard's campaign was boosted by "Putin apologists."
"Well, you know, this article in the Daily Beast says Putin supports your campaign,"
she said, imitating Stephanopolous's question in the interview.
An article "based on what?" she asked the audience in New York rhetorically.
"Nothing. Really, nothing."
The story in question intimated that Gabbard's presidential bid was backed by "Kremlin
sympathizers," such as the Nation magazine's Stephen F. Cohen, an expert in international
relations who argues for better ties between the US and Russia.
Gabbard has come under fire for her foreign policy positions, such as her call for detente
between the US and other nuclear-armed states like Russia. Tulsi's opposition to US regime
change policies have also made her a target in some quarters. After refusing to endorse
American efforts to topple the Syrian government, she was branded as an 'apologist' for Syria's
President Bashar Assad.
"... The department should also review its relationship with the contractor responsible for the smear campaign, because paying someone to do little more than harass political opponents because they are insufficiently hard-line is a waste of the public's money and serves no legitimate public interest: ..."
"... could it be the smear campaign is a feature and not a bug? And if so could it be a reflection of Pompeo's character and disposition. ..."
"... Take a look at previous secretaries of state - leading American foreign policy - Albright, Condoleezza Rice, Hillary Clinton where the U.S. was lead into awful, nation destroying policies and mass deaths. The only recent person at that post that sincerely tried to actually do something for the sake of peace and the actual use of diplomacy was John Kerry, with the deal among the European nations and America and Iran. ..."
"... Terrible human beings they are and foe them it was all fun and games. Obama was too much of a weakling to take firm stands, except of course with the work of Kerry on the Iran deal. Ask yourself: do any of the three, Rice, Hillary or Albright give a damn about human life, including American troops dying? Ah no ..."
"... "Pompeo's State Department used government money, taxpayer money, to disinform the American public and smear American citizens. " ..."
"... It's worse than that. Our "America First" president's State Department hired foreigners to do this, foreigners who belong to a "former" terror gang that used to kill Americans. Hiring foreigners to lie to and smear Americans? There must be laws against it. Laws with serious consequences. ..."
Negar Mortazavi and Borzou Daragahi
report on the response in Congress to the scandal
over State Department funding for the so-called Iran Disinformation Project:
United States officials say they are outraged by a government-funded troll campaign that
has targeted American citizens critical of the administration's hardline Iran policy and
accused critics of being loyal to the Tehran regime.
State Department officials admitted to Congressional staff in a closed-door meeting on
Monday that a project they had funded to counter Iranian propaganda had gone off the rails.
Critics in Washington have gone further, saying that the programme resembled the type of
troll farms used by autocratic regimes abroad.
"It's completely unacceptable that American taxpayer dollars supported a project that
attacked Americans and others who are critical of the Trump administration's policy of
escalation and conflict with Iran," a senior Congressional aide told The Independent, on
condition of anonymity.
The State Department's
Global Engagement Center erred from the beginning by entrusting the effort to counter
Iranian regime propaganda to an outside contractor with such hard-line views. There was clearly
a failure to supervise what the contractor was doing with the funding provided by the
department, and the result was outsourcing the department's work to self-serving ideologues.
Had it not been for the public outcry and investigations by several of the people being
targeted by this department-funded operation, the department might not have realized what was
being done with its own resources until much later and it might not have acknowledged the error
at all.
The department should also review its relationship with the contractor responsible for the
smear campaign, because paying someone to do little more than harass political opponents
because they are insufficiently hard-line is a waste of the public's money and serves no
legitimate public interest:
E-Collaborative for Civic Education, co-founded by Iranian American activist Mariam
Memarsadeghi, is a long-time State Department contractor.
It purports to promote democratic political life and empower civil society inside Iran,
but it appears to have no presence inside the country and instead confines itself to engaging
with Iranians in the Diaspora.
In this case, the engagement with Iranians in the diaspora amounted to shouting abuse at
many of them and harassing those that didn't toe a certain ideological line. As the scandal
proves, hard-line regime changers have a very warped idea of what qualifies as pro-regime
rhetoric and who can be considered a regime supporter, and so it should come as no surprise
that this operation turned its ire on the many Iranian-American professionals that didn't get
with the hawkish program. This calls into question whether the department is capable of
countering disinformation from foreign governments without indulging the worst and most hawkish
people that want to use such efforts to settle scores against their fellow Americans. It is
good that Congress is looking into how this particular scandal happened, but there have to be
changes made to how the department runs the Global Engagement Center so that something like
this can't happen again.
One of the absurdities of this smear campaign is that it has targeted the very journalists
and analysts that have been far more effective in countering the Iranian government's false
claims through their reporting and analysis. The Iran Disinformation Project went after these
journalists and analysts because they refused to recite arguments in favor of regime change and
war. They were targeted because they were independent and credible observers and critics of
Iran and U.S. Iran policy, and that meant that they used their expertise and understanding of
the country to question the wisdom and efficacy of sanctions and spoke out against the folly of
military intervention. Iran hawks desperately need to discredit and smear people like this
because they pose a major threat to the promotion of the hawks' agenda. Fortunately, their
smear tactics aren't working very well these days.
How long before these Congressman are denounced as traitors by the likes of Tom Cotton. 'No
one can challenge me, I was in Iraq, how dare they shoot at me, it's my country not theirs.'
I think American citizens should engage their own State Department with lawsuits and criminal
indictments. The legal discovery process should air the place out quite nicely.
It's kind of odd that this is something that's being highlighted and looked into, considering
the total lack of interest in charging Bolton, Dean, Giuliani, Ridge, and others for their
material support to terrorists when they were promoting MEK when it was still on the FTO
list.
" .the department might not have realized what was being done with its own resources until
much later and it might not have acknowledged the error at all."
Oh well. We all make mistakes. Or could it be the smear campaign is a feature and not a
bug? And if so could it be a reflection of Pompeo's character and disposition.
Take a look at previous secretaries of state -
leading American foreign policy -
Albright, Condoleezza Rice, Hillary Clinton where the U.S. was lead into awful, nation
destroying policies and mass deaths.
The only recent person at that post that sincerely tried to actually do something for the
sake of peace and the actual use of diplomacy was John Kerry, with the deal among the
European nations and America and Iran.
The above three were truly terrible people to have representing the U.S. They bullied and
gloated about the deaths in other nations:
see Albright defending the deaths of children in Iraq due to sanctions and Hillary laughing
at the deaths and mayhem in Libya.
Terrible human beings they are and foe them it was all fun and games.
Obama was too much of a weakling to take firm stands, except of course with the work of Kerry
on the Iran deal.
Ask yourself: do any of the three, Rice, Hillary or Albright give a damn about human life,
including American troops dying?
Ah no
To your point, what I enjoyed about John Kerry was his full throated effort to bring back the
ideal of what the State Department is supposed to be doing that is, using the mechanisms of
diplomacy to make peace and increase communication.
All the other Sec States felt like they wished they were part of the military.
Don't give me this "Global Engagement Center" crap. Pompeo? "Global Engagement"?
It's simple. Pompeo's State Department used government money, taxpayer money, to disinform
the American public and smear American citizens. The next step is obvious. Find who did it
and throw them in prison.
"Pompeo's State Department used government money, taxpayer money, to disinform
the American public and smear American citizens. "
It's worse than that. Our "America First" president's State Department hired
foreigners to do this, foreigners who belong to a "former" terror gang that used to
kill Americans. Hiring foreigners to lie to and smear Americans? There must be laws against it. Laws with
serious consequences.
So Russiagater was not fired. Madcow was promoted to more freely spead her "Madcow desease"
(Neo-McCarthysim actually) into unsuspecting public ...
Notable quotes:
"... Almost none of the "celebrity" tv journalists have earned one sniff of their regard by having a sufficient amount of smarts, insight, and humility it requires to deliver the news. Especially in trying times like these. ..."
"... She's a borderline conspiracy theorist and more of a star than a newswoman. ..."
"... In what alternate universe does Maddow even have a hint of non-bias? She is not a journalist. ..."
"... maddow is all about opinion, hers, and the one given out to msm by the dem party everyday. aka : the meme of the day. maddow is an partisan idiot. always was, always will be ..."
On Tuesday, NBC announced that its lineup of moderators will include Rachel Maddow of
MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show , Lester Holt of NBC Nightly News and Dateline
NBC, José Diaz-Balart of Noticias Telemundo and NBC Nightly News
Saturday , Savannah Guthrie of Today , and Chuck Todd of Meet the Press .
... ... ...
UltraViolet Action co-founder and executive director Shaunna Thomas praised the moderator
decision to the Cut. "NBC's decision to ensure that four out of the five moderators for the
first Democratic presidential primary debate are women or people of color is a huge win for
representation at the debates and a welcome change from the status quo," Thomas said in a
statement. She also stated that she hopes other networks follow suit.
Cags
Almost none of the "celebrity" tv journalists have earned one sniff of their regard by having
a sufficient amount of smarts, insight, and humility it requires to deliver the news.
Especially in trying times like these.
joaniesausquoi, 3 hours ago
Whattya got against Rachel, Cags?
Cags, 2 hours ago
She's a borderline conspiracy theorist and more of a star than a newswoman.
Daxter , 6 hours ago (Edited)
In what alternate universe does Maddow even have a hint of non-bias? She is not a
journalist.
Having Rachel Maddow moderate is like having Sean Hannity moderate.
indigo710, 5 hours ago
maddow is all about opinion, hers, and the one given out to msm by the dem party
everyday. aka : the meme of the day. maddow is an partisan idiot. always was, always will
be . "lawer" is spelled "lawyer".
"... It appears Israelis had tempted the Russians into the ambitious meeting by promising to take the US sanctions off Russian back. It is doubtful Israel can deliver on such a promise to start with. Putin is a very experienced statesman, and he won't accept a US promise in lieu of full delivery. Not after the Hanoi failure of Trump-Kim talks, and not before that, either. Anyway, Putin would like to be un-sanctioned, but not at the price the US asks. ..."
"... "Look, here's what I believe. It becomes obvious when you think about it. Judging by NATO's estimates, there won't be a large European war until about 2025. And by 2025, Ukraine, being a large anti-Russian foothold, will evolve into something that will begin dragging us into trouble, connected with various matters including transfer of power. It's not a coincidence that some of our neighbors are getting rid of the Russian inscriptions on their money in 2024. We see that and we should be ready. From where we get the approximate schedule of our actions." ..."
"... " Undoubtedly, the issue of de-Americanization of Europe is critical. There's no Soviet border anymore. I said that yesterday. And there's no line dividing Germany. We must get rid of it up to the Atlantic Ocean. The elimination of either the American presence or the NATO bloc in general. ..."
Last week, at 'Russian Davos', St Petersburg Economic Forum, President Putin
reiterated the main points of his memorable
Munich Speech . He voiced seven complaints leaving no doubt
he is unhappy with American heavy-handedness, with the US attempts to weaponise the dollar, Google, Facebook and knowhow as in case
of Huawei. "States that previously advocated the principles of freedom of trade, fair and open competition, started speaking the
language of trade wars and sanctions, blatant economic raiding, arm twisting, intimidation, eliminating competitors by so-called
non-market methods," – he said. This is not the language of a man who waits for a cue to join the US entourage.
Still, there are other, less pleasant signs.
The 'Russian Bolton', Mr Eugene Satanovsky, the head of pro-Israeli think tank, a former head of a Zionist Jewish body and a frequent
commentator on Russian TV had been appointed an adviser to the Russian Defence Minister Mr Sergey Shoygu. His nomination came
directly from Kremlin and surprised the ministry officials. A prominent Russian churchman, Fr Chaplin, expressed his satisfaction
with Israeli control of Jerusalem, in a column in the
Nezavisimaya Gazeta . At the same time, the Russian
S-300 did not respond to Israeli bombing runs in Syria.
It appears Israelis had tempted the Russians into the ambitious meeting by promising to take the US sanctions off Russian
back. It is doubtful Israel can deliver on such a promise to start with. Putin is a very experienced statesman, and he won't accept
a US promise in lieu of full delivery. Not after the Hanoi failure of Trump-Kim talks, and not before that, either. Anyway, Putin
would like to be un-sanctioned, but not at the price the US asks.
Israelis want to neutralise Iran, as the Islamic Republic is the only remaining defender of the al-Aqsa Mosque. Amman, ar-Riyad
and other Arab capitals will not fight Israel, if Netanyahu were to destroy the Mosque. The Palestinians will fight, but they have
no weapons. The last Jewish victim of a Palestinian attack had been wounded by scissors. Iran has weapons and cares for the Mosque.
Can Netanyahu convince Putin to neutralise Iran, or pressure Iran to stay away from Palestine? It would be a major feat worthy of
a magician.
And now we come to the important point. Instead of receiving two superpower envoys in splendour as [almost] the King of Jews,
Bibi Netanyahu will meet them as the head of a transitional government facing new elections and a possible trial. In such a status,
it is hard to convince your banker to give you a loan to buy a new car, let alone convincing Putin to switch alliance and Trump to
deny Christ.
In the same time, the baby-faced son-in-law Kushner had planned to execute his (and Trump's) Deal of the Century. Even an impregnable
Trump and unassailable Netanyahu would have a great difficulty to make this trick. Trump facing impeachment and Bibi facing elections
and police investigation have no chance. Probably it is good, too. Russia and China decided to stay away. Mahmud Abbas, the PNA President,
refused it, too, and this fraud's flop will preclude Palestine from being sanctioned.
The intended deal had not been officially disclosed; all we have is a
leak
in a newspaper close to Bibi Netanyahu and financed by Sheldon Adelson, saying it was leaked from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign
Affairs. Bear with me, gentle reader, and suspend your disbelieve! Though this piece of daydreaming looks like a project written
by high school kids during summer vacation time, it is not particularly good-natured.
It says the US will kill (that's right, k_i_l_l) Palestinian leaders that won't accept it, but before, it will sanction Palestine
to death and forbid all its allies to buy, sell, and donate or anything to Palestinians.
The deal envisages a permanently disarmed Palestinian entity that will pay Israel for its "protection". All Jewish settlements
remain inviolable, and are considered a part of Israel. Israel will control every arrival and departure from the entity called "New
Palestine". Jerusalem stays Jewish. Gaza will be connected to the West Bank by 30 km long bridge under Israeli control. This bridge
will be paid for by China. Desalination plant for Gaza will be paid by Japan. If not for the threat to kill the disobedient Arabs,
it would be plainly preposterous. So the demise of this bizarre 'deal' is not to be regretted.
President Trump understood that with Bibi facing trial and re-election there is no chance to advance on this project – or any
other project. "Israel is all messed up in their election," Trump told reporters. "They have to get their act together." "Bibi got
elected and now they have to go through the process again? We're not happy about that," Trump
said .
Thus, the two great plans of Bibi: the trilateral meeting in Jerusalem and Deal of the Century went down when Bibi failed to form
a government.
It says the US will kill (that's right, k_i_l_l) Palestinian leaders that won't accept it, but before, it will sanction
Palestine to death and forbid all its allies to buy, sell, and donate or anything to Palestinians.
The deal envisages a permanently disarmed Palestinian entity that will pay Israel for its "protection". All Jewish settlements
remain inviolable, and are considered a part of Israel. Israel will control every arrival and departure from the entity called
"New Palestine". Jerusalem stays Jewish. Gaza will be connected to the West Bank by 30 km long bridge under Israeli control.
And so we've leaders that we deserve,
dumbed-down goybeans, ready to serve,
boiled in the same old kettle of fish,
cooked to perfection, a vomitous dish.
' They say Lieberman did it following wily Putin's orders. Putin was not keen to be pushed by Netanyahu and Trump to act against
Iran; he didn't want to quarrel with these two leaders either. He activated Lieberman and torpedoed the new Netanyahu's government
'
There's a theory that Russia has something on Lieberman; that willingly or unwillingly, he's effectively a Russian agent.
The deal envisages a permanently disarmed Palestinian entity that will pay Israel for its "protection". All Jewish settlements
remain inviolable, and are considered a part of Israel. Israel will control every arrival and departure from the entity called
"New Palestine". Jerusalem stays Jewish. Gaza will be connected to the West Bank by 30 km long bridge under Israeli control.
This bridge will be paid for by China. Desalination plant for Gaza will be paid by Japan.
This is just hilarious. Did Kushner and Bolton think this one up with after an all-week meth-binge together?
'Hey, Beavis! Let's get the Palestinians to officially surrender and the Chinese and Japanese to pay for it. Heh, heh, heh!'
"The 'Russian Bolton', Mr Eugene Satanovsky .... outlined in a media interview a few short weeks ago, where he asserted:
"Look, here's what I believe. It becomes obvious when you think about it. Judging by NATO's estimates, there won't be a large
European war until about 2025. And by 2025, Ukraine, being a large anti-Russian foothold, will evolve into something that will
begin dragging us into trouble, connected with various matters including transfer of power. It's not a coincidence that some of
our neighbors are getting rid of the Russian inscriptions on their money in 2024. We see that and we should be ready. From where
we get the approximate schedule of our actions."
" Undoubtedly, the issue of de-Americanization of Europe is critical. There's no Soviet border anymore. I said that yesterday.
And there's no line dividing Germany. We must get rid of it up to the Atlantic Ocean. The elimination of either the American presence
or the NATO bloc in general.
I'm talking about any forms of elimination, not just peaceful methods and negotiations. The issue remains."
" America will pay with its territory, its military facilities, and it will be lucky if not with its civilian population, for
any anti-Russian activities in Europe. If America doesn't realize that, then you should replace the idiots that run your country.
They'll bury it. We're talking on the eve of that. Can't you see that? Don't you realize that?"
What delay, the Satanic Anti-Christ has arrived (one of them, anyway).
@sarz It seems
he's spent considerable time on Trade and Immigration issues. Russiagate was a hoax from the outset, and considerable resources
are being expended in an effort to deal with the criminal conduct of the previous administration. Jared has been given credit
for some accomplishments, nothing extraordinary. Most Americans see him and Ivanka for what they are, an indulgement of The Donald,
and as long as he keeps delivering for the American People, he will have their forbearance.
To claim Trump is a top Jew, is just a fabrication of what you want to believe. Jews aren't cause of the woes of the world,
the Devil is. Swiss templars control the world's finances. The rothies are but one of their client banks, which includes the houses
of saxe-coburg and saad, bolsheviks, chicoms, the vatican, and the deep state. Did I leave anything out?
Trump and the nationalist backlash against immigration in the EU and elsewhere are a pause in the banking cabals march to globalism.
What is needed is a debt reset. There will be a reset of the global financial system, what remains to be seen is what takes it's
place.
The jews are not a religion or a nationality. They are, and always have been a corporation of swindlers – nothing more. They always
have a back door escape route for when the Gentiles finally wake up and tire of their constant cheating and overall immoral behavior.
What is important here is the what(Bibi and company's evil plans have been sidelined-for now). The who and the how is less important,
but thanks to Israel Shamir for informing as it is good to know.
I'll bet John Hagee and his CUFI crowd are wiping their tears on their prayer shawls. LOL
If the Jews have designs for world dominance, their plans had suffered a setback due to the
petty rivalry of Israeli politicians. Now this minor setback threatens to upset the whole
master plan. For the want of a nail the kingdom is lost. A small mistake can have great
consequences; so said Eugene
Scribe of a glass of water that it had ended too long a war.
'The minor setback' was the failure of Bibi Netanyahu to form his new government after
successful election campaign. 'The great consequences' are the collapse of the ambitious
Kushner/Trump's Deal of the Century. Russia's alliance with Israel looks less certain; and
beyond that, the coronation of Messiah, the Jewish king and the world's foremost spiritual
authority seems to be postponed indefinitely. Like in domino effect, these plans began to fail,
one after another.
Is Donald
Trump a fascist? The question is usually posed as an insult rather than as a serious
inquiry. A common response is that "he is not as bad as Hitler", but this rather dodges the
issue. Hitler was one hideous exponent of fascism , which comes in different flavours
but he was by no means the only one.
The answer is that fascist leaders and fascism in the 1920s and 1930s were similar in many
respects to Trump and Trumpism. But they had additional toxic characteristics, born out of a
different era and a historic experience different from the United States.
What are the most important features of fascism? They include ultra-nationalism and
authoritarianism; the demonisation and persecution of minorities; a cult of the leader; a
demagogic appeal to the "ignored" masses and against a "treacherous" establishment; contempt
for parliamentary institutions; disregard for the law while standing on a law and order
platform; control of the media and the crushing of criticism; slogans promising everything to
everybody; a promotion of force as a means to an end leading to violence, militarism and
war.
The list could go on to include less significant traits such as a liking for public displays
of strength and popularity at rallies and parades; a liking also for gigantic building projects
as the physical embodiment of power.
Hitler and Mussolini ticked all these boxes and Trump ticks most of them, though with some
important exceptions. German and Italian fascism was characterised above all else by aggressive
and ultimately disastrous wars. Trump, on the contrary, is a genuine "isolationist" who has not
started a single war in the two-and-a-half years he has been in the White House.
It is not that Trump abjures force, but he prefers it to be commercial and economic rather
than military, and he is deploying it against numerous countries from China to Mexico and Iran.
As a strategy this is astute, avoiding the bear traps that American military intervention fell
into in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is an approach which weakens the targeted state economically,
but it does not produce decisive victories or unconditional surrenders.
It is a policy more dangerous than it looks: Trump may not want a war, but the same is not
true of Mike Pompeo, his secretary of state, or his national security adviser John Bolton. And
it is even less true of US allies like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, who have been
pushing Washington towards war with Iran long before Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman took
control in Riyadh in 2015.
Trump's aversion to military intervention jibes with these other influences, but it is
erratic because it depends on the latest tweet from the White House. A weakness, not just of
fascist leaders but of all dictatorial regimes, is their exaggerated dependence on the
decisions of a single individual with God-like confidence in their own judgement. Nothing can
be decided without their fiat and they must never be proved wrong or be seen to fail.
Trump has modes of operating rather than sustained policies that are consequently shallow
and confused. One ambassador in Washington confides privately that he has successfully engaged
with the most senior officials in the administration, but this was not doing him a lot of good
because they had no idea of what was happening. The result of this Louis XIV approach to
government is institutionalised muddle: Trump may not want a war in the Middle East but he
could very easily blunder into one.
Of course, Trump is not alone in this: populist nationalist authoritarian leaders on the
rise all over the world win and hold power in ways very similar to the fascists of the
inter-war period. What is there in these two eras almost a century apart that would explain
this common political trajectory?
Fears and hatreds born out of the First World War, the Russian Revolution and the Great
Depression propelled the fascists towards power. When old allegiances and beliefs were
shattered and discredited, people naturally looked to new creeds and saviours. "The more
pathological the situation the less important is the intrinsic worth of the idol," wrote the
great British historian Lewis Namier in 1947. "His feet may be of clay and his face may be
blank: it is the frenzy of the worshippers which imparts to him meaning and power."
Is the same thing happening again? Fascism was the product of a cataclysmic period in the
first half of the 20th century that is very different from today. The US failed to get its way
in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but these were small-scale conflicts in no way comparable to
the First World War. The recession that followed the 2008 crash was a blip compared to the
Thirties.
Many of the better off reassure themselves with such thoughts. But they underestimate the
destructiveness of de-industrialisation and technological change for great numbers across the
globe. Inequality has vastly increased. Economies expand, but the benefits are skewed towards
the wealthy. Metropolitan centres plugged into the global economy flourished, but not their
periphery.
The distinction between winners and losers varies from country to country but governments
everywhere underestimated the unhappiness caused by social and economic upheaval. Beneficiaries
of the status quo invariably downplay the significance of fault lines that populists are swift
to identify and exploit.
Philip Hammond, the British chancellor of the exchequer, contemptuously dismisses claims by
the UN that great number of people in Britain were living in "dire poverty" and saying that, in
so far as deprivation existed, the government was acting effectively to address the problem.
The new wave of Trump-like leaders springing up all over the globe do not have to do very much
to do better than this.
Such overconfidence on the part of the powers-that-be is becoming rarer. Democrats who had
convinced themselves that Trumpism would be exposed and discredited as a conspiracy wished on
America by the dark powers in the Kremlin have seen their fantasy evaporate.
But there is probably worse to come: experience shows that populist authoritarian
nationalism – what Namier called "Caesarian democracy" – is not a static
phenomenon. It may not begin with all the fascist characterisation listed above, but its
trajectory is always in their direction. Regimes become more nationalistic, authoritarian,
demagogic, shifting from intolerance of criticism or opposition to a determination to
extinguish it entirely.
A case study of this process is Turkey, where President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is reinforcing
his one-man rule by overturning an opposition victory in the election to choose the mayor of
Istanbul. Many Americans deny that the same process is happening in the US, but they tend to be
the same people who did not believe that Trump could be elected in the first place.
'Trump may not want a war in the Middle East but he could very easily blunder into one.'
Nations blunder into the very war they are trying to avoid – abject defeat. The US
president, encouraged by his counselors, might launch an attack on Iran, not realizing the
consequences. He wouldn't be alone in history for doing that, so it cannot be held against
him. Regional conflicts today are so interconnected that a localized dispute could drag in
the major nuclear powers in multiple theaters. That is what happens if vital interests clash.
It is the pattern of history. And there is nothing to suggest it has changed. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
Let me get this straight: Cockburn identifies the central problem as the widening inequality
that emerged following the Great Recession of 2008, but then he blames Trump for being Trump.
WTF!
Here's Cockburn: " Inequality has vastly increased. Economies expand, but the benefits are
skewed towards the wealthy. Metropolitan centres plugged into the global economy flourished,
but not their periphery."
Trumps a ceo which is dictatorial hardly as dangerous as your FDR WILSON TEDDY LINCOLN ETC.
FASISM is the death throes of democracy as it tries to resist its inevitable slide into
further extremes of Mobism it tries to put a bit of lipstick on the pig with fascism. It
tries to recover a bit of order with authority and a bit of lawfulness by reigning in a bit
of the elite looting Democracy leads to cultural degeneracy and so there's often a lowbrow
attempt at restoring the culture the elite highbrows having led the degeneracy spiral only
the middle is available to try and save the culture.
I am yet to read a convincing argument how the most hardline Zionist president in US history,
who had his campaign run by the AIPAC guy Michael Glassner, influenced by Jared Kushner and
proud Christian Zionist Steve Bannon, who hired Jewish Goldman Sachs bankers Mnuchin and
Cohen right from the start, made the Jewish olgarchy of the Kushners and others into Jewish
aristocracy in the white house, has most to all his children married or dating Jews, is an
obscene, vulgar and tasteless vessel for the wishes of the Jewish Casino Godfather Sheldon
Adelson, filled his government with Neocons, has his power base in Zionist Evangelical
Christians, has somehow anything remotely to do with with Adolf Hitler or Benito
Mussolini. -- This one isn't.
Neither are Boomerisms about what "fascism" is or isn't. And the downright idiotic
habbit of Anglosphere journalists and intellectuals to label totalitarianism as "fascist"
brings already a fundamental misinformation in the term itself. And I can only explain it
from a necessity of the Anglosphere commentators, who are drenched in post WW2 mythology, to
obfuscate the fact that one was allied to a certain Stalin and produced the rise of
communist China starting under Mao himself. The greatest mass murderer in human history who
did have near total control over his subjects and their minds. Unlike Mussolini and Hitler or
even Stalin.
What are the most important features of fascism? They include ultra-nationalism and
authoritarianism
As ultra-nationalistic as Churchill or Roosevelt, as authoritarian as Stalin and Mao.
the demonisation and persecution of minorities
Tibetans, Uyghurs, Palestinians – ah yes, and concentration camps for the Boer!
a cult of the leader
Echnaton, Caesar himself is actually a weaker example, Mao, Stalin, again Churchill, then
Truman; or John F. Kennedy for that matter: The enshrined patron-saint of US democracy and
its tragedy and crucifixion, his mythological rise to almost sainthood like Lincoln, or until
recently MLK jr. Nevermind that Hillary Clinton was the absolute and total cult leader figure
for the US establishment and Angela Merkel was crowned leader of the free world in a
detestable act of disinformation and lies, almost on the level of Stalinist lies. A woman who
has turned German parliamentary politics into a GDR like one party coalition of leftist
neo-liberal imperialism on her own people.
a demagogic appeal to the "ignored" masses and against a "treacherous" establishment
The masses are ignored. Want Anglosphere examples? Brexit. And as Charles Murray
noted: the peoples have – for generations! – voted against more
immigration, the establishment has also for generations ignored them. There is also something
to be said about the victims of Rotherham and how they were ignored, for over a decade crimes
comitted against them systematically covered up.
And when it comes to a treacherous establishment, look no further than to the Ziocons,
Merkel, May and unfortunately Trump himself now. How utterly rotten and morally bankrupt, for
example, the establishment of Britain is shows the case of again Rotherham and Jimmy
Savile.
contempt for parliamentary institutions
And for good reason! Politicians are mindless and usually incompetent drones to be bought
by foreign and corporate lobbies, pushed by manipulative and deceptive mass media and to be
used as pawns for foreign policy of unelected deep state actors.
disregard for the law while standing on a law and order platform
Ah yes! There is something about the acts of the declared "leader of the free world"
Angela Merkel breaking the German constitution and European law while ordering a stand down
to the German border police who was ready to close the German borders, to allow in a million
illegals against the strong wishes of at least a significant minority. This crypto-communist
also leads the "conservative" party of "stability" who loves to talk about democracy,
toleranz and openness and the dangers of undemocratic Russia.
control of the media and the crushing of criticism
ADL, SPLC, overwhelming control over the old media corporations and near monopoly control
over the internet and social media platforms of a certain group that shall not be named. But
it's certainly not better when the government itself directly controls the media as in
Europe. Is the author seriously trying to make the claim that today the dangers in
this regard come from new right populists? Or that this was something singular and a defining
characteristic of fascism?
slogans promising everything to everybody
"Wir schaffen das!", "Stadt für alle!", "Land für alle!", "Diversity is our
strength!" , "Globalism brings more wealth for everyone involved!", "Free trade is good
for everybody!", "Workers of the world unite! All you have to lose is your chains!"
a promotion of force as a means to an end leading to violence, militarism and war.
Ah yes such a true forces for peace and democracy and the freedom of all peoples of the
world the British Empire was and the USA are! The peoples of Vietnam, Serbia, Libya, Syria,
Iraq, Yemen, Palestine and Germany can sing a song about it. The USA are such a peaceful
hegemon! Dedicated to spreading human rights, democracy and freedom globally. -- But they are
also nothing special in this regard. Indeed this point is typical for basically all forms of
government. Haven't you people read your Machiavelli?
What did derail the Trump movement and turned MAGA into MIGA and a continuation of the
status quo and its lobbies, were not the populist grassroots support for Trump – across
the entire West, even globally, or the hopes and wishes of the indeed ignored masses of the
USA, or the populist supporters in the West who saw him as a beacon of their own hopes and
wishes. It was the 'deep state' which by all means is just the functional reality of
representative, parliamentary democracy in the age of mass media, a global financial system
and corporations.
The claim that tree of life recipient Donald Trump and life long supporter and friend of
Israel is a "fascist" is even more bizarre and ridiculous than calling Saddam Hussein or
Muammar al-Gaddaffi Adolf Hitler. And do I really need to quote all the things Trump said
about Israel and Netanyahu, or after the synagogue shootings..?
But the idea that he is a true isolationist who doesn't want war, is absurd. The Syria
strikes speak volumes about his intellect, judgement, foreign policy independence and also
about his willingness to do anything what Bibi and Adelson want. Just as the embassy move to
Jerusalem, just as the Golan Heights and so much more.
The USA simply cannot start a war with Iran. Because they don't have the sufficient
access to execute a major ground invasion of Iran through Iraq, Turkey, Afghanistan,
Turkmenistan, Pakistan or a D-Day like operation from the Sea. The USA also cannot do it,
because the overwhelming majority of the people in Europe, globally and even a majority in
the USA itself would condemn another war of aggression by the USA. This has nothing to
do with the wishes of the Kushner, Bolton, Pompeo Trump government and its shadow puppeteers
Netanyahu and Adelson. The same is true for Venezuela and Syria.
The Anglosphere, with the USA as its hegemonic leader, is caught in its own life-long
delusions, its own mythology from the British Empire to WW2, its decade spanning structural
and fundamental mistakes and errors and flaws. It's not the first Empire to be in this
situation and it won't be the last Empire who will have its own downfall accelerated by it
all.
Liberal democracy is a failed, a false and a falsified political model turned into a
post-political ideology of an increasingly undemocratic establishment. The Europeans do not
want it, the Africans do not want it, the Asians do not want it and increasingly the citizens
of the USA and Great Britain do not want it. Trump and Brexit are indeed indicators for
this.
Because people are communal, they do not wish to be atomized individuals. And nobody wants
social-democracy either for that matter. They do not solve problems, they do not provide
people with what they need and they have no truly inspiring visions to offer either. And
that's why the future lies in nations and peoples. Not because there is a threat of
"fascism". And I think when it comes to the erosion of the rule of law and democracy being a
means for the demos, the establishment has done absolutely everything itself to make this the
reality for the citizens in the USA and EU.
@dearieme The false claims about Trump are intended to deflect from the Truth.
dasFuherer Obama started down the road to Facism directing the SS/FBI to conduct
surveillance and enforce political orthodoxy. If the transfer of power to dasFuherer H.
Clinton had taken place successfully we would be living in a Facist nation by this point.
Authoritarian Left National Socialism (Nazism), also known as Globalism, is a threat to
the Christian Citizens of the U.S. The Democratic party openly embraces these National
Socialist / Globalist goals. The Facist Stormtroopers of Antifa are their version of the
Hitler Youth.
@Paul "control of the media and the crushing of criticism; slogans promising everything
to everybody; a promotion of force as a means to an end leading to violence, militarism and
war.
The list could go on to include less significant traits such as a liking for public
displays of strength and popularity at rallies and parades; a liking also for gigantic
building projects as the physical embodiment of power."
Trump hasn't conquered any nations, while Emperor Obama conquered Honduras, Libya, Somalia,
Ukraine, and tried to conquer Yemen, Turkey, and Syria. Obama also expanded the drone
assassination campaign, to include US citizens. Obama restarted the Cold war by demonizing
Russia and dispatching American troops to Russia's borders with new military bases in the
Baltic states.
Control of the media? Trump has none, while the media cheered Obama all the time, even
when he imprisoned journalists. They want to impeach Trump, but have no specific reason. I
can list a dozens reasons to impeach any of our past Presidents. Finally, whenever Trump
tries to ease tensions with Russia and North Korea, or pull troops from Syria, he is attacked
by the media and Democrats.
Trump is no saint, but this article is absurdly biased; typical of a corporate media
figure.
Fascism (A police state created by the wedding of corporate and state powers) has been coming
to America along various lines for quite some time but it's not the "nationalism" that we
need to worry about. In fact our tendencies to run fascistic have moved quickest while
nationalism evaporated.
The US is a divided nation, there is barely a "nation" here anymore, so we can stop
worrying about nationalism. We are no longer a single nation and haven't been for some time.
Trump isn't going to change that. LOL We are more in danger from increasing polarity ripping
us apart than we are nationalism uniting us into some new Reich.
Trump has at best hit 40% approval ratings in the polls, he barely holds onto power and in
fact lost the house. That's not a dictator in the making. There is zero danger that he will
unite the country either, that isn't going to happen.
As for socially that one is really a joke. There has never been a nation on Earth that is
less "Socially" fascist, NEVER. How a nation like ours, where you can literally self identify
as any thing you want, would be socially fascist is beyond me, yet that is actually what is
being described.
The fascism I'm worried about comes in the form of Crony Capitalism spawning endless wars
for profit while cracking down on liberty at home with the Patriot act and all the rest.
That's the creeping fascism we all should be worried about and many of us were. We voted for
Trump as the only alternative to that very problem.
No, no, no, missing the point. A 'Fascist' is someone saying something that the rich and
powerful don't want said.
So when Donald Trump said that he wanted to stop us from wasting trillions of dollars on
pointless winless foreign wars that serve only to enrich politically-connected defense
contractors, that was Fascist and Rascist and Literally Hitler.
Trump got beaten down, and without consulting Congress, launched a completely unjustified
and stupid missile attack on Syria, and suddenly he was 'presidential.' So you see, a leader
taking power into his own hands and running roughshod over the rule of law, that's
'Democracy' – as long as he's doing what the rich want done.
Bottom line: now that Trump has morphed into "Swamp Thing," there will be political
theater and screaming and howling, but it's all for show. It's a circus.
Trumpism is a mixture of kosher Americana and an apotheosis of the sharp vulgarian
businessman as politician as opposed to the hero or the visionary leader as statesman. It is
a kind of halfhearted bourgeoisie reaction to the extreme cultural Marxism and social
engineering, as well as a slavish adherence to Zionism. Its so called "national spirit" may
be more exemplified by a hexagram or skull cap on top of its figurehead leader, as opposed to
a legionary's helmet, Fuehrer's cap or Latin Cross. It is almost the polar opposite of the
eponymous Fascism of Mussolini, in which the Fascist Council dictated to the cartels, not
vice versa, and Il Duce was in charge and not a boardroom of soulless corporate
internationalists . Fascism can cut both ways- it can be used by an authoritarian leader to
unify the state and nation or it can be used by corporate oligarchs and their figurehead to
destroy the nation and its people.
Trumpism is even further removed from National Socialism and the Fuehrer. A man of the
people arose from humble origins on his own merits and reputation for courage under fire and
engineered both the greatest economic recovery and most spectacular renaissance of national
pride and dignity in recorded history. Hitler was not driven by personal vanity to see the
"H" of his name in lights, nor was he a crooked vulgarian beholden to casino pimps and
subterranean international Jews. Had National Socialism been allowed to flourish and had not
been destroyed by the world Sanhedrin and its shabbos goyim camp followers, Europe would in
all likelihood be a far cleaner, culturally vibrant and thriving culturally radiant center of
power for the entire world and especially its own far flung diaspora.
Trump could have been a true, independent nationalist leader but he scorned that role and
has largely turned on his base. While he is still the lesser of the two evils compared to
most of the Democratic automaton and pervert contenders, he certainly knows on which side his
shekels are buttered.
"... The one glaring example of how the media can deep six a political candidate is the story of Ron Paul's presidential run in 2012. After tying for first place in the Iowa Straw Poll with Michelle Bachman he was disappeared from the media completely . His name was never mention again, and the RNC stole his delegates. He became persona non grata. This is probably Tulsi's future. ..."
"... Moreover,our Neocon Warmongers eighteen year assault on the federal balance sheet , has been so massive, so larcenous and so protracted it has all but eviscerated the credit worthiness of the Nation. They have QUADRUPLED our ENTIRE NATIONAL DEBT in a mere 18 years. IT IS BEYOND BELIEF. ..."
"... All while he sends more troops to the ME but not to our border. As a wag on ZeroHedge observed, Trump has spent more time at the Wailing Wall than on our southern border. ..."
"... Tulsi is my preferred candidate. That said, I'm disappointed that she "served" in Iraq, a country which we invaded and devastated on a total lie that it had nukes. Also, I believe now she has distanced herself from ring-wing US Hindu groups who are strong supporters of the genocidal Indian prime minster Modi. ..."
"... That said, I admire Tulsi for going against the grain of our Zionist-run Congress and our crypto Jewish prez. ..."
"... The war party has many tentacles. The mainstream media and cable are fundamentally just their propaganda service. Fellow corporatists supporting each other's revenue stream. Then RT comes along, and does journalism -- demonstrates some journalistic integrity -- and the world is turned upside down. All of a sudden the truth -- mostly -- is declared Russian propaganda. ..."
"... Not just Trump and O, but Clinton and Bush II as well. I recall Bush II's tag line of a "more humble foreign policy." How'd that work out? ..."
"... I remember in 2011, I believe it was, he was leading in the polls and I heard a radio talking head opining: "I think we can all stipulate that Ron Paul is not a viable candidate for the nomination, but " For a moment there I wondered why we could all stipulate that, and then it occurred to me to notice the commentator's last name. He was using the royal we, as in we the Chosen. RP not an Israel lickspittle? End of story. ..."
"... However, Sanders had always been anti-immigration until he started running against Hillary in 2016. He was both anti illegal immigration and anti H1b. The problem is, DNC candidates have to pander to the far left to win nomination ..."
"... Tucker said he supports Elizabeth Warren's national economic plan of bringing back manufacturing jobs to save the heartland, as Trump is trying to do. Warren also wants maximum legal immigration like Trump. What good are bringing back these jobs if we are just going to import more foreign workers to work in them? ..."
"... "Both Obama and Trump were elected as anti-war candidates, and look what happened?" ..."
"... As for Trump, war in fact has not "happened". Beside the silly nothing attack on an essentially unstaffed Syrian runway that was warned ahead of time, Trump has attacked no one. He talks a lot to placate Jews, but talk is not action. Obama? A true war monger who bombed & bombed, & bombed. ..."
Probably the only honest Democrat out there. OK Demo-dunces, when Dem primary comes around,
here is a candidate you can vote for without normal people saying What? Are you nuts? Dems
are honestly going to push for Feelsy Weelsy Biden, unless the Hildabeast thinks she can give
it another try.
Tulsi Gabbard needs to add one more thing to her campaign and she will win: promise a drastic
cut on immigration in favor of American workers.
America is hungry for a candidate who will actually deliver on the no-more-wars and
no-more-immigration pledge. Trump campaigned on that but has turned out to be a total fraud
who failed on both counts.
We need Tulsi to step into the void. Not only will she win over a lot of Trump voters, but
she will also win over a lot of those on the left who are sick of wars and not particularly
pro immigration.
Hilariously, the MSM trumpeted the message last time around that we simply MUST have a female
president, that it was long past time a woman was in charge, and that anyone reluctant to
vote for Hillary was an evil misogynist. Before that, we were told that we simply HAD to have
a noble Person of Color in the White House, that it was everyone's duty to vote for Obama and
not some old white guy.
Despite Gabbard ticking off both those boxes, wouldn't you know It? Suddenly the
importance of having a non-White or female President mysteriously vanishes! Suddenly it's our
duty to have the lecherous, creepy old white dude in office! Suddenly the importance of
Diversity ("diversity is our strength" don't you know?) vanishes into the ether when Tulsi
comes up.
I think she should use this to her advantage. Not resort to identity politics or faux
feminism, but simply point out the hypocrisy, draw attention to the inconsistency and get the
general public asking themselves why all this diversity / Girl Power shit suddenly gets
memory holed by the media when it's Tulsi, or any anti establishment figure, in the
spotlight.
I mat switch party registration just so I can vote for her in a primary. I wonder, however,
if once in office, she could implement her program against the Deep State
After Gabbard announced her (2020) campaign, the Russian government owned RT, Sputnik
News and Russia Insider together ran about 20 stories favorable to her. NBC News reported
that these websites were the same that were involved in Russian interference in the 2016
elections. Matt Taibbi, in Rolling Stone, called the report by NBC a "transparent hit
piece". In The Intercept, Glenn Greenwald wrote that what he found "particularly unethical
about the NBC report is that it tries to bolster the credentials of this group [New
Knowledge] while concealing from its audience the fraud that this firm's CEO just got
caught perpetrating on the public on behalf of the Democratic Party."
@Tired of Not Winning Totally agree. To those who saw it, that's what Tucker's monologue
was all about last night. Anti-war with America-first anti-immigration is the winning ticket.
Unfortunately, from what I've been able to gather, take away her principled anti-war stance
and Tulsi's just another bleeding-heart liberal democrat. She did back Sanders after all.
Maybe Tucker, who has often had her on his show, can straighten Tulsi out.
Gabbard should switch parties and challenge Trump. I would vote for her. She has no chance at
all as a Democrat. Obviously she cannot be allowed to participate in the Democratic debates.
But her reasons for running probably do not include winning the nomination. I wish her
well. But I will never support a Democrat. Not even one I respect. I'm a white man. It's not
about the POC. My fear and loathing pertains to the white liberals.
@Diversity Heretic That's the $64,000 question, isn't it? Both Obama and Trump were
elected as anti-war candidates, and look what happened? The Deep State, i.e. the Permanent
Government, is probably more powerful than any elected president, who will be there for at
most 8 years. But who else out there beside Tulsi has the guts to take on the Hegemon? I
think she means what she says, while Obama and Trump did not.
We'll know she's being taken serious when, like Donald Trump in 2016, AIPAC summons her to
appear before the Learned Elders of Zion to pledge fealty to Israel and the holohoax.
● 'Immigration is a tremendous economic benefit for Hawai'i and our country as a
whole.'
● 'Trump's comments on immigrants fly in the face of aloha spirit, American
values.'
She has no chance and isn't going to go against immigration.
It doesn't really matter what they say anyway, because it's just lies to get elected.
Once elected they do what the nose tells them to do.
If she's CFR, she's an open borders globalist.
Trump was adamantly anti-war during his campaign, and then the nose stepped in and fixed
it.
I read that everything Trump said, all of those lies, all of those promises, were the
result of analytics.
I was dubious at first, but now I think it's true. He quite literally just mouthed what we
wanted to hear, and then did what the nose told him to do.
Obama got the peace prize and did more drone strikes than Bush.
Tulsi would be anti-war right up to her inauguration, then the reality that the nose OWNS
her entire party would sink in and she'd realize who's the boss.
Giraldi and his fans here are cool with mass Third World migration to the USA if it means
finally electing out and proud anti-Israel politicians like Ilhan Omar and the other
Congressmuslima.
Despite Gabbard ticking off both those boxes, wouldn't you know It? Suddenly the
importance of having a non-White or female President mysteriously vanishes! Suddenly it's
our duty to have the lecherous, creepy old white dude in office! Suddenly the importance of
Diversity ("diversity is our strength" don't you know?) vanishes into the ether when Tulsi
comes up.
But I will never support a Democrat. Not even one I respect. I'm a white man. It's not
about the POC. My fear and loathing pertains to the white liberals.
I like Tulsi a lot. We've almost forgotten what a serious person looks like, and she is one
of the 3 or 4 in Washington.
Her Democrat satanic baggage poisons the well, but she is still an inspiring figure, in my
view.
The one glaring example of how the media can deep six a political candidate is the story of
Ron Paul's presidential run in 2012. After tying for first place in the Iowa Straw Poll with
Michelle Bachman he was disappeared from the media completely . His name was never
mention again, and the RNC stole his delegates. He became persona non grata. This is probably Tulsi's future.
Right now, Tulsi is the only candidate who matters.
I hope she wins the nomination by a landslide.
The United States, due to the abysmal stewardship of our neocon oligarchs , is in a wholly
unprecedented and catastrophic situation.
They know it, I know it, and the majority of Americans are fast waking up to it.
Never before in US history, has so much taxpayer solvency been squandered through acts of
wanton criminal war.
The utter decimation being wrought upon countries around the world . which never attacked
us, AT ALL, is beyond human imagination.
Moreover,our Neocon Warmongers eighteen year assault on the federal balance sheet , has
been so massive, so larcenous and so protracted it has all but eviscerated the credit
worthiness of the Nation. They have QUADRUPLED our ENTIRE NATIONAL DEBT in a mere 18 years. IT IS BEYOND BELIEF.
Even as I write this, steps are being taken by all the major world powers to eject the US
dollar as the worlds reserve currency.
If this happens, nobody will continue to buy our currency ..or our bonds.
The heinous 22 trillion dollar debt, created by our neocon warmongers, will not be
underwritten anymore, anywhere.
The US will have to turn "inward" to deal with this fiscal abomination , and dare I say
that when this happens a "solvency holocaust" will truly be upon us.
The greatest nation on earth, turned belly up, in a mere twenty years .all due to
pernicious .. Neocon ..War Fraud.
@Tired of Not Winning Total fraud is correct. He refuses to characterize the illegals as
invaders and to anchor any action in response in his responsibility under Art. IV, Sect. 4 to
repel invasion. He insists on pretending that his authority to act is founded in legislation
pertaining to "emergencies" of which we possess an infinite supply.
All while he sends more troops to the ME but not to our border. As a wag on ZeroHedge
observed, Trump has spent more time at the Wailing Wall than on our southern border.
And while every month 100,000 invaders are released into the interior of the US.
Tulsi is my preferred candidate. That said, I'm disappointed that she
"served" in Iraq, a country which we invaded and devastated on a total lie that it had nukes.
Also, I believe now she has distanced herself from ring-wing US Hindu groups who are strong
supporters of the genocidal Indian prime minster Modi.
That said, I admire Tulsi for going against the grain of our Zionist-run Congress and our
crypto Jewish prez.
@Lot So what's wrong with Ilhan Omar? Is that she's Muslim? Two people in Congress I
admire are AOC (who's to young of run for prez) and Omar. Both have cojones.
@anonymous India is a polluted shit-hole run by a genocidal, Hindu nationalist PM, with
almost half of parliament members under some kind of criminal charge.
The war party has many tentacles. The mainstream media and cable are
fundamentally just their propaganda service. Fellow corporatists supporting each other's
revenue stream. Then RT comes along, and does journalism -- demonstrates some journalistic
integrity -- and the world is turned upside down. All of a sudden the truth -- mostly -- is
declared Russian propaganda.
Awakening from the bad dream of neoliberal servitude will cause cognitive dissonance,
confusion, and distress. Learning the truth, even a little bit of Truth, is almost like
poison when, for a lifetime, you've been fed nothing but lies.
@Tired of Not Winning Agree, but . . . even if elected, she would run into the same AIPAC
and pro-cheap labor lobbies that have stymied Trump (assuming Trump wanted to do anything
about these issues). Even if she wanted to do something about War and Immigrants, she would
up against a united establishment from both parties. Having a D after her name would not
count for much.
@c matt You've already been destroyed. Omar and AOC had both the brains and the balls to
identify your real enemy. Your ass is owned buddy, lock, stock and barrel ..and it took two
women to say it .not a sign of a man with any balls in congress.
Florida's Governor just signed a bill that will censor criticism of Israel throughout
the state's public schools
News
Michael Arria on June 6, 2019 23 Comments
U.S. Congressman Ron DeSantis of Florida speaking at the 2017 Conservative Political
Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland. (Photo: Gage Skidmore)
[MORE]
On May 31, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed a bill that prohibits anti-Semitism in public
schools and universities throughout the state. However, the legislation also equates
criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, effectively censoring the advocacy of Palestinian
rights.
Two days before DeSantis officially signed HB 741 into law in Florida, he carried out a
symbolic signing during a ceremonial state cabinet meeting in Israel. The session featured a
variety of Israeli speakers and culminated with Florida lawmakers issuing a declaration of
support for the country. "Since we're in Jerusalem, we may actually get some interest in our
Cabinet meetings for a change, which would be great," joked DeSantis during the meeting. A
number of news organizations filed a lawsuit against the state's government, claiming that
the meeting violated Florida's transparency law, as it took place in a foreign country and
wasn't made publicly accessible to journalists. Although they weren't officially listed as
members of DeSantis' delegation, he was accompanied by pro-Israel megadonors Sheldon and
Miriam Adelson.
HB 741 states that, "A public K-20 educational institution must treat discrimination by
students or employees or resulting from institutional policies motivated by anti-Semitic
intent in an identical manner to discrimination motivated by race." The bill identifies
anti-Semitism as calls for violence against Jews, Holocaust denial, or the promotion of
conspiracy theories that target Jewish people, but it also contains an entire section that
equates Israel critcism with the prohibited anti-Semitism. This includes, "applying a double
standard to Israel by requiring behavior of Israel that is not expected or demanded of any
other democratic nation." According to the bill's text, criticism of Israel is always
anti-Semitic unless it is "similar to criticism toward any other country."
"We know what could happen in Florida from the chilling effects we've already seen elsewhere:
human rights defenders will be smeared as antisemites, investigated by schools, and in some
cases punished. Events will be cancelled, or censored via bureaucratic harassment. Theses
will not be written. Debates in class will not take place. And many activists will
self-censor out of pure exhaustion," Palestine Legal's senior staff attorney Meera Shah told
Mondoweiss, "All of this profoundly diminishes Florida's ability to educate students to be
leaders in a global economy."
The House version of HB 741 was sponsored by State Representative Randy Fine, a rabidly
pro-Israel lawmaker who has held office since 2016. In April, after Sen. Audrey Gibson voted
against HB 741's companion bill and called it "divisive", Fine denounced the Senate
Democratic Leader and called on Democrats to "hold her accountable." "It is sad that in the
world propagated by Washington Democrats like Congresswomen Ihlan Omar and Rashida Tlaib and
Tallahassee Democrats like Audrey Gibson, fighting anti-Semitism is 'divisive', said Fine,
"In this time of rising anti-Semitism around both the country and globe, it is unconscionable
that the most powerful Democrat in the Florida Senate would vote against banning
discrimination based on anti-Semitism."
That same month, Fine made headlines for referring to a Jewish constituent as "Judenrat", a
term used to describe Jews who collaborated with the Nazis during World War 2. Fine used the
word in reference to Paul Halpern, a Palm Bay resident who organized a panel discussion
regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict. Fine took to Facebook to criticize the panel for
being anti-Semitic. "First, there is no 'Palestine,'" Fine wrote, "Second, having a bunch of
speakers who advocate for the destruction of Israel but promise that this one time they
won't, is a joke. We should not engage these bigots. We crush them." After Halpern pushed
back on this assertion and pointed out that the majority of the panelists were Jewish, Fine
responded, ″#JudenratDontCount..I know that Judenrat liked to keep tabs on all the Jews
in order to report back to the Nazis back in that time, but no one is making you continue
that tradition today."
"In my mind, Judenrat is the worst thing that you can call a Jewish person," Halpern told the
Huffington Post, "He's despicable as a representative and a person."
Governor DeSantis is a close ally of the President and some believe that the Israel trip
could help deliver Florida for Trump in 2020. "For a lot of Jewish voters, this trip puts an
exclamation point on the Republican Party's commitment to Israel and to Jewish people," the
Republican Jewish Coalition's Neil Strauss recently proclaimed, "We saw a nice rise in
support for Gov. DeSantis and we want to keep that going. Florida is the best example of
where if Republicans gain Jewish voters, it can make a real difference."
I remember in 2011, I believe it was, he was leading in the polls and I heard a
radio talking head opining: "I think we can all stipulate that Ron Paul is not a viable
candidate for the nomination, but " For a moment there I wondered why we could all stipulate
that, and then it occurred to me to notice the commentator's last name. He was using the
royal we, as in we the Chosen. RP not an Israel lickspittle? End of story.
Well a lot of the comments here are ridiculous it's like the guy who has cancer and somebody
comes along with a cure, but he says 'fuck it' because it doesn't involve ice cream
Yet these same morons support Trump who has only done things for Israel's benefit so far
and even though Trump supports legal immigration
Speaking of which why don't all these immigration zealots take up the issue with the real
bosses on the matter corporate America ?
It's the plutocracy that WANTS immigration at any and all cost because it creates a
surplus labor pool and drives wages down while driving shareholder profits up the same reason
is why industry is offshored, along with the jobs that go with it it's called labor
arbitrage
In other words this is what CAPITALISM is about yet here these monkeys are screaming about
'leftist' Tulsi because she wants Medicare for all, instead of a ripoff system that enriches
a few corporate parasites while we foot the bill
How much do the endless, unnecessary wars cost the taxpayer ? [they don't cost the
billionaire class anything because they don't pay taxes ]
How much does corporate welfare cost the taxpayer ? ask King Bezos how many billions he's
been gifted in 'tax holidays' and other such freebies
Tulsi's entire approach is a major win-win for ordinary folks right up to and including
high earning professionals
Anybody with half a brain would be overjoyed that we even have such a person in our midst
as if we don't have enough completely briandead zombies that are going to vote for Gore or
that gay guy, or that fake 'socialist' Bernie
@Sako Sako, yours is one of the best posts ever on this site. I am tempted to volunteer
for Tulsi's campaign on the basis of her anti-war position alone. I did about fourteen years
of active duty in the Army, and when I hear her refer to soldiers as her "brothers and
sisters," I actually get teary-eyed. I have to restrain myself from adoring her completely.
Excellent expose by Philip Giraldi, for one of our best candidates Tulsi Gabbard.
Indeed the enemy is "the band of oligarchs and traitors that run the United States."
@Tired of Not Winning Like me. Hopefully she is still in it when super Tuesday gets here.
I'm sick of the alt right (and their tangerine leader) and sicker of blm/reparations/open
borders. I now know why non voters don't vote.
Tulsi is a Hawaii democrat, a very corrupt group. Tell her to comment on the kealohas, the
police chief of Honolulu and his wife are being tried for corruption and drug dealing by the
feds. She and all the other dems here will not comment. She likes to rock the boat about war
at the federal level but no comment on her state evolving into a third world dump.
I think the local dems want her out, Mufi wants revenge.
@follyofwar Yep, it is a big if. She is pretty far to the left on immigration, which is
unfortunate. But I appreciate her being honest. We don't need another lying scum like Trump.
However, Sanders had always been anti-immigration until he started running against Hillary
in 2016. He was both anti illegal immigration and anti H1b. The problem is, DNC candidates
have to pander to the far left to win nomination. I'm holding out hope that he would revert
back to those pre 2016 immigration positions after winning nomination. He recently came out
and railed against the border invasion.
A Sanders-Gabbard ticket might be the winning ticket.
(assuming Trump wanted to do anything about these issues).
That's just the problem. I don't think Trump ever really wanted to reduce legal
immigration. He has said more than once that he wants to let "the largest number ever" of
immigrants come in because "we" need these workers as we have "all these jobs coming back",
i.e. employers need their cheap labor, except instead of keeping the cheap labor offshore, he
wants to bring millions of them to the US like the tech sector.
Tucker said he supports Elizabeth Warren's national economic plan of bringing back
manufacturing jobs to save the heartland, as Trump is trying to do. Warren also wants maximum
legal immigration like Trump. What good are bringing back these jobs if we are just going to
import more foreign workers to work in them?
In the end the rich will just get richer, while the rest of us have to put up with even
more immigration, more congestion, overcrowded schools, crime, poverty, unemployment,
underemployment, failed schools I say no thank you! Let's just send all the immigrants
packing. We already have plenty of jobs in America, they are just all going to
foreigners.
The only job program we need is one that calls for drastic cuts in immigration. Anything
else is bullshit.
"Both Obama and Trump were elected as anti-war candidates, and look what
happened?"
As for Trump, war in fact has not "happened". Beside the silly nothing attack on an essentially unstaffed Syrian runway that was warned
ahead of time, Trump has attacked no one.
He talks a lot to placate Jews, but talk is not action. Obama?
A true war monger who bombed & bombed, & bombed.
yet here these monkeys are screaming about 'leftist' Tulsi because she wants Medicare
for all, instead of a ripoff system that enriches a few corporate parasites while we foot
the bill
Sorry, I haven't seen anyone on this thread complain about Medicare-for-all. You must have
this website confused with Conservative Treehouse or something.
@Tired of Not Winning Tulsi Gabbard won't because She is waging Democratic Party race war
against the Historic Native Born White American Working Class Majority .Tulsi Gabbard would
massively increase the H1b L1b Visa Program .she is already courting the Hindu "American"
Democratic Party Voting Bloc ..
@Robert Dolan I believe you've summed it up well. I haven't voted in a "national"
election since W's first term because the ballot-box is a non-answer to the dilemma.
@Johnny Rottenborough Her positions on immigration disqualify her from consideration
regardless of how strong her foreing policy might be at this stage. Plus, she's made woke
statements on other social issues so in a lot of ways she's perhaps only slightly to the
right of Barack Obama with a non-interventionist foreign policy.
US navy plays dangerous games. Sooner or later Russia or China or Iran maybe, or any hot spot
in the world - encounters the situation wherein the US both must and can be slapped.
Notable quotes:
"... Apparently the US had an ASW capable chopper in the air which was a treat to the UUV so the Russians gently reminded the US that they should back off. ..."
"... This happens with all sides regularly without too much of a fuss. The Russians have decades of history of warning off the US and UK in this way, and it never involves anyone getting hurt or even weapons getting pointed. It is just a firm but non-violent way of getting the other side to back off. ..."
"... Rarely is a fuss kicked up and the crews on both sides often use these encounters as a photo op, so why the Americans have decided to make an issue out this one is anyones guess. ..."
"... I call bullshit on the "recovering an helicopter" excuse. The vision shown is from a helicopter positioned well ahead of the intersection of the two tracks. Helicopters are recovered at the rear deck, not the front. Clearly the helo was not trying to land at the time of the incident ..."
"... If the yankees were on a recovery maneuver exercise they should have detected a hazard approaching and in range of being serious and simply deferred the exercise until it could be conducted free of distraction. They had ample time to display appropriate flags. The yankees have a serious blind spot as evidenced by two previous collisions referenced in posts above. ..."
"... "The ship should display the signals required by Rules 27(b)(i) and (ii) of the IMO International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS). Alternatively, International Code Flag 'D' may be flown." ..."
"... In my experience US Navy Public Affairs Officers are ignorant of what they are commenting on by design. They can't give up too much if they know nothing beyond the party line and enough jargon to dazzle the journalists. ..."
"... There's a checklist for going to flight ops. Part of the checklist is to tell the signalmen to fly the "H" flag and to raise the restricted in ability to maneuver day shapes (ball-diamond-ball). ..."
Judging by the comment thread, these boys are hard at work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_communication_specialist
"Mass Communication Specialist (abbreviated as MC) is a United States Navy occupational
rating. MCs practice human-centered design to develop creative communication solutions and
align communication strategies and tactics to leadership's intent; conduct research and
develop audience profiles; prepare, process, and print publications and media products;
create sketches, storyboards, and graphics; design publications; produce still imagery, and
written, audio, video, and multimedia information products; collect, analyze, and report
media project and communication plan feedback and performance information; create media
project plans; conduct community outreach, news media operations, leadership communication
operations, and organizational communication operations; plan and direct communication
campaigns and events and serve as communication advisors to commanders; and develop content
strategies, create data stories, and ensure communication products and experiences are
designed to enhance understanding and discoverability. MCs serve aboard ships, in
expeditionary units and at shore commands in the United States and overseas.[1]"
My guess is the Russian anti submarine ship was on a parallel course to keep track of the US
attack submarines with the carrier group. US ship was sent out to push it away. As you say,
the helicopter may have been sent out to capture some video or stills that could be used to
back up the 'US is innocent' propaganda already planned.
One thought on this - If the Russian ship did not change course, with the US ship slowing
under reverse thrust, the Russian ship most likely would have hit it somewhere near the
center. A great video of a Russian ship aggressively ramming a 'peaceful and innocent' US
ship.
A 1:49 video filmed from the US vessel. The cameraman was taking leisurely close in shots of
the Russian vessel's comms systems. The two vessels were sailing close to parallel for all
this time and there is a view of the infamous Russian sunbathers on the helicopter landing
platform.
There was something on Press TV about the US ship getting too close to a Russian UUV
undergoing trials / on a covert op which caused the Russian escort ship to intercept the US
ship.
Apparently the US had an ASW capable chopper in the air which was a treat to the UUV so the
Russians gently reminded the US that they should back off.
This happens with all sides regularly without too much of a fuss. The Russians have decades
of history of warning off the US and UK in this way, and it never involves anyone getting
hurt or even weapons getting pointed. It is just a firm but non-violent way of getting the
other side to back off.
Rarely is a fuss kicked up and the crews on both sides often use these encounters as a photo
op, so why the Americans have decided to make an issue out this one is anyones guess.
Apparently you didn't read "b" post and know nothing about Russian vs US ship
construction:
"The crew of the Chancellorsville should call itself lucky. Russian ships are build with a
strong bow to travel in icy waters. Had the Admiral Vinogradov not made the emergency turn to
its right, its bow would have cut their ship in half."
I call bullshit on the "recovering an helicopter" excuse. The vision shown is from a
helicopter positioned well ahead of the intersection of the two tracks. Helicopters are
recovered at the rear deck, not the front. Clearly the helo was not trying to land at the
time of the incident
82 sums it up nicely. The Yanks f..ked up, yet again.
My sympathies are with the crew too. The reckless heroics of the bridge gang are
deplorable. These encounters do not happen at high speed. Minutes go by. Both vessels should
have been aware of their potential for close encounter.
If the yankees were on a recovery maneuver exercise they should have detected a hazard
approaching and in range of being serious and simply deferred the exercise until it could be
conducted free of distraction. They had ample time to display appropriate flags. The yankees
have a serious blind spot as evidenced by two previous collisions referenced in posts
above.
The Russians could easily have adjusted course to pass behind the yankee vessel. All these
ships have more than adequate electronics and personnel to calculate converging course and
time of encounter. That they chose to come so close could indicate a FU attitude or perhaps
they were on a 'collision stations' maneuver in real time. It is also probable they were
monitoring US communications systems that are limited in range and only detected up close.
Understanding those systems enables one to build a jamming device. The crew on that vessel
would have been mighty anxious too.
Hyped egos, poor training and warships are a very stupid mix. See the Forrestal debacle
where the ships fire crew were wiped out in the first response and untrained sailors sprayed
the deck with water rather than foam thus washing fuel below decks and setting the stern
ablaze.
Here we have
manual : Helicopter-Ship-Operations . From page 37, Section 5.4.1:
"The ship should display the signals required by Rules 27(b)(i) and (ii) of the IMO
International
Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS). Alternatively, International Code
Flag 'D' may be flown."
"D" translates as "Keep clear of me." From COLREGS, "Day shapes" mentioned above would be
"1 ball+1 diamond+1 ball" organized vertically, which translates as "Restricted in ability to
maneuver" (
here ).
But none of what the Regs require is visible--none! Russia wins its case, and it was all
too easy!
In my experience US Navy Public Affairs Officers are ignorant of what they are commenting on
by design. They can't give up too much if they know nothing beyond the party line and enough
jargon to dazzle the journalists.
The failure to mention USS Chancellorsville (CG-62) had the appropriate day shapes flying
is simply too in the weeds for the PAOs and admiral's staff who wrote the press
release/story.
There's a checklist for going to flight ops. Part of the checklist is to tell the
signalmen to fly the "H" flag and to raise the restricted in ability to maneuver day shapes
(ball-diamond-ball).
Even if the officer of the deck & the helicopter control officer did fail to tell the
signalman to do those things, the vast majority of signalmen would have reminded the OOD.
Signalmen have relatively few things to pay attention to, so they are pretty self
directed.
I had concerns about her ties to India and therefore Israel. But I doubt she would let Jews
or Israelis run the US like Trump does.
Trump has gathered the US Jewish vultures to handle his "deal of the century' ..and that
deal will be raping Palestine and as much of the ME as they can. Given the opportunity I
don't know whose throat I'd cut first probably the little girlie fop Kushner.
White House invites key Trump business allies to Bahrain forum in search for a Middle
East 'deal of the century' .. CNBC
[MORE]
The White House has invited some of President Trump's key business allies to an event in
Bahrain intended to kick-start the administration's long-awaited Middle East peace plan. The
Bahrain meeting will focus on the economic part of the "deal of the century," which has been
led by Jared Kushner. Tom Barrack, CEO of real estate investment firm Colony Capital, will be
heading to the event. Blackstone's Steve Schwarzman, BlackRock's Larry Fink and Goldman
Sachs' Dina Powell were also invited.
Tom Barrack, a loyal supporter of the president and the CEO of real estate investment firm
Colony Capital, will be heading to the event slated to start on June 25 at the Four Seasons
in Bahrain's capital, Manama.
"Tom is pleased to be a participant in a well organized forum for the purpose of advancing
the peace process in the Middle East," said his spokesman, Owen Blicksilver. "He has been a
lifelong advocate of economic prosperity being a foundation stone of hope for the entire
region especially its exploding young and largely unemployed population."
Blackstone CEO Steve Schwarzman, BlackRock CEO Larry Fink and Goldman Sachs' Dina Powell
are among the heavy hitters who have been invited to the gathering dubbed "Peace to
Prosperity," according to people familiar with the planning.
Schwarzman is likely to attend, one of the people said, while Fink will not be going due to
previous commitments, a separate source added. It's unclear whether Powell, a former deputy
national security advisor under Trump, will join the group.
Schwarzman is a top donor to Trump's reelection campaign. In 2017, he contributed $344,400
Trump's joint fundraising committee.
Blackstone, BlackRock and Goldman Sachs all have extensive ties to the Middle East, including
offices in Dubai, Riyadh and Tel-Aviv.
A senior administration official did not deny that Schwarzman, Fink and Powell were invited
to the forum.
The Trump White House and its associates have close ties to Bahrain. Reuters previously
reported that the administration was pursuing a nearly $5 billion sale of F-16 fighter jets
to island nation in the Gulf. The president's outside lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, landed a
security consulting contract with the country's Ministry of Interior, The Daily Beast
reported.
A team of White House officials led by Kushner has been attempting to bring Israeli and
Palestinian leaders to the negotiating table since the administration's earliest days. Last
month, the White House announced the Bahrain summit, which was described at the time as a
chance for attendees to "galvanize support for potential economic investments and initiatives
that could be made possible by a peace agreement," with a particular focus on
Palestinians.
Meanwhile, Palestinian business executives are turning down invitations to the event,
which Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has ripped.
"Trump's 'deal of the century' will go to hell, as will the economic workshop in Bahrain
that the Americans intend to hold and present illusions," Abbas said last week.
Kushner, in a recent interview with Axios, fired back at the Palestinian government, and
blamed the leadership for the loss of U.S. aid that was cut from the West Bank and Gaza.
"The actions we've taken were because America's aid is not entitlement. Right, if we make
certain decisions which we're allowed to as a sovereign nation to respect the rights of
another sovereign nation and we get criticized by that government, the response of this
president is not to say, 'Oh, let me give you more aid,'" Kushner said.
Representatives from wealthy Gulf states the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia will be
attending. Officials from Qatar are set to take part as well.
Barrack, who was the chairman of Trump's inaugural committee and is a grandson of Lebanese
immigrants, has a long history of attempting to make inroads in the Middle East, particularly
through advocating for business investments.
While Barrack is not running point on the Trump administration's efforts, he is still
deeply involved in the process. He authored a white paper for the administration titled "The
Trump Middle East Marshall Plan," which specifically mentions expanding U.S. and
international business opportunities there as a way to unite the region.
Trump betrayed anti-war votes. So he will not get the same voting blocks that he got in 2016.
Notable quotes:
"... Tulsi's own military experience notwithstanding, she gives every indication of being honestly anti-war. In the speech announcing her candidacy she pledged "focus on the issue of war and peace" to "end the regime-change wars that have taken far too many lives and undermined our security by strengthening terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda." She referred to the danger posed by blundering into a possible nuclear war and indicated her dismay over what appears to be a re-emergence of the Cold War. ..."
"... In a recent interview with Fox News's Tucker Carlson, Gabbard doubled down on her anti-war credentials, telling the host that war with Iran would be "devastating, " adding that "I know where this path leads us and I'm concerned because the American people don't seem to be prepared for how devastating and costly such a war would be So, what we are facing is, essentially, a war that has no frontlines, total chaos, engulfs the whole region, is not contained within Iran or Iraq but would extend to Syria and Lebanon and Israel across the region, setting us up in a situation where, in Iraq, we lost over 4,000 of my brothers and sisters in uniform. A war with Iran would take far more American lives, it would cost more civilian lives across the region Not to speak of the fact that this would cost trillions of taxpayer dollars coming out of our pockets to go and pay for this endless war that begs the question as a soldier, what are we fighting for? What does victory look like? What is the mission?" ..."
"... Gabbard, and also Carlson, did not hesitate to name names among those pushing for war, one of which begins with B-O-L-T-O-N. She then asked "How does a war with Iran serve the best interest of the American people of the United States? And the fact is it does not," Gabbard said. "It better serves the interest of people like [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Bibi Netanyahu and Saudi Arabia who are trying to push us into this war with Iran." ..."
"... In 2015, Gabbard supported President Barack Obama's nuclear agreement with Iran and in 2016 she backed Bernie Sanders' antiwar candidacy. More recently, she has criticized President Donald Trump's withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal. Last May, she criticized Israel for shooting "unarmed protesters" in Gaza, a very bold step indeed given the power of the Israel Lobby. ..."
"... Tulsi Gabbard could well be the only genuine antiwar candidate that might truly be electable in the past fifty years, and that is why the war party is out to get her. Two weeks ago, the Daily Beast displayed a headline : "Tulsi Gabbard's Campaign Is Being Boosted by Putin Apologists." The article also had a sub-headline: "The Hawaii congresswoman is quickly becoming the top candidate for Democrats who think the Russian leader is misunderstood." ..."
"... Tulsi responded "Stephanopoulos shamelessly implied that because I oppose going to war with Russia, I'm not a loyal American, but a Putin puppet. It just shows what absurd lengths warmongers in the media will go, to try to destroy the reputation of anyone who dares oppose their warmongering." ..."
"... ASD was set up in 2017 by the usual neocon crowd with funding from The Atlanticist and anti-Russian German Marshall Fund. It is loaded with a full complement of Zionists and interventionists/globalists, to include Michael Chertoff, Michael McFaul, Michael Morell, Kori Schake and Bill Kristol. It claims, innocently, to be a bipartisan transatlantic national security advocacy group that seeks to identify and counter efforts by Russia to undermine democracies in the United States and Europe but it is actually itself a major source of disinformation. ..."
"... for the moment, she seems to be the "real thing," a genuine anti-war candidate who is determined to run on that platform. It might just resonate with the majority of Americans who have grown tired of perpetual warfare to "spread democracy" and other related frauds perpetrated by the band of oligarchs and traitors that run the United States ..."
Voters looking ahead to 2020 are being bombarded with soundbites from the twenty plus Democratic would-be candidates. That Joe
Biden is apparently leading the pack according to opinion polls should come as no surprise as he stands for nothing apart from being
the Establishment favorite who will tirelessly work to support the status quo.
The most interesting candidate is undoubtedly Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, who is a fourth term Congresswoman from Hawaii, where
she was born and raised. She is also the real deal on national security, having been-there and done-it through service as an officer
with the Hawaiian National Guard on a combat deployment in Iraq. Though in Congress full time, she still performs her Guard duty.
Tulsi's own military experience notwithstanding, she gives every indication of being honestly anti-war. In
the speech announcing her candidacy she pledged "focus
on the issue of war and peace" to "end the regime-change wars that have taken far too many lives and undermined our security by strengthening
terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda." She referred to the danger posed by blundering into a possible nuclear war and indicated her dismay
over what appears to be a re-emergence of the Cold War.
In a recent interview with Fox News's Tucker Carlson, Gabbard doubled down on her anti-war credentials, telling the host that
war with Iran
would
be "devastating, " adding that "I know where this path leads us and I'm concerned because the American people don't seem to be
prepared for how devastating and costly such a war would be So, what we are facing is, essentially, a war that has no frontlines,
total chaos, engulfs the whole region, is not contained within Iran or Iraq but would extend to Syria and Lebanon and Israel across
the region, setting us up in a situation where, in Iraq, we lost over 4,000 of my brothers and sisters in uniform. A war with Iran
would take far more American lives, it would cost more civilian lives across the region Not to speak of the fact that this would
cost trillions of taxpayer dollars coming out of our pockets to go and pay for this endless war that begs the question as a soldier,
what are we fighting for? What does victory look like? What is the mission?"
Gabbard, and also Carlson, did not hesitate to name names among those pushing for war, one of which begins with B-O-L-T-O-N.
She then asked "How does a war with Iran serve the best interest of the American people of the United States? And the fact is it
does not," Gabbard said. "It better serves the interest of people like [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Bibi Netanyahu and Saudi
Arabia who are trying to push us into this war with Iran."
Clearly not afraid to challenge the full gamut establishment politics,
Tulsi Gabbard had previously called for an end to the "illegal war to overthrow the Syrian government," also observing that "the
war to overthrow Assad is counter-productive because it actually helps ISIS and other Islamic extremists achieve their goal of overthrowing
the Syrian government of Assad and taking control of all of Syria – which will simply increase human suffering in the region, exacerbate
the refugee crisis, and pose a greater threat to the world." She then backed up her words with action by secretly arranging for a
personal trip to Damascus in 2017 to meet with President Bashar al-Assad, saying it was important to meet adversaries "if you are
serious about pursuing peace." She made her own assessment of the situation in Syria and now favors pulling US troops out of the
country as well as ending American interventions for "regime change" in the region.
In 2015, Gabbard supported President Barack Obama's nuclear agreement with Iran and in 2016 she backed Bernie Sanders' antiwar
candidacy. More recently, she has criticized President Donald Trump's withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal. Last May, she criticized
Israel for shooting "unarmed protesters" in Gaza, a very bold step indeed given the power of the Israel Lobby.
Tulsi Gabbard could well be the only genuine antiwar candidate that might truly be electable in the past fifty years, and
that is why the war party is out to get her. Two weeks ago, the Daily Beast
displayed a headline
: "Tulsi Gabbard's Campaign Is Being Boosted by Putin Apologists." The article also had a sub-headline: "The Hawaii congresswoman
is quickly becoming the top candidate for Democrats who think the Russian leader is misunderstood."
The obvious smear job was picked by ABC's George Stephanopoulos, television's best known Hillary Clinton clone, who
brought it up in an interview with Gabbard shortly thereafter. He asked whether Gabbard was "softer" on Putin than were some
of the other candidates. Gabbard answered: "It's unfortunate that you're citing that article, George, because it's a whole lot of
fake news." Politico the reported the exchange and wrote: "'Fake news' is a favorite phrase of President Donald Trump ," putting
the ball back in Tulsi's court rather than criticizing Stephanopoulos's pointless question. Soon thereafter CNN produced
its own version of Tulsi
the Russophile , observing that Gabbard was using a Trump expression to "attack the credibility of negative coverage."
Tulsi
responded "Stephanopoulos shamelessly implied that because I oppose going to war with Russia, I'm not a loyal American, but a
Putin puppet. It just shows what absurd lengths warmongers in the media will go, to try to destroy the reputation of anyone who dares
oppose their warmongering."
Tulsi Gabbard had attracted other enemies prior to the Stephanopoulos attack. Glenn Greenwald at The Intercept
described how NBC news published a
widely distributed story on February 1 st , claiming that "experts who track websites and social media linked to Russia
have seen stirrings of a possible campaign of support for Hawaii Democrat Tulsi Gabbard."
But the expert cited by NBC turned out to be a firm New Knowledge,
which was exposed by no less
than The New York Times for falsifying Russian troll accounts for the Democratic Party in the Alabama Senate race to suggest
that the Kremlin was interfering in that election. According to Greenwald, the group ultimately behind
this attack on Gabbard is The Alliance for Securing Democracy (ASD), which sponsors a tool called
Hamilton 68 , a news "intelligence net checker" that
claims to track Russian efforts to disseminate disinformation. The ASD
website advises that "Securing Democracy is a Global Necessity."
ASD was set up in 2017 by the usual neocon crowd with funding from The Atlanticist and anti-Russian German Marshall Fund.
It is loaded with a full complement
of Zionists and interventionists/globalists, to include Michael Chertoff, Michael McFaul, Michael Morell, Kori Schake and Bill Kristol.
It claims, innocently, to be a bipartisan transatlantic national security advocacy group that seeks to identify and counter efforts
by Russia to undermine democracies in the United States and Europe but it is actually itself a major source of disinformation.
No doubt stories headlined "Tulsi Gabbard Communist Stooge" are in the works somewhere in the mainstream media. The Establishment
politicians and their media component have difficulty in understanding just how much they are despised for their mendacity and unwillingness
to support policies that would truly benefit the American people but they are well able to dominate press coverage.
Given the flood of contrived negativity towards her campaign, it is not clear if Tulsi Gabbard will ever be able to get her message
across.
But, for the moment, she seems to be the "real thing," a genuine anti-war candidate who is determined to run on that platform.
It might just resonate with the majority of Americans who have grown tired of perpetual warfare to "spread democracy" and other related
frauds perpetrated by the band of oligarchs and traitors that run the United States
The Project for a New Middle East[1] is a Project for a New Holocaust. It is happening
now. The policy of "Creative Chaos"[2] underpins the "Middle East Holocaust". Empire willfully
destroys the sovereignty and territorial integrity of prey nations such as Libya, Iraq, Syria,
Yemen, Ukraine, and beyond. Genocidal ethnic cleansing, mass murder and destruction are
described benignly as "chaos" and as "creative".
Empire deploys meticulously planned strategies to fabricate sectarian and ethnic divides,
and to balkanize prey nations. The notion, as expressed by Condoleeza Rice , that the Middle
East should be divided into a "Sunni Belt" and a "Shia Belt"[3] objectifies peoples, diminishes
their humanity, turns them into fictional "stock characters" defined exclusively by perceived
religious affiliations, and deliberately fabricates ethnic and religious tensions, all of which
serve as preconditions for imperialists to create chaos and the disintegration of strong
nation-states into fractious vassal states, devoid of self-determination and sovereignty.
Empire sees non-compliant, self-governing, secular, pluralist, multi-confessional,
democratic states as enemies. Syria is all of the above, and therefore an "enemy". Empire
further destroys the "host" when it "opens the veins" of prey countries for resource plundering
and criminal occupation. The oil-rich, strategically-located area East of the Euphrates is one
such example.
When Empire supports the SDF against ISIS, it is polishing its fake image by creating the
perception that it opposes ISIS, even as it re-introduces "rebadged" ISIS into the same battle
grounds. Alternatively, as in the case of Raqqa, Empire "rescues" and redeploys ISIS elsewhere.
Both terrorists and civilians are expendable in these demonic operations.
Empire rounds civilians up in terrorist-controlled concentration camps[4]. It "weaponizes"
them by deliberately creating conditions of desperation which lend themselves to recruiting
opportunities for new terrorist proxies. Daesh will never disappear as long as Empire is in
control or seeking control globally.
As long as Western war propaganda remains ascendant, and Western populations remain
oblivious, Westerners will continue to believe that these wars are humanitarian or in their
national interests. In fact, the wars are anti-humanitarian, and they only represent narrow
"special interests."
NATO's strongest weapon is its apparatus of "Perception Management". Without it, NATO and
the imperialists would be exposed as the Supreme International War Criminals that they
are.
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email
lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Mark Taliano is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)
and the author of Voices from Syria , Global Research Publishers, 2017.
"... Last February, the United Nations Independent Commission of Inquiry on Gaza's protests concluded that "it has reasonable grounds to believe that during the Great March of Return, Israeli soldiers committed violations of international human rights and humanitarian law. Some of those violations may constitute war crimes or crimes against humanity, and must be immediately investigated by Israel." ..."
"... Article 12 of the Rome Statute allows for ICC's jurisdiction in two cases; first, if the State in which the alleged crime has occurred is itself a party of the Statute and, second, if the State where the crime has occurred agrees to submit itself to the jurisdiction of the court. ..."
The
Chief Military Advocate General of the Israeli army, Sharon Afek, and the US Department of
Defense General Counsel, Paul Ney,
shared a platform at the 'International Conference on the Law of Armed Conflict', which
took place in Herzliya, Israel between May 28-30.
Their panel witnessed some of the most misconstrued interpretations of international law
ever recorded. It was as if Afek and Ney were literally making up their own law on warfare and
armed conflict, with no regard to what international law actually stipulates.
Unsurprisingly, both Afek and Ney agreed on many things, including that Israel and the US
are blameless in all of their military conflicts, and that they will always be united against
any attempt to hold them accountable for war crimes by the International Court of Justice
(ICC).
Their tirade against the ICC mirrors that of their own leaders. While Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu's
anti-ICC position is familiar, last April, US President Donald Trump virulently expressed
his contempt for the global organization and everything it represents.
"Any attempt to target American, Israeli, or allied personnel for prosecution will be met
with a swift and vigorous response," Trump
said in a writing on April 12.
While Trump's (and Netanyahu's) divisive language is nothing new, Afek and Ney were
entrusted with the difficult task of using legal language to explain their countries' aversion
for international law.
Prior to the Herzliya Conference, Afek addressed the Israel Bar Association convention in
Eilat on May 26. Here, too, he made some ludicrous claims as he absolved, in advance, Israeli
soldiers who kill Palestinians.
"A soldier who is in a life-threatening situation and acts to defend himself (or) others
(he) is responsible for, is receiving and will continue receiving full back-up from the Israeli
army," he
said .
The above assertion appears far more sinister once we remember Afek's views on what
constitutes a "life-threatening situation", as he had articulated in Herzliya a few days
later.
"Thousands of Gaza's residents (try) to breach the border fence," he said, with reference to
the non-violent March of Return at the fence separating besieged Gaza from Israel.
The Gaza protesters "are led by a terrorist organization that deliberately uses civilians to
carry out attacks," Afek said.
Afek sees unarmed protests in Gaza as a form of terrorism, thus concurring with an
earlier statement made by then-Israeli Defense Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, on April 8,
2018, when he declared that "there are no innocents in Gaza."
Israel's shoot-to-kill policy, however, is not confined to the Gaza Strip but is also
implemented with the same degree of violent enthusiasm in the West Bank.
'No attacker, male or female, should make it out of any attack alive,'
Lieberman said in 2015. His orders were followed implicitly, as hundreds of Palestinians
were
killed in the West Bank and Jerusalem for allegedly trying to attack Israeli occupation
soldiers or armed illegal Jewish settlers.
Unlike democratic political systems everywhere, in Israel the occupation soldier becomes the
interpreter and
enforcer of the law.
Putting this policy into practice in Gaza is even more horrendous as unarmed protesters are
often being killed by Israeli snipers from long distances. Even
journalists and
medics have not been spared the same tragic fate as the hundreds of civilians who were
killed since the start of the protests in March 2018.
Last February, the United Nations Independent Commission of Inquiry on Gaza's protests
concluded
that "it has reasonable grounds to believe that during the Great March of Return, Israeli
soldiers committed violations of international human rights and humanitarian law. Some of those
violations may constitute war crimes or crimes against humanity, and must be immediately
investigated by Israel."
In his attack on the ICC at the Herzliya Conference, Afek contended that "Israel is a
law-abiding country, with an independent and strong judicial system, and there is no reason for
its actions to be scrutinized by the ICC."
The Israeli General goes on to reprimand the ICC by urging it to focus on "dealing with the
main issues for which it was founded."
Has Afek even read the Rome Statute? The first Article states that the ICC has the "power to
exercise its jurisdiction over persons for the most serious crimes of international concern, as
referred to in this Statute."
Article 5 elaborates the nature of these serious crimes, which include: "(a) The crime of
genocide; (b) Crimes against humanity; (c) War crimes; (d) The crime of aggression."
Israel has been accused of at least two of these crimes – war crimes and crimes
against humanity – repeatedly, including in the February
report by the United Nations Independent Commission of Inquiry.
Afek may argue that none of this is relevant to Israel, for the latter is not "a party to
the Rome Statute," therefore, does not fall within ICC's legal jurisdiction.
Wrong again.
Article 12 of the Rome Statute allows for ICC's jurisdiction in two cases; first, if the
State in which the alleged crime has occurred is itself a party of the Statute and, second, if
the State where the crime has occurred agrees to submit itself to the jurisdiction of the
court.
While it is true that Israel is not a signatory of the Rome Statute, Palestine has, since
2015, agreed to submit itself to the ICC's jurisdiction.
Moreover, in April 2015, the State of Palestine formally became a member of the ICC, thus
giving the court jurisdiction to investigate crimes committed in the Occupied Territories since
June 13, 2014. These crimes include human rights violations carried out during the Israeli war
on Gaza in July-August of the same year.
Afek's skewed understanding of international law went unchallenged at the Herzliya
Conference, as he was flanked by equally misguided interpreters of international law.
However, nothing proclaimed by Israel's top military prosecutor or his government will alter
the facts. Israeli war crimes must not go unpunished; Israel's judicial system is untrustworthy
and the ICC has the legal right and moral duty to carry out the will of the international
community and hold to account those responsible for war crimes anywhere, including Israel.
"... Trump's eunuchs are still guarding and serving their master I see. And their master is a psychopath who is getting ready to pardon the tough guy kind of psychopath he admires. Of course the Orange psychopath doesn't consider the fact that this kind of thing , just like the Iraqi prison tortures , incentivizes the commission of war crimes by our opponents and allies, and in doing so puts US service members at greater risk. ..."
Trump's eunuchs are still guarding and serving their master I see. And
their master is a psychopath who is getting ready to pardon the tough guy kind of psychopath
he admires. Of course the Orange psychopath doesn't consider the fact that this kind of thing
, just like the Iraqi prison tortures , incentivizes the commission of war crimes by our
opponents and allies, and in doing so puts US service members at greater risk.
Here's Trump's hero ..
"One day, from his sniper nest, Chief Gallagher shot a girl in a flower-print hijab who
was walking w/ other girls on the riverbank. She dropped, clutching her stomach, & the
other girls dragged her away."
A mass murderer according to Senior Seals: "Would order needless risks, to fire rockets at
houses for no apparent reason. He routinely parked an armored truck on a Tigris River bridge
& emptied the truck's heavy machine gun into neighborhoods on twith no discernible
targets."
"Platoon members said he spent much of his time in a hidden perch with a sniper rifle,
firing three or four times as often as other platoon snipers. They said he boasted about the
number of people he had killed, including women."
Two other snipers said, the chief shot an unarmed man in a white robe with a wispy white
beard. They said the man fell, a red blotch spreading on his back."
Gallagher ordered a hatchet & a hunting knife" before 2017 deployment. He texted the
man who made them (a Navy Seal veteran) shortly after arriving in Iraq: "I'll try and dig
that knife or hatchet on someone's skull!"
May 2017, a SEAL medic was treating a wounded 15 y/o Islamic State fighter. "He's mine,"
Gallagher said. "Gallagher walked up without a word and stabbed the wounded teenager several
times in the neck and once in the chest with his hunting knife, killing him."
He didn't even try to hide the murder of the 15 y/o. He brought other seals around minutes
later & took a photo over the body. Later, he texted the photo to a fellow SEAL in
California: "Good story behind this, got him with my hunting knife." https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/23/us/navy-seals-crimes-of-war.html
Now Trumpies bear in mind that Gallagher's own fellow Seals testified against him
that's how depraved this guy Trump is pardoning is.
Here's Gallagher if you live in a stand your ground state and run into him shoot the
bastard, he'll have his hunting knife on him so you can claim self defense.
"... It wasn't like this 15 years ago. The credibility of our establishment is at an end. ..."
"... A significant number of people are becoming aware of it. Enough to easily have a revolution succeed. We're well beyond the 15% threshold. ..."
"... Tried and true propaganda methods pioneered by Edward Bernays are no longer effective. If "Russian Collusion" was done in 1995, you'd be insane to believe it wasn't true. Now you're around 1/2 of the population. ..."
"... People forget, or are too young, to realize why the USSR collapsed in 1991. It wasn't because living conditions were intolerable, it's because the citizens of the USSR had no confidence or faith in their government and it hit a peak on December 26 of that year. ..."
"... You probably think people screaming expletives are real people, mostly they aren't, they are public relation systems – they are propagandists. They are designed to shut you up, you filthy anti-Semite, Assad loving, Communist, NeoNazi, Fascist ..."
"... Our ruling class has not changed, you have changed – for the better. ..."
"... Then Trump got elected, and it was pretty obvious that the standard channels of propaganda were no longer effective. ..."
"... They aren't titans. They are intelligence agency assets now and although they won't lose a single dime of market revenue, because they just lie about their market revenue and user base anyhow, they are becoming irrelevant and will become entirely irrelevant over time. ..."
"... You'd realize they are intelligence agency assets if you thought about it. How is it in the favor of Facebook or Twitter, to drive users off their platform, if they actually depended on actual users of their "service" to generate revenue? They don't make their money by peddling ads on their platforms. ..."
"Power is what makes 'reality' reality." Exactly. Power can cram a lie, repeated over and over, down our throats, e.g. the holocaust,
and it becomes a fact.
"I mean, come on you don't really believe that the global capitalist ruling classes are going to let Trump serve a second term,
do you?"
Why not? They let him serve a first, didn't they?
Mr. Hopkins is one of my favorites here. But when it comes to President Trump, I'm afraid that he's not cynical enough. Washington
politics -- including the supposedly emerging pursuit of those Swampsters who really did meddle in the 2016 election and since
-- are a puppet show to channel and harmlessly blow off dissent, another part of the Official Reality.
The powerful are not arguing with us. They are not attempting to win a debate about what is and isn't "true," or what did
or didn't "really" happen. They are declaring what did or didn't happen. They are telling us what is and is not "reality,"
and demonstrating what happens to those who disagree.
Yup. In short, they are attempting to gas-light us.
The "reality" that the power elites are "creating" has another, more common name – it's called propaganda.
If anyone should be familiar with propaganda, it should be any western citizen, because that's all they have been hearing throughout
their lives – incessant stream of propaganda.
The beauty of it is that they are not even aware of it. The great unwashed think that they have been told the truth. And that's
the main difference between truth and propaganda.
If you accept some miserable, unimaginative 2 cents worth of fabrication as "truth", then it ceases to be a propaganda and
becomes the "truth". And that's the main purpose of propaganda – to become the official "truth".
Truth – the way is understood in the west – is nothing more than propaganda that has succeeded.
I'm a misanthrope. It's obvious to me that tyranny, poverty and war (unnecessary suffering) proceed directly from human nature.
It's the "problem of evil" if you will. People are stupid and they suck. And they think they are so fucking smart and righteous.
Have you heard this one? Man is God's highest creation. Well la tee da!
And the worst of the lot are the ruling class. They get to be the ruling class precisely by being the worst of the lot. Or
did you think they just work harder than you? I'm not going to write a book. Why bother. But if I did the title would be The
Scum Also Rises .
Power is what makes "reality" "reality." Not facts. Not evidence. Not knowledge. Power.
Those in power, or aligned with those in power, or parroting the narratives of those in power, understand this (whether consciously
or not). Those without power mostly do not, and thus we continue to "speak truth to power," as if those in power gave a shit.
They don't.
The powerful are not arguing with us. They are not attempting to win a debate about what is and isn't "true," or what did or
didn't "really" happen. They are declaring what did or didn't happen. They are telling us what is and is not "reality," and demonstrating
what happens to those who disagree.
not really C J!!
power is not what makes reality.
if it was hillary would be president.
what makes social and ideological reality that is a reality without a physical form or mathematically measurable is the ..control
of opinion .
without the control of opinion governments come and go. traditionally those in power also controlled opinion. now its a bit
more involved than owning a newspaper or a network as those in power discovered to their great dismay when the clinton crime family
was walloped at the polls in 2016.
they are doing all they can to ensure this does not happen in 2020. the jury is still out on that one.
gore vidal wrote many years that history is merely the agreed upon facts .another way of saying the control of opinion.
having raw power as used by our increasingly intellectually enfeebled ruling class just isn't enough anymore. the social media
titans are trying furiously to use censorship in the run up to november 2020 to try ans get it right ..LOL this time.
the problem for rulers in advanced societies face is . the misdirection of the masses into approved channels is becoming harder
to implement. yes, they don't give a damn what us proles think and now the same goes for us regarding them.
watching this farce is very entertaining, much better than the flotsam and jetsam hollywood spews forth to distract us.
Just think about the reaction to the "It's okay to be white" posters. Media, institutions and politicans are all condemning it
as being white nationalist propoganda when it was a joke, but it doesn't matter the 'reality' or causation of the posters because
they, as described by C.J, cram it down the unconscious class of people who just lap it up.
They have made it synonymous with propoganda just as the circle game as been turned into another dogwhistle. If you are not
accepting and acceding to their ideals you are retrogressive, you must accept the truth as they profess as ultimate reality or
you will be smeared, fired, harassed, assaulted and denied any place in the world. Looking at these people's reactions confirm
that they are totally enthralled, subjectivity to the narrative is complete.
No it hasn't. The result of this propaganda has been to entirely discredit our media, our intelligence agencies, our justice
system, our political system, and the mafia that controls them all.
Repeat a lie a million times and it becomes truth, but only when people can only hear that lie and nothing else.
Who here believes Assad was gassing his people? Who here believes Qaddafi was about to cause a humanitarian crisis? Who here
believes Hussein worked with bin Laden to take down the world trade centers, and had a secret weapons of mass destruction program?
Who here believes Juan Guaido is the legitimate ruler of Venezuela? Who here believes Iran just attacked a bunch of ships and
is a threat to the United States? Who here believes Russia got Trump elected?
It wasn't like this 15 years ago. The credibility of our establishment is at an end.
What the author doesn't realize is that we've always had propaganda that we accepted as undisputed fact. We've always been
lied to this way. What the author is actually complaining about, not realizing it, is that people are now becoming aware of it.
A significant number of people are becoming aware of it. Enough to easily have a revolution succeed. We're well beyond the 15%
threshold.
Tried and true propaganda methods pioneered by Edward Bernays are no longer effective. If "Russian Collusion" was done
in 1995, you'd be insane to believe it wasn't true. Now you're around 1/2 of the population.
Trust me, it's a lot less scary now, than it was 20 years ago, when nearly everybody believed any ridiculous story handed out
by the government. I wonder how many people actually realized the Bush administration was lying, while they were lying? I did,
and it was pure misery to be in that position and it was astonishing and very frightening.
Power is what makes "reality" "reality." Not facts. Not evidence. Not knowledge. Power.
Knowledge is power. You have an infinite amount of knowledge in front of you right now. I am glad to see so many people make
use of it.
People forget, or are too young, to realize why the USSR collapsed in 1991. It wasn't because living conditions were intolerable,
it's because the citizens of the USSR had no confidence or faith in their government and it hit a peak on December 26 of that
year.
Loosing confidence in your criminal oligarchy and it's minions? Wonderful, it's a step in the right direction.
This post-Orwellian, neo-McCarthyite mass hysteria is not going to stop
Yes it will. You just aren't aware of who will eventually end it. We all will, not the people producing it.
You probably think people screaming expletives are real people, mostly they aren't, they are public relation systems –
they are propagandists. They are designed to shut you up, you filthy anti-Semite, Assad loving, Communist, NeoNazi, Fascist
There's a reason these "people" won't actually discuss anything with you in depth, it's because an AI assisted program can't
really think. The purpose of the programs are to keep you silent, they don't represent the actual population in any form.
Our ruling class would not resort to this, if their position was solid and not threatened.
Our ruling class has not changed, you have changed – for the better.
Those without power mostly do not, and thus we continue to "speak truth to power," as if those in power gave a shit. They
don't.
Oh?
Why the censorship on Facebook and Twitter then?
They didn't care before, when they didn't think it made any difference for people to freely communicate. The Internet, after
all, was just something a FEW people used, and they didn't use it to learn anything. What people said didn't matter, it didn't
change anything.
Then Trump got elected, and it was pretty obvious that the standard channels of propaganda were no longer effective.
the social media titans are trying furiously to use censorship in the run up to november 2020
They aren't titans. They are intelligence agency assets now and although they won't lose a single dime of market revenue,
because they just lie about their market revenue and user base anyhow, they are becoming irrelevant and will become entirely irrelevant
over time.
You'd realize they are intelligence agency assets if you thought about it. How is it in the favor of Facebook or Twitter,
to drive users off their platform, if they actually depended on actual users of their "service" to generate revenue? They don't
make their money by peddling ads on their platforms.
Do you know what drug companies and defense contractors advertise on television "news"? It's not because they are trying to
find buyers for their products, it's to keep the "news" from ever reporting negatively on them, it's a bribe. If you never see
an advertisement on Facebook for, I dunno, Raytheon, does that mean they don't pay for "advertisement" there? Facebook's accounting
ledger is opaque.
"the problem for rulers in advanced societies face is . the misdirection of the masses into approved channels is becoming
harder to implement. "
Absolutely.
As CJ points out, there are two variations on reality -- the ideological & the material (ie his chair, your screen).
As you note, paraglider, these two realities are coming into ever sharper contradiction. At some point elite lies (ideology or
propaganda) become so out of sync with lived, material reality that average people start to notice -- sometimes called a naked
emperor moment.
Sadly, our elites are totally expert in "spinning" reality (they make the Nazis or USSR look like mere amateurs). It will probably
take a massive breakdown in material reality (ie economic circumstances) for enough people to wake up.
Mr. Hopkins is one of my favorites here. But when it comes to President Trump, I'm afraid that he's not cynical enough.
Washington politics -- including the supposedly emerging pursuit of those Swampsters who really did meddle in the 2016 election
and since -- are a puppet show to channel and harmlessly blow off dissent, another part of the Official Reality.
Exactly correct. This is internecine back biting, Kabuki theater or as you say puppet show. We'll see how many are brought
to justice from the AG Barr investigations .my quess .none.
From the fascism in Italy link: "populist glorification of Mussolini's WWII regime is contaminating Italy's culture and politic."
So populism CONTAMINATES. As written by ARIAL DAVID FROM TEL AVIV. How long did it take me to look that up? About 30 seconds.
Because my mind is not CONTAMINATED by the Jewstream media, social media, video games, professional sports, and blind adherence
to ideologies.
"'Putin-Nazis' narrative is our new 'reality.'" Just divorce yourself from the sick Western society that you are living in
and you won't have to say "our." You can keep going to your Western job and live in your Western town, but mentally you can know
that you are us and they are them. And teach your children this truth, too.
@Richard Wicks Great post!
But, back in March 2003, it wasn't "pure misery" for me. I just knew that I was an intellectual oasis in an intellectual desert.
And apparently so were you.
Man, we need to get this guy into one of the camps to disabuse him of these foolish ideas.
Think of "reality" as an ideological tool a tool in the hands of those with the power to designate what is "real" and what
isn't . Power is what makes "reality" "reality." Not facts. Not evidence. Not knowledge. Power.
Wait, he gets the real "reality." But that's not good, he's only supposed to buy the reality, not see it for what it is. Get
him to the camp, tout de suite!
I mean, come on you don't really believe that the global capitalist ruling classes are going to let Trump serve a second
term, do you?
I figured that sly Mr. Putin was going to work our electoral sytem into knots and get himself elected POTUS, because his puppet,
Mr. Trump, has utterly failed in carrying out his mission.
But, back in March 2003, it wasn't "pure misery" for me.
It was terrible, I thought we were going into a fascist society. It never occurred to me we were actually in one at the time
and I was only just then becoming aware of it.
I just knew that I was an intellectual oasis in an intellectual desert.
I wouldn't go that far. I just had built up enough cognitive dissonance that I was forced to think about what was actually
going on finally. It's a laborious process to go through all you think you know and when you run into two conflicting beliefs,
eliminate at least one of them.
And here's the kicker, I was Silicon Valley, California at the time. I'm an electrical engineer. Lots of smart people here,
supposedly. I was forced to question my very sanity when I found myself in disagreement with nearly everybody around me and I
am by no means the most brilliant engineer in Silicon Valley.
Now millions of people are going through the process.
There's a desperate attempt to get us all back into our little cages and make us all trust whatever the official propaganda
is again, but once you become aware of the situation, you never will go back. You've heard the saying there's nobody more fanatical
than the converted? Anybody that has gone through the process to realize their government incessantly lies to them, they spread
it, and there's too many people to just kill off or imprison to stop it.
@Richard Wicks Beautiful,
Mr. Wicks. I don't believe you're correct, but I love the sentiment; usually the assholes win, and that's just how it unfortunately
goes. Go it the other way–your way, and I'm totally on your side.
@Richard Wicks You are
so very correct; my disagreement with you, Sir, is the thought we little peeps can CHANGE anything.
Now, on 9/11, I was awake but groggy, dig? I remember telling someone that DAY that this will culminate in WWIII, and she said
to me, AND I quote–"Good, and them little dot-headed MFers need to DIE!"
Facepalm. All is lost, thought I, and moved to Belize. Never had that dissonance problem cuz my dad was the domestic-terrorist
type and never had ANY faith in this country (duly passed down), but I've watched people wake up, and they're not at ALL happy
about it. Doesn't happen very often, but when it DOES, an axe-handle to the face would have done less damage.
Oddly, peeps in other countries got our number. MEMORIZED like no tomorrow and on speed-dial! Most Americans don't realize
that, but it's a fact carved in solid granite and has been since I became aware of it in 1979. Mexico, Canada, Scotland, England,
France, Guatemala, Belize. They hate us so bad that here I am, back in the good ol' US of A, mostly cuz I don't like being a TARGET
for everybody else's righteous hatred.
Love it or leave it ain't really a viable option anymore and HASN'T been for some time.
You know, despite the inundation, I have never ever heard regular people talking about Russiagate. I think we have finally come
to the point where the majority of regular people actually don't give a damn. Which is as it should be.
@WorkingClass sadly working
class our society is intrinsically geared toward allowing sociopathic personalities rise to the top in every profession. though
they constitute barely a few percent of any given population their lack of empathy, remorse and an ability to mimic healthy human
behavior gives them an enormous advantage in climbing the corporate, military and political ladders.
once in control they become public symbols for those young to aspire to reinforcing the cycle.
its not that humans are evil per se, it is that human nature never changes from one millenium to another and in a system that
rewards sociopathic behavior you wind up with a clinton (both), a bush junior, a cheney, bolton, pompeo, brennan, comey, zuckerberg
and countless incompetent generals, politicans and corporate ceo's male and female and voila .
predatory capitalism where looking out for number 1 is the only goal.
fortunately these people are also myopic and in their greed and avarice for power they kill the goose that lays their eggs
always thinking its they who are smarter than the game they play.
look east for the next great improvements in health, medicine, science of all kinds and a 1000 and 1 other achievements not
yet born to the betterment of human kind.
the west is spent, it's finished, at least for the next few centuries as hope, vision, optimism, confidence and a can do attitude
migrates to asia.
@WorkingClass It's more
about being truthophiles than misanthropes.
Common human nature has the very same earmarks at all levels, the ones in the top echelon are a magnifying mirror of what's
below, and there is no other way they would be up there doing what they do if most of the other people weren't akin.
In other words, the average mainstream account of either World War is to truth as either the average testimony of a divorcing
wife to a divorce court or the reasons she'll give to her pleading husband when he asks why her resolution to break-up.
Just for one example.
Then since people hold beliefs about themselves far removed, if not opposite, to reality, they look at they élite and tbink:
what a bad lot, 'tis people really aren' t the people I wan to be governed by. But then they are ever governed by people like
that -- nor would they let any people unlike that govern.
@Cyrano They are propagandized
the most who think they are propagandized the least. I came to this "reality" some 68+ years ago in my first year of Catholic
high school!
Yet such BLM propaganda is psychological projection, as all negroes need exterminated, and for a good reason. There is no way
to live peaceably with the pests, any more than you can live with an infestation of rattlesnakes in your house, as Paul Kersey
well documents.
I do agree to the certain extent. Ideology is introduced into population by a certain part of the population.
The ideology is successful if it becomes prevalent public opinion of the majority of the population.
But that is not a reality. it becomes reality if all population is acting in accordance with aims of that ideology. But still
that ideology must go through o lengthy testing period in order to prove that acting accordingly with that ideology is beneficial
to all people.
jewish authoritarians believe that they can dictate "reality" to the goyim that reality is the collective will of the jewish
people. And when they had complete control of the sources of information, they could spew endless propaganda and they were rarely
called on it.
How times have changed!
Logos is rising, and TRUTH is leaking out. The Sanhedrin has lost control of the goyim and is feverishly trying to get it back.
When do parents stop having the responsibility and right to "teach their children the truth?" When your children are self-supporting?
Or have children of their own?
Part of the pernicious agenda of the destruction of the family is the total marginalization of elders. They may not be wise
or even particularly virtuous, but they've been around the block a time or two.
Whether you child is 4 or 40, teach them the truth.
About that 4 – or 14- year old: teaching them lies in school is child abuse. Cramming holohoax ed. into your child is intentional
infliction of emotional distress. Neither (((Randi Winegarten))) nor ADL nor US Congress has a greater right to decide what your
child should be taught than do you, his parent.
If you love you children, skip the soccer game and raise your voice at the school board meeting.
The result of this propaganda has been to entirely discredit our media, our intelligence agencies, our justice system, our political
system, and the mafia that controls them all. it was facts..
Things like Wikileaks and Julian Assange and all of the whistle blowers in jail or in graves throughout the world today who
individually made the decision to risk their freedom, to give if they must, the balance of their lives and their own futures,
in order to uphold in reality, the dreams and ideologies embodied, in the such as the 1688 glorious revolution, the human rights
embodied, not in the Constitution of the USA [COUS, 1789], but in the Declaration of Independence by the British Colonist against
British Colonial corporate rule, and in the French Revolution in (1790?), and in the UN declaration on human rights, that honesty,
integrity, and adherence to human rights are the foremost consideration in the design and implementation of governments every_where
and that humanity has the right to expect their governments to serve them equally, and not to become or to be used as conduits
to make a very few wealthy at the expense of the balance of us .
These concepts, that those who are the governed, should govern those who are the governors.. were to these whistle blowers,
elements, required and expected by the masses to be implicit in our constitutions, and in the operations of the governments such
constitutions outlined and in the activities of those who have imposed on the public trust, to attain positions which allows them
to lead and manage our societies. And when these concepts of duty to humanity were found [by those few, who because of their skill
were hired and given privilege of access to perform for their nations leaders] to be lacking, such persons were by virtue of circumstance
duty bound to an authority much greater than a nation state, its laws or its leaders, his duty was to humanity, and that duty
required that the misdeeds of the few be revealed to the masses no matter the personal sacrifice.
And when these few talented persons of conscious, came upon evidence, they knew, the world out side of secret government did
not know about, they became soldiers in the universal army of humanity, and like good soldiers they exposed the criminal, corrupt
and illicit goings on in the civil governments and those tainted with the dirty filthy hands of such corrupt governments.
It was not just whistle blowers and misleading or highly wrongfully purposed propaganda that exposed them, it was the methods
used: secret governments, secret government agencies to spy on us, secret courts, allowing private owned media and technology
corporations to control the nation dialog and access to information, and requiring each member of the masses to carry personal,
picture ids, reducing government agency access to a person-less website and the like. Nothing about government or those who use
it, has been of benefit to the governed since 1913..in America and I suspect the people in every nation can identify when the
bandits of the fruits of their societies were redirected to the bandits.
The left isn't entirely wrong, democracy really is slipping away. The world is becoming more authoritarian with every election.
It's isn't because of Putin, it's because of democracy is founded on an outdated myth–that humans are or should be equals.
That was never going to last. Good riddance.
Straight on, and you are not the only one in this thread.
A reality show, as most of the mass humanoids can grasp. All of the elites beyond redemption, and society selected out any-one
to replace them. Edward Dutton. The few bootstapped to the end of the graph, to the right at nil, zero, in less then a generation.
Psychopathy has a group secondary effect.
No more cathedrals for now, just crowing on a pile of dung. Hopkins cannot shed his value system, his profession are as outdated
as the horse in times of tractors and trucks.
@Jason Liu It was founded
on the fake myth that election by voting is democracy. Only millionaires, usually supported by billionaires, can become congressmen
with the rarest exceptions. Is that democracy?
The ancient Athenian Upper House was representative, but its members were elected by lot. No second term. Democracy.
The nearest we could conceivably come to that in the modern world is the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e.the rule of the
people. Never yet achieved.
The powers that be want us off balance and they want us going down argumentative rabbit holes. Don't get angry with them or be
frightened of them. Laughter is the best defense against their hateful and self-serving propaganda.
@Jason Liu Equality does
not mean each person must throw the football 35 yards, no less and no more.. Democracy means everyone has an equal right to engage
and equal right to access the place, knowledge and training needed to throw the football as far as he or she is capable and wishes..
so long as the toss of the football does not interfere with the life or activity of another. Rules that resolve conflicts must
somehow accommodate all needs.
In-side of the nation state container, democracy means no ruler can claim by authority of the nation state that such ruler
is empowered to make a rule (law) if such law infringes on the human rights of others.. and that every nation state and its rulers
must stand guard and insist that the conditions of economics, sociability, cultural, language, and race are honored, keep safe,
and adequately maintained, as if each such fraction were the majority or better. Equality is an obligation of government, it is
different from democracy..
democracy is a government created by the governed, maintained for the benefit of the governed, and audited and regulated by the
governed.
Democracy implies a rule making structure that collectively might become a government but government or whatever fails the
test of democracy when it cuts out or denies the right of each element in its governed masses access to the same knowledge, provisions
to get loans and to engage in enterprises as everyone else, Still the democratic structure (governments) fail the test of democracy
if both the structure and the operation of the governing structure fails to include each element "within its governed masses"
in the establishment of every law, in every decision and in every event. in other words a government with actors that operate
behind closed doors cannot be democratic, governments that spy on its people can be democratic iff it exposes to everyone, all
its spying discovers, but it cannot be democratic if it denies any information to anyone of those it governs or if it allows others
within the democracy to lie with impunity.
despite the inundation, I have never ever heard regular people talking about Russiagate.
Most people will not touch a sensitive subject. Russiagate with its security implications is too scary to discuss. So
they don't.
At the height of Christian power, most people also didn't discuss how exactly did 'virgin' Mary' have a demigod baby – too
sensitive. The fact that it is not discussed makes it into a convenient taboo subject – as C. Hopkins says 'immutable truth'.
A few more years of this and the West will resemble a scared, docile, labor colony with ambitious people tripping over themselves
to prove their loyalty.
@Richard Wicks I saw a
youtube by Thomas Sheridan from one of those goofy Alternative View conferences and he asked the audience (parallel to Reagan
asking the voters in the 1980 president election debates "are you better off now than you were four years ago?"):
if you could go back to the world as it was in August of 2001 would you choose to do so?
Most of his presentation was forgettable but that little snip was not. What they call this in the head hoodlum strategy conferences
is unintended consequences. The Be Powers had complete control of the narrative in August of 2001. Same in 2002. They have
pissed it all away. Every milliliter of it.
Western propaganda machine was better 20 -30 years ago . Now it is just a propagandistic and insulting machine , and it is so
dumb and coarse that it has lost contact with reality . Most modern journalists in Europe and the US lack a mimimum of culture
, dignity and good taste . They have lost so much prestige that many people interprets them the other way around , ex. if they
insult say Putin , Trump etc that probably means that Putin and Trump are not too bad for their people , and if they praise someone
, say Merkel that probably means that the old fat lady is a despot . So the " press " ( propaganda ) has abused so much , has
lied so much that few people takes it very seriously .
@Fool's Paradise to a
point , a delusional , psychotic , out of reality " power " , goes crazy and self destroys . The loss of touch with reality is
crazines , dementia .
Quod Jupiter vult perdere dementat prius
( Those who the gods want to destroy , first they make them mad )
Psychological studies have shown that a group of people will go along with practically any old crap (even to the extent of
disbelieving their own eyes) in the absence of any contradictory voices. Even one "rebel" in the group is usually enough to break
the spell. The Facebook, Twitter and general media censorship is evidently intended to erase all the contradictory voices.
Unfortunately the herd instinct is still very strong in the human race and should not be under-estimated. It is easy for those
with well developed critical faculties to overestimate those of the general population.
The powerful ones trying to make people believe a false reality are really only fooling the very gullible these days. No amount
of censorship is going to solve that problem for them. Since 911 their credibility has taken a nosedive and isn't going to recover
before it crashes completely. Even flat Earthers have more credibility and they know it.
OK. Maybe this
rules change isn't aimed directly at Tulsi Gabbard, but it certainly looks like she's in
danger of being it's biggest victim.
Presidential candidates looking to participate in the Democratic National Committee's
sanctioned primary debates initially had to meet one of two thresholds to be eligible:
achieving at least 1% in three separate DNC approved polls or obtaining at least 65,000
donations with minimum of 200 donors from at least 20 states. ... To appear at the recently-announced third set of debates in September, candidates must
achieve 2% in at least four DNC-approved polls and double the minimum of number of donors to
130,000. That quickly became a death sentence for candidates who for months have not even
cracked the first donor threshold.
To make this clear, the requirements for the
THIRD
debate went from "at least 1% in three separate DNC approved polls or obtaining at
least 65,000 donations" to " 2% support in four national or early voting state polls AND
130,000 unique donors to their campaign, including 400 unique donors from at least 20
states". For most of the candidates, unless they really score in the first two debates, they won't be in
any more debates.
To help put this into context, consider what the DNC has been up to recently. They chose
Chris Korge as the new finance chair of the Democratic National Committee. Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez went on a hair-on-fire
rant about Russiagate.
"We are at war right now with the Russians -- it is a cyber war -- [and] our
commander-in-chief is compromised," Perez said. "We should be able to rely on the federal
government for help from this. ... It is unconscionable that this administration has paid
such little attention to what Mueller acknowledged today, [which is] Russian interference. "
Yes, the DNC is busy looking out for what is important to you.
"... Tulsi: "While I agree that Russia is both directly and indirectly responsible for this downed plane shot down by the separatists, we've got to look at this in the bigger picture. We've got to look at Russia's incursion into Ukraine, Ukraine's sovereignty " ..."
"... "Not a single anti-aircraft missile system of the Russian Armed Forces has ever crossed the Russian-Ukrainian border," ..."
"... "the determination of the Dutch-led investigation to justifying its conclusions by solely using images from social networks that have been expertly altered with computer graphic editing tools." ..."
"... had been previously displayed by the infamous British online investigative activist group, Bellingcat. ..."
"... "the 53rd Anti-aircraft Missile Brigade based in Kursk in Russia". ..."
"... "the Dutch investigators completely ignore and reject the testimony of eyewitnesses from the nearby Ukrainian communities", according to the Defense Ministry. The testimonies, however, provided essential information "indicating the launch of a missile was carried out from a territory controlled by the Ukrainian Armed Forces." ..."
"... "comprehensive" ..."
"... "clearly indicate the involvement of the Ukrainian Buk anti-aircraft system units" ..."
Who Shot Down Flight MH17 over Eastern Ukraine in 2014?
span ted by wendy davis on Sun, 06/02/2019 - 11:19am
Well of course it was the Evil Russians! Didn't Russians also shoot Roger Rabbit? We'd been discussing this 2014 interview with
Tulsi Gabbard on my post ' analyses of the leaked 'Deal of the Century'
I/P peace plan '
that I'd found that day and posted in comments, mainly wanting to feature her anti-Palestinian Hasbara. As I remember it, this 'blame'
started the horrific sanctions on Russia.
Tulsi: "While I agree that Russia is both directly and indirectly responsible for this downed plane shot down by the separatists,
we've got to look at this in the bigger picture. We've got to look at Russia's incursion into Ukraine, Ukraine's sovereignty "
TravelerXXX had bookmarked this Eric Zuesse exposé that I'd vaguely recalled and brought it in:
'MH17 Turnabout: Ukraine's Guilt Now Proven', December 31,
2018,
strategic-culture.org
It's about nine yards long with zillions of hyperlinks, so long I don't even guess I'd ever finished it, which makes it hard
to figure out what, if any, nuggets to feature, but he did link to this:
'MH-17: the untold story', 22
Oct,
2014, RT.com, including a 27-minute video documentary.
"Three months after Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 was brought down over Ukraine, there are still no definitive answers about
what caused the tragedy. Civil conflict in the area prevented international experts from conducting a full and thorough investigation.
The wreckage should have been collected and scrupulously re-assembled to identify all the damage, but this standard investigative
procedure was never carried out. Until that's done, evidence can only be gleaned from pictures of the debris, the flight recorders
(black boxes) and eye-witnesses testimonies. This may be enough to help build a picture of what really happened to the aircraft,
whether a rocket fired from the ground or a military jet fired on the doomed plane."
I'd later added to that thread, including some photos of a beaming Netanyahu holding a map of the Golan Heights that Herr Trump
had signed with his approval (indicating the leaked plan just may be The Real Deal) when Up Jumped the Devil:
'Where
is the evidence?' Malaysian PM says attempts to pin MH17 downing on Russia lack proof', 30 May,
2019, RT.com
"Malaysia has accepted the Dutch report that a 'Russian-made' missile shot down its civilian airliner MH17 over eastern Ukraine
in 2014, but has yet to see evidence it was fired by Russia, said Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad.
"They are accusing Russia but where is the evidence?" Mahathir told reporters at the Japanese Foreign Correspondents Club (FCCJ)
in Tokyo on Thursday.
"You need strong evidence to show it was fired by the Russians," the prime minister went on, according to the Malaysian state
news agency Bernama. "It could be by the rebels in Ukraine; it could be Ukrainian government because they too have the same missile."
"Mahathir was skeptical that anyone involved with the Russian military could have launched the missile that struck the plane,
however, arguing that it would have been clear to professionals that the target was a civilian airliner.
"I don't think a very highly disciplined party is responsible for launching the missile," he said.
The Dutch-led Joint Investigation Team (JIT), whose report last year blamed Moscow for shooting down MH17, barred Russia from
participating in the investigation, but involved the government of Ukraine. Although Malaysia is also a member of JIT,Mahathir
revealed that his country's officials have been blocked from examining the plane's flight recorders.
"For some reason, Malaysia was not allowed to check the black box to see what happened," he said. "We
don't know why we are excluded from the examination but from the very beginning, we see too much politics in it."
"This is not a neutral kind of examination," Mahathir added.
Rejecting the JIT accusations, Russia made public the evidence the Dutch-led researchers refused to look into, including the
serial number of the missile that allegedly struck MH17, showing that it was manufactured in the Soviet Union in 1986 and was in
the arsenal of the Ukrainian army at the time of the tragedy."
b of Moon of Alabama offered this whopping 55 minute press conference video with Malaysian PM Mahathir on Twitter
on May 31.
But aha! RT had later provided on the left sidebar:
May 24,
2018: 'No
Russian missile system ever crossed into Ukraine: MoD rejects Dutch MH17 claims', RT.com
"The Russian Defense Ministry has rejected new claims that flight MH17 over Ukraine was downed by a missile from a Russian unit,
urging the Dutch-led probe to focus on studying hard facts instead of social media images.
"Not a single anti-aircraft missile system of the Russian Armed Forces has ever crossed the Russian-Ukrainian border,"
the defense ministry said in statement.
The Russian military raised eyebrows over "the determination of the Dutch-led investigation to justifying its conclusions
by solely using images from social networks that have been expertly altered with computer graphic editing tools."
The ministry pointed out that
the images used in the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) press conference on Thursday were provided by the Ukrainian special
services and had been previously displayed by the infamous British online investigative activist group,
Bellingcat.
The Dutch-led probe announced that the missile that downed Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 in July 2014 came from a Russian military
Buk system that crossed into Ukraine and then returned to its base in western Russia.
Investigators claim the missile system involved came from "the 53rd Anti-aircraft Missile Brigade based in Kursk in Russia".
The JIT essentially just repeated the conclusion made by Bellingcat a year ago.
The alarming part in the JIT probe is that "the Dutch investigators completely ignore and reject the
testimony of eyewitnesses from the nearby Ukrainian communities", according to the Defense Ministry. The testimonies, however,
provided essential information "indicating the launch of a missile was carried out from a territory controlled by the Ukrainian
Armed Forces."
The Russian side said that it provided the international probe with "comprehensive"evidence, including field tests,
which "clearly indicate the involvement of the Ukrainian Buk anti-aircraft system units" in the destruction of the plane
with 283 passengers and 15 crew members onboard."
This video that Eric Zuesse had up may be part of the referenced eye witness testimony.
"... Second, it is equally obvious that the pension reform is profoundly unpopular and that Putin's personal credibility has never recovered from this political fiasco. ..."
As predicted, Putin's popularity takes a nosedive.
This fact is not often discussed in the West, but the popularity of Vladimir Putin is in decline and has been so ever
since, following his reelection, he kept more or less the same (already unpopular) government while that government very
clumsily attempted to "sneak by" undetected a pension reform. Now
the
latest numbers are in
, and they are not good: only 31.7% of Russians trust Vladimir Putin, that is his worst
score in 13 years! His score last year was 47.4% (by the way, Shoigu got only 14.8%, Lavrov got 13%, and Medvedev got
7.6%. These are terrible scores by any measure!)
I have been warning about this for a while now (see
here
,
here
,
here
,
here
,
here
,
here
and
here
),
and we now can try to understand what happened.
These are the faces most Russians are fed-up with
First, it is obvious that millions of Russians (including yours truly) were deeply disappointed that Putin did not
substantially reorganize the Russian government following his triumphant reelection last year. Putin himself is on
record saying two things about that: first, that he is generally happy with the performance of the government and,
second, that he needs an experienced team to implement his very ambitious reform program (more about that in a moment).
Second, it is equally obvious that the pension reform is profoundly unpopular and that Putin's personal credibility has
never recovered from this political fiasco.
Third, and this is the most overlooked and yet most interesting development – there is a
real
opposition
gradually emerging in Russia. What do I mean by "real"? First, I mean not a "pretend opposition" as we see in the
Russian Duma (which is a glorified rubber-stamping parliament). Second, I mean a
patriotic
opposition
which is neither financed nor controlled by Mr. Soros nor the CIA nor any of their innumerable offshoots. The problem is
that this opposition has many severe problems and that it completely fails to present an alternative to the current "Putinocracy."
Here we need to state something significant: Putin is indeed a "liberal," at least in terms of economic policies. When
he says that he is happy ("on the whole") with the performance of the Medvedev government, it is because he probably is.
Furthermore, while Putin apparently likes to listen to folks like Glaziev, he is clearly wary of implementing the more
"social" (or even "socialist") measures advocated by Glaziev and his supporters.
But if Putin is a liberal, is there really a 5
th
column
acting behind the scenes?
This being said, it would be wrong to jump to the primitive conclusion that there is no 5th column (or no "Atlantic
Integrationists") in the Kremlin or in the
Staraya
Square
. In fact, it would be impossible for such a 5th column not to exist. How do we know that? For three very
basic reasons
The AngloZionist leaders of the Empire absolutely
hate
Putin.
Those pretending to deny that are either terminally dishonest or fantastically stupid. Either way, they are wrong.
Simply put: by the late 1990s Russia as a country was quasi-dead, finished, something like the Ukronazi occupied
Ukraine today. Not only has Putin single-handedly saved Russia from collapse, he turned Russia into a power capable
of defeating the plans of the Empire not only in Syria but also in the rest of the Middle-East. Yes, all the
accusations of "collusion" and "hacking" are verbal
prolefeed
for
TV-watching intellectual midgets, but that does not mean that the leaders don't have real, factual and logical
reasons to fear Putin and Russia. They do. And they are doing everything in their power to weaken Russia and
overthrow Putin.
Most of the Russian elites achieved their elite status in the 1990s (some even in the 1980s!), and many of them hate
Putin for putting a stop to the total robbery bonanza which made it possible for these people to not only come to
power but also make a killing financially. As for the so-called "economic block" of the Russian government, it is
entirely made up of what I loosely call the "WTO/IMF/WB/etc." -Types: folks who sincerely endorse the so-called "
Washington
Consensus
." The very
least
one
could say about these folks is that their worldview and ideology are not only totally alien to traditional Russian
values, they are in fact
profoundly
anti-Russian
. For these folks to become the 5
th
column
is the most natural development.
The system which Putin inherited was one deeply integrated with the AngloZionist sphere of financial, economic,
political, and social influence. While western sanctions (and general political shortsightedness) severed many of
these ties (thank you to the Neocons for their life-saving sanctions and, especially, hysterically Russophobic
propaganda!), there are very few cases (if any) of Russians severing such ties. Some believe that Putin sincerely
wanted Russia to join NATO or/and the EU. I don't agree with that, but whether he was sincere or not, the fact is
that Putin did initially try to court the West. The fact that the West was too stupid to see the fantastic
opportunity this situation was offering is yet another powerful testimony of how incompetent western "area
specialists" have become.
Putin's 2007 "
Munich
speech
" should have acted like an urgent wake-up call to the leaders of the West, but they lacked the brains and
courage to listen to what Putin was saying. The same thing happened during
Putin's
2015 speech at the UNGA
. To his internal Russian audience, Putin bluntly said, when asked if the West was trying
to "humiliate" Russia: "
They
do not want to humiliate us, they want to subdue us, solve their problems at our expense
." Personally, I believe
that Putin, as any other officer of the First Main Directorate (foreign intelligence) of the KGB always understood that
the West was a mortal enemy of Russia and that this has been true for at least 1000 years. Thus I think that it would be
naive to believe that Putin ever "trusted" the West. But did he deliberately give that impression for as long as it
could serve his purposes? Yes, absolutely. Now, this period is clearly over.
The one thing which the Russian 5th column cannot really be is any type of "opposition." First, the 5th column is
internal
to
the Kremlin, to the Presidential Administration, to the "United Russia" party and to all the other centers of power in
Russia. This forces the opposition to
pretend
loyalty
to Putin while sabotaging every effort at re-sovereignizing Russia (admittedly a tough task since Russia has been ruled
by foreign elites since at least the times of Peter I).
I am often asked why Russia Today and Sputnik publish what can only be called "trash" or even anti-religious
propaganda on their websites. The answer is simple: there are plenty of folks at RT and Sputnik (especially in the
teams operating their websites as opposed to the actual broadcasts) who are pure products of the AngloZionist
worldview and who love some sleazy sex story almost as much as they love to bash or ridicule the Orthodox church.
While there are plenty of terrific people in both of these media, there are also plenty who secretly would love
Russia to return to the 1990s or become a kind of "Poland" east of the Ukraine. This is also why these outlets make
a strenuous effort not to discuss the Israel lobby in the West (not only the USA), but they also stay away from any
discussion of 9/11. I know for a fact that any mention of the real events of 9/11 is strictly forbidden by some
"bigshot" editors in Moscow as my own interviews were censored that way.
One word of caution here: there are millions of Russians abroad, and many of them are what are now called "
вырусь
"
(vy-roos') in Russia: folks who might speak Russian, and even visit Russia from time to time, but who have completely
lost their "Russian-ness" and whose worldview does not extend beyond wishing that Russia was more like the US or
Germany. They think of Russia as "rashka," and they absolutely hate any genuine manifestation of Russian culture,
spirituality, traditions or religion. Some of them will join the Alt-Right movement and pretend that the racist
categories and ideology used by this movement have some traction in Russia (they don't). Some will try to impersonate
Orthodox Christians. In truth – they are still a pure product of the AngloZionst Empire. Some of them have clearly found
gainful employment in the Russian media where they keep a vigilant watch for any signs that the ideological dogma of the
West (we all know what they are) are being debunked by Russian patriots. These "vyroos" are yet another manifestation of
the Russian 5
th
column.
What about the official opposition to Putin?
Ukie Defense Minister Poltorak photoshops himself before an exploding Kremlin Tower. This is the kind of
nonsense that gets even Duma members angry.
Then there is the "official" Duma opposition, which is more or less a joke. Some Russian MPs are better than others, but
even the comparatively better ones are entirely unable to present a real challenge to the Russian government (we saw
that painfully illustrated by the Duma vote on the pension reform).
As for the ordinary people, most of them probably still trust Putin in foreign policy issues, but many are also getting
genuinely fed-up with an arrogant and condescending ruling elite which couldn't care less about the plight of regular
people and who live in an ivory tower of wealth, arrogance and power.
There is also a gradual realization that Putin in generally being "too soft" on the Empire and not proactive enough in
defense of Novorussia against the Ukronazi junta in Kiev. Sadly, I have to agree with them. Yes, there has been some
progress: the Russian ban on exporting energy to the Ukraine and the deliverance of Russian passports to the people of
Novorussia. Furthermore, the Kremlin has expressed precisely
zero
approval
of Zelenskii's election and, apparently, this was the correct move since even though the policies of Poroshenko were
categorically rejected by an absolute majority of the Ukrainian people, all the signs are that Zelenskii has already
wholly caved to the demands of the "collective West". Unless this trend towards "more of the same, only worse" is
reversed, it is likely that the popular pressure in Russia to be far more proactive against the regime in Kiev will only
increase. In recent months the Duma has been under pressure from the public to take a more forceful reaction to the
events in the Ukraine, and this has had some, albeit limited, effect: the totally lame Duma has now become a little bit
less lame, but not by much.
So what is this new opposition to Putin?
How our power structure is organized: This is the Kremlin. Putin is there. He issues decrees and ensures that
the Constitution is upheld; This is the Government building. Medvedev is there and he loots the budget of our
country; This is the Duma, Volodin is there and he adopts anti-popular laws; This is the Federation Council,
Matvienko and she approves anti-popular laws..
The distinguishing characteristic of this new opposition to Putin is that it sees itself as the truly patriotic segment
of Russian society. These are folks who blame Putin for being weak, indecisive and corrupt (including personally). They
believe that Putin sits on the top of an oligarchic pyramid which only pays lip service to Russian national interests,
but which in reality is interested only in wealth, power and influence. Frankly, much of their argumentation about
Putin's alleged corruption is based on a mix of disinformation and personal hatred for Putin himself. In contrast,
however, their arguments that Putin is too weak or indecisive are based on a completely rational and fact based analysis
of the events which have marked Putin's presidency. After all, the man has been in power for 20 years or so, he has
enjoyed tremendous bureaucratic power and the full support of the vast majority of the population. How then can he (or
his supporters) blame it all on a "bad system" or the power of a 5
th
column
whose existence some don't believe in in the first place?
On the right is a typical opposition "Internet poster".
While I personally don't agree with this point of view, I have to recognize that it is not self-evidently absurd or
solely based on propaganda. In other words, they do have a point, and much of their criticism is valid.
Alas, much of it is not, and that mix loses a lot in credibility when 50% of it is fact-based and logical, and 50% is
not.
What is even worse is that these patriots regularly find themselves in the same camp as the Soros/CIA -funded folks whom
the patriots claim to hate, but whose arguments they often recycle (about the personal corruption of Putin, for
example).
The other major weakness of this new opposition is that it lacks any kind of leader. This is why I did not bother
listing the names of the main representatives of this opposition: for most of those who will read this article, these
names will mean nothing.
Finally, this new patriotic opposition seems to lack an original worldview: much of their argumentation boils down to
"it was better in the Soviet era" (they typically tend to overlook how bad things indeed were, at least since the
1980s!).
So where do we go from here? Will Russia ever have a real, vibrant, opposition?
My short personal answer is, yes, Russia will have such an opposition. Here is why:
The official Duma opposition is both useless and hopeless.
The Soros/CIA financed opposition is discredited beyond rescue.
The 5
th
column
is fundamentally a fraud, and most Russians hate it.
The current "patriotic" opposition will grow due to the policies of the Russian government, and they will probably
learn from their mistakes.
Crises often (almost always) generate the appearance of new leaders
I hope that the newly emerging "patriotic" opposition will focus its wrath not on Putin as a person, but on the mistakes
of the Russian government wherever they happen: President, Prime Minister, Minister or below – it should not matter. If
the opposition succeeds in focusing on issues rather than venting its rage against specific individuals, then real
changes become possible, including personnel changes.
The latest opinion polls show that
all
the
members of the government are suffering from falling ratings, not just the Atlantic Integrationists. If this trend
maintains itself, the Eurasian Sovereignists will have a powerful incentive to cut their ties with the Atlantic
Integrationists. Who knows, maybe Medvedev and the so-called "economic block of the government" will be shown to the
door? If not, then the plunge in the polls will most likely continue, and social unrest becomes a real possibility.
Just full of unsupported assertions and with an overall lack of understanding about how countries, especially big ones,
really work.
Citing some polling on individual figures is meaningless without context and without any details about the nature of the
poll. Faked and/or incompetent polling happens regularly in the West."Push"polls are a constant gimmick used in the Western
press to give authority to assertions.
Any poll which shows Shoigu getting only 14.8%, Lavrov getting 13%, is highly suspect on its face. These are genuinely
super-capable individuals in their jobs, quite beyond any norms for performance.
When something smells as bad as this article, sharp reader knows something is going on beyond the mere speculations of an
amateur affairs analyst.
Показатель одобрения деятельности Президента стабилен и находится в рамках сформировавшегося коридора: по среднему
значению с 13 по 19 мая он составил 65,8%.
2. Svobodnaya Pressa (SP) is not exactly unbiased (or competent) source. Enough to take a look at such odious figures as
Boldyrev hanging out there as a "columnist";
3. Russia's so called opposition (mainly left) committed suicide when went with Grudinin. In general, they don't have anyone
of required scale and competence to even approach a vicinity of Putin.
In many respects, SP's commentaries are merely a tempest in the cup.
I suspect if they distrust Putin the diabolical skripal RT interview with the "Russian Tourists" may have something to do
with it.
Tens of Millions of Russians were ready to believe the false flag CIA / M16 setup explanation, then suddenly two idiots
popup, on national tv who just scream military / security looking men to say they were there just to check out the
cathedral spire of course!
I mean what a shot in the foot who authorised that interview to happen?
Some believe that Putin sincerely wanted Russia to join NATO or/and the EU. I don't agree with that, but whether he was
sincere or not, the fact is that Putin did initially try to court the West. The fact that the West was too stupid to see
the fantastic opportunity this situation was offering is yet another powerful testimony of how incompetent western "area
specialists" have become.
Washington would never allow Russia to join EU/NATO. Russia's too big for them to control, and might even end up partly or
entirely co-opting these organizations. No, their original plan was to break Russia up into bite-sized pieces first, then
induct those little statelets into NATO (or some other Washington-dominated 'alliance'), then use them to surround and
harass China–all very similar to the way they're using Ukraine and the Caucasus to surround and harass Russia now.
@JOHN CHUCKMAN
finance infrastructure and vital
technology that's what sovereign countries do but Russia is still acting like a banana republic
Neither Putin nor anyone in government has actual control of the central bank which 'independence' [read
absolute
dependence
on the global finance cabal] is enshrined in the US-written Yeltsin era 'Constitution'
Now there are some that argue that Putin has done very well just to fend off the ongoing financial, economic and
informational war on Russia and perhaps Russia cannot simply make a clean break with the western financial octopus with
which it's entangled
I don't know there may be some truth to that a gradual weaning off may be the more
prudent
course and
Putin is nothing if not that
When Putin gets too old to govern, the next leader will not come from some "vibrant" opposition. The next leader will be
hand-picked by Putin, same way he was hand-picked by that fool Yeltsin – the best move he ever made.
There are people in Russia who still believe that trying to emulate the western "democratic practices" will win them
approval and love from the west.
Leave the winning of love and approval by the west to the lesser Slavs like the Polaks and the Ukrainians.
The only time west "approved" of Russia was when they were doing self-harm to themselves – like in 1980's and 90's.
Listen carefully, my dear Russians – west will never love you, and it's not your fault. So don't worry about it. Choose your
own path and forget about "democracy". The whole thing is a sham anyway.
I am often asked why Russia Today and Sputnik publish what can only be called "trash"
Some of it is unbearable
these outlets make a strenuous effort not to discuss the Israel lobby in the West (not only the USA), but they
also stay away from any discussion of 9/11.
Ordinance fired in that direction is likely to ricochet – they do a pretty good job of demolishing the Ukraine
narrative; the "White Helmets" the Venezuelan coup etc as presented by MSM and they have taken a lot of punishment
for that already. And, yes
there are plenty of folks at RT and Sputnik (especially in the teams operating their websites as opposed to the
actual broadcasts) who are pure products of the AngloZionist worldview
There are people in Russia who still believe that trying to emulate the western "democratic practices" will win
them approval and love from the west.
Let's put it this way–the strata of these people is extremely narrow (thin) and consists mostly of human freaks such
as kreakls and some parts of large urban centers office plankton. Majority of Russians have no illusions about the
West anymore. The talk about new Iron Curtain (this time erected by Russia) is not just idle talk–Western degeneracy
is an issue which needs to be dealt with.
I agree. The "evidence" Saker bases this essay upon is extremely weak. He would have been better off just leaving it out and
writing the article as an opinion piece. But then, he would have been subject to evidence based rebuttals . I generally
look forward to his articles. This was disappointing
Why does Putin go along with neo-liberal economic policies in Russia? Does Putin really believe in this bullshit? I don't
believe Jeffrey Sachs with a very guilty conscience .. believes in this bullshit anymore.
@Yuritarasovych
iet ( or maybe sarcastic Soviet nostalgic) opposition, are sanguine about
the profound danger posed by China. As if not ironic enough, the right-wing Republicans in DC after two years
jostling with Trump, also came to the same conclusion.
5) The traditionalist "racist" "white guard" "monarchist" "Russian soul" type of right wing romanticist patriotic
opposition seems to suffer collective cognizance retardation when it comes to China. Saker has the same blindness.
This is also interesting. They are more stupid than their ancestors back in 1916-1918. The White Guards were as
responsible for Tsar's downfall as Miliukov or Kerensky. The cultural gene pool of Russia today will not permit the
growing up of people such as Lenin and Trotsky, with corresponding political genius, resoluteness, or maniacal
cruelty, whatever. Woe, tragedy of Russia.
Difficult to say how much of that difference is due to the sort of human resources they have to work with though. Xi
certainly had a much more functional country to start with. Overall, both of them are clearly among the most
impressive leaders currently on the world stage.
The Russian people should thank God for Putin and as an American I thank God that Putin has checkmated the unholy trinity ie
the US and Israel and Britain and their terrorists ie the CIA and the Mossad and MI6 the creators of AL CIADA aka ISIS and
all the offshoots thereof.
Putin is the only zane head of state on the world stage and has saved Syria from the Christian killing terrorists created
and supplied and supported by the unholy trinity.
The decline in Putin's approval rating/popularity is an emphatically positive indicator for Russia that the existential or
at least catastrophic geopolitical threats to Russia have greatly lessened.
Putin has been The Indispensable Man since he came to power. He is (very) roughly akin to FDR. While Putin is a vigorous
man, he strikes me as understanding that effecting the peaceful transition of power Russia-style, will seal his legacy as
among the greatest Russian rulers.
Get ready, because you and your readers' heads are about to pop . . . . .
Israel and Netanyahu were and remain in a similar position. The Obama Administration attempted to regime change Netanyahu
out. That's why Israelis engaged in a similar Better Safe Than Sorry the election previous to this most recent one.
Netanyahu barely won last time because the external threat had passed with the passing of the Obama Administration. The only
reason he got as close as he did to winning and being able to form a government is because of POTUS Trump.
The Saker lost his way due to what some call Trump Derangement Syndrome. I've never like that catchall term because the more
intelligent suffering from it are really blinded by resentment toward the man.
Whether any of you wish to get your minds around it or not, he has become the most powerful POTUS in modern memory. He
represents a sharp break from the increasingly Figurehead/Pitchman POTUSs of the post-Cold War period.
It's long past the time for you and many of your readers to knock it off with the folding table in front of the student
union wackiness. What with all the shouting about "AngloZionists" and such.
The Post-Cold War quarter century is effectively over. China won it, hands down. Now POTUS Trump is sufficiently able to
exercise his Article II powers for even those blinded by resentment toward him to see the US Sovereign is once again
coherently pursuing its geopolitical and geo-economic objectives.
For Russia/Putin this is altogether positive. The US Sovereign is now "Deal Capable/Ready."
Apr 24, 2019 Rand Corporation: How to Destroy Russia
Force the adversary to expand recklessly in order to unbalance him, and then destroy him. This is not the description of a
judo hold, but a plan against Russia elaborated by the Rand Corporation, the most influential think tank in the USA. With a
staff of thousands of experts, Rand presents itself as the world's most reliable source for Intelligence and political
analysis for the leaders of the United States and their allies.
I hope that the newly emerging "patriotic" opposition will focus its wrath not on Putin as a person, but on the mistakes
of the Russian government wherever they happen: President, Prime Minister, Minister or below – it should not matter.
If
the opposition succeeds in focusing on issues rather than venting its rage against specific individuals, then real
changes become possible
, including personnel changes.
Constructive political processes & loyal opposition are also entirely missing in the USA.
Putin did not save Russia single-handedly. He was and is just a front man for the forces that did. Even in the 1990s, when
the traitors ruled the roost in Russia, a lot of people sabotaged traitorous actions of Yeltsin and associated oligarchs.
Many ballistic missiles that were supposed to be destroyed were actually kept intact, as well as many production facilities.
That's the only reason Russia came back from what appeared to be the ashes so quickly. It is very likely that Putin's rise
to power was organized by those same forces. The most plausible scenario is that patriotic forces in the military, KGB, and
police, seeing wholesale treason of Yeltsin and his cronies, presented Yeltsin with an ultimatum: either he resigns,
promotes Putin, and gets off the hook, or he gets overthrown and prosecuted for his crimes. Remember, the first act of Putin
as president was a wholesale pardon to Yeltsin and his family.
As to real opposition, Russia does need it. Not the traitorous scum like Navalny, Khodorkovsky, or late unlamented Nemtsov,
but people with integrity, whose prime goal is to advance the interests of Russia, rather than just steal as much as
possible. What the Saker ignores is the fact that many Russian oligarchs (I have no illusions about them: they are all
mega-thieves, many are murderers, like Khodorkovsky) learned the lesson of Ukrainian oligarchs: unless you have a strong
state behind you, other equally unscrupulous thieves will gladly steal your loot.
Realistically, serious patriotic opposition in Russia will emerge when smarter oligarchs join forces with those fighting for
social justice. At that point leaders with savvy and charisma that makes them competitive with Putin have a chance of
emerging. The opposition won't be knights in shining armor, but it will be a force capable of ruling the country, not just
criticizing the rulers. The first task is really hard, whereas any moron can criticize any government making valid points.
The policies of the opposition must be mostly middle-of-the-road: limit (but not eliminate) the opportunities for oligarchs'
thievery, and use un-stolen resources to improve the life of ordinary people. In foreign policy, it must keep a strong
stance against the crumbling Empire, joining tactical alliances with all other anti-imperial countries and forces.
@FB
nd the loot ending up in England, Israel,
and who knows where else.
The fundamental strength of Chinese is that the country is being run by some kind of patriotic committee, that is
highly fault-tolerant and immune to Western interference. Xi, like his predecessors, is just a colorless bureaucrat:
the
Long
March
continues, no matter who the front man is. It is unthinkable that the Committee would allow someone like
Yeltsin to run the country into the ground.
Putin & Co need to solve this fundamental weakness of Russia, while he is in power and can change things. Otherwise,
another Yeltsin might come along and wreck everything.
Russia under Putin is the largest grain exporter in the world and has been for the last 3 years and if anyone doubts how
Russian farming has entered the modern world just go to youtube and watch the videos on Russian agriculture.
Seeing how Ukies managed to turn Ukraine into a pile of shit, the only way to profit by their advice is this: listen to what
they have to say and do exactly opposite.
@Avery
iullina just for a start then a number of banks and large private
corporations need to be nationalized after 20 years of playing the capitalist game, it's clear that this is a losing game
Russia needs to make domestic capital available for things like massive infrastructure projects and big science and
technology PCR, probably the most astute Russia 'hand', certainly on the subject of economics, has stated the obvious fact
that these kinds of state investments [and printing the money to do that] are NOT inflationary I keep waiting for that to
happen, but it never does I think Putin is just too cautious for big moves like that
The question is whether anyone else will do it ?
Russia needs an Uncle Joe but they just don't build them like that anymore
None of the commentators seem to show the minimum awareness of the following, except for the gent from Tennessee: 1)
the acute psychological and practical importance of social justice for basic Russian people; and 2) harder to define
to basically totalitarian capitalistic essence of the Chinese model. This shows that A) you all live in the West, B)
with good justification are obsessed with a burning hatred against Globalist empire and you throw out the baby of
basic values of freedom and democracy with the dirty water western propaganda bubble, C) you guys don't realize how
many Russians live on 30,000 rubles a month, and you project this rosy hope on them ( saving the west with
"conservative Christian values and brave fight against globalism" ) 4) you guys have not the remotest ideas of how
the petty Chinese traders and their large state corporations behave, when the other party happens to be not some
tall Anglo-saxon / Jew whose white asses the Chinese want to lick. Many Russians on the other hand, have such first
hand experience.
Yeltsin was legitimate until 1993. Dismissing vice president and shooting, and then dismissing parliament was
unconstitutional. He became even less legitimate when his goons falsified two rounds of the presidential elections in 1996,
making him a winner of the vote he lost badly. In addition, he was an alcoholic, traitor, and mega-thief. End of story.
"... Second, it is equally obvious that the pension reform is profoundly unpopular and that Putin's personal credibility has never recovered from this political fiasco. ..."
As predicted, Putin's popularity takes a nosedive.
This fact is not often discussed in the West, but the popularity of Vladimir Putin is in decline and has been so ever
since, following his reelection, he kept more or less the same (already unpopular) government while that government very
clumsily attempted to "sneak by" undetected a pension reform. Now
the
latest numbers are in
, and they are not good: only 31.7% of Russians trust Vladimir Putin, that is his worst
score in 13 years! His score last year was 47.4% (by the way, Shoigu got only 14.8%, Lavrov got 13%, and Medvedev got
7.6%. These are terrible scores by any measure!)
I have been warning about this for a while now (see
here
,
here
,
here
,
here
,
here
,
here
and
here
),
and we now can try to understand what happened.
These are the faces most Russians are fed-up with
First, it is obvious that millions of Russians (including yours truly) were deeply disappointed that Putin did not
substantially reorganize the Russian government following his triumphant reelection last year. Putin himself is on
record saying two things about that: first, that he is generally happy with the performance of the government and,
second, that he needs an experienced team to implement his very ambitious reform program (more about that in a moment).
Second, it is equally obvious that the pension reform is profoundly unpopular and that Putin's personal credibility has
never recovered from this political fiasco.
Third, and this is the most overlooked and yet most interesting development – there is a
real
opposition
gradually emerging in Russia. What do I mean by "real"? First, I mean not a "pretend opposition" as we see in the
Russian Duma (which is a glorified rubber-stamping parliament). Second, I mean a
patriotic
opposition
which is neither financed nor controlled by Mr. Soros nor the CIA nor any of their innumerable offshoots. The problem is
that this opposition has many severe problems and that it completely fails to present an alternative to the current "Putinocracy."
Here we need to state something significant: Putin is indeed a "liberal," at least in terms of economic policies. When
he says that he is happy ("on the whole") with the performance of the Medvedev government, it is because he probably is.
Furthermore, while Putin apparently likes to listen to folks like Glaziev, he is clearly wary of implementing the more
"social" (or even "socialist") measures advocated by Glaziev and his supporters.
But if Putin is a liberal, is there really a 5
th
column
acting behind the scenes?
This being said, it would be wrong to jump to the primitive conclusion that there is no 5th column (or no "Atlantic
Integrationists") in the Kremlin or in the
Staraya
Square
. In fact, it would be impossible for such a 5th column not to exist. How do we know that? For three very
basic reasons
The AngloZionist leaders of the Empire absolutely
hate
Putin.
Those pretending to deny that are either terminally dishonest or fantastically stupid. Either way, they are wrong.
Simply put: by the late 1990s Russia as a country was quasi-dead, finished, something like the Ukronazi occupied
Ukraine today. Not only has Putin single-handedly saved Russia from collapse, he turned Russia into a power capable
of defeating the plans of the Empire not only in Syria but also in the rest of the Middle-East. Yes, all the
accusations of "collusion" and "hacking" are verbal
prolefeed
for
TV-watching intellectual midgets, but that does not mean that the leaders don't have real, factual and logical
reasons to fear Putin and Russia. They do. And they are doing everything in their power to weaken Russia and
overthrow Putin.
Most of the Russian elites achieved their elite status in the 1990s (some even in the 1980s!), and many of them hate
Putin for putting a stop to the total robbery bonanza which made it possible for these people to not only come to
power but also make a killing financially. As for the so-called "economic block" of the Russian government, it is
entirely made up of what I loosely call the "WTO/IMF/WB/etc." -Types: folks who sincerely endorse the so-called "
Washington
Consensus
." The very
least
one
could say about these folks is that their worldview and ideology are not only totally alien to traditional Russian
values, they are in fact
profoundly
anti-Russian
. For these folks to become the 5
th
column
is the most natural development.
The system which Putin inherited was one deeply integrated with the AngloZionist sphere of financial, economic,
political, and social influence. While western sanctions (and general political shortsightedness) severed many of
these ties (thank you to the Neocons for their life-saving sanctions and, especially, hysterically Russophobic
propaganda!), there are very few cases (if any) of Russians severing such ties. Some believe that Putin sincerely
wanted Russia to join NATO or/and the EU. I don't agree with that, but whether he was sincere or not, the fact is
that Putin did initially try to court the West. The fact that the West was too stupid to see the fantastic
opportunity this situation was offering is yet another powerful testimony of how incompetent western "area
specialists" have become.
Putin's 2007 "
Munich
speech
" should have acted like an urgent wake-up call to the leaders of the West, but they lacked the brains and
courage to listen to what Putin was saying. The same thing happened during
Putin's
2015 speech at the UNGA
. To his internal Russian audience, Putin bluntly said, when asked if the West was trying
to "humiliate" Russia: "
They
do not want to humiliate us, they want to subdue us, solve their problems at our expense
." Personally, I believe
that Putin, as any other officer of the First Main Directorate (foreign intelligence) of the KGB always understood that
the West was a mortal enemy of Russia and that this has been true for at least 1000 years. Thus I think that it would be
naive to believe that Putin ever "trusted" the West. But did he deliberately give that impression for as long as it
could serve his purposes? Yes, absolutely. Now, this period is clearly over.
The one thing which the Russian 5th column cannot really be is any type of "opposition." First, the 5th column is
internal
to
the Kremlin, to the Presidential Administration, to the "United Russia" party and to all the other centers of power in
Russia. This forces the opposition to
pretend
loyalty
to Putin while sabotaging every effort at re-sovereignizing Russia (admittedly a tough task since Russia has been ruled
by foreign elites since at least the times of Peter I).
I am often asked why Russia Today and Sputnik publish what can only be called "trash" or even anti-religious
propaganda on their websites. The answer is simple: there are plenty of folks at RT and Sputnik (especially in the
teams operating their websites as opposed to the actual broadcasts) who are pure products of the AngloZionist
worldview and who love some sleazy sex story almost as much as they love to bash or ridicule the Orthodox church.
While there are plenty of terrific people in both of these media, there are also plenty who secretly would love
Russia to return to the 1990s or become a kind of "Poland" east of the Ukraine. This is also why these outlets make
a strenuous effort not to discuss the Israel lobby in the West (not only the USA), but they also stay away from any
discussion of 9/11. I know for a fact that any mention of the real events of 9/11 is strictly forbidden by some
"bigshot" editors in Moscow as my own interviews were censored that way.
One word of caution here: there are millions of Russians abroad, and many of them are what are now called "
вырусь
"
(vy-roos') in Russia: folks who might speak Russian, and even visit Russia from time to time, but who have completely
lost their "Russian-ness" and whose worldview does not extend beyond wishing that Russia was more like the US or
Germany. They think of Russia as "rashka," and they absolutely hate any genuine manifestation of Russian culture,
spirituality, traditions or religion. Some of them will join the Alt-Right movement and pretend that the racist
categories and ideology used by this movement have some traction in Russia (they don't). Some will try to impersonate
Orthodox Christians. In truth – they are still a pure product of the AngloZionst Empire. Some of them have clearly found
gainful employment in the Russian media where they keep a vigilant watch for any signs that the ideological dogma of the
West (we all know what they are) are being debunked by Russian patriots. These "vyroos" are yet another manifestation of
the Russian 5
th
column.
What about the official opposition to Putin?
Ukie Defense Minister Poltorak photoshops himself before an exploding Kremlin Tower. This is the kind of
nonsense that gets even Duma members angry.
Then there is the "official" Duma opposition, which is more or less a joke. Some Russian MPs are better than others, but
even the comparatively better ones are entirely unable to present a real challenge to the Russian government (we saw
that painfully illustrated by the Duma vote on the pension reform).
As for the ordinary people, most of them probably still trust Putin in foreign policy issues, but many are also getting
genuinely fed-up with an arrogant and condescending ruling elite which couldn't care less about the plight of regular
people and who live in an ivory tower of wealth, arrogance and power.
There is also a gradual realization that Putin in generally being "too soft" on the Empire and not proactive enough in
defense of Novorussia against the Ukronazi junta in Kiev. Sadly, I have to agree with them. Yes, there has been some
progress: the Russian ban on exporting energy to the Ukraine and the deliverance of Russian passports to the people of
Novorussia. Furthermore, the Kremlin has expressed precisely
zero
approval
of Zelenskii's election and, apparently, this was the correct move since even though the policies of Poroshenko were
categorically rejected by an absolute majority of the Ukrainian people, all the signs are that Zelenskii has already
wholly caved to the demands of the "collective West". Unless this trend towards "more of the same, only worse" is
reversed, it is likely that the popular pressure in Russia to be far more proactive against the regime in Kiev will only
increase. In recent months the Duma has been under pressure from the public to take a more forceful reaction to the
events in the Ukraine, and this has had some, albeit limited, effect: the totally lame Duma has now become a little bit
less lame, but not by much.
So what is this new opposition to Putin?
How our power structure is organized: This is the Kremlin. Putin is there. He issues decrees and ensures that
the Constitution is upheld; This is the Government building. Medvedev is there and he loots the budget of our
country; This is the Duma, Volodin is there and he adopts anti-popular laws; This is the Federation Council,
Matvienko and she approves anti-popular laws..
The distinguishing characteristic of this new opposition to Putin is that it sees itself as the truly patriotic segment
of Russian society. These are folks who blame Putin for being weak, indecisive and corrupt (including personally). They
believe that Putin sits on the top of an oligarchic pyramid which only pays lip service to Russian national interests,
but which in reality is interested only in wealth, power and influence. Frankly, much of their argumentation about
Putin's alleged corruption is based on a mix of disinformation and personal hatred for Putin himself. In contrast,
however, their arguments that Putin is too weak or indecisive are based on a completely rational and fact based analysis
of the events which have marked Putin's presidency. After all, the man has been in power for 20 years or so, he has
enjoyed tremendous bureaucratic power and the full support of the vast majority of the population. How then can he (or
his supporters) blame it all on a "bad system" or the power of a 5
th
column
whose existence some don't believe in in the first place?
On the right is a typical opposition "Internet poster".
While I personally don't agree with this point of view, I have to recognize that it is not self-evidently absurd or
solely based on propaganda. In other words, they do have a point, and much of their criticism is valid.
Alas, much of it is not, and that mix loses a lot in credibility when 50% of it is fact-based and logical, and 50% is
not.
What is even worse is that these patriots regularly find themselves in the same camp as the Soros/CIA -funded folks whom
the patriots claim to hate, but whose arguments they often recycle (about the personal corruption of Putin, for
example).
The other major weakness of this new opposition is that it lacks any kind of leader. This is why I did not bother
listing the names of the main representatives of this opposition: for most of those who will read this article, these
names will mean nothing.
Finally, this new patriotic opposition seems to lack an original worldview: much of their argumentation boils down to
"it was better in the Soviet era" (they typically tend to overlook how bad things indeed were, at least since the
1980s!).
So where do we go from here? Will Russia ever have a real, vibrant, opposition?
My short personal answer is, yes, Russia will have such an opposition. Here is why:
The official Duma opposition is both useless and hopeless.
The Soros/CIA financed opposition is discredited beyond rescue.
The 5
th
column
is fundamentally a fraud, and most Russians hate it.
The current "patriotic" opposition will grow due to the policies of the Russian government, and they will probably
learn from their mistakes.
Crises often (almost always) generate the appearance of new leaders
I hope that the newly emerging "patriotic" opposition will focus its wrath not on Putin as a person, but on the mistakes
of the Russian government wherever they happen: President, Prime Minister, Minister or below – it should not matter. If
the opposition succeeds in focusing on issues rather than venting its rage against specific individuals, then real
changes become possible, including personnel changes.
The latest opinion polls show that
all
the
members of the government are suffering from falling ratings, not just the Atlantic Integrationists. If this trend
maintains itself, the Eurasian Sovereignists will have a powerful incentive to cut their ties with the Atlantic
Integrationists. Who knows, maybe Medvedev and the so-called "economic block of the government" will be shown to the
door? If not, then the plunge in the polls will most likely continue, and social unrest becomes a real possibility.
Just full of unsupported assertions and with an overall lack of understanding about how countries, especially big ones,
really work.
Citing some polling on individual figures is meaningless without context and without any details about the nature of the
poll. Faked and/or incompetent polling happens regularly in the West."Push"polls are a constant gimmick used in the Western
press to give authority to assertions.
Any poll which shows Shoigu getting only 14.8%, Lavrov getting 13%, is highly suspect on its face. These are genuinely
super-capable individuals in their jobs, quite beyond any norms for performance.
When something smells as bad as this article, sharp reader knows something is going on beyond the mere speculations of an
amateur affairs analyst.
Показатель одобрения деятельности Президента стабилен и находится в рамках сформировавшегося коридора: по среднему
значению с 13 по 19 мая он составил 65,8%.
2. Svobodnaya Pressa (SP) is not exactly unbiased (or competent) source. Enough to take a look at such odious figures as
Boldyrev hanging out there as a "columnist";
3. Russia's so called opposition (mainly left) committed suicide when went with Grudinin. In general, they don't have anyone
of required scale and competence to even approach a vicinity of Putin.
In many respects, SP's commentaries are merely a tempest in the cup.
I suspect if they distrust Putin the diabolical skripal RT interview with the "Russian Tourists" may have something to do
with it.
Tens of Millions of Russians were ready to believe the false flag CIA / M16 setup explanation, then suddenly two idiots
popup, on national tv who just scream military / security looking men to say they were there just to check out the
cathedral spire of course!
I mean what a shot in the foot who authorised that interview to happen?
Some believe that Putin sincerely wanted Russia to join NATO or/and the EU. I don't agree with that, but whether he was
sincere or not, the fact is that Putin did initially try to court the West. The fact that the West was too stupid to see
the fantastic opportunity this situation was offering is yet another powerful testimony of how incompetent western "area
specialists" have become.
Washington would never allow Russia to join EU/NATO. Russia's too big for them to control, and might even end up partly or
entirely co-opting these organizations. No, their original plan was to break Russia up into bite-sized pieces first, then
induct those little statelets into NATO (or some other Washington-dominated 'alliance'), then use them to surround and
harass China–all very similar to the way they're using Ukraine and the Caucasus to surround and harass Russia now.
@JOHN CHUCKMAN
finance infrastructure and vital
technology that's what sovereign countries do but Russia is still acting like a banana republic
Neither Putin nor anyone in government has actual control of the central bank which 'independence' [read
absolute
dependence
on the global finance cabal] is enshrined in the US-written Yeltsin era 'Constitution'
Now there are some that argue that Putin has done very well just to fend off the ongoing financial, economic and
informational war on Russia and perhaps Russia cannot simply make a clean break with the western financial octopus with
which it's entangled
I don't know there may be some truth to that a gradual weaning off may be the more
prudent
course and
Putin is nothing if not that
When Putin gets too old to govern, the next leader will not come from some "vibrant" opposition. The next leader will be
hand-picked by Putin, same way he was hand-picked by that fool Yeltsin – the best move he ever made.
There are people in Russia who still believe that trying to emulate the western "democratic practices" will win them
approval and love from the west.
Leave the winning of love and approval by the west to the lesser Slavs like the Polaks and the Ukrainians.
The only time west "approved" of Russia was when they were doing self-harm to themselves – like in 1980's and 90's.
Listen carefully, my dear Russians – west will never love you, and it's not your fault. So don't worry about it. Choose your
own path and forget about "democracy". The whole thing is a sham anyway.
I am often asked why Russia Today and Sputnik publish what can only be called "trash"
Some of it is unbearable
these outlets make a strenuous effort not to discuss the Israel lobby in the West (not only the USA), but they
also stay away from any discussion of 9/11.
Ordinance fired in that direction is likely to ricochet – they do a pretty good job of demolishing the Ukraine
narrative; the "White Helmets" the Venezuelan coup etc as presented by MSM and they have taken a lot of punishment
for that already. And, yes
there are plenty of folks at RT and Sputnik (especially in the teams operating their websites as opposed to the
actual broadcasts) who are pure products of the AngloZionist worldview
There are people in Russia who still believe that trying to emulate the western "democratic practices" will win
them approval and love from the west.
Let's put it this way–the strata of these people is extremely narrow (thin) and consists mostly of human freaks such
as kreakls and some parts of large urban centers office plankton. Majority of Russians have no illusions about the
West anymore. The talk about new Iron Curtain (this time erected by Russia) is not just idle talk–Western degeneracy
is an issue which needs to be dealt with.
I agree. The "evidence" Saker bases this essay upon is extremely weak. He would have been better off just leaving it out and
writing the article as an opinion piece. But then, he would have been subject to evidence based rebuttals . I generally
look forward to his articles. This was disappointing
Why does Putin go along with neo-liberal economic policies in Russia? Does Putin really believe in this bullshit? I don't
believe Jeffrey Sachs with a very guilty conscience .. believes in this bullshit anymore.
@Yuritarasovych
iet ( or maybe sarcastic Soviet nostalgic) opposition, are sanguine about
the profound danger posed by China. As if not ironic enough, the right-wing Republicans in DC after two years
jostling with Trump, also came to the same conclusion.
5) The traditionalist "racist" "white guard" "monarchist" "Russian soul" type of right wing romanticist patriotic
opposition seems to suffer collective cognizance retardation when it comes to China. Saker has the same blindness.
This is also interesting. They are more stupid than their ancestors back in 1916-1918. The White Guards were as
responsible for Tsar's downfall as Miliukov or Kerensky. The cultural gene pool of Russia today will not permit the
growing up of people such as Lenin and Trotsky, with corresponding political genius, resoluteness, or maniacal
cruelty, whatever. Woe, tragedy of Russia.
Difficult to say how much of that difference is due to the sort of human resources they have to work with though. Xi
certainly had a much more functional country to start with. Overall, both of them are clearly among the most
impressive leaders currently on the world stage.
The Russian people should thank God for Putin and as an American I thank God that Putin has checkmated the unholy trinity ie
the US and Israel and Britain and their terrorists ie the CIA and the Mossad and MI6 the creators of AL CIADA aka ISIS and
all the offshoots thereof.
Putin is the only zane head of state on the world stage and has saved Syria from the Christian killing terrorists created
and supplied and supported by the unholy trinity.
The decline in Putin's approval rating/popularity is an emphatically positive indicator for Russia that the existential or
at least catastrophic geopolitical threats to Russia have greatly lessened.
Putin has been The Indispensable Man since he came to power. He is (very) roughly akin to FDR. While Putin is a vigorous
man, he strikes me as understanding that effecting the peaceful transition of power Russia-style, will seal his legacy as
among the greatest Russian rulers.
Get ready, because you and your readers' heads are about to pop . . . . .
Israel and Netanyahu were and remain in a similar position. The Obama Administration attempted to regime change Netanyahu
out. That's why Israelis engaged in a similar Better Safe Than Sorry the election previous to this most recent one.
Netanyahu barely won last time because the external threat had passed with the passing of the Obama Administration. The only
reason he got as close as he did to winning and being able to form a government is because of POTUS Trump.
The Saker lost his way due to what some call Trump Derangement Syndrome. I've never like that catchall term because the more
intelligent suffering from it are really blinded by resentment toward the man.
Whether any of you wish to get your minds around it or not, he has become the most powerful POTUS in modern memory. He
represents a sharp break from the increasingly Figurehead/Pitchman POTUSs of the post-Cold War period.
It's long past the time for you and many of your readers to knock it off with the folding table in front of the student
union wackiness. What with all the shouting about "AngloZionists" and such.
The Post-Cold War quarter century is effectively over. China won it, hands down. Now POTUS Trump is sufficiently able to
exercise his Article II powers for even those blinded by resentment toward him to see the US Sovereign is once again
coherently pursuing its geopolitical and geo-economic objectives.
For Russia/Putin this is altogether positive. The US Sovereign is now "Deal Capable/Ready."
Apr 24, 2019 Rand Corporation: How to Destroy Russia
Force the adversary to expand recklessly in order to unbalance him, and then destroy him. This is not the description of a
judo hold, but a plan against Russia elaborated by the Rand Corporation, the most influential think tank in the USA. With a
staff of thousands of experts, Rand presents itself as the world's most reliable source for Intelligence and political
analysis for the leaders of the United States and their allies.
I hope that the newly emerging "patriotic" opposition will focus its wrath not on Putin as a person, but on the mistakes
of the Russian government wherever they happen: President, Prime Minister, Minister or below – it should not matter.
If
the opposition succeeds in focusing on issues rather than venting its rage against specific individuals, then real
changes become possible
, including personnel changes.
Constructive political processes & loyal opposition are also entirely missing in the USA.
Putin did not save Russia single-handedly. He was and is just a front man for the forces that did. Even in the 1990s, when
the traitors ruled the roost in Russia, a lot of people sabotaged traitorous actions of Yeltsin and associated oligarchs.
Many ballistic missiles that were supposed to be destroyed were actually kept intact, as well as many production facilities.
That's the only reason Russia came back from what appeared to be the ashes so quickly. It is very likely that Putin's rise
to power was organized by those same forces. The most plausible scenario is that patriotic forces in the military, KGB, and
police, seeing wholesale treason of Yeltsin and his cronies, presented Yeltsin with an ultimatum: either he resigns,
promotes Putin, and gets off the hook, or he gets overthrown and prosecuted for his crimes. Remember, the first act of Putin
as president was a wholesale pardon to Yeltsin and his family.
As to real opposition, Russia does need it. Not the traitorous scum like Navalny, Khodorkovsky, or late unlamented Nemtsov,
but people with integrity, whose prime goal is to advance the interests of Russia, rather than just steal as much as
possible. What the Saker ignores is the fact that many Russian oligarchs (I have no illusions about them: they are all
mega-thieves, many are murderers, like Khodorkovsky) learned the lesson of Ukrainian oligarchs: unless you have a strong
state behind you, other equally unscrupulous thieves will gladly steal your loot.
Realistically, serious patriotic opposition in Russia will emerge when smarter oligarchs join forces with those fighting for
social justice. At that point leaders with savvy and charisma that makes them competitive with Putin have a chance of
emerging. The opposition won't be knights in shining armor, but it will be a force capable of ruling the country, not just
criticizing the rulers. The first task is really hard, whereas any moron can criticize any government making valid points.
The policies of the opposition must be mostly middle-of-the-road: limit (but not eliminate) the opportunities for oligarchs'
thievery, and use un-stolen resources to improve the life of ordinary people. In foreign policy, it must keep a strong
stance against the crumbling Empire, joining tactical alliances with all other anti-imperial countries and forces.
@FB
nd the loot ending up in England, Israel,
and who knows where else.
The fundamental strength of Chinese is that the country is being run by some kind of patriotic committee, that is
highly fault-tolerant and immune to Western interference. Xi, like his predecessors, is just a colorless bureaucrat:
the
Long
March
continues, no matter who the front man is. It is unthinkable that the Committee would allow someone like
Yeltsin to run the country into the ground.
Putin & Co need to solve this fundamental weakness of Russia, while he is in power and can change things. Otherwise,
another Yeltsin might come along and wreck everything.
Russia under Putin is the largest grain exporter in the world and has been for the last 3 years and if anyone doubts how
Russian farming has entered the modern world just go to youtube and watch the videos on Russian agriculture.
Seeing how Ukies managed to turn Ukraine into a pile of shit, the only way to profit by their advice is this: listen to what
they have to say and do exactly opposite.
@Avery
iullina just for a start then a number of banks and large private
corporations need to be nationalized after 20 years of playing the capitalist game, it's clear that this is a losing game
Russia needs to make domestic capital available for things like massive infrastructure projects and big science and
technology PCR, probably the most astute Russia 'hand', certainly on the subject of economics, has stated the obvious fact
that these kinds of state investments [and printing the money to do that] are NOT inflationary I keep waiting for that to
happen, but it never does I think Putin is just too cautious for big moves like that
The question is whether anyone else will do it ?
Russia needs an Uncle Joe but they just don't build them like that anymore
None of the commentators seem to show the minimum awareness of the following, except for the gent from Tennessee: 1)
the acute psychological and practical importance of social justice for basic Russian people; and 2) harder to define
to basically totalitarian capitalistic essence of the Chinese model. This shows that A) you all live in the West, B)
with good justification are obsessed with a burning hatred against Globalist empire and you throw out the baby of
basic values of freedom and democracy with the dirty water western propaganda bubble, C) you guys don't realize how
many Russians live on 30,000 rubles a month, and you project this rosy hope on them ( saving the west with
"conservative Christian values and brave fight against globalism" ) 4) you guys have not the remotest ideas of how
the petty Chinese traders and their large state corporations behave, when the other party happens to be not some
tall Anglo-saxon / Jew whose white asses the Chinese want to lick. Many Russians on the other hand, have such first
hand experience.
Yeltsin was legitimate until 1993. Dismissing vice president and shooting, and then dismissing parliament was
unconstitutional. He became even less legitimate when his goons falsified two rounds of the presidential elections in 1996,
making him a winner of the vote he lost badly. In addition, he was an alcoholic, traitor, and mega-thief. End of story.
"... The Wall Street Crash in 1929 exposed the fragility and rottenness of much in the United States. Brexit may do the same in Britain. In New York 90 years ago, my father only truly appreciated how bad the situation really was when his boss said to him in a low voice: "Remember, when we are writing this story, the word 'panic' is not to be used." ..."
There is a story about an enthusiastic American who took a phlegmatic English friend to see the Niagara Falls.
"Isn't that amazing?" exclaimed the American. "Look at that vast mass of water dashing over that enormous cliff!"
"But what,"
asked the Englishman, "is to stop it?"
My father,
Claud Cockburn, used to tell this fable to illustrate what, as a reporter in New York on the first day of the Wall Street
Crash on 24 October 1929, it was like to watch a great and unstoppable disaster taking place.
I thought
about my father's account of the mood on that day in New York as
Theresa
May
announced her departure as prime minister, the latest milestone – but an important one – in the implosion of British
politics in the age of
Brexit
.
Everybody with their feet on the ground has a sense of unavoidable disaster up ahead but no idea of how to avert it; least
of all May's likely successors with their buckets of snake oil about defying the EU and uniting the nation.
It is a mistake to put all the blame on the politicians. I have spent the last six months travelling around Britain,
visiting places from Dover to Belfast, where it is clear that parliament is only reflecting real fault lines in British
society. Brexit may have envenomed and widened these divisions, but it did not create them and it is tens of millions of
people who differ radically in their opinions, not just an incompetent and malign elite.
Even so, May
was precisely the wrong political personality to try to cope with the Brexit crisis: not stupid herself, she has a
single-minded determination amounting to tunnel vision that is akin to stupidity. Her lauding of consensus in her
valedictory speech announcing her resignation was a bit rich after three years of rejecting compromise until faced with
imminent defeat.
Charging
ahead regardless only works for those who are stronger than all obstacles, which was certainly not the case in Westminster
and Brussels. Only those holding all the trump cards can ignore the other players at the table. This should have been
blindingly clear from the day May moved into Downing Street after a referendum that showed British voters to be split down
the middle, something made even more obvious when she lost her parliamentary majority in 2017. But, for all her tributes to
the virtues of compromise today, she relied on the votes of MPs from the sectarian Protestant DUP in Northern Ireland, a
place which had strongly voted to remain in the EU.
Her
miscalculations in negotiating with the EU were equally gross. The belief that Britain could cherry pick what it wanted from
its relationship with Europe was always wishful thinking unless the other 27 EU states were disunited. It is always in the
interests of the members of a club to make sure that those who leave have a worse time outside than in.
The balance
of power was against Britain and this is not going to change, though
Boris
Johnson
and Dominic Raab might pretend that what has been lacking is sufficient willpower or belief in Brexit as a sort
of religious faith. These are dangerous delusions, enabling Nigel Farage to sell the idea of "betrayal" and being "stabbed
in the back" just like German right-wing politicians after 1918.
Accusations
of treachery might be an easy sell in Britain because it is so steeped in myths of self-sufficiency, fostered by
self-congratulatory films and books about British prowess in the Second World War. More recent British military failures in
Iraq and Afghanistan either never made it on to the national news agenda or are treated as irrelevant bits of ancient
history. The devastating Chilcot report on Britain in the Iraq War received insufficient notice because its publication
coincided with the referendum in 2016.
Brexiters
who claim to be leading Britain on to a global stage are extraordinarily parochial in their views of the outside world. The
only realistic role for Britain in a post-Brexit world will be, as ever, a more humble spear carrier for Trump's America. In
this sense, it is appropriate that the Trump state visit should so neatly coincide with May's departure and the triumphant
emergence of Trump's favourite British politicians, Johnson and Farage.
Just how
decisive is the current success of the Brexiters likely to be? Their opponents say encouragingly that they have promised
what they cannot deliver in terms of greater prosperity so they are bound to come unstuck. But belief in such a comforting
scenario is the height of naivety because the world is full of politicians who have failed to deliver the promises that got
them elected, but find some other unsavoury gambit to keep power by exacerbating foreign threats, as in India, or locking up
critics, as in Turkey.
Britain is
entering a period of permanent crisis not seen since the 17
th
century.
Brexit was a symptom as well as a cause of divisions. The gap between the rich and the poor, the householder and the tenant,
the educated and the uneducated, the old and the young, has grown wider and wider. Brexit became the great vent through
which grievances that had nothing to with Brussels bubbled. The EU is blamed for all the sins of de-industrialisation,
privatisation and globalisation and, if it did not create them, then it did not do enough to alleviate their impact.
The
proponents of Leave show no sign of having learned anything over the last three years, but they do not have to because they
can say that the rewards of Brexit lie in a sun-lit future. Remainers have done worse because they are claiming that the
rewards of the membership of the EU are plenteous and already with us. "If you wish to see its monument, look around you,"
they seem to say. This is a dangerous argument: why should anybody from ex-miners in the Welsh Valleys to former car workers
in Birmingham or men who once worked on Dover docks endorse what has happened to them while Britain has been in the EU? Why
should they worry about a rise or fall in the GDP when they never felt it was their GDP in the first place?
May is
getting a sympathy vote for her final lachrymose performance, but it is undeserved. Right up to the end there was a
startling gap between her words and deeds. The most obvious contradiction was her proclaimed belief that "life depends on
compromise". But it also turns out that "proper funding for mental health" was at the heart of her NHS long term plan,
though hospital wards for the mentally ill continue to close and patients deep in psychosis are dispatched to the other end
of the country.
The Wall
Street Crash in 1929 exposed the fragility and rottenness of much in the United States. Brexit may do the same in Britain.
In New York 90 years ago, my father only truly appreciated how bad the situation really was when his boss said to him in a
low voice: "Remember, when we are writing this story, the word 'panic' is not to be used."
Impeachment indeed would be a mistake. The Dems have been denigrating trump from the
beginning and what has that got them?
Also, remember Trey Gowdy and his endless investigations? Adam Shiff is nearly as
repugnant and should turn to other work in Congress.
Yes, SharonM, Tulsi is charismatic, as well as calm and collected. So far, though, she is
being ignored by the D.C. pundits. We should keep an eye on her positioning with respect to
the new DNC debate thresholds.
Referring to Israel during an interview in August 1983, U.S. Navy Admiral and former head of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff Thomas Moorer
said
"I've
never seen a President -- I don't care who he is -- stand up to them. It just boggles the mind. They always get what
they want. The Israelis know what is going on all the time. I got to the point where I wasn't writing anything down.
If the American people understood what a grip these people have got on our government, they would rise up in arms.
Our citizens certainly don't have any idea what goes on."
Moorer was speaking generally but he had something specific in mind, namely the June 8, 1967, Israeli attack on the
American intelligence ship, U.S.S. Liberty, which killed 34 American crewmen and wounded 173 more. The ship was
operating in international waters and was displaying a huge stars and stripes but Israeli warplanes, which had
identified the vessel as American, even strafed the life rafts to kill those who were fleeing the sinking ship. It
was the bloodiest attack on a U.S. Naval vessel ever outside of wartime and the crew deservedly received the most
medals every awarded to a single ship based on one action. Yes, it is one hell of a story of courage under fire, but
don't hold your breath waiting for Hollywood to make a movie out of it.
President Lyndon B. Johnson, may he burn in hell, had ordered the recall of U.S. carrier planes sent to aid the
stricken vessel, saying that he would prefer the ship go to the bottom rather than embarrass his good friend Israel.
Then came the cover-up from inside the U.S. government. A hastily convened and summarily executed board of inquiry
headed by Admiral John McCain, father of the senator, deliberately interviewed only a handful of crewmen before
determining that it was all an accident. The sailors who had survived the attack as well as crewmen from Navy ships
that arrived eventually to provide assistance were held incommunicado in Malta before being threatened and sworn to
secrecy. Since that time, repeated attempts to convene another genuine inquiry have been rebuffed by congress, the
White House and the Pentagon. Recently deceased Senator John McCain was particularly active in rejecting overtures
from the Liberty survivors.
The Liberty story demonstrates how Israel's ability to make the United States government act against its own
interests has been around for a long time. Grant Smith of IRMEP, cites how Israeli spying carried out by AIPAC in
Washington back in the mid-1980s resulted in a
lopsided
trade agreement
that currently benefits Israel by more than $10 billion per year on the top of direct grants
from the U.S. Treasury and billions in tax exempt "charitable" donations by American Jews.
If Admiral Moorer were still alive, I would have to tell him that the situation vis-à-vis Israeli power is much
worse now than it was in 1983. He would be very interested in reading a
remarkable
bit of research
recently completed by Smith demonstrating exactly how Israel and its friends work from inside
the system to corrupt our political process and make the American government work in support of Jewish state
interests. He describes in some detail how the Israel Lobby has been able to manipulate the law enforcement
community to protect and promote Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's agenda.
A key component in the Israeli penetration of the U. S. government has been President George W. Bush's 2004 signing
off on the creation of the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (OTFI) within the Department of the
Treasury. The group's website proclaims that it is responsible for "safeguarding the financial system against
illicit use and combating rogue nations, terrorist facilitators, weapons of mass destruction (WMD) proliferators,
money launderers, drug kingpins, and other national security threats," but it has from its founding been really all
about safeguarding Israel's perceived interests. Grant Smith notes however, how "the secretive office has a special
blind spot for major terrorism generators, such as tax-exempt money laundering from the United States into illegal
Israeli settlements and proliferation financing and weapons technology smuggling into Israel's clandestine nuclear
weapons complex."
The first head of the office was Undersecretary of Treasury Stuart Levey, who operated secretly within the Treasury
itself while also coordinating regularly both with the Israeli government as well as with pro-Israel organizations
like AIPAC, WINEP and the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD). Levey also traveled regularly to Israel
on the taxpayer's dime, as did his three successors in office.
Levey left OTFI in 2011 and was replaced by David Cohen.
It
was reported
then and subsequently that counterterrorism position at OTFI were all filled by individuals who
were both Jewish and Zionist. Cohen continued the Levey tradition of resisting any transparency regarding what the
office was up to. Smith reports how, on September 12, 2012, he
refused
to answer reporter questions
"about Israel's possession of nuclear weapons, and whether sanctioning Iran, a
signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, over its internationally-inspected civilian
nuclear program was an example of endemic double standards at OTFI."
Cohen was in turn succeeded in 2015 by Adam Szubin who was then replaced in 2017 by Sigal Pearl Mandelker,
a
former and possibly current Israeli citizen
. All of the heads of OTFI have therefore been Jewish and Zionist.
All work closely with the Israeli government, all travel to Israel frequently on "official business" and they all
are in close liaison with the Jewish groups most often described as part of the Israel Lobby. And the result has
been that many of the victims of OTFI have been generally enemies of Israel, as defined by Israel and America's
Jewish lobbyists. OTFI's
Specially
Designated Nationals And Blocked Persons List (
SDN
),
which
includes sanctions and enforcement options
,
features
many Middle Eastern Muslim and Christian names and companies but nothing in any way comparable relating to Israel
and Israelis, many of whom are well known to law enforcement otherwise as weapons traffickers and money launderers
.
And
once placed on the SDN there is no transparent way to be removed, even if the entry was clearly in error.
Here in the United States, action by OTFI has meant that Islamic charities have been shut down and individuals
exercising their right to free speech through criticism of the Jewish state have been imprisoned. If the Israel
Anti-Boycott Act succeeds in making its way through congress the OTFI model will presumably become the law of the
land when it comes to curtailing free speech whenever Israel is involved.
The OTFI story is outrageous, but it is far from unique. There is a history of American Jews closely attached to
Israel being promoted by powerful and cash rich domestic lobbies to act on behalf of the Jewish state. To be sure,
Jews who are Zionists are
vastly
overrepresented in all government agencies
that have anything at all to do with the Middle East and one can
reasonably argue that the Republican and Democratic Parties are in the pockets of Jewish billionaires named Sheldon
Adelson and Haim Saban.
Neoconservatives, most of whom are Jewish, infiltrated the Pentagon under the Reagan Administration and they and
their heirs in government and media (Doug Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, Richard Perle, Bill Kristol) were
major players in the catastrophic war with Iraq, which, one of the architects of that war, Philip Zelikow,
described
in 2004
as being all about Israel. The same people are now in the forefront of urging war with Iran.
American policy towards the Middle East is largely being managed by a small circle of Orthodox Jews working for
presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner. One of them, David Friedman, is currently U.S. Ambassador to Israel.
Friedman, a bankruptcy lawyer who has no diplomatic or foreign policy credentials, is a Zionist Jew who is also a
supporter of the illegal settlements on the West Bank and a harsh critic of other Jews who in any way disagree with
the Israeli government. He has contributed money to settlement construction, which would be illegal if OTFI were
doing its job, and has consistently defended the settlers while condemning the Palestinians in speeches in Israel.
He endlessly and ignorantly repeats Israeli government talking points and has
tried
to change the wording
of State Department communications, seeking to delete the word "occupied" when describing
Israel's control of the West Bank. His humanity does not extend beyond his Jewishness, defending the Israeli
shooting thousands of unarmed Gazan protesters and the bombing of schools, hospitals and cultural centers. How he
represents the United States and its citizens who are not dual nationals must be considered a mystery.
Friedman's top adviser is Rabbi Aryeh Lightstone,
who
is described
by the Embassy as an expert in "Jewish education and pro-Israel advocacy." Once upon a time, in an
apparently more enlightened mood, Lightstone described Donald Trump as posing "an existential danger both to the
Republican Party and to the U.S." and even accused him of pandering to Jewish audiences. Apparently when opportunity
knocked he changed his mind about his new boss. Pre-government in 2014, Lightstone founded and headed Silent City, a
Jewish advocacy group supported by extreme right-wing money that opposed the Iran nuclear agreement and also worked
to combat the nonviolent Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. He is reportedly still connected
financially with anti BDS groups, which might be construed as a conflict of interest. As the Senior Adviser to
Friedman he is paid in excess of $200,000 plus free housing, additional cash benefits to include a 25% cost of
living allowance and a 10% hardship differential, medical insurance and eligibility for a pension.
So, what's in it all for Joe and Jill American Citizens? Not much. And for Israel? Anything, it wants, apparently.
Sink a U.S. warship? Okay. Tap the U.S. Treasury? Sure, just wait a minute and we'll draft some legislation that
will give you even more money. Create a treasury department agency run exclusively by Jews that operates secretly to
punish critics of the Jewish state? No brainer. Meanwhile a bunch of dudes at the Pentagon are dreaming of new wars
for Israel and the White House sends an ignorant ambassador and top aide overseas to represent the interests of the
foreign government in the country where they are posted. Which just happens to be Israel. Will it ever end?
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible
educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
www.councilforthenationalinterest.org,
address
is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is
[email protected].
Now however, when through the malice of fate a large part of these Jews whom we fought against are alive, I must
concede that fate must have wanted it so. I always claimed that we were fighting against a foe who through
thousands of years of learning and development had become superior to us.
I no longer remember exactly when, but it was even before Rome itself had been founded that the Jews could
already write. It is very depressing for me to think of that people writing laws over 6,000 years of written
history. But it tells me that they must be a people of the first magnitude, for lawgivers have always been
great.
good documentation on several salient aspects of 'Murka's Zionist Occupation Government.
the principal institution remains: the (((Rothschild Central Bank))), alias "Federal Reserve" , a debt-bombing and
money manufacturing racket through which the entire political class and, indeed, much of the population, is trap'd
and bribed into submission.
and it'll end violently when the Jewbuck dies, and
America starting from the time of LBJ has been hijacked by the Deep State, which is 70% Jewish, 20% spineless white
treasonous rats who follow along because they have something to gain, and 10% naive white fools who think they're
really doing something good for the world.
Good thinking Philip Giraldi, it really is time for a movie to be made about the attempted sinking of the USS
Liberty and the wilful killing of so many US sailors. It should be done without any Hollywood backing and
distribution along the lines of Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ. (Hey Mel, do you read The Unz Review? You
should).
It could easily be crowdfunded if necessary, with survivors of the incident serving as consultants. There are loads
of 60s era military surplus items available on the cheap, including aircraft and I would imagine a massive response
to a call for actors and extras. It certainly would help kick open the door to awareness of where the real threat to
America lies.
@FKA Max
/jewish-activists-crowd-funding-breed-red-heifer-third-temple-cow#img-2">
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/10/jewish-activists-crowd-funding-breed-red-heifer-third-temple-cow#img-2
what do you propose we do Phil they control all the media so no one is alamred as to what they are up to. the people
of the USA are stupid and dont care the the zionist control them
I can say "
obviously
didn't
develop a writing system" prior to the 2nd century BCE, because otherwise
we
would be
inundated
with
evidence of it
, as we are for the other regional languages.
For example, we have
13,000
Etruscan
texts (some little more than fragments, but many lengthy, bi-lingual texts) from the period ~700BCE to ~140BCE;
there are
several
hundred
examples of
Etiocypriot
(famously
including a bilingual – with Attic Greek – text on a slab from the Acropolis of Amathus which dates to 600BCE).
It reminds me of that joke from the 1980s when someone from the audience poses a question to a UN panel: "Excuse me,
what is your opinion about the world food shortage?"
The Ethiopian ambassador asks: "What is: 'food'?" The American ambassador asks: "What is: 'shortage'?" The Soviet
ambassador asks: "What is: 'opinion'?" And the Israeli ambassador asks: "What is: 'excuse me'?"
I think your comment was stuck in some infinite loop from the 1960s an got spit out into our present conversation
due to the unusually low number of sun spots.
Since these groups are tax-free entities, gathering in at least 26 billion a year-not including money to
synagogues–that's close to 30 billion a year Americans have to make up for out of their wallets on April 15 of each
year.
26 Billion Bucks: The Jewish Charity Industry Uncovered
The Forward's investigation has uncovered a tax-exempt Jewish communal apparatus that operates on the scale of a
Fortune 500 company and
focuses
the largest share of its donor dollars on Israel.
This analysis doesn't include
synagogues
and other groups
that avoid revealing their financial information by claiming a religious exemption.
The Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence has been run by either American or Israeli Jews since its
inception. Similar to the US Treasury, where five out of the last eight Treasury heads were American Jews. One of
the GOYIM appointed, Hank Paulson, was installed to put an American face on the 2008 MBS generated economic crash,
which enriched Wall Street before AND after, but devastated Main Street.
After Israel realized it could attack the USS Liberty and not only not be held accountable, but the USG would help
them protect their lies, that gave them the incentive to start planning their biggest attack on the USA to date: the
9/11 False Flag. And like the Liberty incident, the USG is protecting Israel by helping with the lies that keep the
Big Lie alive, that Bin Laden and his posse were the attackers, so Israel could use it's MSM buddies to generate an
army of lies about Iraq; Libya, Syria and Iran, three of which we've already destroyed with Iran in the cross-hairs
of unhinged psychos like Bolton and Nutty Nikki.
Drain the Swamp? Hell, Trump and his minions like Shadow President Kushner come from the murkiest depths of that
Swamp.
Bottom line? Either we WTFU and realize that our nation has been taken over by Israel, which is using our military
might, wealth and blood to do their dirty work in the ME, invading and busting up nations Israel wants destroyed, or
we resign ourselves and condemn our offspring to a lifetime of poverty, misery, tyranny and endless wars for the
glory of Apartheid Israel.
@FKA Max
t of academic intellectual standards of any reasonable university permanent staff. Though there are,
and must be, highly intelligent Jews like our host and some others, there are highly intelligent people in all
ethnic groups. I would never write anything like Eichmann because that is utter nonsense. Only members in a party
that was created by a secret society founded by a Mizraim Mason and a Theosophist could write such nonsense, and
people who write such can be expected to have participated to the create Israel project. Just like the people the
author of the article speaks of. Eichmann was a servant of Zionists, admirer, not their enemy.
I wonder at the reference for the claim that LBJ stated his preference that the LIBERTY sink rather than embarass
Israel. I am mindful of LBJ's apparent indifference to the violent deaths of thousands of US servicemen in another
part of the world at that time.
An Israeli journalist stated over 20 years ago that 'the White House, the Senate, and much of the American media
[are] in our hands'. His words were
picked
up
by Joseph Sobran:
'In an essay reprinted in the May 27, 1996, issue of the
New
York Times
Ari Shavit, an Israeli columnist, reflected sorrowfully on the wanton Israeli killing of more than a
hundred Lebanese civilians in April. "We killed them out of a certain naive hubris. Believing with absolute
certitude that now, with the White House, the Senate, and much of the American media in our hands, the lives of
others do not count as much as our own "'
Sobran observes that 'this is interesting less for what it tells us about Israel than for what it tells us about
America. Frank discussion of Israel is permitted in Israel, as Mr Shavit's article illustrates. It's rarely
permitted here. Charges of anti-Semitism and a quiet but very effective boycott will be the reward of any journalist
who calls attention to his own government's -- and his own profession's -- servitude to Israeli interests.'
"Nazis were a creation of Masons through Theosophists, and therefore servants of Zionists with the task of pushing
Jews to Palestine." – Seems highly likely to me
If I may, I'd like to ask you why David Irving never dare to suggest that.
Is it because there isn't enough evidence ?
Irving is the only historian, afaik, that wrote about where the money that put Hitler into power came from. But he
stops there. He sees nothing unnatural in fact that Hitler get into power thanks to zionist bankers.
thank you for your articles but is time for you to explain how and why we get to such ridiculous,caricaturesque
level of control,that cant be explain even if the case we are inferiors to them.
@anonymous
ia and the SU) died about 1M and in Auschwitz
died only registered inmates, in the SU of 1940 died unknown number between 3.3 and 1.3, most likely about 2M and in
Romania 0.2M. And that most sent to Operation Reinhard cams did not die there. Here Irvin could have found all the
evidence needed, yet he did not write about it. So, it is not lack of evidence, it is common sense: do not touch
certain issues if you want to sell your books. But you can write and publish books of occult connections of Nazis
even though there is not much evidence of their occult nature. Some things you can write, somethings not. Evidence
has little to do with it.
Will it ever end? Frankly I see no end in sight. Their grip gets stronger, the goy public gets stupider and more
indoctrinated, and the politicians get more owned, every year. But there is a danger for these zionist Jews with
this. As their power and influence gets greater and greater, so will their demands for the masses. Eventually the
masses will wake up, and the dam of pent up resentment may break with a tidal wave. This is how things have played
out in the past.
@Johnny Rottenborough
Brett Kavanaugh.
Despite the Trump administration's near complete servitude to Israel evidenced by his staffing of Jews in vital
government positions, including son-in-law Jared Kushner & Steve Mnuchin, please consider the video (below) which
makes clear how Zionist Jew organizations, for example the ADL, demand their prejudiced & extreme left-wing law
become the LAW of the, uh (gag/choke!), "Homeland."
Let's see how many GOP Senators cast a cold Israeli eye upon parts of Brett Kavanaugh's ideology?
Post scriptum: Thanks, Philip Giraldi, for your perpetual "heroic" service!
The bastards have the whole system wired. Their tenures at the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (OTFI)
provided a springboard to critical posititions within the architecture of 'the system'.
From Wikipedia:
In January 2012, Levey joined HSBC as the bank's Chief Legal Officer.
(trivia : In 2014 HSBC closed North London Central Mosque's account and some Muslim clients' and groups' accounts.
Several sources report that HSBC closed them because they donated their money to Palestine during the recent
conflict)
and
In 2015 Cohen was appointed
Deputy
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency
. At the time of his appointment, some speculated that Cohen's
selection was due to the Obama administration's reluctance in picking someone with ties to past incidences of CIA
torture and extraordinary rendition. The post of deputy director has traditionally been filled by military officers
or intelligence community veterans.
(note the whitewashing of Cohen's appointment. No mention of the jewish/zionist angle.)
I always appreciate Giraldi's articles because in spite of my own research on Israel's (negative, crippling and
cancerous) influence on America he invariably imparts some incisive information I haven't yet encountered.
Once again, a suggestion to Ron Unz to use this website to host a Solution Week (not that this site isn't already
part of the solution!) , but I would love to see specifically what others think in that regard.
So far, Brother Nathan had one of the more substantive lists of solutions (registering AIPAC as foreign agents,
getting the 'dual citizens' out of US government positions, etc).
As people become more informed on the Israeli/influence issue, the common refrain I see on forums across America is
the question:
what
exactly can I do to change this situation?
British immigrants are required to RENOUNCE UK Citizenship, to become US Citizens.
This is entirely proper.
Mexicans & Jews retain dual citizenship, without any problem. This is so wrong. Jews routinely serve in IDF &
Mossad, but seldom in the US Military. This is a GLARING form of disloyalty. Such 'citizenship' should be revoked,
and the holders deported. IMHPO.
I suspect that Jews & Mexicans on SCOTUS, are at the bottom of this.
Will it ever end? Mr. Giraldi asks (rhetorically). Trump got something right when he said that Media was the enemy,
but he didn't say who owned Media. "Masters of Discourse" Israel Shamir calls Jews who control what we see and hear.
Since Media lies to us 24/7, and since Congress is scared to death of AIPAC's power and money (Netanyahu's 29
standing ovations before that group of pathetic whores), nothing will change until Media changes ownership and
Congress is subjected to campaign finance reform. No more "campaign contributions" (bribes).
Glad to see you put Homeland in quotes. That's a Bush/Cheney construction I've never used in conversation, evokes
images of jackboots and NSA surveillance.
It is terrifying but both US warmongering and Israeli control will only end when the dollar system collapses. That's
a very sad thing to say but Israel will abandon the US like a used condom if the US fails economically.
Zionists took over the U.S. government on December 23, 1913 with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act which took
the money creation power away from the U.S. gov and gave it to the Zionist privately owned banking cabal the FED,
and this was totally unconstitutional and created money out of thin air and thus began the wars and ensuing debt and
enslavement of America.
Along with the FED the Zionists got the IRS through congress also in 1913 and thus had the power to create money out
of thin air plus the power to tax the American people to pay for the Zionist banker created wars which they were
soon to create in Europe starting with WWI and continuing down through the years to the Mideast wars all for the
Zionist bankers NWO.
The Zionists control America lock stock and gun barrel and have been the agent provocateur in every war the U.S. has
been involved in since 1913 and the Zionists also attacked America on 911 when Israel and the Zionist controlled
deep state attack on 911 killed some 3000 Americans and got away with it and every thinking American knows Israel
did it.
When LBJ ordered the recall of the fighters that were flying to the rescue of the Liberty, he said that he didn't
want to embarrass his ally. This was at a time when the sailors on the Liberty had not yet identified the
nationality of the attackers. People in the White House knew it was Israel before the sailors on the Liberty knew.
Think about the implications of that.
Any time a political system can be hijacked by a foreign power and forced to do the bidding of that foreign power
that political system has to be replaced.
The American political system based on republican and constitutional government has collapsed, largely because the
Jewish people have made a total, complete and utter mockery out of that system. The so-called American "democracy"
is a code word for plutocracy. Wherever you have a "democracy" what you have in practice is a plutocracy.
The Jews love plutocracies because with their money they can literally buy politicians. Furthermore, the non-Jewish
populations cannot defend themselves from the Jewish power in these so-called "democracies".
It will take the proverbial man on the white horse to remedy this situation, i.e., a Caesar, Napoleon, Mussolini or
Hitler. If any of you reading this think that this collapsed political system can be resurrected, well then you are
living in la-la land.
OTFI's Specially Designated Nationals And Blocked Persons List (SDN), which includes sanctions and enforcement
options , features many Middle Eastern Muslim and Christian names and companies but nothing in any way
comparable relating to Israel and Israelis, many of whom are well known to law enforcement otherwise as weapons
traffickers and money launderers .
OTFI SDN features names only, of those individuals/businesses/organisations which are engaged in illegal activities
against the United States and her interests.
Your well-known bias clouds your vision.
Went through the list cursorily and looked for names I knew to be criminally engaged and thus under U.S.
surveillance and sanctions. Names with a Jewish ethnicity, that is. Lo behold, they are indeed there:
Mikhail Abramov
Valerii Abramov
Nicolai Shusanshvili a.k.a Moshe Israel
Arkadevic Rotenberg
Roman Rotenberg
I am sure there are more.
Don't suppose any clarification, let alone a retraction, of your demonstrated hatred of Jews and the resulting bias
would be forthcoming?
I am deeply sorry.
I just cannot agree with introduction. Most of the US presidents at the end of their term and after become critical
of Israel.
Typical examples are Carter and Obama.
Don't forget that Jewish Power is a staunch enemy of the freedom of information. Zionists and their Arab cousins are
not able to grasp the tenets of western civilization. Unlike the Arabs, Jewish power has been very effective in
capturing the rotten head of the US/UK governments and imposing the rule of parasitism on westerners.
"Mueller supposedly has forwarded
some material to federal and New York State prosecutors who have clear legal authority in those domains.
It has been known for at least two years, though, that substantial grounds (and evidence) already
existed to bring several cases to a grand jury.
That suggests that serious action never will be taken.
For one things, a number of prominent people would be exposed: e.g. Bibi Netanyahu, the heads of the
Russo-Israeli mafias, Felix Sater, the twice convicted felon and Trump 'counsellor' who avoided a second
prison term by agreeing to inform for the FBI and CIA but in fact worked both sides of the street, and
God knows who else.
Just as the Panama Papers scandal disappeared over the horizon, and the big 5
financial families got away with massive money-laundering for the drug cartels, and Deutsche Bank was
granted immunity by Angela Merkel despite their multiple criminal activities, so will the Trump affair
die out in obscurity."
In this interview we discuss
Trump-Russia and the deep state, disagree about 9/11, but agree that high-level corruption is out of
control.
Michael Brenner is Professor of
International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh; a Senior Fellow at the Center for Transatlantic
Relations, SAIS-Johns Hopkins (Washington, D.C.), contributor to research and consulting projects on
Euro-American security and economic issues. He publishes and teaches in the fields of American foreign
policy, Euro-American relations, and the European Union.
Trump did business with cement companies run by mafioso thugs because they also controlled the unions
and would call strikes if crossed. He was basically a target for shakedowns, and Trump knew those people
were not anyone to profitably do business with. I am sure Russian-Israeli organised crime would be the
same.
Anything to do with the Mafia back in the days of Gotti was massively investigated Trump is too
wary and careful with his money to get burned that way.
As Halifax observed, men often mistake
themselves but they never forget themselves, so I would think it is neither conspiracy as Barrett says
or the incompetence which Brenner suggests.
You did not need to be in the CIA to have an inkling. In
fact the whole plan was virtually public knowledge beforehand. It was broadcast on the BBC well before
9/11 that mullahs in London mosques were advocating the highjacking of airplanes and crashing them into
American skyscrapers. This fact was subsequently alluded to by BBC reporters in the aftermath of 9/11.
I think it is becoming clear that a disproportionate amount of FBI and NY DA's resources were put
into chasing the Mafia instead of Muslim terrorism.
Giuliani made such a reputation on the back of
prosecuting the Mafia, and then the FBI had a household name like Gotti to go after, that the careerists
in law enforcement doubled down on a bunch of low level racketeers, even after the first WTC attack.
The belief that somehow the Mafia was more of a threat to New York than al Qaeda -- that caused
the FBI to let their guard down on the bin Laden threat. [ ]
There is now little doubt that if the Feds had devoted as much energy to a surveillance of Sphinx
as they had to the Ravenite Social Club, they would have been in the middle of the 9/11 plot months
before Black Tuesday. Because in July of 2001, Khalid al-Midhar and Salem al-Hazmi got their fake
I.D.'s delivered to them in a mailbox at the identical location the FBI had been onto in the decade
since El Sayyid Nosair had killed Meier Kahane. The man who supplied those fake ID's that allowed
al-Midhar and al-Hazmi to board A.A. Flight #77 that hit the Pentagon, was none other than Mohammed
El-Attriss the co-incorporator of Sphinx with Waleed al-Noor – whom Patrick Fitzgerald had put on
the unindicted co-conspirators list along with bin Laden and Ali Mohamed in 1995.
@anon26_
that, and the fact that it's race-realist throughout. Note, for instance, the early juxtaposition of the
2 rich "Russian" mafia Jew sisters (played to the hilt by 2 Jewesses, Gal Gadot and Kate Winslett)
reading to the half-'groid kid (while getting their feet manicured) with the elementally poor-but-good,
White cop's wife reading to their White kid. It's full of subtle stuff like this, but you have to see it
a few times to pick it all out. I also like the way they got actual spic 'bangers playing spic 'bangers.
That worked.
@Haxo Angmark
I saw this film a year ago and I can tell you exectly why it got no distribution:
It was a shitty,
mean-spirited story of horrible people robbing, stealing, killing for no good reasons. Yeah there were
reasons but none of them were good ones.
Furthermore the tragic ending made absoutely no sense and was just a stupid contrivance. Despite good
acting from Gal Gadot, Woody and Alfeck, nothing could save this movie.
I needed to shower and scrub myself 10 times after watching this horrible nonsense.
Horrible in every respect.
I know that wasn't what you were expecting. It's because of the Jews. Ugh. Had nothing to do with
that, but a lot to do with how the movie tested and it tested poorly because if you watch it, you hate
humanity and yourself just from this movie.
"I have been making this point for some time, that immigration leading to lower average
IQs, while bad, cannot logically lower scientific productivity because in absolute numbers
the talented fraction remains unaffected. There are still the same numbers of smart
people."
I wouldn't say that at all; or at least I would say the situation isn't quite what you may
think of it. Changing demographics* can certainly change economic/scientific/national policy,
perhaps disastrously so. Karlin's piece ends with an ominous reference to the Brazilian
president, but it just as easily might have been someone like America's AOC and her very
unwise 100% green energy in 10 years scheme. Changing demographics means more AOC's and more
turns at the economic disaster roulette wheel. In a democracy (or a representative republic),
it's easy for a lower IQ population to impose its disastrous ideas on the higher IQ former
majority; hence, the election of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and the resultant economic
dysfunction.
In the future, not only will China produce quality scientific research, but efficiencies
conferred by its cultural and ethnic homogeneity may allow its corporations to out compete
American companies to a much greater degree than mere scientific discovery might otherwise
suggest. Additionally, China's economy will be so large that its companies will be able to
afford the massive R&D costs required for making ever more difficult discoveries. Their
smaller global competition likely won't be able to match spending, so China's corporations
could one day become far more dominant than you might anticipate. After all, it's really
about who can best exploit new discoveries and not just about who makes them first.
Otherwise, ancient China would have ruled the world; they invented paper, gunpowder, and the
compass.
Huawei was maybe 3% of the global smartphone market in Q4 of 2011 but it is set to pass
both Samsung and Apple in marketshare within the next five years. You see a bit of this
cultural/linguistic/ethnic homogeneity = efficiency phenomenon with the video game industry,
specifically in regards to competition between Sony and the much larger, but more
multicultural and less efficient Microsoft. Japan's Sony corporation dominates Microsoft in
sales just like their car companies dominate their American competition; GM was recently
chased out of Europe because it couldn't compete and none of these companies can sell
anything in Japan.
Also, notice that the EU core area has a white European population probably on par with
the white European-American population, but the US still has the greater share of scientific
discovery. I would posit this has much to do with the efficiency conferred by language
homogeneity in the United States (English) -- among other things. China in the future will
enjoy many of the same efficiencies the US has now, in terms of both language and culture.
And this is why India isn't as dynamic as some have predicted. Despite having a "smart
fraction", it is a low trust society deeply divided by color and class. Its leadership,
imposed by the lower IQ fraction, is also somewhat inept. The same fate awaits the United
States under current demographic trends.
*Has there been a single example of a global superpower in modern history that has lost
its ethnic majority but still retained functional status and prosperity over the long term?
Maybe Singapore (but they weren't a superpower), although I admittedly know little about that
country. Austria-Hungary? In any case, I would suspect the sample size here is far too small
to make any definitive prediction about the future of scientific discovery and resultant
economic success for the United States of America.
A scholar and intellectual of high standards and impeccable integrity, Lukacs was completely
content to teach at these modest Catholic colleges. He always despised the empty plumage of
academe, its titles and honors and pecking orders. He lamented that most of his colleagues
had abandoned historical scholarship for what he called "historianship" (i.e., careerism).
But it wasn't just academic culture: Lukacs had a combative relationship with intellectual
conventions and conformities of all sorts. Courtly though he could be with students (and with
priests and nuns), he had the temperament of a rebel. His iconoclasm expressed itself
variously
... ... ...
In his feisty autobiography Confessions of
an Original Sinner (1980), Lukacs declared himself a pious Catholic believer, and it is
this firm commitment to a traditional, indeed pre–Vatican II Catholicism, that prompted
many observers to consider him a conservative. His bracing independence of mind, unequivocal
contempt for ideological sects, and hyper-vigilant avoidance of intellectual coteries endeared
him to his most loyal readers. But it certainly curtailed and complicated (and probably
confused) his reputation in some quarters. For example, Lukacs never subscribed to the
standard anti-Communist view of the Cold War, shared by both liberals and conservatives. He
regarded Senator Joseph McCarthy as an opportunistic thug. Dwight Eisenhower and John Foster
Dulles were stupid nationalists who missed an opportunity to end the Cold War after Stalin
died.
Even worse were Lyndon B. Johnson and the Establishment liberals who launched the Vietnam
War. But Lukacs also despised the New Left and the counterculture of the 1960s, with its
decadent contempt for tradition and proud ignorance of history. (He was proudly, defiantly
bourgeois.)
He considered Ronald Reagan bumptious and was both amused and outraged by the neocon
con-artists of the George W. Bush era. He credited Pope John Paul II -- not Reagan or George
H.W. Bush or Mikhail Gorbachev -- with ending the Cold War. In his view, the populist
enthusiasm for Reagan reached its height, or nadir, with the administration of President Donald
Trump , whose vulgar populism represented for the nonagenarian Lukacs the accelerating
decline of the West. In his last months, he worried that the "America First" follies of this
Pied Piper of Populism were leading both America and Europe toward a nationalism reminiscent of
Mussolini in Europe and Huey Long in the United States.
Lukacs's capacity to execute the grand projects he envisioned was legendary. Self-inoculated
against intellectual fashions, he was willing to take on battles for the sake of ideas he
believed in. I suspect that this temperamental capacity to "go it alone" was reinforced by his
wartime experience and family losses, leaving him with a belief that he could not rely on
anyone or anything but himself. Having reached maturity in a war-shattered Eastern Europe, he
grew a tough shell. This indomitable Old World émigré was also, from another
point of view, a classic rugged individualist in the nineteenth-century American style.
At the age of ninety-three, he published We at the Center of the
Universe (2017), an essay collection ranging widely from epistemological (and
historiographical) reflections on "our place in the universe" to Flaubert's Madame
Bovary to reconsiderations of Churchill and Stalin. Unstoppable even in the throes of the
congestive heart failure that eventually killed him, he was still writing until almost the end.
In 2017, in the last substantial essay he ever wrote, his literary life came full circle when
the title " John Lukacs on World War II "
graced the cover of Commonweal.
Although he resented those academic historians who dismissed his writings as literary
oddities or too "popular" to be scholarly, Lukacs took the long view. History -- not
historianship -- would vindicate him. But we don't have to wait for history. It is not too soon
to celebrate him for his contributions to the intellectual life of this country, and for his
defense of a Christian humanism that ideologues of both the left and right did their best to
bury. He will be missed.
I think you mean who needs the CIA when you have the Mossad ..don't you? Its the Mossad
that is currently supplying Bolton and Co. with intel on Iran. So induce the folks to
disregard US agencies and rely on Israel.
"The Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday rejected a Democratic proposal to
require congressional approval before the U.S. can take military action against Iran. The
panel voted 13-9 against a proposal blocking the administration from using funding to carry
out a military strike in or against Iran without congressional signoff, according to Sen.
Chris Murphy "
This design of bulk data management demonstrates that they are interested in acquiring
leverage over politicians and everyone else rather than analysis to block terrorist acts.
Could not be clearer.
Our government is out of control, not only are they apparently collecting everything on
each of us, "Most of these terror attacks are done by government guided terrorists, so the
NSA is purposely choosing not to see the terror links until after the attack." -Joel Skousen,
2-09-2018 'World Affairs Brief'.
It is designed to be a blackmail tool, a LOOKBACK after they have something else on you.
It is so massive to keep the employees busy doing nothing in a timely manner. It isn't meant
to me a human run predictive tool, they want "machine learning" to be able to work it out.
Bill Binney is brilliant.
Who better to expose them than Bill Binney, the man who designed the system and he is
doing the right thing by exposing them. I used to think that Pentagon was the largest
building but three times the size and collecting bulk that they cannot even use is foolish. I
cannot accredit them for anything good out of this because there is nothing good except waste
of taxpayers money. There was a time when anything this size would be outdated. They should
strictly be asked to provide accountability but because they don't, there is no ceiling on
their spending.
I write what I write knowing they monitor things praying one day they get a clue. I hide
nothing!! Before God as they say all seeing and all knowing we can hide nothing in dark or in
the light!! Weather they think they are God or not!! They think before all this admission you
can't see hear or feel there tactics!! I notice every thing that tries to interfere with my
devices! Phone computers electronics ect. Let them play the game, let us use same technology
against them and see how it plays out!! Lol sad that don't need to one lil old me vs how many
of them with all technology at their fingertips!!! Wow impressive!! Difference between me and
them is they wanna manipulate and rip people off n control them and I only wish to help
others and not make slaves out of them. If I had the endless funds I would more than pay
people what they are worth and help the less fortunate. I could show how everyone could live
better, happier and healthier lives. They don't want this they fear it cause they want all
power and control!!! Very very pathetic!! Read more Show less Reply 21 22 Loading... View all
10 replies View all 10 replies Hide replies
If Binney is accurate, then they are bright enough to use Artificial Intelligence to turn
the data pile into real intel. Duh. So I think Mr. Binney is allowed to share disinformation.
They are operating a fullt operational battlestar.
I worked in the same building about a year before Snowden was there. The facility in the
movie(Hawaii) looked Hi-Tech in the movie... The place was a fuckin' dump! I laughed when I
saw the movie.. you could of walked in there with 1OO thumbdrives in a bag..no metal detector
or scanners Read more Show less Reply 1 2
If the US is doing this, than 100% sure the Chinese and Russians and Iranians even South
Africans and Arab Nations do just the same. So having an NSA as a stasi is nothing new nor
different from what other nations do. Sure it is illegal...but knowing and safely assuming
more nation collect our data...I don't really worry less or more when owning a hard copy at
NSA. And a back up hard copy on what they own of us all...can be handy...So sure file your
law suit...but I would advise the judges to say that you are right, but that there is higher
reasons for doing so thank you sir...but I am not convinced living with closed eyes against
open eyes...is a weak position to stand on. So either they are all brought down...or we need
a version of our own. I don't think...there is a choice sir.
And sure defame leading people in this field and stating they are as bad as Darth
Vader...well...I think sir...you have a fast opinion with a limit on reaching to the true
facts of what is happening in internet-land. I think I don't really need your opinion when it
is based and outed as simple jokes on people that try and protect our Western World. And sure
crime is using NSA information too and sure people are targetted. We can do something about
that...but if it is wise to stall the NSA in protecting us in overall sense is not really
smart. I think we just want more control over people using this information. So maybe we need
this control, but just make sure it is used for good instead of evil. Well that isn't making
our days different from before this new stasi rised.
Than comment you have on Iran...smuggling dope through various internation
companies...lol...my dear sir they probably got the idea from the Americans using drug money
profits to fund groups in the South Americas trying to bring down foreign governments. They
are not any different from what the US agencies do. So kindof hypocritic hearing that from an
American. Of course they would want a lid on collected data spread, and of course also the
NSA holds infiltrants and people that would misuse power. So sure they keep it as much hidden
and unknown. I think that is negatively explain-able as well as positivly.
An objective conclusion is to be made. So sure..file your law suit. I think you are just
saying what freightened people wish to hear,..and gaining in on profits on it? And you think
that is a nice commercial expertise? Or is this all done for free...I doubt that a seat there
is free of charge sir. What are you funding with it?
NSA Whistleblower William Binney and CIA Whistleblower Ray McGovern at Manhattan Town Hall
DNC/Podesta emails were not hacked by the Russians but were an 87 second download to a thumb
drive by Seth Rich, who had issues because the DNC and Hillary had stolen the Nomination from
Bernie Sanders. The DNC then had to have Seth Rich murdered to sell their "the Russians did
it" diversion to keep everyone from looking at the content of the DNC and Podesta emails.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=4nPCBeMJpKQsimflyr19574 months
ago George Orwell in 1984 was a prophesy for today
Americans and permanent residents, must realize that we live in a country that the
government supposedly elected, created, funded, to serve and protect the rights of the
citizens and civilians within our border, has become self-supporting and prioritized their
own agendas of self promotion and self preservation. The government no longer represents us.
Nor serve us. We now live under a modern fascist state.
Those at the top are no even elected or can held accountable by the people. Imminent
Domain, Civil forfeiture, unconstitutional spying, suspicion and persecution, blackmail,
threats, and even murder. All state sponsored, and complete immunity from lawful prosecution,
and retribution. And unless we accept that we're partially to blame for letting them get away
with this, we will never effectively bring about justice and change.
It will be status quo, and can only get worse for our posterity. Remember, if every person
in this country were in solidarity in mass focused protest.....boycotting products, refusing
to sustain their economy, didn't go to work and all called in sick, didn't file our taxes,
refused to vote for anyone, flood their spying databases with keywords, and photos, and
phrases, Took a hiatus simultaneously from being a part of their 'machine'....it would send a
shockwave like a tsunami disrupting all their infrastructure, and if in unified cooperation
across the world....that disruption would be global. Recall what India was able to do in
nonviolent civil unrest. It drove the invading British empire out of their country.
William Binney is an absolute hero! It's only through the courageous actions of people
like him, that we will end the subversion of justice and the overwhelming corruption that has
plagued this nation and the world for far too long. Even if all you are capable of is to
engage people in conversations over the internet, it is still a very useful tool. Ridiculing
people as "keyboard worriers" is a humiliation tactic. They know it works so they are trying
many approaches to manage those who would change the world through logic and reason. I
encourage everyone to do everything they can to contribute to the ongoing effort and
accomplishing the enormous task of ending the era of rule by psychopaths. Donate money to
organizations you think would be helpful, vote, attend public meetings and protests, boycott
those companies that contribute to the corruption, there's many ways to get this done. Just
use your head, every little bit helps. If the "q" thing is to be believed, we have them on
the run now so it's time for everyone to pitch in and end this terrible chapter in our
history.
How is he able to display Top Secret/OBCON/NOFORM/etc? Like he stares, all this material
items are in effect today! Don’t worry about the courts-that why the have those Federal
Judges, in every major city, that set behind the closed and sealed doors to stop all these
suits against the Fed’s. One of the reasons that no one has taken in actions, on the
companies involved in these illegal companies are the political problems in the Senate and
the house. If a GI dies, so what, the political system looks to the military as founder, most
could care less-unless there a camera near by. This the type of man is exactly the type we
need to run these type of organization, vis the polices appointee’s!! This was a great
lecture, we could use a few more in several federal level. Thank God for Americans like this.
Read more Show less Reply 1
NSA tracks them, CIA wacks them :0) Maybe someone should start programs to delta overload
their storage capacity so much, they'll need 25 Fort Meades and at least 800 000 employees.
Read more Show less Reply 1
That's great information, but a salmon couldn't swim up the stream you're fighting.
Remember what happened to Frank Olson? He knew too much and "jumped" out of a window. The
game is rigged, and you can't beat Them. The only way to survive is to not make waves, stay
out of trouble, and under the radar, so to speak. Most of us are just small fish, who They
wouldn't be very interested in. There are plenty of big fish to keep Them busy. I'm getting
too old to waste my time fighting a battle fueled by an endless amount of money... money
always wins. If you aren't a big-time drug dealer or a terrorist, they haven't got time to
waste on you. It's fucked up... I know that, but it simply is what it is.
Quote:- "Give certain people power and sooner or later they will use it".......that needs
modifying to "Give certain people power and sooner or later they will ABUSE it". And therein
lies the solution. We must be far more careful to whom we give power. Ask the prospective
candidates for council seats in your area or for national governmental positions just what
they are prepared to do FOR the people, and if you don't like the answer, don't vote them
into power.
This man knows sooooooo much more, like to sit down off camera and man to man talk and I'll bet it would blow our minds
the stuff our sneaky governments do without warrants or anything
They just take what they want and track your moves, listen in on your calls, watching your texts and FB ECT,,, all without
our knowledge or consent, this is not constitutional and it's invading our rights along with our privacy rights my private
life what and where and how I do everything
it's downright unconstitutional and should be taken to the highest court in the land and terminated
Case Dismissed Guaranteed, 4 months ago
Why didn't he point out that Israel spy's on Americans and America spy for them. No direct spying because THAT's
"illegal."
big Cahuna3 months ago (edited)
Laws and jail are only for the poor and ""unconnected"". How else could the crime families, bankers, church, etc. keep
their wealth and power ? The commoners and serfs must be divided, controlled , conquered, brainwashed, taxed, intimidated,
imprisoned, overworked , and killed when beneficial to the kings, queens, bankers, Popes, and billionaires.
I think one has to regard the spies (or "spies and scribes") as one locus of power out of
several; a locus possessing enormous power, but not always possessing the decisive vote.
Recall Julian Assange's remarks to John Pilger, that Hillary was a cogwheel in a system of
gears that includes Wall Street and foreign lobbyists as well as the intelligence
agencies.
Anthropologists like Malinowski have described societies as an interaction between social
institutions possessing complementary functions, and this still applies under unipolar
digital globalism.
"... Tom Charles Huston testified before the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, commonly known as the Church Committee, on the 43-page plan he presented to the President Nixon and others on ways to collect information about anti-war and "radical" groups, including burglary, electronic surveillance, and opening of mail. ..."
9/23/1975 Tom Charles Huston Church Committee Testimony
Tom Charles Huston testified before the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental
Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, commonly known as the Church Committee,
on the 43-page plan he presented to the President Nixon and others on ways to collect
information about anti-war and "radical" groups, including burglary, electronic surveillance,
and opening of mail.
The two British historians, Gerry Docherty and Jim MacGregor, expanded on Quigley's work
and wrote two meticulously researched and documented accounts of their findings:
Anyone with an interest in 20th century history who is unfamiliar with these books owes it
to himself to read them. For some forty years I have had an amateur historian's interest in
WW I and read widely in the standard literature on that topic. Reading Docherty and MacGregor
opened my eyes. Much that seemed inexplicable became clear, seemingly unconnected events
suddenly correlated. WW I is the watershed moment that has defined the twentieth century and
continues to define the twenty-first. It began with the machinations of a cabal. The
devastation they wrought is continued today by their successors.
Jake
says: Next New Comment May 22, 2019 at 3:27 pm
GMT 100 Words This is good writing: "The KGB plotters of 1991 had thought that
post-Communist Russia would be treated by the West like the prodigal son, with a fattened calf
being slaughtered for the welcome feast. To their disappointment, the stupid bastards
discovered that their country was to play the part of the fattened calf at the feast, and they
were turned from unseen rulers into billionaires' bodyguards.
"... As the Pentagon's strategic paper posits, China's overriding foreign policy goal is to squeeze America out of East Asia and force it back to the Hawaiian islands as its forward position in the Pacific. Thus would Hawaii cease to be America's strategic platform for projecting power into Asia and become merely a defensive position. If this strategic retreat were to happen, it would be one of the most significant developments in international relations since the end of World War II. ..."
"... None of your suggestions is likely to happen, absent defeat. America's trump card is the fiat dollar as world currency, defended by the full faith and power of an imperial global military, with its own economic inertia to the domestic economy as well. ..."
"... The most obvious step is to forge a genuine alliance with India. America can't take on China alone (although China's ineluctable demographic decline may make the US' relative decline in fortunes short-lived), and the world's largest democracy, and soon to be most populous nation, is an obvious counterweight to China, despite its still inefficient economy. ..."
"... The US has been trying to reverse this, but our patronizing attitude towards a proud country seeking great-power status has led to modest progress at best, and their defense relationship with Russia is stronger than with us. ..."
"... There is no countervailing force within the USA that is able to tame MIC appetites, which are constantly growing. In a sense the nation is taken hostage with no root for escape via internal political mechanisms (for all practical purposes I would consider neocons that dominate the USA foreign policy to be highly paid lobbyists of MIC.) ..."
"... Overlooked might be Germany's copycat foreign policy posturing too often hidden behind 'humanitarian' language. https://www.swp-berlin.org/en/projects/new-power-new-responsibility/the-paper/ ..."
"... Guess the parallel with the US 'New American Century' is not misplaced. Do you realize that Germany aims to leverage the EU for establishing its position as a 'World Player'. Do realize too that it tends to categorize other countries along the same zero sum power line of reasoning as the US "either with us or against us". ..."
"... This German foreign policy gave birth to the European Neighborhood Policy which exploited the US instigated coup to indenture Ukraine into a dependent NON-member state associated exclusively with the EU excluding normal economic relations with Russia. ..."
"... One of the most malign effects of Israeli and Saudi control of American politicians is the grotesque overemphasis on the Middle East in US foreign policy. Trump's trade fights to one side, it often seems as if we dismiss or ignore much of the rest of the world. This disproportion has been obvious and growing since the end of the last century, but at this point it's pathological. ..."
"... Well, it all depends on goals doesn't it. US foreign policy goals are to increase chaos and create international tension. Why? Because US foreign policy exists to feed military and intel contractors on the one hand and asserting power for the sake of asserting power with no overall strategy other the Great Game. ..."
The Great Power Game is On and China is Winning If America wants to maintain any influence in Asia, it needs to wake
up. By Robert W. Merry •
May 22,
2019
President Donald J. Trump participates in a bilateral meeting with President Xi Jinping at the Great Hall of the People, Thursday,
November 9, 2017, in Beijing, People's Republic of China. (
Official White House Photo
by Shealah Craighead) From across the pond come two geopolitical analyses in two top-quality British publications that lay out
in stark terms the looming struggle between the United States and China. It isn't just a trade war, says The Economist in
a major cover package. "Trade is not the half of it," declares the magazine. "The United States and China are contesting every domain,
from semiconductors to submarines and from blockbuster films to lunar exploration." The days when the two superpowers sought a win-win
world are gone.
For its own cover, The Financial Times ' Philip Stephens produced a piece entitled, "Trade is just an opening shot in a
wider US-China conflict." The subhead: "The current standoff is part of a struggle for global pre-eminence." Writes Stephens: "The
trade narrative is now being subsumed into a much more alarming one. Economics has merged with geopolitics. China, you can hear on
almost every corner in sight of the White House and Congress, is not just a dangerous economic competitor but a looming existential
threat."
Stephens quotes from the so-called National Defense Strategy, entitled "Sharpening the American Military's Competitive Edge,"
released last year by President Donald Trump's Pentagon. In the South China Sea, for example, says the strategic paper, "China has
mounted a rapid military modernization campaign designed to limit U.S. access to the region and provide China a freer hand there."
The broader Chinese goal, warns the Pentagon, is "Indo-Pacific regional hegemony in the near-term and displacement of the United
States to achieve global pre-eminence in the future."
The Economist and Stephens are correct. The trade dispute is merely a small part of a much larger and even more
intense geopolitical rivalry that could ignite what Stephens describes as "an altogether hotter war."
As the Pentagon's strategic paper posits, China's overriding foreign policy goal is to squeeze America out of East Asia and
force it back to the Hawaiian islands as its forward position in the Pacific. Thus would Hawaii cease to be America's strategic platform
for projecting power into Asia and become merely a defensive position. If this strategic retreat were to happen, it would be one
of the most significant developments in international relations since the end of World War II.
America has been projecting significant power into Asia since the 1890s, when President William McKinley acquired Hawaii through
annexation, then seized Guam and the Philippines in the aftermath of the Spanish-American War. For good measure, he cleared the way
for the construction of the Panama Canal and continued his predecessors' robust buildup of the U.S. Navy. President Theodore Roosevelt
then pushed the Canal project to actual construction, accelerated the naval buildup, and sent his Great White Fleet around the world
as a signal that America had arrived on the global scene -- as if anyone could have missed that obvious reality.
With the total victory over Japan in World War II, America emerged as the hegemon of Asia, with colonies, naval bases, carrier
groups, and strategic alliances that made it foolhardy for any nation to even think of challenging our regional dominance. Not even
the Vietnam defeat, as psychologically debilitating as that was, could undercut America's Asian preeminence.
Now China is seeking to position itself to push America back into its own hemisphere. And judging from the language of the National
Defense Strategy, America doesn't intend to be pushed back. This is a clash of wills, with all the makings of an actual military
conflict.
But if China represents the greatest potential threat to America's global position, making an eventual war likely (though not
inevitable), why is Washington not acting like it knows this? Why is it engaging in so many silly military capers that undermine
its ability to focus attention and resources on the China challenge? While the National Defense Strategy paper suggests that U.S.
officials understand the threat, America's actions reveal an incapacity to grapple with this reality in any concentrated fashion.
Here's a general idea of what a U.S. foreign policy under Trump might look like if it was based on a clear recognition of the
China threat:
Iran: Since the end of the Cold War, the sheer folly of Trump's Iran policy has been exceeded only by George W. Bush's
Iraq invasion. Barack Obama bequeathed to his successor a rare gift in the Iran nuclear deal, which provided an opportunity to direct
attention away from Tehran and toward America's position in East Asia. In no way did it serve America's national interest to stir
up tensions with Iran while the far more ominous China threat loomed. A policy based on realism would have seized that opportunity
and used the channels of communication forged through the nuclear deal to establish some kind of accommodation, however wary or tenuous.
Instead, America under Trump has created a crisis where none need exist.
Personnel: While the Iran policy might be difficult to reverse, a reversal is imperative. And that means Trump must fire
National Security Advisor John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. While their bully boy actions on the global stage seem
to mesh with Trump's own temperament, the president also appears increasingly uncomfortable with the results, particularly with regard
to their maximum pressure on Iran, which has brought America closer than ever to actual hostilities. Whether Trump has the subtlety
of mind to understand just how destructive these men have been to his broad foreign policy goals is an open question. And Trump certainly
deserves plenty of blame for pushing America into a zone of open hostility with Iran. But he can't extricate himself from his own
folly so long as he has Bolton and Pompeo pushing him toward ever more bellicosity in ever more areas of the world. He needs men
around him who appreciate just how wrongheaded American foreign policy has been in the post-Cold War era -- men such as retired Army
Colonel Douglas MacGregor and former Virginia senator Jim Webb. Bolton and Pompeo -- out!
Russia: Of all the developments percolating in the world today, none is more ominous than the growing prospect of an anti-American
alliance involving Russia, China, Turkey, and Iran. Yet such an alliance is in the works, largely as a result of America's inability
to forge a foreign policy that recognizes the legitimate geopolitical interests of other nations. If the United States is to maintain
its position in Asia, this trend must be reversed.
The key is Russia, largely by dint of its geopolitical position in the Eurasian heartland. If China's global rise is to be thwarted,
it must be prevented from gaining dominance over Eurasia. Only Russia can do that. But Russia has no incentive to act because it
feels threatened by the West. NATO has pushed eastward right up to its borders and threatened to incorporate regions that have been
part of Russia's sphere of influence -- and its defense perimeter -- for centuries.
Given the trends that are plainly discernible in the Far East, the West must normalize relations with Russia. That means providing
assurances that NATO expansion is over for good. It means the West recognizing that Georgia, Belarus, and, yes, Ukraine are within
Russia's natural zone of influence. They will never be invited into NATO, and any solution to the Ukraine conundrum will have to
accommodate Russian interests. Further, the West must get over Russia's annexation of the Crimean peninsula. It is a fait accompli
-- and one that any other nation, including America, would have executed in similar circumstances.
Would Russian President Vladimir Putin spurn these overtures and maintain a posture of bellicosity toward the West? We can't be
sure, but that certainly wouldn't be in his interest. And how will we ever know when it's never been tried? We now understand that
allegations of Trump's campaign colluding with Russia were meritless, so it's time to determine the true nature and extent of Putin's
strategic aims. That's impossible so long as America maintains its sanctions and general bellicosity.
NATO: Trump was right during the 2016 presidential campaign when he said that NATO was obsolete. He later dialed back on
that, but any neutral observer can see that the circumstances that spawned NATO as an imperative of Western survival no longer exist.
The Soviet Union is gone, and the 1.3 million Russian and client state troops it placed on Western Europe's doorstep are gone as
well.
So what kind of threat could Russia pose to Europe and the West? The European Union's GDP is more than 12 times that of Russia's,
while Russia's per capita GDP is only a fourth of Europe's. The Russian population is 144.5 million to Europe's 512 million. Does
anyone seriously think that Russia poses a serious threat to Europe or that Europe needs the American big brother for survival, as
in the immediate postwar years? Of course not. This is just a ruse for the maintenance of the status quo -- Europe as subservient
to America, the Russian bear as menacing grizzly, America as protective slayer in the event of an attack.
This is all ridiculous. NATO shouldn't be abolished. It should be reconfigured for the realities of today. It should be European-led,
not American-led. It should pay for its own defense entirely, whatever that might be (and Europe's calculation of that will inform
us as to its true assessment of the Russian threat). America should be its primary ally, but not committed to intervene whenever
a tiny European nation feels threatened. NATO's Article 5, committing all alliance nations to the defense of any other when attacked,
should be scrapped in favor of language that calls for U.S. intervention only in the event of a true threat to Western Civilization
itself.
And while a European-led NATO would find it difficult to pull back from its forward eastern positions after adding so many nations
in the post-Cold War era, it should extend assurances to Russia that it has no intention of acting provocatively -- absent, of course,
any Russian provocations.
The Middle East: The United States should reduce its footprint in the region on a major scale. It should get out of Afghanistan,
with assurances to the Taliban that it will allow that country to go its own way, irrespective of the outcome, so long as it doesn't
pose a threat to the United States or its vital interests. U.S. troops should be removed from Syria, and America should stop supporting
Saudi Arabia's nasty war in Yemen. We should make clear to Israel and the world that the Jewish state is a major U.S. ally and will
be protected whenever it is truly threatened. But we should also emphasize that we won't seek through military means to alter the
regional balance of power based on mere perceptions of potential future threats to countries in the region, even allies. The United
States won't get drawn into regional wars unrelated to its own vital interests.
Far East: Once the other regional decks are cleared, America must turn its attention to Asia. The first question: do we
wish to maintain our current position there, or can we accept China's rise even if it means a U.S. retreat or partial retreat from
the region? If a retreat is deemed acceptable, then America should secure the best terms possible over a long period of tough and
guileful negotiations. But if we decide to maintain regional dominance, then China will have to be isolated and deterred. That will
mean a long period of economic tension and even economic warfare, confrontations over China's extravagant claims of sovereignty in
the South China Sea and elsewhere, strong U.S. alliances with other Asian nations nurtured through deft and measured diplomacy, soaring
technological superiority, and a continual upper hand in any arms race.
In this scenario, can war be averted? History suggests that may not be likely. But either way, America won't remain an Asian power
if it allows itself to be pinned down in multiple nonstrategic spats and adventures around the world. Asia is today's Great Game
and China is winning. That won't be reversed unless America starts playing.
None of your suggestions is likely to happen, absent defeat. America's trump card is the fiat dollar as world currency, defended
by the full faith and power of an imperial global military, with its own economic inertia to the domestic economy as well.
That allows U.S. legal decisions to have extra territorial scope as the real international power, not now irrelevant toothless
international institutions like the UN.
Nice summary, Mr Merry. Even the most die-hard Trumpet can find something to disagree upon with their Dear Leader while supporting
everything else he does, but this clear and succinct outline leaves no where for the Deplorables to hide. Coupled with the China
trade war fiasco, thias is pretty grim.
Of course, come 2020, all will be forgiven by the GOP, and even one criticism with be blasted with a twitter assault.
The most obvious step is to forge a genuine alliance with India. America can't take on China alone (although China's ineluctable
demographic decline may make the US' relative decline in fortunes short-lived), and the world's largest democracy, and soon to
be most populous nation, is an obvious counterweight to China, despite its still inefficient economy.
Unfortunately our support for the treacherous Pakistanis has poisoned our relationship with India. In 1971, Nixon actually
sent a carrier group in the Bay of Bengal to intimidate the Indians into stopping support for the Bangladeshis fighting a war
of independence against the genocidal (West) Pakistan, and the Indians had to call on the Soviets to send nuclear submarines to
deter that threat. Like all ancient nations, Indians have long memories. Ironically, that reckless action was in cahoots with
China.
The US has been trying to reverse this, but our patronizing attitude towards a proud country seeking great-power status
has led to modest progress at best, and their defense relationship with Russia is stronger than with us.
Pragmatic isolationism is a better deal then the current neocon foreign policy. Which Trump is pursuing with the zeal similar
to Obama (who continued all Bush II wars and started two new in Libya and Syria.) Probably this partially can be explained by
his dependence of Adelson and pro-Israeli lobby. But the problem is deeper then Trump: it is the power of MIC and American exceptionalism
( which can be viewed as a form of far right nationalism ) about which Andrew Bacevich have written a lot:
From the mid-1940s onward, the primacy of the United States was assumed as a given. History had rendered a verdict: we --
not the Brits and certainly not the Germans, French, or Russians -- were number one, and, more importantly, were meant to be.
That history's verdict might be subject to revision was literally unimaginable, especially to anyone making a living in or
near Washington, D.C.
If doubts remained on that score, the end of the Cold War removed them. With the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse
of communism, politicians, journalists, and policy intellectuals threw themselves headlong into a competition over who could
explain best just how unprecedented, how complete, and how wondrous was the global preeminence of the United States.
Choose your own favorite post-Cold War paean to American power and privilege. Mine remains Madeleine Albright's justification
for some now-forgotten episode of armed intervention, uttered 20 years ago when American wars were merely occasional (and therefore
required some nominal justification) rather then perpetual (and therefore requiring no justification whatsoever).
"If we have to use force," Secretary of State Albright announced on morning television in February 1998, "it is because
we are America. We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see further into the future."
Back then, it was Albright's claim to American indispensability that stuck in my craw. Yet as a testimony to ruling class
hubris, the assertion of indispensability pales in comparison to Albright's insistence that "we see further into the future."
In fact, from February 1998 down to the present, events have time and again caught Albright's "we" napping. The 9/11 terrorist
attacks and the several unsuccessful wars of choice that followed offer prime examples. But so too did Washington's belated
and inadequate recognition of the developments that actually endanger the wellbeing of 21st-century Americans, namely climate
change, cyber threats, and the ongoing reallocation of global power prompted by the rise of China.
Rather than seeing far into the future, American elites have struggled to discern what might happen next week. More often
than not, they get even that wrong.
Like some idiot savant, Donald Trump understood this. He grasped that the establishment's formula for militarized global
leadership applied to actually existing post-Cold War circumstances was spurring American decline. Certainly other observers,
including contributors to this publication, had for years been making the same argument, but in the halls of power their dissent
counted for nothing.
Yet in 2016, Trump's critique of U.S. policy resonated with many ordinary Americans and formed the basis of his successful
run for the presidency. Unfortunately, once Trump assumed office, that critique did not translate into anything even remotely
approximating a coherent strategy. President Trump's half-baked formula for Making America Great Again -- building "the wall,"
provoking trade wars, and elevating Iran to the status of existential threat -- is, to put it mildly, flawed, if not altogether
irrelevant.
His own manifest incompetence and limited attention span don't help.
There is no countervailing force within the USA that is able to tame MIC appetites, which are constantly growing. In a
sense the nation is taken hostage with no root for escape via internal political mechanisms (for all practical purposes I would
consider neocons that dominate the USA foreign policy to be highly paid lobbyists of MIC.)
In this limited sense the alliance of China, Iran, Russia and Turkey might serve as an external countervailing force which
allows some level of return to sanity, like was the case when the USSR used to exist.
I agree with Bacevich that the dissolution of the USSR corrupted the US elite to the extent that it became reckless and somewhat
suicidal in seeking "Full Spectrum Dominance" (which is an illusive goal in any case taking into account existing arsenals in
China and Russia and the growing distance between EU and the USA.)
Your current foreign policy simply seems to reflect the astonishing degree of violence that permeates your society, when observing
you Americans from a place like Hong Kong or China it's really frightening, I would be more scared to visit the US than Liberia
or Sierra Leone, with those innumerable ( armed ) nutcases roaming your streets, you are by now used to it, and it saddens me,
thinking of how grateful we should be for all you have done in the distant past for so many countries in the world
The blockheads advising know nothing Trump about history and geo-politics don't care a whit about the American people or what
is ten years down the road. These people, Bolton, Pompeo and the joke-Kushner- are ego/power lovers and are doing the opposite
of a sane policy to every part of the globe.
How the hell do you goad and threaten Russia, for example, for no good reason and how do you threaten Russia, which, like the
U.S., with the push of several buttons can turn any city in the world to ashes, in minutes.
The American people are not only dumb as a wall, they don't care about foreign policy and they don't wanna know. The're looking
at celebrities and looking at their smart phones for fun and weirdness. The phones are smarter than them and they pay the price
when clown Trump does things like trade wars and so on.
Yeah, the average American, what prizes they are, as in they look and say,
Is that the actress there on the 'news' oh, what's she wearing is that the 'genius' athlete, what does that smelly guy say
today hey, let's order food delivered so we can watch and tomorrow to the sports bar and
This article forgets to mention why it would be in the American people's interest to be the hegemon of East Asia. I can't think
of any reason myself. Anyone?
Guess the parallel with the US 'New American Century' is not misplaced. Do you realize that Germany aims to leverage the
EU for establishing its position as a 'World Player'. Do realize too that it tends to categorize other countries along the
same zero sum power line of reasoning as the US "either with us or against us".
This German foreign policy gave birth to the European Neighborhood Policy which exploited the US instigated coup to indenture
Ukraine into a dependent NON-member state associated exclusively with the EU excluding normal economic relations with Russia.
I agree with the article, but not the title. The article acknowledges two important points, but leaves out another.
First, it correctly acknowledges that our obsession with Iran is vastly disproportionate to the threat it poses. In fact, we
would do well to scale back our adventurism in the Middle East. If China is winning in the Far East, it is largely because we
have chosen to devote resources elsewhere.
Second, it correctly acknowledges that continued antagonizing of Russia by the West is needless. It is time to normalize relations
with Russia, recognize its legitimate interest in having some buffer against the West, and repatriate Russian nationals who have
recently immigrated to the West.
Third, the article fails to acknowledge that China, like Russia, is also entitled to some sphere of influence. And there is
historic precedence for certain such claims. Those claims are tenuous when it comes to Japan and the Korean peninsula. But there
is little reason why American Navy ships should be sailing right up to the borders of China, just as there is little reason why
Chinese Navy ships should be sailing off the coast of Oregon. We also need to understand that provoking a trade war that slows
the Chinese economy merely enhances the power of President Xi. Trump has given President Xi a massive political gift, and for
no good reason. The trade imbalance is evidence of the strength of our economy, not a sign that we're losing out to China.
One of the most malign effects of Israeli and Saudi control of American politicians is the grotesque overemphasis on the Middle
East in US foreign policy. Trump's trade fights to one side, it often seems as if we dismiss or ignore much of the rest of the
world. This disproportion has been obvious and growing since the end of the last century, but at this point it's pathological.
If we are to compete effectively with China and other global players, if we are to have a balanced and effective foreign policy
in general, we need to remove the Middle East blinders, get Israel and Saudi Arabia off our back, and start seeing the world as
it is, rather than as Israel and Saudi Arabia pay our politicians to see it.
Simple questions: Why should we care? And how does all this soft power benefit the average citizens? And for all the China fears,
they appear to react very rationally and avoid military conflicts.
Ok, it is true Chinese oil buying is probably keeping Iran in a better economic situation but again this seems more of a problem
of Iran hawks not the average citizen. Honestly, I wish the US had more of treasury focused foreign policy and stop worrying about
US power.
Well, it all depends on goals doesn't it. US foreign policy goals are to increase chaos and create international tension.
Why? Because US foreign policy exists to feed military and intel contractors on the one hand and asserting power for the sake
of asserting power with no overall strategy other the Great Game.
Any rational analysis of the past couple of decades forces us to come to that conclusion. The reason why this whole scheme
is unlikely to fail in the short and medium term is US military involvement in 150 countries has brought much of the world under
Washington's control–or at least their ruling elites. The best China can do is provide an alternative to the Empire and live in
some sort of harmony with it because China has not shown any intention of competing militarily with the US. Iran is a key part
of the Silk Road project and that is the strategic reason for the attempt to crush or destroy Iran that is central to the strategy.
The US wants to keep China and Russia out of Europe–that, if you look at policy, seems to be the main contest.
The conflict with Iran has assumed heightened importance because,at 70 years old, John Bolton has to face the possibility that
he might die without having started a war somewhere.
The author misses two other two other components of of a proper China "containment" policy: Immigration and trade policy. The
US should be actively trying to attract immigration of skilled young workers and entrepreneurs (including from China) and encouraging
university graduates from abroad to remain. The US ought to join the TPP in order to increase our leverage in negotiating reductions
in Chinese restrictions on trade and investment.
Why would Russia want to make a deal with the United States, which cannot be trusted to keep its word, or even to act rationally
in pursuit of its own interests?
Generally a good article, but it misses an important point. While China and Russia do have natural spheres of influence, the countries
within those natural spheres hate being there.
Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam are naturally within China's influence, but they don't trust the Chinese at all, and surely don't
want China to dominate their countries. And given they way the Chinese empire treats Tibetan and Uigurs, they have good reason
for that.
Similarly in Eastern Europe, where Poland, Ukraine, and the Baltic States might be in Russian sphere, but they sure don't want
to be. The fact is that NATO did not aggressively seek them out for membership, those small countries begged to join NATO out
of their historical fear of Russia.
While recognizing such spheres of influence, do we want to abandon friendly, democratic countries to a hostile, autocratic
power? The Cold War model of Finland give some hope for a compromise, but it won't be easy to implement outside of Finland.
This article is another vivid illustration of how disoriented and narrow-minded when a typical intelligent and well-meaning American
is talking about China. For examples:
1. The author has no problem acknowledging specific geopolitical interests to accommodate Russia or even Iran, but when he
comes to China, he fails completely to mention any of the legitimate interests China has in East Asia.
2. The author repeats the nonsensical China haters' allegation about China's threat to America, and China's intention to push
American out of East Asia.
3. The author resorts back to a typical zero-sum or even cold-war style mentality when talking about overall China strategy,
without even considering the possibilities that China and America can co-exist in a friendly manner, where all the peaceful competition
between the two countries ultimately translating into net positive results that benefit the people of both countries and the world.
Unfortunately, our so-called "experts" in China are consistently failing Americans badly, because they lack the knowledge and
perspective to think from the other side of the coin.
I scrolled for quite a bit before finding Thaomas' comment about TPP. Leaving it will prove to be one of the Trump's admin's greatest
blunders (which is saying something) and any column about China strategy that omits it is incomplete.
So why exactly should Russia be accommodated and be allowed its sphere of influence and a 'defense perimeter' and not China? I
don't get it. And why should the USA be allowed the fruits of its aggression in the form of an annexed and brutally conquered
Hawaii? why can't Uncle Sam be satisfied with San Diego as a naval base?
The USA has the Monroe Doctrine giving it dominion over the Western Hemisphere, and China holds the Mandate of Heaven granting
it hegemony over everything else. Can't the Dragon and the Eagle get along on that basis??
In terms of geography, China vitally needs Russia in order to close off a corridor through which Muslims will flow to China. Without
that cooperation from Russia, China will be seriously hobbled by unassimilable and hostile migrants in its south. At least symbolically,
this will cripple its superpower claims.
The U.S. would be stupid not to seek an alliance with Russia, given Russia's geographical strengths, which also includes its
proximity to the Arctic and therefore a legal claim to the oil and gas buried there.
Geography is Russia's long-term strength, and not incidentally is a reason why trying militarily to force Putin to surrender
Crimea could easily lead to nuclear war, which might begin with tactical (battlefield) Russian nukes aimed at NATO garrisons in
eastern Europe.
China isn't fated to win its contest with the U.S. if it must depend on Russia in order to become an unquestioned superpower.
We need Russia for strategic security as much as Russia needs us for economic growth.
Nice summary. In my view the US (not Trump) make a big mistake to throw Russia in the arms of China. It's not only its geopolitical
situation that is the problem but the fact the it gives China unlimited access to natural resources. In a generation, if things
goes the way they do now, the only saving grace for the US will be a failure of this partnership. Because if it works, by the
sheer force of gravity it will swallow Europe. But betting on the adversary's failure is not a good strategy.
eh, keeping pressure on Iran keeps Saudi Arabia happy which means they stay in our sphere; as opposed to China's.
Until Venezuala wants to become part of the Oil-for-dollars system or we all drive electric cars and only oil for remote work
and emergency military expeditions then we need the Saudis on our side.
This kind of mentality is the reason why I think the demise of America is necessary to achieve world peace.
Why on God's green earth should America dominate East Asia? Last time I checked, America is NOT part of Asia. We are not even
in the same hemisphere for crying out loud. Why can't we just leave Asia to the Asians?
When was the last time China invaded a country? Never. These are the same people who discovered Africa and America long before
the Europeans, but only wanted to "do business" and trade. They already have 1.3 Billion mouths to feed, the last thing the Chinese
government needs is more mouths to feed.
Meanwhile, when Washington thinks of invasion, all they think of is guns, tanks, battleships. The Chinese are already quietly
invading and conquering the west -- through immigration. All along the East and West coasts, Chinese dominant cities and schools
are popping up everywhere. America really is the stupidest country on earth sometimes. All brawn and no brain. We want to start
wars with everybody in the name of protecting "American interests", while the rest of the world are already conquering us from
within through immigration. Wake up America.
Though Mr. Merry sees things clearly, I can't really see why people like playing these games in the age of nukes.
It's one thing trying to play Kaiser Wilhelm II and dream of containment and conquest when you actually had to send armies
to defeat your enemies, It's another to do so when people can kill a few millions by pressing a button.
Though Mr. Merry sees things clearly, I can't really see why people like playing these games in the age of nukes.
It's one thing trying to play Kaiser Wilhelm II and dream of containment and conquest when you actually had to send armies
to defeat your enemies, It's another to do so when people can kill a few millions by pressing a button.
I would assume that the US is "in" East Asia, to a significant extent, because Japan, South Korea and Taiwan have sought US security
and defense guarantees. The US has not forced itself into the region. Korea has reasons to be concerned about China, due to its
experiences during the Korean War, and Taiwan, which wishes to remain independent of Chinese control, is directly threatened by
China.
As for other allies in the region, Philippine president Duterte's overtures, upon taking office, to China, and his especially
disparaging remarks about the US while making an official visit to China, seem quite puzzling, given China's illegitimate seizing
of Philippine territory in the West Philippine Sea. US relations with the Philippines needs to be reexamined in light of this
development. While Japan, South Korea and Taiwan are first-level allies in the region, the Philippines is not.
"... Since the end of the Cold War, the American government has become increasingly delusional, regarding itself as the Supreme World Hegemon. As a result, local American courts have begun enforcing gigantic financial penalties against foreign countries and their leading corporations, and I suspect that the rest of the world is tiring of this misbehavior. Perhaps such actions can still be taken against the subservient vassal states of Europe, but by most objective measures, the size of China's real economy surpassed that of the US several years ago and is now substantially larger , while also still having a far higher rate of growth. Our totally dishonest mainstream media regularly obscures this reality, but it remains true nonetheless. ..."
"... Provoking a disastrous worldwide confrontation with mighty China by seizing and imprisoning one of its leading technology executives reminds me of a comment I made several years ago about America's behavior under the rule of its current political elites: ..."
"... Normal countries like China naturally assume that other countries like the US will also behave in normal ways, and their dumbfounded shock at Ms. Meng's seizure has surely delayed their effective response. In 1959, Vice President Richard Nixon visited Moscow and famously engaged in a heated "kitchen debate" with Premier Nikita Khrushchev over the relative merits of Communism and Capitalism. What would have been the American reaction if Nixon had been immediately arrested and given a ten year Gulag sentence for "anti-Soviet agitation"? ..."
"... But Bolton's apparent involvement underscores the central role of his longtime patron, multi-billionaire casino-magnate Sheldon Adelson, whose enormous financial influence within Republican political circles has been overwhelmingly focused on pro-Israel policy and hostility towards Iran, Israel's regional rival. ..."
"... Although it is far from clear whether the very elderly Adelson played any direct personal role in Ms. Meng's arrest, he surely must be viewed as the central figure in fostering the political climate that produced the current situation. Perhaps he should not be described as the ultimate puppet-master behind our current clash with China, but any such political puppet-masters who do exist are certainly operating at his immediate beck and call. In very literal terms, I suspect that if Adelson placed a single phone call to the White House, the Trump Administration would order Canada to release Ms. Meng that same day. ..."
As most readers know, I'm not a casual political blogger and I prefer producing lengthy
research articles rather than chasing the headlines of current events. But there are
exceptions to every rule, and the looming danger of a direct worldwide clash with China is
one of them.
Consider the arrest last week of Meng Wanzhou, the CFO of Huawei, the world's largest
telecom equipment manufacturer. While flying from Hong Kong to Mexico, Ms. Meng was changing
planes in the Vancouver International Airport when she was suddenly detained by the Canadian
government on an August US warrant. Although now released on $10 million bail, she still
faces extradition to a New York City courtroom, where she could receive up to thirty years in
federal prison for allegedly having conspired in 2010 to violate America's unilateral
economic trade sanctions against Iran.
Although our mainstream media outlets have certainly covered this important story,
including front page articles in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal
, I doubt most American readers fully recognize the extraordinary gravity of this
international incident and its potential for altering the course of world history. As one
scholar noted, no event since America's deliberate 1999
bombing of China's embassy in Belgrade , which killed several Chinese diplomats, has so
outraged both the Chinese government and its population. Columbia's Jeffrey Sachs
correctly described it as "almost a US declaration of war on China's business
community."
Such a reaction is hardly surprising. With annual revenue of $100 billion, Huawei ranks as
the world's largest and most advanced telecommunications equipment manufacturer as well as
China's most internationally successful and prestigious company. Ms. Meng is not only a
longtime top executive there, but also the daughter of the company's founder, Ren Zhengfei,
whose enormous entrepreneurial success has established him as a Chinese national hero.
Her seizure on obscure American sanction violation charges while changing planes in a
Canadian airport almost amounts to a kidnapping. One journalist asked how Americans would
react if China had seized Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook for violating Chinese law especially if
Sandberg were also the daughter of Steve Jobs.
Indeed, the closest analogy that comes to my mind is when Prince Mohammed bin Salman of
Saudi Arabia kidnapped the Prime Minister of Lebanon earlier this year and held him hostage.
Later he more successfully did the same with hundreds of his wealthiest Saudi subjects,
extorting something like $100 billion in ransom from their families before finally releasing
them. Then he may have finally over-reached himself when Washington Post columnist
Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi dissident, was killed and dismembered by a bone-saw at the Saudi
embassy in Turkey.
We should actually be a bit grateful to Prince Mohammed since without him America would
clearly have the most insane government anywhere in the world. As it stands, we're merely
tied for first.
Since the end of the Cold War, the American government has become increasingly delusional,
regarding itself as the Supreme World Hegemon. As a result, local American courts have begun
enforcing gigantic financial penalties against foreign countries and their leading
corporations, and I suspect that the rest of the world is tiring of this misbehavior. Perhaps
such actions can still be taken against the subservient vassal states of Europe, but by most
objective measures, the size of China's real economy surpassed that of the US several years
ago and is now substantially larger ,
while also still having a far higher rate of growth. Our totally dishonest mainstream media
regularly obscures this reality, but it remains true nonetheless.
Provoking a disastrous worldwide confrontation with mighty China by seizing and
imprisoning one of its leading technology executives reminds me of
a comment I made several years ago about America's behavior under the rule of its current
political elites:
Or to apply a far harsher biological metaphor, consider a poor canine infected with the
rabies virus. The virus may have no brain and its body-weight is probably less than
one-millionth that of the host, but once it has seized control of the central nervous
system, the animal, big brain and all, becomes a helpless puppet.
Once friendly Fido runs around foaming at the mouth, barking at the sky, and trying to
bite all the other animals it can reach. Its friends and relatives are saddened by its
plight but stay well clear, hoping to avoid infection before the inevitable happens, and
poor Fido finally collapses dead in a heap.
Normal countries like China naturally assume that other countries like the US will also
behave in normal ways, and their dumbfounded shock at Ms. Meng's seizure has surely delayed
their effective response. In 1959, Vice President Richard Nixon visited Moscow and famously
engaged in a heated "kitchen
debate" with Premier Nikita Khrushchev over the relative merits of Communism and
Capitalism. What would have been the American reaction if Nixon had been immediately arrested
and given a ten year Gulag sentence for "anti-Soviet agitation"?
Since a natural reaction to international hostage-taking is retaliatory international
hostage-taking, the newspapers have reported that top American executives have decided to
forego visits to China until the crisis is resolved. These days, General Motors sells more
cars in China than in the US, and China is also the manufacturing source of nearly all our
iPhones, but Tim Cook, Mary Barra, and their higher-ranking subordinates are unlikely to
visit that country in the immediate future, nor would the top executives of Google, Facebook,
Goldman Sachs, and the leading Hollywood studios be willing to risk indefinite
imprisonment.
Canada had arrested Ms. Meng on American orders, and this morning's newspapers reported
that a former
Canadian diplomat had suddenly been detained in China , presumably as a small
bargaining-chip to encourage Ms. Meng's release. But I very much doubt such measures will
have much effect. Once we forgo traditional international practices and adopt the Law of the
Jungle, it becomes very important to recognize the true lines of power and control, and
Canada is merely acting as an American political puppet in this matter. Would threatening the
puppet rather than the puppet-master be likely to have much effect?
Similarly, nearly all of America's leading technology executives are already quite hostile
to the Trump Administration, and even if it were possible, seizing one of them would hardly
be likely to sway our political leadership. To a lesser extent, the same thing is true about
the overwhelming majority of America's top corporate leaders. They are not the individuals
who call the shots in the current White House.
Indeed, is President Trump himself anything more than a higher-level puppet in this very
dangerous affair? World peace and American national security interests are being sacrificed
in order to harshly enforce the Israel Lobby's international sanctions campaign against Iran,
and we should hardly be surprised that the National Security Adviser John Bolton, one of
America's most extreme pro-Israel zealots,
had personally given the green light to the arrest. Meanwhile, there are credible reports
that Trump himself remained entirely unaware of these plans, and Ms. Meng was seized on the
same day that he was personally meeting on trade issues with Chinese President Xi. Some have
even suggested that the incident was a deliberate slap in Trump's face.
But Bolton's apparent involvement underscores the central role of his longtime patron,
multi-billionaire casino-magnate Sheldon Adelson, whose enormous financial influence within
Republican political circles has been overwhelmingly focused on pro-Israel policy and
hostility towards Iran, Israel's regional rival.
Although it is far from clear whether the very elderly Adelson played any direct personal
role in Ms. Meng's arrest, he surely must be viewed as the central figure in fostering the
political climate that produced the current situation. Perhaps he should not be described as
the ultimate puppet-master behind our current clash with China, but any such political
puppet-masters who do exist are certainly operating at his immediate beck and call. In very
literal terms, I suspect that if Adelson placed a single phone call to the White House, the
Trump Administration would order Canada to release Ms. Meng that same day.
Adelson's fortune of $33 billion ranks him as the 15th
wealthiest man in America, and the bulk of his fortune is based on his ownership of extremely
lucrative gambling casinos in Macau, China . In effect, the Chinese government currently has
its hands around the financial windpipe of the man ultimately responsible for Ms. Meng's
arrest and whose pro-Israel minions largely control American foreign policy. I very much
doubt that they are fully aware of this enormous, untapped source of political leverage.
Over the years, Adelson's Chinese Macau casinos have been involved in all sorts of political
bribery scandals , and I suspect it would be very easy for the Chinese government to find
reasonable grounds for immediately shutting them down, at least on a temporary basis, with
such an action having almost no negative repercussions to Chinese society or the bulk of the
Chinese population. How could the international community possibly complain about the Chinese
government shutting down some of their own local gambling casinos with a long public record
of official bribery and other criminal activity? At worst, other gambling casino magnates
would become reluctant to invest future sums in establishing additional Chinese casinos,
hardly a desperate threat to President Xi's anti-corruption government.
I don't have a background in finance and I haven't bothered trying to guess the precise
impact of a temporary shutdown of Adelson's Chinese casinos, but it wouldn't surprise me if
the resulting drop in the stock price of Las Vegas Sands Corp would reduce
Adelson's personal net worth were by $5-10 billion within 24 hours, surely enough to get his
immediate personal attention. Meanwhile, threats of a permanent shutdown, perhaps extending
to Chinese-influenced Singapore, might lead to the near-total destruction of Adelson's
personal fortune, and similar measures could also be applied as well to the casinos of all
the other fanatically pro-Israel American billionaires, who dominate the remainder of
gambling in Chinese Macau.
The chain of political puppets responsible for Ms. Meng's sudden detention is certainly a
complex and murky one. But the Chinese government already possesses the absolute power of
financial life-or-death over Sheldon Adelson, the man located at the very top of that chain.
If the Chinese leadership recognizes that power and takes effective steps, Ms. Meng will
immediately be put on a plane back home, carrying the deepest sort of international political
apology. And future attacks against Huawei, ZTE, and other Chinese technology companies would
not be repeated.
China actually holds a Royal Flush in this international political poker game. The only
question is whether they will recognize the value of their hand. I hope they do for the sake
of America and the entire world.
In a sense the "intelligence community" is an institualized mafia conducting illegal
operation in foreign states (and recently in the home state too). So the difference in methods is
superficial, but the intelligence community is much better armed, financed and protected
:-).
@ABC 123 You got that dead right ABC 123. The evil group in the shadows that really runs
the government is called "the intelligence community." Some community! More like a giant
Mafia.
"Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft [taxes], and
counterfeiting [via central bank monopolies], all governments are essentially, at their very
cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams which cannot be "reformed","improved", nor "limited" in
scope, simply because of their innate criminal nature."onebornfree
"Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no way
to differentiate the activities of its founders, administrators and beneficiaries from those
of a professional-criminal class." Albert J. Nock
"If measured by the standards of natural law and justice, all politicians, of all parties
and virtually without any exception, are guilty, whether directly or indirectly, of murder,
homicide, trespass, invasion, expropriation, theft , fraud, and the fencing of stolen goods
on a massive and ongoing scale. And every new generation of politicians and parties appears
to be worse, and piles even more atrocities and perversions on top of the already existing
mountain, so that one feels almost nostalgic about the past. They all should be hung, or put
in jail to rot, or set to making compensation." Hans Herman Hoppe
"There is only one political party in America, it's the money party and it has two
branches." Gore Vidal
"Politics -- whether local or national -- is always a con game. And the con generally
increases with the scale. The bigger the "we," the bigger the swindle." Bill Bonner
"Fundamentally, the founding fathers of U.S. intelligence were liars. The better you lied
and the more you betrayed, the more likely you would be promoted. . . . Outside of their
duplicity, the only thing they had in common was a desire for absolute power. I did things
that, in looking back on my life, I regret. But I was part of it and loved being in it' "
James Jesus Angleton, head of Agency counterintelligence from 1954-1975
"Why should any self-respecting citizen endorse an institution grounded on thievery? For
that is what one does when one votes. If it be argued that we must let bygones be bygones,
see what can be done toward cleaning up the institution of the State so that it might be
useful in the maintenance of orderly existence, the answer is that it cannot be done; you
cannot clean up a brothel and yet leave the business intact. We have been voting for one
"good government" after another, and what have we got?" Frank Chodorov, Out of Step
(1962)
'Coordinated anti-Trump campaign' on Instagram discovered by data analytics firm Reuters
Researchers have uncovered what they called a "coordinated social media operation"on
Instagram intended to undermine US President Donald Trump, with many identical posts using
hashtags like #ihatetrump and #ImpeachTrump.
Ghost Data, an Italian analytics firm, said the US president has been targeted by fake
profiles created specifically to spread extreme and sometimes even violent anti-Trump
messaging in an organized and coordinated way.
Their study identified a network of 350 anti-Trump Instagram accounts, which used graphic
language to criticize the US president and found that 19 accounts led the way in promoting
the content. Some of the postings could "easily" be regarded as "hate speech," the study
said.
What the team uncovered was a "small operation" that is "very likely part of something
bigger," the head of research at Ghost Data, Andrea Stroppa, told Reuters.
The posts generated from the operation garnered more than 35.2 million interactions, with
3.9 million of them happening within the last two months when the campaign "swelled
dramatically," the researchers said. Interactions for the top 19 accounts are "growing
exponentially," generating nearly 70,000 likes and comments in just the first 10 days of
May.
The accounts posted "similar or identical content" and many of the messages were published
just a few minutes apart, the study noted. More tellingly, the accounts were all "activated
and turned off" on the same day.
U.S. ships are involved in provocative "freedom of navigation" exercises in the South China
Sea and other ships gather ominously in the Mediterranean Sea while National Security Advisor
John Bolton and Secretary of State Michael Pompeo along with convicted war criminal Elliot
Abrams conspire to save the people of Venezuela with another illegal "regime change"
intervention. But people are drawn to the latest adventures of Love and Hip-Hop, the Mueller
report, and Game of Thrones. In fact, while millions can recall with impressive detail the
proposals and strategies of the various players in HBO's latest saga, they can't recall two
details about the pending military budget that will likely pass in Congress with little debate,
even though Trump's budget proposal represents another obscene increase of public money to the
tune of $750 billion.
This bipartisan rip-off could not occur without the willing collusion of the corporate
media, which slants coverage to support the interests of the ruling elite or decides to just
ignore an issue like the ever-expanding military budget.
The effectiveness of this collusion is reflected in the fact that not only has this massive
theft of public money not gotten much coverage in the mainstream corporate media, but also it
only received sporadic coverage in the alternative media. The liberal-left media is distracted
enough by the theatrics of the Trump show to do the ideological dirty work of the elites.
Spending on war will consume almost 70% of the budget and be accompanied by cuts in public
spending for education, housing, the environment, public transportation, jobs trainings, food
support programs like food stamps and Meals on Wheels, as well as Medicare, Medicaid, and
Social Security. Most of the neoliberal candidates running in the Democratic Party's electoral
process, however, haven't spoken a word in opposition to Trump's budget.
The public knows that the Democratic Party's candidates are opposed to Trump's wall on the
southern border, and they expect to hear them raise questions about the $8.6 billion of funding
the wall. But while some of the Democrats may oppose the wall, very few have challenged the
details of the budget that the
U.S. Peace Council indicates . For example:
"$576 billion baseline budget for the Department of Defense; an additional $174 billion
for the Pentagon's Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), i.e., the war budget; $93.1 billion
for the Department of Veterans Affairs; $51.7 billion for Homeland Security; $42.8 billion
for State Department; an additional $26.1 billion for State Department's Overseas Contingency
Operations (regime change slush fund); $16.5 billion for the Department of Energy's National
Nuclear Security Administration (nuclear weapons budget); $21 billion for NASA (militarizing
outer space?); plus $267.4 billion for all other government agencies, including funding for
FBI and Cybersecurity in the Department of Justice."
The Peace Council also highlights the following two issues: First, the total US military and
war budget has jumped from $736.4 billion to $989.0 billion since 2015. That is a $252.6
billion (about 35%) increase in five years. Second, thesimultaneous cuts in the government's
non-military spending are reflected in the proposed budget.
Here are some of biggest proposed budget cuts:
+ $1.5 trillion in cuts to Medicaid over 10 years, implementing work requirements as well
as eliminating the Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act. The budget instead adds
$1.2 trillion for a "Market Based Health Care Grant" -- that is, a block grant to states,
instead of paying by need. It's not clear whether that would be part of Medicaid.
+ An $845 billion cut to Medicare over 10 years. That is about a 10 percent cut .
+ $25 billion in cuts to Social Security over 10 years, including cuts to disability
insurance.
+ A $220 billion cut to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program(SNAP) over 10 years ,
which is commonly referred to as food stamps, and includes mandatory work requirements. The
program currently serves around 45 million people.
+ A $21 billion cut to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families , an already severely
underfunded cash-assistance program for the nation's poorest.
+ $207 billion in cuts to the student loan program, eliminating the Public Service Loan
Forgiveness program and cutting subsidized student loans.
+ Overall, there is a 9 percent cut to non-defense programs , which would hit Section 8
housing vouchers, public housing programs, Head Start, the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)
nutrition program, and Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program , among others.
The working classes and oppressed peoples of the U.S. and around the world can no longer
afford the unchallenged ideological positions of the Pentagon budget and the associated
expenditures for so-called defense that are considered sacrosanct in the U.S. They cannot
afford that much of the U.S. public is not concerned with issues of so-called foreign policy
that the military budget is seen as part.
The racist appeals of U.S. national chauvinism in the form of "Make America Great" and the
Democrats' version of "U.S. Exceptionalism" must be confronted and exposed as the cross-class,
white identity politics that they are. The fact that supposedly progressive or even "radical"
politics does not address the issue of U.S. expenditures on war and imperialism is reflective
of a politics that is morally and political bankrupt. But it also does something else. It
places those practitioners firmly in the camp of the enemies of humanity.
The objective fact that large numbers of the public accept that the U.S. can determine the
leadership of another sovereign nation while simultaneously being outraged by the idea of a
foreign power interfering in U.S. elections demonstrates the mindboggling subjective
contradictions that exist in the U.S. For example – that an Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez can
assert that she will defer to the leadership of her caucus on the issue of Venezuela or that
Barbara Lee can vote to bring Trump's budget proposal out of committee or that Biden can
proudly support Trump's immoral backing of a neo-fascist opposition in Venezuela and
they will all get away with those positions – reveals the incredible challenge that we
face in building an alternative radical movement for peace, social justice and
people(s)-centered human rights.
So, we must join with
U.S. Peace Council and the other members of the Anti-war, pro-peace, and anti-imperialist
communities in the U.S. to "resist and oppose this military attack on our communities, our
livelihoods and our lives." This is an urgent and militant first step in reversing the cultural
support for violence and the normalization of war that currently exists in the U.S. Now is the
moment to demand that Congress reject and reverse the Trump Administration's military budget
and the U.S. Government's militaristic foreign policy. But now is also the moment to commit to
building a powerful countermovement to take back the power over life and death from the
denizens of violence represented by the rapacious 1%. Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: Ajamu Baraka
Ajamu Baraka is the national organizer of the Black Alliance for Peace and was the 2016
candidate for vice president on the Green Party ticket. He is an editor and contributing
columnist for the Black Agenda Report and contributing columnist for Counterpunch
magazine.
In a sense the "intelligence community" is an institualized mafia conducting illegal
operation in foreign states (and recently in the home state too). So the difference in methods is
superficial, but the intelligence community is much better armed, financed and protected
:-).
@ABC 123 You got that dead right ABC 123. The evil group in the shadows that really runs
the government is called "the intelligence community." Some community! More like a giant
Mafia.
M. Whitney says: " .That's the question that will throw open the curtains and shed light
on the suspicious ties between the DNC, the CIA, the FBI and the media, .."
SWAMPgate: You won't believe how ALL the perps are connected as in joined at the
hip!
Excerpt: " ..someone out there cares so much that they've "purged" all Barsoomian court
documents for her Clinton representation in Hamburg vs. Clinton in 1998 and its appeal in
1999 from the DC District and Appeals Court dockets. Someone out there cares so much that the
internet has been "purged" of all information pertaining to Barsoomian. Historically, this
indicates that the individual is a protected CIA operative. Additionally, Lisa Barsoomian has
specialized in opposing Freedom of Information Act requests on behalf of the intelligence
community.
And, although Barsoomian has been involved in hundreds of cases representing the DC Office
of the US Attorney, her email address is Lisa Barsoomian at NIH gov. The NIH stands for
National Institutes of Health. This is a tactic routinely used by the CIA to protect an
operative by using another government organization to shield their activities.
It's a cover, so big deal, right? I mean what does one more attorney with ties to the US
intelligence community really matter?
It deals with Trump and his recent tariffs on Chinese steel and aluminum imports, the
border wall, DACA, everything coming out of California, the Uni-party unrelenting opposition
to President Trump, the Clapper leaks, the Comey leaks, Attorney General Jeff Sessions
recusal and subsequent 14 month nap with occasional forays into the marijuana legalization
mix.
And last but not least Mueller's never-ending investigation into collusion between the
Trump team and the Russians.
Why does Barsoomian, CIA operative, merit any mention? BECAUSE She is Assistant Attorney
General Rod Rosenstein's WIFE! " :
"SWAMPgate: You won't believe how ALL the perps are connected as in joined at the
hip!": http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=122755#more-122755
"... There are differences between the parties, but they are mainly centered around social issues and disputes with little or no consequence to the long-term path of the country. The real ruling oligarchs essentially allow controlled opposition within each party to make it appear you have a legitimate choice at the ballot box. Nothing could be further from the truth. ..."
"... There has been an unwritten agreement between the parties for decades where the Democrats pretend to be against war and the Republicans pretend to be against welfare. Meanwhile, spending on war and welfare relentlessly grows into the trillions, with no effort whatsoever from either party to even slow the rate of growth, let alone cut spending. The proliferation of the military industrial complex like a poisonous weed has been inexorable, as the corporate arms dealers place their facilities of death in the congressional districts of Democrats and Republicans. In addition, these corporate manufacturers of murder dole out "legal" payoffs to corrupt politicians of both parties in the form of political contributions. The Deep State knows bribes and well-paying jobs ensure no spineless congressman will ever vote against a defense spending increase. ..."
"... Of course, the warfare/welfare state couldn't grow to its immense size without financing from the Wall Street cabal and their feckless academic puppets at the Federal Reserve. The Too Big to Trust Wall Street banks, whose willful control fraud nearly wrecked the global economy in 2008, were rewarded by their Deep State patrons by getting bigger and more powerful as people on Main Street and senior citizen savers were thrown under the bus. ..."
"... When these criminal bankers have their reckless bets blow up in their faces they are bailed out by the American taxpayers, but when the Fed rigs the system so they are guaranteed billions in risk free profits, they reward themselves with massive bonuses and lobby for a huge tax cut used to buy back their stock. With bank branches in every congressional district in every state, and bankers spreading protection money to greedy politicians across the land, no legislation damaging to the banking cartel is ever passed. ..."
"... I voted for Trump because he wasn't Hillary. ..."
"... If the Chinese refuse to yield for fear of losing face, and the tariff war accelerates, a global recession is a certainty. ..."
"... These sociopaths are not liberal or conservative. They are not Democrats or Republicans. They are not beholden to a country or community. They care not for their fellow man. They don't care about future generations. They care about their own power, wealth and control over others. They have no conscience. They have no empathy. Right and wrong are meaningless in their unquenchable thirst for more. They will lie, steal and kill to achieve their goal of controlling everything and everyone in this world. This precisely describes virtually every politician in Washington DC, Wall Street banker, mega-corporation CEO, government agency head, MSM talking head, church leader, billionaire activist, and blood sucking advisor to the president. ..."
"... The problem is we have gone too far. The "American Dream" has become a grotesque nightmare because people by the millions sit around and dream about being a Kardashian. Makes me want to puke. ..."
"I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here. "I think the puppet on the
right shares my beliefs." "I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking." "Hey, wait a
minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!"" – Bill Hicks
Anyone who frequents Twitter, Facebook, political blogs, economic blogs, or fake-news
mainstream media channels knows our world is driven by the "Us versus Them" narrative. It's
almost as if "they" are forcing us to choose sides and believe the other side is evil. Bill
Hicks died in 1994, but his above quote is truer today then it was then. As the American Empire
continues its long-term decline, the proles are manipulated through Bernaysian propaganda
techniques, honed over the course of decades by the ruling oligarchs, to root for their
assigned puppets.
Most people can't discern they are being manipulated and duped by the Deep State
controllers. The most terrifying outcome for these Deep State controllers would be for the
masses to realize it is us versus them. But they don't believe there is a chance in hell of
this happening. Their arrogance is palatable.
Their hubris has reached astronomical levels as they blew up the world economy in 2008 and
successfully managed to have the innocent victims bail them out to the tune of $700 billion,
pillaged the wealth of the nation through their capture of the Federal Reserve (QE, ZIRP),
rigged the financial markets in their favor through collusion, used the hundreds of billions in
corporate tax cuts to buy back their stock and further pump the stock market, all while their
corporate media mouthpieces mislead and misinform the proles.
There are differences between the parties, but they are mainly centered around social
issues and disputes with little or no consequence to the long-term path of the country. The
real ruling oligarchs essentially allow controlled opposition within each party to make it
appear you have a legitimate choice at the ballot box. Nothing could be further from the
truth.
There has been an unwritten agreement between the parties for decades where the
Democrats pretend to be against war and the Republicans pretend to be against welfare.
Meanwhile, spending on war and welfare relentlessly grows into the trillions, with no effort
whatsoever from either party to even slow the rate of growth, let alone cut spending. The
proliferation of the military industrial complex like a poisonous weed has been inexorable, as
the corporate arms dealers place their facilities of death in the congressional districts of
Democrats and Republicans. In addition, these corporate manufacturers of murder dole out
"legal" payoffs to corrupt politicians of both parties in the form of political contributions.
The Deep State knows bribes and well-paying jobs ensure no spineless congressman will ever vote
against a defense spending increase.
Of course, the warfare/welfare state couldn't grow to its immense size without financing
from the Wall Street cabal and their feckless academic puppets at the Federal Reserve. The Too
Big to Trust Wall Street banks, whose willful control fraud nearly wrecked the global economy
in 2008, were rewarded by their Deep State patrons by getting bigger and more powerful as
people on Main Street and senior citizen savers were thrown under the bus.
When these criminal bankers have their reckless bets blow up in their faces they are
bailed out by the American taxpayers, but when the Fed rigs the system so they are guaranteed
billions in risk free profits, they reward themselves with massive bonuses and lobby for a huge
tax cut used to buy back their stock. With bank branches in every congressional district in
every state, and bankers spreading protection money to greedy politicians across the land, no
legislation damaging to the banking cartel is ever passed.
I've never been big on joining a group. I tend to believe Groucho Marx and his cynical line,
"I don't care to belong to any club that will have me as a member". The "Us vs. Them" narrative
doesn't connect with my view of the world. As a realistic libertarian I know libertarian ideals
will never proliferate in a society of government dependency, willful ignorance of the masses,
thousands of laws, and a weak-kneed populace afraid of freedom and liberty. The only true
libertarian politician, Ron Paul, was only able to connect with about 5% of the voting public.
There is no chance a candidate with a libertarian platform will ever win a national election.
This country cannot be fixed through the ballot box. Bill Hicks somewhat foreshadowed the last
election by referencing another famous cynic.
"I ascribe to Mark Twain's theory that the last person who should be President is the one
who wants it the most. The one who should be picked is the one who should be dragged kicking
and screaming into the White House." ― Bill Hicks
Hillary Clinton wanted to be president so badly, she colluded with Barack Obama, Jim Comey,
John Brennan, James Clapper, Loretta Lynch and numerous other Deep State sycophants to ensure
her victory, by attempting to entrap Donald Trump in a concocted Russian collusion plot and
subsequent post-election coup to cover for their traitorous plot. I wouldn't say Donald Trump
was dragged kicking and screaming into the White House, but when he ascended on the escalator
at Trump Tower in June of 2015, I'm not convinced he believed he could win the presidency.
As the greatest self-promoter of our time, I think he believed a presidential run would be
good for his brand, more revenue for his properties and more interest in his reality TV
ventures. He was despised by the establishment within the Republican and Democrat parties. The
vested interests controlling the media and levers of power in society scorned and ridiculed
this brash uncouth outsider. In an upset for the ages, Trump tapped into a vein of rage and
disgruntlement in flyover country and pockets within swing states, to win the presidency over
Crooked Hillary and her Deep State backers.
I voted for Trump because he wasn't Hillary. I hadn't voted for a Republican since
2000, casting protest votes for Libertarian and Constitutional Party candidates along the way.
I despise the establishment, so their hatred of Trump made me vote for him. His campaign
stances against foreign wars and Federal Reserve reckless bubble blowing appealed to me. I
don't worship at the altar of the cult of personality. I judge men by their actions and not
their words.
Trump's first two years have been endlessly entertaining as he waged war against fake news
CNN, establishment Republicans, the Deep State coup attempt, and Obama loving globalists. The
Twitter in Chief has bypassed the fake news media and tweets relentlessly to his followers. He
provokes outrage in his enemies and enthralls his worshipers. With millions in each camp it is
difficult to find an unbiased assessment of narrative versus real accomplishments.
I'm happy he has been able to stop the relentless leftward progression of our Federal
judiciary. Cutting regulations and rolling back environmental mandates has been a positive.
Exiting the Paris Climate Agreement and TPP, forcing NATO members to pay their fair share, and
renegotiating NAFTA were all needed. Ending the war on coal and approving pipelines will keep
energy costs lower. His attempts to vet Muslims entering the country have been the right thing
to do. Building a wall on our southern border is the right thing to do, but he should have
gotten it done when he controlled both houses.
The use of tariffs to force China to renegotiate one sided trade deals as a negotiating
tactic is a high-risk, high reward gamble. If his game of chicken is successful and he gets
better terms from the Chicoms, while reversing the tariffs, it would be a huge win. If the
Chinese refuse to yield for fear of losing face, and the tariff war accelerates, a global
recession is a certainty. Who has the upper hand? Xi is essentially a dictator for life
and doesn't have to worry about elections or popularity polls. Dissent is crushed. A global
recession and stock market crash would make Trump's re-election in 2020 problematic.
I'm a big supporter of lower taxes. The Trump tax cuts were sold as beneficial to the middle
class. That is a false narrative. The vast majority of the tax cut benefits went to
mega-corporations and rich people. Middle class home owning families with children received
little or no tax relief, as exemptions were eliminated and tax deductions capped. In many
cases, taxes rose for working class Americans.
With corporate profits at all time highs, massive tax cuts put billions more into their
coffers. They didn't repatriate their overseas profits to a great extent. They didn't go on a
massive hiring spree. They didn't invest in new facilities. They did buy back their own stock
to help drive the stock market to stratospheric heights. So corporate executives gave
themselves billions in bonuses, which were taxed at a much lower rate. This is considered
winning in present day America.
The "Us vs. Them" issue rears its ugly head whenever Trump is held accountable for promises
unkept, blatant failures, and his own version of fake news. Holding Trump to the same standards
as Obama is considered traitorous by those who only root for their home team. Their standard
response is that you are a Hillary sycophant or a turncoat to the home team. If you agree with
a particular viewpoint or position of a liberal then you are a bad person and accused of being
a lefty by Trump fanboys. Facts don't matter to cheerleaders. Competing narratives rule the
day. Truthfulness not required.
The refusal to distinguish between positive actions and negative actions when assessing the
performance of what passes for our political leadership by the masses is why cynicism has
become my standard response to everything I see, hear or he read. The incessant level of lies
permeating our society and its acceptance as the norm has led to moral decay and rampant
criminality from the White House, to the halls of Congress, to corporate boardrooms, to
corporate newsrooms, to government run classrooms, to the Vatican, and to households across the
land. It's interesting that one of our founding fathers reflected upon this detestable human
trait over two hundred years ago.
"It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental
lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity
of his mind as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has
prepared himself for the commission of every other crime." – Thomas Paine
Thomas Paine's description of how moral mischief can ruin a society was written when less
than 3 million people inhabited America. Consider his accurate assessment of humanity when over
300 million occupy these lands. The staggering number of corrupt prostituted sociopaths
occupying positions of power within the government, corporations, media, military, churches,
and academia has created a morally bankrupt empire of debt.
These sociopaths are not liberal or conservative. They are not Democrats or Republicans.
They are not beholden to a country or community. They care not for their fellow man. They don't
care about future generations. They care about their own power, wealth and control over others.
They have no conscience. They have no empathy. Right and wrong are meaningless in their
unquenchable thirst for more. They will lie, steal and kill to achieve their goal of
controlling everything and everyone in this world. This precisely describes virtually every
politician in Washington DC, Wall Street banker, mega-corporation CEO, government agency head,
MSM talking head, church leader, billionaire activist, and blood sucking advisor to the
president.
The question pondered every day on blogs, social media, news channels, and in households
around the country is whether Trump is one of Us or one of Them. The answer to that question
will strongly impact the direction and intensity of the climactic years of this Fourth Turning.
What I've noticed is the shunning of those who don't take an all or nothing position regarding
Trump. If you disagree with a decision, policy, or hiring decision by the man, you are accused
by the pro-Trump team of being one of them (aka liberals, lefties, Hillary lovers).
If you don't agree with everything Trump does or says, you are dead to the Trumpeteers. I
don't want to be Us or Them. I just want to be me. I will judge everyone by their actions and
their results. I can agree with Trump on many issues, while also agreeing with Tulsi Gabbard,
Rand Paul, Glenn Greenwald or Matt Taibbi on other issues. I don't prescribe to the cult of
personality school of thought. I didn't believe the false narratives during the Bush or Obama
years, and I won't worship at the altar of the Trump narrative now.
In Part II of this article I'll assess Trump's progress thus far and try to determine
whether he can defeat the Deep State.
"The scientific and industrial revolution of modern times represents the next giant
step in the mastery over nature; and here, too, an enormous increase in man's power over
nature is followed by an apocalyptic drive to subjugate man and reduce human nature to the
status of nature. Even where enslavement is employed in a mighty effort to tame nature, one
has the feeling that the effort is but a tactic to legitimize total subjugation. Thus,
despite its spectacular achievements in science and technology, the twentieth century will
probably be seen in retrospect as a century mainly preoccupied with the mastery and
manipulation of men. Nationalism, socialism, communism, fascism, and militarism,
cartelization and unionization, propaganda and advertising are all aspects of a general
relentless drive to manipulate men and neutralize the unpredictability of human nature. Here,
too, the atmosphere is heavy-laden with coercion and magic." --Eric Hoffer
If you don't agree with everything Trump does or says, you are dead to the
Trumpeteers
That's not true. When Trump kisses Israeli ***, most "Trumpeteers" are outraged. That does
not mean they're going to vote for Joe "I'm a Zionist" Biden, or Honest Hillary because of
it, but they're still pissed.
These predators (((them))) need to fear the Victims, us! That is what the 2ND Amendment is
for. It's coming, slowly for now, but eventually it speeds up.
Any piece like this better be littered with footnotes and cited sources before I'm
swallowing it.
I'll say it again: this is the internet, people. There's no "shortage of column space" to
include links back to primary sources for your assertions. Otherwise, how am I supposed to
distinguish you from another "psy op" or "paid opposition hit piece"?
"The question pondered every day on blogs, social media, news channels, and in households
around the country is whether Trump is one of Us or one of Them."
If you still ponder this question, then you are pretty frickin' thick. It is obvious at
this point, that he betrayed everything he campaigned on. You don't do that and call yourself
one of "us".......damn sure aren't one of "me".
If I couldn't keep my word and wouldn't do what it takes to do what is right.....then I
would resign. But I would not go on playing politics in a world that needs some real
leadership and not another political hack.
The real battle is between Truth and Lie. No matter the name of your "team" or the "side"
you support. Truth is truth and lies are lies. We don't stand for political parties, we stand
for truth. We don't stand for national pride, we take pride in a nation that is truthful and
trustworthy. The minute a "side" or "team" starts lying.....and justifying it.....that is the
minute they become them and not one of us.
Any thinking person in this country today knows we are being lied to by the entire
complex. Until someone starts telling the truth.....we are on our own. But I be damned before
I am going to support any of these lying sons of bitches......and that includes Trump.
Dark comedy. All the elections have been **** choices until the last one. Take a look at
Arkancide.com and start counting the
bodies.
Anyone remember the news telling us how North Korea promised to turn the US into a sea of
fire?? Trump absolutely went to bat for every single American to de-escalate that
situation.
Don't tell me about Arkancide or the Clintons. I grew up in Arkansas with that sack of
**** as my governor for 12 years.
NK was never a real threat to anyone. Trump didn't do ****. NK is back to building and
shooting off missiles and will be teaming up with the Russians and Chinese. You are a duped
bafoon.
I don't think anybody thought NK was an existential threat to the US. It has still been
nice making progress on bringing them back into the world and making them less of a threat to
Japan and S. Korea. Trump did that.
Dennis Rodman did that, or that is to say, Trump an extension thereof ..
Great theater..
Look, i thought it was great that Trump went Kim Unning. I mean after all, i had talked
with a few elderly folks that get their news directly from the mainstream of mainstream,
vanilla news reportage. Propaganda central casting. I remember them being extremely
concerned, outright petrified about that evil menace, kim gonna launch nukes any minute now.
If the news would have been announced a major troop mobilization, bombing campaigns, to begin
immediately they would have been completely onboard, waving the flag.
Frankly, it is only a matter of time, and folks can speculate on the country of interest,
but it is coming soon to a theater near you. So many being in the crosshairs. Iran i suspect
.. that's the big prize, that makes these sociopaths cream in their panties.
Probably. In the second term .. and so far, if ones honestly evaluates the "brain trust" /
current crop of dimwit opposition, and in light of their past 2 plus years of moronic
posturing with their hair on fire, trump will get his second term ..
Until the last one? You are retarded, the last election was a masterpiece of Rothschilds
Productions. The Illuminati was watching you at their private cinema when you were voting for
Trump and they were laughing their asses off.
The author does not realize that everyone in America, except Native American Indians, were
immigrants drawn towards the false promise of hope that is the American Dream, turned
nightmare..
Owning your own home, car, & raising a family in this country is so damn expensive
& risky, that you'd have be on drugs or an idiot to even fall for the lies.
I don't see an us vs them, I see the #FakeMoney printers monetized every facet of life,
own everything, & it truly is RENT-A-LIFE USSA, complete with bills galore, taxes galore,
laws galore, jails & prisons galore, & the worst fkn country anyone would want to
live in poverty & homelessness in.
At least in many 3rd world nations there is land to live off of & joblessness does not
= a financial death sentence.
Sure. Lets all go back to living in huts.....off the land....no cars.....no
electricity.....no running water......no roads....
There is a price to pay for things and it is not always in the form of money. We have
given up some of our freedom for the ease and conveniences we want.
The problem is we have gone too far. The "American Dream" has become a grotesque nightmare
because people by the millions sit around and dream about being a Kardashian. Makes me want
to puke.
There is a balance. Don't take the other extreme or we never find balance.
This article is moronic. One can easily prove that Trump is not like all the others in the
poster. Has this author been living under a rock for the last 2.5 yrs? The past 5 presidents
represent a group that has been literally trying to assassinate Trump, ruin his family, his
reputation, his buisness and his future, for the audacity to be an ousider to the power
network and steal (win) the presidency from under their noses. He's kept us OUT of war. He's
dissolved the treachery that was keeping us in the middle east through gaslighitng and a
proxy fake war that is ISIS, the globalists' / nato / fiveys / uk's fake mercenary army
The greatest threat to the USA is its own dumbed down drugged up citizens who cannot
compete with anyone. America is a big military powerhouse but that doens't make successful
countries
Notice how modern narrative is getting manipulated. What is being reported and referenced
is completely different from how things are. And knowing that we can assume that the entire
history is a fabricated lie, written by the ruling class to support its status in the minds
of obedient citizens.
This article is garbage propaganda that proves that they think we aren't keeping score or
paying attention. The gaslighting won't work when it relies on so much counterthink, willful
ignorance, counterfacts and weaponized omissions
The reality is the de-escalation of wars, the stability of our currency and our economy,
and the moral re-grounding of our culture does not occur until we do what over 100 countries
have done over the centuries, beginning in Carthage in 250AD.
The congress are statusquotarians. If they solved the problems they say they would,they'd
be out of a job. and that job is sitting there acting like a naddler or toxic post turtle
leprechaun with a charisma and skill level of zero. Their staff do all the work, half of them
barely read, though they probably can
I still think 1st and 2nd ammedment is predicated on which party rules the house. If a Dem
gets into the WH, we're fucked. Kiss those Iast two dying amendments goodbye for good.
If we rely on any party to preserve the 1st or 2nd Amendments, we are already fucked. What
should preserve the 1st and 2nd Amendments is the absolute fear of anyone in government even
mentioning suppressing or removing them. When the very thought of doing anything to lessen
the rights advocated in these two amendments, causes a politician to piss in their pants,
liberty will be preserved. As it is now citizens fear the government, and as a result tyranny
continues to grow and fester as a cancer.
You may very well be right. I still hold out hope, but upon seeing what our society is
quickly morphing into, that hope seems to fade more each and every day.
If you think the 1st and 2nd amendments are reliant on who is in office, then you are
already done. Why don't you try growing a pair and being an American for once in your
life.
I will always have a 1st and 2nd "amendment" for as long as I live. Life is meaningless
without them.....as far as I am concerned. Good thing the founders didn't wait for king
George to give them what they "felt" was theirs.....by the laws of Nature and Nature's
God.
I hope the democrats get the power......and I hope they come for the guns......maybe then
pussies like you will finally have to **** or get off the pot......for once in your life.
There are worse things than dying.
This country cannot be fixed through the ballot box. Unless we get rid of *** influencing
from abroad and domestically. Getting rid of English King few hundred years ago was a joke!
this would be a challenge because dual-citizens masquerading as locals.
Last revolution (1776) we targeted the WRONG ENEMY.
We targeted King George III instead of the private bankers who owned of the Bank of
England and the issued of the British-pound currency.
George III was himself up to his ears in debt to them by 1776, when the bankers installed
George Washington to replace George III as their middleman in the American colonies, by way
of the phony revolution.
Phony because ownership of the central bank and currency (Federal-Reserve Banks,
Federal-Reserve notes) we use, remains in the same banking families' hands to this day. The
same parasite remains within our government.
It is this strangely incomplete calculus that creates the shifting Loser world of
rifts and alliances. By operating with a more complete calculus, Sociopaths are able to
manipulate this world through the divide-and-conquer mechanisms. The result is that the
Losers end up blaming each other for their losses, seek collective emotional resolution,
and fail to adequately address the balance sheet of material rewards and losses.
To succeed, this strategy requires that Losers not look too closely at the non-emotional
books. This is why, as we saw last time, divide-and-conquer is the most effective means for
dealing with them, since it naturally creates emotional drama that keeps them busy while
they are being manipulated.
The bombing of Dresden remains one of the deadliest and morally most-problematic raids of
World War II. Three factors make the bombing of Dresden unique: 1) a huge firestorm developed
that engulfed much of the city; 2) the firestorm engulfed a population swollen by refugees; and
3) defenses and shelters even for the original Dresden population were minimal.
[1] McKee, Alexander, Dresden 1945: The Devil's Tinderbox , New York: E.P. Dutton, Inc.,
1984, p. 275. The result was a high death toll and the destruction of one of Europe's most
beautiful and cultural cities.
While exact figures of deaths in the Dresden bombings can never be obtained, some
Revisionist historians estimate a death toll at Dresden as high as 250,000 people. Most
establishment historians state that a death toll at Dresden of 250,000 is an absolute
impossibility. For example, Richard Evans states:
Even allowing for the unique circumstances of Dresden, a figure of 250,000 dead would have
meant that 20% to 30% of the population was killed, a figure so grossly out of proportion to
other comparable attacks as to have raised the eyebrows of anyone familiar with the
statistics of bombing raids even if the population had been inflated by an influx of refugees
fleeing the advance of the Red Army.
[5] Evans, Richard J., Lying about Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving
Trial , New York: Basic Books, 2001, p. 158.
Population of Dresden
Historians generally agree that a large number of German refugees were in Dresden during the
night of February 13-14, 1945. However, the estimate of refugees in Dresden that night varies
widely. This is a major reason for the discrepancies in the death toll estimates in the Dresden
bombings.
Marshall De Bruhl states in his book Firestorm : Allied Airpower and the
Destruction of Dresden :
Nearly every apartment and house [in Dresden] was crammed with relatives or friends from
the east; many other residents had been ordered to take in strangers. There were makeshift
campsites everywhere. Some 200,000 Silesians and East Prussians were living in tents or
shacks in the Grosser Garten. The city's population was more than double its prewar size.
Some estimates have put the number as high as 1.4 million.
Unlike other major German cities, Dresden had an exceptionally low population density, due
to the large proportion of single houses surrounded by gardens. Even the built-up areas did
not have the congestion of Berlin and Munich. However, in February 1945, the open spaces,
gardens, and parks were filled with people.
David Irving states in The Destruction of Dresden :
Silesians represented probably 80% of the displaced people crowding into Dresden on the
night of the triple blow; the city which in peacetime had a population of 630,000 citizens
was by the eve of the air attack so crowded with Silesians, East Prussians and Pomeranians
from the Eastern Front, with Berliners and Rhinelanders from the west, with Allied and
Russian prisoners of war, with evacuated children's settlement, with forced laborers of many
nationalities, that the increased population was now between 1,200,000 and 1,400,000
citizens, of whom, not surprisingly, several hundred thousand had no proper home and of whom
none could seek the protection of an air-raid shelter.
[7] Irving, David, The Destruction of Dresden , New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
1964, p. 98.
Frederick Taylor states in his book Dresden: Tuesday, February 13, 1945 that Dresden
had been accepting refugees from the devastated cities of the Ruhr, and from Hamburg and
Berlin, ever since the British bombing campaign began in earnest. By late 1943 Dresden was
already overstretched and finding it hard to accept more outsiders. By the winter of 1944-1945,
hundreds of thousands of German refugees were traveling from the east in an attempt to escape
the Russian army.
[9] Taylor, Frederick, Dresden: Tuesday, February 13, 1945 , New York: HarperCollins,
2004, pp. 134, 227-228.
The German government regarded the acceptance of Germans from the east as an essential duty.
Der Freiheitskampf , the official German organ for Saxony, urged citizens to offer
temporary accommodation:
However, Taylor states that it was general policy in Dresden to have refugees on their way
to the west to continue onwards within 24 hours. Fleeing the Russians was not a valid
justification for seeking and maintaining residence in Dresden. Taylor states that the best
estimate by Götz Bergander, who spent time on fire-watching duties and on refugee-relief
work in Dresden, was that approximately 200,000 nonresidents were in Dresden on the night of
February 13-14, 1945. Many of these refugees would have been living in quarters away from the
targeted center of Dresden.
[11] Ibid. , pp. 229, 232.
(Taylor, Frederick, Dresden: Tuesday, February 13, 1945 , New York: HarperCollins, 2004,
pp. 134, 227-228.)
ORDER IT NOW
The Dresden historian Friedrich Reichert estimates that only 567,000 residents and 100,000
refugees were in Dresden on the night of the bombings. Reichert quotes witnesses who state that
no refugees were billeted in Dresden houses and that no billeting took place in Dresden's parks
or squares. Thus, Reichert estimates that the number of people in Dresden on the night of the
bombings was not much greater than the official figure of Dresden's population before the war.
[12] Evans, Richard J., Lying about Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving
Trial , New York: Basic Books, 2001, p. 174.
Reichert's estimate of Dresden's population during the bombings is almost certainly too low.
As a RAF memo analyzed it before the attack:
Every household had its large quota of refugees, and many more had arrived in Dresden that
day, so that the pavements were blocked by them, as they struggled onwards or simply sat
exhausted on their suitcases and rucksacks. For these reasons, no one has been able to put a
positive figure to the numbers of the dead, and no doubt no one ever will.
[14] McKee, Alexander, Dresden 1945: The Devil's Tinderbox , New York: E.P. Dutton,
Inc., 1984, p. 177.
The report prepared by the USAF Historical Division Research Studies Institute Air
University states that "there may probably have been about 1,000,000 people in Dresden on the
night of the 13/14 February RAF attack."
[15] http://glossaryhesperado.blogspot.com/2008/04/facts....html. I think the 1 million
population figure cited in this report constitutes a realistic and conservative minimum
estimate of Dresden's population during the Allied bombings of February 13-14, 1945.
Did Only 25,000 People Die?
If the 25,000 death-toll estimate in Dresden is accurate, we are left with the odd result
that Allied air power, employed for textbook purposes to its full measure and with no
restrictions, over an especially vulnerable large city near the end of the war, when Allied air
superiority was absolute and German defenses nearly nonexistent, was less effective than Allied
air power had been in previous more-difficult operations such as Hamburg or Berlin. I think the
extensive ruins left in Dresden suggest a degree of complete destruction not seen before in
Germany.
Dresden also lacked an effective network of air-raid shelters to protect its inhabitants.
Hitler had ordered that over 3,000 air-raid bunkers be built in 80 German towns and cities.
However, not one was built in Dresden because the city was not regarded as being in danger of
air attack. Instead, the civil air defense in Dresden devoted most of its efforts to creating
tunnels between the cellars of the housing blocks so that people could escape from one building
to another. These tunnels exacerbated the effects of the Dresden firestorm by channeling smoke
and fumes from one basement to the next and sucking out the oxygen from a network of
interconnected cellars.
[18] Neitzel, Sönke, "The City under Attack," in Addison, Paul and Crang, Jeremy A.,
(eds.), Firestorm: The Bombing of Dresden, 1945 , Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2006, pp.
68-69.
The British were fully aware that mass death and destruction could result from the bombing
of Germany's cities. The Directorate of Bombing Operations predicted the following consequences
from Operation Thunderclap:
If we assume that the daytime population of the area attacked is 300,000, we may expect
220,000 casualties. Fifty per cent of these or 110,000 may expect to be killed. It is
suggested that such an attack resulting in so many deaths, the great proportion of which will
be key personnel, cannot help but have a shattering effect on political and civilian morale
all over Germany."
[22] Hastings, Max, Bomber Command , New York: The Dial Press, 1979, pp.
347-348.
A raid that closely resembles that on Dresden was carried out 10 days later on February 23,
1945 at Pforzheim. Since neither Dresden nor Pforzheim had suffered much damage earlier in the
war, the flammability of both cities had been preserved.
[25] Friedrich, Jörg, The Fire: The Bombing of Germany , New York, Columbia
University Press, 2006, p. 94. A perfect firestorm was created in both of these defenseless
cities. These cities also lacked sufficient air-raid shelters for their citizens.
The question is: If more than 30% of the residents of Pforzheim died in one bombing attack,
why would only approximately 2.5% of Dresdeners die in similar raids 10 days earlier? The
second wave of bombers in the Dresden raid appeared over Dresden at the very time that the
maximum number of fire brigades and rescue teams were in the streets of the burning city. This
second wave of bombers compounded the earlier destruction many times, and by design killed the
firemen and rescue workers so that the destruction in Dresden could rage on unchecked.
[28] DeBruhl, Marshall, Firestorm: Allied Airpower and the Destruction of Dresden , New
York: Random House, Inc., 2006, p. 210. See also McKee, Alexander, Dresden 1945: The Devil's
Tinderbox , New York: E.P. Dutton, Inc., 1984, p. 112. The raid on Pforzheim, by
contrast, consisted of only one bombing attack. Also, Pforzheim was a much smaller target, so
that it would have been easier for the people on the ground to escape from the blaze.
The only reason why the death-rate percentage would be higher at Pforzheim versus Dresden is
that a higher percentage of Pforzheim was destroyed in the bombings. Alan Russell estimates
that 83% of Pforzheim's city center was destroyed versus only 59% of Dresden's.
[29] Russell, Alan, "Why Dresden Matters," in Addison, Paul and Crang, Jeremy A., (eds.),
Firestorm: The Bombing of Dresden, 1945 , Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2006, p. 162. This
would, however, account for only a portion of the percentage difference in the death tolls.
Based on the death toll in the Pforzheim raid, it is reasonable to assume that a minimum of 20%
of Dresdeners died in the British and American attacks on the city. The 2.5% death rate figure
of Dresdeners estimated by establishment historians is an unrealistically low figure.
If a 20% death rate figure times an estimated population in Dresden of 1 million is used,
the death-toll figure in Dresden would be 200,000. If a 25% death-rate figure times an
estimated population of 1.2 million is used, the death toll figure in Dresden would be 300,000.
Thus, death-toll estimates in Dresden of 250,000 people are quite plausible when compared to
the Pforzheim bombing.
How Were the Dead Disposed Of?
Historian Richard Evans asks:
And how was it imaginable that 200,000 bodies could have been recovered from out of the
ruins in less than a month? It would have required a veritable army of people to undertake
such work, and hundreds of sorely needed vehicles to transport the bodies. The effort
actually undertaken to recover bodies was considerable, but there was no evidence that it
reached the levels required to remove this number.
[30] Evans, Richard J., Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving
Trial , New York: Basic Books, 2001, p. 158.
Richard Evans does not recognize that the incineration of corpses on the Dresden market
square, the Altmarkt, was not the only means of disposing of bodies at Dresden. A British
sergeant reported on the disposal of bodies at Dresden:
They had to pitchfork shriveled bodies onto trucks and wagons and cart them to shallow
graves on the outskirts of the city. But after two weeks of work the job became too much to
cope with and they found other means to gather up the dead. They burned bodies in a great
heap in the center of the city, but the most effective way, for sanitary reasons, was to take
flamethrowers and burn the dead as they lay in the ruins. They would just turn the
flamethrowers into the houses, burn the dead and then close off the entire area. The whole
city is flattened. They were unable to clean up the dead lying beside roads for several
weeks.
[31] Regan, Dan, Stars and Stripes London edition, Saturday, May 5, 1945, Vol. 5, No.
156.
Historians also differ on whether or not large numbers of bodies in Dresden were so
incinerated in the bombing that they could no longer be recognized as bodies. Frederick Taylor
mentions Walter Weidauer, the high burgomaster of Dresden in the postwar period, as stating
[T]here is no substance to the reports that tens of thousands of victims were so
thoroughly incinerated that no individual traces could be found. Not all were identified, but
-- especially as most victims died of asphyxiation or physical injuries -- the overwhelming
majority of individuals' bodies could at least be distinguished as such."
[32] Taylor, Frederick, Dresden: Tuesday, February 13, 1945 , New York: HarperCollins,
2004, p. 448.
Other historians cite evidence that bodies were incinerated beyond recognition. Alexander
McKee quotes Hildegarde Prasse on what she saw at the Altmarkt after the Dresden bombings:
What I saw at the Altmarkt was cruel. I could not believe my eyes. A few of the men who
had been left over [from the Front] were busy shoveling corpse after corpse on top of the
other. Some were completely carbonized and buried in this pyre, but nevertheless they were
all burnt here because of the danger of an epidemic. In any case, what was left of them was
hardly recognizable. They were buried later in a mass grave on the Dresdner Heide.
[33] McKee, Alexander, Dresden 1945: The Devil's Tinderbox , New York: E.P. Dutton,
Inc., 1984, p. 248.
Marshall De Bruhl cites a report found in an urn by a gravedigger in 1975 written on March
12, 1945, by a young soldier identified only as Gottfried. This report states:
I saw the most painful scene ever .Several persons were near the entrance, others at the
flight of steps and many others further back in the cellar. The shapes suggested human
corpses. The body structure was recognizable and the shape of the skulls, but they had no
clothes. Eyes and hair carbonized but not shrunk. When touched, they disintegrated into
ashes, totally, no skeleton or separate bones.
I recognized a male corpse as that of my father. His arm had been jammed between two
stones, where shreds of his grey suit remained. What sat not far from him was no doubt
mother. The slim build and shape of the head left no doubt. I found a tin and put their ashes
in it. Never had I been so sad, so alone and full of despair. Carrying my treasure and crying
I left the gruesome scene. I was trembling all over and my heart threatened to burst. My
helpers stood there, mute under the impact.
[34] DeBruhl, Marshall, Firestorm: Allied Airpower and the Destruction of Dresden ,
New York: Random House, Inc., 2006, pp. 253-254.
Historians also differ on whether or not bodies are still being recovered in Dresden. For
example, Frederick Taylor states: "Since 1989 -- even with the extensive excavation and
rebuilding that followed the fall of communism in Dresden -- no bodies have been recovered at
all, even though careful archaeological investigations have accompanied the redevelopment."
[37] Taylor, Frederick, Dresden: Tuesday, February 13, 1945 , New York: HarperCollins,
2004, p. 448.
Marshall De Bruhl does not agree with Taylor's statement. De Bruhl notes that numerous other
skeletons of victims were discovered in the ruins of Dresden as rubble was removed or
foundations for new buildings were dug. De Bruhl states:
One particularly poignant discovery was made when the ruins adjacent to the Altmarkt were
being excavated in the 1990s. The workmen found the skeletons of a dozen young women who had
been recruited from the countryside to come into Dresden and help run the trams during the
war. They had taken shelter from the rain of bombs in an ancient vaulted subbasement, where
their remains lay undisturbed for almost 50 years.
[38] DeBruhl, Marshall, Firestorm: Allied Airpower and the Destruction of Dresden ,
New York: Random House, Inc., 2006, p. 254.
Conclusion
The destruction from the Dresden bombings was so massive that exact figures of deaths will
never be obtainable. However, the statement from the Dresden Commission of Historians that
"definitely no more than 25,000" died in the Dresden bombings is probably inaccurate. An
objective analysis of the evidence indicates that almost certainly far more than 25,000 people
died from the bombings of Dresden. Based on a comparison to the Pforzheim bombing and the other
similar bombing attacks, a death toll in Dresden of 250,000 people is easily possible.
Endnotes
[1] McKee, Alexander, Dresden 1945: The Devil's Tinderbox , New York: E.P. Dutton,
Inc., 1984, p. 275.
[2] Evans, Richard J., Lying about Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving
Trial , New York: Basic Books, 2001, p. 177.
[3] Taylor, Frederick, Dresden: Tuesday, February 13, 1945 , New York:
HarperCollins, 2004, p. 354.
[12] Evans, Richard J., Lying about Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving
Trial , New York: Basic Books, 2001, p. 174.
[13] Taylor, Frederick, Dresden: Tuesday, February 13, 1945 , New York:
HarperCollins, 2004, pp. 3, 406. See also River, Charles Editors, The Firebombing of
Dresden: The History and Legacy of the Allies' Most Controversial Attack on Germany ,
Introduction, p. 2.
[14] McKee, Alexander, Dresden 1945: The Devil's Tinderbox , New York: E.P. Dutton,
Inc., 1984, p. 177.
[16] Cox, Sebastian, "The Dresden Raids: Why and How," in Addison, Paul and Crang, Jeremy
A., (eds.), Firestorm: The Bombing of Dresden, 1945 , Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2006, pp.
44, 46.
[17] DeBruhl, Marshall, Firestorm: Allied Airpower and the Destruction of Dresden ,
New York: Random House, Inc., 2006, pp. 204-205.
[18] Neitzel, Sönke, "The City under Attack," in Addison, Paul and Crang, Jeremy A.,
(eds.), Firestorm: The Bombing of Dresden, 1945 , Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2006, pp.
68-69.
[20] Cox, Sebastian, "The Dresden Raids: Why and How," in Addison, Paul and Crang, Jeremy
A., (eds.), Firestorm: The Bombing of Dresden, 1945 , Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2006, pp.
52-53.
[21] Davis, Richard G., Carl A. Spaatz and the Air War in Europe , Washington, D.C.:
Center for Air Force History, 1993, p. 557.
[22] Hastings, Max, Bomber Command , New York: The Dial Press, 1979, pp.
347-348.
[23] Cox, Sebastian, "The Dresden Raids: Why and How," in Addison, Paul and Crang, Jeremy
A., (eds.), Firestorm: The Bombing of Dresden, 1945 , Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2006, p.
57.
[24] Overy, Richard, The Bombers and the Bombed: Allied Air War over Europe,
1940-1945 , New York: Viking Penguin, 2014, p. 314.
[25] Friedrich, Jörg, The Fire: The Bombing of Germany , New York, Columbia
University Press, 2006, p. 94.
[26]Ibid. , p. 91. See also DeBruhl, Marshall, Firestorm: Allied Airpower and
the Destruction of Dresden , New York: Random House, Inc., 2006, p. 255.
[27] Neitzel, Sönke, "The City under Attack," in Addison, Paul and Crang, Jeremy A.,
(eds.), Firestorm: The Bombing of Dresden, 1945 , Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2006, p. 77.
[28] DeBruhl, Marshall, Firestorm: Allied Airpower and the Destruction of Dresden ,
New York: Random House, Inc., 2006, p. 210. See also McKee, Alexander, Dresden 1945: The
Devil's Tinderbox , New York: E.P. Dutton, Inc., 1984, p. 112.
[29] Russell, Alan, "Why Dresden Matters," in Addison, Paul and Crang, Jeremy A., (eds.),
Firestorm: The Bombing of Dresden, 1945 , Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2006, p. 162.
[30] Evans, Richard J., Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving
Trial , New York: Basic Books, 2001, p. 158.
[31] Regan, Dan, Stars and Stripes London edition, Saturday, May 5, 1945, Vol. 5,
No. 156.
[32] Taylor, Frederick, Dresden: Tuesday, February 13, 1945 , New York:
HarperCollins, 2004, p. 448.
[33] McKee, Alexander, Dresden 1945: The Devil's Tinderbox , New York: E.P. Dutton,
Inc., 1984, p. 248.
[34] DeBruhl, Marshall, Firestorm: Allied Airpower and the Destruction of Dresden ,
New York: Random House, Inc., 2006, pp. 253-254.
[35] Alexander McKee cites estimates of 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit (McKee, Alexander,
Dresden 1945: The Devil's Tinderbox , New York: E.P. Dutton, Inc., 1984, p. 176).
on another thread and added the following comment:
http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-how-hitler-saved-the-allies/#comment-3216306
During the war authorities were often lowering the losses so not to give reasons for
defeatism. People did not know the true scale of losses. It was not in newspaper. Goebbels
decided that playing a victim to the world public opinion would not work anymore but it
only would have negative effect on the spirit of German public. Yet police reports from
Dresden show very high figures. Much, much higher than 25k And these reports are not post
WWII prepared by DDR authorities that liked to talk about American terror bombings in
Vietnam. And then several years ago after the reunification some British and Germans
historians got together, Dresden became a sister city of Coventry, the Brits helped to
rebuild the church in Dresden, the slogans 'never again' were repeated ad nausea and the
number of dead became 25k. It is still way too high to be a sister city of Coventry.
A key element is to look at the war situation when this bombing occurred. Wiki has a great
series of wartime maps, and here is February 1, 1945. The Soviet were closing in on Berlin.
Dresden was not in the Soviet path to Berlin nor in the path of the Allies to the Elbe. So
it wasn't bombed for military reasons. Note that the USA not only firebombed the Germans and
Japanese, the USA firebombed Chinese cities too:
In every case regardless of number of casualties, although I do believe in higher number the
deed was a definition of war crime. Germans were loosing the war anyway -and the bombing had
no strategic significance.
The purpose was to kill as many Germans as possible, by burning and suffocating people.
Not very pleasant death.
Proof of bestiality of English.
The consent factory has permanently put black hats on the Germans, and put white hats on
themselves.
Facts be damned, so does the number really matter?
Even many Jews and other prisoners in cams have died because supply of food to camps become
practically impossible by railways. So they have died of starvation.
This is why Britain is experiencing things like Rotherham. It's all related and karmic.
Dresden is emblematic of the Anglo's betrayal of Europe, and for that reason Britain will
soon be extinguished forever.
I can't say I'm sad about that.
By current standards of international law the fire bombing of cities is a war crime and crime
against humanity unless attack focuses solely on strategic targets and all efforts taken to
minimize civilian casualties. Interesting as well, a major line of thought is that using
nuclear weapons against cities is a war crime since no effort could be taken to minimize
civilian casualties as fully as possible
"AS the day draws on I come across a document which I only half-suspected I might ever
find. In 1961, when I was writing my first book "The Destruction of Dresden", I was
confidentially approached by a German schoolteacher, Hanns Voigt; he said that after the
horrific British air raid, he was put in charge of Dresden's Missing Persons Bureau,
Abteilung Tote – the Deceased Section. He built an immense card index, and he kept a
diary; and he estimated for me that the final death toll in Dresden would have reached
135,000. This was the figure that I, and after me Kurt Vonnegut and others, always used.
Other city officials gave the same kind of estimates. (Later this year I shall post on my
website a full dossier on the Dresden death toll.)
Voigt's estimate was a thorn in the side of both German Governments -- both east and west.
They had always played down, even trivialised, the air raid casualty figures caused by the
British saturation bombing (even as they hyped the numbers killed in the Jewish tragedy).
Only last year a German Government commission consisting of, not just conformist but
kow-towing, line-toeing, bowing-and-scraping historians and Nickeseln, agreed that the death
roll in the two hour man-made 1945 holocaust in Dresden was far lower, "only 25,000" (or, if
possible, even less).
Without doing any in-depth research -- such scholars are far too important for that --
they relied on the police chief's early March 1945 report (which in fact I was the first to
find), because it indicated lower figures than Hanns Voigt's for dead and missing.
In the Deborah Lipstadt Trial, her highly-paid chief expert Professor Richard "Skunky"
Evans (left) vilified Voigt; he implied that Voigt was a liar, he questioned whether the
Missing Persons bureau had ever existed, and he called him a Nazi with an agenda. (Voigt had,
we now know, been given a good post-war position in the Soviet Zone before emigrating legally
to the West, so the "Nazi" allegation seems unlikely.) Aping Evans, Mr Justice Gray accused
me in his 333-page Judgment of falsifying history.
I was not invited to make any submissions to the Dresden Commission. No surprises there.
This afternoon, my quiet patience is rewarded. I have come across this new secret document,
signed by the police chief of Dresden, and decoded by the British some weeks after the
war."
translation:
At 5:55 p.m. on March 24, 1945 -- the day in fact when I turned eight, I remember it
vividly -- the Dresden Polizeipräsident reported in code to SS Oberführer Dr.
Dietrichs:
Re: Missing Persons Situation in Dresden Air Raid Defence region.
The Lord Mayor of Dresden City has established (a) a Central Bureau for Missing Persons
and nine Missing Persons registries; (b) eighty- to one-hundred thousand missing-person
notifications are estimated to have been registered so far; (c) 9,720 missing-person
notifications have been confirmed as fatalities; (d) to date, information on twenty
thousand missing person cases has been given out; (e) accurate statistical data possibly
only later.
"So Voigt was telling the truth.
Even the "hundred thousand" figure for those reported missing must be an under-estimate.
There were over half a million homeless refugees in the streets of Dresden, fleeing the Red
Army siege of Breslau to the East. Whole refugee families must have been engulfed by the
Dresden holocaust, with nobody surviving to report them as "missing".
Another thing seems brutally clear: those listed as "missing" -- in addition to those
bodies formally identified and buried or incinerated by this date -- were never going to
return. To use the words of the telegram I found yesterday (see above) they were dead,
"carbonised," and unidentifiable.
What do these decoded messages tell us about our own lazy and conformist historians, and
about "Skunky" Evans in particular? He, and they, would never have found them. It has taken
me these many years. Go the extra mile. Eventually, as this morning's Welshman said, "You
will be proved right in the end"."
@anon19 The Allies needed to deflect from their barbarity such as Dresden, which is
simply one example, hence their desperate embrace of the fake & impossible 'gas chambers'
and the easily debunked '6,000,000 Jews' & '5,000,000 others' propaganda.
While no survivor has ever reported the actual temperature reached during the Dresden
firestorm,
How could they?
many historians estimate that temperatures reached 1,500° Centigrade (2,732°
Fahrenheit) .
A 'historian' estimating temperature?
Since temperatures in a cremation chamber normally reach only 1,400 degrees to 1,800
degrees Fahrenheit,
How hot an (essentially) open air fire can get and whether or not eg such a fire can melt
steel was and is part of the 9-11 discussion -- on 9-11 it was jet fuel -- at Dresden it was
incendiary bombs -- still it is a little hard to believe even incendiary bombs could result
in open air fires with sustained temperatures vastly higher than what are normally
seen during cremation -- ??
A raid that closely resembles that on Dresden was carried out 10 days later on February
23, 1945 at Pforzheim.
There's more than one way to destroy a German city:
The bombing of Dresden was a war crime because it was UNNECESSARY !!
Absolutely no military reason for it ..records in US Historian office of meetings of the
Soviets, UK and US between Feb 5th to 8th show that they knew the war was over and were
deciding on what 'official date" they would use to declare it.
They burned bodies in a great heap in the center of the city, but the most effective
way, for sanitary reasons, was to take flamethrowers and burn the dead as they lay in the
ruins. They would just turn the flamethrowers into the houses, burn the dead
You mean, an actual Holocaust?
Wasn't the only one, either.
Burning German civilians alive (Japanese also) was official policy of "moral" U.S. and their
allies, the lovely British.
Hamburg, Berlin, Köln, in fact just about any German city of any size. Nearly all were
destroyed by fire by the end of the war. Most people here probably already know this, but
just for the record
Dresden downplaying is one of the only forms of WWII "revisionism" promoted by the
establishment. My impression is the drive towards deflating Dresden began in the mid 2000s,
which is when David Irving began a years-long running section on his website
about Dresden and its death toll
controversy.
Irving wrote the book that brought the incident to worldwide awareness in the 1960s and
partly inspired Kurt Vonnegut to write his breakout novel ( Slaughterhouse Five , as a
commenter mentions above) which had sections that were quasi-autobiographical. Vonnegut was a
U.S. POW in the city on that night, held in the basement of a building whose address was
Schlachtof Fuenf , "No.5 Slaughterhouse St." (The irony was not lost.)
As far as I know, Irving's current estimate is that 100,000 is either the likely figure
itself (most conservative reasonable estimate), or (more likely) the lower bound for the true
death toll. This is according to primary documents he has discovered. The 135,000 figure was
from local official Hanns Voigt, in charge of the missing persons bureau. He was meticulous.
Irving tracked him down in 1961 during research for the original Dresden book.
This afternoon [April 24, 2009], my quiet patience is rewarded. I have come across this
new secret document, signed by the police chief of Dresden, and decoded by the British some
weeks after the war.
At 5:55 p.m. on March 24, 1945 -- the day in fact when I turned eight, I remember it
vividly -- the Dresden Polizeipräsident reported in code to SS Oberführer Dr.
Dietrichs:
Re: Missing Persons Situation in Dresden Air Raid Defence region.
The Lord Mayor of Dresden City has established (a) a Central Bureau for Missing Persons and
nine Missing Persons registries; (b) eighty- to one-hundred thousand missing-person
notifications are estimated to have been registered so far; (c) 9,720 missing-person
notifications have been confirmed as fatalities; (d) to date, information on twenty
thousand missing person cases has been given out; (e) accurate statistical data possibly
only later.
So Voigt was telling the truth.
Even the "hundred thousand" figure for those reported missing must be an under-estimate.
There were over half a million homeless refugees in the streets of Dresden, fleeing the Red
Army siege of Breslau to the East. Whole refugee families must have been engulfed by the
Dresden holocaust, with nobody surviving to report them as "missing".
DESCRIPTION: Pathetic chalked messages on the ruins of survivors seeking information on
missing wives, mothers, family buried in the ruins.
Last pic:
DESCRIPTION: On the following day, March 23, 1962, Mr Irving (aged 27 still) interviewed
Marshal of the RAF Sir Arthur Harris at his home in Oxfordshire, about the Dresden
raids.
Dresden has a special meaning for me.
Ten years after this sadistic event, I became a friend of a fellow Air Force trainee at
Keesler AFB. He had been brought to the US as an orphan from Germany. All of his relatives
had died in the Dresden inferno. He had been sent on an errand outside of the city and was
the only survivor of his whole family. ALL dead except him. No mother. No father. No bother
or sister or grandparent. All dead.
He was a gentle soul, but a basket case mentally. He was a fellow Lutheran and I believe he
wanted to be in heaven with his family. I tried my best to help him. He could not keep track
of anything. He lost his pay records transferring. I bought him soap and other little
necessities he needed to get by. But he did not last very long and was gone, unable to
concentrate and cope. He certainly was a casualty, but uncounted, of this dishonorable,
deplorable sadism.
With a city of 1.2 million with refugees, 25,000 dead would be a mere 2% casualty rate.
Look at that picture again. Where in that picture could one have survived?
I skimmed the article, but I don't think I saw any reference to the autobiographical-fiction
first-hand account written by Kurt Vonnegut in Slaughterhouse-Five:
In Vonnegut's words: "There were too many corpses to bury. So instead the Germans sent in
troops with flamethrowers. All these civilians' remains were burned to ashes."
Thanks for another article to expose another tabu of WWII history.
I want to introduce an important angle here that might not be common to nongerman
readers:
Watching any popular history program in this country, you any time across raping and
plundering Red army soldiers. It is common place.
Try to mention Dresden and anything down that line and you will be taken for a deranged
Neonazi. A lot of the present vilification of Saxony in todays PC german media has to do with
the fact that Saxony has its own culture of war crime remembrance.
Sorry, dum dum. The 'English' were not in charge of the UK government at the time.
Churchill had a Jewish mother, half the House of Lords were officially Jews, the banking
establishment was Jewish, the war profiteers were Jewish, etc.
Did you know that Churchill's Jewish handler, Frederick Lindemann, was the one who
directed Churchill to attack working class neighbourhoods in raids in order to maximize
civilian deaths.
@Wally Good work Wally. You may be impervious to some ideas but are a reliable source to
debunk official lies.
It amazes me how the German people have been so indoctrinated to accept the occupation of
their country by the mass murderers 74 years after the greatest single-incident crime in
human history. Only human beings are capable of that monstrous viciousness. Or may be only
some ?
It is heartening to see and read this article here. Recently I was in a brief back-and-forth
with another commenter about this subject. I quoted from Private Kurt Vonnegut's letter to
his parents thus:
On or about February 14th, the Americans came over, followed by the R.A.F. Their
combined labors killed 250,000 people in 24 hours and destroyed all of Dresden -- possibly
the world's most beautiful city. But not me.
After that we were put to work carrying corpses from Air-Raid shelters; women, children,
old men; dead from concussion, fire or suffocation. Civilians cursed us and threw rocks as
we carried bodies to huge funeral pyres in the city.
-- Kurt Vonnegut, letter to parents, May 29, 1945
The other commenter replied with the standard 25,000 number of dead. My response was that
his number, the "mainstream" accepted one, seems too small, while Vonnegut's seems too
large.
It is interesting to note the reasons why some people would want us to believe such a
ridiculously small number as 25,000 for Dresden.
This article makes my point clear, and it even makes 250,000 sound plausible. I wish to
thank the writer, John Wear, and our publisher here, Ron Unz, for providing it.
"Historians also differ on whether or not large numbers of bodies in Dresden were so
incinerated in the bombing that they could no longer be recognized as bodies. Frederick
Taylor mentions Walter Weidauer, the high burgomaster of Dresden in the postwar period, as
stating
[T]here is no substance to the reports that tens of thousands of victims were so
thoroughly incinerated that no individual traces could be found. Not all were identified, but
-- especially as most victims died of asphyxiation or physical injuries -- the overwhelming
majority of individuals' bodies could at least be distinguished as such."[32]"
Hmmm, isn't the point that you DON'T recognize remains as being human? In other words you
can't distinguish them as such?
If you can't determine they are human remains you won't even realize you are looking at human
remains when you seen them and consequently have no reason to question whether they might be!
And off course you won't report them as such.
Reminds me of an incident with a friend of mine years ago. We were walking down the main
shopping street. Background music was playing along the street. He was a bit of a sound
perfectionist and complained that the drums in the music playing were electronic and not
played by a human. He claimed he could always tell. I called bullshit. I asked him whether he
had ever bothered to check if his opinion was right. Off course he never had. He genuinely
believed he could tell the difference, being a sound freak, so he never bothered to check.
What did happen was that he kept reinforcing his own ingrained belief, "wow, I'm good, I even
can tell the difference in this song"!
Now, he probably was right most of the time. But he certainly wasn't right all of the time
yet he truly believed he was. The fun of confirmation bias.
So it makes complete sense that the high burgomaster would believe, incorrectly, that
there were no indistinguishable corpses. If you know they are a corpse, or what's left of it,
it's distinguishable. Indistinguishable means they are by definition not countable, only
estimable (based on total numbers before and after).
Surprisingly the article does not mention the strafing of the survivors from the firestorm. I
first knew about Dresden when I read the revelations of an eyewitness US POW then in that
city. Many thousands of survivors sought refuge from the heat in the Elbe River but that
became an easy target for the US Mustang fighter-bombers. An unimaginable evil and all the
more shocking by the fact that their countries' (UK/US) civilian populations had been spared
the horrors inflicted on Soviet people.
And that duo were planning to do the same thing to dozens of Soviet cities – but
with atomic bombs for good measure. We have always been ruled by the most despicable
monsters, the true reflection of Western "democracy". Am I unique in saying that, were I a
"Bomber" Harris's pilot, I would refuse to fly the damned plane or, at least, unload the
cargo in a harmless place? I can't understand it Makes one ashamed of belonging to this
species.
On an earlier thread on which the subject came up, commenter Germanicus posted this document:
It is a memo by the Dresden city administration, to the effect that Dresden police records
as of 20.3.1945 state a number 200,000 dead recovered, mostly women and children, projecting
a final death toll of 250,000 to 300,000.
This was before the new and improved number of 25,000 was rolled out. You can rely on
official western historiography to never, ever tell the truth about anything.
If you say the WASPs did a bad thing, you are insane. No more gentle, kind, compassionate,
empathic, anti-imperialistic people ever lived. Why, WASP war is the very antithesis of any
possibility of war crime or genocidal desire.
Dresden downplaying is one of the only forms of WWII "revisionism" promoted by the
establishment. My impression is the drive towards deflating Dresden began in the mid
2000s
I wish we knew more about it beyond speculations how this process was initiated, what
characters were involved on both sides to give the push for it. Then finding the willing
'historians' to do the actual work was not a problem. There are many willing 'historians' out
there.
@jbwilson24 The 'English' lost major control of their government no later than the
Cromwell years. WASP culture is finalized, is made complete, by the Puritan Revolution. WASP
culture was born of the Judaizing heresy Anglo-Saxon Puritanism.
The Anglo-Zionist Empire was born directly from Anglophone Reformation and the resulting
politics, which from the outset acted to inflict at least cultural genocide on all local
British cultures that did not assimilate to the presiding civic form of the Judaizing heresy
of Anglo-Saxon Puritanism.
Anglo-Zionist Empire is WASP Empire, and it did not begin between the 2 World Wars, nor
with Disraeli, nor with the founding of Freemasonry (which featured Jewish funding and
socially and morally directed the British Empire from then on), nor even with the Jewish
financially backed coup by William of Orange. It goes back 100% to Cromwell, whose
antecedents were long and deep in the ethnically 'pure' Anglo-Saxon parts of England.
same thing to dozens of Soviet cities – but with atomic bombs
The atomic bombs were intended to be used on German cities.
Unfortunately for those who designed and built them, the war in Europe ended before the bombs
were ready, and they had to be tested on the Japanese.
I have no idea about the political tilt of this publication and do not care since they are
all nakedly pushing an agenda, including this article near the end. Reminder: Although they
weren't exquisite Baroque buildings, the full-to-the-brim-with-humans Twin Towers in New
York, NY were fire bombed by any other name, resulting in predictable acts of retaliatory
warfare, meeting horrific with horrific.
However, this account of a 91-year-old British survivor of the Dresden bombing is searing.
It sounds like he thinks the war was started by his country. Ugh, the parts about the boiling
reservoir and the explosive tar "escape" routes are horrific-cubed. The photos of this
battle-hardened career military man are telling, too. In addition to the first-person
interview, it cites academic sources.
It's good that fire bombing has been outlawed. But it's too late for these people, mostly
old people and kids holed up in the center of an intricately carved Baroque city while the
men were at war, and many of the women were probably working the munitions factories in the
outer suburbs. So, why bomb the city's architectural jewels, where no war-making tools were
under construction?
Thanks to revisionist historians like John, the horrible truths of WWII are now becoming main
stream. Did the Allies out Hitler Hitler? My answer would be a resounding yes.
@renfroThe bombing of Dresden was a war crime because it was UNNECESSARY !!
That last thing I want to do here is defend what was done to Dresden (it was indefensible)
-- but I think you would have a hard time defining what is 'necessary' during wartime vs what
isn't -- especially when the war isn't over yet, and one of your goals has to be to minimize
your own casualties, even if it means (perhaps unnecessarily) maximizing the enemy's -- as
Patton said: 'The goal of war is not to die for your your country, but to make the other
bastard die for his' -- oder etwas ähnlich.
Years ago I read the following piece and afterward had a brief email exchange with the
author:
The issue she addresses -- the indiscriminate bombing of largely civilian targets (cities)
during WWII vs today's use of 'precision' weapons (which back then did not exist) designed to
minimize "collateral damage" -- is probably familiar to most.
@White Monkey I recently, over the past month, read the book by David Irving on
Dresden.
He recounts that after the war German authorities estimated, from records, missing persons
accounts, and more, that the death toll was 125,000 on that night. I believe this was
compiled into the early 50s to that result. It might have been more, but I doubt it was less.
@Buzz Mohawk The figure of 250,000 is quite believable My dad was a RAF Intelligence
S/Ldr at the time and he always maintained the casualty figure, based on RAF estimates at the
time of the raid, was 250,000.
Should one choose to make it (not that I would ever do that), there is something of a
'Holocaust' connection to the aftermath in Dresden, where corpses were burned on makeshift
pyres -- the immediate purpose was to carbonize the flesh to inhibit the spread of disease
(ie not necessarily to turn a human body into ash and bones, as during cremation) -- but the
truth is, hardly more is possible with such an open air pyre -- there is simply not enough
heat -- the corpses are still recognizably human (there are other examples of this from
around the time the war ended) -- compare to the claims made about eg Treblinka, where
allegedly all traces of hundreds of thousands of murdered Jews were eliminated by doing
something similar -- and this after they were dug up after months (if not longer)
underground.
@crimson2 Yea, but not nearly as many as the number of Jews killed by the Romans:
Earlier "Holocaust" franchises, because the bs undoubtedly goes back further
Talmud: Gittin 57b claims that four billion Jews were killed by the Romans in the city
of Bethar.
Gittin 58a claims that 16 million Jewish children were wrapped in scrolls and
burned alive by he Romans.
Plus the endless Six Million Kvetching from the mid-1800s up to WWII.
A few days after the bombing the Gaulitier of Dresden sent a message to Berlin stating that
they had recovered 240,000 bodies and asked for instructions as to what to do next.
Apparently the reply was to stop counting.
@White Monkey My first knowledge of the Dresden atrocity came when I read Vonnegut's
novel "Slaughterhouse Five" when in college in the '70's. If I recall correctly, seems that
he and other American POW's were spared by hiding in some kind of large refrigerator. I
believe what he encountered there, which included helping to bury the dead, scarred him for
life, but, ironically, made him a better novelist.
Trump promised to get the US out of "stupid wars." But now he and John Bolton are on the
brink of launching us into a very stupid and costly war with Iran. Join me in sending a strong
message to President Trump: The US must NOT go to war with Iran.
I think she could be a perfect President at given times for usa. She would save a lot of
American lives and will leave the white house a lot cleaner when she leaves.
It's a tragedy that Tulsi Gabbert is not number one in the polls right now. She's the only
one consistently right on all the issues. I can't wait for the debates.
NO More Wars! Give Peace a chance. Support Representative Tulsi Gabbard for President. A
True American Patriot and Veteran, fighting for Peace.
Tulsi2020.com
"... After that interview, Tulsi's Instagram account gained 11,000 new followers and her Twitter account gained 30,000 new followers. The more people watching her on a regular basis, the better! ..."
"... Ever since the Rogan interview, the number of times her name appears in a mainstream media (MSM) headline has seen a jump. Before the interview, she was getting a maximum of 1, sometimes rarely 2 headlines per day--often zero. Since the interview she has been in the 4 or 5 per day range. Today (May 19), she is ranked number 5 for all Democratic candidate name mentions in MSM headlines. ..."
"... the embedded video are very powerful as to why Tulsi is different from every other candidate of either party. ..."
"... she's a primary target of the DNC and establishment Democrats, possibly even more so than Bernie this time. Or maybe they're tied as targets? ..."
"... She called out the DNC's unfairness to Bernie well before wikileaks showed us exactly how correct she was. ..."
"... Oliver Stone and Stephen Cohen are of course two independent types who are most concerned about our deteriorated relations with Russia, based on fake news and Russophobic media hysteria. Cohen has largely been blackballed from the MSM, with the exception of Tucker Carlson's show and the semi-sane radio conservative John Batchelor. ..."
"... It was because of the latest McCarthyite smear piece on Tulsi Gabbard in the Daily Beast that I again donated to her campaign. Unlike Bernie, she is longer than a long shot to get the nomination, but it's important that her voice on FP be heard. While I also favor Bernie and Andrew Yang, their comments on FP, sadly, are merely occasional carefully crafted footnotes designed not to attract much attention or controversy. ..."
Tulsi's 2.5 hour interview with Joe
Rogan 6 days ago resulted in a solid attention bump.
The YouTube version of the video has so far garnered more than 1.6 million views, and on
average his podcast downloads are about double that number.
After that interview, Tulsi's Instagram account gained 11,000 new followers and her Twitter
account gained 30,000 new followers. The more people watching her on a regular basis, the
better!
Ever since the Rogan interview, the number of times her name appears in a mainstream media
(MSM) headline has seen a jump. Before the interview, she was getting a maximum of 1, sometimes
rarely 2 headlines per day--often zero. Since the interview she has been in the 4 or 5 per day
range. Today (May 19), she is ranked number 5 for all Democratic candidate name mentions in MSM
headlines.
Finally, Oliver Stone has sent out a Tweet, essentially endorsing Tulsi.
the embedded video are very powerful as to why Tulsi is different from every other
candidate of either party.
Since I was young, I knew I wanted to use my life to serve others. It's why I chose to
serve as a soldier & in politics. I've never had any ambition to "be president" -- it's
always been about doing my best to be of service and how I can make a greater positive
impact. pic.twitter.com/NfTSUhbFXX
...as I post this comment, but I do know--from a professional/political media
standpoint--that this commercial about the Iran situation is, by far and away, the best piece
of political media I've seen since Bernie's "America" commercial in 2016 .
If
she wants to punch through the crowd, right now (for the moment, because the Iran situation
will change, one way or another, and maybe rapidly, going forward), she should push this spot
early and often, as much as possible (as her campaign can afford it, and then maybe even a
little more than it thinks it can afford, too).
She has become my favorite candidate on policies, but being favored by Gravel and Stone
doesn't hurt, either, to say the least. Of the passengers in the Democratic clown car, I like
her and Bernie most. How I will vote may depend upon what polls in my state tell me just
before primary day about her and Bernie. Or, I may go ahead and vote for Tulsi, no matter
what. In that respect, I am undecided at this time.
Just checked my former message board. They are attacking her right and right (sic). (Not
"left and right:" Barely a leftist still posts on that board; and those who still do must
watch themselves.) So, she's a primary target of the DNC and establishment Democrats,
possibly even more so than Bernie this time. Or maybe they're tied as targets?
And, why not? She called out the DNC's unfairness to Bernie well before wikileaks showed
us exactly how correct she was.
a worthy podcaster who often has on interesting, independent thinkers and public figures
who go against the establishment grain. (see e.g. his several interviews with author Graham
Hancock) Not perfect or quite as good as I'd prefer, but far better than most.
Oliver Stone and Stephen Cohen are of course two independent types who are most concerned
about our deteriorated relations with Russia, based on fake news and Russophobic media
hysteria. Cohen has largely been blackballed from the MSM, with the exception of Tucker
Carlson's show and the semi-sane radio conservative John Batchelor.
It was because of the latest McCarthyite smear piece on Tulsi Gabbard in the Daily Beast
that I again donated to her campaign. Unlike Bernie, she is longer than a long shot to get
the nomination, but it's important that her voice on FP be heard. While I also favor Bernie
and Andrew Yang, their comments on FP, sadly, are merely occasional carefully crafted
footnotes designed not to attract much attention or controversy.
This was a color revolution run by consortium of intelligence agencies and the leadership of the Democratic Party, not "wild
goose chase". The key participants perfectly undersood that this is "regime change" operation.
And Russiagate was not about Trump but about profits of military industrial complex and control over US foreign policy. BTW
Trump folded just in three months after inauguration.
This is a very weak article, but some comments are excellent.
Notable quotes:
"... The damage the Democrats (and their allies in the FBI and media) have done to the country is incalculable, but even worse, is the damage they've done to their own party. ..."
"... the Democrats have betrayed the trust of the people who supported their respective campaigns with the implicit understanding that they would work for the progressive reforms that improve the lives of ordinary working people and not behave like hectoring, obstructionist crybabies who refuse to respect the outcome of elections if the winner is not to their liking ..."
"... What we've seen in the last few years is not only unacceptable, it's also degraded our politics and divided the country into rival camps ..."
"... Russiagate has shed light on the cozy relationship between the Democratic party, the Intelligence Agencies, the FBI and the media. ..."
"... Their relentless, but coordinated attacks on the president strongly suggest that there may be an alliance between the various groups of which the American people are completely unaware. This suspicion seems at least partially substantiated by an article that appeared in the World Socialist Web Site titled "The CIA Democrats". ..."
"... CIA ran this whole show. Not Brennan, CIA the institution. Gina Haspel was in London marshaling the foreign intelligence cutouts, and now she's DCI. ..."
"... In this day and age nobody swallows the CIA propaganda "CIA works for the president." Don Gregg stuck that into the Pike Report after he threatened the committees with martial law. So let's stop pretending that CIA rule is man bites dog. Your government is CIA. ..."
"... Far from mourning its failure to depose Trump, the Deep State is celebrating its own prowess in leading him by the nose. The Deep State has learned to stop worrying and love the bombastic orange clown. ..."
"... Lets not pretend Russia-phobia isn't bipartisan. Even Trump went along with it by placing sanctions on Russia for imaginary "meddling". Making RT register as foreign agent. ..."
"... Lets not forget that Trump admin also expelled Russian diplomats and closed their consulate in Seattle over the bogus Skripal attack in Britain. ..."
"... Trump also launched missiles on Syria over the false flag chemical attack staged by the White Helmets (ISIS), that Trump admin. is still funding. Further poking at Russia. ..."
"... The Trump-Russia collusion scandal was the Deep State's attempt at a coup. The Mueller investigation failed to deliver so they now move on to their next coup attempt. ..."
"... In the 2018 mid-terms some 70 percent of Democratic voters, along with a high number of Independents and even Republicans believed that Trump had colluded with Russia. Yet with so many voters basing their voting decisions on fake news and misinformation, once again, the Left doesn't seemed concerned at all. ..."
"... The "Democrats" – one half of the corrupt set of American bootlicking politicians – spent three years screaming and howling and wearing Trump down until now he is governing just like Hillary Clinton would have. Endless pointless winless wars that serve only to spread chaos and enrich defense contractors, continuing subsidies of Wall Street, tax cuts for big time-plutocrats and coming soon nice juicey regressive taxes for you and me! – and of course, more legal immigration and a government-enabled invasion of our southern border by central America because the rich like cheap labor. ..."
"... That Müeller found nothing to corroborate collusion is likely the result of NSA intercepts that would disprove anything his team and the other agencies might fabricate as proof of the charge. There are a couple serious dividing lines in the national security state that have made it difficult for the coup conspirators to succeed; what will be interesting is if they do in fact get away with trying. ..."
"... Bill Clinton's telecommunication act of 1996 did a lot of damage. Clinton was a CFR agent for the parasite. ..."
"... The fourth estate centralized and came under corporate control after 1996. Those who are remotely aware know that the press organs are owned by our favorite in-group which has messianic goals. This in-group, while small in number, has goals amplified by money power. ..."
"... The neoCONs won and have Trump under control and he's hiring Bush-men as fast as he can ..."
"... it looks like Trump will run in 2020 as a WAR President, in Venezuela and/or Iran. The Bush/Trump Crime Family has been born from the ashes of the Bush/Clinton Crime Family. ..."
"... A crime of obstruction would be something like the destruction subpoenaed evidence; such as taking Bleachbit to your e-mails, or smashing your smartphones with hammers ..."
"... They just go from one lie they're more than happy to believe to another – this time its "obstruction" and the media will push that lie too ..."
"... You can legally hire or fire your maid but if your motivation -- intention in either of those acts is to bribe her or threaten her because she knows something about you that could get you in legal trouble. Then it is obstruction. ..."
For the last two and a half years, the Democrats have led the country on a wild goose chase
that has been a complete waste of time and achieved absolutely nothing. The absurd conspiracy
theory that the President of the United States was an agent of the Kremlin has been thoroughly
debunked by the Mueller Report which states that there was neither "coordination" nor
"conspiracy with the Trump campaign and Russia." Even so, congressional Democrats– still
determined to destroy Trump by whatever means possible– have switched from the
"collusion" allegations to vicious attacks on Attorney General William Barr and demands for
Trump's tax returns.
The ease with which the Dems have shifted from their ridiculous claims that Trump was
"Putin's stooge" to this new round of vitriolic accusations and mud-slinging, shows that party
leaders have not only lost touch with reality, but also, that they have no interest in
governing the country. The Democratic party in its current form, is less a political
organization than it is a permanent inquisition led by duplicitous vipers (Adam Schiff, Eric
Swalwell, Jerry Nadler) who feel entitled to use the Justice System to pursue their own petty
political vendetta against a Beltway outsider who had the audacity to win the 2016 presidential
election and whose views on foreign policy do not jibe with those of their elite
paymasters.
The damage the Democrats (and their allies in the FBI and media) have done to the country is
incalculable, but even worse, is the damage they've done to their own party. By focusing
exclusively on Donald Trump and the fictitious Russian boogieman, the Democrats have betrayed
the trust of the people who supported their respective campaigns with the implicit
understanding that they would work for the progressive reforms that improve the lives of
ordinary working people and not behave like hectoring, obstructionist crybabies who refuse to
respect the outcome of elections if the winner is not to their liking.
These are the people who
have been hurt most by the Russiagate fiasco, the people who thought their Democratic
candidates actually wanted to run the country, but soon discovered that those same
representatives would rather spend all of their time chasing Russian ghosts down a rabbit
hole.
Here's an excerpt from an article by Andrew McCarthy that helps to explain what the Russia
probe was really all about:
"Russiagate has always been a political narrative masquerading as a federal investigation.
Its objective, plain and simple, has been twofold: first, to hamstring Donald Trump's
capacity to press the agenda on which he ran .and ultimately, to render him unelectable come
autumn 2020 .
The Russia counterintelligence probe, based on the fraudulent projection of a
Trump-Putin conspiracy, was always a pretext to conduct a criminal investigation despite the
absence of a predicate crime. The criminal investigation, in turn, was always a pretext
for congressional impeachment chatter. And the congressional impeachment chatter is a pretext
for the real agenda: Making Trump an ineffective president now, and an un-reelectable
president 18 months from now.
Indeed, Russiagate "has always been politics", but the quality of our politics has
deteriorated significantly in the last few years, a point that's worth mulling over for a
minute or two. For nearly three years we've seen one party rip up the rulebook and engage in a
full-blown, scorched earth, no-holds-barred blitzkrieg on the president of the United States.
At no time has there been any effort to discuss issues, ideals, policies, or competing visions
of the future. Instead, every ounce of energy has been devoted to inflicting maximum damage on
the man who, many Democrats think, is deserving of whatever horrendous reprisal they direct at
him.
The Democrats have made no secret of their hatred for Trump or their desire to drive him
from office. They have openly supported the dirty tricks, the hyper-ventilating headlines, and
the relentless smear campaigns that have been aimed at him from Day 1. Through Russiagate, the
Dems have tried to frame Trump as a backstabbing traitor who sold out his country to a foreign
power, but now that Mueller has proved that Trump was falsely accused, the Dems have deftly
switched to another line of attack altogether. This isn't how sincere liberals fight to
implement a plan for progressive change. This is how unprincipled mercenaries pursue the
politics of personal destruction. There's a big difference.
This isn't about Trump. Trump could be the worst president in history, and it still wouldn't
excuse the contemptible way he's been treated. Is it ever acceptable to spy on a presidential
campaign, to insert confidential informants who try to entrap campaign assistants to gather
information that can be used to intimidate, blackmail or impeach the president? Is it ever
acceptable to leak classified information to the media as part of a malignant scheme to destroy
a candidate's reputation? Is it ever acceptable to enlist senior-level officials at the FBI,
CIA and NSA to prevent a candidate from being elected or to engage in a stealth campaign of
slanders, smears and innuendo that cast a shadow over the legitimacy of the government?
No, it's not acceptable. Never.
What we've seen in the last few years is not only unacceptable, it's also degraded our
politics and divided the country into rival camps. We've come to expect that every morning will
bring some new crisis centered on Trump's latest tweet followed by hours of incendiary coverage
on the cable news channels, all aimed at throwing more gas on the raging fire that's engulfed
the country. And, of course, no one scandal has consumed more time or been more inflammatory
than the Russia probe. Here's how The Nation's Stephen Cohen sums it up in a recent
article:
"Now in its third year, Russiagate is the worst, most corrosive, and most fraudulent
political scandal in modern American history. these Russiagate allegations continue to
inflict grave damage on fundamental institutions of American democracy. They impugn the
integrity of the presidency and now the office of the attorney general. They degrade the many
Democratic members of Congress who persist in clinging to the allegations and thus the
Democratic Party and Congress. And they have enticed mainstream media into one of the worst
episodes of journalistic malpractice in modern times.
Cohen's piece cuts to the heart of the matter. Russiagate has not only undermined our
"fundamental institutions", it has also impacted our "national security." But I would argue
that the damage caused by the Trump-Russia investigation is even greater than Cohen describes,
mainly because Russiagate has shed light on the cozy relationship between the Democratic party,
the Intelligence Agencies, the FBI and the media. These are the institutions that have waged
war on Trump from the very beginning. Their relentless, but coordinated attacks on the
president strongly suggest that there may be an alliance between the various groups of which
the American people are completely unaware. This suspicion seems at least partially
substantiated by an article that appeared in the World Socialist Web Site titled "The CIA
Democrats". Here's an excerpt:
"An extraordinary number of former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA,
Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department are seeking nomination as Democratic
candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of
military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political
history.
If the Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on November 6, as
widely predicted, candidates drawn from the military-intelligence apparatus will comprise as
many as half of the new Democratic members of Congress. They will hold the balance of power
in the lower chamber of Congress." ( "The CIA Democrats" , Patrick
Martin, World Socialist Web Site)
Would anyone be surprised to find out that the CIA was taking a more activist role in
domestic politics; that it's actually grooming its own candidates for elections, that it's
strengthening its influence in the media and its ties with one of the main political parties,
all in an effort to better control electoral outcomes and tighten its grip on power?
No, no one would be surprised at all. And although we don't yet know all the details, there
are signs that the Intel agencies, the FBI, the media and high-ranking Democrats may have been
working secretively for the same objectives, to either sabotage the 2016 presidential election
or gather incriminating information on Trump that could be used at some later date. All of this
coordinated activity hints at the emergence of a one-party political system that is guided by
agents and elites who the American people don't know and never voted for.
In any event, we're going to find out alot more about these illicit connections as the
Justice Department's three separate probes gain pace and reveal how "the FBI used one party's
'opposition research' as the basis to get a warrant from a secret court to spy on the other
party's campaign." That is the crux of the matter. That's the question that will throw open the
curtains and shed light on the suspicious ties between the DNC, the CIA, the FBI and the media,
all of who may have been directly involved in the dodgy plan to depose the president of the
United States.
THE DEMOGANGSTERS ARE THE REAL CRIMINALS; MUELLER WAS AN AGENT OF THE DEEP STATE, BUT STILL
FOUND NO EVIDENCE.
Thanks, Sir. You are so right -- Russiagate is a manufactured scam to get an elected
President out of office, to carry out a coup by using our criminal justice system as a
criminal enterprise. And to cover up the real crimes of the real criminals, the Demogangsters
like Hillary, etc.
Mueller was a member of the Deep State. If there was ANY collusion (whatever statute there
is that outlaws talking to somebody in a foreign country), Mueller would have found it or
invented it.
The fact that he could not shows that the the Demogangsters had no grounds whatsoever to
manufacture this fake "Russiagate" scandal.
In reality, this scandal should be called Demogangstergate.
The DOJ should now investigate the real criminals, the Demogansters. Hillary and Soros are
America's biggest criminals and they belongs in prison for life.
Two minutes – that would let you easily quantify how tired someone is, how badly they
are suffering from the flu, whether they are showing unusual intellectual decline with age,
If I were an employer I might like to learn how my staff's performance declined with
longer working days, with a view to telling them not to work excessive hours. Or with a view
to finding how best to intersperse the working day with breaks – for food, chat,
exercise, or whatever.
I've long wondered why corporations pay large sums to, for instance, management
consultants or lawyers, when much of the work will be done by novices, sobbing from
exhaustion at their desks.
Is it ever acceptable to spy on a presidential campaign ? Is it ever acceptable to leak
classified information to the media as part of a malignant scheme to destroy a candidate's
reputation? Is it ever acceptable to enlist senior-level officials at the FBI, CIA and NSA
to prevent a candidate from being elected ?
No, it's not acceptable. Never.
Sure it is! If you're Anastacio Somoza, and you're running a banana republic which is,
sadly, what we now are.
There's an odd relapse into statist indoctrination in this generally sound argument. The idea
that a rigidly-controlled centralized state party can "enlist senior-level officials at the
FBI, CIA and NSA" is bassackwards. CIA ran this whole show. Not Brennan, CIA the institution.
Gina Haspel was in London marshaling the foreign intelligence cutouts, and now she's DCI. As
for the litany of political interference in the paragraphs, CIA's been doing that for seven
decades now. In this day and age nobody swallows the CIA propaganda "CIA works for the
president." Don Gregg stuck that into the Pike Report after he threatened the committees with
martial law. So let's stop pretending that CIA rule is man bites dog. Your government is CIA.
And outrage over casting a shadow over the 'legitimacy' of government? Pul-leeease.
Legitimacy is a squishy term. Let's stick to the term of art, sovereignty. Sovereignty is
responsibility. One agency, CIA, is chartered with impunity. They do anything they they want
and get away with it. CIA's freedom from responsibility means the USA is not a sovereign
state but a criminal enterprise. Perhaps you want to defend the legitimacy of the criminal
enterprise that's got its hooks in you. Knock yourself out.
This is not to impugn your good faith. We all have to fight our way out of decades of CIA
brainwashing. It's simple. CIA has multiple redundant get-out-of-jail-free cards and secret
books for untrammeled power of the purse. That's the definition of arbitrary rule. The crux
of the matter is CIA runs your country.
Far from mourning its failure to depose Trump, the Deep State is celebrating its own prowess
in leading him by the nose. The Deep State has learned to stop worrying and love the
bombastic orange clown.
If they apologize, it will remove their Russian Trolls decoy, the one placed carefully in the
water to keep the corporate-owned media focused on just this one cluster of minor global
shenanigans, not all of the others, like the Biden's involvement in Ukraine or most of the US
Congress getting rich off of something It's not by building businesses than employ
underemployed US citizens. In addition to their multi six-figure salaries, they're all
getting rich off of placing bets on the rigged stock casino and the global-offshoring /
outsourcing / welfare-rigged-mass-immigration economy.
Lets not pretend Russia-phobia isn't bipartisan. Even Trump went along with it by placing
sanctions on Russia for imaginary "meddling". Making RT register as foreign agent. Its all a
distraction. Might have to actually do some real work if we weren't having this replay of the
red scare. People might start talking about Trumps, as well as most of DC's real owners if
they stop screaming about Putin.
Not everyone went along with it, Tulsi didn't, she even introduced legislation to require
paper ballots in future elections to prevent imaginary "meddling" or hacking, no one in DC is
interested, which either means there is no election meddling, or they don't actually care,
they just wanted to poke at Russia.
Lets not forget that Trump admin also expelled Russian diplomats and closed their
consulate in Seattle over the bogus Skripal attack in Britain.
Trump also launched missiles on Syria over the false flag chemical attack staged by the
White Helmets (ISIS), that Trump admin. is still funding. Further poking at Russia.
But I would argue that the damage caused by the Trump-Russia investigation is even
greater than Cohen describes, mainly because Russiagate has shed light on the cozy
relationship between the Democratic party, the Intelligence Agencies, the FBI and the
media.
nails it. You cannot call this a democracy when a political party, the federal police, the
intelligence agencies and the media all collude to invalidate an election. You can call it a lot of things, but you can't call it democracy.
The Trump-Russia collusion scandal was the Deep State's attempt at a coup. The Mueller
investigation failed to deliver so they now move on to their next coup attempt.
We know that the Left and the Democrats are insincere when they say they are outraged by
Trump colluding with Russia. They aren't. If it is treason to get "dirt" on your political
opponent from Russia then why isn't the Left and Democrats outraged by the DNC, the Clinton
campaign, and Fusion GPS. The Steele dossier which was used to get a FISA warrant to spy on
Carter Page and the Trump campaign came in part from Russian sources. So paid for political
opposition, with Russian sub-sources, was used to go after Trump and interfere in an
election. Yet they aren't the slightest bit bothered by any of this. In the 2018 mid-terms
some 70 percent of Democratic voters, along with a high number of Independents and even
Republicans believed that Trump had colluded with Russia. Yet with so many voters basing
their voting decisions on fake news and misinformation, once again, the Left doesn't seemed
concerned at all.
The Trump-Russia collusion narrative was just a pretext to start an investigation to
hamstring the Trump Presidency. It is the same story all over again. Why did we invade Iraq
in 2003? Was it because of Weapons of Mass Destruction(WMD) and links to Al-Qaeda? No, that
was just the pretext to start the war. The real reasons for the Iraq war and the Russian
Collusion conspiracy can never be stated publically.
The "Democrats" – one half of the corrupt set of American bootlicking politicians
– spent three years screaming and howling and wearing Trump down until now he is
governing just like Hillary Clinton would have. Endless pointless winless wars that serve
only to spread chaos and enrich defense contractors, continuing subsidies of Wall Street, tax
cuts for big time-plutocrats and coming soon nice juicey regressive taxes for you and me!
– and of course, more legal immigration and a government-enabled invasion of our
southern border by central America because the rich like cheap labor.
The "Democrats" do not exist as a coherent ideology, they are a collection of whores who
will do whatever they are paid to do. They have served their purpose in whipping up mindless
hysteria – really, wanting to save trillions by not fighting pointless foreign wars and
spending that on ourselves, that's racism and fascism and Literally Hitler? Really?
So I would say that, operationally, mission accomplished.
CIA ran this whole show. maybe, but I think it was all of the intelligence agencies.. British
M-16, Israeli Mossad, and the Saudi Arabian groups..French, and even the Egyptian.. .. Turkey
too.. they operate the functional parts of government everywhere.
That Müeller found nothing to corroborate collusion is likely the result of NSA
intercepts that would disprove anything his team and the other agencies might fabricate as
proof of the charge. There are a couple serious dividing lines in the national security state
that have made it difficult for the coup conspirators to succeed; what will be interesting is
if they do in fact get away with trying.
The essay's ending – we will: "find out a lot more" "reveal" "throw open the curtain"
"shed light". That's it??? Maybe this a deliberately subtle way of saying: there will be no real consequences; and so
all is lost; banana Republic, soft dictatorship. In fact, if it's merely an opened-up curtain, the result in the MSM will be plaudits for
the actors' patriotism.
The "Democrats" do not exist as a coherent ideology, they are a collection of whores who
will do whatever they are paid to do. They have served their purpose in whipping up
mindless hysteria – really, wanting to save trillions by not fighting pointless
foreign wars and spending that on ourselves, that's racism and fascism and Literally
Hitler? Really?
They think as a group and take their "lifestyle" cues from the likes of Rachel MadCow,
HRC, the Obamas and "their" opinion on foreign policy comes from 3 letter agency people who
"warn" them about treasonous Trump and foreign super villains. They wring their hands and
clutch their pearls over the laws of the land being enforced at the southern border and the
"Muslim ban" but nothing brings out the preemptive smelling salts quicker than Trump's
refusal to adhere to liberal speech codes and middle class fake politeness.
When Trump and his neocon attack dogs threaten war on multiple fronts, drone Muslim
wedding parties and goat herders, aid and abet the KSA and UAE war against Yemen, use
sanctions as a weapon of war against countries that present no threat to America and
prioritize Israel's interests over our own, the liberals breathe a secret sigh of relief and
commend "literally Hitler" for finally acting presidential. All the righteous "concern" about
POC, transfags and other "traditionally" oppressed groups is fake and a way for them to
soothe the cognitive dissonance between their own self-image as "caring" and fair minded
people and the reality that they don't care how many foreigners get killed by DC's foreign
policy or how many of their own countrymen are left to suffer in despair from the fallout of
their livelihoods being offshored.
What they do care about is their own material comfort and the illusion/delusion
that they are good, morally upright people who deserve all the good things life has to offer
because they work hard and are on the "right side of history." They have discovered that
letting Democrat propagandists and liberal celebrities do their thinking for them is a good
way for them to maintain their delusional world view and avoid thinking about the
mind-boggling hypocrisies and double-standards they unquestioningly accept.
Don't get me wrong, there are lots of people on the political right who are just as crazy
(e.g. the dedicated race warriors who take the 'war' part literally) but everyone knows this
and few people take them seriously. It is old news that mainstream Republicans and Democrats
are pretty much in lockstep when it comes to terrible foreign policy the ideological space
between neocons like Bolton and Pompeo and neoliberal Democrats like Clinton and Biden is
slim and right now there is more pushback against them coming from the conservatives
side.
The disconcerting thing about deluded libtards is their unmatched ability to believe their
own bullshit and the global reach this bullshit has via the mainstream media. It is ironic
that the same people who made their "self-identities" as morally pure humanitarians and
protectors of the weak and downtrodden a status marker have turned out to be some of the most
arrogant, vapid and destructive hypocrites around, but it shouldn't be that surprising. In my
experience people who go out of their way to highlight their own do-goodery and moral
superiority sooner or later out themselves as virtue signalling bullshitters and hypocrites
who are just following a trend. If these people had no real influence they would be a minor
annoyance unfortunately they have quite a bit of influence. Not as much as they used to,
hence their panic, but still enough to cause all kinds of trouble.
This Russia collusion scam proved that ... the CIA and the FBI and the Justice dept. are all corrupt as hell and
all of these and more are under zionist control and there is no justice in America, justice
is gone with the wind!
Regarding Cohen's assertion that the MSM was "enticed" into one of the worst journalistic
malpractices of modern times, I am heartily skeptical of the portrayal of the MSM as being
seduced into acting like the whores they are.
You have to love the imaginations of these hoax writers. The CIA doesn't have time on their
various networks and news websites to post any truth. They have so many lies scripted for so
many years in advance the producers would lose it if someone tried to slip in a couple of
minutes of truth.
@C3H8NO5P Agree, see the book The Secret Team, the CIA and its allies in control of
America and the world, by Col. L. Fletcher Prouty, this is the most accurate book ever
written about the chain dogs who guard the world for their zionist masters!
Bill Clinton's telecommunication act of 1996 did a lot of damage. Clinton was a CFR agent for
the parasite.
The fourth estate centralized and came under corporate control after 1996. Those who are
remotely aware know that the press organs are owned by our favorite in-group which has
messianic goals. This in-group, while small in number, has goals amplified by money
power.
The parasite operates on multiple fronts. 1) Own the power to create bank credit as money
2) Collect interest on credit issued 3) Use debt slavery (expanding claims of debts) to make
populations servile 4) Buy out and own the press (see #2) 5) Push a narrative good for your
in-group. (see#4) 6) Messianic religion, where the people become their own god. An Oligarchy
is then sanctioned because after all – we are our own gods.
Meanwhile, false narrative and twisted scripture has created Zionist Christians, who do
the bidding of their masters.
The parasite is an evolutionary construct, with methods honed through the ages. His
weakness is the falsity of his claims, which require a tower of lies to maintain. The other
weakness is money power, which also relies on deception. The founders gave Congress the money
power, hence it was to be under control of the law (and the people), but through deception
the money power transferred to a private money trust in 1913.
A parasite needs fuel from the host, and this fuel is derived as usury from money power.
Funding then allows issuance of narrative and hypnosis (including towering lies) to control
the host.
The construct of secret services being part of control matrix goes back to Bank of England
in 1694 becoming first debt spreading bank, which soon put its population into debts, and
gained control over parliament. British East Indies company had its own mercenary soldiers
and was fore-runner to MI6. In other words, MI6 was patterned on East Indies Company, and MI6
was grandfather to CIA.
It should be no surprise at all that Zionist World Government emanates from London, Wall
Street, and Tel Aviv.
Returning the money power to law, is a simple law change. But, since Congress and
Parliaments are owned, it is an uphill battle.
Say, the Russians and Putin DID mess with our elections.
So, what is the big deal?
We get involved messing with other Nations interior affairs, since the 18th century, if not
earlier.
So, why these "ethical" bastards (dems and some republicans) are crying about?
Plus, WHO holds the license to determine WHO is our friend and WHO is our enemy?
CNN? CNBC? ABC? FOX?
I guess, I 'll come back to the phrase:
It's ALL about Benjamins, baby.
P.S.
And NO:
Hillary and Soros, ARE criminals but The REAL CRIMINALS and TRAITORS of the USA, are Israel
and it supporters.
@Squarebeard Yeah there's totally no race war going on, at all. Only crazy people would
think such a thing. It's not like the entire ruling class is in lockstep regarding laws and
policies that cripple and destroy whites.
They don't allow non whites to attack whites, with little to no accountability, they don't
bring them in by the millions, to swamp whites and "breed us out". They don't churn out
endless anti white propaganda, showing whites as weak, submissive, old, and needing strong
and vibrant non whites to "save" them from their own evil racism. They certainly don't shout
it from their official positions and gloat about how whites are soon to be minorities in
their own lands. They don't push endless race mixing propaganda, that somehow only shows
"white + non white", and rarely ever something like "black + Asian". They don't mock and
belittle whites every chance they get. They don't use "white" as a slur and a synonym for
"uncool, hopeless, nerdy, weak". They don't refuse to allow whites to have racially based
groups and institutions, while actively encouraging non whites to do just that. They don't
give preferential treatment in every walk of life, to non whites at the expense of the better
qualified and more intelligent whites.
They don't institute draconian and repressive "hate crime" laws designed to harshly punish
whites for any "wrong thought" or imagined transgression against a holy and sainted oppressed
non white. They certainly don't let non whites get away with racially targeted attacks
(Rotherham, etc), and force the police to ignore it and prosecute the victims and their
families when they seek justice.
If you don't think there's a race war happening, I can see that. Because really, only one
side is fighting. The other side is too busy pretending it isn't happening, or
enthusiastically groveling at the feet of the non whites, hoping to expiate their evil sin of
whiteness.
Ignoring reality isn't going to spare you from the consequences of ignoring reality. All
you have to do is look around whatever white country you're living in. It's not a secret.
@ABC 123 You got that dead right ABC 123. The evil group in the shadows that really runs
the government is called "the intelligence community." Some community! More like a giant
Mafia.
The CIA needs reform and oversight. It should be divided into pieces that cannot
communicate with each other, but only through oversight that is legally forbidden to ever
become part of or get paid by CIA. I would suggest a section for each continent, or maybe
even each country. Is have these sections in different buildings in different cities in
America.
They should be allowed zero media infiltration in the United States.
If that reform failed, Id build a rival CIA and slowly give it the CIAs current workload,
forcing the current brass into retirement. The new intel agency could be restricted from
hiring any current CIA management, only hiring active spooks.
@mike kThe neoCONs won and have Trump under control and he's hiring Bush-men as fast as
he can. NOTE: Both the new Attorney General and the newly announced Assistant Attorney
General are both Bush-men, and even worse, they're Bush Sr. Bush-men. So it looks like Trump
will run in 2020 as a WAR President, in Venezuela and/or Iran. The Bush/Trump Crime Family
has been born from the ashes of the Bush/Clinton Crime Family.
Thank you for bringing these facts, and the artful assembly of them, to public scrutiny.
The damage the Democrats (and their allies in the FBI and media) have done to the
country is incalculable, but even worse, is the damage they've done to their own party.
We're still discussing these things, and others, on the overall degradation of social
infrastructures, almost as if they are unrelated, but, these breakdowns have startling
similarities, and even superficial inspection suggests a pattern and affiliation between the
key controlling interests.
Is it " The FBI ", or an elite controlling faction, having hijacked the FBI?
Is it " The Democratic Party ", or an elite controlling faction, having hijacked the
Democratic Party?
Regardless, it will be the reputation/credibility of the entire FBI and Democratic Party,
which takes the hit, not the specific agent-provokateurs , in fact, " The Media
", will never get around to figuring it out, and airing them out, let alone, drawing
similarities between these agent-provokateurs and those agent-provokateurs
Oh and BTW, just who, precisely, is " The Media "?
And while the discussion about the " The Democrats " is liberal, the discussion
about " The Republicans Party ", is a bit on the conservative side.
But ultimately, what's the difference? Both these parties are dedicated to the 0.1% socio-economic elite , and their
traditional hanger-ons/henchmen.
In fact, much of the artificial delineations of people, are controlled by the same
people!
They are effectively different " brandings " of bullshit-artistry , to baffle
the minds of the 99%, and the first grift is that there is actually choice
between two meaningfully different options.
Made US tech a liability for everyone outside the US
Failed coup in Venezuela
Moron Whitney seems to think political parties matter. Why do the lower classes think any
difference exists between the scum that rules over them? Only the slow minded see a
difference between the republicans and the democrats. Trump supporters openly want a police
state with a giant military and more and more cops, so the Russian thing was a great
diversion. Obama supporters pretended they don't want the same, but voted for it anyway also
promoting fear, obedience and the Russian thing.
This is a classic case of Betteridge's Law of Headlines: "an adage that states: 'Any headline
that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no.'"
@Peter Akuleyev It's obvious you haven't read the report Peter. Exactly what crimes did
Trump commit.? And don't repeat what every ignorant liberal moron has been chanting for the
last 3 years, "obstruction of justice"
Please note, a crime must be committed before any suspect, victim, witness anyone
obstructs justice also known as obstruction of the investigation of the alleged crime that
may or may not have been committed. The FBI investigated and investigated and investigated
Trump and found nothing to investigate.
Since he was plotting away in New York and the District of Columbia, you might want to
read the pertinent laws regarding obstruction of justice. No crime, no obstruction.
The demo's need to chill like you know man.not going to make 2020 because the carpet is ready
for a woman.madam president erect ek se.soft power.in like a banana out like a pineapple.
They need to go to prison for attempting to undemocratically overturn an election using an
invented narrative.
The press as well as the individuals associated with the special interest groups and
government who were involved in this effort must face severe consequences. We'll be waiting
until that happens, and we will not forget.
That's what they've created with this. A simmering nation awaiting justice.
@renfro So what's your point? The prosecutor "ultimately concludes one isn't guilty of
crime X" actually proves Alden's point: a prosecutor would have to identify "crime X". Since
"crime X" was fabricated, there was nothing to be guilty of, and since Trump knew that, there
could be no obstruction.
As for Mueller's report, it was a political document. All of the hearsay about what Trump
was thinking about means jackshit. Thinking about doing something isn't a crime – yet.
All of the bogus "conspiracy to commit " trials, when no illegal action was taken, are
Stalinist show trials – just like the Democrats and never Trumpers were hoping Mueller
could produce for them.
You can obstruct justice even if a prosecutor ultimately finds you were not guilty of
committing the crime that was the focus of the underlying investigation
Yes, but you still must commit a crime of obstruction. A crime of obstruction would be
something like the destruction subpoenaed evidence; such as taking Bleachbit to your e-mails,
or smashing your smartphones with hammers. However, the firing James Comey is completely
legal and allowed by the Executive. A prosecutor cannot event a crime of obstruction when the
action was perfectly legal. This is in effect what the Democrats and the Left are arguing
for, the invention of new crimes to impeach Trump.
Excellent article. I'm glad I read it.
Secret intelligence gathering agencies with huge budgets "to keep us safe" are a problem.
Always have been, always will be. Trump should be given credit for causing all this to be
brought to light.
The Democrats Just Led the Country on a Three Year-Long Wild Goose Chase. Will They
Apologize?
Of course not. They just go from one lie they're more than happy to believe to another – this time
its "obstruction" and the media will push that lie too
However, the firing James Comey is completely legal and allowed by the Executive. A
prosecutor cannot event a crime of obstruction when the action was perfectly legal
Wrong again ..its obvious none of you know how to find the legal cites on the elements of
obstruction. Whether Trump can 'legally' fire someone or not is immaterial .the court (and the
law) looks at the INTENT behind the act. Period.
You can legally hire or fire your maid but if your motivation -- intention in either
of those acts is to bribe her or threaten her because she knows something about you that
could get you in legal trouble. Then it is obstruction.
"... What he said is, 'I Donald Trump am going to be a champion of the working class I know you are working longer hours for lower wages, seeing your jobs going to China, can't afford childcare, can't afford to send your kids to college. I Donald Trump alone can solve these problems.' What you have is a guy who utilized the media, manipulated the media very well. He is an entertainer, he is a professional at that. But I will tell you that I think there needs to be a profound change in the way the Democratic Party does business. It is not good enough to have a liberal elite. I come from the white working class and I am deeply humiliated that the Democratic Party cannot talk to the people where I came from." ..."
"... when the Clinton team first learned that Wikileaks was going to release damaging Democratic National Party emails in June 2016, they "brought in outside consultants to plot a PR strategy for handling the news of the hack the story would advance a narrative that benefited the Clinton campaign and the Democrats: The Russians were interfering in the US election, presumably to assist Trump." ..."
"... After losing the election, Team Clinton doubled down on this PR strategy. As described in the book Shattered (p. 395) the day after the election campaign managers assembled the communication team "to engineer the case that the election wasn't entirely on the up and up . they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument." ..."
"... A progressive team produced a very different analysis titled Autopsy: The Democratic Party in Crisis . They did this because "the (Democratic) party's national leadership has shown scant interest in addressing many of the key factors that led to electoral disaster." The report analyzes why the party turnout was less than expected and why traditional Democratic Party supporters are declining. ..."
"... Since the 2016 election there has been little public discussion of the process whereby Hillary Clinton became the Democratic Party nominee. It's apparent she was pre-ordained by the Democratic Party elite. As exposed in the DNC emails, there was bias and violations of the party obligations at the highest levels. On top of that, it should now be clear that the pundits, pollsters and election experts were out of touch, made poor predictions and decisions. ..."
"... The 2016 election is highly relevant today. Already we see the same pattern of establishment bias and "horse race" journalism which focuses on fund-raising, polls and elite-biased "electability" instead of dealing with real issues, who has solutions, who has appeal to which groups. ..."
"... The establishment bias for Biden is matched by the bias against Democratic Party candidates who directly challenge Wall Street and US foreign policy. On Wall Street, that would be Bernie Sanders. On foreign policy, that is Tulsi Gabbard. With a military background Tulsi Gabbard has broad appeal, an inclusive message and a uniquely sharp critique of US "regime change" foreign policy. ..."
"... Blaming an outside power is a good way to prevent self analysis and positive change. It's gone on far too long. ..."
An
honest and accurate analysis of the 2016 election is not just an academic exercise. It is very
relevant to the current election campaign. Yet over the past two years, Russiagate has
dominated media and political debate and largely replaced a serious analysis of the factors
leading to Trump's victory. The public has been flooded with the various elements of the story
that Russia intervened and Trump colluded with them. The latter accusation was negated by the
Mueller Report but elements of the Democratic Party and media refuse to move on. Now it's the
lofty but vague accusations of "obstruction of justice" along with renewed dirt digging. To
some it is a "constitutional crisis", but to many it looks like more partisan fighting.
Russiagate has distracted from pressing issues
Russiagate has distracted attention and energy away from crucial and pressing issues such as
income inequality, the housing and homeless crisis, inadequate healthcare, militarized police,
over-priced college education, impossible student loans and deteriorating infrastructure. The
tax structure was changed to benefit wealthy individuals and corporations with little
opposition. The Trump administration has undermined environmental laws, civil rights, national
parks and women's equality while directing ever
more money to military contractors. Working class Americans are struggling with rising
living costs, low wages, student debt, and racism. They constitute the bulk of the military
which is spread all over the world, sustaining continuing occupations in war zones including
Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and parts of Africa. While all this has been going on, the Democratic
establishment and much of the media have been focused on Russiagate, the Mueller Report, and
related issues.
Immediately after the 2016 Election
In the immediate wake of the 2016 election there was some forthright analysis. Bernie
Sanders
said , "What Trump did very effectively is tap the angst and the anger and the hurt and
pain that millions of working class people are feeling. What he said is, 'I Donald Trump am
going to be a champion of the working class I know you are working longer hours for lower
wages, seeing your jobs going to China, can't afford childcare, can't afford to send your kids
to college. I Donald Trump alone can solve these problems.' What you have is a guy who utilized
the media, manipulated the media very well. He is an entertainer, he is a professional at that.
But I will tell you that I think there needs to be a profound change in the way the Democratic
Party does business. It is not good enough to have a liberal elite. I come from the white
working class and I am deeply humiliated that the Democratic Party cannot talk to the people
where I came from."
Days after the election, the Washington Post published an op-ed titled "
Hillary Clinton Lost. Bernie Sanders could have won. We chose the wrong candidate ." The
author analyzed the results saying , "Donald Trump's stunning victory is less surprising
when we remember a simple fact: Hillary Clinton is a deeply unpopular politician." The
writer analyzed why Sanders would have prevailed against Trump and predicted "there will be
years of recriminations."
Russiagate replaced Recrimination
But instead of analysis, the media and Democrats have emphasized foreign interference. There
is an element of self-interest in this narrative. As reported in "Russian Roulette" (p127),
when the Clinton team first learned that Wikileaks was going to release damaging Democratic
National Party emails in June 2016, they "brought in outside consultants to plot a PR
strategy for handling the news of the hack the story would advance a narrative that benefited
the Clinton campaign and the Democrats: The Russians were interfering in the US election,
presumably to assist Trump."
After losing the election, Team Clinton doubled down on this PR strategy. As described in
the book Shattered (p. 395) the day after the election campaign managers assembled the
communication team "to engineer the case that the election wasn't entirely on the up and up
. they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public. Already, Russian
hacking was the centerpiece of the argument."
This narrative has been remarkably effective in supplanting critical review of the
election.
One Year After the Election
The Center for American Progress (CAP) was founded by John Podesta and is closely aligned
with the Democratic Party. In November 2017 they produced an analysis titled "
Voter Trends in 2016: A Final Examination ". Interestingly, there is not a single reference
to Russia. Key conclusions are that "it is critical for Democrats to attract more support from
the white non-college-educated voting bloc" and "Democrats must go beyond the 'identity
politics' versus 'economic populism' debate to create a genuine cross-racial, cross-class
coalition " It suggests that Wall Street has the same interests as Main Street and the working
class.
A progressive team produced a very different analysis titled Autopsy: The Democratic Party in
Crisis . They did this because "the (Democratic) party's national leadership has shown scant interest in addressing many of
the key factors that led to electoral disaster." The report analyzes why the party turnout was less than expected and why
traditional Democratic Party supporters are declining. It includes recommendations to end the party's undemocratic
practices, expand voting rights and counter voter suppression. The report contains details and specific recommendations lacking
in the CAP report. It includes an overall analysis which says "The Democratic Party should disentangle itself – ideologically
and financially – from Wall Street, the military-industrial complex and other corporate interests that put profits ahead of
public needs."
Two Years After the Election
In October 2018, the progressive team produced a follow-up report titled "
Autopsy: One Year Later ". It says, "The Democratic Party has implemented modest reforms,
but corporate power continues to dominate the party."
In a recent phone interview, the editor of that report, Norman Solomon, said it appears some
in the Democratic Party establishment would rather lose the next election to Republicans than
give up control of the party.
What really happened in 2016?
Beyond the initial critiques and "Autopsy" research, there has been little discussion,
debate or lessons learned about the 2016 election. Politics has been dominated by
Russiagate.
Why did so many working class voters switch from Obama to Trump? A major reason is because
Hillary Clinton is associated with Wall Street and the economic policies of her husband
President Bill Clinton. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), promoted by Bill
Clinton, resulted in huge decline in manufacturing jobs in
swing states such as Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Of course, this would influence their
thinking and votes. Hillary Clinton's support for the Trans Pacific Partnership was another
indication of her policies.
What about the low turnout from the African American community? Again, the lack of
enthusiasm is rooted in objective reality. Hillary Clinton is associated with "welfare reform"
promoted by her husband. According to this study from
the University of Michigan, "As of the beginning of 2011, about 1.46 million U.S. households
with about 2.8 million children were surviving on $2 or less in income per person per day in a
given month The prevalence of extreme poverty rose sharply between 1996 and 2011. This growth
has been concentrated among those groups that were most affected by the 1996 welfare
reform. "
Over the past several decades there has been a huge increase in prison
incarceration due to increasingly strict punishments and mandatory prison sentences. Since
the poor and working class have been the primary victims of welfare and criminal justice
"reforms" initiated or sustained through the Clinton presidency, it's understandable why they
were not keen on Hillary Clinton. The notion that low turnout was due to African Americans
being unduly influenced by Russian Facebook posts is seen as "bigoted paternalism" by blogger Teodrose
Fikremanian who says, "The corporate recorders at the NY Times would have us believe that
the reason African-Americans did not uniformly vote for Hillary Clinton and the Democrats is
because they were too dimwitted to think for themselves and were subsequently manipulated by
foreign agents. This yellow press drivel is nothing more than propaganda that could have been
written by George Wallace."
How Clinton became the Nominee
Since the 2016 election there has been little public discussion of the process whereby
Hillary Clinton became the Democratic Party nominee. It's apparent she was pre-ordained by the
Democratic Party elite. As exposed in the DNC emails, there was bias and violations of the
party obligations at the highest levels. On top of that, it should now be clear that the
pundits, pollsters and election experts were out of touch, made poor predictions and
decisions.
Bernie Sanders would have been a much stronger candidate. He would have won the same party
loyalists who voted for Clinton. His message attacking Wall Street would have resonated with
significant sections of the working class and poor who were unenthusiastic (to say the least)
about Clinton. An indication is that in critical swing states such as Wisconsin and
Michigan Bernie
Sanders beat Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary race.
Clinton had no response for Trump's attacks on multinational trade agreements and his false
promises of serving the working class. Sanders would have had vastly more appeal to working
class and minorities. His primary campaign showed his huge appeal to youth and third party
voters. In short, it's likely that Sanders would have trounced Trump. Where is the
accountability for how Clinton ended up as the Democratic Party candidate?
The Relevance of 2016 to 2020
The 2016 election is highly relevant today. Already we see the same pattern of establishment
bias and "horse race" journalism which focuses on fund-raising, polls and elite-biased
"electability" instead of dealing with real issues, who has solutions, who has appeal to which
groups.
Mainstream media and pundits are already promoting Joe Biden. Syndicated columnist EJ
Dionne, a Democratic establishment favorite, is indicative. In his article "
Can Biden be the helmsman who gets us past the storm? " Dionne speaks of the "strength he
(Biden) brings" and the "comfort he creates". In the same vein, Andrew Sullivan pushes Biden in
his article "
Why Joe Biden Might be the Best to Beat Trump ". Sullivan thinks that Biden has appeal in
the working class because he joked about claims he is too 'hands on'. But while Biden may be
tight with AFL-CIO leadership, he is closely associated with highly unpopular neoliberal trade
deals which have resulted in manufacturing decline.
The establishment bias for Biden is matched by the bias against Democratic Party candidates
who directly challenge Wall Street and US foreign policy. On Wall Street, that would be Bernie
Sanders. On foreign policy, that is Tulsi Gabbard. With a military background Tulsi Gabbard has
broad appeal, an inclusive message and a uniquely sharp critique of US "regime change" foreign
policy. She calls
out media pundits like Fareed Zakaria for goading Trump to invade Venezuela. In contrast
with Rachel Maddow taunting
John Bolton and Mike Pompeo to be MORE aggressive, Tulsi Gabbard has been
denouncing Trump's collusion with Saudi Arabia and Israel's Netanyahu, saying it's not in
US interests. Gabbard's anti-interventionist anti-occupation perspective has significant
support from US troops. A
recent poll indicates that military families want complete withdrawal from Afghanistan and
Syria. It seems conservatives have become more anti-war than liberals.
This points to another important yet under-discussed lesson from 2016: a factor in Trump's
victory was that he campaigned as an anti-war candidate against the hawkish Hillary Clinton. As
pointed out
here, "Donald Trump won more votes from communities with high military casualties than
from similar communities which suffered fewer casualties."
Russiagate has distracted most Democrats from analyzing how they lost in 2016. It has given
them the dubious belief that it was because of foreign interference. They have failed to
analyze or take stock of the consequences of DNC bias, the preference for Wall Street over
working class concerns, and the failure to challenge the military industrial complex and
foreign policy based on 'regime change' interventions.
There needs to be more analysis and lessons learned from the 2016 election to avoid a repeat
of that disaster. As indicated in the
Autopsy , there needs to be a transparent and fair campaign for nominee based on more than
establishment and Wall Street favoritism. There also needs to be consideration of which
candidates reach beyond the partisan divide and can energize and advance the interests of the
majority of Americans rather than the elite. The most crucial issues and especially US military
and foreign policy need to be seriously debated.
Blaming an outside power is a good way to prevent self analysis and positive change. It's
gone on far too long.
Rick Sterling is an investigative journalist who grew up in Canada but currently lives in
the San Francisco Bay Area of California. He can be reached at [email protected] . Read other articles by Rick .
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) said on Sunday that reports claiming pro-putin Russophiles giving
her 2020 presidential campaign a boost is
"fake news,"
though she added that
conflict with the Kremlin is not productive.
Speaking to
ABC'
s George Stephanopoulos, Gabbard said that deteriorating relationships
with nuclear-armed countries such as Russia and China "has brought us to a very dangerous point,"
reports
The Hill
. She added that, if elected, she would "end these counterproductive and
wasteful regime change wars
," and would "
work to end this new Cold War and
nuclear arms race.
"
On Friday, the
Daily
Beast
published a story claiming that Gabbard "is quickly becoming the top candidate for
Democrats who think the Russian leader is misunderstood," based on people who had donated to her
campaign. (We somehow missed the
Daily Beast
article on
Hillary's alleged Saudi donors
in 2016, but we digress).
Donors to her campaign in the first quarter of the year included: Stephen F. Cohen, a Russian
studies professor at New York University and prominent Kremlin sympathizer; Sharon Tennison, a
vocal Putin supporter who nonetheless found herself detained by Russian authorities in 2016; and
an employee of the Kremlin-backed broadcaster RT, who appears to have donated under the alias
"Goofy Grapes." -
Daily
Beast
On Sunday, Stephanopoulos asked Gabbard about the
Beast
article, and noted that she met
with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, as well as her defense of Russia's military presence in
Syria, and her comments suggesting that Russian election interference was on par with American
election meddling around the world.
"Is Putin a threat to national security?" he asked.
"You now it's unfortunately you're citing that article, George, because
it's a whole lot
of fake news
. What I'm focused on is what's in the best interest of the American people?
What's in the best interest of national security? Keeping American people safe," said Gabbard. "And
what I'm pointing out consistently,
time and time again, is our continued wasteful regime
change wars have been counterproductive to the interests of the American people and the approach
this administration has taken in essentially choosing conflict ... has been counterproductive
I continue to support her for that same reason. If there are
like minded people here on ZH consider donating just $1 as that
donation will help get her on stage where her anti-war thoughts
can be heard.
ditto. Trump said in the debates that "I want to be friends
with everyone, including Russia." The rest is history. The USA
wehrmacht is going after Tulsi now. We cannot have peace.
Have an idea for you on how to show true leadership
and finish what the Orange "six-sided star" liar said he would
pick up (
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/11/14/trump-im-reopening-911-investigation/
)
when he began his presidency and then... well...
lied
to
become a treasonous bag of **** just like the ones that preceded
him!...
Even Vlad Putin and the rest of the Russian Federation refuse
to "touch it". And if you did. You would be the only
representative in the U.S. House and Senate let alone the U.S.
Federal, State and local government(s) for that matter to do so.
All you would have to say is "we need an understanding why 2
planes demolished 3 building(s) at "Ground Zero" more then 18
years ago, and why the 9/11 Commission never mentioned the Solomon
Brothers Building 7 in it's official report?... I (Congresswoman
Tulsi Gabbard) certainly want to know!... Especially wearing the
uniform for what I believed was the reason I was given for
invading Afghanistan and Iraq and murdering over 3 million
people?... And I want to tell the American people ultimately "why"
Building 7 was omitted along with too many other details that
Robert Mueller famously dismissed by saying only that "
mistakes
were made
" ...
I've written to you several times about showing the courage to
be the only politician since Senator Wellstone to pick up where he
left off and support the 13 year endeavors of this organization (
https://www.ae911truth.org/
)
to demand an investigation of the fact(s) now that has the backing
of a Grand Jury by signing it's petition!...
But you won't. Because you are like every other "200lbs of
****" in a 100lbs bag that walks the halls of the Longworth
carrying the water for the "Tribe"!
Keep telling yourself surfer **** that the job will get both
easier and better by lying about that day and what it's done in
it's wake to every institution and business in the United States
of America let alone the laws of the land just like your mentor
the Langley Bath House "boy"!...
Yes, Putin knows that an island of sanity and decency in a
cesspit of bigotry and firearms is bound to be blown to pieces
before she has a chance to deliver. I fear for Tulsi even now.
Yes, the Russia nonsense is FAKE NEWS. So why is Trump allowing
the Israelis, a country that hates the United States, and which
has attacked us at least twice (USS Liberty, 9/11/2001), to
dictate our foreign policy? Israel is the real enemy!!
Let's
look at a quote from one of the former employees of the Mossad
front operation "Urban Moving Systems" (likely also the same
people who planted the explosives at WTC) had to say about his
time there:
In addition to the strange nature of some of the Israelis'
possessions in the van and on their person, the company that
employed them -- Urban Moving Systems -- was of special interest
to the FBI, which concluded that the company was likely a
"fraudulent operation." Upon a search of the company's
premises, the FBI noted that "little evidence of a legitimate
business operation was found." The FBI report also noted that
there were an "unusually large number of computers relative to
the number of employees for such a fairly small business" and
that "further investigation identified several pseudo-names or
aliases associated with Urban Moving Systems and its
operations."
The FBI presence at the Urban Moving Systems search site
drew the attention of the local media and was later reported on
both television and in the local press. A former Urban Moving
Systems employee later contacted the Newark Division with
information indicating that he had quit his employment with
Urban Moving Systems as a result of the
high amount of
anti-American sentiment
present among Urban's employees.
The former employee stated that an Israeli employee of Urban
had even once remarked, "Give us twenty years and we'll take
over your media and destroy your country"
(page 37 of
the
FBI report
).
This kind of thing makes one kind of hope for a war in which
Israel is bombed back to the stone age, which is clearly where
these evil, psychopathic Zionist filth belong!
This is a long article, but read it all the way through. It's
proof that Israel was indeed behind 9/11 and that they had
numerous operatives in the country who were gleeful about it,
having set up video cameras and celebrated the day before by
taking a photo of one of the operatives holding a lit cigarette
lighter up to the horizon....right in front of the still-standing
WTC twin towers.
And look at this. You won't see this in the MSM any time soon:
In addition to Urban Moving Systems, another moving
company, Classic International Movers, became of interest in
connection with the investigation into the "Dancing
Israelis," which led to the arrest and detention of four
Israeli nationals who worked for this separate moving
company.
The FBI's Miami Division had alerted the Newark
Division that Classic International Movers was believed to
have been used by one of the 19 alleged 9/11 hijackers
before the attack, and one of the "Dancing Israelis" had the
number for Classic International Movers written in a
notebook that was seized at the time of his arrest.
The
report further states that one of the Israelis of Classic
International Movers who was arrested "was visibly disturbed
by the Agents' questioning regarding his personal email
account."
Great plan! From your mouth to Tulsi's ears! She needs to make a dramatic exit from the
Dems, preferably on national TV, with the message "stop the senseless regime change wars!"
That alone would make her a contender.
Rob Roy , May 16, 2019 at 17:09
Skip, notice that Tulsi scares the hell out of the MSM. Therefore, she will be vilified,
lied about, left out of poll line-ups, shoved to the side in debates, accused of being
Putin's or Assad's puppet and God knows what else by the major newspapers, MSNBC, ABC, CBS,
NBC, PBS, CNN etc., and this will spread even overseas. You can't be against war, corruption
and US Monroe Doctrine as our foreign policy and expect to get fair coverage. Personally, I
will counter the propaganda wherever I can.
Skip Scott , May 17, 2019 at 08:22
I had a "back and forth" with dailykos about not listing Tulsi on their straw polls with
her being the only candidate against "regime change" wars. I shamed them a bit by calling
them a bunch of latte-sippers who reek of the arrogance of privilege while our MIC goes all
around the planet killing poor people. Maybe I am giving myself too much credit, but they did
in fact include her name on the last poll.
John on Kauai , May 17, 2019 at 13:53
I can't reply to skip about his argument with KOS so it's here.
There is nothing to be gained by arguing with KOS other than to be banned from their website
as I was.
They are supporting a National Guard pilot to run against her in the 2020 HI-2 election.
I would not be surprised to find that they were instrumental in producing tulsigabbard.guru,
a site that has been recently taken down but which repeated (and I think originated) many
slurs against Tulsi that have now been picked up by the media.
I encourage you and everyone to publicize tulsigabbard.org which goes into great detail on
her positions on almost anything. Also, the Jimmy Dore and Joe Rogan interviews with Tulsi
that are available on YouTube.
Tulsi is my congresswoman. She is wildly popular here.
The HSTA (hawaii state teachers association) hates her. When challenged they repeat the lies that are on the .guru site
that was taken down. When you point out that they are lies, they cover their ears and chant "nah, nah, nah".
b.grand , May 17, 2019 at 16:29
Skip. this is re. to your re. to Rob Roy.
WaPo confirmed today that Tulsi is one of the 11 guaranteed a debate spot. She's making
solid progress, including major bumps from the Joe Rogan interviews. If she has hopes of
actually getting the Dem nomination, of course there will be no dramatic exit until that's
been decided. OTOH, an outside call for her to run as an Indy would be authentic, but also a
threat to the Dems, give her fair play OR ELSE !
So, maybe the movement for an independent run has to start at the bottom? I'd like to
bounce this off people who know more about politics than I do. There's also the implied
question, how could an Independent function if elected. Would there be support in Congress?
Would new ["Coalition"] candidates arise?
People talk about the populist movement in Mexico as represented by MORENA, however the
coalition was actually Juntos Haremos Historia ("Together We'll Make History"), which
included right wing evangelicals as well as leftists. Pretty remarkable, but a similar
cooperation has arisen in Unity4J (for Julian Assange) where journalists with radically
different ideologies focus on a single unifying principle.
Any thoughts?
John Zwiebel , May 17, 2019 at 18:19
Ask Nick Branna. He says "yes"
b.grand , May 17, 2019 at 21:10
John Z. –
Are you already familiar with Branna and the People's Party? Are they backing specific
candidates? What do you think I should ask him? Would he and the PP join a coalition? Or do I
misunderstand your suggestion?
All of the endorsers are leftists. The platform is all about wages and healthcare, but war
isn't mentioned. Maybe it's there, but it's not on the front page.
Here's what they say: "Together we're building a coalition of working people, unions, and
progressive groups for a nationally viable people's party."
Also, "We are working to build a coalition of groups on the left in order to create a new
party for working people."
This just seems like typical 'Progressives' who are fed up with Dems. Some of the
endorsers – Sheehan, Hedges, Martin and others – are known to be anti-war, but
it's concerning that peace and FP aren't prominent. Besides, we need to build bigger bridges
than "groups on the left." There are many – surprisingly many – on the right who
oppose constant militarism. And what about the center? There's a vast untapped demographic,
whether apathetic or genuinely discouraged by evidence that it makes no difference who you
vote for, the Deep State wins. Why approach them from a left-only perspective? Would you like
to clarify?
Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard's campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination is being underwritten by
some of the nation's leading Russophiles.
Donors to her campaign in the first quarter of the year included: Stephen F. Cohen, a Russian studies
professor at New York University and prominent Kremlin sympathizer; Sharon Tennison, a vocal Putin supporter
who nonetheless found herself detained by Russian authorities in 2016; and an employee of the Kremlin-backed
broadcaster RT, who appears to have donated under the alias "Goofy Grapes."
Gabbard is one of her party's more Russia-friendly voices in an era of deep Democratic suspicion of the
country over its efforts to tip the 2016 election in favor of President Donald Trump. Her financial support
from prominent pro-Russian voices in the U.S. is a small portion of the total she's raised. But it still
illustrates the degree to which she deviates from her party's mainstream on such a contentious and
high-profile issue.
Data on Gabbard's financial supporters only covers the first three months of the year. In that time, her
campaign received just over $1,000 from Cohen, arguably the nation's
leading intellectual apologist
for Russian president Vladimir Putin.
Tennison donated to Gabbard no fewer than five times, eventually reaching the per-cycle individual
contribution limit in mid-March. Tennison and her group, the Center for Citizen Initiatives, have long
worked to improve U.S.-Russia relations, in part by organizing junkets to the nation both before and after
the fall of the Soviet Union. She's also been an outspoken Putin supporter, dubbing him a "straightforward,
reliable and exceptionally inventive man" in a column last year. Tennison wrote that column in spite of her
detention in Russia
two years earlier, when she was accused of attempting to covertly advance U.S.
foreign policy interests in the country.
Gabbard also got a $1,000 contribution from "Goofy Grapes," who listed his or her occupation as
"comedian" and employer as Redacted Tonight, a current events comedy show on Russian state-backed
broadcaster RT. That show's host, comedian Lee Camp, told The Daily Beast that the person who made the
donation "is no longer an active member of Redacted Tonight. And separately, it is company policy to not
donate to political campaigns."
Camp, for his part, routinely promotes the Russian government line on major world affairs, most
notably the invasion of Ukraine, political unrest in Venezuela, and the Syrian civil war.
To the extent that those donors toe the Kremlin line on issues such as Syria, they're more squarely in
line with Gabbard's own views than those of any other Democratic presidential candidate. As a member of
Congress, she has
personally met
with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and
cast doubt
on widely accepted reports that he deployed nerve gas weapons against his own people.
Gabbard has also been one of the few prominent Democrats in the country to downplay the findings of
Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russia's meddling in the 2016 election. The report found
no evidence of a conspiracy by the Trump campaign to support that meddling. But it did provide extensive
details of that malicious influence campaign, and of the Trump administration's efforts to impede the
special counsel's investigation.
But while her House colleagues ramp up their own investigations, in part based on those findings, Gabbard
has called for the country -- and her party -- to move on. "The conclusion that came from that Mueller report was
that no collusion took place," she told Fox News last month. "Now is the time for us to come together as a
country to put the issues and the interests and the concerns that the American people have at the forefront,
to take action to bring about real solutions for them."
That reflects the attitude of a small set of the American left wing, a non-interventionist faction that
eyed collusion allegations with suspicion. And that's very much the school of thought from which Cohen and
other Gabbard donors hail.
But the list of controversial donors to Gabbard, as detailed by her filings with the Federal Election
Committee, doesn't end there.
Susan Sarandon, the famous actress who earned the enduring wrath of Democrats for her support of Green
Party candidate Jill Stein in the 2016 election, gave Gabbard $500.
Ali Amin, the president of Primex International, wrote two checks of $2,800 to Gabbard's campaign. Amin,
who runs the international food distribution company, pleaded guilty in 2015
to charges that
he'd transferred more than $17 million between Iran and the United States as part of an
unlicensed business transaction.
After being asked about those donations, Cullen Tiernan, a spokesperson for Gabbard, said the campaign
would be returning them. Tiernan also noted that Amin had given to fellow 2020 contender Sen. Kamala Harris'
(D-CA) Senate campaign in 2018. Ian Sams, a spokesman for Harris, said the Senator refunded Amin's donation
in July 2018.
Gabbard's campaign did not return a request for comment. Her election effort raised nearly $4.5 million
in the first quarter of 2019, but that included hefty transfers from her House campaign committee. She has
used that money to mount a rather unorthodox bid for the Democratic nomination. Gabbard had only one paid
staffer during that same three month period, choosing instead to hire consultants for key posts on her
campaign -- a staffing decision that seemed likely done to avoid making hefty payments for things like health
care coverage and payroll taxes.
Gabbard's media strategy has also been counterintuitive for a national Democrat. She has made several
appearances on The Joe Rogan Experience podcast, which, while being one of the most popular platforms on
that medium, is a haven for Trump-supporting guests. Gabbard also is among the few Democrats who has a
captive audience on Fox News, owed largely to her willingness to criticize Barack Obama, as well as her
party's planks on both Russia and foreign policy in general. Tucker Carlson, a primetime host on that
network, has publicly defended her.
Though she has not courted their support, some prominent figures in the white nationalist community have
flocked in Gabbard's direction. David Duke, the former KKK leader, has heaped praise on her. And on several
occasions, Richard Spencer, the avowed white supremacist, has tweeted favorably about her, including once
again this week.
"The MIC is embedded in our society to such a degree that it cannot be dislodged, and
also that it could be said to be concerned, exclusively, with self-preservation and
expansion, like a giant, malignant virus."
The system has evolved to be very good at defending itself – while leaving the
country, "in reality so poorly defended".
Thanks again CJH for all the chuckles. It is time all 'real' people acknowledged that
The NYT is the " Propagandist of Record ".
Nothing more. And it's been like that for quite a while. While it would be logical to
identify the systemic bend, and blindness that it has, it is probably against the law, like
all discussions about [redacted]
A pattern that has played out consistently for over 2000 years, and can be seen for what
it is in reviewing the Pale (of Settlements) and the conditions for those not included in the
[redacted]. But really, it's beyond the pale, isn't it. People, slowly but surely, are
building immunity to the perception management programs, even with the wildly amplified
volume and frequency , we see the early adapters adapting, and opting for the red
pill .
Just a co-incidence that while the psychotic ' leaders ' of a small colonial '
government ' squatting on expropriated land, committing escalating genocidal programs
against the indigenous population, and actively conflating it with anti-[redacted], while the
co-affiliates resident in the empire's other nation-states keep quiet, there seems to be an
epidemic of anti-[redacted]?!
" It's a trick, and we use it a lot. " he, he, aren't we so clever!
This ruse is coming to an end soon
and all of those people working in the desert somewhere, writing stuff online, are going to
have to get real jobs.
The best sentence was the one expressing the Establishment's collective faux shock that
anything other than Russian spybots could be responsible for the serfs' rejection of the "two
centrist parties" that have sponged up lobbyist money for 3 decades, cashing in on the
globalist-Neoliberal economy, as rents rose and wages fell. The serfs have to love that. How
could they not embrace it? Only spybots beaming up doom-and-gloom messages from halfway
around the globe could persuade the thick-headed serfs that the part-time / churn / gig
economy is anything but nirvana.
"A sacred, national mission," is how Theresa May described the idea and for once, I totally
agree with this tragic, sad woman.
I would take it further: don't just build a holocaust shrine in Westminster, make our
parliament into a Holocaust monument. We don't really need a House of Commons; as things stand,
we better get direct orders from our true rulers in Tel Aviv.
"... United States is neither a Republic and even less Socialistic. US, in the technical literature, is called a Polyarchy (state capitalism). Polyarchy (state capitalism) idea is old, it goes back to James Madison and the foundation of the US Constitution. A Polyarchy is a system in which power resides in the hands of those who Madison called the wealth of the nation. The educated and responsible class of men. The rest of the population is to be fragmented and distracted. They are allowed to participate every couple of years by voting. That's it. The population have little choice among the educated and responsible men they are voting for. ..."
"... Polyarchy (state capitalism) it is a system where small group actually rules on behalf of capital, and majority's decision making is confined to choosing among selective number of elites within tightly controlled elective process. It is a form of consensual domination made possible by the structural domination of the global capital which allowed concentration of political powers. ..."
Uh, no, Tom, she won't be collecting a lot of voters, well, at least not near enough. Biden
has already been "chosen" like Hillary was over Bernie last time. You should know by now Tom,
we don't select our candidates, they're chosen for us for our own good. 2 hours ago
This is going to take a long time. You just can't turn this ship around overnight.
US Political System:
United States is neither a Republic and even less Socialistic. US, in the technical
literature, is called a Polyarchy (state capitalism). Polyarchy (state capitalism) idea is old,
it goes back to James Madison and the foundation of the US Constitution. A Polyarchy is a
system in which power resides in the hands of those who Madison called the wealth of the
nation. The educated and responsible class of men. The rest of the population is to be
fragmented and distracted. They are allowed to participate every couple of years by voting.
That's it. The population have little choice among the educated and responsible men they are
voting for.
This is not an accident. America was founded on the principle, explained by the Founding
Father that the primary goal of government is to protect the minority of the opulent against
the majority. That is how the US Constitution was designed sort of ensuring that there will be
a lot of struggle. US is not as the same as it were two centuries ago but that remains the
elites ideal.
Polyarchy (state capitalism) it is a system where small group actually rules on behalf of
capital, and majority's decision making is confined to choosing among selective number of
elites within tightly controlled elective process. It is a form of consensual domination made
possible by the structural domination of the global capital which allowed concentration of
political powers.
A republic is SUBORDINATE to democracy. Polyarchy can't be subordinated to any form of
Democracy. 2 hours ago Is the author, to use an English term, daft? Tulsi Gabbard won't get out
of the primaries, much less defeat Sanders or Biden. Farage achieved his goal (Brexit), then
found out (SHOCK!) that the will of the people doesn't mean anything anymore.
If Luongo had wanted to talk about the people's uprising, he should've mentioned the Tea
Party. 3 hours ago Gabbard appears to have some moral fibre and half a backbone, at least for a
politician, regardless of their views, Farage is a slimy charlatan opportunistic populist shill
3 hours ago (Edited) I like Tulsi Gabbard on MIC stuff (and as a surfer in my youth - still
dream about that almost endless pipeline at Jeffreys Bay in August), but...
On everything else?
She votes along party lines no matter what bollocks legislation the Democrats put in front
of Congress. And anyone standing full-square behind Saunders on his socialist/marxist
agenda?
Do me a favour. 1 hour ago (Edited) Farage left because he saw what UKIP was becoming...a
zionazi party.
Also Gabbard is a CFR member. 3 hours ago Gold, Goats and Guns? Certainly not guns under
President Gabbard! Here's her idea of "common sense gun control:"
I'm totally against warmongering, but I have to ask - what good is it to stop foreign
warmongering, only to turn around and incite civil war here by further raping the 2nd
Amendment? The CFR ties are disturbing as hell, too. And to compare Gabbard to Ron Paul? No,
just...no! 3 hours ago Always been a fan of Bernie, but I hope Gabbard becomes president. The
world would breathe a huge sigh of relief (before the assassination). 4 hours ago By this time
in his 1st term, Obama had started the US Wars in Syria and Libya and has restarted the Iraq
War.
Thus far Trump has ended the War in Syria, pledged not to get us dragged into Libya's civil
wars and started a peace process with North Korea.
Venezuela and Iran look scary. We don't know what Gabbard would actually do when faced with
the same events. Obama talked peace too.
It's sad to know that Tulsi bought Russiagate nonsense hook line and sinker. In a sense, she is also a compromise candidate as
her domestic platform is weak and inconsistent. She shines in foreign policy issues only.
But this compromise might still make sense. At least she is much better then Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... A consumer rights champion in name only, she did nothing to oversee predatory banking practices responsibly, nothing to urge prosecution of Wall Street crooks as Obama's interim Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (BCFP) head. ..."
"... "If you or I gave money, weapons or support to al-Qaeda or ISIS, we would be thrown in jail. Yet the US government has been violating this law for years, quietly supporting allies and partners of al-Qaeda, ISIL, Jabhat Fateh al Sham and other terrorist groups with money, weapons, and intelligence support, in their fight to overthrow the Syrian government." ..."
"... "The CIA has also been funneling weapons and money through Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and others who provide direct and indirect support to groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda." ..."
"... She may be the only congressional member boldly stating the above remarks publicly to her credit. ..."
"... She considers US wars not authorized by Congress impeachable high crimes. ..."
"... The Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CATSA) illegally imposed sanctions on Russia, Iran and North Korea. It passed the House and Senate near-unanimously – shameful legislation demanding opposition, not support. ..."
"... Hold the cheers on Gabbard and all other Republican and Dem presidential aspirants with a chance to be party standard bearers. The bottom line on them all is simple, no exceptions. If nominated and elected, either go along with the dirty system or be replaced by someone else who will – by impeachment or something more sinister. ..."
"... No matter who's elected president and to key congressional posts, dirty business as usual always wins. ..."
( stephenlendman.org – Home – Stephen Lendman ) Tulsi 2020 is the official
website of her candidacy for US president – so far with no information other than saying:
"When we stand united, motivated by our love for each other and for our country, there is no
challenge we cannot overcome. Will you stand with me?" On Friday, she said "I have decided to
run and will be making a formal announcement within the next week," adding:
"There are a lot of reasons for me to make this decision. There are a lot of challenges
that are facing the American people that I'm concerned about and that I want to help
solve."
Besides access to healthcare for all Americans, criminal justice reform, and
climate change, (t)here is one main issue that is central to the rest, and that is the issue of
war and peace," she stressed. More on this below.
"I look forward to being able to get into this and to talk about it in depth when we make
our announcement."
Gabbard's record is mixed at best, things to like, others of concern, including
her Dem affiliation. She formerly served as DNC vice chair, resigning in February 2016 to
support Russophobe undemocratic Dem Bernie Sanders over Hillary. Throughout his political
career, he's been progressive in name only, his rhetoric and voting record most often at odds
with each other. He'll likely run again in 2020. After Hillary used dirty tricks in primary
elections to steal the Dem nomination, Gabbard supported her candidacy – a figure I
called the most ruthlessly dangerous presidential aspirant in US history, backing it up with
cold, hard facts about her deplorable record as first lady, US senator and secretary of state.
Elizabeth Warren already announced her 2020 candidacy. She's con man Sanders clone with a
gender difference.
A consumer rights champion in name only, she did nothing to oversee
predatory banking practices responsibly, nothing to urge prosecution of Wall Street crooks as
Obama's interim Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (BCFP) head.
She failed to criticize
his wars on humanity at home and abroad, terror-bombing seven countries in eight years,
force-feeding neoliberal harshness on America's most disadvantaged, letting protracted main
street Depression conditions fester – supporting what demanded condemnation. She
one-sidedly supports Israel, failing to denounce its apartheid ruthlessness, its Gaza wars on
defenseless civilians.
Like Sanders and other undemocratic Dems, she considers naked aggression
humanitarian intervention and democracy building. Her agenda is all about perpetuating dirty
business as usual – based on going along with the imperial, neoliberal GOP and Dem
agenda, supported by the vast majority of officials in Washington.
Gore Vidal explained how the
dirty system works, saying no one gets to be presidential material unless they've "been bought
over 10 times." The same goes for top congressional posts. Gabbard is suspect for similar
reasons, voting along party lines too often since elected to represent Hawaii's 2nd
congressional district in November 2012.
After the Obama regime's coup in Ukraine, replacing
democratic governance with fascist tyranny, she supported supplying the illegitimate,
Nazi-infested, putschist regime with military assistance, shamefully saying America can't stand
"idly by while Russia continues to degrade the territorial integrity of Ukraine." No "Russian
aggression" existed then or now. Yet Gabbard disgracefully claimed otherwise, urging "more
painful economic sanctions" on Moscow, pretending the regime in Kiev is a "peaceful, sovereign
neighbor." In July 2017, she unjustifiably supported legislation imposing illegal unilateral US
sanctions on Russia, Iran and North Korea. She's for US phony war on terrorism, the scourge
Republicans and most Dems support while claiming otherwise.
She's against what she called
"counterproductive wars of regime change," including in Syria. She earlier said targeting Bashar al-Assad for regime change was "a thinly veiled attempt to use the rationale of
'humanitarianism' as a justification to escalate our illegal, counterproductive war," adding:
"Under US law, it is illegal for any American to provide money or assistance to al-Qaeda, ISIS
or other terrorist groups."
"If you or I gave money, weapons or support to al-Qaeda or ISIS, we
would be thrown in jail. Yet the US government has been violating this law for years, quietly
supporting allies and partners of al-Qaeda, ISIL, Jabhat Fateh al Sham and other terrorist
groups with money, weapons, and intelligence support, in their fight to overthrow the Syrian
government."
"The CIA has also been funneling weapons and money through Saudi Arabia, Turkey,
Qatar and others who provide direct and indirect support to groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda."
She
may be the only congressional member boldly stating the above remarks publicly to her credit.
In January 2017, she met with Assad in Damascus, toured parts of Syria, seeing firsthand how US
aggression harmed millions of civilians. She called all anti-government forces terrorists,
saying so-called moderate rebels don't exist, stressing "(t)hat is a fact," on return home
expressing "even greater resolve to end our illegal war to overthrow the Syrian government."
She considers US wars not authorized by Congress impeachable high crimes. She should have
explained that only Security Council members may authorize war by one or more countries on
other sovereign states – not US presidents, Congress or the courts. That's the law of the
land under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause (Article 6, Clause 2). All treaties,
conventions, and other international agreements to which the US is a signatory automatically
become binding US law.
To her credit in October 2017, Gabbard opposed reimposing sanctions on
Iran, at the time saying the Islamic Republic is fully complying with JCPOA provisions. At the
same time, she co-sponsored legislation opposing Iran's legitimate ballistic missile program,
imposing illegal sanctions on the country,
In 2015, she supported legislation endorsing extreme
vetting of Syrian and Iraqi war refugees, designed to deny them refugee status. The measure
failed to get enough Senate support for passage.
She opposed the National Defense Authorization
Act for FY 2019, 2018, and earlier, opposed reforming US border security and immigration,
opposed a proposed constitutional balanced budget amendment, opposed the GOP great tax cut
heist, supported CATSA.
The Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CATSA)
illegally imposed sanctions on Russia, Iran and North Korea. It passed the House and Senate
near-unanimously – shameful legislation demanding opposition, not support.
Hold the
cheers on Gabbard and all other Republican and Dem presidential aspirants with a chance to be
party standard bearers. The bottom line on them all is simple, no exceptions. If nominated and
elected, either go along with the dirty system or be replaced by someone else who will –
by impeachment or something more sinister.
Washington's deeply corrupted system is too
debauched to fix. The only solution is popular revolution, voting a waste of time.
No matter
who's elected president and to key congressional posts, dirty business as usual always wins.
Stephen
Lendman was born in 1934 in Boston, MA. In 1956, he received a BA from Harvard University.
Two years of US Army service followed, then an MBA from the Wharton School at the University
of Pennsylvania in 1960. After working seven years as a marketing research analyst, he joined
the Lendman Group family business in 1967. He remained there until retiring at year end 1999.
Writing on major world and national issues began in summer 2005. In early 2007, radio hosting
followed.
Lendman now hosts the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network
three times weekly. Distinguished guests are featured. Listen live or archived. Major world
and national issues are discussed. Lendman is a 2008 Project Censored winner and 2011 Mexican
Journalists Club international journalism award recipient.
"... United States is neither a Republic and even less Socialistic. US, in the technical literature, is called a Polyarchy (state capitalism). Polyarchy (state capitalism) idea is old, it goes back to James Madison and the foundation of the US Constitution. A Polyarchy is a system in which power resides in the hands of those who Madison called the wealth of the nation. The educated and responsible class of men. The rest of the population is to be fragmented and distracted. They are allowed to participate every couple of years by voting. That's it. The population have little choice among the educated and responsible men they are voting for. ..."
"... Polyarchy (state capitalism) it is a system where small group actually rules on behalf of capital, and majority's decision making is confined to choosing among selective number of elites within tightly controlled elective process. It is a form of consensual domination made possible by the structural domination of the global capital which allowed concentration of political powers. ..."
Uh, no, Tom, she won't be collecting a lot of voters, well, at least not near enough. Biden
has already been "chosen" like Hillary was over Bernie last time. You should know by now Tom,
we don't select our candidates, they're chosen for us for our own good. 2 hours ago
This is going to take a long time. You just can't turn this ship around overnight.
US Political System:
United States is neither a Republic and even less Socialistic. US, in the technical
literature, is called a Polyarchy (state capitalism). Polyarchy (state capitalism) idea is old,
it goes back to James Madison and the foundation of the US Constitution. A Polyarchy is a
system in which power resides in the hands of those who Madison called the wealth of the
nation. The educated and responsible class of men. The rest of the population is to be
fragmented and distracted. They are allowed to participate every couple of years by voting.
That's it. The population have little choice among the educated and responsible men they are
voting for.
This is not an accident. America was founded on the principle, explained by the Founding
Father that the primary goal of government is to protect the minority of the opulent against
the majority. That is how the US Constitution was designed sort of ensuring that there will be
a lot of struggle. US is not as the same as it were two centuries ago but that remains the
elites ideal.
Polyarchy (state capitalism) it is a system where small group actually rules on behalf of
capital, and majority's decision making is confined to choosing among selective number of
elites within tightly controlled elective process. It is a form of consensual domination made
possible by the structural domination of the global capital which allowed concentration of
political powers.
A republic is SUBORDINATE to democracy. Polyarchy can't be subordinated to any form of
Democracy. 2 hours ago Is the author, to use an English term, daft? Tulsi Gabbard won't get out
of the primaries, much less defeat Sanders or Biden. Farage achieved his goal (Brexit), then
found out (SHOCK!) that the will of the people doesn't mean anything anymore.
If Luongo had wanted to talk about the people's uprising, he should've mentioned the Tea
Party. 3 hours ago Gabbard appears to have some moral fibre and half a backbone, at least for a
politician, regardless of their views, Farage is a slimy charlatan opportunistic populist shill
3 hours ago (Edited) I like Tulsi Gabbard on MIC stuff (and as a surfer in my youth - still
dream about that almost endless pipeline at Jeffreys Bay in August), but...
On everything else?
She votes along party lines no matter what bollocks legislation the Democrats put in front
of Congress. And anyone standing full-square behind Saunders on his socialist/marxist
agenda?
Do me a favour. 1 hour ago (Edited) Farage left because he saw what UKIP was becoming...a
zionazi party.
Also Gabbard is a CFR member. 3 hours ago Gold, Goats and Guns? Certainly not guns under
President Gabbard! Here's her idea of "common sense gun control:"
I'm totally against warmongering, but I have to ask - what good is it to stop foreign
warmongering, only to turn around and incite civil war here by further raping the 2nd
Amendment? The CFR ties are disturbing as hell, too. And to compare Gabbard to Ron Paul? No,
just...no! 3 hours ago Always been a fan of Bernie, but I hope Gabbard becomes president. The
world would breathe a huge sigh of relief (before the assassination). 4 hours ago By this time
in his 1st term, Obama had started the US Wars in Syria and Libya and has restarted the Iraq
War.
Thus far Trump has ended the War in Syria, pledged not to get us dragged into Libya's civil
wars and started a peace process with North Korea.
Venezuela and Iran look scary. We don't know what Gabbard would actually do when faced with
the same events. Obama talked peace too.
Neoliberal "International for financial oligarchy" start showing cracks. Davos crowd no
longer can control ordinary people. Both Trump and Brexit are just symptoms of the large problem
-- the crisis of neoliberalism.
Notable quotes:
"... Tulsi Gabbard will collect a lot of voters sick to death of our foreign policy destroying the lives of millions, draining our spirit and emptying our pockets. ..."
"... As long as the political class maintains 1) the illusion of choice as to who are leaders are and 2) keep things running smoothly a small minority of us will complain, simmer and stew but we won't be able to convince anyone else it's worth upsetting the status quo. ..."
"... We'll stay below critical mass, until we don't. ..."
"... The original Brexit vote was that opportunity for the power elite to get it through their thick skulls that Britons didn't want to go where the EU was headed. ..."
"... Theresa May, Dominic Grieve and the rest of those in the Westminster bubble refused to accept that they no longer had control over the situation. Theresa May like an autistic monkey keeps putting forth vote after vote to get her Withdrawal Treaty past a parliament that has no business still presiding over the country ..."
"... French Poodle Emmanuel Macron cannot get control of the Yellow Vest Protests in France. And the EU itself cannot get control over Matteo Salvini in Italy. ..."
"... Trump is compromised because of his vanity and his weakness. There is not much hope going into 2020 unless Tulsi Gabbard catches fire soon and begins taking out contenders one by one. ..."
"... More likely she is, like Ron Paul, setting the table for 2024 and a post-Trump world. I fear however it will be far too late for the U.S. by then. Both she and Farage, along with Salvini and many others across Europe, represent the push towards authenticity that will change the political landscape across the west for decades to come. ..."
"... Polyarchy (state capitalism) it is a system where small group actually rules on behalf of capital, and majority’s decision making is confined to choosing among selective number of elites within tightly controlled elective process. It is a form of consensual domination made possible by the structural domination of the global capital which allowed concentration of political powers. ..."
There is a realignment coming in electoral politics. It began with Ron Paul in 2008 and has
been building for more than a decade. We know this story well.
That realignment will be about restoring not just national sovereignty but also personal
autonomy in a world the rulers of which are desperate to clamp down their control over.
The thing is I don't think we've quite come to terms with the rapidity with which change
comes. It builds slowly, simmering below the surface and then one day just explodes into a
maelstrom of chaos.
This is where things stand in Britain with the betrayal of Brexit. It is also where things
stand with Trump's daily betrayal of his pledge to end the needless wars and regime change
operations.
Tulsi Gabbard will collect a lot of voters sick to death of our foreign policy
destroying the lives of millions, draining our spirit and emptying our pockets.
You can see it happening, slowly and then all at once.
The signs of the chaos as we approach next week's European Parliamentary elections were
there if we were willing to look closely. More often than not, our being distracted or, worse,
our normalcy bias keeps us ignorant of what's happening.
Raising goats I've unfortunately witnessed this first hand and in a devastating way. Their
entire digestive tracts are simply big fermentation vessels, chocked full of different bacteria
working on what they've eaten.
When they're healthy, it's all good. The good bacteria digests the food, they absorb it and
they are vibrant, alert and annoying.
But, if one of those other bacteria begin to get out of control, they can go from healthy to
frothing at the mouth and dying overnight. The goat is the Taoist symbol for 'strong on the
outside, fragile on the inside.' Our political system is definitely a goat at this point.
Which brings me back to politics.
As long as the political class maintains 1) the illusion of choice as to who are leaders
are and 2) keep things running smoothly a small minority of us will complain, simmer and stew
but we won't be able to convince anyone else it's worth upsetting the status quo.
We'll stay below critical mass, until we don't. And the important point here is
that, like my goats, they can can act and vote perfectly normally one day and then in open
revolt the next and you have a very small window of time to make the right decisions to save
the situation.
The original Brexit vote was that opportunity for the power elite to get it through
their thick skulls that Britons didn't want to go where the EU was headed.
Theresa May, Dominic Grieve and the rest of those in the Westminster bubble refused to
accept that they no longer had control over the situation. Theresa May like an autistic monkey
keeps putting forth vote after vote to get her Withdrawal Treaty past a parliament that has no
business still presiding over the country .
She hopes by making her treaty legal it will stop Farage's revolution. I have news for her
and the technocrats in Brussels. If Farage wins the next General Election he will nullify her
treaty under
Article 62 of the Vienna Conventions on the Laws of Treaties.
French Poodle Emmanuel Macron cannot get control of the Yellow Vest Protests in France.
And the EU itself cannot get control over Matteo Salvini in Italy.
And they will only get it through their heads after Nigel Farage and the Brexit party unite
the left and the right to throw them all out in the EP elections but also the General one as
well.
The same thing happened in 2016 here in the U.S., both on the left and the right.
Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump were the vessels for our deep dissatisfaction with the D.C.
corruption. The realignment was staring us in the face in 2016.
The Davos Crowd haven't gotten the message. And they won't listen until we force them
to.
Trump is compromised because of his vanity and his weakness. There is not much hope
going into 2020 unless Tulsi Gabbard catches fire soon and begins taking out contenders one by
one.
More likely she is, like Ron Paul, setting the table for 2024 and a post-Trump world. I
fear however it will be far too late for the U.S. by then. Both she and Farage, along with
Salvini and many others across Europe, represent the push towards authenticity that will change
the political landscape across the west for decades to come.
And that is what the great realignment I see happening is. It isn't about party or even
principles. It is about coming together to fix the broken political system first and then
working on solutions to specific problems later.
Here's hoping Trump doesn't destroy the world by mistake first.
Trump has been limited by the Deep State bogus Russia collusion investigations aided by
MSM propaganda. If this author thinks Bernie or Tulsi Gabbard will not face special
prosecutors if they try and Rock the boat then he is naive.
Bernie rolled over and supported Hillary after it was proven she rigged the nomination
process, so to believe he could take on the swamp to any degree is laughable.
And Tulsi doesn't have the deep pockets like Trump to hire the lawyers needed to wage war
against The Swamp.
Voting for a woman because "it's time" or because she's a woman etc., has become a thing.
Those reasons seem stupid but that's the "logic." I see a lot of dem women jumping on the
bandwagon, trying to get lucky.
Tulsi to me is like Ron Paul was in 08. A sane voice pointing out the stupidity of US
foreign policy.
She aint no Ron Paul for sure but is at least the only one this cycle who supports as her
main position getting the US out of foreign entanglements.
She is never going to win just like rp coud never win. But Im sending her a few bucks
every month just to keep the message going.
xxx, 1 hour ago
"Tulsi Gabbard will collect a lot of voters sick to death of our foreign policy destroying the lives of millions, draining our
spirit and emptying our pockets."
Uh, no, Tom, she won't be collecting a lot of voters, well, at least not near enough. Biden
has already been "chosen" like Hillary was over Bernie last time. You should know by now Tom, we don't select our candidates, they're
chosen for us for our own good.
yyy,
2 hours ago
This is going to take a long time. You just can't turn this ship around overnight.
US Political System:
United States is neither a Republic and even less Socialistic. US, in the technical literature, is called a Polyarchy (state capitalism).
Polyarchy (state capitalism) idea is old, it goes back to James Madison and the foundation of the US Constitution. A Polyarchy is
a system in which power resides in the hands of those who Madison called the wealth of the nation. The educated and responsible class
of men. The rest of the population is to be fragmented and distracted. They are allowed to participate every couple of years by voting.
That’s it. The population have little choice among the educated and responsible men they are voting for.
This is not an accident. America was founded on the principle, explained by the Founding Father that the primary goal of government
is to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. That is how the US Constitution was designed sort of ensuring that
there will be a lot of struggle. US is not as the same as it were two centuries ago but that remains the elites ideal.
Polyarchy (state capitalism) it is a system where small group actually rules on behalf of capital, and majority’s decision making
is confined to choosing among selective number of elites within tightly controlled elective process. It is a form of consensual domination
made possible by the structural domination of the global capital which allowed concentration of political powers.
A republic is SUBORDINATE to democracy. Polyarchy can’t be subordinated to any form of Democracy.
zzz,
2 hours ago
Is the author, to use an English term, daft? Tulsi Gabbard won't get out of the primaries, much less defeat Sanders or Biden. Farage
achieved his goal (Brexit), then found out (SHOCK!) that the will of the people doesn't mean anything anymore.
If Luongo had wanted
to talk about the people's uprising, he should've mentioned the Tea Party.
bbb,
3 hours ago
Gabbard appears to have some moral fibre and half a backbone, at least for a politician, regardless of their views, Farage is a slimy
charlatan opportunistic populist shill
ccc,
3 hours ago (Edited)
I like Tulsi Gabbard on MIC stuff (and as a surfer in my youth - still dream about that almost endless pipeline at Jeffreys Bay in
August), but...
On everything else?
She votes along party lines no matter what bollocks legislation the Democrats put in front of Congress. And anyone standing full-square
behind Saunders on his socialist/marxist agenda?
Do me a favour.
ddd,
1 hour ago (Edited)
Farage left because he saw what UKIP was becoming...a zionazi party.
Also Gabbard is a CFR member.
eee,
3 hours ago
Gold, Goats and Guns? Certainly not guns under President Gabbard! Here's her idea of "common sense gun control:"
I'm totally against warmongering, but I have to ask - what good is it to stop foreign warmongering, only to turn around and incite
civil war here by further raping the 2nd Amendment? The CFR ties are disturbing as hell, too. And to compare Gabbard to Ron Paul?
No, just...no!
fff,
3 hours ago
Always been a fan of Bernie, but I hope Gabbard becomes president. The world would breathe a huge sigh of relief (before
the assassination).
ggg, 4 hours ago
By this time in his 1st term, Obama had started the US Wars in Syria and Libya and has restarted the Iraq War.
Thus far Trump has
ended the War in Syria, pledged not to get us dragged into Libya’s civil wars and started a peace process with North Korea.
Venezuela and Iran look scary. We don’t know what Gabbard would actually do when faced with the same events. Obama talked peace
too.
So in the past she was Obama style warmonger. Interesting... She is not stupid enough not to understand that this was a US
sponsored color revolution.
Does this mean that she is a fake like Obama was?
Notable quotes:
"... "We cannot stand by while Russia unilaterally degrades Ukraine's territorial integrity. We must offer direct military assistance -- defensive weapons, military supplies and training -- to ensure Ukraine has adequate resources to respond to Russia's aggressions and defend themselves. We cannot view Ukraine as an isolated incident. If we do not take seriously the threat of thinly veiled Russian aggression, and commit to aiding the people of Ukraine immediately, we will find ourselves in a more dangerous, expensive and disastrous situation in the future." ..."
Press Release Calls for U.S. to offer weapons, military training
assistance
Washington, DC – Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02) today released the following
statement after the President's announcement of expanded sanctions against Russian
officials:
"Russia has violated the sovereignty and independence of the Ukrainian people, in direct
contravention of its own treaty obligations and international law," said Congresswoman Tulsi
Gabbard, an Army combat veteran and member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. "I support
the sanctions announced today, and I strongly urge the President to go further and consider a
broader range of consequences. If Russia is allowed to continue its aggressive push for control
in Ukraine, there will be long-term, serious, and costly security risks for the United States
and Europe. Russia must face serious consequences for their actions; the U.S. must consider
options that truly isolate Russia economically and diplomatically -- not just sanction a
handful of oligarchs -- and send a message of unity and strength from the international
community.
"We cannot stand by while Russia unilaterally degrades Ukraine's territorial integrity. We
must offer direct military assistance -- defensive weapons, military supplies and training --
to ensure Ukraine has adequate resources to respond to Russia's aggressions and defend
themselves. We cannot view Ukraine as an isolated incident. If we do not take seriously the
threat of thinly veiled Russian aggression, and commit to aiding the people of Ukraine
immediately, we will find ourselves in a more dangerous, expensive and disastrous situation in
the future."
In a House Foreign Affairs Committee mark-up of H.Res. 499 recently, the congresswoman
gained unanimous approval on including amendments on anti-corruption, and protection of civil
and political rights throughout Ukraine. She also supported the House passage of H.R. 4152,
which authorized loan guarantees for Ukraine.
The best sentence was the one expressing the Establishment's collective faux shock that
anything other than Russian spybots could be responsible for the serfs' rejection of the "two
centrist parties" that have sponged up lobbyist money for 3 decades, cashing in on the
globalist-Neoliberal economy, as rents rose and wages fell. The serfs have to love that. How
could they not embrace it? Only spybots beaming up doom-and-gloom messages from halfway
around the globe could persuade the thick-headed serfs that the part-time / churn / gig
economy is anything but nirvana.
"A sacred, national mission," is how Theresa May described the idea and for once, I totally
agree with this tragic, sad woman.
I would take it further: don't just build a holocaust shrine in Westminster, make our
parliament into a Holocaust monument. We don't really need a House of Commons; as things stand,
we better get direct orders from our true rulers in Tel Aviv.
As to their "cleverness", there was a time when UK politicians were known for their
slippery qualities and subtlety, but those days are long gone. What we have now is
barefaced lies, relying purely on repetition and monolithic corporate media ownership. They
are not winning arguments because they are clever, I have never seen such transparently
obvious bullshit before.
'Clever is as clever does' – once said with a snort – is a compliment too far
for the deeply corrupted, vulgar, mediocre nobodies who comprise the self-styled 'elites'. In
this group 'cleverness' simply means the lies they are paid to say repeated loudly and often.
And because they have the reins on power, the non-compliant are punished by thugs.
CBS News (2/4/19) briefly interviewed Honolulu Civil Beats reporter Nick Grube regarding
Gabbard's campaign announcement. The anchors had clearly never encountered the term
anti-interventionism before, struggling to even pronounce the word, then laughing and
saying it "doesn't roll off the tongue."
"... I have high respect for Dr Paul especially on his foreign policies and I'm so glad that he has recognized Tulsi stances on ending these regime change wars and over stepping our bounds constitutional overseas. Please keep spreading the word on Tulsi our Republic depends on it. ..."
"... It doesn't surprise me in the least that Ron Paul feels well about Tulsi Gabbard - mostly in regards to her foreign policy. Tulsi can expect considerable support from Libertarians. ..."
I have high respect for Dr Paul especially on his foreign policies and I'm so glad that he
has recognized Tulsi stances on ending these regime change wars and over stepping our bounds
constitutional overseas. Please keep spreading the word on Tulsi our Republic depends on
it.
It doesn't surprise me in the least that Ron Paul feels well about Tulsi Gabbard - mostly
in regards to her foreign policy. Tulsi can expect considerable support from
Libertarians.
Days before Trump's escalation of his illegal war in Syria, Congresswoman & war veteran
Tulsi Gabbard confronts Defense Secretary James Mattis on the unconstitutionality of such
missile strikes!
This Woman, whent against Hillary-establishement, Dems, She is smart & strong, I want
her running for Presidency, even some Republicans, would support Her, Right?? :-)
A brilliant statement by Tulsi Gabbard. Beto O'Rourke appears bored, unconcerned and
vaguely gormless when he rocks back and forth, bites his nails and extends his lower
lip.
"... Tulsi continues to stack up very reputable endorsements. This time from a three time Presidential Candidate. ..."
"... Tulsi's momentum is going for critical mass, Its time for a true maverick! #Rogue2020 ..."
"... Ron Paul's endorsement is surprising and interesting, in that it seems sincere. Most repubs give bad-faith assessments of the dem candidates. ..."
"... It really should be seen as a general election endorsement if it came down to a run between Tulsi and Trump, why the hell there was not a follow up question asking Dr Paul who he would endorse Tulsi and Trump I am sure Paul would endorse Tulsi. ..."
I am as unlikely to vote republican as anybody but I admired Ron Paul's honesty when he
ran for the presidency. Admired enough that I actually voted for him although his economic
policies and gold standard kept me asking more questions than getting answers. I am stoked
that my favorite republican voice gives his support to Tulsi. It is yet another confirmation
of my choice for 2020.
It really should be seen as a general election endorsement if it came down to a run
between Tulsi and Trump, why the hell there was not a follow up question asking Dr Paul who
he would endorse Tulsi and Trump I am sure Paul would endorse Tulsi. At any rate this is a
big deal a lot of people respect Dr Paul and this endorsement will help Tulsi.
I hope that might be interesting to Tulsi supporters.
In this interesting speech "Fascism in the Age of Trump" Chris Hedges predicts 20 years to the US empire. So somewhere
around 2040 or when the age of "cheap oil" approximately ends and/or come under considerable stress.
He does not understands neoliberal social system well and does not use the term "neoliberarism" in his speak (which is
detrimental to its value) , but he manages to provide a set of interesting arguments, although the speech is full of exaggerations
and inconsistencies.
It also can explains the current Trump stance toward China as "Hail Mary" attempt top preserve the global hegemony by
suppressing China even at considerable cost for the USA population.
I really feel for Chris Hedges on a personal level. Unlike say Blyth, or Chomsky, whom
seem to revel in being intellectual bad boys, Hedges seems to be at heart a very conservative
man in the true sense of the word, driven to the extremes by the rabid greed and sociopathic
nature of mainstream politics. The corruption of it seems to visibly torture him. It takes a
special kind of courage to take an unpopular stand like he does.
President Eisenhower stated that the largest threat to our Democracy was/is the Military
Industrial Complex. He quickly terminated the Korean War that he inherited then kept us out
of foreign conflict. He believed in a strong Middle Class and promoted our economy with a
massive highway system. He kept the highest progressive tax rate at 90% discouraging CEO's
from massively overpaying themselves.
Good domestic policy suggestions and debate skills. Horrible understanding of foreign policy
(he completely subscribes to the Russiagate hoax)
His capitulation to Hillary in 2016 still linger behind his back despite all bravado. he
betrayed his followers, many of who put money of this while being far from rich. he betrayed them
all. As such he does not deserve to run.
Warren and Tulsi are definitely better options then Sanders for 2020.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., became a household name in 2016 when he ran a progressive
campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination -- and came close to securing it. He's back
in the 2020 race, but this time up against more than 20 other candidates. Sanders sits down
with Judy Woodruff to discuss trade with China, health care, student debt, Russian election
interference and more.
CBS News (2/4/19) briefly interviewed Honolulu Civil Beats reporter Nick Grube regarding
Gabbard's campaign announcement. The anchors had clearly never encountered the term
anti-interventionism before, struggling to even pronounce the word, then laughing and
saying it "doesn't roll off the tongue."
On a serious note, only a rabid Israel-firster and loyalist to Clintons could ignore the
excellent report of the patriotic Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS); the
report explains why Clinton/DNC emails were never hacked but "leaked."
True to the spirit of the DNC activists, the "progressives" and "liberals" are indifferent to
the death of the young DNC operative Seth Rich.
The centerpiece accusation of Kremlin "interference" in the 2016 presidential election
was the charge that Russia hacked Democratic National Committee emails and gave them to
WikiLeaks to embarrass Secretary Hillary Clinton and help Mr. Trump win.
In 2017, Senate Intelligence Committee Chair asked Comey whether he ever had "access to
the actual hardware that was hacked." Comey answered, "In the case of the DNC we did not
have access to the devices themselves. We got relevant forensic information from a private
party "
we [VIPS] know for sure that the person had to have direct access to the DNC
computers or servers in order to copy the emails. The apparent lack of evidence from the
most likely source, NSA, regarding a hack may help explain the FBI's curious preference for
forensic data from CrowdStrike.
Why the allegedly intelligent A. Schiff has never questioned the conclusions of a private
CrowdStrike led by a Russophobic Jewish emigre from Moscow? For an honest person with a
degree in law, Schiff should have been demanding an FBI investigation of the server in
question. Instead, Adam has been at the forefront of the putsch against POTUS . So
much for the "J.D. from Harvard Law School."
By the way, your attempts to impress the readers with your admiration for Harvard are
funny.
It seems as if British Jewish pressure groups have achieved their goal: anti-Semitism is now
a mass movement in the UK. The rabid Zionist
Algemeiner reports that "Antisemitism and virulent Israel-hatred were rife on Saturday at a
pro-Palestinian demonstration in London."
The Jewish press seems to be upset by a pro-Palestinian march that assembled at the offices
of the BBC, not too far from a synagogue. I guess that the rationale is simple: once London is
dotted with synagogues, human rights enthusiasts will be pushed out of the city. They will have
to gather somewhere out of the green belt.
Jewish outlets complain that participants brandished 'antisemitic badges and placards,' such
as "Israel provokes anti-Semitism." I am puzzled. Is this really an anti-Semitic statement? If
anything, it is an attempt to identify the cause of anti-Semitism.
Jewish outlets are also upset by images of the Star of David crossed with a swastika. To
start with, those who equate Israel with Nazi Germany actually contemplate the memory of the
Holocaust and are by no means 'deniers.' I guess that the time is ripe for Zionists and
supporters of Israel to accept that in consideration of the ongoing Israeli racist crime in
Palestine, the Star of David has become a symbol of evil in the eyes of many.
The Jewish press is upset by the slogan "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free"
that calls for Israel's destruction. I would actually expect Jews who seem to be upset by the
Hitlerian concept of an 'Aryans-only state' to accept that the concept of a 'Jews-only state'
is equally disturbing.' They should support Israel becoming 'a state of its citizens' and
accept that sooner or later this state will evolve into Palestine, from the river to the
sea.
The Jewish press is totally irritated by Jewish Voice for Labour's Secretary Glyn Secker,
who claimed that pro-Israel Labour officials were a "fifth column" in the party and asked,
"What on earth are Jews doing in the gutter with these rats?" I would remind my readers that
Jewish Voice for Labour (JVL) is itself a Jewish racist exclusive
political body that wouldn't accept non-Jews into its ranks. I have wondered more than once how
it is possible that the anti-racist Jeremy Corbyn is willing to be associated with such a body.
However, in his statement (if quoted correctly by the Jewish press), secretary Glyn Secker
actually expresses the most disturbing tribal supremacist view. He looks down at a bunch of
labour MPs whom he labels 'rats' and call for his Jewish brethren to disassociate from these
low creatures. Glyn, in practice, sustains the Jew/Goy binary divide. He should actually
receive the Kosher weekly award rather than be abused by the Zionist league.
But we can be reassured. Campaign Against Antisemitism has already confirmed that they are
"reviewing the evidence that we gathered today. Where crimes have been committed, we will work
with the authorities to ensure that there are arrests and prosecutions."
ORDER IT NOW
The facts on the ground are undeniable. The more Jewish bodies campaign against
anti-Semitism the more opposition to Jewish politics is detected. The relentless Zionist
campaign against Corbyn didn't hurt him, as he is still leading in most
national election polls . Branding Nigel Farage as an
anti-Semite didn't touch the man whose party is
polling higher than the Tories and Labour combined in the coming European Parliament
election. One way to look at it is to argue that Brits are not moved by the Jewish
anti-Semitism hysteria. Another way to look at it is to conclude that Brits are actually
grossly disturbed by the anti-Semitism frenzy. Being hated by the Zionist lobby has become a
badge of honour, an entry ticket to Britain's political premiership.
The facts on the ground are undeniable. The more Jewish bodies campaign against
anti-Semitism the more opposition to Jewish politics is detected. The relentless Zionist
campaign against Corbyn didn't hurt him, as he is still leading in most national election
polls.
In contrast to the 1960's Israel is starting to look unfashionable. Young people feel
embarrassed to be associated with Jewish activism and Zionism.
Being unfashionable is a very serious state of affairs. Many failing businesses will
testify to this. You do all the tried and tested stuff, and it just doesn't work.
@Grace
Poole Why is a Jewish only state disturbing? It is surrounded by 32 Apartheid muslim only
countries.
Could I move to Iran?
If Israel becomes a theocracy not a democracy, who cares. Look at the neighborhood.
If not Jewish only then what a Jihad state like the rest of the Arab world?
Give Israel the razor blade.
All you dog noses who claim the Jews made a banquet from the holocaust. Just look at the meal
the Arabs made from those original 750,000 refugees created by the State of Israel founding
war.
Cry me a river. They have an entire UN agency devoted to their every need, and status to 3rd
and 4th generation children of the originals not living in the country, who have citizenship
else where, How does that add up to the 5 million diaspora pals.
It is all such a game to see Israel go down mostly thru jealously that the Jews came from the
ashes of near by extension to create the best country over there.
I would pay each one of the Pals 2 million to move to Jordan from the West Bank, and Gaza
to the Sinai with joint ownership with Egypt. But that is a good idea and would solve the
problem. No one wants to solve the problem they just want to see the Jews go down. Gilad
licks his lips over it.
@Fran
Taubman "There's always kind of a calming feeling I tell folks when I think of the
Holocaust, and the tragedy of the Holocaust, and the fact that it was my ancestors --
Palestinians -- who lost their land and some lost their lives, their livelihood, their human
dignity, their existence in many ways, have been wiped out, and some people's passports,"
said Tlaib.
"And just all of it was in the name of trying to create a safe haven for Jews, post-the
Holocaust, post-the tragedy and the horrific persecution of Jews across the world at that
time. And I love the fact that it was my ancestors that provided that, right, in many ways.
But they did it in a way that took their human dignity away and it was forced on them."
Because Jews hold the establishment of Israel to be a prerequisite for the destruction of
all other nations in a final world war, which the Jews seem intent on instigating with Islam.
Zohar Shemot 32a.
After which Israel is slated to be the only remaining national power (everyone else being
destroyed).
Do not forget your books. We don't.
Why is a non-Jewish European-only State disturbing to you and other Jews?
You have your own state but refuse the same to others. You are not Europeans (Brits,
Germans, etc) as these were originally ethnic-racial categories before you interfered. Yet
you claim them your yourselves as well, and in doing so deny everyone else an exclusive
identity.
Jews only allow themselves an exclusive identity, because your "god" (the writing of Jews)
only gave Judea a nation. Correct?
Asking moronic questions at this point, which everyone knows the answer to, is insulting.
You people are not innocent, are not dumb, and you know precisely why people are hostile to
your mass genocidal, supremacist tribe.
I would pay each one of the Pals 2 million to move to Jordan from the West Bank, and
Gaza to the Sinai with joint ownership with Egypt. But that is a good idea and would solve
the problem.
At a cost of $9 trillion. Who is going to pay?
Realistically, offer $100,000 per person, or $450 billion total. Double that to include
the diaspora Pals, and close the refugee camps. If the resettlement took place over a decade,
it would cost $90 billion a year, which could come from the US Defense budget. The latter
could be wound down over the same decade, as it would no longer be needed to fight wars on
behalf of Israel. Israel would get land and peace; Palestinians would be well compensated;
and the USA would be relieved of its duty as a Middle-Eastern warmonger. Everybody wins.
What's not to like?
However, to gain approval for the plan in the USA, it would be necessary to show that the
expenditure is both worthwhile and an improvement over the status quo . This would
mean explaining what the status quo actually is; and how and why it has come about.
Unfortunately, this information is so inflammatory that it can never be publicly
discussed.
I don't think this is true. A few years back, Daniel Finkelstein of the (London) Times
characterised British anti-semitism as "background noise".
The pro-Palestinian demonstrations are the "exception that proves the rule". Their support
has two cores: radical Muslims, and political activists on the Left. Neither is a mass
movement.
The British Left tends to support people who have the most "victim points". Rightly or
wrongly, they believe that Palestinians have a lot of victim points and, as the Holocaust
moves from living memory into history, that Israelis and diaspora Jews have very few.
Furthermore, the Left particularly seeks ogres who are white and Western. Paradoxically,
they dislike Israel because Israelis are similar to Britons, not because they are different.
In contrast, massacres by Saddam Hussein, ISIS, or Rwandans never attracted much opprobrium
from the Left. The idea of holding people to a lower moral standard, the less they look or
sound like oneself, is obviously racist; but it is followed by people who genuinely believe
that they are the least racist people on earth.
@nicholas
nicola I hope the collective Ummah looks at:
Somalia
All of Africa
China
Myamar
All of Arabia
Slave labor in Libya
Women's rights in the Islamic world
Genital mutilation
beheadings
The entire muslim population in Israel has quadrupled since 1948. I guess the slaughtering
of Muslims is not going so well.
You are deranged and delusional.
Jews demand their own exclusive state (subsidized by goyim), the privilege to cleanse
their sacred (and expanding) Jews-Only territory of native gentiles, and the right to travel
(and live) among the goyim as they see fit.
And don't you dare complain about these privileges. That's anti-Semitism!
And then there's the matter of speech.
Jews not only enjoy top tier access to the MSM (since they've conspired to buy up most of
it for the undisclosed purpose of advancing pan-Zionist hegemony) but they actively and
openly form teams, lobbies and NGOs to limit the right and opportunity of others to speak
freely and assemble lawfully for the purpose of expressing their own political
grievances.
Resistance and resentment to the entrenched double-standards that favor Jews, and
state-sponsored lawlessness that empowers Israel, is routinely decried as anti-Jewish
'bigotry'. It is also mislabeled as 'anti-Semitism'. This keeps the opposition weak and
off-balance.
How very clever. How very diabolical.
Why not call 'anti-Semitism what it is?
So-called 'anti-Semitism' is simply anti-Jewishness (or counter-Jewisness). It is merely
an attitude.
Depending upon the circumstances, this attitude might be right or it may be wrong. But
'anti-Semitism' is all about Jews, their behavior, and their impact on non-Jews. Why not
focus on this inescapable fact?
And since 'anti-Semitism' is not about 'Semites' at all, the very term itself is something
of a canard.
On the other hand, organized Jewry is truly powerful. Sometimes it does real damage.
Sometimes it does real harm. Sometimes it destroys. Why can't we talk about it openly?
Calling morally-grounded opposition to the real damage and real harm done by Jews
'anti-Semitism' is a calculated libel.
On the other hand, identifying and castigating organized Jewry for its various sins is
vital, courageous, and healthy. So do the right thing.
When I was much younger and in Graduate School I hosted three British students who were on a
summer sabbatical at the medical college I was attending.
There was no particular reason that the Jews in America came up over beers, many beers
(Texans and the British like beer equally well). But they told me that there was and
expression among common British about Jews, and, no it's not that the only good Jew is a dead
Jew.
It was that "antisemitism is when one hates the Jews more than is absolutely
necessary".
"Jewish outlets complain that participants brandished 'antisemitic badges and placards,' such
as "Israel provokes anti-Semitism." I am puzzled. Is this really an anti-Semitic statement?
If anything, it is an attempt to identify the cause of anti-Semitism."
Yep, absolutely true.
It's not their religion about which folks object. It's not their race, if you want to call
it a race.
IT'S THEIR
BEHAVIOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wrong. At the time, Haj Amin al-Husseini, the grand mufti of Jerusalem, was a supporter
and ally of Hitler. When the two met, al-Husseini told Hitler that they shared the same
enemies: "the English, the Jews, and the Communists." The two went on to scheme about how
best to set upon and destroy the Jews of the Middle East. What's more, the Arabs regularly
massacred Jews in Mandatory Palestine.
Lies are the lifeblood of anti-Semitism, and there's a purpose to Tlaib's false history.
It serves to bolster the lie that the Jews waged war on a friendly and welcoming people,
stole their land, and condemned them to ruin. Anti-Semitism depends on lies because its
very motive is to hide the truth of one's own failings and lay blame on the Jews. The
history of anti-Semitism is, in a sense, a history of wicked fabrications: From Jewish
deicide, to the blood libel, to the claims of Jewish sorcery, to The Protocols of the
Elders of Zion, to the idea that Jews were tipped off about 9/11, to the claim that Jews
push the U.S. into wars, to the outrage over Jews supposedly buying politicians, to lies
about Israel's founding.
Tlaib and Omar are exemplars of this tradition, peddlers of anti-Semitic folktales. In
addition to spouting revisionist history, Tlaib has accused America's Israel-supporters of
dual loyalty. Omar has done that and more, claiming that Israel has hypnotized the world
into not seeing the evil it perpetrates, and stating that America's pro-Israel policies are
simply purchased by those who support the Jewish state.
It is a very powerful and accurate expression to say that Israel is "unfashionable" –
it is also true that most young people today feel no connection to the holocaust – when
Rashida uses the word "comforting" to refer to her people's sacrifice for the Jews, I feel
that the customary Zionist response to call these expressions "canards" will also be seen as
an unfashionable response. Thank God for brave people like Tlaid and Omar who express
distaste for the unfashionable and vulgar behavior of Israel and Zionists. Omar and Tlaib
have already emboldened millions of others who share their ambivalence and horror, when they
read about the Israel colonist settlers and their brutality to the Palestinians they displace
.
It is surrounded by 32 Apartheid muslim only countries.
Not so. Lebanon, Syria, and even Egypt have Christian minorities that have been protected
over the years. Jordan has a few, but not many. Iraq, prior to Israel's proxy war on Saddam
had plenty of Christians, including Tariq Aziz, one of Saddam's ministers.. Palestine has/had
Christians that were killed by Israelis in the same way Muslims were.
Could I move to Iran?
I don't know, I'm not in charge of the Iranian immigration policy. Why not ask the Jews
who are members of the Majles? You know, the legislative body with seats reserved for Jews
and other minorities.
Like most Zionists, you seem to ignore the part where T.E. Lawrence got the go ahead from
the British government to promise Arabs, which included Palestine, freedom from the Ottomans
and self rule, in exchange for a revolt against them. That promise was never kept. The
philo-Semite mass murderer Churchill is alleged to have organized Lawrence's
assassination. http://www.criminalelement.com/the-murder-of-lawrence-of-arabia-tony-hays/
In the midst of an interesting and wide-ranging discussion on the Joe Rogan Experience , Democratic
congresswoman and presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard said that if elected president she would
drop all charges against NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and WikiLeaks founder Julian
Assange.
"What would you do about Julian Assange? What would you do about Edward Snowden?"
Rogan asked in the latter
part of the episode.
"As far as dropping the charges?" Gabbard asked.
"If you're president of the world right now, what do you do?"
Rogan noted that Sweden's preliminary investigation of rape allegations
has just been re-opened , saying the US government can't stop that, and Gabbard said as
president she'd drop the US charges leveled against Assange by the Trump administration.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/fNuZWQgkgc4
"Yeah," Gabbard said when asked to clarify if she was also saying that she'd give Edward
Snowden a presidential pardon, adding,
"And I think we've got to address why he did things the way that he did them. And you hear
the same thing from Chelsea Manning, how there is not an actual channel for whistleblowers
like them to bring forward information that exposes egregious abuses of our constitutional
rights and liberties. Period. There was not a channel for that to happen in a real way, and
that's why they ended up taking the path that they did, and suffering the consequences."
This came at the end of a lengthy
discussion about WikiLeaks and the dangerous legal precedent that the Trump administration
is setting for press freedoms by prosecuting Assange, as well as the revelations about NSA
surveillance and what can be done to roll back those unchecked surveillance powers.
https://www.dianomi.com/smartads.epl?id=4855
"What happened with [Assange's] arrest and all the stuff that just went down I think poses
a great threat to our freedom of the press and to our freedom of speech," Gabbard said.
"We look at what happened under the previous administration, under Obama. You know, they
were trying to find ways to go after Assange and WikiLeaks, but ultimately they chose not to
seek to extradite him or charge him, because they recognized what a slippery slope that
begins when you have a government in a position to levy criminal charges and consequences
against someone who's publishing information or saying things that the government doesn't
want you to say , and sharing information the government doesn't want you to share. And so
the fact that the Trump administration has chosen to ignore that fact, to ignore how
important it is that we uphold our freedoms, freedom of the press and freedom of speech, and
go after him, it has a very chilling effect on both journalists and publishers. And you can
look to those in traditional media and also those in new media, and also every one of us as
Americans. It was a kind of a warning call, saying Look what happened to this guy. It could
happen to you. It could happen to any one of us."
Gabbard discussed Mike Pompeo's arbitrary designation of WikiLeaks as a hostile non-state
intelligence service, the fact that James Clapper lied to Congress about NSA surveillance as
Director of National Intelligence yet suffered no consequences and remains a respected TV
pundit, and the opaque and unaccountable nature of FISA warrants.
Some other noteworthy parts of Gabbard's JRE appearance for people who don't have time to
watch the whole thing, with hyperlinks to the times in the video:
Rogan gets Gabbard talking
in depth about what Bashar al-Assad was actually like when she met him and what he said
to her, which I don't think I've ever seen anyone bother to do before.
The two discuss
Eisenhower's famous speech warning of the dangers of the military-industrial complex, and
actually pause their dialogue to watch a good portion of it. Gabbard points out that in the
original draft of the speech, Eisenhower had intended to call it the
"congressional-military-industrial complex".
Rogan asks Gabbard what
she thinks happens to US presidents that causes them to fail to enact their campaign promises
and capitulate to the will of the warmongering establishment, and what as president she'll do
to avoid the same fate. All presidential candidates should have to answer this question.
Rogan asks Gabbard how
she'll stand against the billionaires for the American people without getting assassinated.
All presidential candidates should have to answer this question as well.
I honestly think the entire American political system would be better off if the phoney
debate stage format were completely abandoned and presidential candidates just talked
one-on-one with Joe Rogan for two and a half hours instead. Cut through all the vapid posturing
and the fake questions about nonsense nobody cares about and get them to go deep with a normal
human being who smokes pot and curses and does sports commentary for cage fighting. Rogan asked
Gabbard a bunch of questions that real people are interested in, in a format where she was
encouraged to relax out of her standard politician's posture and discuss significant ideas
sincerely and spontaneously. It was a good discussion with an interesting political figure and
I'm glad it's already racked up hundreds of thousands of views.
* * *
Everyone has my
unconditional permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I've
written) in any way they like free of charge. My work is
entirely reader-supported , so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around,
liking me on Facebook
, following my antics on Twitter ,
throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal , purchasing some of my sweet merchandise , buying
my new book Rogue Nation:
Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone , or my previous book
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . The best way to get around the internet censors
and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website , which will get you an email
notification for everything I publish. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I'm
trying to do with this platform,
click here .
"... The film also shows war crimes that implicate the entire structure of the U.S. military, as everyone involved was acting under orders, seeking permission to fire, waiting, then getting it before once more blasting away. The publication of this video, plus all the Wikileaks publications that followed, comprise the whole reason everyone in the U.S. who matters, everyone with power, wants Julian Assange dead. They also want him hated. Generating that hate is the process we're watching today. ..."
"... "Everyone" in this case includes every major newspaper that published and received awards for publishing Wikileaks material; all major U.S. televised media outlets; and all "respectable" U.S. politicians -- including, of course, Hillary Clinton, who was rumored (though unverifiably) to have said, "Can't we just drone this guy?" ..."
"... Please watch it. The footage shows not only murder, but bloodlust and conscienceless brutality, so much of it in fact that this became one of the main reasons Chelsea Manning leaked it in the first place. As she said at her court-martial : "The most alarming aspect of the video for me, was the seemingly delight of bloodlust they [the pilots] appeared to have. They dehumanized the individuals they were engaging with, and seemed to not value human life in referring to them as 'dead bastards,' and congratulating each other on the ability to kill in large numbers." ..."
Yves
here. Even though this post covers known territory, it seems worthwhile to encourage those of
you who haven't watched the "Collateral Murder" footage to view the full version. It's
important not only to keep the public (and that includes people in your personal circle)
focused on what Assange's true hanging crime is in the eyes of the officialdom .and it ain't
RussiaGate. That serves as a convenient diversion from his real offense. That effort has a
secondary benefit of having more people watch the video.
Before
and after images of the van that came to pick up the bodies of eleven men shot to death by
circling American helicopters in Iraq in 2007. Both children in the van were wounded. "Well,
it's their fault for bringing their kids to a battle," said one of the pilots. "That's right,"
replies another. From the videoCollateral Murder.
Below is a full video version of Collateral Murder , the 2007 war footage that was
leaked in 2010 to Wikileaks by Chelsea (then Bradley) Manning. This version was posted to the Wikileaks YouTube
channel with subtitles. It will only take about 15 minutes of your life to view it.
It's brutal to watch, but I challenge you to do it anyway. It shows not just murder, but a
special kind of murder -- murder from the safety of the air, murder by men with heavy machine
guns slowly circling their targets in helicopters like hunters with shotguns who walk the edges
of a trout pond, shooting at will, waiting, walking, then shooting again, till all the fish are
dead.
The film also shows war crimes that implicate the entire structure of the U.S.
military, as everyone involved was acting under orders, seeking permission to fire, waiting,
then getting it before once more blasting away. The publication of this video, plus all the
Wikileaks publications that followed, comprise the whole reason everyone in the U.S. who
matters, everyone with power, wants Julian Assange dead. They also want him hated. Generating that hate is the process we're watching today.
"Everyone" in this case includes every major newspaper that published and received awards
for publishing Wikileaks material; all major U.S. televised media outlets; and all
"respectable" U.S. politicians -- including, of course, Hillary Clinton, who was rumored (though
unverifiably) to have said, "Can't we just drone this guy?"
Yes, Julian Assange the person can be a giant douche even to his supporters, as this exchange
reported by Intercept writer Micah Lee attests. Nevertheless, it's not for being a
douche that the Establishment state wants him dead; that state
breeds, harbors and honors douches everywhere in the world . They want him dead for
publishing videos like these.
Please watch it. The footage shows not only murder, but bloodlust and conscienceless
brutality, so much of it in fact that this became one of the main reasons Chelsea Manning
leaked it in the first place. As she
said at her court-martial : "The most alarming aspect of the video for me, was the
seemingly delight of bloodlust they [the pilots] appeared to have. They dehumanized the
individuals they were engaging with, and seemed to not value human life in referring to them as
'dead bastards,' and congratulating each other on the ability to kill in large numbers."
The Wikileaks page for the video is here . A transcript is here .
This was done in our name, to "keep us safe." This continues to be done every day that we
and our allies are at "war" in the Middle East.
Bodies pile on bodies as this continues. The least we can do, literally the least, is to
witness and acknowledge their deaths.
"... China loses the sale. This is why Beijing, which runs $350 billion to $400 billion in annual trade surpluses at our expense is howling loudest. Should Donald Trump impose that 25% tariff on all $500 billion in Chinese exports to the USA, it would cripple China's economy. Factories seeking assured access to the U.S. market would flee in panic from the Middle Kingdom. ..."
"... The Fordney-McCumber Tariff gave Presidents Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge the revenue to offset the slashing of Wilson's income taxes, igniting that most dynamic of decades -- the Roaring '20s. ..."
"... Once a nation is hooked on the cheap goods that are the narcotic free trade provides, it is rarely able to break free. The loss of its economic independence is followed by the loss of its political independence, the loss of its greatness and, ultimately, the loss of its national identity. ..."
As his limo carried him to work at the White House Monday, Larry Kudlow could not have been pleased with the headline in The Washington
Post: "Kudlow Contradicts Trump on Tariffs."
The story began: "National Economic Council Director Lawrence Kudlow acknowledged Sunday that American consumers end up paying
for the administration's tariffs on Chinese imports, contradicting President Trump's repeated inaccurate claim that the Chinese foot
the bill."
A free trade evangelical, Kudlow had conceded on Fox News that consumers pay the tariffs on products made abroad that they purchase
here in the U.S. Yet that is by no means the whole story.
A tariff may be described as a sales or consumption tax the consumer pays, but tariffs are also a discretionary and an optional
tax.
If you choose not to purchase Chinese goods and instead buy comparable goods made in other nations or the USA, then you do not
pay the tariff.
China loses the sale. This is why Beijing, which runs $350 billion to $400 billion in annual trade surpluses at our expense is
howling loudest. Should Donald Trump impose that 25% tariff on all $500 billion in Chinese exports to the USA, it would cripple China's
economy. Factories seeking assured access to the U.S. market would flee in panic from the Middle Kingdom.
Tariffs were the taxes that made America great. They were the taxes relied upon by the first and greatest of our early statesmen,
before the coming of the globalists Woodrow Wilson and FDR.
Tariffs, to protect manufacturers and jobs, were the Republican Party's path to power and prosperity in the 19th and 20th centuries
, before the rise of the Rockefeller Eastern liberal establishment and its embrace of the British-bred heresy of unfettered free
trade.
The Tariff Act of 1789 was enacted with the declared purpose, "the encouragement and protection of manufactures." It was the second
act passed by the first Congress led by Speaker James Madison. It was crafted by Alexander Hamilton and signed by President Washington.
After the War of 1812, President Madison, backed by Henry Clay and John Calhoun and ex-Presidents Jefferson and Adams, enacted
the Tariff of 1816 to price British textiles out of competition, so Americans would build the new factories and capture the booming
U.S. market. It worked.
Tariffs financed Mr. Lincoln's War. The Tariff of 1890 bears the name of Ohio Congressman and future President William McKinley,
who said that a foreign manufacturer "has no right or claim to equality with our own. He pays no taxes. He performs no civil duties."
That is economic patriotism, putting America and Americans first.
The Fordney-McCumber Tariff gave Presidents Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge the revenue to offset the slashing of Wilson's
income taxes, igniting that most dynamic of decades -- the Roaring '20s.
That the Smoot-Hawley Tariff caused the Depression of the 1930s is a New Deal myth in which America's schoolchildren have been
indoctrinated for decades.
The Depression began with the crash of the stock market in 1929, nine months before Smoot-Hawley became law. The real villain:
The Federal Reserve, which failed to replenish that third of the money supply that had been wiped out by thousands of bank failures.
Milton Friedman taught us that.
A tariff is a tax, but its purpose is not just to raise revenue but to make a nation economically independent of others, and to
bring its citizens to rely upon each other rather than foreign entities.
The principle involved in a tariff is the same as that used by U.S. colleges and universities that charge foreign students higher
tuition than their American counterparts.
What patriot would consign the economic independence of his country to the "invisible hand" of Adam Smith in a system crafted
by intellectuals whose allegiance is to an ideology, not a people?
What great nation did free traders ever build?
Free trade is the policy of fading and failing powers, past their prime. In the half-century following passage of the Corn Laws,
the British showed the folly of free trade.
They began the second half of the 19th century with an economy twice that of the USA and ended it with an economy half of ours,
and equaled by a Germany, which had, under Bismarck, adopted what was known as the American System.
Of the nations that have risen to economic preeminence in recent centuries -- the British before 1850, the United States between
1789 and 1914, post-war Japan, China in recent decades -- how many did so through free trade? None. All practiced economic nationalism.
The problem for President Trump?
Once a nation is hooked on the cheap goods that are the narcotic free trade provides, it is rarely able to break free. The
loss of its economic independence is followed by the loss of its political independence, the loss of its greatness and, ultimately,
the loss of its national identity.
Brexit was the strangled cry of a British people that had lost its independence and desperately wanted it back.
Important interview with Tucker (this video contain a large fragment) and an interesting discussions.
Notable quotes:
"... Left or Right, you cannot question Gabbard's patriotism and intelligence and in-depth knowledge on war issues. Great candidate. ..."
"... She is an amazing diplomat - I support her 100% ..."
"... The way she conducts herself is an inspiration. I really like her. ..."
"... Just donated to Tulsi. We need her anti-imperialism on the mainstream debate stage. ..."
"... Tulsi Gabbard is the only one I have seen who isn't an overly hyberbolic shill. She embodies the concept of "speak softly and carry a big stick". ..."
"... Holly shit, I've never seen anyone on Fox News let their guest talk as much this? Especially Tucker being so calm, this makes me feel good. It must be Tulsi's vibe, someone as diplomatic and disciplined as her must be running the White House. ..."
Wow!! The sound of the voice of common sense & truth, for a change. I don't care if
she is Democrat or Republican ... this lady is voicing what the majority of people actually
think & believe.
Holly shit, I've never seen anyone on Fox News let their guest talk as much this?
Especially Tucker being so calm, this makes me feel good. It must be Tulsi's vibe, someone as
diplomatic and disciplined as her must be running the White House.
@FB Yeah brother that
POS was called out during his confirmation hearings during baby bush's presidency. Larry Flint had offered a Million dollars to
anyone who had proof of republican sexual exploits. He was quickly fingered by someone who attended those clubs. He was forced
to accept a temporary position and quietly resigned after a few months so as to avoid facing questions.
Someone said they saw him proposition a teenage girl outside one of the swinger clubs he frequented.
@SeekerofthePresence
Thank you your comment is very much appreciated. But I'm definitely not a spokesman for moral truth, just the truth. I just watch
in amazement from Mexico at what the US government has become. A den of the most vile people ever assembled in the world far worse
than the people that demanded the crucification of Jesus Christ. We just went through a serious political conversion, but the
people had to hit the streets for it to succeed. I just don't think the American people feel they are in a do or die situation,
and they couldn't more wrong.
U.S. Foreign Policy used to have only two instruments in
dealing with rest of the world, namely carrots and sticks. Since the fall of Soviet Union and
certainly after 9/11, only sticks remain. Now the World including the so-called allies are
getting tired of the threats and start ignoring the Empire, hence the diminishing
effectiveness, paving the way for polymorphic World. This transition is fraught with dangers as
pointed out by the Author.
Lovely post by Ret. Col. Douglas Macgregor on the end of empire:
"John Bolton is the problem"
"Trump's national security adviser is getting dangerous particularly to the president's
ideals"
Douglas Macgregor https://spectator.us/john-bolton-problem/
Could also be titled, "How to Exhaust an Empire."
Sun Tzu warned of the same demise in the "Art of War."
Didn't they used to teach that book at West Point?
@El Dato
And also the 90 minute Trump-Putin phone call, where Venezuela was the main subject
From the way I understand Trump's comments afterward, it seems the military option is off
the table the two presidents agreed that humanitarian aid is the priority
This is great news I have to give Trump credit here Justin Raimondo presciently opined a
week ago that Trump may have been giving the 'walrus' just enough rope on Venezuela to hang
himself
I have to wonder what Vlad whispered in carrot top's ear
When we take a close look at the American Government and it's elected officials, we can only
come to one conclusion. The US is a thriving criminal enterprise that uses force to get what
they want. The military's role is that of enforcers and the US President is no different than
a Mafia Don. In no other time in US history has Government and Organized Criminal Gangs been
so indistinguishable. George H.W. Bush with his New World Order announcements, his CIA drug
dealing operations and military invasion of Panama to steal the drug cartel's money deposited
in that county's banks, came close. Bill Clinton working with George H.W. Bush protecting
drug shipments smuggled into Mena, AK, the cover up of murdered witnesses and numerous sexual
assault allegations also came pretty close.
But when George W. Bush, Dick Chaney, Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld came into power,
that was a Mafia if there was ever one. That group of criminals stole more money and murdered
more people than any criminal organization in history. They even conned the American people
into believing some rag-heads in Afghanistan hiding in caves did it. It was the first time
since Pancho Villa that anyone attacked the US on its own soil. Not only did they steal all
the gold stored in bank vaults located in the Twin Towers, but they put money on the stock
market. In true gangster fashion the next move was to retaliate against the Muslim Mafia who
was fingered by Mayer Lanski (Benjamin Nuttenyahoo) and their own paid snitches (MSM). It was
time to hit mattresses and send their enforcers to get payback so the Purple Gang (Israel)
can take over their territory.
There is a big difference between the US Government and the Mafia when it comes to war,
the Mafia adheres to a strict code of ethics, they do not target their enemies families.
In 2016 the American people elected a true gangster from New York city. A known con man, a
swindler, a tax evader and known associate of the criminal underground. A man with numerous
court cases and 23 accusations of sexual assault. A man who was screwing a porn star while
his wife was given birth. A man who's mentor was Roy Cohen a mob attorney and practicing
homosexual who died of AIDS. A man that surrounded himself with the most perverted group of
people in New York such as: Roger Stone a well known swinger and gay pride participant. Paul
Manafort a convicted criminal and swinger who attended the same clubs as Stone along with
their wives. They liked to watch their wives get screwed by other men. Lets not forget John
Bolton who was exposed by Larry Flint for also being a swinger. His ex-wife accused him of
forcing her to perform sex acts with multiple men at the same clubs the other 2 cuckolds
attended. A Russian agent once commented that the best place to find government people to
blackmail was the New York swingers scene.
Jeffery Epstein tops the list of perverted friends of Donald Trump. Epstein is the worst
kind of perverted human being. The predator pedophile that uses his money to lure young girls
into his sick world. Epstein holds the key to uncovering the nation wide pedophile ring that
include some of the most famous people in the US. This is Trump's Mafia, a Mafia not like the
Gambinos or Luchesis. A Mafia full of Perverts, Criminals, Pedophiles and Cuckolds. These are
just a few of the people in Trump's circle of friends. If these are your leaders, what does
that say about the American people!
My dad used to tell me tell me who you hang around with, and I'll tell you who you are!
Every single person in DC government is compromised! And this incompetent Mafia of Perverts
want you to believe that Madurro is a corrupt leader and Iran is a threat to the US!
maybe Trump finally has his hands untied to start doing the things he promised
I really hope so .
But I fear he is an unfocused egomaniac, without overarching philosophy or principles,
blown by the winds and susceptible to any path that seems interesting to him at the present
time or that massages his ego.
A couple of years ago I happened to be
reading the World War II memoirs of Sisley Huddleston, an American journalist living in France. Although
long since forgotten, Huddleston had spent decades as one of our most prominent foreign correspondents, and
dozens of his major articles
had appeared in
The Atlantic Monthly
,
The New Republic
,
and
Harpers
, while he had authored some nineteen books. Given such eminence, his personal
relationships reached far into elite circles, with one of his oldest and closest friends being William
Bullitt, the American ambassador to France, who had previously opened our first Soviet embassy under FDR.
Huddleston's credibility seemed
impeccable, which is why I was so shocked at his firsthand account of wartime Vichy, totally contrary to
what I had absorbed from my introductory history textbooks. While I had always had the impression that
Petain's collaborationist regime possessed little legitimacy, this was not at all the case. Near unanimous
majorities of both houses of the duly-elected French parliament had voted the elderly field marshal into
office despite his own deep personal misgivings, regarding him as France's only hope of a unifying national
savior following the country's crushing 1940 defeat at Hitler's hands.
Although Huddleston's sympathies were
hardly with the Germans, he noted the scrupulous correctness they exhibited following their overwhelming
victory, policies that continued throughout the early years of the Occupation. And although he had on a
couple of occasions performed minor services for the nascent Resistance movement, when the 1944 Normandy
landings and the subsequent German withdrawal suddenly opened the doors of power to the anti-Petain forces,
they engaged in an orgy of ideological bloodletting probably without precedent in French history, far
surpassing the infamous Reign of Terror of the French Revolution, with perhaps 100,000 or more civilians
being summarily butchered on the basis of little or no evidence, often just to settle personal scores. Some
of the worst of the bloodshed came at the hands of the Communist exiles of the Spanish Civil War, who had
found shelter in France after their defeat and now eagerly took an opportunity to turn the tables and
massacre the same sort of "bourgeois" class-enemies who had defeated them in that previous conflict just a
few years earlier.
As I sought to weigh Huddleston's
testimony against the traditional narrative of wartime France I had always fully accepted, most of the
factors seemed to point in his favor. After all, his journalistic credentials were impeccable and as a very
well-connected direct observer of the events he reported, his statements surely counted for a great deal.
Meanwhile, it appeared that most of the standard narrative dominating our history books had been constructed
a generation or so later by writers living on the other side of the Atlantic ocean, whose conclusions may
have been substantially influenced by the black-and-white ideological framework that had become rigidly
enshrined at elite American universities.
However, I couldn't help noticing one
huge, gaping flaw in Huddleston's account, an error so serious that it cast grave doubts upon his entire
credibility as a journalist. Towards the beginning of his book, he devotes a page or so to casually
mentioning that in the early months of 1940, the French and British were preparing to launch an attack
against the neutral Soviet Union, using their bases in Syria and Iraq for a strategic bombing offensive
meant to destroy Stalin's Baku oil fields of the Caucasus, one of the world's leading sources of that vital
commodity.
Obviously, all military organizations
produce a wealth of hypothetical contingency plans covering all possible situations and opponents, but
Huddleston had somehow misunderstood such possibilities or rumors as outright fact. According to him, the
Allied bombing of the Soviet Union had been scheduled to begin March 15th, but was initially delayed and
rescheduled for various political reasons. Then a few weeks later, the German panzer divisions swept through
the Ardennes forest, surrounded the French armies, and captured Paris, aborting the planned Allied
bombardment of Russia.
Given that the USSR played the leading
role in Germany's eventual defeat, an early Allied attack upon the Soviet homeland would surely have changed
the outcome of the war. Although Huddleston's bizarre fantasies had somehow gotten the best of him, he was
hardly incorrect in exclaiming "What a narrow escape!"
The notion that the Allies were
preparing to launch a major bombing offensive against the Soviet Union just a few months after the outbreak
of World War II was obviously absurd, so ridiculous a notion that not a hint of that long-debunked rumor had
ever gotten into the standard history texts I had read on the European conflict. But for Huddleston to have
still clung to such nonsensical beliefs even several years after the end of the war raised large questions
about his gullibility or even his sanity. I wondered whether I could trust even a single word he said about
anything else.
However, not long afterward I encountered
quite a surprise in a 2017 article published in
The National Interest
, an eminently respectable
periodical. The short piece carried the descriptive headline
"In the Early Days of World War II, Britain and France Planned to Bomb Russia."
The contents absolutely
flabbergasted me, and with Huddleston's credibility now fully established -- and the credibility of my standard
history textbooks equally demolished -- I went ahead and substantially drew upon his account for my long
article
"American Pravda: Post-War France and Post-War Germany."
I hardly regard myself as a specialist
on the history of World War II, but I initially felt deeply embarrassed to have spent my entire life
completely ignorant of that crucial early turning-point in the huge conflict. However, once I had carefully
read that
National Interest
article, my shame quickly dissipated, for the it was obvious that the
author, Michael Peck, along with his editors and readers had been equally unaware of those long-buried
facts. Indeed, the article had originally run in 2015, but was republished a couple of years later due to
enormous reader demand. As near as I can tell, that single 1100 word essay constituted the first and only
time the momentous events described had received significant public attention in the seventy years since the
end of the war.
Peck's discussion greatly fleshed out
Huddleston's brief, offhand remarks. The French and British high commands had prepared their enormous bomber
offensive,
Operation Pike
, in hopes of destroying Russia's oil resources, and their unmarked
reconnaissance flights had already overflown Baku, photographing the locations of the intended targets. The
Allies were convinced that the best strategy for defeating Germany was to eliminate its sources of oil and
other vital raw materials, and with Russia being Hitler's leading supplier, they decided that destroying the
Soviet oil fields seemed a logical strategy.
However, Peck emphasized the severe
errors in this reasoning. In actual fact, only a small fraction of Hitler's oil came from Russia, so the
true impact of even an entirely successful campaign would have been low. And although the Allied commanders
were convinced that weeks of continuous bombardment -- apparently representing the world's largest
strategic-bombing campaign to that date -- would quickly eliminate all Soviet oil production, later events in
the war suggested that those projections were wildly optimistic, with vastly larger and more powerful aerial
attacks generally inflicting far less permanent destruction than expected. So the damage to the Soviets
would probably not have been great, and the resulting full military alliance between Hitler and Stalin would
surely have reversed the outcome of the war. This was reflected in the original 2015 title of the same
article
"Operation Pike: How a Crazy Plan to Bomb Russia Almost Lost World War II."
But although hindsight allows us to
recognize the disastrous consequences of that ill-fated bombing plan, we should not be overly harsh upon the
political leaders and strategists of the time. Military technology was in tremendous flux, and facts that
seemed obvious by 1943 or 1944 were far less clear at the beginning of the conflict. Based upon their World
War I experience, most analysts believed that neither the Germans nor the Allies had any hope of achieving
an early breakthrough on the Western front, while the Soviets were suspected of being a feeble military
power, perhaps constituting the "soft underbelly" of the German war machine.
Also, some of the most far-reaching
political consequences of an Allied attack upon the Soviet Union would have been totally unknown to the
French and British leaders then considering it. Although they were certainly aware of the powerful Communist
movements in their own countries, all closely aligned with the USSR, only many years later did it become
clear that the top leadership of the Roosevelt Administration was honeycombed by numerous agents fully loyal
to Stalin, with the final proof awaiting the release of the Venona Decrypts in the 1990s. So if the Allied
forces had suddenly gone to war against the Soviets, the total hostility of those influential individuals
would have greatly reduced any future prospects of substantial American military assistance, let alone
eventual intervention in the European conflict.
Thus, if the Germans had for any reason
delayed their 1940 assault on France for a few weeks, the pending Allied attack would have brought the
Soviets into the war on the other side, ensuring their defeat. It seems undeniable that Hitler's fortuitous
action inadvertently saved the Allies from the disastrous consequences of their foolish plans.
Although exploring the dramatic
implications of the 1940 outbreak of an Allied-Soviet war may be an intriguing instance of alternative
history, as an intellectual exercise it has little relevance to our present-day world. Far more important is
what the account reveals about the reliability of the standard historical narrative that most of us have
always accepted as real.
The first matter to explore was whether
the evidence for the planned Allied attack on the Soviets was actually as strong as was suggested by the
National Interest
article. The underlying information came from
Operation Pike
, published in
2000 by Patrick R. Osborn in an academic series entitled
Contributions in Military Studies
, so I
recently ordered the book and read it to evaluate the remarkable claims being made.
Although rather dry, the 300 page
monograph meticulously documents its case, with the overwhelming bulk of the material being drawn from
official archives and other government records. There seems not the slightest doubt about the reality of the
events being described, and the Allied leaders even made extensive diplomatic efforts to enlist Turkey and
Iran in their planned attack against the Soviet Union.
While the primary Allied motive was to
eliminate the flow of necessary raw materials to Germany, there were broader goals as well. Forced
collectivization of Soviet agriculture during the 1930s had led to the widespread slaughter of farm animals,
which were then replaced by tractors requiring gasoline. The Allied leadership believed that if they
succeeded in eliminating the Soviet oil supply, the resulting fuel shortage would lead to a collapse in
agricultural production, probably producing a famine that might sweep the Communist regime from power. The
Allies had always been intensely hostile to the Soviets, and the planned operation was actually named for a
certain Col. Pike, a British officer who had died at Bolshevik hands in the Caucuses during a previous
military intervention twenty years earlier.
This anti-Soviet planning rapidly
accelerated after Stalin's brutal attack upon tiny Finland in late 1939. The unexpectedly fierce Finnish
resistance led the Western powers to expel the USSR from the League of Nations as a blatant aggressor, and
inspired widespread demands for military intervention among both the political elites and the general
public, with serious proposals being considered to send several Allied divisions to Scandinavia to fight the
Russians on behalf of the Finns. Indeed, during much of this period Allied hostility seems to have been far
greater towards the Soviets than towards Germany, despite the nominal state of war against the latter, with
French sentiments being particularly strong. As one British elected official remarked, "One has the
impression that France is at war with Russia and merely on very unfriendly terms with Germany."
The Allies intended to use Polish exile
forces in their ground combat against the Soviets, perhaps even sparking a Polish uprising against the hated
Communist occupiers of their homeland. Osborn notes that if word of this plan had leaked to Stalin, that
might explain why it was at this time that he signed the official orders directing the NKVD to immediately
execute the 15,000 Polish officers and police whom he already held as POWs, an incident eventually known as
the Katyn Forest Massacre, which ranks as one of the world's worst wartime atrocities.
All of these military plans and
internal discussions by the British and French were kept entirely secret at the time, and their archives
remained sealed to historians for many decades. But in the opening of his fascinating account, Osborn
explains that after the victorious German armies moved towards Paris in 1940, the French government
attempted to destroy or evacuate all its secret diplomatic files, and a trainload of this very sensitive
material was captured by German forces 100 miles from Paris, including the complete record of the plans to
attack the USSR. In hopes of scoring an international propaganda coup, Germany soon published these crucial
documents, providing both English translations and facsimile copies of the originals. Although it is unclear
whether these disclosures received any significant Western media coverage at the time, Stalin surely became
aware of this detailed confirmation of the information he had already gotten in bits and pieces from his
network of well-placed Communist spies, and it must have deepened his distrust of the West. The story would
also have quickly become known to all well-informed observers, explaining why Huddleston was so confident in
casually mentioning the planned Allied attack in his 1952 memoirs.
After Hitler's
Barbarossa
invasion of the USSR in June 1941 suddenly brought the Soviets into the war on the Allied side, these
highly-embarrassing facts would have naturally dropped into obscurity. But it seems quite astonishing that
such "politically correct" amnesia became so deeply entrenched within the academic research community that
virtually all traces of the remarkable story disappeared for the six decades that preceded the publication
of Osborn's book. More English-language books may have been published on World War II during those years
than on any other subject, yet it seems possible that those many tens of millions of pages contained not a
single paragraph describing the momentous Allied plans to attack Russia in the early days of the war,
perhaps even leaving Huddleston's brief, offhand remarks in 1952 as the most comprehensive account. Osborn
himself notes the "precious little attention" given this matter by scholars of the Second World War, citing
a 1973 academic journal article as one of the very few notable exceptions. We should be seriously concerned
that events of such monumental importance spent more than two generations almost totally excluded from our
historical records.
ORDER IT NOW
Moreover, even the release of Osborn's
massively-documented academic study in 2000 seems to have been almost completely ignored by World War II
historians. Consider, for example,
Absolute War
published in 2007 by acclaimed military historian
Chris Bellamy, an 800 page work whose glowing cover-blurbs characterize it as the "authoritative" account of
the role of Soviet Russia in the Second World War. The detailed 25 page index contains no listing for "Baku"
and the only glancing reference to the indisputable Allied preparations to attack the USSR in early 1940 is
a single obscure sentence appearing 15 months and 150 pages later in the aftermath of
Barbarossa
:
"But on 23 June the NKGB reported that the Chief of the British Air Staff, Sir Charles Portal, had suggested
cabling the commands in India and the Middle East ordering them to stop planning to bomb the Baku oilfields,
which, it had been feared, might be used to supply the Germans." Osborn's revelations seem to have vanished
without a trace until they were finally noticed and publicized 15 years later in
The National Interest
.
While it is quite easy to understand
why historians avoided the subject for the first couple of decades following the end of the Second World
War, once a generation or two had passed, one might reasonably expect to see some reassertion of scholarly
objectivity.
Operation Pike
was of the greatest possible importance to the course of the war, so
how could it have been almost totally ignored by virtually every writer on the subject? Allied preparations
in early 1940 to unleash the largest strategic bombing offensive in world history against the Soviet Union
hardly seems the sort of boring, obscure detail that would be quickly forgotten.
Even if the first generation of war
chroniclers carefully excluded it from their narratives to avoid ideological embarrassment, they must surely
have been aware of the facts given German publication of the documents. And although their younger
successors had seen no mention of it in the books they studied, one would expect that their mentors had
occasionally whispered to them about some of the "hidden wartime secrets" left out of the standard
narrative. Moreover, Osborn notes that discussion of the facts did very occasionally appear in professional
academic journals, and one might assume that a single such instance would have spread like wildfire within
the entire academic community. Yet even after Osborn's massively documented volume appeared in a respectable
academic series, the silence remained absolutely deafening. The case of
Operation Pike
demonstrates
that we must exercise extreme caution in accepting the accuracy and completeness of what we have been told.
Such conclusions have obvious
consequences. My website tends to attract a large number of commenters, of widely varying quality. One of
them, an immigrant from Soviet Armenia calling himself "Avery" seems quite knowledgeable and level-headed,
though intensely hostile to Turks and Turkey. A couple of years ago, one of my articles on World War II
provoked
an intriguing comment
from him:
During the Battle of Stalingrad,
Turkey, which was officially neutral but was secretly cooperating with Nazi Germany, had assembled a huge
invasion force at the border of USSR (Armenia SSR). If Germans had won at Stalingrad, Turks were going to
invade, race to Baku and link up with the German forces there, coming down from Stalingrad to grab the
oilfields.
When Paulus's army was surrounded and annihilated, Turks quickly left the border for their barracks.
Stalin never forgot the Turk treachery
and never forgave.
When Germany surrendered, Stalin
assembled huge armies in Armenia SSR and Georgia SSR. The plan was to invade and throw the Turks out of
East Turkey/West Armenia.
The detonation of two American atomic
bombs convinced Stalin to stand down. Some believe US detonated the two bombs not to force Japan's
surrender, but as a message to Stalin.
When questioned, he admitted he was
unaware of any reference in a Western source,
but added
:
It was common knowledge in Armenia
SSR, where I am originally from.
WW2 war vets, old timers, discussed it all the time ..seeing more Red Army troops and military hardware
assembling near the borders of Armenia SSR and Georgia SSR than they'd ever seen before. Then, they were
all gone .
Under normal circumstances, weighing the
universal silence of all Western historians against the informal claims of an anonymous commenter who was
relying upon the stories he'd heard from old veterans would hardly be a difficult choice. But I wonder
The official documents discussed by
Osborn demonstrate that the British made considerable efforts to enlist Turkish forces in their planned
attack upon the USSR, with the Turks going back and forth on the matter until Britain finally abandoned the
project following the Fall of France. But if the Turks had strongly considered such a military adventure in
1940, it seems quite plausible that they would have been far more eager to do so 1942, given the huge losses
the Soviets had already suffered at German hands, and with a very formidable German army approaching the
Caucasus.
Soon after the war, Turkey became one of
America's most crucial Cold War allies against the Soviets, given a central role in the establishment of the
Truman Doctrine and the creation of NATO. Any hint that the same Turkish government had come very close to
joining Hitler's Axis and attacking Russia as a Nazi ally just a few years earlier would have been extremely
damaging to US interests. Such facts would have been scrupulously excluded from all our histories of the
war.
Until a couple of weeks ago, I still
probably would have leaned towards favoring the united front of all Western historians against the causal
remarks of a single anonymous commenter on my website. But after reading Osborn's book, I now think the
anonymous commenter is more likely correct. This is a rather sad personal verdict upon the current
credibility of our historical profession.
These important considerations become
particularly relevant when we attempt to understand the circumstances surrounding
Operation Barbarossa
,
Germany's 1941 attack upon the Soviet Union, which constituted the central turning point of the war. Both at
the time and during the half-century which followed, Western historians uniformly claimed that the surprise
assault had caught an overly-trusting Stalin completely unaware, with Hitler's motive being his dream of
creating the huge German land-empire that he had hinted at in the pages of
Mein Kampf
, published
sixteen years earlier.
But in 1990 a former Soviet military
intelligence officer who had defected to the West and was living in Britain dropped a major bombshell.
Writing under the pen-name Viktor Suvorov, he had already published a number of highly-regarded books on the
armed forces of the USSR, but in
Icebreaker
he now claimed that his extensive past research in the
Soviet archives had revealed that by 1941 Stalin had amassed enormous offensive military forces and
positioned them all along the border, preparing to attack and easily overwhelm the greatly outnumbered and
outgunned forces of the
Wehrmacht
, quickly conquering all of Europe.
As I summarized the Suvorov Hypothesis
in
an article
last year:
And so, just as in our traditional
narrative, we see that in the weeks and months leading up to Barbarossa, the most powerful offensive
military force in the history of the world was quietly assembled in secret along the German-Russian
border, preparing for the order that would unleash their surprise attack. The enemy's unprepared airforce
was to be destroyed on the ground in the first days of the battle, and enormous tank columns would begin
deep penetration thrusts, surrounding and trapping the opposing forces, achieving a classic
blitzkrieg
victory, and ensuring the rapid occupation of vast territories. But the forces preparing
this unprecedented war of conquest were Stalin's, and his military juggernaut would surely have seized
all of Europe, probably soon followed by the remainder of the Eurasian landmass.
Then at almost the last moment,
Hitler suddenly realized the strategic trap into which he had fallen, and ordered his heavily outnumbered
and outgunned troops into a desperate surprise attack of their own on the assembling Soviets,
fortuitously catching them at the very point at which their own final preparations for sudden attack had
left them most vulnerable, and thereby snatching a major initial victory from the jaws of certain defeat.
Huge stockpiles of Soviet ammunition and weaponry had been positioned close to the border to supply the
army of invasion into Germany, and these quickly fell into German hands, providing an important addition
to their own woefully inadequate resources.
Although almost totally ignored in the
English-language world, Suvorov's seminal book soon became an unprecedented bestseller in Russia, Germany,
and many other parts of the world, and together with several follow-up volumes, his five million copies in
print established him as the most widely-read military historian in the history of the world. Meanwhile, the
English-language media and academic communities scrupulously maintained their complete blackout of the
ongoing worldwide debate, with no publishing house even willing to produce an English edition of Suvorov's
books until an editor at the prestigious Naval Academy Press finally broke the embargo nearly two decades
later. Such near-total censorship of the massive planned Soviet attack in 1941 seems quite similar to the
near-total censorship of the undeniable reality of the massive planned Allied attack on the Soviets in the
preceding year.
Although the Suvorov Hypothesis has
inspired decades of fierce academic debate and been the subject of international conferences, it has been
scrupulously ignored by our Anglophone authors, who have made no serious attempt to defend their traditional
narrative and refute the vast accumulation of persuasive evidence upon which it is based. This leads me to
believe that Suvorov's analysis is probably correct.
A decade ago, a solitary writer first
drew my attention to Suvorov's ground-breaking research, and as an emigrant Russian Slav living in the West,
he was hardly favorable to the German dictator. But he closed his review with a remarkable statement:
Therefore, if any of us is free to
write, publish, and read this today, it follows that in some not inconsequential part our gratitude for
this must go to Hitler. And if someone wants to arrest me for saying what I have just said, I make no
secret of where I live.
For almost thirty years, our
English-language media has almost entirely suppressed any serious discussion of the Suvorov Hypothesis, and
this is hardly the only important aspect of Soviet history that has remained hidden from public scrutiny.
Indeed, on some crucial matters, the falsehoods and distortions have greatly increased rather than
diminished over the decades. No example is more obvious than in the ongoing attempts to conceal the enormous
role played by Jews in the Bolshevik Revolution and worldwide Communism generally. As
I wrote last year
:
In the early years of the Bolshevik
Revolution, almost no one questioned the overwhelming role of Jews in that event, nor their similar
preponderance in the ultimately unsuccessful Bolshevik takeovers in Hungary and parts of Germany. For
example, former British Minister
Winston Churchill in 1920
denounced the "terrorist Jews" who had seized control of Russia and other
parts of Europe, noting that "the majority of the leading figures are Jews" and stating that "In the
Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing," while lamenting the horrors these
Jews had inflicted upon the suffering Germans and Hungarians.
Similarly, journalist Robert Wilton,
former Russia correspondent of the
Times of London
, provided a very detailed summary of the
enormous Jewish role in his 1918 book
Russia's Agony
and 1920 book
The Last Days of the
Romanovs
, although one of the most explicit chapters of the latter
was apparently excluded from the English language edition
. Not long afterward, the facts regarding
the enormous financial support provided to the Bolsheviks by international Jewish bankers such as Schiff
and Aschberg were widely reported in the mainstream media.
Jews and Communism were just as
strongly tied together in America, and for years
the largest circulation Communist newspaper in our country was published in Yiddish
. When they were
finally released, the Venona Decrypts demonstrated that even as late as the 1930s and 1940s, a remarkable
fraction of America's Communist spies came from that ethnic background.
A personal anecdote tends to confirm
these dry historical records. During the early 2000s I once had lunch with an elderly and very eminent
computer scientist, with whom I'd become a little friendly. While talking about this and that, he
happened to mention that both his parents had been zealous Communists, and given his obvious Irish name,
I expressed my surprise, saying that I'd thought almost all the Communists of that era were Jewish. He
said that was indeed the case, but although his mother had such an ethnic background, his father did not,
which made him a very rare exception in their political circles. As a consequence, the Party had always
sought to place him in as prominent a public role as possible just to prove that not all Communists were
Jews, and although he obeyed Party discipline, he was always irritated at being used as such a "token."
However, once Communism sharply fell
out of favor in 1950s America, nearly all of the leading "Red Baiters" such as Sen. Joseph McCarthy went
to enormous lengths to obscure the ethnic dimension of the movement they were combatting. Indeed, many
years later
Richard Nixon casually spoke in private
of the difficulty he and other anti-Communist investigators
had faced in trying to focus on Gentile targets since nearly all of the suspected Soviet spies were
Jewish, and when this tape became public, his alleged anti-Semitism provoked a media firestorm even
though his remarks were obviously implying the exact opposite.
This last point is an important one,
since once the historical record has been sufficiently whitewashed or rewritten, any lingering strands of
the original reality that survive are often perceived as bizarre delusions or denounced as "conspiracy
theories." Indeed, even today the ever-amusing pages of Wikipedia provides an entire 3,500 word article
attacking the notion of
"Jewish Bolshevism"
as an "antisemitic canard."
In
a subsequent article
, I summarized several of the numerous sources describing this obvious reality:
Meanwhile, all historians know
perfectly well that the Bolshevik leaders were overwhelmingly Jewish, with three of the five
revolutionaries Lenin named as his plausible successors coming from that background. Although only around
4% of Russia's population was Jewish, a few years ago Vladimir Putin stated that
Jews constituted perhaps 80-85% of the early Soviet government
, an estimate fully consistent with the
contemporaneous claims of
Winston Churchill
,
Times of London
correspondent
Robert Wilton
, and the officers of
Alexander Solzhenitsyn
,
Yuri Slezkine
, and
others
have all painted a very similar picture. And prior to World War II, Jews remained enormously
over-represented in the Communist leadership, especially dominating the Gulag administration and the top
ranks of the dreaded NKVD.
Perhaps the most utterly explosive and
totally suppressed aspect of the close relationship between Jews and Communism regards the claims that Jacob
Schiff and other top international Jewish bankers were among the leading financial backers of the Bolshevik
Revolution. I spent nearly all of my life regarding these vague rumors as such obvious absurdities that they
merely demonstrated the lunatic anti-Semitism infesting the nether-regions of Far Right anti-Communist
movements, thereby fully confirming the theme of Richard Hofstadter's famous book
The Paranoid Style in
American Politics
. Indeed, the Schiff accusations were so totally ridiculous that they were never even
once mentioned in the hundred-odd books on the history of the Bolshevik Revolution and Soviet Communism that
I read during the 1970s and 1980s.
Therefore, it came as an enormous shock
when I discovered that the claims were not only probably correct, but had been almost universally accepted
as true throughout the first half of the twentieth century.
Potent international financial
interests were at work in favour of the immediate recognition of the Bolshevists. Those influences had
been largely responsible for the Anglo-American proposal in January to call Bolshevist representatives to
Paris at the beginning of the Peace Conference -- a proposal which had failed after having been
transformed into a suggestion for a Conference with the Bolshevists at Prinkipo. The well-known American
Jewish banker, Mr. Jacob Schiff, was known to be anxious to secure recognition for the Bolshevists
the prime movers were Jacob Schiff,
Warburg, and other international financiers, who wished above all to bolster up the Jewish Bolshevists in
order to secure a field for German and Jewish exploitation of Russia.
Schiff's own family later confirmed this
widely-accepted history. The February 3, 1949
Knickerbocker
column of the
New York
Journal-American
, then one of the city's leading newspapers, reported the account: "Today it is
estimated by Jacob's grandson, John Schiff, that the old man sank about 20,000,000 dollars for the final
triumph of Bolshevism in Russia." The present-day value of the figure quoted is probably some $2 billion, a
very substantial sum.
Despite this enormous volume of
convincing evidence, for the next half-century or more, Schiff's name almost entirely vanished from all
mainstream texts on Soviet Communism. As
I wrote
last year:
ORDER IT NOW
In 1999, Harvard University
published the English edition of
The Black Book of Communism
, whose six co-authors devoted 850
pages to documenting the horrors inflicted upon the world by that defunct system, which had produced a
total death toll they reckoned at 100 million. I have never read that book and I have often heard that
the alleged body-count has been widely disputed. But for me the most remarkable detail is that when I
examine the 35 page index, I see a vast profusion of entries for totally obscure individuals whose names
are surely unknown to all but the most erudite specialist. But there is no entry for Jacob Schiff, the
world-famous Jewish banker who apparently financed the creation of the whole system in the first place.
Nor one for Olaf Aschberg, the powerful Jewish banker in Sweden,
who played such an important role
in providing the Bolsheviks a financial life-line during the early
years of their threatened regime, and even founded
the first Soviet international bank
.
Perhaps the extreme caution and timorous
silence exhibited by nearly all Western historians on these sensitive elements of World War II and the
Bolshevik Revolution should not entirely surprise us given the professional and personal risks they might
face if they strayed from orthodoxy.
Consider the very telling example of
David Irving. During the first half of his professional career, his string of widely-translated best-sellers
and his millions of books in print probably established him as the most internationally successful British
historian of the last one hundred years, with his remarkable archival research frequently revolutionizing
our understanding of the European conflict and the political forces behind it. But as he repeatedly
demonstrated his lack of regard for official orthodoxy, he attracted many powerful enemies, who eventually
ruined his reputation, drove him into personal bankruptcy, and even arranged his imprisonment. Over the last
quarter-century, he has increasingly become an un-person, with
the few occasional mentions of his name in the media
invoked in the same talismanic manner as references
to Lucifer or Beelzebub.
If a historian of such towering stature
and success could be brought so low, what ordinary academic scholar would dare risk a similar fate? Voltaire
famously observed that shooting an admiral every now and then is an excellent way to encourage the others.
The destruction of Irving's stellar
career came at the hands of Jewish activists, who were outraged at his balanced treatment of Hitler and his
ongoing commitment to investigating many of the widely-accepted wartime myths, which he hoped to replace
with what he called "real history."
In the introduction
to his new edition of
Hitler's War
, he recounts how a journalist for
Time
magazine was having dinner with him in New York in 1988 and remarked "Before coming over I read
the clippings files on you. Until
Hitler's War
you couldn't put a foot wrong, you were the darling of
the media; after it, they heaped slime on you."
As Irving was certainly aware, the
unreasonably harsh vilification of enemy leaders during wartime is hardly an uncommon occurrence. Although
it has largely been forgotten today, during much of the First World War and for years afterward, Germany's
reigning monarch, Kaiser Wilhelm, was widely portrayed in the Allied countries as a bloodthirsty monster,
one of the most evil men who had ever lived. This vilification came despite Wilhelm having been the beloved
eldest grandchild of Britain's own Queen Victoria, who according to some accounts died in his arms.
Moreover, although Allied propaganda
routinely portrayed Wilhelm as a relentless warmonger, he had actually avoided involving Germany in a single
major military conflict during the first twenty-five years of his reign, while most of the other leading
world powers had fought one or more wars during that same period. Indeed,
I recently discovered
that only a year before the Guns of August began firing,
The New York Times
had published a lengthy profile marking the first quarter-century of his reign and lauded him as one of the
world's foremost peacemakers:
Now he is acclaimed everywhere as
the greatest factor for peace that our time can show. It was he, we hear, who again and again threw the
weight of his dominating personality, backed by the greatest military organisation in the world – an
organisation built up by himself – into the balance for peace wherever war clouds gathered over Europe.
'('William II, King of Prussia and German Emperor, Kaiser 25 years a ruler, hailed as chief peacemaker,'
New York Times
, 8 June, 1913)
That brief excerpt from the
Times
encomium points to another matter than I have never seen mentioned. I devoted much of the 2000s to
digitizing and making available the complete archives of hundreds of America's leading publications of the
last 150 years, and when I occasionally glanced at the contents, I gradually noticed something odd. Although
the English-language world today invariably refers to Germany's wartime ruler as "Kaiser Wilhelm," that was
only rarely the case prior to the outbreak of war, when he was generally known as "Emperor William." The
latter nomenclature is hardly surprising since we always speak of "Frederick the Great" rather than
"Friedrich der Grosse."
But it is obviously much easier to
mobilize millions of citizens to die in muddy trenches to defeat a monstrously alien "Kaiser" than "Good
Emperor William," first cousin to the British and Russian monarchs. The NGram viewer in Google Books
shows the timing of the change quite clearly
, with the Anglophone practice shifting as Britain became
increasingly hostile toward Germany, especially after the outbreak of war. But "Emperor William" was only
permanently eclipsed by "Kaiser Wilhelm" after Germany once again became a likely enemy in the years
immediately preceding World War II.
Actual publications of the period also
reveal numerous discordant facts about the First World War, matters certainly known to academic specialists
but which rarely receive much coverage in our standard textbooks, being relegated to a casual sentence or
two if even that. For example, despite its considerable military successes, Germany launched
a major peace effort
in late 1916 to end the stalemated war by
negotiations
and thereby avert oceans of additional bloodshed. However, this proposal was fiercely
rejected by the Allied powers and their advocates
in the pages of the world's leading periodicals
since they remained firmly committed to an ultimate
military victory.
War fever was certainly still very
strong that same year in Britain, the leading Allied power. When prominent peace-advocates such as Bertrand
Russell and Lord Loreborn urged a negotiated end to the fighting, and were strongly backed by the editor of
the influential London
Economist
, they were harshly vilified and the latter was forced to resign
his position. E.D. Morel, another committed peace advocate, was imprisoned for his activism under such harsh
conditions that it permanently broke his health and led to his death at age 51 a few years after his
release.
As an excellent antidote to our severely
distorted understanding of both wartime sentiments and the domestic European politics that had produced the
conflict, I would strongly recommend the text of
Present Day Europe
by Lothrop Stoddard, then one of America's most influential public
intellectuals. Written prior to America's own entry into the conflict, the work provides the sort of
remarkable scholarly detachment which would soon became almost impossible.
Although the demonic portrayal of the
German Kaiser was already being replaced by a more balanced treatment within a few years of the Armistice
and had disappeared after a generation, no such similar process has occurred in the case of his World War II
successor. Indeed, Adolf Hitler and the Nazis seem to loom far larger in our cultural and ideological
landscape today than they even did in the immediate aftermath of the war, with their visibility growing even
as they become more distant in time, a strange violation of the normal laws of perspective. I suspect that
the casual dinner-table conversations on World War II issues that I used to enjoy with my Harvard College
classmates during the early 1980s would be completely impossible today.
To some extent, the transformation of
"the Good War" into a secular religion, with its designated monsters and martyrs may be analogous to what
occurred during the final decay of the Soviet Union, when the obvious failure of its economic system forced
the government to increasingly turn to endless celebrations of its victory in the Great Patriotic War as the
primary source of its legitimacy. The real wages of ordinary American workers have been
stagnant for fifty years
and most adults
have less than $500 in available savings
, so this widespread impoverishment may be forcing our own
leaders into adopting a similar strategy.
But I think that a far greater factor
has been the astonishing growth of Jewish power in America, which was already quite substantial even four or
five decades ago but has now become absolutely overwhelming, whether in foreign policy, finance, or the
media, with our 2% minority exercising unprecedented control over most aspects of our society and political
system. Only a fraction of American Jews hold traditional religious beliefs, so the twin worship of the
State of Israel and the Holocaust has served to fill that void, with the individuals and events of World War
II constituting many of the central elements of the
mythos
that serves to unify the Jewish
community. And as an obvious consequence, no historical figure ranks higher in the demonology of this
secular religion than the storied Fuhrer and his Nazi regime.
However, beliefs based upon religious
dogma often sharply diverge from empirical reality. Pagan Druids may worship a particular sacred oak tree
and claim that it contains the soul of their tutelary dryad; but if an arborist taps the tree, its sap may
seem like that of any other.
Our current official doctrine portrays
Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany as one of the cruelest and most relentlessly aggressive regimes in the history
of the world, but at the time these salient facts apparently escaped the leaders of the nations with which
it was at war.
Operation Pike
provides an enormous wealth of archival material regarding the secret
internal discussions of the British and French governmental and military leadership, and all of it tends to
suggest that they regarded their German adversary as a perfectly normal country, and perhaps occasionally
regretted that they had somehow gotten themselves involved a major war over what amounted to a small Polish
border dispute.
Although our standard histories would
never admit this, the actual path toward war appears to have been quite different than most Americans
believe. Extensive documentary evidence from knowledgeable Polish, American, and British officials
demonstrates that
pressure from Washington
was the key factor behind the outbreak of the European conflict. Indeed,
leading American journalists and public intellectuals of the day such as John T. Flynn and Harry Elmer
Barnes had publicly
declared
that they feared Franklin Roosevelt was seeking to foment a major European war in hopes that it
would rescue him from the apparent economic failure of his New Deal reforms and perhaps even provide him an
excuse to run for an unprecedented third term. Since this is exactly what ultimately transpired, such
accusations would hardly seem totally unreasonable.
And in an ironic contrast with FDR's
domestic failures, Hitler's own economic successes had been enormous, a striking comparison since the two
leaders had come to power within a few weeks of each other in early 1933. As iconoclastic leftist Alexander
Cockburn
once noted
in a 2004
Counterpunch
column:
When [Hitler] came to power in 1933
unemployment stood at 40 per cent. Economic recovery came without the stimulus of arms spending There
were vast public works such as the autobahns. He paid little attention to the deficit or to the protests
of the bankers about his policies. Interest rates were kept low and though wages were pegged, family
income increased by reason of full employment. By 1936 unemployment had sunk to one per cent. German
military spending remained low until 1939.
Not just Bush but Howard Dean and the
Democrats could learn a few lessons in economic policy from that early, Keynesian Hitler.
By resurrecting a prosperous Germany
while nearly all other countries remained mired in the worldwide Great Depression, Hitler drew glowing
accolades from individuals all across the ideological spectrum. After an extended 1936 visit, David Lloyd
George, Britain's former wartime prime minister,
fulsomely praised the chancellor
as "the George Washington of Germany," a national hero of the greatest
stature. Over the years, I've seen plausible claims here and there that during the 1930s Hitler was widely
acknowledged as the world's most popular and successful national leader, and the fact that he was selected
as
Time Magazine'
s Man of the Year for 1938 tends to support this belief.
Only International Jewry had remained
intensely hostile to Hitler, outraged over his successful efforts to dislodge Germany's 1% Jewish population
from the stranglehold they had gained over German media and finance, and instead run the country in the best
interests of the 99% German majority. A striking recent parallel has been the enormous hostility that
Vladimir Putin incurred after he ousted the handful of Jewish Oligarchs who had seized control of Russian
society and impoverished the bulk of the population. Putin has attempted to mitigate this difficulty by
allying himself with certain Jewish elements, and Hitler seems to have done the same by endorsing
the Nazi-Zionist economic partnership
, which lay the basis for the creation of the State of Israel and
thereby brought on board the small, but growing Jewish Zionist faction.
In the wake of the 9/11 Attacks, the
Jewish Neocons stampeded America towards the disastrous Iraq War and the resulting destruction of the Middle
East, with the talking heads on our television sets endlessly claiming that "Saddam Hussein is another
Hitler." Since then, we have regularly heard the same tag-line repeated in various modified versions, being
told that "Muammar Gaddafi is another Hitler" or "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is another Hitler" or "Vladimir Putin
is another Hitler" or even "Hugo Chavez is another Hitler." For the last couple of years, our American media
has been relentlessly filled with the claim that "Donald Trump is another Hitler."
During the early 2000s, I obviously
recognized that Iraq's ruler was a harsh tyrant, but snickered at the absurd media propaganda, knowing
perfectly well that Saddam Hussein was no Adolf Hitler. But with the steady growth of the Internet and the
availability of the millions of pages of periodicals provided by my digitization project, I've been quite
surprised to gradually also discover that Adolf Hitler was no Adolf Hitler.
It might not be entirely correct to
claim that the story of World War II was that Franklin Roosevelt sought to escape his domestic difficulties
by orchestrating a major European war against the prosperous, peace-loving Nazi Germany of Adolf Hitler. But
I do think that picture is probably somewhat closer to the actual historical reality than the inverted image
more commonly found in our textbooks.
Tulsi found an interesting way to stress he foreign policy credential -- The US President is
the Commander in Chief of the Nation.
Notable quotes:
"... Gabbard's transformation from cherished party asset to party critic and outcast was rapid, and was due almost entirely to her insistence on following her own belief system and evolving ideology rather than party dogma and the long-standing rules for Washington advancement. ..."
"... I'm a 70+ veteran who has never voted for a Democrat in my life. Tulsi Gabbard is the best, most qualified, most eloquent and thoughtful presidential candidate of my lifetime. She will catch on, and the MSM which hates her (they all get tons of money and support from war industry, Big Pharma, Big Ag, etc.), will try to ignore her or smear her, but in the end they will fail. She makes sense, and they don't. Regime change wars must end. Tulsi will be the shining light that makes it happen. ..."
Ever since Tulsi Gabbard was first elected to Congress in 2012, she has been assertively
independent, heterodox, unpredictable, and polarizing. Viewed at first as a loyal Democrat and
guaranteed future star by party leaders -- due to her status as an Iraq War veteran, a
telegenic and dynamic young woman, and the first Hindu and Samoan American ever elected to
Congress -- she has instead become a thorn in the side, and frequent critic, of those same
party leaders that quickly anointed her as the future face of the party.
Gabbard's transformation from cherished party asset to party critic and outcast was rapid,
and was due almost entirely to her insistence on following her own belief system and evolving
ideology rather than party dogma and the long-standing rules for Washington advancement.
Glenn Greenwald sat down with Rep. Tulsi Gabbard to discuss a wide range of issues,
including the reasons she is running for president, her views on Trump's electoral appeal and
what is necessary to defeat it, the rise of right-wing populism internationally, the
Trump/Russia investigation, criticisms she has received regarding her views of Islam and
certain repressive leaders, and her unique foreign policy viewpoints.
This interview is intended to be the first in a series of in-depth interviews with
influential and interesting U.S. political figures, including but not limited to 2020
presidential candidates, designed to enable deeper examinations than the standard cable or
network news format permits.
I am Norwegian. I want to interfere in the next american presidential election. I want
Tulsi Gabbard as the next president of the USA. Love from Norway!
I'm a 70+ veteran who has never voted for a Democrat in my life. Tulsi Gabbard is the
best, most qualified, most eloquent and thoughtful presidential candidate of my lifetime. She
will catch on, and the MSM which hates her (they all get tons of money and support from war
industry, Big Pharma, Big Ag, etc.), will try to ignore her or smear her, but in the end they
will fail. She makes sense, and they don't. Regime change wars must end. Tulsi will be the
shining light that makes it happen.
How many presidential candidates have the guts to sit down for an interview with Glenn
Greenwald? Only one. Tulsi Gabbard. Excellent (and very challenging) questions from Greenwald
-- great responses from Gabbard.
Any candidate the Intercept finds worth interviewing is worth my time to look into. Still
a bit nervous about her glorification of military service but overall...
Great interview! Asked many questions I wanted to hear answers to. Gives a great sense of
Tulsi and where she stands on many issues with emphasis on foreign policy that seems to be
ignored everywhere else. Thank you Glenn.
Thank you for asking the tough questions Glenn. I really like Tulsi but the Modi questions
had been long in the waiting. I'm glad she answered them the way she did.
Tulsi is one in a generation natural born diplomat !!! She found an interesting way to stress the value of her foreign policy
credentials (which in general are not valued much by the US voters, who concentrate on internal problems) -- The US
President is the Commander in Chief of the Nation.
For the majority of Americans Tulsi stands out. There's no one coming even close. Bernie is a good talker, but totally
untrustworthy against DNC (folded in 2016 without a fight) as well as Israel's military aid and wars in ME.
Tulsi represents profiles in courage. She makes establishment candidate like Kamala look wanting. Of course the have support
of neoliberal MSM, while Tulsi is ignored. Even Democratic establishment (read neocons) are hostile toward Tulsi. Implicitly they
behave like "we don't want her muddying the waters".
Unfortunately there is a strong possibility that Tulsi will not be given a fair chance, the DNC under chairman Perez will
stick to party hierarchy even if he claims otherwise....
Notable quotes:
"... Tulsi is the only candidate in my lifetime who has had an actual demeanor worthy of global leadership. ..."
"... I LOVE her demeanor. She handles herself so well. She is calm & wise & fair. She will run circles @ the debates & not break a sweat! ..."
"... i am 76 and have never seen a politician of her caliber! ..."
"... So much capital was wasted on RussiaGate, but a totally legit SaudiGate scandal went ignored. 😔 ..."
"... TuIsi is in a league of her own. We are blessed. ..."
Democrats don't want auditable elections because they're in on election fraud in the
districts of the party elites. Wasserman-Schultz is the queen of the sleazes.
Niko- I have a line of questions I'm hoping you will address with Kulinski tomorrow &
if it doesn't align with your perspective I respect that it's not something you want to ask
& I'd be interested in hearing from you directly why you view it differently: I'm
increasingly concerned over the weak opposition by many Sanders supporters over many of his
positions these last few years.
It appears to me that Medicare for All has taken precedent
over fighting the military industrial complex & the millions of lives abroad affected by
it. This is not a trade-off for voters like me. It is true that he is better than most &
he has a strong background but he used to push for 3rd parties. This has changed along with
many other issues & I think anyone being honest with themselves know this to be true.
Beyond the excuses for his endorsement of Kissinger's proTPP Clinton, he has whitewashed
Bush/Cheney, called Mad Dog Mattis "the adult in the room", gone along with Russiagate &
even suggested some of his followers on Facebook were Russian trolls, given lipservice to the
Venezuelan "humanitarian aid", been silent on Assange, & repeatedly ignored his base on
all of the above. My questions are: How can progressives like this honestly trust Sanders to
fight for truth on these fronts?
Why is getting Medicare for All more important than fighting
against endless war? Is it possible that progressive media has done a disservice to electoral
progress by framing it as Sanders being cheated in 2016 & not emphasizing that it was a
greater betrayal of the VOTERS who were cheated? Saying that they will continue to push back
on him in these areas where he is wrong strikes me as completely baseless given their
inability to sway him these last few years. I'm tired of excuses & hoping for better
answers than "it's his turn", "he had to tow the line", or "that's for Tulsi as VP/Secretary
of State to do". Please & thank you!
Do a 1 to 2 minute setup, show the main piece/clip, then pontificate/summarize. I got so
bored I left the PC, made coffee, came back and you still hadn't got to the point of the
video 5 mins in. If you're doing a long-form stream then go with whatever. For these shorter
topical videos you need a shorter intro or need to cut out the filler in the edit process.
The long setup and unnecessary dramatic effect pauses will only irritate people that just
want the important part of what you're presenting.
I think support for Tulsi and Bernie can (and should) be congruent, especially since
ideally for me, they are both on that ticket. Not gonna lie, I want him on the helm of it,
but that's because then she gets a shot at a 10-year presidency. We need them both in that
admin ASAP. Their policies are complimentary, not juxtaposed. They only make each other
stronger. It's not a binary. I would be emphatic to vote for either one of them.
If she is
still competitive on super Tuesday, she has my vote. Otherwise, I think if she does not carry
the torch to the end, we need to be prepared to aggressively throw our weight behind Bernie
Sanders in a stronger way than 2016. (I also like Marianne Williamson, but I don't think
that's gonna happen.She got my dollar.)
We cannot roll over again. If they nominate Beto or
Kamala or Booker, we have to walk. In droves. Bearing in mind 4 more years of Trump is better
than 40 more years of being exploited by the democratic party for votes while not being
heard. It's effectively (and literally) taxation without representation. It's aristocracy.
It's bullshit. And if they nominate a moderate, we're gonna know they didn't fucking get it
before.
Commentators like Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson appeal to people who don't have the
intellectual capacity to know that they're being lied to by pseudo-intellectuals. I knew
Jordan Peterson was one of these, when I first heard his analysis of Dostoevsky's "Notes From
Underground," one of my favorite novels.
I love your show brother. I found #Tulsi2020 because of Bari
smearing her on jre. That led me to your show. Thanks for the help! Keep up the hard work.
#Tulsi2020
John
Doe1 day ago
What a true patriotic compassionate leader. Easily has my vote
111 112
View 15 replies Hide replies John Doe1 day
ago She can show the world how to lead. Tulsi 2020!!!!
58 59
View reply Hide replies Merwin ARTist1 day
ago Tulsi is awesome .. appreciate what she has to say about stopping these foolish regime
change wars! Respect!!! Tulsi2020
63 64
View reply Hide replies Fellow Citizen1
day ago They are terrified of Tulsi because they know that if people hear her they will
automatically vote for her. Tulsi: "...honour, respect, and integrity..." "Journalists":
"[clears throat at the prospect of competing on a fair playing-field]"
75 76
View 10 replies Hide replies Freedom Tribe1 day
ago Time is running out. We need this woman to lead us into the next epoch.
38 39
View reply Hide replies MR BOSTON1 day
ago I voted for trump but I would vote for her in a heart beat
57 58
View 6 replies Hide replies MoMo Bronx1 day
ago You just don't get more real than Tulsi I hope she win,the world need real
Leadership
31 32 Peace Harmony1 day
ago Tulsi is one of the few Democrats who isn't too scared to go on FOX News. And she is a
great candidate! A true patriot.
View 13 replies Hide replies Kedaar Iyer1 day
ago Make sure to get her to 100,000 individual donors so that she can be on the debate
stage!
www.tulsi2020.com
25 26
View 2 replies Hide replies lendallpitts1 day
ago Tulsi Gabbard is the most presidential of all of the candidates.
11 12 John Doe1 day ago
(edited) I love the compassion in the comments. That's what we're talking about. Service to
others, learn to love thy neighbor
12 13 Kostas K1 day
ago Honour Integrity and respect, qualities that the White House has never experienced so
far in it's history.
14 15 OTR
Trucker1 day ago
(edited) Thanks for running Tulsi. If we look at history it's Presidents without a military
background that get us into the biggest disasters. Veterans still get us into wars sometimes
but they are wars that are limited in scope and "winnable". Every open ended catastrophe we've
been in was from a non vet.
32 33
View 4 replies Hide replies Jeremy Chase1 day
ago I was speaking with an older couple yesterday. They obviously had a lot of MSM on the
brain. The woman said, I would like to see a woman in The White House. I said, Tulsi Gabbard is
your woman! Don't let the media lie to you about her. They just want their senseless wars. You
go, Tulsi! ✌
16 17
View reply Hide replies Michael Dob1 day
ago What a concept. Serve American interest instead of corporations and foreign
governments.
This was true about Iraq war. This is true about Venezuela and Syria.
Notable quotes:
"... In a rather odd article in the London Review of Books , Perry Anderson argued that there wasn't, and wondered aloud why the U.S. war on Iraq had excited such unprecedented worldwide opposition - even, in all places, within the U.S. - when earlier episodes of imperial violence hadn't. ..."
"... Lots of people, in the U.S. and abroad, recognize that and are alarmed. And lots also recognize that the Bush regime represents an intensification of imperial ambition. ..."
"... Why? The answers aren't self-evident. Certainly the war on Iraq had little to do with its public justifications. Iraq was clearly a threat to no one, and the weapons of mass destruction have proved elusive. The war did nothing for the fight against terrorism. Only ideologues believe that Baghdad had anything to do with al Qaeda - and if the Bush administration were really worried about "homeland security," it'd be funding the defense of ports, nuclear reactors, and chemical plants rather than starting imperial wars and alienating people by the billions. Sure, Saddam's regime was monstrous - which is one of the reasons Washington supported it up until the invasion of Kuwait. The Ba'ath Party loved to kill Communists - as many as 150,000 according to some estimates - and the CIA's relationship with Saddam goes back to 1959 . ..."
"... Iraq has lots of oil , and there's little doubt that that's why it was at the first pole of the axis of evil to get hit. (Iran does too, but it's a much tougher nut to crack - four times as big, and not weakened by war and sanctions.) ..."
Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small c rappy little country and
throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.
- Michael
Ledeen , holder of the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute
Actually, the U.S. had been beating Iraq's head against the wall for a dozen years, with
sanctions and bombing. The
sanctions alone killed over a million Iraqis, far more than have been done in by weapons of
mass destruction throughout history. But Ledeen's indiscreet remark, delivered at an AEI
conference and reported by Jonah Goldberg in National Review Online , does capture some
of what the war on Iraq is about.
And what is this "business" Ledeen says we mean? Oil, of course, of which more in a bit.
Ditto construction contracts for Bechtel. But it's more than that - nothing less than the
desire, often expressed with little shame nor euphemism, to run the world. Is there anything
new about that?
The answer is, of course, yes and no. In a rather odd article in the London Review of Books ,
Perry Anderson argued that there wasn't, and wondered aloud why the U.S. war on Iraq had
excited such unprecedented worldwide opposition - even, in all places, within the U.S. - when
earlier episodes of imperial violence hadn't. Anderson, who's edited New Left Review for years, but who has almost no
connection to actual politics attributed this strange explosion not to a popular outburst of
anti-imperialism, but to a cultural antipathy to the Bush administration.
Presumably that antipathy belongs to the realm of the " merely cultural ," and is of no great
political significance to Anderson. But it should be. U.S. culture has long been afflicted with
a brutally reactionary and self-righteous version of Christian fundamentalism, but it's never
had such influence over the state. The president thinks himself on a mission from God, the
Attorney General opens the business day with a prayer meeting, and the Pentagon's idea of a
Good Friday service is to invite Franklin Graham , who's pronounced Islam a "wicked and
evil religion," to deliver the homily, in which he promised that Jesus was returning soon. For
the hard core, the Iraq war is a sign of the end times, and the hard core
are in power.
Lots of people, in the U.S. and abroad, recognize that and are alarmed. And lots also
recognize that the Bush regime represents an intensification of imperial ambition. Though the
administration has been discreet, many of its private sector intellectuals
have been using the words "imperialism" and " empire " openly and with
glee. Not everyone of the millions who marched against the war in the months before it started
was a conscious anti-imperialist, but they all sensed the intensification, and were further
alarmed.
While itself avoiding the difficult word "empire," the Bush administration has been rather
clear about its long-term aims. According to their official national security strategy and the
documents published by the Project
for a New American Century (which served as an administration-in-waiting during the Clinton
years) their goal is to assure U.S. dominance and prevent the emergence of any rival powers.
First step in that agenda is the remaking of the Middle East - and they're quite open
about this as well. We all know the countries that are on the list; the only remaining issues
are sequence and strategy. But that's not the whole of the agenda. They're essentially
promising a permanent state of war, some overt, some covert, but one that could take
decades.
Imperial returns?
Why? The answers aren't self-evident. Certainly the war on Iraq had little to do with its
public justifications. Iraq was clearly a threat to no one, and the weapons of mass destruction
have proved elusive. The war did nothing for the fight against terrorism. Only ideologues
believe that Baghdad had anything to do with al Qaeda - and if the Bush administration were
really worried about "homeland security," it'd be funding the defense of ports, nuclear
reactors, and chemical plants rather than starting imperial wars and alienating people by the
billions. Sure, Saddam's regime was monstrous - which is one of the reasons Washington
supported it up until the invasion of Kuwait. The Ba'ath Party loved to kill Communists - as
many as 150,000 according to some estimates - and the CIA's relationship with Saddam goes back
to 1959
.
Iraq has lots of oil , and there's little doubt that that's why
it was at the first pole of the axis of evil to get hit. (Iran does too, but it's a much
tougher nut to crack - four times as big, and not weakened by war and sanctions.)
It now looks
fairly certain that the U.S. will, in some form, claim some large piece of Iraq's oil. The
details need to be worked out; clarifying the legal situation could be very complicated, given
the rampantly illegal nature of the regime change. Rebuilding Iraq's oil industry will be very
expensive and could take years. There could be some nice profits down the line for big oil
companies - billions a year - but the broader economic benefits for the U.S. aren't so clear. A
U.S.-dominated Iraq could pump heavily and undermine OPEC, but too low an oil price would wreck
the domestic U.S. oil industry, something the Bush gang presumably cares
about. Mexico would be driven into penury, which could mean another debt crisis and lots of
human traffic heading north over the Rio Grande. Lower oil prices would be a boon to most
industrial economies, but they'd give the U.S. no special advantage over its principal economic
rivals.
It's
sometimes said that U.S. dominance of the Middle East gives Washington a chokehold over oil
supplies to Europe and Japan. But how might that work? Deep production cutbacks and price
spikes would hurt everyone. Targeted sales restrictions would be the equivalent of acts of war,
and if the U.S. is willing to take that route, a blockade would be a lot more efficient. The
world oil market is gigantic and complex, and it's not clear how a tap could be turned in
Kirkuk that would shut down the gas pumps in Kyoto or Milan.
Writers like David Harvey argue
that the U.S. is trying to compensate for its eroding economic power by asserting its military
dominance. Maybe. It's certainly fascinating that Bush's unilateralism has to be financed by
gobs of foreign money - and he gets his tax cuts, he'll have to order up even bigger gobs. But
it's hard to see what rival threatens the U.S. economically; neither the EU nor Japan is
thriving. Nor is there any evidence that the Bush administration is thinking seriously about
economic policy, domestic or international, or even thinking at all. The economic staff is
mostly dim and marginal. What really seems to excite this gang of supposed conservatives is the
exercise of raw state power.
Jealous rivals
And while the Bushies want to prevent the emergence of imperial rivals , they may only be encouraging that. Sure, the EU
is badly divided within itself; it has a hard enough time picking a top central banker , let alone deciding on a common
foreign policy. German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder is already semi-apologizing to Bush for
his intemperate language in criticizing the war - not that Bush has started taking his calls.
But over the longer term, some kind of political unification is Europe's only hope for acting
like a remotely credible world power. It's tempting to read French and German objections to the
Iraq war as emerging not from principle, but from the wounded narcissism of former imperial
powers rendered marginal by American might. Separately, they'll surely hang. But a politically
united Europe could, with time, come to challenge U.S. power, just as the euro is beginning to look like a credible rival to the dollar.
(Speaking of the euro, there's a theory circulating on the net that the U.S. went to war
because Iraq wanted to price its oil in euros, not dollars. That's grossly overheated
speculation. More on this and related issues when LBO begins an investigation of the
political economy of oil in the next issue.)
An even more interesting rivalry scenario would involve an alliance of the EU and Russia.
Russia is no longer the wreck it was for most of the 1990s. The economy has been growing and
the mildly authoritarian Putin has imposed political stability. Russia, which has substantial
oil interests in Iraq that are threatened by U.S. control, strongly opposed the war, and at
least factions within the Russian intelligence agency were reportedly feeding information
unfriendly to the U.S. to the website Iraqwar.ru . There's a lot recommending an EU-Russia
alliance; Europe could supply technology and finance, and Russia could supply energy, and
together they could constitute at least an embryonic counterweight to U.S. power.
So the U.S. may not get out of Iraq what the Bush administration is hoping for. It certainly
can't want democracy in Iraq or the rest of the region, since free votes could well lead to
nationalist and Islamist governments who don't view ExxonMobil as the divine agent that Bush seems to. A
New York Times piece celebrated the outbreak of democracy in Basra, while conceding that
the mayor is a former Iraqi admiral appointed by the British. The lead writers of the new
constitution are likely to be American law professors; Iraqis, of course, aren't up to the task
themselves.
Certainly the appointment of Lt. Gen. Jay M. Garner (Ret.) - one of the
few superannuated brass not to have enjoyed a consulting contract with a major TV network - to
be the top civilian official guiding the postwar reconstruction of Iraq speaks volumes. A
retired general is barely a civilian, and Garner's most recent job was as president of
SY Technology , a military
contractor that worked with Israeli security in developing the Arrow antimissile system. He
loves antimissile systems; after the first Gulf War, he enthused about the Patriot's
performance with claims that turned out to be nonsense. He's on record as having praised
Israel's handling of the intifada. If that's his model of how to handle restive subject
populations, there's lots of trouble ahead.
lightness
In the early days of the war, when things weren't going so well for the "coalition,"
it was said that the force was too light. But after the sandstorm cleared and the snipers
were mowed down, that alleged lightness became a widely praised virtue. But that force
was light only by American standards: 300,000 troops; an endless rain of Tomahawks,
JDAMs, and MOABs; thousands of vehicles, from Humvees to Abrams tanks; hundreds of
aircraft, from Apaches to B-1s; several flotillas of naval support - and enormous
quantities of expensive petroleum products. It takes five gallons of fuel just to start
an Abrams tank, and after that it gets a mile per gallon. And filling one up is no
bargain. Though the military buys fuel at a wholesale price of 84¢ a gallon, after
all the expenses of getting it to the front lines are added in, the final cost is about
$150 a gallon. That's a steal compared to Afghanistan, where fuel is helicoptered in,
pushing the cost to $600/gallon. Rummy's "lightness" is of the sort that only a $10
trillion economy can afford.
The Bush gang doesn't even try to keep up appearances, handing out contracts for Iraq's
reconstruction to U.S. firms even before the shooting stopped, and guarding only the oil and
interior ministries against looters. If Washington gets its way, Iraq will be rebuilt according
to the fondest dreams of the Heritage Foundation staff, with the educational system reworked by
an American contractor, the TV programmed by the Pentagon, the ports run by a rabidly antiunion
firm, the police run by the Texas-based military contractor Dyncorp , and the oil taken out of
state hands and appropriately privatized.
That's the way they'd like it to be. But the sailing may not be so smooth. It looks like
Iraqis are viewing the Americans as occupiers, not liberators. It's going to be hard enough to
remake Iraq that taking on Syria or Iran may be a bit premature. But that doesn't mean they
won't try. It's a cliché of trade negotiations that liberalization is like riding a
bicycle - you have to keep riding forward or else you'll fall over. The same could be said of
an imperial agenda: if you want to remake the world, or a big chunk of it, there's little time
to pause and catch your breath, since doubt or opposition could gain the upper hand. Which
makes stoking that opposition more
urgent than ever.
Losing it all
There's a feeling around that Bush is now politically invulnerable . Certainly the atmosphere
is one of almost coercive patriotism. That mood was nicely illustrated by an incident in
Houston in mid-March. A teenager attending a rodeo failed to stand along with the rest of the
crowd during a playing of Lee Greenwood's "Proud to be an American," a dreadful country song
that has become a kind of private-sector national anthem for the yahoo demographic, thanks to
its truculent unthinking jingoism. A patriot standing behind the defiantly seated teen started
taunting him, tugging on his ear as an additional provocation. The two ended up in a fight, and
then under arrest.
There's a lot of that going around, for sure. Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins get disinvited
from events, websites nominate
traitors for trial by military tribunal, and talk radio hosts organize CD-smashings. But things
aren't hopeless. A close analysis of Greenwood's text might suggest why. The song's core
argument is contained in its two most famous lines: "I'm proud to be an American/where at least
I know I'm free." But the oft-overlooked opening reads: "If tomorrow all the things were
gone/I'd worked for all my life," the singer would still be a grateful patriot. That's
precisely the condition lots of Americans find themselves in. More than two million jobs have
disappeared in the last two years. Millions of Americans have seen their retirement savings
wiped out by the bear market, and over a million filed for bankruptcy last year. Most states and
cities are experiencing their worst fiscal crises since the 1930s, with massive service cuts
and layoffs imminent. In the song, such loss doesn't matter, but reality is often less
accommodating than a song.
As the nearby graphs show, W's ratings are much lower than his father's at the end of Gulf
War I, and his disapproval ratings much higher. Their theocratic and repressive agenda is
deeply unpopular with large parts of the U.S. population. Spending scores of billions on
destroying and rebuilding Iraq while at home health clinics are closing and teachers working
without pay is potentially incendiary. Foreign adventures have never been popular with the
American public (much to the distress of the ruling elite). An peace movement that could draw
the links among warmongering, austerity, and repression has great political potential. Just a
month or two ago, hundreds of thousands were marching in American streets to protest the
imminent war. Though that movement now looks a bit dispirited and demobilized, it's unlikely
that that kind of energy will just disappear into the ether.
It might well be that Trump treatment of 9/11 as unsolved investigation was one of the red flag for establishment
(and personally Brennan) which led to launching of Russiagate.
Notable quotes:
"... But why was Brennan so anti-Syria and anti-Ukraine? What personal motives did he have? ..."
"... Can someone please explain what it was about Donald Trump at the time that this all began, that Brennan would set all of this in motion? ..."
"... For one thing, Trump, early in his campaign stated that he had suspicions regarding official explanations of 9/11. ..."
But why was Brennan so anti-Syria and anti-Ukraine? What personal motives did he have? Why
target two regimes esp hated by Jews?
It seems he's like McCain. A mean nasty son of a bitch who likes to play world politics.
It's his bullying nature. But he has no vision or compass. Like a dog, he will hunt and maul
anything that is approved by the Power. And that Power is Jewish.
Dogs love to hunt but only get to hunt what the master orders it to. If the master orders
the dog to love rabbits and hunt raccoon, it will do just that. If the master orders it to
love raccoon and hunt rabbits, it will do that. In the end, the dog doesn't care what it
hunts as long as it's given a chance to hunt something.
Same with these goy cuck dogs. Their lives feel fulfilled only in Big Power bully mode.
They need to beat up on something. But they have no vision or compass, no agency. They look
over their shoulders to the Power to tell them what to love(Israel and Saudis) and what to
hate(Iran and Syria and Russia).
Dogs growl at dogs, not at their masters. When Trump came around, Brennan didn't see him
as the new master but as a bad dog(or even wolf) displeasing his master, the Jews. Like
McCain, a very loyal dog. Also, a dog feels jealousy that the master may take to a new dog
over him.
I have to think that the pyramid goes higher still Brennan working for Hillary and Hillary
working for the combined plutocratic imperialist elite that make up the core of the Clinton
Foundation's billions these scumbags will never be touched for buying Killary, but maybe
Killary will end up in an orange jumpsuit, right beside her gopher Brennan
And maybe Trump finally has his hands untied to start doing the things he promised time
will tell
But evidence of wrongdoing is not proof that Comey was the ringleader, he was just the
hapless sad sack who was left holding the bag. The truth is, Comey was just a reluctant
follower. The real architect of the Trump-Russia treachery was the boss-man at the nation's
premier intelligence agency, the CIA.
suspect you are correct
Brennan seems like the real evil, Comey just a doofus
@R Boyd
"Can someone please explain what it was about Donald Trump at the time that this all began,
that Brennan would set all of this in motion?"
He was not truly compromised thus controlled by the spooks. So they were trying to achieve
that, and it appears based on Trump's behavior, that they did achieve that
@FB Trump
is totally responsible for the assault on Venezuela. Trump hired these thugs, Trump agreed to
the strategy, Trump gives the command. Trump is a f ING disaster, a thug and a Mafia scubag.
@Z-man Lets
make it clear. Wars are also existential mater for US generals. As a mater of fact for all
generals around the world. Generals simply love wars.
In this case he looks like Bill Clinton impersonalization ;-) That's probably how Adelson controls Bolton ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... Larry Flint had offered a Million dollars to anyone who had proof of republican sexual exploits. He was quickly fingered by someone who attended those clubs. He was forced to accept a temporary position and quietly resigned after a few months so as to avoid facing questions. ..."
@FB Yeah brother,
that POS was called out during his confirmation hearings during baby Bush's presidency. Larry Flint had offered a Million
dollars to anyone who had proof of republican sexual exploits. He was quickly fingered by someone who attended those clubs. He
was forced to accept a temporary position and quietly resigned after a few months so as to avoid facing questions.
Someone said they saw him proposition a teenage girl outside one of the swinger clubs he frequented.
A really interesting discussion. the problem with discussion on new direction of the USA foreign policy is that forces that
control the current forign policy will not allow any changes. Russiagate was in part a paranoid reaction of the Deep State to the
possibility of detente with Russia and also questioning "neoliberal sacred truth" like who did 9/11 (to suggest that Bush is
guilty was a clear "Red Flag") and critical attribute to forrign wars which feed so many Imperial servants.
BTW Trump completely disappointed his supporters in the foreign policy is continuing to accelerate that direction
Here is how you chart a Progressive foreign policy stop treating the US intelligence
agencies of the CIA and FBI as orgs of integrity. Ban all foreign lobbying so no foreign
government can influence foreign policy.
Disband the Veto powers that the US holds over the UN
security council. Prosecute former Presidents and Government officials for the illegal regime
change wars.
Connect with other progressive politicians around the world such as Jeremy Corbyn,
Jean Luc Melenchon and Moon Jae In. End the arms race and begin a peaceful space race to
colonize the moon diverting funds from the military industrial complex into something
fulfilling.
What BULL while world under the fog of Berlin wall down, USA VP Bush attacks
Panama 8000 Marines kills 3500 panamanians , gives the banks to CIA, therefore Panama papers.
Another coup in Latin America. When V.P. Bush "we had to get over the Vietnam Syndrome". So
Killing 3500 people , to get over the loser spirit, suicidal influence from Vietnam. SHAME USA
more hate for Americans. And Now Venezuela, more Shame and Hate for Americans. Yankee go home,
Gringo stay home is chanted once more.
The audio is a little off especially for a couple speakers but this discussion is
great. Trump ran on a non-interventionist platform, but in his typical dishonest fashion, he
appointed people who are developing usable nukes like characters out of Dr. Strangelove.
Nuclear weapons and climate change are both existential threats that all the world needs to act
together to address.
17 plus years later some people are finally starting to talk about the $6
trillion wars and the $750 billion annual Defense Department Budget.... Please consider giving
Tulsi Gabbard at least a $1 contribution so she can be part of the debate between Democratic
presidential candidates. She has made ending the wars on terrorism and regime change the
primary issue of her candidacy. She is an Iraq vet and currently in the National Guard. Her
rank is Colonel. She needs $62,500 and contributions from 200 people in each of 20 states.
Thanks for anything you can do.
Jim R2 months ago
President Eisenhower's farewell address warned us of the very thing that is happening today with the industrial military
complex and the power and influence that that entity weilds.
chickendinner2012, 2 months ago
End the wars, no more imperialism, instead have fair trade prioritizing countries that have a living wage and aren't
waging war etc. No more supporting massive human rights abusers like Saudi Arabia, Israel, UAE etc. and we need to get three
of the most aggressive countries the F UK US coalition that constantly invades and bombs everyone they want to steal from to
stop doing war, stop coups, stop covert sabotage, stop sanctions.
asbeautifulasasunset, 2 months ago
17 plus years later some people are finally starting to talk about the $6 trillion wars and the $750 billion annual
Defense Department Budget.... Please consider giving Tulsi Gabbard at least a $1 contribution so she can be part of the
debate between Democratic presidential candidates. She has made ending the wars on terrorism and regime change the primary
issue of her candidacy. She is an Iraq vet and currently in the National Guard. Her rank is Colonel. She needs $62,500 and
contributions from 200 people in each of 20 states. Thanks for anything you can do.
carol wagner sudol2 months ago
Israel today has become a nazi like state. period. That says it all. This is heart-breaking. Gaza is simply a
concentration camp.
Tom Hall, 2 months ago
All our post WWII foreign policy has been about securing maintaining and enhancing corporate commercial interests. What
would seem to progressives as catastrophic failures are in fact monumental achievements of wealth creation and concentration.
The billions spent on think tanks to develop policy are mostly about how to develop grand narratives that conceal the true
beneficiaries of US foreign policy and create fear, uncertainty and insecurity at home and abroad.
It is all really simple: if the Ukrainians will give passports to Russian citizens, and
we in Russia will be handing out passports to the Ukrainians, then sooner or later will will
reach the expected result: everybody will have the same citizenship. This is something which
we have to welcome.
Vladimir Putin
It appears that the Kremlin is very slowly changing its approach to the Ukrainian issue and
is now relying more on unilateral actions. The first two measures taken by the Russians are
maybe not "too little too late", but certainly "just the bare minimum and at that, rather
late". Still, I can only salute the Kremlin's newly found determination. Specifically, the
Kremlin has banned the export of energy products to the Ukraine (special exemptions can still
be granted on a case by case basis) and the Russians have decided to distribute Russian
passports to the people of Novorussia. Good.
Zelenskii's reaction to this decision came as the first clear sign that the poor man has no
idea what he is doing and no plan as to how to deal with the Russians. He decided to crack a
joke, (which he is reportedly good at), and declare that the Ukrainian passport was much better
than the Russian one and that the Ukraine will start delivering Ukrainian passports to Russian
citizens. Putin immediately replied with one of his typical comebacks declaring that he
supports Zelenskii and that he looks forward to the day when Russians and Ukrainians will have
the same citizenship again. Zelenskii had nothing to say to that :-)
Zelenskii finally finds something common to Russia and the Ukraine
I have been thinking long about this "a lot in common" between Ukraine and Russia. The
reality is that today, after the annexation of the Crimea and the aggression in the Donbas,
of the "common" things we have only one thing left – this is the state border. And
control of every inch on the Ukrainian side, must be returned by Russia. Only then will we be
able to continue the search for [things in] "common"
Vladimir Zelenskii
Well, almost. He did eventually make a Facebook post in which he declared that all that
Russia and the Ukraine had in common was a border. This instantly made him the object of jokes
and memes, since all Russians or Ukrainians know that Russia and the Ukraine have many old
bonds which even 5 years of a vicious civil war and 5 years of hysterically anti-Russian
propaganda could not sever. They range from having close relatives in the other country, to
numerous trade and commercial transactions, to a common language. The closest thing to a real
Ukrainian language would be the Surzhik which is roughly 50/50 in terms of vocabulary and whose
pronunciation is closer to the south Russian one than to the Zapadenskii regional dialect
spoken in the western Ukraine and which is used (and currently imposed) by the Ukronazi junta
in Kiev.
In this case he looks like Bill Clinton impersonalization ;-) That's probably how Adelson controls Bolton ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... Larry Flint had offered a Million dollars to anyone who had proof of republican sexual exploits. He was quickly fingered by someone who attended those clubs. He was forced to accept a temporary position and quietly resigned after a few months so as to avoid facing questions. ..."
@FB Yeah brother,
that POS was called out during his confirmation hearings during baby Bush's presidency. Larry Flint had offered a Million
dollars to anyone who had proof of republican sexual exploits. He was quickly fingered by someone who attended those clubs. He
was forced to accept a temporary position and quietly resigned after a few months so as to avoid facing questions.
Someone said they saw him proposition a teenage girl outside one of the swinger clubs he frequented.
The real story behind this or any other presidency is Who could stand up to the deep
state/neocons?
Trump is an outsider who is up against powerful, entrenched forces who apparently do
whatever they want to do. (and they would be the same had Bernie won the presidency).
Bernie seems to lack the spine. Tulsi on the other hand is a tough cookie--but could she
ever find adequate military and DOJ support?
Look how Tulsi deal with really hostile interviewers. A real nasty attack dog.
Notable quotes:
"... That was absolutely disgusting. He didn't say should we "pull our forces out around the world." He said should we "take our boot off their necks." Warmongering imperialist. ..."
"... So rude he won't let her talk, Tulsi is awesome this guy is a joke he doesn't know history. ..."
That was absolutely disgusting. He didn't say should we "pull our forces out around the
world." He said should we "take our boot off their necks." Warmongering imperialist.
Damn, Tulsi totally smashed him. Now, his supporters gonna have a second thought as they
got a short taste of truth/facts on Saudi. Tulsi can easily defeat Trump.
Ordinary Human, 2 weeks ago
Intelligent, calm, speaks clearly qualities you look for in a leader.
Timothy Lavoie, 2 weeks ago
So rude he won't let her talk, Tulsi is awesome this guy is a joke he doesn't know history.
Tulsi Gabbard does have guts. I saw her in a recent interview with Shannon Bream. She said
the US basically needs to let Venezuelans handle their own internal political affairs. I
agree. She appears to be firmly opposed to US military intervention there.
Chris Hedges, host of "On Contact," joins Rick Sanchez to discuss the role of the Democratic establishment in the "Russiagate"
media frenzy. He argues that it was an unsustainable narrative given the actions of the White House but that the Democratic elite
are unable to face their own role in the economic and social crises for which they are in large part to blame. They also discuss
NATO's expansionary tendencies and how profitable it is for US defense contractors.
Years ago I kept hearing from the newsmedia that Russia was the "enemy".
Frontline had a show about "Putin's Brain". Even Free
Speech TV shows like Bill Press and "The Nation" authors like Eric Alterman push the Hillary style warmongering and do nothing
to expose the outright lies out there.
These are supposed to be thought outside of the corporate mainstream newsmedia. The emphasis
only on Trump and Fox News is totally hypocritical.
The US and Great Britain are trying to economically cripple Syria via cutoff of oil
supplies as "The Syrian government is scrambling to deal with its worst fuel crisis since
the war began in 2011, aggravated by U.S. sanctions targeting oil shipments to
Damascus." https://www.apnews.com/a99a22ad2598474ca39a7d8cde560c31
"Under the sanctions imposed by the U.S. and Great Britain, no Iranian oil tankers are
allowed to transit the Suez Canal if they are destined for a Syrian port, a Syrian military
source told Al-Masdar News this morning."
Thus the Egyptian government is apparently technically lying about their role in the
sanction when they state "Egypt's government denied Wednesday banning the passage of oil
tankers to Syria through the Suez Canal. Navigation in the canal is going according to
international conventions and treaties that guarantee the right of safe navigation to all
tankers without discrimination."
https://syrianobserver.com/EN/news/49720/cairo-denies-syrian-accusations-on-banning-iranian-oil-tanker-passage.html
Consequently, Iran is shipping Syria oil via tanker trucks.
"1200 Iranian tankers loaded with oil products reached Syria through Iraq in the past
week," Al- Iraqia reports, adding, "The number of Iranian oil tankers are expected to reach
1500 per week, and after providing current Syrian needs, they will be fixed at 500 tankers
per week."
Those that oppose US and Israeli world domination has to buy time and promote economic
collapse within the Empire. Eventually the Sparta like militarism will bankrupt both
countries. The wild card is Venezuela - if they can get their hands on this oil they, and
their allies, can continue to spread chaos for a couple more decades. As it now stands the US
proven oil reserves are between 36-39 billion barrels and the US is consuming that oil at a
rate of about 4.3 billion barrels/year.
The US is also putting pressure on Turkey in hopes of deposing the current government that
supports the GNA in Libya and opposes the gulf states and Saudi Arabia. Turkey needs the
Iranian heavy crude for its Tupras refinery. Substituting heavy crude from Russia is an issue
as Russia has already contracted with Italy and Greece to supply heavy crude to their
refineries. https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2019/04/turkey-iran-usa-ankara-seeks-alternative-sources-iranian-oil.html
B wrote "The Syrian oilfields, which could produce enough to keep the country running, are under
control of the U.S. proxy forces. The U.S. prohibited to sell that oil to the Syrian
government."
It is about the money. It is another spinning plate trying to be war just like Iran,
Venezuela, etc. And when the money music stops (which is only when enough nations stop buying
US Treasuries) the elite are going to say that the poor should pay for those attempts at
war.
I like the comment by frances above about the drunk on the canal boat and China/Russia/et
al are trying to keep us alive, hoping the drunk passes out.....and we all get to watch and
learn how not to run a world where the drunk owns the punch bowl.
Israel and its friends in Washington and New York never miss the opportunity to exploit the
news cycle to tighten the screws a bit more, rendering any criticism of the Jewish state
unacceptable or even illegal. Israel's Ambassador to the United Nations Danny Danon has been
persistently
demanding that what he describes as anti-Semitic speech be criminalized. Danon declared
that "The time for talking and having a conversation is over. What Israel and the Jewish
community around the world demand is action – and now."
How exactly Danon would enforce his definition of acceptable speech is not clear, but the
demands to eliminate any negative commentary regarding the holocaust or on Israel and/or the
behavior of diaspora Jews have been promoted for some time, resulting in laws in Europe that
inflict harsh punish on those who dare to speak out. The latest incident in the campaign to
eliminate the First Amendment in America took place oddly enough on the pages of the New
York Times , which, in its international edition, ran a cartoon by a Portuguese cartoonist
showing a dog with the face of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on a leash leading a
caricature of Donald Trump wearing a yarmulke and a blind man's glasses. The Netanyahu-dog had
a tag on its collar featuring a Star of David.
There are several ways to interpret the cartoon. It is, of course, an insult to dogs to have
them depicted in such a fashion as to suggest that they might behave like the monstrous Israeli
Prime Minister. No dog would sink so low. One
observer , commenting from a dog's point of view, noted that "We canines share that saying
that 'the eyes are the window to the soul.' Look into our eyes and you'll see love and trust.
Look into Netanyahu's eyes you see cunning and deceit so why stick his head on our body?"
On the other hand, one might see in the cartoon a serious message, that Netanyahu has been
able to "wag the dog" with an ignorant and impulsive United States president who is so desirous
of pandering to Jews both in Israel and in the U.S. that he is blind to his obligation to do
what is best for the American people. Trump, who is the first president within memory not to
own a dog, would rather stroke the head of the disgusting casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson
than an intelligent and loyal Labrador retriever.
This is nothing new. In communist country Czechoslovakia 1948-1989 media every day wrote,
several times and they repeated it in TV about "with USSR all the time and never otherwise"
And any criticism od the state and the Party was crime.
The editorial cartoon was well within the usual and acceptable traditions of political
comment. It depicted with the usual license for caricature a political figure being led down
the garden path by another, and mocking him for it. What's the big deal?
Trump has not built a wall.
We have more immigrants coming in than at any time in American history.
We experienced a record number of opioid deaths in 2018 and the drugs still flow freely.
Trump is attempting to force the US into multiple wars that are of no benefit to us.
Trump bumped stocks.
Trump is allowing all of his supporters (many of them now former supporters) to be banned
from the internet.
Trump is allowing his supporters to be arrested and imprisoned for supporting him.
Trump is escalating tensions with Russia for no reason.
Trump has not pulled out of NATO.
Trump's replacement of NAFTA is the same thing as NAFTA.
Meanwhile, he has done more for Israel than any president ever in history.
Trump ended the Iran deal.
Trump attacked Assad over fake gassings.
Trump stopped aid to Palestine.
Trump hired John Bolton as his national security advisor.
Trump turned the US ambassador to the UN into a second Israeli ambassador to the UN.
Trump closed off all official communications and diplomatic relations with Palestine.
Trump sent $38 billion in US taxpayer money to Israel.
Trump made a $110 billion dollar arms deal with Saudi Arabia.
Trump moved the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Israel.
Trump refuses to pull troops out of Syria.
Trump somehow transferred the Syrian Golan Heights to Israel.
Trump is now apparently planning a war with Iran.
Would those knee-jerk critics have considered the political cartoon less outrageous or
offensive if The Master was not blind and the head of the dog on the leash had the features
of Donald Trump instead?
Actually the cartoon is somewhat misleading, IMO. It's unjustifiably generous to the orange
clown, because what the orange clown does, he does knowingly and willingly, not because he's
ignorant and impressionable. IOW, orange clown is evil, not blind.
@JoaoAlfaiate Correct.
I just posted this over on Facebook: Game over. The U.S. will now base its foreign policy,
not on national interests, but on the interests of Israel and its cabal in the United States.
This was an inevitable progression when you equate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism and
then appoint a high government official to punish countries on that basis. And, one might
add, the First Amendment is also under attack by the same folks to make illegal even the
mildest criticism of Israel here at home. Will this ever end?
Over the past few years, Israel's ongoing military occupation of Palestinian territory and
repeated invasions of the Gaza strip have triggered a fierce backlash against Israeli
policies virtually everywhere in the world -- except the United States.
With the new CNN poll showing Joe Biden representing the fossil wing of the Democratic party
with a 39% favorable rating as Bernie drops to 15%, it is eerily reminiscent of overstated
polls for HRC in 2016. Thanks to CNN, additional White House contenders have qualified for the
debate via the % option including former Colorado Gov John Hickenlooper who might take the
opportunity to inform the public why he attended the Bilderberg meeting in
2018 .
Given her almost totally hostile reception by every MSM outlet who deigned to interview her,
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard has experienced, as an opponent of regime change wars, more bad manners and
outright personal antagonism than any other candidate. While Gabbard easily qualified for the
debates via the $65,000 requirement and continues to attract SRO audiences in NH, Iowa,
California and elsewhere, yet until the newest CNN poll, she failed to register any % of public
support.
Something here does not compute given the 'favored' polls past history of favoritism. If the
Dems continue to put a brick wall around her, Jill Stein has already opened the Green Party
door as a more welcoming venue for a Tulsi candidacy. The Dems, who tend to be unprincipled and
vindictive, better be careful what they wish for.
Renee Parsons has been a member of the ACLU's Florida State Board of Directors and
president of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter. She has been an elected public official in
Colorado, an environmental lobbyist for Friends of the Earth and staff member of the US House
of Representatives in Washington DC. She can be found on Twitter
@reneedove31
Dimly Glimpsed
The Democrat establishment hates Tulsi with a passion. There appear to be several factors:
1) she opposes all the neocon wars, and opposes intervention in Venezuela.
2) She refuses to kowtow to the bipartisan establish sacred cows (an apt metaphor for Tulsi), such as blind support for
Saudi Arabia and Israel;
3) She gave the DNC and Hillary the back of her hand when she resigned as a vice-chair of the DNC in 2016, citing the
reason as unethical bias by the DNC during the primaries. In other words, she resigned because the DNC was not neutral during
the primaries, and colluded with Hillary to cheat Bernie;
4) Tulsi is very progressive, favoring single payer health care, student debt relief, the Green New Deal, etc.
For an establishment democrat, those policies are like garlic to a vampire.
Multiculturalism means that you confer political privileges on many an individual whose
illiberal practices run counter to, even undermine, the American political tradition.
Radical leaders across the U.S. quite seriously consider Illegal immigrants as candidates
for the vote -- and for every other financial benefit that comes from the work of American
citizens.
The rights of all able-bodied idle individuals to an income derived from labor not their
own: That, too, is a debate that has arisen in democracy, where the demos rules like a
despot.
But then moral degeneracy is inherent in raw democracy. The best political thinkers,
including America's constitution-makers, warned a long time ago that mass, egalitarian society
would thus degenerate.
What Bernie Sanders prescribes for the country -- unconditional voting -- is but an
extension of "mass franchise," which was feared by the greatest thinkers on Democracy. Prime
Minister George Canning of Britain, for instance.
Canning, whose thought is distilled in Russell Kirk's magnificent exegesis, "The
Conservative Mind," thought that "the franchise should be accorded to persons and classes
insofar as they possess the qualifications for right judgment and are worthy members of their
particular corporations."
By "corporations," Canning (1770-1827) meant something quite different to our contemporary,
community-killing multinationals.
"Corporations," in the nomenclature of the times, meant very plainly in "the spirit of
cooperation, based upon the idea of a neighborhood. [C]ities, parishes, townships, professions,
and trades are all the corporate bodies that constitute the state."
To the extent that an individual citizen is a decent member of these " little
platoons " (Edmund Burke's iridescent term), he may be considered, as Canning saw it, for
political participation.
"If voting becomes a universal and arbitrary right," cautioned Canning, "citizens become
mere political atoms, rather than members of venerable corporations; and in time this anonymous
mass of voters will degenerate into pure democracy," which, in reality is "the enthronement of
demagoguery and mediocrity." ("The Conservative Mind," p. 131.)
That's us. Demagoguery and mediocrity are king in contemporary democracies, where the
organic, enduring, merit-based communities extolled by Canning, no longer exists and are no
longer valued.
This is the point at which America finds itself and against which William Lecky, another
brilliant British political philosopher and politician, argued.
The author of "Democracy and Liberty" (1896) predicted that "the continual degradation of
the suffrage" through "mass franchise" would end in "a new despotism."
Then as today, radical, nascent egalitarians, who championed the universal vote abhorred by
Lecky, attacked "institution after institution," harbored "systematic hostility" toward "owners
of landed property" and private property and insisted that "representative institutions" and
the franchise be extended to all irrespective of "circumstance and character."
The franchise should be granted by whom? You're forgetting the 800 pound gorilla and where he
sits when he enters the room. Franchises and every other grant are granted by those who have
the power to grant them.
Canning's "organic, enduring, merit-based communities" will emerge, in ghastly form, as
the solipsistic constituencies of identity politics. Why do people like Omar laugh at America
and Americans? "Here's a people so stupid as to clasp the adder to its breast. You're
clasping? I'm biting."
Bernie is utopian. Utopians do terrible things if and when they have the power to do them.
But you can't fault him for insincerity.
The younger Tsarnaev who hid out near my home town was doing what his older brother told
him to do assuming that the bombing wasn't a false flag. Not an excuse. Only to say the kid
had no political convictions and probably wouldn't bother to vote if he could.
Sanders is just a wine and cheese socialist, totally an armchair theorist. He has no
background in actually doing anything besides being involved in politics which has provided a
living for him. It's doubtful he could run a couple of Walmarts. This is his last go-around
and he's out to see how much in contributions he can garner. Pushing the edge, theoretically
of course, keeps him in the conversation. He's worthless but such is the state of politics
where characters like him, Biden, and the rest of the Dem lineup could be taken seriously.
Just one big clown show.
@Jim
Bob Lassiter Yes, but, his wife could steal money from a collapsing college to serve her
daughter. Corruption must run in the family as Bernie has been conspicuously silent on this
subject. He must feel the Burn!
"... We absolutely have won most of those little wars it's just that majority of the population doesn't have the same definition of victory that our Neocon masters do. As long as we leave a county in ruins so it's development is set back for decades and there are multiple factions fighting for power, the Neocons cobble together a wonderful democratic election and call it a victory. ..."
"... Stay as long as it takes to make sure no major faction is strong enough to set nationwide policy, bomb everything that's required for a 20th Century society, then leave. If one faction plays nice by scraping and bowing to the US, fine, let them have a bit of electricity and running water. Otherwise, leave the factions to fight one another in the rubble and enjoying their new found freedom and democracy. ..."
"... Considering all the oil Venezuela has, they're just begging for some freedom and democracy. ..."
Sure. Let's invade Venezuela. Another jolly little war. It's full of commies and has a sea of oil. The only thing those Cuban-loving
Venezuelans lack are weapons of mass destruction.
This week, leading US neocons openly threatened that if the CIA's latest attempts to stage a coup to overthrow Venezuela's Maduro
government failed, Washington might send in the Marines.
Well, the coup was a big fiasco and the Venezuelan army didn't overthrow President Maduro. The CIA also failed to overthrow governments
in Moscow, Tehran and Damascus. Its only 'success' to date has been in overthrowing Ukraine's pro-Moscow government and putting a
bunch of corrupt clowns in its place at a cost near $10 billion.
The US has not waged a major successful war since World War II – unless you count invading Grenada, Panama and Haiti, or bombing
the hell out of Iraq, Syria, Somalia and Libya. That's a sobering thought given the Pentagon's recent announcement that it is cutting
back on little colonial wars (aka 'the war on terror') to get ready for real big wars against Russia and China, or even North Korea.
Venezuela is in a huge economic mess thanks to the crackpot economic policies of the Chavez and Maduro governments – and US economic
sabotage. But my first law of international affairs is: 'Every nation has the absolute god-given right to mismanage its own affairs
and elect its own crooks or idiots.'
Now, however, the administration's frenzied neocons want to start a war against Venezuela, a large, developed nation of 32.7 million,
at the same time we are threatening war against Iran, interfering all around Africa, and confronting Russia, China and perhaps North
Korea. Large parts of the Mideast and Afghanistan lie in ruins thanks to our 'liberation' campaigns.
Invading Venezuela would not be much of a problem for the US military: half the population hates the current government and might
welcome the Americans. Venezuela's military has only limited combat value. Right-wing regimes in neighboring Colombia and Brazil
might join the invasion.
But what then? Recall Iraq. The US punched through the feeble Iraqi Army whose strength had been wildly exaggerated by the media.
Once US and British forces settled in to occupation duties, guerilla forces made their life difficult and bloody. Iraqi resistance
continues today, sixteen years later. The same would likely happen in Venezuela.
There is deep anti-American sentiment in Latin America that existed long before Col. Chavez. Recall, for example, the large anti-American
riots that greeted Vice President Nixon's visit to Caracas in 1958.
'Yankees Go Home' is a rallying cry for much of Latin America. Blundering into Venezuela, another nation about which the Trump
administration knows or understands little, would stir up a hornet's next. Their ham-handed efforts to punish Cuba and whip up the
far right Cuban-American vote in Florida would galvanize anti-American anger across Latin America. Beware the ghost of Fidel.
ORDER IT NOW
Talks over Venezuela are underway between Washington and Moscow. Neither country has any major interest in Venezuela. Moscow is
stirring the pot there to retaliate for growing US involvement in Russia's backyard and Syria. Both the US and Russia should get
the hell out of Venezuela and mind their own business.
Instead, we hear crazy proposals to send 5,000 mercenaries to overthrow the Maduro regime. How well did the wide-scale use of
US-financed mercenaries work in Iraq and Afghanistan? A complete flop. The only thing they did competently was wash dishes at our
bases, murder civilians, and play junior Rambos.
For those who don't like the American Raj, a US invasion of Venezuela would mark a step forward in the crumbling of the empire.
More aimless imperial over-reach, more lack of strategy, more enemies generated.
The big winner would, of course, be the Pentagon and military industrial complex. More billions spent on a nation most Americans
could not find on a map if their lives depended on it, more orders for 'counter-insurgency' weapons, more military promotions, and
cheers from Fox News and wrestling fans.
Worst of all, the US could end up feeding and caring for wrecked Venezuela. How did we do with storm-ravaged Puerto Rico? It's
still in semi-ruin. Few want Venezuela's thick, heavy oil these days.
Venezuela could turn out to be a big, fat Tar Baby.
The "crackpot economic policies" of Chavez and Madero increased the health of the people through access to medical care, improved
housing, brought the literacy rate to one of the highest in Latin Americs, added years to average lifespan among other things
by emphasizing that the country's resources should improve the lives of Venezuela's citizens. This was accomplished by selling
resources in the capitalistic market -crackpot I grant you. The American sanctions and the seizure of Venezuelan assets are all
illegal under American law and Constitution given the treaties we have signed, but then if you want to know what those laws mean
all you have to do is ask any Native American tribe.
Who would pay Eric Prince's 5000 Blackwater hired assassins? Would the cash come from the pirate booty war chest or would the
citizens of America be stuck with the tab, once again?
@Walter Duranty Something
seems different. With Russian and Chinese intelligence help, the Guaido coup was a laughable joke. It made the US look like bozos.
I think Venezuela and allies tipped their hand there, and it is a strong one. I fear the US may be walking into a trap
It is interesting but several Pentagon/military officers are saying the Pentagon is not enthusiastic about invading Venezuela.
It is a rugged, jungle cloaked, country that is quite large and an American effort may end up being like the one in Vietnam.
I wonder how many are aware that Venezuela owns a majority of the oil company Citgo?
I wonder how many Americans know that for many years during Winter Citgo gave free heating oil to a large number of low income
households in the US northeast? while our own government was cutting back on low income heating oil subsidies.
We absolutely have won most of those little wars it's just that majority of the population doesn't have the same definition
of victory that our Neocon masters do. As long as we leave a county in ruins so it's development is set back for decades and there
are multiple factions fighting for power, the Neocons cobble together a wonderful democratic election and call it a victory.Stay as long as it takes to make sure no major faction is strong enough to set nationwide policy, bomb everything that's required
for a 20th Century society, then leave. If one faction plays nice by scraping and bowing to the US, fine, let them have a bit
of electricity and running water. Otherwise, leave the factions to fight one another in the rubble and enjoying their new found
freedom and democracy.Considering all the oil Venezuela has, they're just begging for some freedom and democracy.
It may be true that neither the US or Russia 'has any major interest in Venezuela', and that Putin may be 'stirring the pot'.
The real danger is, and globally the evidence points to this, an eventual clash between the major nuclear powers (world war).
It is ominous if Washington is getting for 'ready for real big wars against Russia and China, or even North Korea.' https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
Pentagon serves Wall Street and is controlled by CIA which is actually can be viewed as a
Wall Street arm as well.
Notable quotes:
"... This time, though, the general got to talking about Russia. So I perked up. He made it crystal clear that he saw Moscow as an adversary to be contained, checked, and possibly defeated. There was no nuance, no self-reflection, not even a basic understanding of the general complexity of geopolitics in the 21st century. ..."
"... General It-Doesn't-Matter-His-Name thundered that we need not worry, however, because his tanks and troops could "mop the floor" with the Russians, in a battle that "wouldn't even be close." It was oh-so-typical, another U.S. Army general -- who clearly longs for the Cold War fumes that defined his early career -- overestimating the Russian menace and underestimating Russian military capability . ..."
"... The problem with the vast majority of generals, however, is that they don't think strategically. What they call strategy is really large-scale operations -- deploying massive formations and winning campaigns replete with battles. Many remain mired in the world of tactics, still operating like lieutenants or captains and proving the Peter Principle right, as they get promoted past their respective levels of competence. ..."
"... If America's generals, now and over the last 18 years, really were strategic thinkers, they'd have spoken out about -- and if necessary resigned en masse over -- mission sets that were unwinnable, illegal (in the case of Iraq), and counterproductive . Their oath is to the Constitution, after all, not Emperors Bush, Obama, and Trump. Yet few took that step. It's all symptomatic of the disease of institutionalized intellectual mediocrity. ..."
"... Let's start with Mattis. "Mad Dog" Mattis was so anti-Iran and bellicose in the Persian Gulf that President Barack Obama removed him from command of CENTCOM. ..."
"... Furthermore, the supposedly morally untainted, "intellectual" " warrior monk " chose, when he finally resigned, to do so in response to Trump's altogether reasonable call for a modest troop withdrawal from Afghanistan and Syria. ..."
The two-star army general strode across the stage in his rumpled combat fatigues, almost
like George Patton -- all that was missing was the cigar and riding crop. It was 2017 and I was
in the audience, just another mid-level major attending yet another mandatory lecture in the
auditorium of the Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.
The general then commanded one of the Army's two true armored divisions and had plenty of
his tanks forward deployed in Eastern Europe, all along the Russian frontier. Frankly, most
CGSC students couldn't stand these talks. Substance always seemed lacking, as each general
reminded us to "take care of soldiers" and "put the mission first," before throwing us a few
nuggets of conventional wisdom on how to be good staff officers should we get assigned to his
vaunted command.
This time, though, the general got to talking about Russia. So I perked up. He made it
crystal clear that he saw Moscow as an adversary to be contained, checked, and possibly
defeated. There was no nuance, no self-reflection, not even a basic understanding of the
general complexity of geopolitics in the 21st century. Generals can be like that --
utterly "in-the-box," "can-do" thinkers. They take pride in how little they discuss policy and
politics, even when they command tens of thousands of troops and control entire districts,
provinces, or countries. There is some value in this -- we'd hardly want active
generals meddling in U.S. domestic affairs. But they nonetheless can take the whole "aw shucks"
act a bit too far.
General It-Doesn't-Matter-His-Name thundered that we need not worry, however, because
his tanks and troops could "mop the floor" with the Russians, in a battle that "wouldn't even
be close." It was oh-so-typical, another U.S. Army general -- who clearly longs for the Cold
War fumes that defined his early career -- overestimating the Russian menace and
underestimating Russian military
capability . Of course, it was all cloaked in the macho bravado so common among
generals who think that talking like sergeants will win them street cred with the troops.
(That's not their job anymore, mind you.) He said nothing, of course, about the role
of mid- and long-range nuclear weapons that could be the catastrophic consequence of an
unnecessary war with the Russian Bear.
I got to thinking about that talk recently as I reflected in wonder at how the latest
generation of mainstream "liberals" loves to fawn over generals, admirals -- any flag officers,
really -- as alternatives to President Donald Trump. The irony of that alliance should not be
lost on us. It's built on the standard Democratic fear of looking "soft" on terrorism,
communism, or whatever-ism, and their visceral, blinding hatred of Trump. Some of this is
understandable. Conservative Republicans masterfully paint liberals as "weak sisters" on
foreign policy, and Trump's administration is, well, a wild card in world affairs.
The problem with the vast majority of generals, however, is that they don't think
strategically. What they call strategy is really large-scale operations -- deploying massive
formations and winning campaigns replete with battles. Many remain mired in the world of
tactics, still operating like lieutenants or captains and proving the Peter Principle right, as they
get promoted past their respective levels of competence.
If America's generals, now and over the last 18 years, really were strategic thinkers,
they'd have spoken out about -- and if necessary resigned en masse over -- mission sets that
were unwinnable, illegal (in the case of Iraq), and counterproductive . Their oath is to
the Constitution, after all, not
Emperors Bush, Obama, and Trump. Yet few took that step. It's all symptomatic of the
disease of institutionalized intellectual mediocrity. More of the same is all they know:
their careers were built on fighting "terror" anywhere it raised its evil head. Some, though no
longer most, still subscribe to the faux intellectualism of General Petraeus and his legion of
Coindinistas
, who never saw a problem that a little regime change, followed by expert counterinsurgency,
couldn't solve. Forget that they've been proven wrong time and again and can count
zero victories since 2002. Generals (remember this!) are never held accountable.
Flag officers also rarely seem to recognize that they owe civilian policymakers more than
just tactical "how" advice. They ought to be giving "if" advice -- if we invade Iraq,
it will take 500,000 troops to occupy the place, and even then we'll ultimately destabilize the
country and region, justify al-Qaeda's worldview, kick off a nationalist insurgency, and become
immersed in an unwinnable war. Some, like Army Chief General Eric Shinseki and CENTCOM head
John Abizaid, seemed to
know this deep down. Still, Shinseki quietly retired after standing up to Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and Abizaid rode out his tour to retirement.
Generals also love to tell the American people that victory is
"just around the corner," or that there's a "light at the end of the tunnel." General
William Westmoreland used the very same language when predicting imminent victory in Vietnam.
Two months later, the North Vietnamese and Vietcong unleashed the largest uprising of the war,
the famed Tet Offensive.
Take Afghanistan as exhibit A: 17 or so generals have now commanded U.S. troops in this,
America's longest war. All have commanded within the system and framework of their
predecessors. Sure, they made marginal operational and tactical changes -- some preferred
surges, others advising, others counterterror -- but all failed to achieve anything close to
victory, instead laundering failure into false optimism. None refused to play the same-old game
or question the very possibility of victory in landlocked, historically xenophobic Afghanistan.
That would have taken real courage, which is in short supply among senior officers.
Exhibit B involves Trump's former cabinet generals -- National Security Advisor H.R.
McMaster, Chief of Staff John Kelley, and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis -- whom adoring and
desperate liberals took as saviors and canonized as the supposed adults
in the room . They were no such thing. The generals' triumvirate consisted ultimately of
hawkish conventional thinkers married to the dogma of American exceptionalism and empire.
Period.
Let's start with Mattis. "Mad Dog" Mattis was so anti-Iran and bellicose in the Persian
Gulf that President Barack Obama
removed him from command of CENTCOM.
Furthermore, the supposedly morally untainted, "intellectual" " warrior
monk " chose, when he finally resigned, to do so in response to Trump's altogether
reasonable call for a modest troop withdrawal from Afghanistan and Syria.
Helping Saudi Arabia terror bomb Yemen and starve 85,000 children to death? Mattis rebuked
Congress and
supported that. He never considered resigning in opposition to that war crime. No, he fell
on his "courageous" sword over downgrading a losing 17-year-old war in Afghanistan. Not to
mention he came to Trump's cabinet straight from the board of contracting giant General
Dynamics, where he collected hundreds of thousands of military-industrial complex dollars.
Then there was John Kelley, whom Press Secretary Sarah Sanders implied
was above media questioning because he was once a four-star marine general. And there's
McMaster, another lauded intellectual who once wrote an interesting book and taught history at
West Point. Yet he still drew all
the wrong conclusions in his famous book on Vietnam -- implying that more troops, more
bombing, and a mass invasion of North Vietnam could have won the war. Furthermore, his work
with Mattis on Trump's unhinged
, imperial National Defense Strategy proved that he was, after all, just another devotee of
American hyper-interventionism.
So why reflect on these and other Washington generals? It's simple: liberal veneration for
these, and seemingly all, military flag officers is a losing proposition and a formula for more
intervention, possible war with other great powers, and the creeping militarization of the
entire U.S. government. We know what the generals expect -- and potentially
want -- for America's foreign policy future.
Just look at the curriculum at the various war and staff colleges from Kansas to Rhode
Island. Ten years ago, they were all running war games focused on counterinsurgency in the
Middle East and Africa. Now those same schools are drilling for future "contingencies" in the
Baltic, Caucasus, and in the South China Sea. Older officers have always lamented the end of
the Cold War "good old days," when men were men and the battlefield was "simple." A return to a
state of near-war with Russia and China is the last thing real progressives should be
pushing for in 2020.
The bottom line is this: the faint hint that mainstream libs would relish a Six Days in May– style military coup is more than a little disturbing, no matter what you think
of Trump. Democrats must know the damage such a move would do to our ostensible republic. I
say: be a patriot. Insist on civilian control of foreign affairs. Even if that
means two more years of The Donald.
Danny Sjursen is a retired U.S. Army Major and regular contributor to Truthdig . His
work has also appeared in Harper's, the Los Angeles Times , The Nation , Tom Dispatch , and The
Hill . He served combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, and later taught history at his alma
mater, West Point. He is the author of Ghostriders of
Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge . Follow him on Twitter @SkepticalVet .
[ Note: The views expressed in this article are those of the author, expressed in an
unofficial capacity, and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of
the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. government.]
"... US global power is built on several significant facts. These include: the US victory in World War II, its subsequent advanced economy and dominant military position throughout five continents. ..."
"... The US advanced its dominance through a series of alliances in Europe via NATO; Asia via its hegemonic relationship with Japan, South Korea, Philippines and Taiwan as well as Australia and New Zealand in Oceana; Latin America via traditional client regimes; Africa via neo-colonial rulers imposed following independence. ..."
"... The most significant advance of US global power took place with the demise and disintegration of the USSR, the client states in Eastern Europe, as well as the transformation of China and Indo-China to capitalism during the 1980's. ..."
US global power in the Trump period reflects the continuities and changes which are
unfolding rapidly and deeply throughout the world and which are affecting the position of
Washington.
Assessing the dynamics of US global power is a complex problem which requires examining
multiple dimensions.
We will proceed by:
Conceptualizing the principles which dictate empire building,
specifically the power bases and the dynamic changes in relations and structures which shape
the present and future position of the US. Identifying the spheres of influence and power and
their growth and decline. Examining the regions of conflict and contestation. The major and
secondary rivalries. The stable and shifting relations between existing and rising power
centers. The internal dynamics shaping the relative strength of competing centers of global
power. The instability of the regimes and states seeking to retain and expand global power.
Conceptualization of Global Power
US global power is built on several significant facts. These include: the US victory in
World War II, its subsequent advanced economy and dominant military position throughout five
continents.
The US advanced its dominance through a series of alliances in Europe via NATO; Asia via its
hegemonic relationship with Japan, South Korea, Philippines and Taiwan as well as Australia and
New Zealand in Oceana; Latin America via traditional client regimes; Africa via neo-colonial
rulers imposed following independence.
US global power was built around encircling the USSR and China, undermining their economies
and defeating their allies militarily via regional wars.
Post WWII global economic and military superiority created subordinated allies and
established US global power, but it created the bases for gradual shifts in relations of
dominance.
US global power was formidable but subject to economic and military changes over time and in
space.
US Spheres of Power: Then and Now
US global power exploited opportunities but also suffered military setbacks early on,
particularly in Korea, Indo-China and Cuba. The US spheres of power were clearly in place in
Western Europe and Latin America but was contested in Eastern Europe and Asia.
The most significant advance of US global power took place with the demise and
disintegration of the USSR, the client states in Eastern Europe, as well as the transformation
of China and Indo-China to capitalism during the 1980's.
US ideologues declared the coming of a unipolar empire free of restraints and challenges to
its global and regional power. The US turned to conquering peripheral adversaries. Washington
destroyed Yugoslavia and then Iraq – fragmenting them into mini-states. Wall Street
promoted a multitude of multi-national corporations to invade China and Indo-China who reaped
billions of profits exploiting cheap labor.
The believers of the enduring rule of US global power envisioned a century of US imperial
rule.
In reality this was a short-sighted vision of a brief interlude.
The End of Unipolarity: New Rivalries and Global and Regional Centers of Power: An
Overview
US global power led Washington into 'overreach', in several crucial areas: it launched a
series of costly prolonged wars, specifically in Iraq and Afghanistan, which had three negative
consequences: the destruction of the Iraq armed forces and economy led to the rise of the
Islamic State which overtook most of the country; the occupation in Afghanistan which led to
the emergence of the Taliban and an ongoing twenty year war which cost hundreds of billions of
dollars and several thousand wounded and dead US soldiers; as a result the majority of the US
public turned negative toward wars and empire building
The US pillage and dominance of Russia ended, when President Putin replaced Yeltsin's vassal
state. Russia rebuilt its industry, science, technology and military power. Russia's population
recovered its living standards.
With Russian independence and advanced military weaponry, the US lost its unipolar military
power. Nevertheless, Washington financed a coup which virtually annexed two thirds of the
Ukraine. The US incorporated the fragmented Yugoslavian 'statelets' into NATO. Russia countered
by annexing the Crimea and secured a mini-state adjacent Georgia.
China converted the economic invasion of US multi-national corporations into learning
experiences for building its national economy and export platforms which contributed which led
to its becoming an economic competitor and rival to the US.
US global empire building suffered important setbacks in Latin America resulting
from the the so-called Washington Consensus. The imposition of neo-liberal policies
privatized and plundered their economies, impoverished the working and middle class, and
provoked a series of popular uprising and the rise of radical social movements and center-left
governments.
The US empire lost spheres of influence in some regions (China, Russia, Latin America,
Middle East) though it retained influence among elites in contested regions and even launched
new imperial wars in contested terrain. Most notably the US attacked independent regimes in
Libya, Syria, Venezuela, Somalia and Sudan via armed proxies.
The change from a unipolar to a multi polar world and the gradual emergence of regional
rivals led US global strategists to rethink their strategy. The Trump regime's aggressive
policies set the stage for political division within the regime and among allies.
The Obama – Trump Convergence and Differences on Empire Building
By the second decade of the 21 st century several new global power alignments
emerged: China had become the main economic competitor for world power and Russia was the major
military challenger to US military supremacy at the regional level. The US replaced the former
European colonial empire in Africa. Washington's sphere of influence extended especially in
North and Sub Sahara Africa: Kenya, Libya, Somalia and Ethiopia. Trump gained leverage in the
Middle East namely in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, and Jordan.
Israel retained its peculiar role, converting the US as its sphere of influence.
But the US faced regional rivals for sphere of influence in Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Iraq and
Algeria.
In South Asia US faced competition for spheres of influence from China, India, Afghanistan
and Pakistan.
In Latin America sharp and abrupt shifts in spheres of influence were the norm. US influence
declined between 2000 – 2015 and recovered from 2015 to the present.
Imperial Power Alignments Under President Trump
President Trump faced complex global, regional and local political and economic
challenges.
Trump followed and deepened many of the policies launched by the Obama- Hillary Clinton
policies with regard to other countries and regions . However Trump also radicalized and/or
reversed policies of his predecessors. He combined flattery and aggression at the same
time.
At no time did Trump recognize the limits of US global power. Like the previous three
presidents he persisted in the belief that the transitory period of a unipolar global empire
could be re-imposed.
Toward Russia, a global competitor, Trump adopted a policy of 'rollback'. Trump imposed
economic sanctions, with the strategic 'hope' that by impoverishing Russia, degrading its
financial and industrial sectors that he could force a regime change which would convert Moscow
into a vassal state.
At the beginning of his Presidential campaign Trump flirted with the notion of a business
accommodation with Putin. However, Trump's ultra-belligerent appointments and domestic
opposition soon turned him toward a highly militarized strategy, rejecting military –
including nuclear – agreements, in favor of military escalation.
Toward China, Trump faced a dynamic and advancing technological competitor. Trump resorted
to a 'trade war' that went far beyond 'trade' to encompass a war against Beijing's economic
structure and social relations. The Trump regime-imposed sanctions and threatened a total
boycott of Chinese exports.
ORDER IT NOW
Trump and his economic team demanded China privatize and denationalize its entire state
backed industry. They demanded the power to unilaterally decide when violations of US rules
occurred and to be able to re-introduce sanctions without consultations. Trump demanded all
Chinese technological agreements, economic sectors and innovations were subject and open to US
business interests. In other words, Trump demanded the end of Chinese sovereignty and the
reversal of the structural base for its global power. The US was not interested in mere 'trade'
– it wanted a return to imperial rule over a colonized China.
The Trump regime rejected negotiations and recognition of a shared power relation: it viewed
its global rivals as potential clients.
Inevitably the Trump regime's strategy would never reach any enduring agreements on any
substantial issues under negotiations. China has a successful strategy for global power built
on a 6 trillion-dollar world-wide Road and Belt (R and B) development policy, which links 60
countries and several regions. R and B is building seaports, rail and air systems linking
industries financed by development banks.
In contrast, the US banks exploits industry, speculates and operates within closed financial
circuits. The US spends trillions on wars, coups, sanctions and other parasitical activities
which have nothing to do with economic competitiveness.
The Trump regime's 'allies' in the Middle East namely Saudi Arabia and Israel, are parasitic
allies who buy protection and provoke costly wars.
Europe complains about China's increase in industrial exports and overlook imports of
consumer goods. Yet the EU plans to resist Trump's sanctions which lead to a blind alley of
stagnation!
Conclusion
The most recent period of the peak of US global power, the decade between 1989-99 contained
the seeds of its decline and the current resort to trade wars, sanctions and nuclear
threats.
The structure of US global power changed over the past seven decades. The US global empire
building began with the US command over the rebuilding of Western European economies and the
displacement of England, France, Portugal and Belgium from Asia and Africa.
The Empire spread and penetrated South America via US multi-national corporations. However,
US empire building was not a linear process as witness its unsuccessful confrontation with
national liberation movements in Korea, Indo China, Southern Africa (Angola, Congo, etc.) and
the Caribbean (Cuba). By the early 1960's the US had displaced its European rivals and
successfully incorporated them as subordinate allies.
Washington's main rivals for spheres of influence was Communist China and the USSR with
their allies among client state and overseas revolutionaries.
The US empire builders' successes led to the transformation of their Communist and
nationalist rivals into emergent capitalist competitors.
In a word US dominance led to the construction of capitalist rivals, especially China and
Russia.
Subsequently, following US military defeats and prolonged wars, regional powers proliferated
in the Middle East, North Africa, South Asia and Latin America. Regional blocs competed with US
clients for power.
The diversification of power centers led to new and costly wars. Washington lost exclusive
control of markets, resources and alliances. Competition reduced the spheres of US power.
In the face of these constraints on US global power the Trump regime envisioned a strategy
to recover US dominance – ignoring the limited capacity and structure of US political ,
economic and class relations.
China absorbed US technology and went on to create new advances without following each
previous stage.
Russia's recovered from its losses and sanctions and secured alternative trade relations to
counter the new challenges to the US global empire. Trump's regime launched a 'permanent trade
war' without stable allies. Moreover, he failed to undermine China's global infrastructure
network; Europe demanded and secured autonomy to enter into trade deals with China, Iran and
Russia.
Trump has pressured many regional powers who have ignored his threats.
The US still remains a global power. But unlike the past, the US lacks the industrial base
to 'make America strong'. Industry is subordinated to finance; technological innovations are
not linked to skilled labor to increase productivity.
Trump relies on sanctions and they have failed to undermine regional influentials. Sanctions
may temporarily reduce access to US markets' but we have observed that new trade partners take
their place.
Trump has gained client regimes in Latin America, but the gains are precarious and subject
to reversal.
Under the Trump regime, big business and bankers have increased prices in the stock market
and even the rate of growth of the GDP, but he confronts severe domestic political instability,
and high levels of turmoil among the branches of government. In pursuit of loyalty over
competence, Trump's appointments have led to the ascendancy of cabinet officials who seek to
wield unilateral power which the US no longer possesses.
Elliot Abrams can massacre a quarter-million Central Americans with impunity, but he has
failed to impose US power over Venezuela and Cuba. Pompeo can threaten North Kore, Iran and
China but these countries fortify alliances with US rivals and competitors. Bolton can advance
the interests of Israel but their conversations take place in a telephone booth – it
lacks resonance with any major powers.
Trump has won a presidential election, he has secured concessions from some countries but he
has alienated regional and diplomatic allies. Trump claims he is making America strong, but he
has undermined lucrative strategic multi-lateral trade agreements.
US 'Global Power' does not prosper with bully-tactics. Projections of power alone, have
failed – they require recognition of realistic economic limitations and the losses from
regional wars.
This is a fine synopsis but it leaves out the most fundamental of issues.
The American People don't want to be an Empire, .never asked to be an Empire and despise,
to the core, our ruling elites who defrauded us into becoming one.
We do live in an Empire now, to our chagrin, but it is (in truth) a malevolent empire .an
Empire of Fraud, Belligerence .. and Heinous
F#cking Debt .
Show me one American, anywhere, who is happy about it .
Our ruling elites have "lied" us into multiple wars of "never ending" criminal aggression
..wars which have all but exterminated the solvency of the nation and reaped untold carnage
and misery on tens of millions of people who never attacked us (and never intended to).
This "War Fraud", foisted upon us , has been a catastrophic disaster for our country and
the world.
A "mind -bending, catastrophic, . disaster".
Every single belligerent "oligarch" , "plutocrat" and "establishment elite", who conspired
to defraud us into these "illegal wars", should be rounded up and thrown in federal prison
Every single penny of their assets should be seized to pay down the cost of wars they lied us
into.
This is , hands down, the most meaningful step we could take, as a nation.
Not only would it change the direction of the world, almost overnight, but it would lay
the groundwork for the United States to rebuild itself.
Once we make "Accountability for War Fraud" our nations highest priority, we can repair
and rebuild.
If we don't, we won't and(tragically) might never be able to.
Neuroticism is characterized by "feeling negative feelings strongly," with the opposite of
Neuroticism being "Emotional Stability." Such "Negative Feelings" include sadness, anger and
jealousy. But females score particularly strongly on "anxiety" -- possibly because, in
prehistory, the children of anxious, protective mothers were less likely to get seriously
injured. But the key point is that the stereotype is correct.
And people are also correct to think that women -- that is, those who, on average, score
higher in Neuroticism -- will be less able to cope in the brutal world of power-politics.
Successful politicians -- the ones who get into their country's legislature but don't make
it to the very top -- score significantly lower than the general public in Neuroticism,
according to research published in the leading psychology journal Personality and Individual
Differences . [ The personalities of
politicians: A big five survey of American legislators , by Richard Hanania ,
2017]
And this research reveals something very interesting indeed. These "successful politicians,"
while being more emotionally stable than most voters, score higher in the personality
traits Extraversion ("feeling positive feelings strongly"), Conscientiousness ("rule-following
and impulse control") and Agreeableness ("altruism and empathy").
But this does not tend to be true of those who reach the very top of politics -- and
especially not of those who are perceived as great, world-changing statesmen. They tend to be
highly intelligent but above average on quite the opposite personality traits –
psychopathology and Narcissism [ Creativity and psychopathology , by F. Post British
Journal of Psychiatry, 1994]. However, high Agreeableness, Conscientiousness and
Extraversion are true of successful politicians in general.
In much the same way, run-of-the-mill scientists are above average in Agreeableness and
Conscientiousness but genius
scientists combine being relatively low in these traits with stratospheric
intelligence. This gives them creativity, drive and fearless to be original. [ At Our Wits'
End , by Edward Dutton and Michael Woodley of Menie, 2018, Ch. 6]
This is important, because these are typically female traits: women score higher than
men in Agreeableness, Consciousness and Extraversion. This means that, in general, we would
expect the relatively few females who do reach high political office to be fairly atypical
women: low in mental instability and certainly moderately low in altruism, empathy or both --
think
Margaret Thatcher , who according to Keith Patching in his 2006 book Leadership,
Character and Strategy, was organizing her impending Bar Finals from her hospital bed
having just had twins; or even Theresa May. Neither of these British Prime Ministers have (or
had) neither of whom have particularly "feminine" personalities, though they may reflect (or
have reflected) very pronounced Conscientiousness, a trait associated with social conservatism.
[
Resolving the "Conscientiousness Paradox" , by Scott A. McGreal, Psychology
Today , July 27, 2015]
But, sometimes, a female politician's typically anxiety will apparently be " compensated " for
i.e. overwhelmed by her having massively high Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. This likely
occurred in the case of Jacinda Ardern, who suffers from
intense anxiety to the point of having being hospitalized.
This will become a problem in a time of crisis when, as happened with Ardern, such a
politician will become over-emotional. This, combined with very high empathy, would seem to
partly explain Ardern's self-identification with New Zealand's Muslims to the extent of donning
a head scarf and breaking down in public.
But it also explains why females, on average, tend to be more left-wing than males and more
open to refugees. They feel empathy and even sadness for the plight of the refugees more
strongly than do men [ Young
women are more left wing than men, study reveals, by Rosalind Shorrocks, The
Conversation, May 3, 2018
This means that there will be a tendency for females to push politics Leftwards and make it
more about empathy and other such "feelings." It also means that, in a serious crisis, they may
well even empathize with the enemy.
In that gay men are generally feminized males, this problem help would to explain why people
are skeptical of the suitability of homosexual men for supposedly "masculine" professions (such
as politics) [ The
extreme male brain theory of autism, by Simon Baron-Cohen, Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, 2002], sometimes including political office. [ The Hidden Psychology
of Voting, by Zaria Gorvett, BBC News , May 6, 2015]
What about Science and Technology? Are they suited for that? Maybe science could use a little
more wisdom and conscientiousness.
J Robert Oppenheimer, the genius Physics professor, was known to be "temperamental" and
not suited for high stress assignment. So, along with several other genius's, some who came
over from Germany, he presided over the making of the A-bomb. Hallelujah just kidding.
There's an excellent book that covers J Robert Oppenheimer and the making of the A-bomb
called "American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J Robert Oppenheimer".
The guy was totally volatile and emotionally unstable. While in school he left a knife in an
apple on his teacher's desk that he did not like.
After the bomb was dropped on JAPAN, in a documentary much later, he is shown with tears
in his eyes quoting the Bhagavad Gita: "Now I am become death, destroyer of worlds".
A couple decades or so later there were interviews of some of these guys who were part of
the project and they were crying. They had the GENIUS to build such a monstrosity, but seemed
to have failed to understand the impact it would make on the world; breaking down in tears
when talking about it. They had no clue or ability of Foreknowledge. What would have happened
if more women were on the team? Would we all be annihilated by now? Or maybe no a-bomb would
have been made? Who knows .
Interesting. And I appreciate the citations to sources. But I find that interpretation of
psychiatric traits is a bit like reading tea leaves: there is a temptation to cherry-pick
one's preferred quotes and conclusions. For me, this article would have been stronger if it
had followed a recognized authority's path through the Big Five personality traits.
It seems rather unfair to pick a moron like Jacinda Ardern to represent all female
politicians. And even though when it comes to foreign policy, I'll take a Tulsi Gabbard over
any male politician like Rubio, Graham, Schumer, Pence, Trump, Pompeo, Bolton any day, I will
have to say, in general, you're right, the crop of female politicians we've seen today do not
inspire confidence in women as politicians, not just in the US but Merkel, May yikes. But
women had been good heads of states in the past, like Margaret Thatcher and Queen Victoria.
But they were the exceptions rather than the rule.
Also agree that gays make for bad politicians. Even though their moral degeneracy and
drama queen antics make politics look like a natural fit, their extreme narcissism means they
will always get sidetracked and can't stay focused. The only thing any gay man cares about is
his gayness. Plus no one outside the western world will ever give them an ounce of respect.
Picture Buttplug showing up in a muslim country as POTUS, with his husband! Either they'll
get stoned to death which will get us into war or the US will be the laughing stock of the
world. And then of course he'd have to go bomb some country just to prove his manhood,
getting us into more unnecessary wars. No gays for politics, ever.
There has been a very successful effort to paint Oppenheimer as a secular saint. But
Princeton's John Archibald Wheeler stated that he never trusted Oppenheimer. So what? Because
JAW was notorious for otherwise saying nice things about almost everyone else, especially his
academic rivals. Also JAW happily and productively worked on the US H-bomb project which was
embargoed by Oppenheimer and his many disciples.
I agree with the point made above, that, in our nuclear age, behavior in a crisis is the most
important personality trait. I think that men's crisis-calmness can suffer from macho/ego,
and with women, from anxiety and panic. Democratic candidate Amy K reportedly throws things
when angry, and to me, this is disqualifying. Assuming no nuclear destruction, the analysis
is this: We have devolved into a gigantic banana republic/soft dictatorship; whose
personality constellation is best suited to politics in a banana republic?
No female leader of any country, ever, has been particularly good, except one.
And that one was only because she was fortunate enough to be the PM of the UK at the same
time as Ronald Reagan was President of the US. He was handholding every single decision of
hers. Reagan was effectively running two countries (the #1 and #4 largest GDPs in the world
at that time). At least she was smart enough to let him tell her exactly what to do.
Given this dataset, no, women are not suitable for very high political office.
Is Ardern still wearing that hijab in order to cynically manipulate her insipid voters?
Anyway
I have come to realize that women, on the whole, tend to be poorly suited to many
traditionally male-doninated activities. Politics, for sure. Very few good, dependable female
politicians come to mind. But the list at my immediate recall that are emotional, vapid,
destructive slobs -- Angela Merkel, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, Eva Perón,
Michelle Bachelet, Isabel Allende Bussi, Annie Lööf, Anne Hidalgo, Ursula von der
Leyen, Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, Rashida Tlaïb, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, et al --
seems practically limitless. Not only is the fairer sex not adept at political leadership,
but they are ill-suited to even vote rationally. The weakness of Anglo-American men's resolve
against the suffragettes was the beginning of the end.
Preeminent excellence seems to elude the grasp of women in a number of other careers. For
whatever reason, there are few women writers of prose fiction that can equal the heights men
have reached in that field. This despite the fact that the contemporary literary industry is
overwhelmingly dominated by women. True, there are the rare instances of female literary
transcendence in the guise of a Clarice Lispector, Hilda Hilst, Okamoto Kanoko, Murasaki
Shikibu, Unica Zürn, and so on. But they tend to be the exceptions that prove the rule.
(On the other hand, women seem naturally gifted at lyric expression, with great female poets
existing since at least Sappho.)
Orchestral conducting, too, is a field wherein women cannot produce an equal or better of,
say, a Furtwängler, Mengelberg, or Beecham. There are plenty of them around today -- all
lousy. (To be fair, though, nearly all living conductors today -- male or female --
are lousy.)
I'm a university degree holding woman, of the traditional type with XX chromosomes, and since
I was a teen some forty years ago, I've thought that men are better suited for politics. Not
that a few women can't do it successfully (Thatcher and British Queens for examples) but that
it's a profession far more suited to men, being as many are more naturally mentally strong,
steady and rational, and not as given to bursts of emotion and utopian fancies as women can
often be. In fact, I'd be delighted if only U.S. born citizen male property owners over the
age of 25 were allowed to vote. How's that for being a Dissident?
The jobs reports are fabrications and that the jobs that do exist are lowly paid domestic
service jobs such as waitresses and bartenders and health care and social assistance. What has
kept the American economy going is the expansion of consumer debt, not higher pay from higher
productivity. The reported low unemployment rate is obtained by not counting discouraged workers
who have given up on finding a job.
I was listening while driving to rightwing talk radio. It is BS just like NPR. It was about
the great Trump economy compared to the terrible Obama one. The US hasn't had a great economy
since jobs offshoring began in the 1990s, and with robotics about to launch Americans are
unlikely ever again to experience a good economy.
The latest jobs report released today claims 236,000 new private sector jobs. Where are the
jobs, if they in fact exist?
Manufacturing, that is making things, produced a mere 4,000 jobs.
The jobs are in domestic services. There are 54,800 jobs in "administrative and waste
services." This category includes things such as employment services, temporary help
services, and building services such as janitor services.
"Health care and social assistance" accounts for 52,600 jobs. This category includes
things such as ambulatory health care services and individual and family services.
There are a few other jobs scattered about. Warehousing and storage had 5,400 new
jobs.
Real estate rental and leasing hired 7,800.
Legal services laid off 700 people.
Architectural and engineering services lost 1,700 jobs.
There were 6,800 new managers.
The new jobs are not high value-added, high productivity jobs that provide middle class
incomes.
In the 21st century the US economy has only served those who own stocks. The liquidity that
the Federal Reserve has pumped into the economy has driven up stock prices, and the Trump tax
cut has left corporations with more money for stock buybacks and dividend payments. The
institute on Taxation and Economic Policy reports that 60 Fortune 500 companies paid no taxes
on $79 billion in income, instead receiving a rebate of $4.3 billion. https://itep.org/notadime/
The sign of a good economy is when companies are reinvesting their profits and borrowed
money in new plant and equipment to meet rising demand. Instead, US companies are spending more
on buybacks and dividends than the total of their profits. In other words, the companies are
going into debt in order to drive up their share prices by purchasing their own shares. The
executives and shareholders are looting their own companies, leaving the companies less
capitalized and deeper in debt. https://systemicdisorder.wordpress.com/2016/10/26/work-harder-for-speculators/
Meanwhile, for the American people the Trump regime's budget for 2020 delivers $845 billion
in cuts to Medicare, $1.5 trillion in cuts to Medicaid, and $84 billion in cuts to Social
Security disability benefits.
History is repeating itself: Let them eat cake. After me the deluge.
I'm surprised Italy that gets much coverage, given that it is not really a major European
power anymore. The EU is controlled by France and Germany and the UK is the strongest ally of
the US, though that came under question during the Obama years. I don't buy the argument that
a lot of dysfunctional politics is the reason (so a lot to write about). You can say that
about many countries.
Israel arguably gets some amount of 'undue' coverage given its size and location, but
it's not nearly as predominant as "ZOG"-types probably assume to be the case.
Naïve analysis, it's not so much how often Israel is being mentioned but under
what conditions . The coverage the NYT gives it is massively favourable compared to a
counter-factual if Israel had been a White christian-majority country trying to keep itself
that way by instituting a White christian-only immigration policy etc. Judaism is an ethnic
religion after all. It also continues to define it as a democracy despite being a de facto
apartheid state etc. How often it is mentioned is not a debunking of the NYT's special
treatment of Israel.
Australia is probably a better candidate for that title. The UK sat out Vietnam, and the
US turned a blind eye to IRA fundraising for decades.
It also continues to define it as a democracy despite being a de facto apartheid state
etc
Apartheid was democratically enacted. That most people couldn't vote doesn't make it any
less democratic. Democracy is not the same as universal suffrage.
In the corporate media, Russia is routinely described as a dictatorship because there is
no change in party governance. By that standard, South Africa post-1994 is also a
dictatorship.
Whites were never the majority in South Africa, only in the cities (most of which carry
Western names, some rebadged with convoluted local names post-1994). The goal of apartheid
was to keep blacks in rural areas.
Jews have been the supermajority in Israel since the ethnic cleansing in the 1948 war. The
apartheid comparison only makes sense wrt to the West Bank and the Golan Heights. In the West
Bank, Jews are a minority that overrides the self-determination of the Arab majority. In the
Golan, IIRC its 50-50, where the Druze Arabs could become Israeli citizens but don't do so
out of support for Assad.
The South African parliament had no black MPs (1948-1994), the Knesset has had Arab MPs
for the entirety of its existence.
@mark green
Over the same time period, "Holocaust" gets 5,168 and "anti-Semitic" gets 2,187. If we add
those to the total (which seems like quite a stretch), it bumps Israel up a couple of spots,
still behind Mexico.
I suspect the high ranking for Russia is due to the NYT coverage of the Russia-gate hoax.
Otherwise, who in Manhattan cares about Russia? (Okay, maybe in Brooklyn).
As for Israel, well, you know Probably ranks #1 if you do the list on a per capita
basis.
This story would be more important if the NYT hadn't fallen into the Prog-Left black hole,
where if you don't agree with their Party Line nothing in that paper makes any sense. And no
intellectual illumination can escape.
As another has pointed out, a per capita analysis would shift Israel comfortably to the top.
Sure, population is in a sense already factored into the question of what makes a country
newsworthy, but every other country above Israel on the list has a far larger population,
even Canada, which is also one of only two US border countries, of course. And all the
Mid-East countries not far below Israel interest NYT readers primarily because of wars and
enmities fomented by the 'Pow-ah Brokers' within their readership, if you get my drift. Much
larger, wealthier and religiously more important Saudi Arabia is way down the list because
they were comfortably sidelined with Judeo-Muslim values decades ago. (Right, Anthony and
Huma?) I'd say the list substantially strengthens the case of us 'ZOG types', not weakens it.
@216Apartheid was democratically enacted. That most people couldn't vote doesn't make it any
less democratic. Democracy is not the same as universal suffrage.
Kind of depends on how you define democracy, doesn't it?
Ancient Athens is routinely classified as a democracy despite perhaps at most 30% of the
adult population having the franchise.
Democracy is rule by the demos, so who you include and exclude from the demos is pretty
important.
Jews have been the supermajority in Israel since the ethnic cleansing
But that makes it worse, not better, than the South African Apartheid. Most people surely
would choose to be oppressed (while living standards would keep slightly improving and their
population and ethnic majority in the area growing) over being booted out with a few
suitcases and without compensation for their possessions (including land, houses,
animals).
We know from Mueller's report that Russian intelligence agents engaged in sophisticated
cyber warfare against the United States, and we did very little to resist them
Paying $160K for Facebook ads constitutes 'sophisticated cyber warfare'?
Over the weekend, more than 5,000 delegates from across the world met in Beijing for The
Second Belt and Road Forum For International Cooperation. The conference provided an
opportunity for public and private investors to learn more about Xi Jinping's "signature
infrastructure project" that is reshaping trade relations across Europe, Asia, Latin America
and Africa. According to journalist Pepe Escobar, "The BRI is now supported by no less than 126
states and territories, plus a host of international organizations" and will involve "six major
connectivity corridors spanning Eurasia." The massive development project is "one of the
largest infrastructure and investment projects in history, .including 65% of the world's
population and 40% of the global gross domestic product as of 2017." (Wikipedia) The
improvements to road, rail and sea routes will vastly increase connectivity, lower shipping
costs, boost productivity, and enhance widespread prosperity. The BRI is China's attempt to
replace the crumbling post-WW2 "liberal" order with a system that respects the rights of
sovereign nations, rejects unilateralism, and relies on market-based principles to effect a
more equitable distribution of wealth. The Belt and Road Initiative is China's blueprint for a
New World Order. It is the face of 21st century capitalism.
The prestigious event in Beijing was barely covered by the western media which sees the
project as a looming threat to US plans to pivot to Asia and become the dominant player in the
most prosperous and populous region in the world. Growing international support for the
Chinese roadmap suggests that Washington's hegemonic ambitions are likely to be short-circuited
by an aggressive development agenda that eclipses anything the US is currently doing or plans
to do in the foreseeable future.
The Chinese plan will funnel trillions of dollars into state of the art transportation
projects that draw the continents closer together in a webbing of high-speed rail and energy
pipelines (Russia). Far-flung locations in Central Asia will be modernized while standards of
living will steadily rise. By creating an integrated economic space, in which low tariffs and
the free flow of capital help to promote investment, the BRI initiative will produce the
world's biggest free trade zone, a common market in which business is transacted in Chinese or
EU currency. There will be no need to trade in USD's despite the dollar's historic role as
the world's reserve currency. The shift in currencies will inevitably increase the flow of
dollars back to the United States increasing the already-ginormous $22 trillion dollar National
Debt while precipitating an excruciating period of adjustment.
Chinese and Russian leaders are taking steps to "harmonize" their two economic initiatives,
the Belt and Road and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). This will be a challenging task as
the expansion of infrastructure implies compatibility between leaders, mutual security
guarantees, new rules and regulations for the common economic space, and supranational
political structures to oversee trade, tariffs, foreign investment and immigration. Despite the
hurtles, both Putin and Xi appear to be fully committed to their vision of economic integration
which they see as based on the "unconditional adherence to the primacy of national sovereignty
and the central role of the United Nations."
It comes at no surprise that US powerbrokers see Putin's plan as a significant threat to
their regional ambitions, in fact, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted as much
in 2012 when she said, "It's going to be called a customs union, it will be called the Eurasian
Union and all of that, but let's make no mistake about it. We know what the goal is and we are
trying to figure out effective ways to slow down or prevent it." Washington opposes any free
trade project in which it is excluded or cannot control. Both the EEU and the BRI fall into
that category.
The United States continues to demonize countries that simply want to use the market to
improve the lives of their people and increase their prospects for prosperity. Washington's
hostile approach is both misguided and counterproductive. Competition should be seen as a way
to improve productivity and lower costs, not as a threat to over-bloated, inefficient
industries that have outlived their usefulness. Here's an excerpt from an article that Putin
wrote in 2011. It helps to show that Putin is not the scheming tyrant he is made out to be in
the western media, but a free market capitalist who enthusiastically supports
globalization:
"For the first time in the history of humanity, the world is becoming truly global, in
both politics and economics. A central part of this globalization is the growing importance
of the Asia-Pacific region as compared to the EuroAtlantic world in the global economy.
Asia's rise is lifting with it the economies of countries outside Asia that have managed to
latch onto the "Asian economic engine" .The US has also effectively hitched itself to this
"engine", creating an economic and financial network with China and other countries in the
region
The "supercontinent" of Eurasia is home to two-thirds of the world's population and
produces over 60 percent of its economic output. Because of the dramatic opening of China and
the former Soviet Union to the world, almost all the countries in Eurasia are becoming more
economically, politically, and culturally interdependent.
There is huge potential for development in infrastructure, in spite of some formidable
bottlenecks. A unified and homogeneous common power market stretching from Lisbon to Hanoi
via Vladivostok is not necessary, because electric power markets do not function in that way.
But the creation of infrastructure that could support a number of regional and sub-regional
common markets would do much for the economic development of Greater Eurasia." (Russian
newspaper, Izvestia, 2011)
Keep in mind, the article was written back in 2011 long before Xi had even conjured up his
grand pan-Asia infrastructure scheme. Putin was already a committed capitalist looking for ways
to put the Soviet era behind him and skillfully use the markets to build his nation's power and
prosperity. Regrettably, he has been blocked at every turn. Washington does not want others to
effectively use the markets. Washington wants to threaten, bully, sanction and harass its
competitors so that outcomes can be controlled and more of the world's wealth can be skimmed
off the top by the noncompetitive, monopolistic corporate behemoths that diktat foreign policy
to their political underlings (in congress and the White House) and who see rivals as blood
enemies that must be ground into dust.
Is it any wonder why Russia and China have emerged as Washington's biggest enemies? It has
nothing to do with the fictitious claims of election meddling or so-called "hostile behavior"
in the South China Sea. That's nonsense. Washington is terrified that the Russo-Chinese
economic integration plan will replace the US-dominated "liberal" world order, that cutting
edge infrastructure will create an Asia-Europe super-continent that no longer trades in dollars
or recirculates profits into US debt instruments. They are afraid that an expansive free
trade zone that extends from Lisbon to Vladivostok will inevitably lead to new institutions for
lending, oversight and governance. They are afraid that a revamped 21st century capitalism will
result in more ferocious competition for their clunker corporations, less opportunity for
unilateralism and meddling, and a rules-based system where the playing field is painstakingly
kept level. That's what scares Washington.
The Belt and Road Initiative and the Eurasian Economic Union represent the changing of the
guard. The US-backed 'neoliberal' model of globalisation is being rejected everywhere, from the
streets of Paris, to Brexit, to the rise of
"... Former American spies have been complaining for years that capturing the keystrokes of all people in America 24/7 produces information overload -- too much data to sift through when searching for those trying to harm our way of life. ..."
But the American intelligence community should have known. It captures all the fiber optic
communications of all people in America. This mass suspicionless surveillance is unlawful and
unconstitutional, but the leadership of our 60,000-person strong domestic spying apparatus has
persuaded every president since George H.W. Bush that all this spying keeps America safe. We
now know that it doesn't. It didn't find a single Russian spy bent on influencing the
election.
Former American spies have been complaining for years that capturing the keystrokes of
all people in America 24/7 produces information overload -- too much data to sift through when
searching for those trying to harm our way of life.
We know from Mueller's report that Russian intelligence agents engaged in sophisticated
cyber warfare against the United States, and we did very little to resist them
Paying $160K for Facebook ads constitutes 'sophisticated cyber warfare'?
The Lawyers Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, along with
9/11 victim family members have filed a joint federal lawsuit against the US Department of
Justice and the FBI for their failure to perform a congressionally mandated assessment of any
evidence known to the FBI that was not considered by the 9/11 Commission related to any factors
that contributed in any manner to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
David Meiswinkle, Mick Harrison, Barbara Honegger and Richard Gage provide a broad overview
of both the lawsuit and the filing of a grand jury petition; the seven counts of relevant
evidence included in the complaint which also cites the destruction by the FBI of evidence
related to the "High Fivers"; the Executive Director and Commissioners of the 9/11 Review
Commission along with its twelve staff members; next steps in the legal process and what a
successful outcome would look like.
Isn't it the supreme irony that the "racists" in American politics are the real
humanitarians while the so-called "humanitarians" like Sen. Marco Rubio and Bill Kristol
are less adverse to bloodshed and destructive wars in which hundreds of thousands of people
die than the "racists"?
There is nothing ironic about your simple statement of fact. The humanitarians you mention
are about as much interested in human rights as John Wayne Gacy. There is gold in them there
hills, and their "friends" no longer control that gold. So we must go to war.
Rubio is running neck and neck in my mind as one of the most disgusting political whores
of all time.
See Criticism of Holocaust denial - Wikipedia, While
the person might be wrong is prison sentence justified in such a a case? Will it backfire with more
anti-Semitism, taking into account the prominent role of Jewish financial oligarchs such as Soros in establishment of neoliberalism
dominance in the USA and Europe.
No matter what are the actual numbers this was a huge tragedy. Here's an interesting viewpoint. The following is a copy of an
article written by Spanish writer Sebastian Vilar Rodriguez and published in a Spanish newspaper. It doesn't take much imagination
to extrapolate the message to the rest of Europe - and possibly to the rest of the world.
I walked down the streets in Barcelona and suddenly discovered a terrible truth - Europe died in Auschwitz . . . We killed six
million Jews and replaced them with 20 million Muslims. In Auschwitz we burned a group of people who represented culture, thought,
creativity, talent. We destroyed the chosen people, truly chosen, because they produced great and wonderful people who made great
contributions to the world, and thus changed the world.
The contribution of today's Jewish people is felt in all areas of life: science, art, international trade, and above all, as the
conscience of the world. Look at any donors' board at any symphony, art museum, theatre, art gallery, science centre, etc. You will
see many, many, Jewish surnames. These are the people who were burned. Of the 6,000,000 who died, how many would have grown up to be
gifted musicians, doctors, artists, philanthropists?
And under the pretence of tolerance, and because we wanted to prove to ourselves that we were cured of the diseases of racism
and bigotry, Europe opened our gates to 20 million Muslims, who brought us stupidity and ignorance, religious extremism and lack of
tolerance, crime and poverty, due to an unwillingness to work and support their families with pride.
Notable quotes:
"... Alain Finkielkraut recently stated : "Soral is the most dangerous and ominous character of the public scene." To understand the significance of these words, you have to know who is Alain Finkielkraut, and who is Alain Soral. ..."
"... Finkielkraut is one of our French neoconservatives. Formerly a Trotskyite, he is now a nationalist. He embodies what Soral calls National-Zionism, that new ideology massively promoted by Jewish "intellectuals" and media pundits who, after calling for the abolition of borders and drowning Europe in mass immigration, now tell the French people to turn to Israel as a model for dealing with Muslims. ..."
"... Alain Soral is indeed the most dangerous person for the National-Zionists. And the French elite of the media-finance-political complex are justifiably worried about the "soralisation des esprits", an expression that has surfaced in recent weeks, as Soral's name is heard here and there among the Yellow Vests. So the National-Zionists couldn't hide their joy when learning from the national press agency (AFP) on April 15 that Soral was sentenced to one year in prison with an arrest warrant " pour contestation de l'existence de la Shoah" ("for denying the existence of the Holocaust"), ..."
Alain Finkielkraut recently stated : "Soral is the most dangerous and
ominous character of the public scene." To understand the significance of these words, you have
to know who is Alain Finkielkraut, and who is Alain Soral.
Finkielkraut is one of our French neoconservatives. Formerly a Trotskyite, he is now a
nationalist. He embodies what Soral calls National-Zionism, that new ideology massively
promoted by Jewish "intellectuals" and media pundits who, after calling for the abolition of
borders and drowning Europe in mass immigration, now tell the French people to turn to Israel
as a model for dealing with Muslims.
Finky, as we like to call him, also embodies the arrogance of ethnocentric Jews who get an
undeserved ubiquity on television complaining about anti-Semitism and the next Holocaust. It is
true that, when Finkielkraut shows up in a Yellow Vest gathering, he will be called "Sale
sioniste!" which, as everyone is supposed to know, means "Sale juif!" which in turn
is a potential holocaust. And so, whenever Finkielkraut gets insulted in the street, which
happens, it is national news, and the President himself has to make the
standard declaration : "The anti-Semitic insults he has been subjected to are the absolute
negation of who we are and what makes us a great nation. We will not tolerate them." That is
the kind of important person Finkielkraut is. Oh! and Finkielkraut has been elected in the
prestigious Académie Française among those we call "the Immortals", although it
is unclear under what pretext. Like Bernard-Henri Lévy, Finkielkraut does write books
that are more and more heavily promoted but less and less read.
Alain Soral is indeed the most dangerous person for the National-Zionists. And the French
elite of the media-finance-political complex are justifiably worried about the "soralisation
des esprits", an expression that has surfaced in recent weeks, as Soral's name is heard
here and there among the Yellow Vests. So the National-Zionists couldn't hide their joy when
learning from the national press agency (AFP) on April 15 that Soral was sentenced to one year
in prison with an arrest warrant " pour contestation de l'existence de la Shoah" ("for
denying the existence of the Holocaust"), an expression which only makes sense, I believe, if
the Holocaust is God.
Listen here to Soral's own analysis of his sentence, with English subtitles.
Sanctions are the foreign policy equivalent of obstruction of justice traps. Sanctions
are initiated in the hope the sanctioned country then commits some actionable trepidation, a
Casus belli. They say the first casualty of war is the truth but that casualty comes way
before war starts and continues long after war ends.
"... Trump *escalated* US-Iran and US-Venezuela conflicts and intensified the sabre rattling towards both countries, according to all analysts. For the first time a POTUS openly said direct US invasion to Venezuela "is on the table" and his Adelson bought appointment for USNSA Bolton publicly showed in a notebook the writing "5000 troops to Colombia" openly suggesting a direct invasion was imminent. For the first time the White House asked the Pentagon to draw up options for military strikes against Iran. ..."
"... Trump's administration declared a whole branch of the Iran armed forces (IRGC) as a terrorist organisation. This is an escalation and according to most analysts, considered an act of war. ..."
"... Trump administration heavily increased sanctions to Iran, Russia and Venezuela and in the latter case even instigated a failed uprising and coup d'etat, going as far as to declare a virtual political Venezuelan nobody the "official" president of the country, which is in itself unbelievable and has no historic precedent. Another act of war actually. ..."
"... Trump administration also escalated the tensions with China, ordered the arrest and de facto kidnapping of Chinese corporate executives and openly used the US legal apparatus to attack and hinder a foreign corporation. ..."
"... Trump has been, objectively, the most neocon Israel-firster POTUS in US history. ..."
"... Friendly reminder that voting for Republicans and expecting US Jewish lobby/Corporate America promoted policies such as open borders and US imperialist interventions to stop is moronic beyond belief. Republicans are the most pro corporate pro US Jewish lobby of the two parties by far. At least there is talk and critique about how the Israel Lobby owns the USG in the Dem party. Nothing of the sort going on in the GOP. ..."
The U.S. missile strike on Shayrat Airbase on 7 April 2017 was the first time the U.S.
became a deliberate, direct combatant against the Syrian government and marked the start of
a series of deliberate direct military actions by U.S. forces against the Syrian government
and its allies in May -- June 2017 and February 2018.
Trump *escalated* the war from covert support to insurgents to direct intervention and
official *invasion* in Syria. This is the equivalent of going from financing and supporting a
faction in a so called proxy war in say Vietnam to leading the US to go full Iraq WMD and
become a warring and invading faction in the conflict. Again, this is an escalation.
The number of boots on the ground vs Obama's is data you just took out of your bottom.
Sources for your cheap PR shilling? You don't have any because this statement of yours is a
blatant lie.
Trump *escalated* US-Iran and US-Venezuela conflicts and intensified the sabre rattling
towards both countries, according to all analysts. For the first time a POTUS openly said
direct US invasion to Venezuela "is on the table" and his Adelson bought appointment for
USNSA Bolton publicly showed in a notebook the writing "5000 troops to Colombia" openly
suggesting a direct invasion was imminent. For the first time the White House asked the
Pentagon to draw up options for military strikes against Iran.
Trump's administration declared a whole branch of the Iran armed forces (IRGC) as a
terrorist organisation. This is an escalation and according to most analysts, considered an
act of war.
Trump's administration ended the Iran deal without any objective reasons, ie Obama's
effort to deescalate the Israel firsters driven Iran-US conflict
Trump administration heavily increased sanctions to Iran, Russia and Venezuela and in
the latter case even instigated a failed uprising and coup d'etat, going as far as to declare
a virtual political Venezuelan nobody the "official" president of the country, which is in
itself unbelievable and has no historic precedent. Another act of war actually.
Trump administration declared Golan Heights part of Israel brought US embassy to
Jerusalem, increasing the tensions and animosity towards the US in the ME.
Trump administration will declare Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organisation, increasing
the animosity from Arab countries in the ME to unbelievable levels. This includes non Arab
country Turkey also, a traditional ally until neocon Trump took power.
Trump administration also escalated the tensions with China, ordered the arrest and de
facto kidnapping of Chinese corporate executives and openly used the US legal apparatus to
attack and hinder a foreign corporation.
Trump has been, objectively, the most neocon Israel-firster POTUS in US history.
Friendly reminder that voting for Republicans and expecting US Jewish lobby/Corporate
America promoted policies such as open borders and US imperialist interventions to stop is
moronic beyond belief. Republicans are the most pro corporate pro US Jewish lobby of the two
parties by far. At least there is talk and critique about how the Israel Lobby owns the USG
in the Dem party. Nothing of the sort going on in the GOP.
Immigration restrictionism is a traditional pro working class, leftist policy.
Non intervention and "pacifist" policies the same. How many GOP supporters were against
the Vietnam and Iraq war? Not many yeah.
Trump has dropped more bombs and missiles on Middle Eastern countries in a comparable
period of time than any modern U.S. President. Presidents Bush, Obama and now [2017] Trump
have dropped nearly 200,000 bombs and missiles on Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Pakistan,
Yemen and Somalia. Trump's rate of bombing eclipses both Bush and Obama; and Trump is on a
pace to drop over 100,000 [180,000 to be precise] bombs and missiles on Middle Eastern
countries during his first term of office -- which would equal the number of bombs and
missiles dropped by Obama during his entire eight-year presidency.
Here's more perspective:
The United States Government, under the Trump administration, reportedly drops a bomb
every 12 minutes, which means that 121 bombs are dropped in a day, and 44,096 bombs per year.
The Pentagon's data show that during George W. Bush's eight years he averaged 24 bombs
dropped per day, that is, 8,750 per year. Over the course of Obama's time in office, his
military dropped 34 bombs per day, 12,500 per year. This shows that even though American
presidents are all war criminals, Trump is the most vicious of them all.
Yes, Trump is dropping almost FOUR TIMES MORE BOMBS than Barack Obama and over FIVE TIMES
MORE BOMBS than G.W. Bush -- which included military invasions of two countries.
We also know that Trump expanded America's wars in Afghanistan and Syria (and, no, he is
NOT bringing U.S. troops home from Syria) and is ramping up America's war machine against
Venezuela, Iran, China and Russia. And this does not even take into account the way Trump has
given Benjamin Netanyahu's raunchy racist regime the green light to expand its wars against
the Palestinians, Lebanon, Syria and Iran or the U.S./Israeli proxy war (with Saudi Arabia
taking the lead) in Yemen.
Then there is Somalia:
In the age of Donald Trump, wasn't that [the Battle of Mogadishu -- Black Hawk Down] a
million presidencies ago? Honestly, can you even tell me anymore what in the world it was all
about? I couldn't have, not without looking it up again. A warlord, starvation, U.S.
intervention, 18 dead American soldiers (and hundreds of dead Somalis, but that hardly
mattered) in a country that was shattering. President Clinton did, however, pull out those
troops and end the disastrous mission -- and that was that, right? I mean, lessons learned.
Somalia? Africa? What in the world did it all have to do with us? So Washington washed its
hands of the whole thing.
And now, on a planet of outrageous tweets and murderously angry white men, you probably
didn't even notice, but more than two years into the era of Donald Trump, a quarter-century
after that incident, American airstrikes in yep, Somalia, are precipitously on the rise.
Last year's 47 strikes, aimed at the leaders and fighters of al-Shabaab, an Islamist
terror outfit, more than tripled the ones carried out by the Obama administration in 2016
(themselves a modest increase from previous years). And in 2019, they're already on pace to
double again, while Somali civilians -- not that anyone (other than Somali civilians) notices
or cares -- are dying in significant and rising numbers.
And with 500 troops back on the ground there and Pentagon estimates that they will remain
for at least another seven years, the U.S. military is increasingly Somalia-bound, Congress
hasn't uttered a peep on the subject, and few in this country are paying the slightest
attention.
So consider this a simple fact of the never-ending Global War on Terror (as it was once
called): the U.S. military just can't get enough of Somalia. And if that isn't off the
charts, what is? Maybe it's even worth a future book (with a very small print run) called not
Black Hawk Down II but U.S. Down Forever and a Day.
And now that I've started on the subject (if you still happen to be reading), when it
comes to the U.S. military, it's not faintly just Somalia. It's all of Africa.
After all, this country's military uniquely has a continent-wide Africa Command (aka
AFRICOM), founded in 2007. As Nick Turse has often written for TomDispatch, that command now
has its troops, thousands of them, its planes, and other equipment spread across the
continent, north to south, east to west -- air bases, drone bases, garrisons, outposts,
staging areas, you name it. Meanwhile, AFRICOM's outgoing commanding general, Thomas
Waldhauser, only recently told Congress why it's bound to be a forever outfit -- because,
shades of the Cold War, the Ruskies are coming! ("Russia is also a growing challenge and has
taken a more militaristic approach in Africa.")
And honestly, 600-odd words in, this wasn't meant to be a piece about either Somalia or
Africa. It was meant to be about those U.S. wars being off the charts, about how the Pentagon
now feeds eternally at the terror trough, al-Shabaab being only a tiny part of the slop it
regularly digests.
And, while America's wars are way up, according to Gallup, church attendance in America is
way down:
As Christian and Jewish Americans prepare to celebrate Easter and Passover, respectively,
Gallup finds the percentage of Americans who report belonging to a church, synagogue or
mosque at an all-time low, averaging 50% in 2018.
U.S. church membership was 70% or higher from 1937 through 1976, falling modestly to an
average of 68% in the 1970s through the 1990s. The past 20 years have seen an acceleration in
the drop-off, with a 20-percentage-point decline since 1999 and more than half of that change
occurring since the start of the current decade.
Most interesting is this Gallup observation:
Although the United States is one of the more religious countries, particularly among
Western nations, it is far less religious than it used to be. Barely three-quarters of
Americans now identify with a religion and only about half claim membership in a church,
synagogue or mosque.
The rate of U.S. church membership has declined sharply in the past two decades after
being relatively stable in the six decades before that. A sharp increase in the proportion of
the population with no religious affiliation, a decline in church membership among those who
do have a religious preference, and low levels of church membership among millennials are all
contributing to the accelerating trend.
Obviously, America's Jewish and Muslim populations pale compared to its Christian
population. The vast decline of attendance to religious services, therefore, primarily means
church attendance. Notice, also, that this steep decline commenced at the beginning of this
century (2000) -- when G.W. Bush became President of the United States.
I tried to warn readers -- and listeners to my nationwide radio talk show -- that due to
his insatiable war fever, G.W. Bush was going to forever warp the perception in people's
minds of Christianity. And, sadly, I was absolutely right. After eight years of the
warmongering G.W. Bush in the White House, millions of Americans came to associate
Christianity with wars of aggression. As a result, the exodus out of America's churches began
in earnest.
Enter Donald Trump.
As noted above, Trump has expanded Bush's war fever exponentially. But Trump has done more
than that: He has aggressively put the United States smack dab in the middle of Israel's
wars. It could even be argued that Donald Trump has turned the U.S. military into a proxy
army for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).
Don't get me wrong: I am very cognizant of the fact that G.W. Bush's "war on terror" was
nothing more than a proxy war for Israel. But the Israeli connection was covert and
completely covered up. Not anymore. Donald Trump is unabashedly and explicitly partnering the
mission of the U.S. military with that of the IDF. No wonder Benjamin Netanyahu promises to
name a community in the Israel-seized, Israel-occupied Golan Heights after Donald Trump.
(Trumplinka would fit Netanyahu's concentration-style occupation nicely.)
So, not only are millions of Americans now associating Christianity with G.W. Bush's wars
of aggression, they are associating Christianity with Donald Trump's wars of aggression for
the racist apartheid State of Israel. The result: the steepest decline in church attendance
and church affiliation in U.S. history.
The longer evangelical Christians continue to support Donald Trump's radical pro-Israel,
pro-war agenda, the deeper America will plunge into an anti-Christian country.
The good news is that all over America, people are waking up to the Israel deception.
Support for the erroneous doctrine of dispensational eschatology is in a giant free fall; the
myth of Zionist Israel being a resurrected Old Testament Israel is being repeatedly exposed;
the attempts by Israel's toadies to characterize people whose eyes are open to the truth of
Zionism as being "anti-Semitic" is losing more and more credibility by the day; and more and
more people are becoming aware of the utter wickedness of the Zionist government in Israel.
Plus, more and more people are beginning to understand the plight of the persecuted people
(including Christian people) in the Israeli-occupied territories of Palestine.
Ron, maybe your shipmates on the USS LIBERTY didn't die in vain after all.
From an historical perspective, overextended wars are the downfall of any empire; from a
financial perspective, warfarism is the precursor to an economically depressed middle class;
and from a Scriptural/spiritual perspective, God cannot and will not bless a warmongering
nation.
Let's be clear: God is not building a "Greater Israel." God is not building a third Jewish
temple. God is not speaking through phony prophets who are attributing some sort of divine
calling to Trump's pro-Israel warmongering. God is not blessing America because we are
blessing Zionist Israel. Just the opposite: The more America aligns itself with Israel's
belligerence, bullying and bombing of innocent people, the more God will deliver us over to
becoming an antichrist country. After all, one cannot idolize and partner with antichrists
without becoming one himself.
Burning down the house. Driving like a madman on the road to nowhere has put the nation on a
path to its own demise. Our foreign policy is a disaster that does nothing to promote
democracy anywhere in the world. Our military has provided nothing but instability in the
world since the end of world war 2. Ask yourself, why are we involved in so many useless wars
that don't make the world a better place?
Don't you feel like we are being used by war hawks who see every skirmish as a threat to our
national security? Why can't we cut out all the military BS and just trade with with nations
that want to trade, and ignore those who want to kill each other. Let them figure it out on
their own. Social Capitalism is the only policy we should be supporting.
"All statements of Trump do not count. All Trump statements are results from stress of
torture by Democrats, and deep state."
When this president stated during the campaign,
that christians don't have to forgive their enemies, I rolled my eyes stated he wrong, and
understood well he doesn't know what christianity means and supported him anyway
that he supported same sex marriage, I rolled my eyes, rebuffed the the silliness of his
comments and understood, he is not a conservative and beyond that he doesn't know what
christianity means
when it was uncovered that he had in fact had relations outside of marriage, I rolled my
eyes, and understood that alone could be a disqualifying factor in light of the competition
and supported him anyway
when some of the most respected departments of government leaders said he colluded with
Russians, based on the evidence, I said "poppycock" and supported him anyway
when media swirled with tales of Russian bath houses and carousings abounded, I thought
nonsense and supported hum anyway
when the rumors of underage girls and same sex parties and orgies seped into the main, I
rolled my eyes and supported him anyway . . .
when he spouted off about Charlottesville prematurely, I supported him anyway . . .
when became clear he actually advocated torture, I choked, spat and supported him anyway,
afterall he's not schooled in international relations and the consequences for our service
personnel, much less apparently the basics of tortures effectiveness, especially in large
scale strategies such as the US is engaged in
when it came to light he was completely ignorant of how our criminal justice system gets
it wrong as exampled by the Cen 5 case, I supported him anyway . . .
I supported him in spite of his comments about the poor and people like me who supported
him
There's a long list of tolerance is support of this president based on his advocacy
regarding turning the attention to the US welfare . . .
And when he actually agreed that the Russians had sabotaged the US elections and even
engaged in murder in the states of our European allies -- I knew, that in all liklihood the
turn inward was dead.
Here' a man who beat all the odds because of stalwart support of people like me, who
repeatedly bit the sides of our cheeks in the understanding that the returns would exceed the
price only to discover that the man who beat the odds doesn't seem to have a spine to stand
on ideologically which were the foundations of my advocacy: national security, less reckless
spending, holding business and financial organizations accountable for misbehavior, investing
in the US citizen, restructuring our trade deals to benefit the US, not merely shooting up
tarrifs that would in turn be priced to the citizens the supposed tarrifs were intended to
protect, tax cuts that actually gave middle americans less, no evidence of a draw down in our
careless ME behaviors, i even gave him some room to deal with israel as perhaps a new way
forward -- it's a new way alright – no pretense of acting as honest brokers –
that's new, Immigration is worse and by worse he might as well be serving tea and crumpets at
the border welcoming illegals . . .
If the man you elected to turn the corner actually becomes the vehicle for of what you
elected him to reject and change, eventually one has to acknowledge that fact. he beat the
deep state, he just either had not the courage, the integrity, or the ability, perhaps all
three to withstand the victory and do the work. Of course he had opposition and not much of
it very fair and nearly all of it damaging to the country. But he had support to stand
against it -- he chose an easier path.
And while I support him still, I have no intention of pretending that he is fulfilling the
mandate for which he was elected. I would be lying to myself and doing a disservice to
him.
I have not changed, I knew he was a situational leader, I knew what that meant, but I
voted for a particular agenda, he left the reservation on his own accord and the "deep
state", the establishment", the democrats, the liberals, the libertarians, can only be held
to blame for so much --
But several weeks ago, on top of a complete failure to ensure US order security, the armed
forces paid homage to Mexicans on US territory by relinquishing their weapons and
surrendering -- and given the tenure thus far -- - it devastatingly fitting that this
occurred under this admin.
And in the midst of all this, he is pandering to those engaged in same sex behavior --
– deep state my eye . . .
the path of least resistance. I cling to the belief that having voting for any of the
other candidates -- matters would have been far worse.
I make no apologies for being a conservative and Christian and holding a loyalty to the
US.
I reject your whine, it had legs and even some salience still, but at this stage, very
little.
Now he is bed with Sen. Rubio, Sen. Cruz and others on mucking around in SA -- I can only
consider your comments as an attempt at humor.
The JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire is using the US military as muscle to fight
wars on behalf of Israel and to keep the dollar-based global financial system operating to
their benefit.
Republican Party politician whores are led by the Jew-controlled Neo-Conservative foreign
policy faction and the Democrat Party is led by the Jew-controlled Humanitarian
Interventionist Harpy foreign policy faction.
Debt-based fiat currency systems must always expand or they implode.
Empires must expand or they implode.
The JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire is stuck with a federal funds rate of
2.50 percent or so when the normal level is 6 percent.
Yellen was talking about 4 percent being the new normal level, but she was off by 1.5
percent.
Tucker Carlson is another charlatan who still refuse to hold the Jewish mafia servant, Trump,
responsible for the massacre in Venezuela. He is trying to please both sides to collect his
$$$.
He is complicit in Trumps' crimes against Venezuelan people. Trump is a terrorist and mass
murderer who tried to assassinate Maduro few months ago unsuccessfully. This does not dilute
the fact that TRUMP IS AN ASSASSIN. All these criminals must be arrested and put on trial to
be executed, if not possible then people must assassinate these scums who have no shame to
starve millions of people to death by violating international laws to grab their land and
resources. The world cannot wait. Their complicit, like Tucker Carlson, should be exposed all
over the world. We are fed up with these criminals who received $$$$$ for their lies,
continue to help the criminals at the Pentagon and WH.
Those criminals who spread the lies that Venezuela is Maduro's fault. Carlson and other
CHARLATANS refuse to see the role of the US criminals against Venezuelan people for over 20
years, attacking the population, country's infrastructure well being, economic system and
engaging in assassination , staging riot using their traitor pawns in the country to topple a
legitimate government in order to steal Venezuela's RESOURCES where pays for the liars like
Carlson's salary to spread his propaganda. The US criminals who have assassinated many
leaders to bring down the governments around the world should be assassinated themselves
along with their propagandists.
You criminals have been exposed all over the world and soon should go into your graves,
one by one. These criminals including trump and Carlson, hold Chavez responsible for the
chaos in the country and now Maduro, but ignore the US criminals acts even assassination of
the leaders.
Carlson should stop supporting the Jewish mafia illiterate and mass murderer Trump and
shut up on blaming Maduro, a victim of US brutality and its complicit media like Carlson.
Isn't it the supreme irony that the "racists" in American politics are the real
humanitarians while the so-called "humanitarians" like Sen. Marco Rubio and Bill Kristol
are less adverse to bloodshed and destructive wars in which hundreds of thousands of people
die than the "racists"?
There is nothing ironic about your simple statement of fact. The humanitarians you mention
are about as much interested in human rights as John Wayne Gacy. There is gold in them there
hills, and their "friends" no longer control that gold. So we must go to war.
Rubio is running neck and neck in my mind as one of the most disgusting political whores
of all time.
"... As much as Trump has proven to be a disaster with his appointments of Bolton/Pompeo/E Abrams, things could still be worse. We could have wound up with Little Marco, the John McCain of his generation. All praise to Tucker for having the guts to go against the grain. ..."
"... The answer here is simple. When the President of of the US stated that he believed Russia under the instructions of Pres. Putin attempted to sabotage the democratic process, and from the mouths many of our leadership -- was successful he made a major power on the world stage a targeted enemy of the US. When that same president accused Pres. Putin of plotting the same in Europe and ordered the murders inside those sovereign states -- ..."
"... He essentially stated that our global strategic interests include challenging the Russian influence anywhere and everywhere on the planet as they are active enemies of the US and our European allies. What ever democratic global strategic ambitions previous to the least election were stifled until that moment. ..."
"... Sanctions and blockades are acts of war. Try doing it to Washington or one of its vassals, and watch the guns come out. ..."
"... Historically, sanctions are not an alternative to war; they are a prelude to it. Sanctions are how Uncle Scam generally softens up foreign countries in preparation for an invasion or some sort of 'régime-change' operation. ..."
"... All of this is smoke in mirrors. The real story is that Washington is headed for default on it's 22 trillion dollar debt and the Beltway Elites are losing it. They are desperate to start a conflict anywhere, but especially with an oil rich nation like Venezuela or Iran install their own puppets and keep this petro-dollar scam running a little while longer. ..."
"... Syria, Iraq and Libya were not destroyed for oil. Oil provided cover for the real reason. In fact, oil companies opposed war for oil. It doesn't benefit the US or those companies. Those three countries were and are Israel's primary enemies and neighbors and that is why they were destroyed. Only if you stick your head in the sand and ignore the enormous power of Israel and their Jewish supporters which is constantly on full display constantly can someone not see that. ..."
"... Venezuela has one of the highest murder rates in the world. I'm pretty sure there are still lots of guns around. They're not using rocks to kill one another. The U.S. military richly deserves to get itself trapped in a Gaza type situation of house to house fighting in the favellas above Caracas. ..."
"... Trump is a Trojan horse under zionist control who had 5 draft deferments but now is the zionists war lord sending Americans to fight and die in the mideast for Israel just like obama and bush jr. , same bullshit different puppet! ..."
"... America is Oceania , war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength and I would add to what Orwell said, war in the zio/US is perpetual for our zionist overlords. ..."
"... Imperialists always see themselves as spreading good things to people who will benefit from them. And imperialists necessarily always dilute their own culture. ..."
"... If the imperialist culture is already rootless cosmopolitan, it will see no downside to the above. If the Elites of a culture have become cosmopolitans divorced from any meaningful contact with their own people (i.e. those of their own blood and history), then they will lead their people into ever more cultural pollution and perversion. ..."
"... Remember. The choice was between Trump and Clinton. Not Trump and Jesus. ..."
"... The funny thing is, the Alt-Right or the 2.0 movement is united to a man on opposing the Trump administration's military interventions in Syria, Iran and Venezuela, but has failed at articulating its own ardent opposition to imperialism and its commitment to humanity and international peace. No one in American politics is more opposed to destructive regime change wars. ..."
"... I'm not sure what "Alt-Right" or "2.0 movement" really means in the current shills-vs-people wars but all the best and the brightest in our ranks are clearly against the globalists. ..."
Venezuela illustrates why a 3.0 movement is necessary.
The funny thing is, the Alt-Right or the 2.0 movement is united to a man on opposing the
Trump administration's military interventions in Syria, Iran and Venezuela, but has failed at
articulating its own ardent opposition to imperialism and its commitment to humanity and
international peace. No one in American politics is more opposed to destructive regime change
wars.
The Trump administration's interventions in Syria and Venezuela are victimizing mainly poor
brown people in Third World countries. And yet, the Alt-Right or the 2.0 movement is extremely
animated and stirred up in a rage at the neocons who are currently running Blompf's foreign
policy. Similarly, it has cheered on the peace talks between North Korea and South Korea.
Isn't it the supreme irony that the "racists" in American politics are the real
humanitarians
while the so-called "humanitarians" like Sen. Marco Rubio and Bill Kristol are less adverse
to bloodshed and destructive wars in which hundreds of thousands of people die than the
"racists"?
It is ironic. There is also the issue of economic-based US interventionism, particularly in
the oil-gifted nations mentioned. It's their oil. Since the US economy is oil-dependent --
and since fracking is a short-lived "miracle" of unprofitable companies that have already
extracted the easy pickings -- it is the role of US leaders to make sure that we can buy oil
from nations like Venezuela, keeping relations as good as possible for those means. But US
leaders have no business telling them who should rule their country, much less stirring up
trouble that can end up in bloodshed.
There's a comment on here about US forces and the Kurds in Syria, helping themselves to
oil, while Syrians wait in long lines for gas in a country that is an oil fountain. I have no
idea whether or not it is true, and since the US press would rather gossip than report, we'll
probably never know. But since oil prices have gone up recently in the USA, it might be true,
especially since politicians always want to pacify the serfs facing other unaffordable
expenses, like rent. If true you can see how that would make the people in an oil-rich
country mad.
Isn't it the supreme irony that the "racists" in American politics are the real
humanitarians while the so-called "humanitarians" like Sen. Marco Rubio and Bill Kristol
are less adverse to bloodshed and destructive wars in which hundreds of thousands of people
die than the "racists"?
There is nothing ironic about your simple statement of fact. The humanitarians you mention
are about as much interested in human rights as John Wayne Gacy. There is gold in them there
hills, and their "friends" no longer control that gold. So we must go to war.
Rubio is running neck and neck in my mind as one of the most disgusting political whores
of all time.
As much as Trump has proven to be a disaster with his appointments of Bolton/Pompeo/E Abrams,
things could still be worse. We could have wound up with Little Marco, the John McCain of his
generation. All praise to Tucker for having the guts to go against the grain.
How is that working out now?
Those are rocks those guys are throwing..right?
Why not let THEM do the fighting and keep the guys from Ohio and Alabama here?
The funny thing is, the Alt-Right or the 2.0 movement is united to a man on opposing the
Trump administration's military interventions in Syria, Iran and Venezuela
What Trump administration military intervention? Number of Boots on the ground:
Syria -- Reduced vs. Obama, at most a few thousand
Iran -- ZERO
Venezuela -- Again ZERO
It is quite amazing that Trump Derangement Syndrome [TDS] can take ZERO troops and falsely
portray that as military intervention. In the real, non-deranged world -- Rational thought
shows ZERO troops as the absence of military intervention.
Trying to use non-military sanctions to convince nations to behave better is indeed the
exact opposite of military intervention. If the NeoConDem Hillary Clinton was President. Would the U.S. have boots on the ground in
Iran And Venezuela?
Why is the Trump Derangement Syndrome [TDS] crowd so willing to go to war for Hillary
while misrepresenting TRUMP's non-intervention?
Those who pathologicially hate Trump are simply not rational.
The answer here is simple.
When the President of of the US stated that he believed Russia under the instructions of
Pres. Putin attempted to sabotage the democratic process, and from the mouths many of our
leadership -- was successful he made a major power on the world stage a targeted enemy of the
US. When that same president accused Pres. Putin of plotting the same in Europe and ordered
the murders inside those sovereign states --
He essentially stated that our global strategic interests include challenging the Russian
influence anywhere and everywhere on the planet as they are active enemies of the US and our
European allies. What ever democratic global strategic ambitions previous to the least
election were stifled until that moment.
Until that moment foreign policy could have been shifted, but after that moment
Don't forget the genocide in Yemen. Wanting to exclude Yemenis from the USA means you're an
evil racist, but turning a blind eye to mass murder is A-OK.
Gold, Black Gold and Pirates : all about wealth and people getting in the way of the 21st
Century Privateers who will stop at nothing including overthrowing governments in Syria,
Libya, Iraq and elsewhere.
@A123Historically, sanctions are not an alternative to war; they are a prelude to it.
Sanctions are how Uncle Scam generally softens up foreign countries in preparation for an
invasion or some sort of 'régime-change' operation.
I appreciate the fact that Team Trump has not actually sent in the tanks yet, whereas
Hellary probably would have by now. Believe me, that is probably one of the very few good
arguments in favor of Trump at this point. But if we want to make sure that he never does
attack, then now is the time to make some noise– before the war starts.
All of this is smoke in mirrors. The real story is that Washington is headed for default on
it's 22 trillion dollar debt and the Beltway Elites are losing it. They are desperate to
start a conflict anywhere, but especially with an oil rich nation like Venezuela or Iran
install their own puppets and keep this petro-dollar scam running a little while longer.
If we weren't on the brink of economic collapse I could never see the Washington Elites
risking it all with a game of nuclear chicken with Russia and China over Ukraine and
Taiwan.
This commentator lost me when he decided Guaido was as socialist as Maduro. Nope. He would
not have US backing were that the case.
I checked out Telesur on Youtube on April 30 – its continued functioning was one sign
the coup attempt had failed. The comments section was full of Guaido supporters ranting about
how much they hated Chavistas and socialists and some were asking where Maduro was, probably
trying to sustain the myth that he had fled.
"When was the last time we successfully meddled in the political life of another country" The
answer to that, Tucker, depends on who you ask. While Syria, Iraq and Libya were "failures"
because we were told we would bring peace and prosperity to those countries, that was not the
goal of the architects of those wars, neither was it oil. The primary goal was to pacify
these countries and neuter them so they would not stand up to their neighbor and enemy
Israel. And if they had to be destroyed to accomplish that, that's fine. Minus Egypt, those
three countries were Israel's primary enemies in the three Arab-Israeli wars. Venezuela is
not "another" war for oil, but it might be the first.
Syria, Iraq and Libya were not destroyed for oil. Oil provided cover for the
real reason. In fact, oil companies opposed war for oil. It doesn't benefit the US or those
companies. Those three countries were and are Israel's primary enemies and neighbors and that
is why they were destroyed. Only if you stick your head in the sand and ignore the enormous
power of Israel and their Jewish supporters which is constantly on full display constantly
can someone not see that.
@EliteCommInc.
The russians are not the ennemies of the europeans , the russians are europeans , the yankees
are nor european .
If the yankees were the allies of the europeans , why they should need hundreds of
military occupation bases in Europe ? why they should impose on europeans self defeating
trade sanctions against Russia ? , strange " allies " .
@conatus
you are late conatus , the russians are building in Venezuela a factory of Kalasnikov rifles
, and Maduro is traing a militia of two million men , to help the army .
@conatusVenezuela has one of the highest murder rates in the world. I'm pretty sure there are still
lots of guns around. They're not using rocks to kill one another.
The U.S. military richly deserves to get itself trapped in a Gaza type situation of house
to house fighting in the favellas above Caracas.
@War
for Blair Mountain{If JFK were alive ..and POTUS in 2019 he would give the order to
overthrow the Maduro Goverment .}
JFK was alive way back then, when he gave the order to overthrow Castro and the result was
the Bay of Pigs disaster. And – for better or worse – Cubans are still running
their own country, not some foreign installed puppet.
'The order to overthrow Maduro' today would have the same disasterous end.
It should be obvious by now, that despite all the hardships, majority of Venezuelans don't
want a foreign installed puppet.
Carlson is right on Venezuela but was wrong on 911 truthers which he said back in September
2017, that 911 truthers were nuts! 911 which was done by Israel and the zionist controlled
deep state lead to the destruction of the mideast for Israel and the zionist NWO!
Trump is a Trojan horse under zionist control who had 5 draft deferments but now is the
zionists war lord sending Americans to fight and die in the mideast for Israel just like
obama and bush jr. , same bullshit different puppet!
America is Oceania , war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength and I would
add to what Orwell said, war in the zio/US is perpetual for our zionist overlords.
One more thing, if Venezuela did not have oil the zio/US would not give a damn about
it!
Imperialists always see themselves as spreading good things to people who will benefit from
them. And imperialists necessarily always dilute their own culture.
If the imperialist culture is already rootless cosmopolitan, it will see no downside to
the above. If the Elites of a culture have become cosmopolitans divorced from any meaningful
contact with their own people (i.e. those of their own blood and history), then they will
lead their people into ever more cultural pollution and perversion.
Jews are a people who fit the opening sentence of the preceding paragraph. The WASP Elites
fit the second sentence.
If "no one is more opposed to destructive regime-change wars than the Alt-Right", it means
that the Alt-Right are traditional conservatives, paleo-(as opposed to neo)conservatives.
Real conservatives have always opposed getting into foreign wars that posed no threat to the
U.S. They opposed Wilson lying us into WW1, Roosevelt lying us into WW2. When the
neo-conservatives (American Jews loyal to Israel) got Washington under their thumb, we
started our decades of disastrous regime-change wars based on lies, starting with the
invasion of Iraq. Those neocon mf ers are still in charge.
An Alt Right 2.0 concept that is compassionate with the damage done by US war and economic
exploitation against the poorest people of the world who are mostly brown people is an
interesting concept.
But I think it will ultimately fail, since so many of the white people who make up the Alt
Right are angry with minorities and see them as a lower race. And these white people are more
interested in playing the victim card anyways.
@A123
You speak truth and cite facts, these loons go bananas.
Thank God they have no real power.
Hopefully they don't even own a hamster . probably would make the little fella read Mien
Kempf.
Because a hamster reading is just as cogent and linear as their arguments.
They are frustrated they cannot find a way to blame the Jews! for Maduro being a greedy
murdering sweathog who lets zoo animals starve while he looks like animated male
cellulite.
Funny- in their prostrations to dictators ( these retards actually defend and admire
Jong-Un) they conveniently have omitted Putin is cutting Russia from the WWW- the
Internet.
They will have a Russia intranet.
Pointing out to the obtuse daily commenters that under the tyrants that practically
fellate- they would be arrested and tortured for their Unz hissy fits and word diarrhea
Nationwide radio talk show? Wow! What's the station name, number and air time?
If you listen to people with actual media shows, they don't call people TROLL just because
they have a different opinion. They don't engage in female hysterical ranting because someone
has a different idea about the mechanics of the world.
Who are your sponsors? I can't imagine you would not want the free publicity .
I agree, there is irony in labels, in trying to tell who is more disposed towards 'bloodshed
and destructive wars in which hundreds of thousands of people die'. Why do we fight? It is
for power. Power (manifested as interest) has been present in every conflict of the past
– no exception. It is the underlying motivation for war. Other cultural factors might
change, but not power. Interest cuts across all apparently unifying principles: family, kin,
nation, religion, ideology, politics – everything. We unite with the enemies of our
principles, because that is what serves our interest. It is power, not any of the above
concepts, that is the cause of war. And that is what is leading the world to nuclear
Armageddon. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
@TKK
My sponsors are truth and America first. All Zionist hucksters are on my hit list. Again, I
suggest you and yours consider "making aliyah". https://www.nbn.org.il/
Number of Boots on the ground:
-- Syria -- Reduced vs. Obama, at most a few thousand
-- Iran -- ZERO
-- Venezuela -- Again ZERO
We will see in the future. Trump has to stir the pot. The foaming at the mouth media and his political opposition, in
both parties, need something to blather on about. Jus like rasslin'. Remember. The choice was between Trump and Clinton. Not Trump and Jesus.
@TKK
Oh, I see a point there, and it's an interesting one – openly Christian presidents
discredit their Christianity by engaging in non-righteous wars. After contemplating the
point, I don't think the foreign policy of W or Trump is anywhere close to being the primary
factor in the decline in church attendance. After all, the Catholic Church and other
denominations are mired in myriad sex scandals, the internet pulls people from God with
private depravity, science offers compelling hows if not whys, entertainment options abound,
and so on. Nonetheless, an orthodox and faithful Christian president committed to peace and
not fighting for oil or foreign interests would be a thing to behold. With caveats relating
to perceived sanity, that person would get my vote.
"The russians are not the ennemies of the europeans , the russians are europeans , the
yankees are nor european . "
These comments don't make any sense to me based on what I wrote. My comments have no
bearing on whether the Russians are an actual threat or not. I see them as competitors with
whom there are some places to come to some agreements. They doesn't mean I truth them.
Furthermore, my comments have no bearing on the territorial nature of Russian ethos.
That's not the point. Europeans have been at each other since there were Europeans. From the
Vikings and before to Serbia and Georgian conflicts. But none of that has anything to do with
my comments.
You might want to read them for what they do say as opposed to what you would like them to
say.
Jul 26, 2017 CIA director hints US is working to topple Venezuela's elected government
CIA Director Mike Pompeo indirectly admitted that the US is pushing for a new government
in Venezuela, in collaboration with Colombia and Mexico.
Feb 22, 2019 An Ocean of Lies on Venezuela: Abby Martin & UN Rapporteur Expose
Coup
On the eve of another US war for oil, Abby Martin debunks the most repeated myths about
Venezuela and uncovers how US sanctions are crimes against humanity with UN investigator and
human rights Rapporteur Alfred De Zayas.
"After all, the Catholic Church and other denominations are mired in myriad sex scandals . .
."
Not even to the tune of 4%, and I am being generous. The liberals have managed to make the
Church look a den of NAMBLA worshipers -- hardly. In the west the Churches are under pressure
from the same sex practitioners to reject scriptural teachings on the behavior, but elsewhere
around the world, Catholic institutions, such as in Africa -- reject the notion.
@TKK
Thanks. Ignoring mindless trolls is a necessary skill for the site.
____
Given the end of the Mueller exoneration, both Trump and Putin are looking to strengthen
ties. Thus it is:
-- Unlikely that Putin is heavily committed to helping Maduro. The numbers are too small
for that. Also, what would Putin do with Maduro? The last thing Putin needs is a spoiler to
the developing detente.
-- Much more likely the troops have a straightforward purpose. Brazilian
military/aerospace technology would jump ahead 20 years if they could grab an intact S-300
system. Russia doesn't want a competitor in that market, so they have a deep interest in
reclaiming or destroying S-300 equipment as Maduro goes down.
@EliteCommInc.
You are certainly right. I have no doubt that the vast majority of priests are good men
innocent of these charges, and that there are more public school sex scandals (by both raw
numbers and percentage) then similar Church scandals. The scandals do have public currency
and legs, though, and are one reason often cited as to why the pews are empty. I am at fault
for helping to keep this ruinous perception alive with my online rhetoric, and thank you for
pointing it out.
' It's the oil ' canard has always been the excuse cultivated for suckers, and boy
do suckers fall for it.
US oil companies have not received the big oil deals in countries where the US, at the
behest of "that shitty little country", have interfered militarily. However, Russia, China,
& to a limited degree, a few European companies have.
@PeterMX
Bibi's biggest enemy, his main prize, has always been Iran. He is afraid that, if Trump
refuses to do his bidding now, it may well be too late in an election year. One way or
another Bolton and Pompeo are going to convince their token boss to green light a massive
bombing campaign, especially if Iran attempts to shut down the Straits of Hormuz. It will
happen this year if Trump fails to come to his senses.
@Scalper
In the first place, your bizarre partisan rant is a little out of place. There aren't too
many QAnons here at Unz, and there are probably a fair number of regulars here who wouldn't
even identify as Republicans or 'conservatives' (whatever that term means today).
Secondly, some of your talking points aren't even accurate:
Trump administration will declare Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organisation,
increasing the animosity from Arab countries in the ME to unbelievable levels. This
includes non Arab country Turkey also, a traditional ally until neocon Trump took
power.
If Trump were truly to declare the Brotherhood to be a terrorist organization, a lot of
Arab rulers would actually thank him. You see, the Brotherhood is actually illegal in
most Arab countries today, precisely because it has a history of collaborating with foreign
intelligence services such as MI6, the CIA and Mossad. More recently, it was strongly
associated with failed régime-change projects in countries like Egypt and Syria; so
with a few exceptions (like Qatar), the Brotherhood is not well liked by Arab rulers.
Immigration restrictionism is a traditional pro working class, leftist policy.
Traditionally leftist? Sure up until the Hart-Celler Act of 1965! The sad fact is,
we don't an anti-immigration party in the US at all today. Neither the Republicans nor the
Democrats have any interest whatsoever in halting–or even just slowing
down–immigration.
@PeterMX
It's obvious that FOX is giving Tucker a lot of latitude. They continued to support him when
advertisers left, and when accusations of racism emerged from a radio interview he'd done
years ago with a shock jock. They dare not fire him as he has the largest and most fervent
base of supporters on cable news. But Tucker knows that there is one big issue, the Elephant
in the room, of which he dare not speak. It's that shitty little country calling the shots,
whose name begins with an I.
@Anonymous
I think there may be more alt-righters opposed to foreign wars and exploitative 'free' trade
treaties than you assume. Most of the alt-righters I know oppose the current régime's
"invade the world, invite the world" policies (to borrow a phrase from our own Steve Sailer).
But unlike the anti-imperialist left (with whom they often do ally), they usually argue
against such policies based on popular self-interest rather than abstract universal morality.
They usually choose to argue that being a mighty world empire has worked to the
detriment of the majority of people in America; that the whole thing is just a scam to
enrich and empower a small, corrupt élite.
what goes unremarked here and elsewhere is the ethnic composition of Venezuela. From a few
searches, Whites are only about one-third of V.
The Tipping Point for chaos is clear. Brazil is half White, Argentina is near 100 % White,
ditto Chile.
(Argentina ca. 1900 exterminated a large number its "Indigenous." )
The most stable of Latin America is Costa Rica, which is apparently about three quarters
White.
Meanwhile the jewyorktimes reports the narco-traffickers in the Maduro administration.
Hopeless. Any Brown or Black Country is doomed. Brazil works cuz Whites know how to
control the 45% mulattos and 5 % Blacks. For now anyway. Mexico is a narco-state with the
only 9% Whites able to control the half breeds and Indigenous thru co-option. Wait for Mexico
to blow up.
The funny thing is, the Alt-Right or the 2.0 movement is united to a man on opposing the
Trump administration's military interventions in Syria, Iran and Venezuela, but has failed
at articulating its own ardent opposition to imperialism and its commitment to humanity and
international peace. No one in American politics is more opposed to destructive regime
change wars.
That's an amazing point. I'm not sure what "Alt-Right" or "2.0 movement" really means in the current
shills-vs-people wars but all the best and the brightest in our ranks are clearly against the
globalists.
@Avery
The Deep state/CIA did the Bay of Pigs. JFK was not informed about it before it happened. JFK
was fighting the CIA and deep state throughout his presidency. He wanted to shatter the CIA
into a million pieces. Read "JFK and the Unspeakable" by James W. Douglass. His peace speech
on June 10, 1963 was too much for our deep state. That speech was the biggest triggers that
set the motion for his assassination.
Whatever anyone thinks about the Alt-Right it did expose a lot of things about our current
era, our history, our politics, and power paradigms that once seen can not be unseen.
And what are you going to do about it? What can anyone really do, honestly?
Not too much at least in America. Eastern Europe still has a good chance.
In America, the trajectory and machinations of power have been set for a long time and
revolutionary romanticism tends to work better for the Left than the Right. A quick look at
the data easily reveals this.
So what do you do when you realize how so much of everything that's presented as real and
true isn't real or true? And there are so many truly bad human beings with major power over
our culture, politics, and society?
Well, when has that not been the case in human history? At some point, acknowledging all
the black pills is sort of like accepting your human limits, your finitude, your genetics,
the unanswered mysteries of existence, the nothingness of Earth in the grand scheme, and just
basic gravity.
You could become a courageous online revolutionary and eventually trigger some unstable
person to get things shut down and deplatformed.
Or you could organize with socially and psychologically healthy and mature adults who try
to prioritize attainable and realistic goals and gain some moralizing victories that can
buffer against the demoralizing defeats.
Luckily, out of the winter of our discontent have emerged many healthy tendrils of new
growth.
@Republic
Tucker's viewpoints are those of the unbought wing of the conservative movement. Those, led
by the likes of Pat Buchanan, who question our slavish alegiance to that Satanic/anti Christ
creation in Palestine. They won't put it in those terms, but I do. (Wry grin)
"... Neoliberalism is an integral part of this foreign policy agenda. It constitutes an all encompassing mechanism of economic destabilization. Since the 1997 Asian crisis, the IMF-World Bank structural adjustment program (SAP) has evolved towards a broader framework which consists in ultimately undermining national governments' ability to formulate and implement national economic and social policies. ..."
The world is at a dangerous crossroads. The United States and its allies have launched a military adventure which threatens
the future of humanity. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East,
Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The US-NATO military agenda combines both major theater operations
as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.
America's hegemonic project is to destabilize and destroy countries through acts of war, covert operations in support of terrorist
organizations, regime change and economic warfare. The latter includes the imposition of deadly macro-economic reforms on indebted
countries as well the manipulation of financial markets, the engineered collapse of national currencies, the privatization of State
property, the imposition of economic sanctions, the triggering of inflation and black markets.
The economic dimensions of this military agenda must be clearly understood. War and Globalization are intimately related. These
military and intelligence operations are implemented alongside a process of economic and political destabilization targeting specific
countries in all major regions of World.
Neoliberalism is an integral part of this foreign policy agenda. It constitutes an all encompassing mechanism of economic destabilization.
Since the 1997 Asian crisis, the IMF-World Bank structural adjustment program (SAP) has evolved towards a broader framework which
consists in ultimately undermining national governments' ability to formulate and implement national economic and social policies.
In turn, the demise of national sovereignty was also facilitated by the instatement of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995,
evolving towards the global trading agreements (TTIP and TPP) which (if adopted) would essentially transfer state policy entirely
into the hands of corporations. In recent years, neoliberalism has extend its grip from the so-called developing countries to the
developed countries of both Eastern and Western Europe. Bankruptcy programs have been set in motion. Island, Portugal, Greece, Ireland,
etc, have been the target of sweeping austerity measures coupled with the privatization of key sectors of the national economy.
The global economic crisis is intimately related to America's hegemonic agenda. In the US and the EU, a spiralling defense budget
backlashes on the civilian sectors of economic activity. "War is Good for Business": the powerful financial groups which routinely
manipulate stock markets, currency and commodity markets, are also promoting the continuation and escalation of the Middle East war.
A worldwide process of impoverishment is an integral part of the New World Order agenda.
Beyond the Globalization of Poverty
Historically, impoverishment of large sectors of the World population has been engineered through the imposition of IMF-style macro-economic
reforms. Yet, in the course of the last 15 years, a new destructive phase has been set in motion. The World has moved beyond the
"globalization of poverty": countries are transformed in open territories,
State institutions collapse, schools and hospitals are closed down, the legal system disintegrates, borders are redefined, broad
sectors of economic activity including agriculture and manufacturing are precipitated into bankruptcy, all of which ultimately leads
to a process of social collapse, exclusion and destruction of human life including the outbreak of famines, the displacement of entire
populations (refugee crisis).
This "second stage" goes beyond the process of impoverishment instigated in the early 1980s by creditors and international financial
institutions. In this regard, mass poverty resulting from macro-economic reform sets the stage of a process of outright destruction
of human life.
In turn, under conditions of widespread unemployment, the costs of labor in developing countries has plummeted. The driving force
of the global economy is luxury consumption and the weapons industry.
The New World Order
Broadly speaking, the main corporate actors of the New World Order are
Wall Street and the Western banking conglomerates including its offshore money laundering facilities, tax havens, hedge funds
and secret accounts,
the Military Industrial Complex regrouping major "defense contractors", security and mercenary companies, intelligence outfits,
on contract to the Pentagon;
the Anglo-American Oil and Energy Giants,
The Biotech Conglomerates, which increasingly control agriculture and the food chain;
Big Pharma,
The Communication Giants and Media conglomerates, which constitute the propaganda arm of the New World Order.
There is of course overlap, between Big Pharma and the Weapons industry, the oil conglomerates and Wall Street, etc.
These various corporate entities interact with government bodies, international financial institutions, US intelligence. The state
structure has evolved towards what Peter Dale Scott calls the "Deep State", integrated by covert intelligence bodies, think tanks,
secret councils and consultative bodies, where important New World Order decisions are ultimately reached on behalf of powerful corporate
interests.
In turn, intelligence operatives increasingly permeate the United Nations including its specialized agencies, nongovernmental
organizations, trade unions, political parties.
What this means is that the executive and legislature constitute a smokescreen, a mechanism for providing political legitimacy
to decisions taken by the corporate establishment behind closed doors.
Media Propaganda
The corporate media, which constitutes the propaganda arm of the New World Order, has a long history whereby intelligence ops
oversee the news chain. In turn, the corporate media serves the useful purpose of obfuscating war crimes, of presenting a humanitarian
narrative which upholds the legitimacy of politicians in high office.
Acts of war and economic destabilization are granted legitimacy. War is presented as a peace-keeping undertaking.
Both the global economy as well as the political fabric of Western capitalism have become criminalized. The judicial apparatus
at a national level as well the various international human rights tribunals and criminal courts serve the useful function of upholding
the legitimacy of US-NATO led wars and human rights violations.
Destabilizing Competing Poles of Capitalist Development
There are of course significant divisions and capitalist rivalry within the corporate establishment. In the post Cold War era,
the US hegemonic project consists in destabilizing competing poles of capitalist development including China, Russia and Iran as
well as countries such as India, Brazil and Argentina.
In recent developments, the US has also exerted pressure on the capitalist structures of the member states of the European Union.
Washington exerts influence in the election of heads of State including Germany and France, which are increasingly aligned with Washington.
The monetary dimensions are crucial. The international financial system established under Bretton Woods prevails. The global financial
apparatus is dollarized. The powers of money creation are used as a mechanism to appropriate real economy assets. Speculative financial
trade has become an instrument of enrichment at the expense of the real economy. Excess corporate profits and multibillion dollar
speculative earnings (deposited in tax free corporate charities) are also recycled towards the corporate control of politicians,
civil society organizations, not to mention scientists and intellectuals. It's called corruption, co-optation, fraud.
Latin America: The Transition towards a "Democratic Dictatorship"
In Latin America, the military dictatorships of the 1960s and 1970s have in large part been replaced by US proxy regimes, i.e.
a democratic dictatorship has been installed which ensures continuity. At the same time the ruling elites in Latin America have remoulded.
They have become increasingly integrated into the logic of global capitalism, requiring an acceptance of the US hegemonic project.
Macro-economic reform has been conducive to the impoverishment of the entire Latin America region.
In the course of the last 40 years, impoverishment has been triggered by hyperinflation, starting with the 1973 military coup
in Chile and the devastating reforms of the 1980s and early 1990s.
The implementation of these deadly economic reforms including sweeping privatization, trade deregulation, etc. is coordinated
in liaison with US intelligence ops, including the "Dirty war" and Operation Condor, the Contra insurrection in Nicaragua, etc.
The development of a new and privileged elite integrated into the structures of Western investment and consumerism has emerged.
Regime change has been launched against a number of Latin American countries.
Any attempt to introduce reforms which departs from the neoliberal consensus is the object of "dirty tricks" including acts of
infiltration, smear campaigns, political assassinations, interference in national elections and covert operations to foment social
divisions. This process inevitably requires corruption and cooptation at the highest levels of government as well as within the corporate
and financial establishment. In some countries of the region it hinges on the criminalization of the state, the legitimacy of money
laundering and the protection of the drug trade.
The above text is an English summary of Prof. Michel Chossudovsky's Presentation, National Autonomous University of Nicaragua,
May 17, 2016. This presentation took place following the granting of a Doctor Honoris Causa in Humanities to Professor Chossudovsky
by the National Autonomous University of Nicaragua (UNAN)
@Thulean
Friend The NYT cartoon showing a blind, yarmulked Trump being led by Nuttinyahoo should
have put Kushner's face on the seeing-eye dog instead.
Careful, you don't facilitate this power by self-censorship.
Just as people who own guns don't want their rights restricted by someone who gets a crazy notion, people who value the truth
don't want their right to express it restricted either by same person with a crazy notion.
To repeat the mantra of US as the world's leading harbinger of regime change, mass murder
and war crimes would be to belabor the point.
The question that goes begging is where are the people, of whom, for whom and by whom the
government is supposed to be? Where are the voices of reason and sanity? When will the
enforced silence in the face of the frank colonization and stranglehold of our country by the
Anglozionists be broken once and for all, the feeble but courageous proclamations of Ilhan
Omar notwithstanding?
Also let us ask ourselves this: if African Americans (12% of the US population) or Latin
Americans (18% of the population, 30% combined total) were to have a similar stranglehold on
our foreign policy, would we simply fold our hands and say or do nothing as we are doing with
the AngloZionist takeover of our country?
Is there any other group of people anywhere else that has been rendered as impotent --
stripped of their balls, moral eunuchs really -- accepting widespread abuses of their rights,
their humanity and self-determination by Israel Firsters in such bizarre and total silence?
Wake up America!
Even the Daily Mail's readership is starting to have doubts about the press feed "Maduro's
plane waiting on the tarmac -- talked out of it by Putin story" repeated word for word.
If half the Daily Mail's readers see this as BS -- and see Guaido as a US Regime Change
guy, then the Empire really is in trouble.
And as for a US invasion of Venezuela, it's not going to happen since it would mess up the
all important planned attack on Iran.
What’s so hard to understand? Mike Pompeo……is former head of the CIA.
This is another fucked up CIA op. There are two Israeli factions in the CIA according to
former people that I know who use to work at the CIA in some capacity.
Just add the lying Ziomedia and they will continue this nonsense to a dimwitted American
public who are too busy playing with their phones. The American Empire has been done for a
long time. They have been raped monetarily, socially, and politically by their wonderful ally
Israel.
Trump is nothing but puppet for Israel and basically Jared the Magic Jew is calling the
shots.
I believe that if the USA , a country with many talents , offered a real economic
collaboration , and some respect , to Venezuela , Cuba , and Latinamerica in general , real
alliances could prosper for the common good . But the USA is mistreating latinamerican
friends like Argentina ‘s Macri , the IMF is bleeding again Argentina with usury so
that in the next elections this year the peronists may win and befriend China instead of the
USA . The USA is constantly threatening militarily , economically , insulting , whatever
country that dares not to obbey the USA 100% , what provokes resentment .
It is very worrying the lack of shape , of class , of manners , of the US nomenklatura ,
too old , fats , weirdos , simpletons , low political abilities . Querulant elderly picking
up too many useless fights around the world what is not good for the USA . A pity .
Those who consider Trump to be the puppet of the deep state should explain to himself why are
the mainstream media so 24/7 mad adTrump. Why is the whole establishment in America and in
the whole West so anti-Trump. He has broken all their plans for world domination and creation
of the one world government. He broke TAP and TPP, he has not signed the Paris climate
accord, he is against free trade and the WTO, he is against all UN institutions, he is the
first american president ever who rebeled against the Federal Reserve, he ist the frst who is
really fighting the mas immigration, he is deregulating the american job market, he is
resisting a coup of the deep state, he is apointing the new judges who ar pro constitution,
he is actually desolving the Obamacare and so much more. But he is not the king he has not
the loyal Republican party yet which he is not chosen and he must make the deals to go any
further and in that sense he still needs the help of Neocons in some degree. It would be much
easier when american pople would be a lot more politicaly active and halped him in the way
por example to put the presure on the Rpublican party operatives on the local and national
level, or to be much more active in expousing the woter fraud and so on. American simply
expect that the vote alone can do the job. But the system is so broken that the real
revolution is needed. Otherwise the country would go broke and be dessolved. American must
also put the pressure on the secret owners of everything of importance especially banks and
media whose ownership is seecret, and this secrecy must be remuved because on the ownership
level the most crime occur.
Trump wants Colombia and Brasil to attack Venezuela . Has he thougt that if there is a big
war in South America she will end up like the middle East ,and there will be millions and
millions of refugees emigrating to the USA ?
“Cadres determined everything”. They determined everything for later USSR and
later USA. This constant concentration of imbeciles, liars, traitors and scumbags at the very
top is disturbing sign for humanity. With people of such caliber consistently moving to the
top positions over time leaves little optimism for humanity fate.
“Does that dialog look credible to you? I sure hope not!” Put it in the New York
Times, on CNN or some other mainstream outlet and apparently 90% of our low IQ population
will believe it. Many believe the Russia Stole the US Election Conspiracy Theory, Trump and
Putin are golf buddies, and Trump was awarded with beautiful Russian prostitutes. I think it
was Hitler who, commenting on Germany’s enemies said, “the bigger the lie, the
more believable it is to common people because they themselves would never think of telling
such an outrageous lie”. That’s a paraphrase, not word for word. With liars like
Adam Schiff, Bolton and Pompeo, much of the US population believes much of what these
criminals say.
The oil fields around Deir Ezzor are occupied by Kurdish terrorists working for Israel.
They are surrounded by Iraq and Syria, with Russia and Hezbollah providing reserves and air
support. Syria is afraid to take it back even though their people wait days in line for
gasoline, all while the Kurds and the US steal the oil and booby trap the oil
infrastructure.
@Milisic
Radomir Being anti Trump is just theatre, not because of his actions but because what he
represents ie nationalism.
I don’t believe Trump was always part the deep state. I believe they coerced him
into doing the neocons bidding by using the Mueller report. Though, he was always in Isreals
camp from the beginning.
“Check out this interesting news snippet: Eric Prince wants Blackwater to send 5,000
mercenaries to Venezuela (does anybody know why and how these clowns came up with the 5,000
figure)…”
That’s simple for anyone with an inkling of how Washington works. The first axiom is
that it is just a huge market – everything is for sale, usually to the highest
bidder.
So my guess is that Prince estimated that the budget he could get would be just about
enough to fund 5,000 mercenaries. Of course he wouldn’t be going himself, as they might
all be killed by the angry Venezuelans. But he would still have the money in his bank.
Indeed, he might make out “like a bandit” if all the mercenaries got killed, so
he wouldn’t have to pay them.
“Venezuela is one of the world’s largest exporters of oil and has the
world’s largest proven oil reserves at an estimated 296.5 billion barrels (20% of
global reserves) as of 2012.” Wikipedia
@Anon
It’s simple enough to understand. In his book “How the World Works”, Noam
Chomsky explained.
“One document to look at if you want to understand your country is Policy Planning
Study 23, written by Kennan for the State Department planning staff in 1948. Here’s
some of what it says.
“‘We have about 50% of the world’s wealth but only 6.3% of its
population… In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment.
Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit
us to maintain this position of disparity… To do so, we will have to dispense with all
sentimentality and daydreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on
our immediate national objectives… We should cease to talk about vague and…
unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards and
democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power
concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better’”.
In the same book, Chomsky writes,
‘Along the same lines, in a briefing for US ambassadors to Latin American countries
in 1950, Kennan observed that a major concern of US foreign policy must be “the
protection of our [i.e. Latin America’s] raw materials”. We must therefore combat
a dangerous heresy which, US intelligence reported, was spreading through Latin America:
“the idea that the government has direct responsibility for the welfare of the
people”.
‘US planners call that idea Communism, whatever the actual political views of the
people advocating it. They can be church-based self-help groups or whatever, but if they
support this heresy, they’re Communists’.
This also completely explains why there is so little resistance among US citizens to their
government’s systematic, deliberate, massive, unforgivable crimes against humanity.
Namely they (US citizens) believe that they gain materially by those crimes. (Most of them
may be wrong about that, but that’s not important right now).
Consider Kennan’s first sentence:
“We have about 50% of the world’s wealth but only 6.3% of its
population…”
Today the US population, while rapidly increasing, is less than 4% of world population.
Yet resource consumption is still far, far greater than for any other country.
To learn more try searching online for (e.g.) “us population resource consumption
percent global”. Here are two of the first hits that query will bring up:
Venezuela is a sea of tricky cross currents though which the Saker has not done a good job
navigating. He imposes a narrative on events that is too simple.
Start with a difficult topic: the legitimacy of Nicolas Maduro. A timeline is helpful:
2012: Hugo Chavez dies.
2013: Elections are held for the office of President. Maduro wins with 50.61% of the vote,
beating Enrique Capriles who comes in at 49.1%.
April 2015: Elections are held to select deputies to Venezuela’s legislative body, the
National Assembly. In these elections a coalition of opposition parties, the MUD (Mesa de
Unidad Democrcatica), wins 56.3 % of the vote and 112 of 167 seats, the first electoral
defeat of the Chavistas (the “Bolivarian Revolution”) in 16 years.
May 2015: In a lame duck session of the National Assembly, the Chavistas – at that
moment still in the majority –- pass a law that removes all sitting members of
Venezuela’s supreme court (called the TSJ, Tribunal Supremo de Justicia), and puts in
place a new set of judges, every one of whom is a Maduro partisan. The TSJ soon becomes a
polit-bureau ratifying Maduro’s decrees and nullifying every measure of the National
Assembly.
May 2018: A presidential election is established by decree, without the authority of the
National Assembly as stipulated in the Constitution of 1999. Every aspect of this election is
irregular, false, manipulated or controlled, including a significant detail: no opposition
candidates are allowed to run, including Leopoldo Lopez (in jail or under house arrest) and
Enrique Capriles (banned from participation in politics).
The Saker says: “…yes, both Chavez and Maduro have made mistakes. But this is
not about Chavez or Maduro, this is about the rule of law inside and outside
Venezuela.”
The Saker is just saying words here. The absence of the rule of law is precisely the
problem.
The Saker dismisses Maduro’s opponents as “puppets” of the Empire.
Leopoldo Lopez is a puppet? He chose to remain in Venezuela and share the difficulties of
life there, a decision not coming cheap. Until yesterday he was in jail or under house
arrest. Before being sent to jail, a car he was riding in was riddled with bullets. In March
of 2006, a bodyguard of his was shot and killed. One might not agree with Lopez, but he is a
man of conviction and courage.
Or consider Juan Guaido: he did NOT select himself. He was chosen by the National Assembly
(based on authority granted to it by the Constitution of 1999). In the fractured political
landscape of Venezuela the National Assembly is now the only body to have received its
mandate via an election in which real alternatives existed and honest vote counting occurred.
The selection of Guaido represents an attempt to start from a point as legally valid as
possible, and from there by peaceful means guide Venezuelan political life back to legality.
What is at issue is the rule of law.
The Saker lets abhorrence of the Neocon regime in Washington distort his judgment. Yes,
the Neocons are brutal, stupid and dangerous, but their assessment of the Maduro regime in
Caracas is accurate. Sorry if this assertion is found to be offensive. Chavez, Maduro,
Cabello and their gang narco-traficantes have not “made mistakes,” they have
destroyed a country.
(Is it necessary to argue this point? Hundreds of thousands of people do not walk –
WALK – out of a country unless desperate. The currency is deep into hyper-inflation,
meaning, there is no currency. PDVSA — before the Bolivarian Revolution a well-run
state-owned operation producing 3 to 3.5 million barrels of oil per day — now produces
under one million barrels a day. The grid is in a state of collapse. These and many more
disasters were NOT visited upon the Venezuelan people by the gringos or by anybody else: they
were visited upon the Venezuelan people by a corrupt, incompetent government operating behind
the facade of a phony revolution.)
The Maduro regime in Caracas and the Neocon regime in Washington are equally repellent,
and in fact similar. Both are mafia type organizations. Why grant legitimacy to the little
mafia in Caracas. All this does is allow the big mafia in Washington to parade around as
champions of “rights,” “democracy” and “freedom,” which
words, when said by the Neocons, induce nausea.
Among the people in the Venezuelan drama the most attractive are the opposition leaders on
the ground: Leopoldo Lopez, Enrique Capriles, Maria Corina Machado, and many others,
including Juan Guaido. They have been jailed, banned, threatened, shot at, roughed up and
harassed, yet they stay at home and in the game. Their flaws are balanced by a great virtue:
courage. I don’t think that any of them would make a good puppet.
One last point: pay attention to Ivan Duque, the current president of Colombia. He is an
intelligent, thoughtful, close to the situation and has a big stake in what happens. (A
million refugees from Venezuela are in his country.) If there is a good outcome to this
drama, he will probably be part of it.
Pompeo is filthy fucking cockroach…….Just like the filthy cockroach JFK who
gave Latin America Death Squads and the Alliance for Progress….and the Cuban Missile
Crisis…
@joeshittheragman
That’s mostly because 1899 was about the time when the USA had overrun the whole of
North America (apart from the frozen north and the poverty-stricken south, which it
considered stealing but decided to leave).
Having grabbed all the resources (natural, human, etc.) available in their own continent,
they started looking avidly abroad for more plunder. China, for instance. South America.
Japan… the Middle East…
{The Empire only appears to be strong. In reality it is weak, confused, clueless and, most
importantly, run by a sad gang of incompetent thugs who think that they can scare everybody
into submission in spite of not having won a single significant war since 1945. The inability
to break the will of the people of Venezuela is only the latest symptom of this mind-boggling
weakness.}
A fairly accurate assessment.
However, The Empire still has immense capacity to cause death and destruction all over the
world. It may not have enough warrior-troops to send boots to Venezuela (thank God), but it
has a LOT of hardware to cause mass deaths remotely and from above without setting foot on
somebody’s land.
And the weaker and more impotent The Empire becomes as time goes by, the more irrational
and dangerous it will become, consumed with rage at the realization of its inability to
longer being able to run/control the globe.
Hopefully there will be some cooler heads where it counts in US civilian&military
leadership, before the irrational rage spills over and we all get nuked – by accident
or by design.
@Realist
A lot of intelligent, educated British people tend to read the Daily Mail, because –
incredible to relate – it is perhaps the closest organ remaining to an old-fashioned
newspaper with actual news.
I know, I know, it’s horribly bad. But all the others are worse. Even “Private
Eye” now regurgitates government propaganda.
@Anonymous
“The US cut the supply of debt to Venezuela…”
Does anything about that statement strike you as really, really weird? Why would anyone
running an independent nation with plenty of natural resources and intelligent, hardworking
people want any foreign debt?
(Except for the tiny handful of bought-and-paid-for traitors who negotiate those deals and
then retire and go and live in Florida).
@A123
1. Even if Maduro were “massacring his own people” that would be absolutely no
concern of the USA.
2. Even if it did concern the USA, the UN Charter absolutely forbids the USA to interfere
in the internal or external affairs of Venezuela. Under any circumstances whatsoever –
unless ordered to do so by the UN Security Council (won’t happen) or if Venezuela wages
war against the USA (certainly won’t happen).
3. Maduro has not been “massacring his own people”.
Empire is an illusion, because it is built on the need for power, and power is ephemeral. It
has been present in every conflict of the past. It is the underlying motivation for war.
Other cultural factors might change, but not power. As a result every civilization/nation
eventually gets the war it is trying to avoid: utter defeat. But emperors and their advisers
delude themselves, thinking they can avoid that fateful war, that it can be limited in scale
or even won. History always proves them wrong. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
@Digital
Samizdat Tucker asked – apparently genuinely mystified – why the Democrats
are just as keen as the administration to attack Venezuela.
That too is very, very simple.
They don’t care about laws.
They don’t care about treaties.
They don’t care about the UN Charter.
They don’t care about the Nuremberg Principles.
They don’t care about the US Constitution.
They don’t care about the teachings of Jesus Christ.
They don’t care about the Ten Commandments.
They don’t care about democracy.
They don’t care about freedom.
They don’t care about the Venezuelan people. (Sorry, let me rephrase that. They
don’t give a flying fuck about the Venezuelan people).
They don’t care about ordinary human decency.
All they care about is their entitlement to go on plundering all the world’s
resources – which they consider to be their legitimate property – and to kill
anyone who gets in their way.
@Chris
Bridges Chris, there seems to be an important typo in your comment. I have fixed it for
you.
“There is not one particle of “patriotism”, dignity, or pride in any of
Guaido’s supporters. Miami is full of this human garbage. Having shit in their own nest
they flee with their stolen, narcotics-traficking millions to the hated imperialist
USA.”
April 13, 2019 US Military Attack on Venezuela Mulled by Top Trump Advisors and Latin
American Officials at Private DC Meeting
Away from the public eye, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) think
tank hosted a top-level, off-the-record meeting to explore US military options against
Venezuela.
The US is in the end-stage Empire State…..and this is what make the US Empire so
dangerous at this point in time….The US Empire will start lashing out in its final
death throes……
If anyone is interested in the CIA regime changes , read the book The Secret Team, the cia
and its allies in control of the world, by the late Col. L. Fletcher Prouty, it can be had on
amazon, or possibly on line, and see his videos of youtube.
The CIA is satan incarnate and the chain dogs of the zionists who rule America!
I don’t think the Deep State can give up.
They give up, Venezuela starts selling whatever oil it can produce for anything but dollars
– euros, gold, maybe yuan or even roubles. And then who’s next?
Why, you think, all the pressure on Iran? Big oil producer, outside the petro-dollar
nexus.
That’s unpardonable to the Deep State. It can’t be allowed.
They’ll keep fighting and plotting until the threats to the petro-dollar are removed.
@Thulean
Friend Either the Deep State finally found footage of Rabbi Trump on epstein’s
rapegirl island, or the incident with the kushnercopter–w/ ivanka aboard–having
to immediately land upon takeoff due to a “malfunction” deballed him for good.
By God I wish I was paid by the Government. Anytime someone posts words with a whiff of
truth, they are framed as a secret agent. Do I get a decoder ring, too?
Trump is not a Machiavellian mastermind. Neither he nor Pompeo caused Madero to turn
Venezuela into his own ATM to the detriment of the masses. (The elite are AOK)
Furthermore, they MUST take a position. Sweat hog Maduro is crushing protestors with
tanks. If the US can somehow benefit from his repellent actions, we should.
Most of you revere Putin, notwithstanding your complete lack of understand that any
postings- like these!- would result in some dead eyed thugs banging on your door at 3AM. Do
you believe Putin wrings his hands over plucking meat from a dead carcass?
THAT’S history. THAT’S politics. A steely eyed focus on your own
country’s bottom line. I know its troubling to digest that the world is not FortNite.
Slink back to your safe space and make some play dough balls.
You mean the thousands frantically attempting to cross over into Columbia?
In unfree societies, people can’t leave, so your point undermines another one from
the Establishment narrative, namely that Venezuela is a society dominated by a dictator, and
yearning to be free.
"... it was Russia that attacked Iraq on the basis of lies? ..."
"... It must have been Russia that turned Libya into a failed state, complete with slave markets? ..."
"... Instead of spinning fantasies about Maduro going into exile or being overthrown by some kind of joint (and illegal) Latin American task force, how's about we consider the very reasonable idea of Guaidó being arrested and tried for treason? ..."
Please refrain in using the term "democracy" so easily. US is a republic with the surface of
elected representative system, and we know exactly how that works. See the election of Truman
as VP instead of Wallace in 1944 or so or very recently the election of Hillary Clinton as
democratic representative.
A true democracy is done via a sortition system that selects randomly from the roster of
eligible citizens to represent the will of the people.
Imagine that in the Second Amendment instead of "A well regulated Militia, being necessary
to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed" we would have: "A well educated Citizenry, being necessary to the security and
well-being of a free, moral, and ethically sound State, the right of the people to get a
sound Education in Philosophy, Ethics, Civics, Logic, Finance, and Health, shall not be
infringed".
it was Russia that attacked Iraq on the basis of lies?
It is China that is gleefully assisting the Saudi tyrants to commit genocide?
It must have been Russia that turned Libya into a failed state, complete with slave
markets?
Is China now that is frantically threatening war on Iran?
Russia must have been responsible for supporting jihadists to turn Syria into another failed
state, right?
For that matter, is it Russia and China that are threatening war on the elected and UN
recognized government of Venezuela?
Seriously, after America's long and bloody track record of failed and bloody
interventions, it baffles me that anyone could say something so ridiculous.
" fearmongering about the "Yankee" empire to the north."
What, this isn't justified?
Instead of spinning fantasies about Maduro going into exile or being overthrown by some
kind of joint (and illegal) Latin American task force, how's about we consider the very
reasonable idea of Guaidó being arrested and tried for treason?
@Thulean
Friend The NYT cartoon showing a blind, yarmulked Trump being led by Nuttinyahoo should
have put Kushner's face on the seeing-eye dog instead.
She rips the Obama White House for its allegiance to Citibank. But she does nto understadn that the problem is not with
Citibank, but with the neoliberalism as the social system. Sad...
Democrats and Republicans are just two sides of the same coin as for neoliberalism. Which presuppose protecting banks, like
Citigroup, and other big corporations. The USA political system is not a Democracy, we have become an Oligarchy with a two Party
twist (Poliarchy) in whihc ordinary voters are just statists who have No voice for anyone except approving one of the two
preselected by big money candidates. It's time we put a stop to this nonsense or we'll all go down with ship.
Anyway, on a positive note
"Each time a person stands up for an ideal to improve the lot of others, they send forth a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistence." RFK
This budget deal is absolutely disgusting. More financial deregulation, the potential for
a second TARP, cuts to pensions, and cuts to funding for Pell Grants to help out students.
Once again, the people lose.
So tough, so strong, and so right. And I love that she's not afraid to rip into Democrats
and the White House for their complicity in selling out our country and tax dollars to the
big banks. We need more strong politicians on both sides of the aisle like this.
It's not party specific, though the Republicans are the worst. Both parties are to be
blame. The biggest blame goes to the Americans who do not vote and those who have no clue who
or what they are voting for. The government is the way it is, it's because of the attitude of
Americans towards politics. Majority do not give a shit and hence you have that pile up in
Washington and states legislature.
Elizabeth Warren is like a fictional do gooder character from Hollywood. No one take her
seriously.
Blame all the politicians you want, you Americans voting or not voting are the lousiest
employers in the world, because you hire a bunch of corruptors into your government. These
corruptors in fact control your lives.
They abuse your money, spending every penny on everything but on you. You would not hand
over your wallet or bank accounts to a strangers, yet are precisely doing that by putting
these corruptors in the government.
This speech encapsulates and exposes all that is wrong with America in general and with
our governance in particular. Taking the heinous provision out of the bill would be a great
first baby step toward cleaning up our politics, economy and collective spirit as a nation.
All the "smart money" says that Warren is engaged in a Quixotic attempt to do something good
in a system that is irredeemably corrupted by money and the lust for power. The cynics may be
right, perhaps America is doomed to be consumed by the parasites to the last drop of
blood...but maybe not. Maybe this ugly indefensibly corrupt malevolent move to put the
taxpayers back on the hook for the next trillion dollar bail out theft will be sufficient to
wake up hundreds of millions of us. When the people wake up and turn on the lights, the
crooks and the legally corrupt will slither away back into their hole...and many may just
wind up in prison, where they belong. But so long as corrupt dirty dastardly interests can
keepAmerica deceived and asleep, they will continue to drain our nation's life's blood dry.
Please share this video widely. If half as many folks watch this speech as watched the Miley
Cyrus "Wrecking Ball" YouTube, the provision to which Warren is objecting will be taken out
very quickly indeed.
As George Carlin said a decade ago,who are we going to replace these politicians with?
They did not fall out of the sky or come from a distant planet. They are US. You can vote all
you want and replace every last one of them but nothing will change. It is human nature.
Besides the road from being on the local town council, to the mayor,Gov then into the Capital
is littered with test to weed out anyone who might really pose a danger to the system. The
occasional odd one that does make it to power is castrated or there simply to give the
illusion that elections matter. Unless you can eliminate the attraction of greed,ego and
power nothing will ever change. Just a quick look back at history tells you what is happening
now and what will be going on in our future. The only difference is there are more zeros.
"... It's the US ruling elite that are the true deplorables. ..."
"... The war on civilization is never a failure for as long as the invader wins. Winning in this case means toppling a government, destabilizing an economy and dividing a population then leaving a country in chaos. It's not a foreign policy failure for the U.S. That is the policy working exactly as intended. All the talk later, where they claim that they had "bad intel" or they "made mistakes" or "miscalculated" is complete bullshit. They know what they're doing. If they didn't, they wouldn't keep doing it over and over in the exact same way. ..."
"... {A titular ruler, or titular head, is a person in an official position of leadership who possesses few, if any, actual powers. Sometimes a person may inhabit a position of titular leadership and yet exercise more power than would normally be expected, as a result of their personality or experience} ? ..."
"... They'd follow the money if they really wanted to end the terrorism. In that regard, bombing Raqqa to hell was sure convenient as USA destroyed all the evidence - or at least they can make that claim. ..."
"... So he gets trotted out just in time to revive the "ISIS threat", and take the blame for various recent funny-smelling terrist attacks, people going to odd places like New Zealand and Sri Lanka to vent their spleens at Muslims and Christians, respectively. I have half-a-suspicion somebody is trying to get a religious war of some sort going. ..."
"... we're talking 1 and a half million dead so far in Iraq and Afghanistan...and that's being conservative. ..."
"... Where? Where was it published? On what platform? Is it really that hard to trace the IPs? Turkey is really determined to get those S-400s. The Empire first threatened to withhold F-35s, then to impose sanctions, then to expel Turkey from NATO, then to move its bases to Greece. Still, Turkey wouldn't budge. Time to deploy some good old terrorism, so that the Empire will be obliged to come in and "help". ..."
"... I have long believed that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi actually is associated either with Moss ad or the CIA. That's why he's had so many miracle escapes. That's why they never catch him and often don't even know where he is. And we know that his ISIS never, never attacks Israeli targets or fat Saudi Prince targets. ..."
"... Those would in fact be the targets of choice for any genuine jihad movement. Not Syria or Iraq, which are two states Israel has wanted to harm or eliminate for years. ISIS has always been a fraud, a very complex and deadly one, but a fraud. ..."
"... Many years ago, even before this character posed as a "Syrian rebel" who was photographed meeting with John McCain, he was outed as a Mossad agent by the name of Simon Elliot. ..."
"... Al Jazeera "can't confirm the authenticity of the video." ..."
"... A history of Wahhabism which is a problem for the globe; https://ahtribune.com/religion/155-a-history-of-wahhabism.html The KSA, whose ass the empire kisses daily, is the main funder for these clowns. ..."
What's the Wonder my dear?
Duh!
He is in CIA safe house in Al-Anbar.
ISI is looking for this CIA's "Patsy" hide out. Watch this space, he has blood of 14
Pakistani soldiers on his hands via Iran hit. We will end this MOSSAD Agent.
The one hundred thousand people that died in Iraq and Afghanistan due to terrorist
activities would certainly agree that the trillions of dollars that have been spent on the
War on Terror has done very little to remove the spectre of terrorist activities from their
homes, cities and nations.
Sally Snyder: The war on terror is a war of terror and in that sense, though morally
reprehensible and costly, has been success. Regime change and the destabilization of the
Middle East has been the goal.
It's the US ruling elite that are the true deplorables.
War on terror was the war on an entire civilization. Association/Replacement of the word
terror was just for the public consumption. It's a simple strategy that makes the
aggressors appear like the good guys who are there to defend themselves or the values they
hold.
The war on civilization is never a failure for as long as the invader wins. Winning in
this case means toppling a government, destabilizing an economy and dividing a population
then leaving a country in chaos. It's not a foreign policy failure for the U.S. That is the
policy working exactly as intended. All the talk later, where they claim that they had "bad
intel" or they "made mistakes" or "miscalculated" is complete bullshit. They know what
they're doing. If they didn't, they wouldn't keep doing it over and over in the exact same
way.
War on the civilizations yields massive benefits. It's the shortcoming of the model of
the western civilization that it continuously requires massive input that can't be achieved
by the legal means of business and trade.
Auntie Gina the tit ular head of Al-CIA-duh/ Al Qaeda/ ISIS?
{A titular ruler, or titular head, is a person in an official position of leadership
who possesses few, if any, actual powers. Sometimes a person may inhabit a position of
titular leadership and yet exercise more power than would normally be expected, as a result
of their personality or experience} ?
They'd follow the money if they really wanted to end the terrorism.
In that regard, bombing Raqqa to hell was sure convenient as USA destroyed all the
evidence - or at least they can make that claim.
So he gets trotted out just in time to revive the "ISIS threat", and take the blame for
various recent funny-smelling terrist attacks, people going to odd places like New Zealand
and Sri Lanka to vent their spleens at Muslims and Christians, respectively. I have
half-a-suspicion somebody is trying to get a religious war of some sort going.
They don't seem to be having that much success with getting that war going, so I expect
the attacks will go on.
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, self declared caliph of ISIS, appeared in new video
published today.
Where? Where was it published? On what platform? Is it really that hard to trace the
IPs? Turkey is really determined to get those S-400s. The Empire first threatened to withhold
F-35s, then to impose sanctions, then to expel Turkey from NATO, then to move its bases to
Greece. Still, Turkey wouldn't budge. Time to deploy some good old terrorism, so that the
Empire will be obliged to come in and "help".
I have long believed that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi actually is associated either with Moss ad
or the CIA. That's why he's had so many miracle escapes. That's why they never catch him and often don't even know where he is. And we know that his ISIS never, never attacks Israeli targets or fat Saudi Prince
targets.
Those would in fact be the targets of choice for any genuine jihad movement. Not Syria
or Iraq, which are two states Israel has wanted to harm or eliminate for years. ISIS has always been a fraud, a very complex and deadly one, but a fraud.
Many years ago, even before this character posed as a "Syrian rebel" who was photographed
meeting with John McCain, he was outed as a Mossad agent by the name of Simon Elliot.
The guy in recent picture looks like one of Rita Katz's actors.
It is a show to threaten Turkey with the same as Sri Lanka (where they refine lots of
Iranian crude...and more...look it up). Many ties to Iran/Sri Lanka....and to Turkey.
Typical nazi thugs....bribes, arson, dynamite...and patsies...in this case maybe mossad
actor? Why not> Cui Bono?
As to the locus of the actor? Paramount? Warner Bros? Probably not. Does it matter?
They're parading a ringer...don't fall for the gag. Erdo won't fall for it either.
Baghdadi has nice toys by his side and not just the AK-47 with the camo bit over the
barrel. It looks like a camo case on night vision gear (or vidcam?) just below that, too.
To quote the Joker: "Where does he get those wonderful toys?"
Ahh a new game of "where in the world is ..." except instead of bin Laden (or his
stand-in) the guest in Pakistan living near a military base we have Baghdadi. Maybe
Baghdadi lives in that area, too. (awaiting his execution for the media and masses). I
doubt it though. I'm thinking Turkey or even Saudi Arabia.
... This move by Baghdadi could backfire in a big way. Got my popcorn ready. Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 29, 2019 5:06:26 PM | 19
It does seem unnecessarily cheeky/ fishy.
If 'they' had fiendishly brilliant plan, why wouldn't they'd just do it and leave it to the
intel wonks to figure out what went wrong?
It's big news in the J-C International media.
Al Jazeera "can't confirm the authenticity of the video."
"... The waivers expire in May, meaning that those countries could potentially face US sanctions beyond that deadline. China and Turkey, on their part, have strongly condemned the American restrictions, arguing the US is not in a position to intervene in their trade ties with Iran. ..."
"... We don't have any information from our Saudi partners or other OPEC members that they are ready to pull out from the deal. ..."
"... He assured that Moscow is "fulfilling its commitments" to the production cuts agreed by OPEC and several non-OPEC producers in December. Saudi Arabia is also "unlikely" to withdraw, being the driving force behind the wider coalition. ..."
It's hard to foresee how US efforts to bring Iranian oil exports to zero will play out in
future, Vladimir Putin admitted, saying OPEC members should live up to their obligation to keep
output as low as possible if it comes true. Russia has an agreement with the Organization of
the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to cut their output by 1.2 million barrels per day,
which remains in effect until July of this year, Putin said. But the US waivers – which
gave a host of countries an exemption from the existing anti-Iran sanctions – expire much
earlier, he reminded.
I don't imagine how the global energy market will react to that.
In November, the US re-imposed sanctions on Iran's energy, shipbuilding and banking sectors
in a bid to deprive Tehran of its main sources of revenue. But it simultaneously issued waivers
to China, India, Japan, South Korea, and Turkey – the main importers of Iranian crude
– so that they can find alternative vendors of oil.
The waivers expire in May, meaning that those countries could potentially face US sanctions
beyond that deadline. China and Turkey, on their part, have strongly condemned the American
restrictions, arguing the US is not in a position to intervene in their trade ties with
Iran.
Commenting on the issue, Putin said he hopes the market will eventually avoid the deficit of
Iranian oil and that Iran will still be able to sell it. The comment came on the heels of
conflicting reports that Donald Trump persuaded Riyadh to ramp up oil output this lowering fuel
costs; these reports were denounced by OPEC officials.
Nevertheless, there is "no evidence" that any country is going to withdraw from the
OPEC+ agreement to drop oil outputs, Putin said.
We don't have any information from our Saudi partners or other OPEC members that they
are ready to pull out from the deal.
He assured that Moscow is "fulfilling its commitments" to the production cuts agreed
by OPEC and several non-OPEC producers in December. Saudi Arabia is also "unlikely" to
withdraw, being the driving force behind the wider coalition.
Detained for "Wrong-Think": Canadian Border Guards Seize Books from Monika Schaefer
Upon returning from the United States of America on 24 April 2019, I was detained by the
Canadian Border Guards in the Calgary airport for three hours.
Three Border Guards spent those hours perusing through my possessions, especially the
books that I was carrying in my small suitcase. They were looking for "hate
propaganda".
The five books which they seized from me for further inspection are the following:
Government by Deception by Jan Lamprecht
Mystery Babylon: New World Unveiled Vol 1 by Eli James & Clay Douglas
The Great Inpersonation -- The Mask of Edom by Pastor Eli James
The Commission by Richard Barrett
Bungled: "Denying the Holocaust" by Germar Rudolf
No surprise here.
These Border Guards were looking for "hate propaganda". Setting aside for the moment the
meaninglessness of that term, how is it that single copies of books in my personal
possession are deemed harmful or dangerous to anyone? What I choose to read is my business
and no one else's. It is not as though I were importing commercial quantities of books. We
seem to have reached the stage where we are being dictated what to think, let alone what to
say. This is Wrong-Think in George Orwell's world of 1984.
The infatuation with AI makes people overlook three AI's built-in glitches. AI is software.
Software bugs. Software doesn't autocorrect bugs. Men correct bugs. A bugging self-driving
car leads its passengers to death. A man driving a car can steer away from death. Humans love
to behave in erratic ways, it is just impossible to program AI to respond to all possible
erratic human behaviour. Therefore, instead of adapting AI to humans, humans will be forced
to adapt to AI, and relinquish a lot of their liberty as humans. Humans have moral qualms
(not everybody is Hillary Clinton), AI being strictly utilitarian, will necessarily be
"psychopathic".
In short AI is the promise of communism raised by several orders of magnitude. Welcome
to the "Brave New World".
@Vojkan
You've raised some interesting objections, Vojkan. But here are a few quibbles:
1) AI is software. Software bugs. Software doesn't autocorrect bugs. Men correct bugs. A
bugging self-driving car leads its passengers to death. A man driving a car can steer away
from death.
Learn to code! Seriously, until and unless the AI devices acquire actual power over their
human masters (as in The Matrix ), this is not as big a problem as you think. You
simply test the device over and over and over until the bugs are discovered and worked out --
in other words, we just keep on doing what we've always done with software: alpha, beta,
etc.
2) Humans love to behave in erratic ways, it is just impossible to program AI to respond
to all possible erratic human behaviour. Therefore, instead of adapting AI to humans,
humans will be forced to adapt to AI, and relinquish a lot of their liberty as humans.
There's probably some truth to that. This reminds me of the old Marshall McCluhan saying
that "the medium is the message," and that we were all going to adapt our mode of cognition
(somewhat) to the TV or the internet, or whatever. Yeah, to some extent that has happened.
But to some extent, that probably happened way back when people first began domesticating
horses and riding them. Human beings are 'programmed', as it were, to adapt to their
environments to some extent, and to condition their reactions on the actions of other
things/creatures in their environment.
However, I think you may be underestimating the potential to create interfaces that allow
AI to interact with a human in much more complex ways, such as how another human would
interact with human: sublte visual cues, pheromones, etc. That, in fact, was the essence of
the old Turing Test, which is still the Holy Grail of AI:
3) Humans have moral qualms (not everybody is Hillary Clinton), AI being strictly
utilitarian, will necessarily be "psychopathic".
I don't see why AI devices can't have some moral principles -- or at least moral biases --
programmed into them. Isaac Asimov didn't think this was impossible either:
You simply test the device over and over and over until the bugs are discovered and
worked out -- in other words, we just keep on doing what we've always done with software:
alpha, beta, etc.
Some bugs stay dormant for decades. I've seen one up close.
What's new with AI is the amount of damage a faulty software multiplied many times over
can do. My experience was pretty horrible (I was one of the two humans overseeing the system,
but it was a pretty horrifying experience), but if the system was fully autonomous, it'd have
driven my employer bankrupt.
Now I'm not against using AI in any form whatsoever; I also think that it's inevitable
anyway. I'd support AI driving cars or flying planes, because they are likely safer than
humans, though it's of course changing a manageable risk for a very small probability tail
risk. But I'm pretty worried about AI in general.
economic welfare cannot be adequately measured unless the personal distribution of income is
known. And no income measurement undertakes to estimate the reverse side of income, that is,
the intensity and unpleasantness of effort going into the earning of income. The welfare of a
nation can, therefore, scarcely be inferred from a measurement of national income as defined
above.
"... Joe is a hypocrite, like all pols Joe has a double standards problem. Joe loves Nazis when they suit his agenda, so much so that he'll send them free weapons, train and fund them, just like the Israeli govt. ..."
"... Biden was 2nd in command in the administration that cost the party over 1000 elected seats, 13 governorships and 14 state legislatures. He was 2nd in command of the administration that led the country to Donald Trump's doorstep. ..."
"... All the Fox news loving right wingers here should love Joe, he not much different than Bush, Clinton, Obama, Trump or Ted Cruz. All members of the uniparty. All love "open borders" because they're all capitalists/globalists, and capitalists love cheap labor. ..."
Joe is a hypocrite, like all pols Joe has a double standards problem. Joe loves Nazis when
they suit his agenda, so much so that he'll send them free weapons, train and fund them, just
like the Israeli govt.
Joe Biden Rails against Neo-Nazis in Charlottesville after Supporting Them in Ukraine
Biden was 2nd in command in the administration that cost the party over 1000 elected
seats, 13 governorships and 14 state legislatures. He was 2nd in command of the
administration that led the country to Donald Trump's doorstep.
All the online polls I've seen have Bernie or Tulsi winning. Joe is a loser. Which is
probably why the Dems will rig the election and pick Joe. Trump wins. The establishment would
rather Joe lose to Trump than have Bernie or Tulsi beat him.
US govt. already spends more $$$ on college education than countries that provide "free" college,
same thing with health care, only with shittier results.
All the Fox news loving right wingers here should love Joe, he not much different than
Bush, Clinton, Obama, Trump or Ted Cruz. All members of the uniparty. All love "open borders"
because they're all capitalists/globalists, and capitalists love cheap labor.
Biden voted for NAFTA and pushed the TPP
Opposes single-payer healthcare
Opposes cannabis legalization
Supports the death penalty
Wrote the 1994 crime bill
Voted for DOMA
Voted for NAFTA
Voted for Iraq War
Voted for PATRIOT Act
Voted to repeal Glass-Steagall
Voted to make it harder to eliminate student debt
@redmudhooch
Grifters Joe Biden and Virginia Governor Terry McCauliffe work on behalf of the special
interests that own America ..
So Who What are these SPECIAL INTERESTS?
Answer:ADL AIPAC .ISRAEL CORPORATE OLIGARCHS The aforementioned Special Interests want to
violently exterminate .THE HISTORIC NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICAN WORKING CLASS MAJORITY ..
IT'S A RACE WAR ..ADL AIPAC ISRAEL And CLASS WARFARE(Corporate Oligarchs) .
"... foreign policy scarcely moves the needle in the US electorate at large so that won't necessarily help Trump nor hinder Bernie except on the outer fringes. Americans are tired of endless wars so the Demotards should generally be favoured on this issue whether or not warranted so long as they play their cards right. ..."
"... US Presidential elections definitely turn on the economy. A slowdown or recession before 11/2020 and Trump is toast. Also, the conversation has clearly moved left on economic inequality and healthcare. Bernie owns these issues and to the extent he can make his way through the primaries he will stand a great chance of unseating Trump. ..."
"... Warren does too but as you stated she is not telegenic nor peronable. Her .01% Native American schtick really hurt her credibility. That was a dumb move. ..."
"... Gabbard is certainly telegenic and hasn't been blackballed as much as she is simply not well-known. She's in the field at the moment. Her chances appear more real farther down the road so running now could be seen as a first step in the eventual process. I doubt Bernie will choose her as VP but who knows? ..."
Russiagate will scarcely matter to most voters by election time 2020. Trump has already
received whatever positives he will receive courtesy of Barr's whitewashing. It is clear
among
a majourity of Americans that Trump obstructed justice and the drip drip of continued
information, hearings, etc will not improve his standing. May not hurt him but definitely
will not help him gain voters at the margins.
Likewise, foreign policy scarcely moves the needle in the US electorate at large so that
won't necessarily help Trump nor hinder Bernie except on the outer fringes. Americans are
tired of endless wars so the Demotards should generally be favoured on this issue whether or
not warranted so long as they play their cards right.
Trump may gain an advantage among more conservative-tinged independent voters if he
continues to work in concert with Russia and Israel on Middle East issues in the sense that
many may see these alliances as promoting strength and peace (whether warranted or not). The
coming deal with China on trade will benefit Trump too...as long as the economy keeps humming
along.
US Presidential elections definitely turn on the economy. A slowdown or recession before
11/2020 and Trump is toast. Also, the conversation has clearly moved left on economic
inequality and healthcare. Bernie owns these issues and to the extent he can make his way
through the primaries he will stand a great chance of unseating Trump.
Warren does too but as you stated she is not telegenic nor peronable. Her .01% Native
American schtick really hurt her credibility. That was a dumb move. Are some of her problems
related to gender bias? Without a doubt. However, as I have long said, the first American
female president will not come from the baby boom. The first American female president will
more likely be a millenial.
Gabbard is certainly telegenic and hasn't been blackballed as
much as she is simply not well-known. She's in the field at the moment. Her chances appear
more real farther down the road so running now could be seen as a first step in the eventual
process. I doubt Bernie will choose her as VP but who knows?
Sanders will rally the FSA but that will go nowhere in general election.
Gabbard is serious person. The fact that DNC does approve is one of her strengths. Of
course Wasserman will attempt a Tanya Harding but Tulsi can take her.
I hope she would not team with Biden.
I thing two good women might be powerful:
Behold: Gabbard/Omar.
Sanders is already hip deep in the Deep State, and there is no denying it. In absolute
terms he is an unacceptable candidate . But then a person recalls a famous Winston
Churchill quote:
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."
After stating the obvious fact Sanders just isn't much good, you have to ask, compared
to what?
This election cycle it looks as if the Palestinians will be screwed yet again. But I can
imagine that while Sanders will be extremely protective of the Holy Cesspool, he will stop
the practice of kissing Netanyahu's ass to the point of inflammation.
As you say, if we get President Sanders we'd better not also be presented with Vice
President Neocon. In that event I'd expect something or other to happen so as to suddenly
have President Neocon.
Sadly, I think b is caught in a mental framework, like many socialist-leaning Europeans,
that prevents him from thinking critically about Sanders.
All the more strange because everyone can see how Obama and Trump failed to live up to
their rhetoric, how powerful monied interests and the Deep State conduct "managed democracy"
and give us the illusion of democracy . Yet some cling to the notion that democracy
works! making it possible that a socialist hero can be elected.
Until democracy itself is made an issue (akin to the Yellow Vest protests) , we
will continue to be played.
Bernie Sanders may well have the best chance to beat Trump on domestic policies. But he is
no progressive on foreign policy issues.
He has gotten better on this recently but he doesn't have the strength left in him to
properly challenge the lobby, particularly being Jewish his extended family/social circle is
a weakness they'll attack like with Goldstone.
Presumably he calculated that the infamously spiteful man won't be in office come January
2021 and that he can join in the scape-goating of Netanyahu as the unique 'bad-man' whose
policies vis-a-vis the Palestinians and other neighbours wasn't highly popular and endorsed
by Israeli society and we can all forget about it when somebody more presentable takes over
despite engaging in the same policies.
Bernie Sanders has been around in Washington. He knows that his domestic plans are
unaffordable in the Red Scare climate which he's been pushing himself , since all
money will go to the Deep State and the Armies of Mordor. The evidence is he's OK with that.
Anyway, why spend time on this old geezer; he's already lost and in the time since
then, he's exposed himself as a phony and liar.
Z Smith isnt it crystal clear by now...Jack Rabbit is working...very hard it seems...for the
re-election of Donald Trump.
The germane question: why? Is he falling back on the "same ol same ol" purity of the 3rd
party gambit (the same one that has never worked throughout US history and surely has even
less chance of success than ever in 2020)?
Is he ignoring or even against the plain fact that Democrats are trending leftier, less
white and more female thanks in large part to so-called "sheepdog" Bernie's 2016 campaign and
"movement"? Bernie far from being a sheepdog in fact played his hand rather intelligently and
with self-discipline in 2016 rather than lashing out angrily at being fucked over by the
party apparatus and reacting in a manner of which JR would surely approve...such as self
marginalising himself into yet another in an endless string of 3rd party losers who are now
footnotes in history at best.
There
is evidence that Bernie voters stayed home or voted Trump in 2016 in those MW states with
the slimmest margins for Trump. So the evidence indicates more that he fucked Hillary instead
of being her sheepdog... and of course had she won Bernie would not be in the 2020 game,
Obamacare would be solidified with the insurance companies, hospitals, physicians and drug
companies, DLC centrist politics would rule the land and we would not be talking so loudly
today about taxing the rich or advcating Medicare for all.
In several key states -- Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan -- the number of Sanders to
Trump defectors were greater than Trump's margin of victory, according to new numbers
released Wednesday by UMass professor Brian Schaffner.
Does JR simply believe electoral politics is a totally failed bit? I can grok that and
agree...to a point. Problem is he offers exactly nothing as a defined alternative
except...more of the same...vote 3rd party (like in, yawn, 2000, 2008, 2012, 2016) or join a
"movement".
think the doom and gloomers in here decrying Sanders/Gabbard chances as securing the nom are
not being very sensible.
There is no doubt in my mind that Sanders will be the nom. Whether he picks Gabbard or not
will be telling.
Gabbard, so far, has been the straight-up most respectable, classy, and well-spoken
candidate hitting the media circuit. Whispers abound about her legitimacy and should not be
discounted.
And they already denied Sanders once. That was their free pass and you only get one of
those. Ask the Syria-interventionists and they will say the same: "We already burned through
the pass in Iraq and Afghanistan. Otherwise, Assad would have been publicly strung up and
hung on MSNBC by now."
There will be hell to pay if they deny Sanders again.
But this is all contingent on the fact that you don't already think that TPTB are setting
the table specifically for Sanders because he is already an owned man.
Here we go again with the same ol' question for the office of POTUS: "WHO ARE YOU?"
As long as Hunter Biden is still a director
of Burisma Holdings (which includes at least one other unpleasant individual on
the Board of Directors), there is always a chance that elements within or connected to the
Ukrainian government (even under Volodymyr Zelenskiy's Presidency, when he has his back
turned on his fellow politicians), the previous Poroshenko government or Poroshenko himself,
and / or the Maidan Revolution - Crowdstrike, Dmitri Alperovich and Chalupa sisters, we're
looking at all of you - might try to derail any or all of the Democratic Party presidential
candidates in attempts to have Joe Biden declared the official Democrat presidential
contender in 2020. The only question is how openly brazen these people are going to be in
order to save their pet project in Kiev before Ukraine erupts in civil war (and it won't be
civil war in the Donbass area) and the entire country goes down in flames.
As for the rest of the 20 candidates, I would prefer Tulsi Gabbard out of the lot. In this
respect India's general elections, already under way, are going to be important. Gabbard
needs to let go of Narendra Modi and his Hindutva BJP party - her friendship with Modi and
his association with Hindutva are sure to come under scrutiny as will also any connections
she and her office staff have with
The Science of Identity Foundation organisation.
I donated to Tulsi Gabbard's campaign so there would be one anti-war candidate in the
Presidential debates. Having served in the first one, the restart of the Cold War is gut
wrenching. Today it is far more dangerous than 40 years ago. "Détente" is archaic,
Inequality in the West has reached the Gilded Age levels. The USA occupies East Syria even
though its regime change campaign failed. With the estrangement of Western Allies, trade wars
and economic sanctions against Russia and Iran, plus Joe Biden's trench war in Ukraine, the
slightest misstep and the global economy will crash. If a conflict breaks out with Russia or
China, the Trump Administration is too incompetent and arrogant to back down to avoid a
nuclear war. The 2020 election may well be the last chance to save the earth.
The accountability that is on offer in the upcoming election is to alter the structure of
the Democratic Party. The deck was stacked against the progressive challenge in the last
presidential election. Only a candidate who has genuine "fire-in-the-belly" has a chance to
beat Trump. Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard, and Elizabeth Warren are the only ones I see who
are holding these credentials. I think you are wrong when you say that Sanders is finished
evolving, --and despite his age-- he is the most dynamic, among the older people Americans
seem to prefer to be president. It would do him some good and improve his chance of success,
if he chose for his running mate someone whose passion was equally sincere.
Political sour grapes and fatalism offer us no hope of coming through the next few years
intact.
Sanders is NOT anti-estblishment. He's just good at hiding his support for the establishment
so that he can be used as foil / sheepdog / spoiler.
"Enough with the emails" - Bernie refused to raise "character issues" about Hillary despite
the fact that she would face those same issues in the general election;
faux populist sell-out Obama campaigned for Bernie;
Bernie admitted that Hillary "a friend of 25 years" ;
Schumer refused to fund any Democratic Party candidate that would run against Sanders in
Vermont;
Sanders votes with the Democrats >95% of the time.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <>
We can debate the merits of each establishment stooge until we're blue in the face but
establishment plans for gaming the race are likely to have already made. It's be another good
show that millions of American's tune in to watch.
My best guess: gay Mayor Pete gets most of the primary media coverage which focuses on his
oh-so-sensible agenda, Obama-like likeability, and "historic" (did I mention that he's gay?)
run for the Presidency. But Pete and his running mate Biden fail to unseat Trump.
2024: Mayor Pete loses Democratic nomination to a women (Chelsea Clinton? she'll be 44)
and she wins the Presidency.
Unless, that is, Americans wake up and demand a real democracy.
'Bernie Sanders may well have the best chance to beat Trump on domestic policies. But he is
no progressive on foreign policy issues'
He campaigned against the Vietnam war before he got elected, he later opposed the Iraq
invasion, and recently led the Senate to oppose US involvement in Yemen. What is your
standard for calling him a progressive? Does he have to be to the Left of Noam Chomsky (who,
incidentally, says Sanders has the best policies out of any candidate)?
Those who cheer Sanders are ignoring both the hidden-in-plain-sight evidence for
"managed democracy" (e.g. duopoly, money-based electoral system; lapdog media; and Imperial
Deep State) and in-your-face lived history: Obama and Trump have both sweet-talked
their 'base' but ruled as servants of the establishment and a member of the Deep State.
What's needed for real change is a Movement that is outside duopoly politics. That is what
the establishment really fears. And that's why we are being pressed to get emotionally
engaged in this sh*t show 18-months before the election. Because they don't want people to
think of alternatives. You enslave yourselves.
Both Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders are clowns. They do not have a chance to win against Pres.
Trump, who will be the bankrupcy president. No one else would be able to handle it and the
oligarchs know it. Democracy ? It stopped being a joke.
As for the rest of the 20 candidates, I would prefer Tulsi Gabbard out of the lot. In this
respect India's general elections, already under way, are going to be important. Gabbard
needs to let go of Narendra Modi and his Hindutva BJP party - her friendship with Modi and
his association with Hindutva are sure to come under scrutiny as will also any connections
she and her office staff have with The Science of Identity Foundation organisation.
Posted by: Jen | Apr 25, 2019 7:22:22 PM | 55
I checked out Jen's link regarding the Science of Identity Foundation - it is a very
skillfully written Republican hit job, complete with multiple references to Gabbard's
"support for foreign dictators" Putin and Assad, to her criticism of US fake allegations of
Assad chemical attacks, to her alleged Islamaphobia for arguing that genuine muslims be
differentiated from islamic terrorists, and her criticism of Obama for not bombing ISIS and
al-Qaida. In Part 1 the ultirior motives are relatively well hidden, but the start coming
into view in Parts 2 and 3, especially in her answers to comments in Part 3.
Interesting quote from Part 2 about Gabbard's guru Butler: "His father, the late Dr.
Willis Butler, was well-known locally for his far-left political activism and his staunch
opposition to U.S. involvement in foreign regime change wars, which he considered
counterproductive. Dr. Butler was particularly concerned about U.S. funding of groups in
Central America that he viewed as terrorists. " - sounds like at least Butler's father
had his head screwed on the right way round. If that is the origin in part of Gabbard's
opposition to regime change wars and US funding of terrorists then that at least was a
positive influence (although implicitly painted as negative in the article!)
Having said that, the article raises a number of important questions and is in that
respect an eye opener - it's just that the misleading and tainted manner in which the article
is written is dangerous without verifying the information - classic fake news.
I agree with Jen about the dangers of her support for Modi. I can't help suspecting she
sees the US (far-right) Indian-American elite as an important source of political funding for
her seat, and that I see as problematic.
Your whole tirade was triggered by a reference to CrowdStrike.
Interesting observation -- and appears to be true.
needless defiant
The word choice is quite revealing here. His objection has nothing to do with truth. He
views you as " defying " the officially-endorsed narrative; committing the
unpardonable crime of unauthorized noticing .
All that the notorious "17 intelligence agencies" canard ever amounted to was the heads of
the 3 major inteligence agencies lining up and chanting "We believe Alperovitch!" in unison.
Kind of ironic that the entire "Russian hackers" trope was based on the unsupported claim of
an actual Russian hacker.
Regardless of how the Trump administration is working out, the simple fact that no US law
enforcement agency ever examined the DNC's servers -- and that the officially-promoted media
narrative skips over this fact, and minimizes the role of Alperovitch and CrowdStrike,
demonstrates the extent of the deception involved in that narrative.
"The firm's CTO and co-founder, Dmitri Alperovitch, is a senior fellow at the Atlantic
Council, a think tank with openly anti-Russian sentiments that is funded by Ukrainian
billionaire (((Victor Pinchuk))), who also happened to donate at least $10 million to the
Clinton Foundation."
CrowdStrike was pretty tight with Obama as well as Hillary.
"CrowdStrike Inc. today announced that Steven Chabinsky, CrowdStrike's general counsel and
chief risk officer, has been appointed by the President to the Commission on Enhancing
National Cybersecurity."
Crowdstrike has never made a profit, and does not disclose sales figures, but seems to
have little difficulty in raising venture capital, and somehow reached a (private) valuation
of $1B in 2017 -- and $3B a year later:
It's also interesting to note that the metadata for the Guccifer 2.0 files is not
consistent with a "hack" over the interwebz from Romania -- since it was transferred at 23
MB/s:
that's thumb drive or LAN -- an internal leak, not a "hack."
CrowdStrike's role in the Russia conspiracy theory hacking/ meddling/ colluding
allegations was minimized in favor of the even more authoritative-sounding "37 intelligence
agencies" claim, but a large part of their usual role seems to to serve as a sort of "SPLC"
for hacking attributions. Just as the SPLC provides the appearance of an "independent,"
"authoritative" source to designate so-called "hate groups" and "hate crimes," much of
CrowdStrike's role is not really to provide any sort of relevant technical expertise or
investigation, but to serve as an outside "expert" to provides the "correct" claims to form
the basis of a desired media narrative.
See also the "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights," the "White Helmets," Rita Katz's "SITE
Intelligence," etc
Bolton? NSA? Do you mean NSC? Everything we hear about Bolton lately is ideological
labeling as a so-called Neocon, more ambiguous bullshit, or tainting him by association with
Israelis. Funny how everybody just forgot what Bolton did at the UN, when Bush shoehorned him
in there without congressional consent. Bolton personally constipated the drafting of the
Summit Outcome Document to remove awkward mentions of the magic word impunity. The old perv
put up 700 amendments to obstruct the process.
Now, who cares that much about impunity? And why would it be such a big deal, unless you
had impunity in municipal law but the whole world was committed to ending impunity? Cause if
you think about it, that's what the whole world has been doing for 70 years, codifying the
Pre-CIA Nuremberg Principles as international criminal law and developing state
responsibility for internationally wrongful acts as customary and then conventional
international law. Who doesn't want that?
CIA. Impunity is CIA's vital interest. They go to war to keep it all the time.
@DESERT FOX
Wisely, DESERT FOX recalled Colonel Fletcher Prouty, and wrote: " the CIA is the zionist
chain dogs that rule America!"
Dear DESERT FOX,
As you know, for some very dramatic time, Attorney Garrison held Clay Shaw's
feet-to-the-fire while demonstrating the latter businessman's connection to the Israeli
company, Permindex.
So naturally, a reasonable & respectful question arises, for which there is likely no
available & conclusive determination.
Are CIA, Mossad, and M16 joined as one (1) ruling and globally unaccountable
"(Western) Zionist chain dog" link? Tough one, D.F., but am confident you can intelligently
handle it. Thanks & salud!
@ChuckOrloski
From what I have read, MI6 is under zionist control and is the template for the CIA and the
Mossad and is the controller of both the CIA and the Mossad and all three are under zionist
control.
Another good book is The Committee of 300 by Dr. John Coleman a former officer in MI6 and
his videos on youtube.
The new narrative is that of an embattled president trying against the odds to do the
right thing
the new narrative is they got him, Watergate 2.0
*if* that is correct the changes to expect are
– media going easier on him
– corporate dems going easier on him (while smirking a lot)
– more war
– more corporate donors as they might prefer a controlled Trump to a Sanders
– they might throw him a symbolic bone on immigration to help him win in 2020
– more corporate donors as they might prefer a controlled Trump to a Sanders
– they might throw him a symbolic bone on immigration to help him win in 2020
The Deep State will never allow an uncontrolled candidate to win.
I see that there are mainly two opposing explanations:
a) Donald Trump really wanted to break with the neocons, but he is under such enormous
pressure that he had to give in to them (at least temporarily, maybe, according to that
interpretation, there is still hope)
b) Donald Trump wanted to behave this way from the start, and if there is a conspiracy, he
is a part of it. He just said some things about not involving the US in conflicts that are
not in its interest because that was popular in order to get elected, but he never had any
intentions of going through with it.
I think there are problems with both explanations.
The main problem with a):
Even if Trump had to make concessions because he was under such enormous pressure, it is
hardly plausible that there really was a need to surround himself with neocons to such a
degree and go much further with neoconservative policies in some areas than many mainstream
Republicans would probably have gone.
The main problem with b):
If Trump really belongs to the inner circle, it does not seem very plausible that
intelligence services and establishment politicians would go to such lengths constructing a
conspiracy theory (setting up meetings of Papadopoulos with Mifsud and Downer, the Steele
dossier, campaign surveillance), which is not only a lot of effort, but also lays bare some
elements of the "deep state" they would normally prefer to keep hidden.
How one might attempt to save a):
While the neocons are generally very influential in the US, they normally operate in the
background. They don't have full control over lawmakers. However, some members of Congress
are very close to neocons, and many of them (in both parties) were among the strictest
anti-Trumpers. The most concrete danger of impeachment for Trump was that some Republicans
closely connected with neocons would unite with Democrats against him. Appointing lots of
neocons and increasing their influence might have been the best option of placating these
neoconservative Republican anti-Trumpers (or even to make these Republican neocons stop being
anti-Trumpers).
How one might attempt to save b):
While the whole Russiagate conspiracy theory is somewhat risky for the (overt and deep)
establishment, it is also a great distraction. Furthermore, I think Russiagate was not
primarily directed against Trump, but more against Russia and in favor of increasing military
spending from which many in the establishment profit. Generally, Democrats used to be
somewhat less hawkish than Republicans, and since they already hate Trump fervently (but
mostly didn't care much about Russia), Russiagate was a great opportunity for making
Democrats even more ardent supporters of the new cold war, the intelligence services, and the
security state. One could hardly invent such an efficient means for making Democrats hate
Russia and support the surveillance state except by associating their boogeyman with Russia.
Many Republicans would go along with the new cold war, anyway, winning over Democrats for the
CIA, anti-Russian hatred and military spending was particularly valuable.
So, I think both a) and b) are probably partially true.
I don't think Trump was really a part of an inner circle. As someone from the outside,
some of the bipartisan neoconservative dogmas were probably alien to him. There are some
leaks (e.g. in the book by Bob Woodward) that show that Trump questioned the large number of
expensive military bases around the world. He probably looked at it from a business
perspective, and it seems hard to justify such enormous expenses. Furthermore, he had some
ideas about the rivalry with China, and the idea of alienating and antagonizing Russia,
China, and some medium-sized countries (and to some degree even Western Europe, though it
mostly still follows the US) all at once, which pushes them into closer collaboration
probably seems odd to someone from the outside who has not been surrounded by people from
neoconservative think tanks for most of his life. On the other hand, I don't think there were
any deep convictions behind the things Trump said in his campaign. He just said things that
a) seemed to be popular and b) he probably mostly agreed with himself, but when it became
clear to him that it was more convenient for him to do something very different from what he
had said during the campaign, he hardly hesitated.
I think that for the (both overt and deep) establishment someone "naïve" from the
outside was seen as a threat. On the other hand, they probably also understood that Trump
hardly has strong convictions and therefore would give in relatively easily under pressure.
So, the Russiagate conspiracy theory was probably a good idea from the perspective of the
(overt and deep) establishment for bringing Trump into line.
Then, I would also distinguish some things. Trump probably was very pro-Israeli from the
start. But being pro-Israeli does not have to mean being anti-Russian, after all the Israeli
and Russian government have relatively good relations, even though their interests diverge in
many areas.
"Your analysis fails to account for the fact that Trump essentially ran as a third party
candidate."
Deep state sleeper agent Trump ran as an "outsider" opposed to everything that deep state
agent Hillary Clinton stood for. His candidacy was a carefully calculated bait and switch
fraud which leveraged his non-career-politician status.
"His original agenda of sealing up the border and ending Bush-Obama regime change ran
counter to both parties."
Since his campaign strategy was to present himself as an outsider, of course he had to
pretend to take positions that ran counter to both parties. It's now painfully obvious that
his "original agenda" was nothing but disingenuous BS.
"There's been no one more hostile to Trump since Jan. 2017 than Paul Ryan and Mitch
McConnell, both Republicans."
Talk is cheap.
"As Darren Beattie said, McConnell's tactic with Trump all along has been to block him
on everything except for federal judges. And McConnell's winning."
Everything, or just the things that Trump pretends to want but doesn't really want? Funny
that nobody's been able to deter him from his war crimes and his provocations and his
apparent drive to start WW3.
"Now you'll probably say, it's all theater, they're all in on it together, wake up &
smell the coffee."
How will smelling coffee change the fact that it is all political theater?
"I don't believe it."
LOL! You think Trump is honest? Seriously?
"Trump could have run as a Jeb Bush Republican and done just fine, but he didn't."
Or so you barely assert; and so you barely assert without explaining how Jeb Bush lost the
primary to Trump.
"He took a huge risk saying the stuff he did, and won."
He won because agent Obama, agent Clinton and their deep state handlers helped him win. Or
do you think it was just a coincidence that Obama attacked the Syrian army at Deir Ezzor in
Sept. 2016, for example, which greatly escalated tensions with Russia just as the election
was coming into the home stretch?
To understand what the Deep State will and will not tolerate answer these questions.
What do both parties agree on? If they appear to disagree, look to see if anything changes
when one party has the power to cause change or does the party in power make excuses to avoid
change? Those things that the populus is against but never change or get worse are what the
Deep State wants
The Deep State wants a constant state of tension with 'hostile' countries (Iran, Russia,
Venezuela, China, Syria and others). This scares the crap out of ignorant Americans and
allows unjustifiable spending on war matériel.
The Deep State wants a steady supply of cheap foreign labor to provide wealth to the
supporters of the Deep State.
The Deep State wants our financial institutions to never fail (FED 2009) even at the
expense of 90% of Americans. The Deep State wants financial institutions to provide financial
products to the wealthy which cripples the vast majority of Americans.
The silly internecine squabbles within the Deep State are a ruse to misdirect the public
from important issues like constant war, legal and illegal immigrants taking jobs from
Americans and the increased transfer of wealth for the 90% to the supper weathy.
There will never be a wall and illegal immigration will continue to be a problem.
All the investigations into Trump, the DNC, Hillary and all the rest will never come to
justice.
The wealth transfer will not stop
Until Americans realize these diversions for what they are and put an end to it through
what ever means necessary
it was successful as Trump was likely forced to turn his back on his better angels and
subsequently hired Pompeo, Bolton and Abrams.
Oh plezzze .you sound like you've been drugged.
Trump never had any better angels as any reporter and journalist whoever interviewed or
investigated him would tell you.
And come on! .You know damn well Adelson sent Bolton and you should also know damn well
why the Orange Boy staffed his adm with Zio Jews. .no one in NY except Jews would associate
with Trump.
i think some of the conspiracy was about controlling Trump's foreign policy going forward but
i also think some of it was people like Brennan worried CIA collusion with Saudi funded
jihadist groups since 9/11 (and possibly before) might come out.
Trump biggest regret is going to be that he ever ran for President. Impeached or not
impeached all his dirty laundry is going to be exposed. Even if he secured a second term
there is no statute of limitations on what he could be prosecuted for .so the minute he steps
down from the WH he's going to have to spend everything he's got on lawyers fighting the
charges the SDNY is going to bring against him.
David Cay Johnston: What Is Trump Hiding in His Tax Returns?
The Pulitzer Prize–winning investigative reporter explains what's likely in Trump's
returns.
By Jon WienerTwitter
David Cay Johnston is a Pulitzer Prize–winning investigative reporter who previously
worked at The New York Times. He's the founder and editor of DCReport.org.
Jon Wiener: The chair of the House Ways and Means Committee formally requested six years
of Trump's personal and business tax returns earlier this month. Trump, of course, refused to
comply, and said the law is "100 percent" on his side. Does the IRS have to hand over Trump's
tax returns to the chair of the House Ways and Means Committee?
David Cay Johnston: If they follow the law, they absolutely have to hand them over. Under
a 1924 anti-corruption law that was passed because of Teapot Dome, a Harding-administration
scandal, Congress can look at anybody's tax return at any time. In the 85-year history of
this law, the IRS has always responded appropriately to the request and turned over
everything that was requested.
[Hide MORE]
JW: What are the exceptions to this law?
DCJ: There aren't any. It says, "Congress shall provide upon written request." That's it.
Well, they have a written request, it's a specific request, and therefore they shall provide.
The statement by Donald Trump that the law is 100 percent on his side is just classic
Trumpian lying: Take something that is true, and state the exact opposite.
JW: Does the IRS commissioner have any alternative to handing over Trump's tax returns?
What happens if he doesn't comply?
DCJ: There's another section of the tax code which says that any federal employee dealing
with any aspects of the tax code who either does not comply, or who fails to act -- covering
both sins of omission and commission -- "shall be removed from office, and is subject to
prosecution and upon conviction, five years in prison and a $10,000 fine."
JW: Who enforces this law? It's not just up to Attorney General William Barr -- is that
right?
DCJ: That's correct. First of all, a US Attorney's office could enforce the action,
although that seems unlikely in this administration. But the next administration, if it
chooses, could go back, and even if the IRS commissioner has left, prosecute him for failure
to turn over the documents. Of course, Congress can hold the commissioner in contempt, and
Congress can also go to federal court to enforce its orders. It can. And has in the distant
past even tried people itself.
JW: The IRS commissioner is a man named Charles Rettig, and he's a Trump appointee. Tell
us a little about Charles Rettig.
DCJ: At DCReport we call him "Donald Trump's man at the IRS." Almost every IRS
commissioner has been a tax lawyer, but Charles Rettig is not like most of those other tax
lawyers. He isn't in the business of tax planning. He's in the business of representing tax
cheats who get caught, and his specialty is keeping them from being indicted. As we put it,
"He's one of the foxes who is not just in charge of the hen house. He's in a position to
redesign the hen house."
JW: Trump's personal lawyer last week urged the Treasury Department not to hand over
Trump's tax returns. He said that to comply with their request would turn the IRS into a
political weapon of the radical Democrats. Is that a good legal argument?
DCJ: No. It may be a good political argument with Trump's base, but as a legal matter, if
my students at Syracuse Law were to bring that up, I would have to work hard not to laugh at
them -- because it's a ridiculous argument. There is no limit in Section 6103 that says you
can only ask for a tax return if you're a Republican, or if you hew to certain political
views. It simply says, "Upon written request, the return shall be provided." It could not be
more clear.
JW: The boss of the IRS commissioner is the treasury secretary, Steve Mnuchin. He said
sort of the opposite of what Trump's personal lawyer said. He said, "Our intent is to follow
the law." How do you explain the difference between the legal positions of Trump's personal
lawyer and Trump's treasury secretary?
DCJ: This is exactly what got me onto this story. I noticed that Trump, his lawyers, and
the acting White House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, were making these wild, reckless,
lawless statements. But Mnuchin, the Treasury secretary, and Rettig, the IRS commissioner,
both made nuanced statements, and carefully avoided refusing to comply, and instead said,
"We're trying to understand how to comply with law. It is our intent to comply with the law,
but we need more time to learn what the law says." It should take you literally about 10
seconds to learn what the law says. That's when I thought, "What's going on here?" It's what
got me on to the section of the tax code that says, in effect, that any federal employee who
interferes, obstructs, or fails to act, is subject to removal, prosecution, and fine. I think
what Mnuchin is trying to do here is thread a needle. He wants to continue to show his
loyalty to Trump. Not to our Constitution, as his oath of office requires, but to Trump. He's
trying to evade the law that says there must be compliance with the request, without going to
jail.
JW: The New York Times news story on this reported that "The fight over Mr. Trump's tax
returns is expected to turn into a protracted legal battle that will likely make its way to
the Supreme Court." Do you think that's right, and does the Republican majority on the court
have a way to rule in Trump's favor?
DCJ: It may lead to a protracted fight. It's also possible that this will get fast-tracked
and get right to our Supreme Court. As someone who reads Supreme Court decisions, I don't
particularly care for the jurisprudence of John Roberts, the Chief Justice of the United
States, but nothing in his opinions suggests that he would sell the soul and the integrity of
the court to favor Donald Trump. Every indication is that he would uphold the law. I would
not be surprised if you got a 7-2 or 9-0 decision from the Supreme Court that the IRS has to
turn over the documents.
JW: The really interesting question is, what do you think is in Trump's tax returns? Why
do you think he's trying so hard to keep them secret?
DCJ: There are at least three reasons here. Number one, Trump's tax returns will show that
he is not anywhere near as wealthy as he claimed. Remember during the campaign he kept saying
he was worth more than $10 billion. But after he became president, he signed under oath his
financial disclosure statement, and 90 percent of his wealth vanished. Even that statement,
which I've analyzed, overstates his wealth. There's never been a scintilla of verifiable
evidence that Trump is a billionaire. And I'm the guy who revealed, back in 1990 when he said
he was worth $3 billion, that he wasn't a billionaire. We eventually found that he had
negative net worth of about $295 million -- minus $295 million.
Secondly, Donald Trump is a tax cheat. He had two civil trials for income tax fraud, one
by the State of New York and the other by the City of New York. In both cases he lost. In one
of those trials, his own long-time tax attorney and accountant, Jack Mitnick, testified
against him. Mitnick was shown the filed tax return, which was a photocopy, and testified,
"That's my signature on the return, but neither I nor my firm prepared that tax return."
That's as good a badge of fraud as you're ever going to find. It indicates that Donald Trump
took the tax return that was prepared, changed it, and then with a photocopy machine put the
signature of Jack Mitnick on it. Donald Trump is also a confessed sales tax cheat. Mayor Ed
Koch of New York said he should have served 15 days in jail for his crime. Trump has a long
history of hiding records from auditors, cheating governments, using two sets of numbers. So
his tax returns are highly likely to show tax cheating.
Finally, the returns may well establish how much money he has been getting from Russians,
Saudis, people from the Emirates, and elsewhere. They may show whether he has been engaged in
money laundering for these people through real estate transactions and other actions that
make no business sense, but, when closely examined, show exactly what we see when there's
money laundering. I think the record is pretty clear that he has been doing that.
JW: A technical question: Where do you report payments from Russian oligarchs on your tax
return?
DCJ: Trump has over 500 business entities, and the tax return is the beginning point for
an audit. You then would examine the books and records that are behind it. Now, Trump has a
long history of destroying or claiming he destroyed business records to thwart auditors. This
happened particularly with the City of New York when he tried to cheat the city out of about
$2.9 million. But there may actually be transactions reported right in the tax return that
would tell you where money came from–because it may list entities to which he is
obligated, or is in partnership with, or received money from, or shared profits with. The
request by Chairman Neal of the House Ways and Means Committee was very targeted. It cited
six specific Trump businesses -- out of over 500 businesses. That suggests to me that they
know what they were looking for .
JW: What do you think the political effect would be if voters learned from Trump's tax
return that he has been a tax cheat? As I recall, this was a huge issue in the final downfall
of Richard Nixon.
DCJ: That's right. This was a big scandal in 1974. Nixon was pardoned, so nothing happened
to him, but his tax lawyer went to prison. By the way, the very law that exposed Nixon as a
tax cheat is the same law that the Trump people are now trying to resist. I frankly think
that among people who are strong Trump supporters, this will have little impact. The impact
that would matter is on people on the margin. People who have been with Trump but are uneasy
with him because of all of his other behavior. And if he has committed federal tax crimes,
then he has committed New York State tax crimes, because New York State tax law hews very
closely to federal law. ".
how do you explain his hiring so many Deep State denizens Bolton, Pompeo et al.?
I would suggest, they have "great guy" Epstein dirt on Trump. Seems so obvious to me, the
entire swamp is either bought or blackmailed with this kind of dirt.
If the masses would find out about this kind of dirt, there was probably a violent purge
taking place, a lynching of the entire swamp.
Btw, you are right, Us political circus works like WWE.
@TomSchmidt
Social Security is not an entitlement. You pay into it, and receive a benefit. Social
Security was established as a Trust. There are legal requirements on those who manage a trust
– the trustees. Social Security has been mismanaged intentionally. There are people
receiving benefits who are not entitled to them. The US Government has raided the fund by
making it part of general revenue, instead of the Trust that it is supposed to be.
The "problems" of Social Security are a side show distraction to keep the focus away from the
real problem: the politicians and their Wall Street paymasters.
What a joke. Trump is a Zionist. The "deep state" is Zionist. The trillionaires are Zionists.
Trump moved the US embassy to Jerusalem. Continues the illegal wars in Syria and Yemen.
Unilaterally declares the Golan Heights to be Israeli territory.
Kushner is Genie Energy. Cheney, et al. Stealing Syrian national wealth.
Trump is a tool.
Those who supported Trump are fools. Those who thought Mueller would find impeachable
offenses are fools. We are all either fools or tools.
@Wallbanger Of
course, Trump is pro-Zionist, and he hardly needed any pressure for this. Kushner is a close
friend of Netanyahu, and we don't know anything about conflicts between Trump and Kushner.
But I think the Russiagate conspiracy theory still may have served important foreign policy
goals.
I think it is important to distinguish between Israeli foreign policy and US neocon foreign
policy, even though they are close allies. At least superficially, these are two rather
different things, and to me, it is an open question to what degree these differences are only
superficial.
US neocons follow the doctrine of „full spectrum dominance". This leads them to having
military bases all over the world, stoking up conflicts, and destabilizing countries that have
or want good relations with rivals like China and Russia. The idea that such „full
spectrum dominance" will be used for the benefit of Israel certainly goes a long way for
explaining why neocons think it is worth the price – after all, many US neocons are
Jewish Zionists, and many of their lower-rank supporters are Christian Zionists. But their goal
of „full spectrum dominance" goes beyond matters related to Israel, it leads to conflicts
and tensions all over the world, Israel is just one of the motivating factors.
Israeli foreign policy is very different. It does not share the US' hostility towards other
great powers. Israel has good relations with Russia and China. It refused to follow the US and
the EU in sanctioning Russia, Netanyahu meets Putin regularly, and, like Trump with the Golan
recognition, Putin also gave Netanyahu a present a short time before the elections (retrieving
remains of an Israeli soldier who was missing since 1982 from Syria). Of course, Russia and
Israel supported different sides in Syria, but they still seem to take into account each
other's interest to some degree. Israel also has good relations and a strong economic
partnership with China and participates in the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative. The general
principle seems to be that whenever there is a conflict and rivalry, Israel wants to have good
relations and influence on both sides. There are some exceptions, in the Sunni-Shia conflict,
Israel only has behind-the-scenes influence on the Sunni-Wahhabi side, but that is probably one
of the reasons why good relations with Russia, which has closer contacts with Iran, are
important to Israel. In the case of the conflict in Ukraine (which is quite relevant for Israel
because many Israeli citizens are from Russia or Ukraine), Israel remained neutral and has
strong connections to both sides. Such a policy of keeping good relations with as many powerful
nations as possible obviously seems smart for a smaller (albeit in many respects very strong)
country in a difficult part of the world.
Of course, the Israeli government is very much aware that there could hardly ever be a
powerful country where Israel is as influential as it is in the US. Israel has some significant
influence in Western Europe and Russia, criticizing Israel can be risky, and overall, these
countries have rather pro-Israeli policies (as does, as far as I know, China). But they will
never be as extremely pro-Israeli as the US. There are many votes in the UN were there is just
Israel and the US on one side (sometimes together with some tiny micronations that depend on
the US). Therefore, it is in Israel's interest that the US tries at all cost to gain influence
relative to other great powers that are less extremely pro-Israeli. Thus, US neocons who drive
the US towards a costly „full spectrum dominance" policy are unequivocally positive and
worthy of support from the perspective of the Israeli government. But for Israeli foreign
policy itself, due to risk management considerations, the priorities are different. The
best-case scenario for them is that a) Israeli influence in the US remains strong and b) the US
can achieve and maintain „full-spectrum dominance" for a long time. But they also know
that this best-case scenario is far from assured, and therefore, they also consider good
relations between Israel and potentially powerful countries like China and Russia
important.
I think Trump's foreign policy ideas (before any pressure was applied to him) was quite
close to the Israeli ideas (rather than the positions of the US neocons). Unlike Israel, he had
some ideas about confronting China (mainly on trade), and certainly, he wanted pro-Israeli
policies, but it seems he also wanted to have a general policy of „getting along" with
relatively important countries rather than pursuing „full-spectrum dominance" wherever
possible and stoking up proxy conflicts at every occasion. On the whole, it seems Trump wanted
a US foreign policy that is closer to the Israeli one than to the one of US neocons. If Israel
can „get along" with Russia, why shouldn't the US? The Israeli and international press
does not scream „treason" every time Netanyahu and Putin meet (which they do quite
often).
This idea of a normalization of US-Russian relations is what led to such strong opposition
from US neocons. I think they all knew that it would never be in doubt that Trump's policies
would be pro-Israeli. But that was not enough for them. According to them, the US, unlike
Israel, has to have a strongly anti-Russian stance.
I think there are two plausible explanations, one that does involve Israel and one that does
not. They may both be partially be true (probably, for some US neocons, it is more the one,
while for others, it is more the other).
The first explanation is that US neocons who strongly identify with Israel, as I argued
above, recognize that Israel should have good relations with Russia and China because of risk
management considerations, but at the same time, Israel wants to have the US to have as much
power as possible because it will never have as much influence in Russia and China as it has in
the US. The Russia hysteria has helped increasing military spending (and Democrats going along
with this), which may increase the chances of "full spectrum dominance" – and this
dominance will, among other things, be used on behalf of Israel. In that case, it may have been
a kind of misunderstanding. Trump may have thought that for neocons, it would be enough if he
is pro-Israeli and anti-Iranian and has normal, non-hostile relations with Russia, as Israel
has – ignoring that the roles Israel and the US should play according to the neocons are
very different.
But I am not so sure if Israel would really have minded much if the US had normalized its
relations with Russia. Netanyahu hardly ever was hostile towards Trump, he knew he was a
reliable ally. Some may even think it weakens the ability of the US to support Israel if it
gets entangled in conflicts and confrontations all over the world. So, I suppose that for many
true Israel-firsters, Trump was hardly seen as a problem (as long as he is pro-Israeli and
anti-Iranian, and there had hardly been any doubt that he is).
There also do not seem to be strong indications about Israeli involvement in
Russiagate/Spygate. Some Israelis seem to have been involved in the entrapment of Papadopoulos,
but it was not necessarily the Israeli government as a whole that was behind this (they may
just have been needed because Israeli energy policy is one of the main specializations of
Papadopoulos), and I think there are at least as strong indications of an Israeli involvement
on the pro-Trump side.
Russiagate/Spygate mainly seems to be an affair of US and British intelligence services, not
so much of Israel. Certainly, in the US, many neocons were strongly involved, but it may not
have so much to do with Israel. While support of Israel is one of the reasons why some neocons
passionately pursue „full-spectrum dominance", for many of them, this has probably become
a goal in itself, even in cases in which it is not needed for Israel – partially for
ideological reasons, partially because many of them profit from increased military
spending.
The right ((neocons)), on the other hand, see Trump as a quisling to rally the hated white
men into dying for greater Israel. The perfect Commander and Chief of the Janissaries for
Zion.
i agree that initially it was always a possibility he was a neocon plant i.e. neocons
couldn't get a war in Syria so decided to put up a candidate who'd promise stuff on trade and
immigration to get into office but then ignore it all afterwards and just do neocon stuff
but
1) if so he didn't need to say the anti-war stuff
and
2) neocons like Kristol hated him and did everything they could to stop him.
You might call them the Alan Dershowitz wing of the Jewish supremacists. I see that mug on
Tucker Carlson defending Trump, and he's positively beaming.
right but he'd be beaming like that even more if he knew Trump was originally isolationist
but now is compromised and compliant.
too early to tell for sure but my take is if neocons and the media now start going easier on
him i think that will prove they got him and want to keep him in office.
(nb it doesn't change anything if he was always a shill or he wasn't but they got him
– the end result is the same)
1) if so he didn't need to say the anti-war stuff
and
the only reason I was duped into voting for Dubya his first term, was because I was appalled
at Clinton's flouting of international law when he bombed Serbia, and Dubya said specifically
said he wasn't a "nation builder". Boy oh boy was I chumped by that one.
And we were all chumped by Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, and serial war pig.
But what choice do we have but to at least vote for the peace candidate, and then
wait until, on cue, we're all betrayed once again by the Jewish supremacist deepstate.
So far, Trump hasn't started any new wars. So as Mr. Giraldi says, "one hopes"
if neocons and the media now start going easier on him
then we're toast
it seems the only metric we have for determining whether or not a person is rotten to the
core, or not, is whether the media likes them, or not.
If the media likes them, then they're as rotten as they come.
If the media hates them, (Ron Paul, Julian Assange
others..)
then there is likely at least something redeeming about them.
The main reason for (pathetically) clinging to some tiny, gossamer wisp of hope for Trump,
is that ((they)) continue to be unhinged in their hysterical enmity for all things Trump.
But considering that he's basically giving them everything they want, (sans an all out war
on Iran), it seems the main reason they still hate his guts, is because the despised rubes in
flyover country still like him. And I suppose because of a few good judges and justices.
But as long as Bubba continues to proudly wear the hat, they're going to hate Donald Trump
with a seething malevolence.
And I have to confess to getting great satisfaction by seeing these rats going apoplectic
over Trump.
a guilty secret of mine is that everyday that this sick, twisted bitch
@Rurik the
other potentially relevant thing about Trump imo is he made some comments on 9/11 at the time
about how strong the twin towers were (i forget the exact details) which could be construed as
walking the edge of disbelief.
this may be related to Brennan in particular having such a hysterical reaction to Trump's
candidacy.
it seems the only metric we have for determining whether or not a person is rotten to the
core, or not, is whether the media likes them, or not.
I would contend, this is not a reliable indicator. If they really dislike someone, they will
simply not report anything at all. It would be a declared and enforced taboo to report.
Negative publicity is also publicity, and the guys behind the curtain know this.
But what choice do we have but to at least vote for the peace candidate, and then wait
until, on cue, we're all betrayed once again by the Jewish supremacist deepstate.
It won't change anything, but you won't feel betrayed.
To think that any indictments will come of this is naïve, and an understatement of the
power of the deep state. The only thing that keeps Trump alive is his usefulness to Netanyahu,
also known as Benji the NutnYahoo.
@Wizard of Oz
CIA and State Dept. want(ed) regime change in Syria but couldn't get public support for an
invasion so they covertly supported Isis against Assad instead (mostly using Saudi as a
proxy).
They don't want it to come out.
(of course it may go back further than that nb Brennan was CIA chief in Saudi in the run
up to 9/11)
@Wizard of Oz
Jihadist groups were used to fight the Russians in Afghanistan, destroy Libya and Syria, and
are currently employed to destabilize Iran. They are the primary instrument of the Oded Yinon
plan. Unless you consider the United States to be the primary instrument, and the jihadist
groups merely a tool.
Israel has subverted the United States, turning it into its poodle, it's slush fund, and
it's mercenary military force.
For five thousand years the Jews, in their unique geopolitical condition as an internally
cohesive yet dispersed ethnic group, have worked within their host nations and, by virtue of
their talent, achieved prosperity and power. Then, in a repeating and easily predictable
pattern, as a consequence of the power they achieve, arrogantly abuse the local majority,
repeatedly provoking the historically-recorded reaction in its various forms: enslavement,
expulsion, and attempted annihilation in Egypt; annihilation and dispersion by the Romans in
Old Israel; in Spain and Portugal, the demand on pain of death to convert to Christianity;
suppression by law throughout Europe during the Middle Ages; destruction of the Jewish Khazar
Empire by the Russ in 979; and near annihilation by the Nazis in the last century.
There's a pattern here. People don't just wake up one day and say "We hate the Jews, let's
kill them." There's a reason, a logical reason. Essentially, in the diaspora, the Jews exist
in a condition of tribal competition with the local majority culture. That competition
inevitably progresses to tribal conflict -- that is, war against the Jews. The pattern is
logical and predictable: fueled by tribal ambition, enabled by tribal economic success that
leads eventually to Jewish tribal overreach, which then results in a hostile majority-culture
pushback. The Jews scream "Anti-Semitism" but the reality is that the particular case of
Jews-vs-"The Other" tribalism with its Jewish exceptionalism and supremacism, inevitably
leads to a showdown over power where the majority culture has political and numerical
advantages.
The time is rapidly approaching when the 310 million non-Jewish Americans will realize
that they've been made the tools of the Jews and the US society looted. Then the pattern of
five thousand years will repeat itself yet again.
Trump biggest regret is going to be that he ever ran for President. Impeached or not
impeached all his dirty laundry is going to be exposed. Even if he secured a second term
there is no statute of limitations on what he could be prosecuted for .so the minute he steps
down from the WH he's going to have to spend everything he's got on lawyers fighting the
charges the SDNY is going to bring against him.
David Cay Johnston: What Is Trump Hiding in His Tax Returns?
The Pulitzer Prize–winning investigative reporter explains what's likely in Trump's
returns.
By Jon WienerTwitter
David Cay Johnston is a Pulitzer Prize–winning investigative reporter who previously
worked at The New York Times. He's the founder and editor of DCReport.org.
Jon Wiener: The chair of the House Ways and Means Committee formally requested six years
of Trump's personal and business tax returns earlier this month. Trump, of course, refused to
comply, and said the law is "100 percent" on his side. Does the IRS have to hand over Trump's
tax returns to the chair of the House Ways and Means Committee?
David Cay Johnston: If they follow the law, they absolutely have to hand them over. Under
a 1924 anti-corruption law that was passed because of Teapot Dome, a Harding-administration
scandal, Congress can look at anybody's tax return at any time. In the 85-year history of
this law, the IRS has always responded appropriately to the request and turned over
everything that was requested.
@renfro How
does Trump tax return look on a balance with the treasonous, anti-Constitutional behavior of
Brennan, Comey, Clinton, Obama, Clapper and the presstituting chorus of "liberal" media?
Since the tsardom of Dick Cheney, the US Constitution had become quaint. Moreover, the
"democracy on the march" and other "humanitarian interventions" initiated by the ultimate
coward Bush the lesser and by the ultimate hypocrite and narcissist Obama, have destroyed
completely the value of diplomacy and international law with regard to the ZUSA foreign
policy.
Your obsession with the petty problem of Trump's taxes does not allow you to take a notice
of Brennan's great achievements in Ukraine: the successful regime-change in Kiev and
initiation of the civil war with the pro-federalists in eastern Ukraine. Currently, the US
Congress and the US citizenry at large have been tasting the unpalatable medicine developed
by the CIA during the decades of smothering the weaker countries with "appropriate" regime
changes.
The treasonous Russiagate -- up to Comey's willful inactivity towards Clinton's server
(and Comey's rejection of Assange' plea that the DoJ wanted at that time) -- is a direct
consequence of the perfidious autocratic rule established years ago by the five-deferment
Cheney.
The rot has got deep into the system.
Many people I talk to seem to think American foreign policy has something to do with
democracy, human rights, national security, or maybe terrorism or freedom, or niceness, or
something. It is a curious belief, Washington being interested in all of them. Other people
are simply puzzled, seeing no pattern in America's international behavior. Really, the
explanation is simple.
MARCH 13, 2019 'Imperialism on Trial' tour comes to Northern Ireland on March 19th and
21st
Next week, the Imperialism on Trial tour comes to Belfast, Northern Ireland, and will
include an impressive line-up of speakers, including two former British Ambassadors, a former
British soldier, an Irish Republican writer, and a veteran CIA analyst – each
presenting their own analysis of world events, and interrogating the role played at home and
abroad – by western powers.
A President is a prisoner of the White House like a Pope is a prisoner of the Vatican.
It would take a reformer of the highest order to cleanse and straighten both of these
institutions. Unfortunately, contemporary effeminate western society does not produce such
men. Trump is the personification of the egotist and blowhard- he is self-assured and not
reflective. He is sharp and clever but certainly no major intellect. His spontaneity , which
is one enduring trait of his, is cancelled out by his buffoonish gaffes. He has no real
lasting principles since his worldview lacks any transcendent or spiritual dimension. Men
like Trump, notwithstanding their overbearing and dictatorial persona, are easily manipulated
by sycophants and courtiers. The latter never confront- they grovel and burrow their way into
positions of influence, or perhaps use subtle methods of blackmail.
But Trump was, and is, still better than Hillary or any other of the Tweedle-Dem front
runners. As Americans , we are ill served by the mediocrity and mendacity of our political so
called "elites," who are the laughing stock of history.
Let's
start by looking at the
classic and very basic definition of populism as proposed by political scientist Cas Muddle :
" Populism is a thin-centred ideology that divides society into two homogeneous and
antagonistic groups: "the pure people" on the one side and "the corrupt elite" on the
other. "
Cas Muddle notes that there is no single definition of populism that will describe all
populists and that populism is not about being rich or poor, rather, it is cultural as shown in
this quote about Donald Trump:
" His connection to the people is actually cultural, not through money -- it is through
eating at McDonald's and putting ketchup on your steak and not being interested in high
culture. That is how he says, "I am one of you". Sure, I am way richer than you, but that's
irrelevant, because populism is not about money, it is about values . " (my
bold)
According to the Guardian , the populist movement in Europe has been consistently on the
rise; in 1998, populist political parties were a marginal force that accounted for only 7
percent of votes cast across Europe. In 2018, 27 percent of votes were cast for populist
parties in the last parliamentary election with far-right populists accounting for 14 percent
of votes, far-left populists accounting for 6 percent of votes and other populists accounting
for 7 percent of votes. A prime European example of populism is found in the wake of the Brexit
vote. As you well know, the populist movement in the United States is largely what resulted in
the Trump victory over Hillary Clinton in 2016 as tens of millions of voters have grown
increasingly disgusted with business as usual in Washington.
@Sean "Trump
owes the Russians nothing, he was their way to stop Clinton."
-- Sean, you seem as taking really seriously the $4.700 spent by Russians on the Google
ads as well as the indictment of Russian "hackers and trolls" (the alleged army of Kremlin)
in absentia. Why then Mueller backed off (in panic) from the indicted' readiness to show up
in court?
You may have some special grievances against Russia and Russians, but why such obvious
depreciation of your intelligence by repeating after Adam Schiff?
says: April 23, 2019 at
6:15 pm GMT 100 Words What a joke. Trump is a Zionist. The "deep state" is Zionist. The
trillionaires are Zionists.
Trump moved the US embassy to Jerusalem. Continues the illegal wars in Syria and Yemen.
Unilaterally declares the Golan Heights to be Israeli territory.
Kushner is Genie Energy. Cheney, et al. Stealing Syrian national wealth.
Trump is a tool.
Those who supported Trump are fools. Those who thought Mueller would find impeachable
offenses are fools. We are all either fools or tools.
@Wallbanger
Of course, Trump is pro-Zionist, and he hardly needed any pressure for this. Kushner is a
close friend of Netanyahu, and we don't know anything about conflicts between Trump and
Kushner.
But I think the Russiagate conspiracy theory still may have served important foreign
policy goals.
I think it is important to distinguish between Israeli foreign policy and US neocon
foreign policy, even though they are close allies. At least superficially, these are two
rather different things, and to me, it is an open question to what degree these differences
are only superficial.
US neocons follow the doctrine of „full spectrum dominance". This leads them to
having military bases all over the world, stoking up conflicts, and destabilizing countries
that have or want good relations with rivals like China and Russia. The idea that such
„full spectrum dominance" will be used for the benefit of Israel certainly goes a long
way for explaining why neocons think it is worth the price – after all, many US neocons
are Jewish Zionists, and many of their lower-rank supporters are Christian Zionists. But
their goal of „full spectrum dominance" goes beyond matters related to Israel, it leads
to conflicts and tensions all over the world, Israel is just one of the motivating
factors.
Israeli foreign policy is very different. It does not share the US' hostility towards
other great powers. Israel has good relations with Russia and China. It refused to follow the
US and the EU in sanctioning Russia, Netanyahu meets Putin regularly, and, like Trump with
the Golan recognition, Putin also gave Netanyahu a present a short time before the elections
(retrieving remains of an Israeli soldier who was missing since 1982 from Syria). Of course,
Russia and Israel supported different sides in Syria, but they still seem to take into
account each other's interest to some degree. Israel also has good relations and a strong
economic partnership with China and participates in the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative. The
general principle seems to be that whenever there is a conflict and rivalry, Israel wants to
have good relations and influence on both sides. There are some exceptions, in the Sunni-Shia
conflict, Israel only has behind-the-scenes influence on the Sunni-Wahhabi side, but that is
probably one of the reasons why good relations with Russia, which has closer contacts with
Iran, are important to Israel. In the case of the conflict in Ukraine (which is quite
relevant for Israel because many Israeli citizens are from Russia or Ukraine), Israel
remained neutral and has strong connections to both sides. Such a policy of keeping good
relations with as many powerful nations as possible obviously seems smart for a smaller
(albeit in many respects very strong) country in a difficult part of the world.
Of course, the Israeli government is very much aware that there could hardly ever be a
powerful country where Israel is as influential as it is in the US. Israel has some
significant influence in Western Europe and Russia, criticizing Israel can be risky, and
overall, these countries have rather pro-Israeli policies (as does, as far as I know, China).
But they will never be as extremely pro-Israeli as the US. There are many votes in the UN
were there is just Israel and the US on one side (sometimes together with some tiny
micronations that depend on the US). Therefore, it is in Israel's interest that the US tries
at all cost to gain influence relative to other great powers that are less extremely
pro-Israeli. Thus, US neocons who drive the US towards a costly „full spectrum
dominance" policy are unequivocally positive and worthy of support from the perspective of
the Israeli government. But for Israeli foreign policy itself, due to risk management
considerations, the priorities are different. The best-case scenario for them is that a)
Israeli influence in the US remains strong and b) the US can achieve and maintain
„full-spectrum dominance" for a long time. But they also know that this best-case
scenario is far from assured, and therefore, they also consider good relations between Israel
and potentially powerful countries like China and Russia important.
I think Trump's foreign policy ideas (before any pressure was applied to him) was quite
close to the Israeli ideas (rather than the positions of the US neocons). Unlike Israel, he
had some ideas about confronting China (mainly on trade), and certainly, he wanted
pro-Israeli policies, but it seems he also wanted to have a general policy of „getting
along" with relatively important countries rather than pursuing „full-spectrum
dominance" wherever possible and stoking up proxy conflicts at every occasion. On the whole,
it seems Trump wanted a US foreign policy that is closer to the Israeli one than to the one
of US neocons. If Israel can „get along" with Russia, why shouldn't the US? The Israeli
and international press does not scream „treason" every time Netanyahu and Putin meet
(which they do quite often).
This idea of a normalization of US-Russian relations is what led to such strong opposition
from US neocons. I think they all knew that it would never be in doubt that Trump's policies
would be pro-Israeli. But that was not enough for them. According to them, the US, unlike
Israel, has to have a strongly anti-Russian stance.
I think there are two plausible explanations, one that does involve Israel and one that
does not. They may both be partially be true (probably, for some US neocons, it is more the
one, while for others, it is more the other).
The first explanation is that US neocons who strongly identify with Israel, as I argued
above, recognize that Israel should have good relations with Russia and China because of risk
management considerations, but at the same time, Israel wants to have the US to have as much
power as possible because it will never have as much influence in Russia and China as it has
in the US. The Russia hysteria has helped increasing military spending (and Democrats going
along with this), which may increase the chances of "full spectrum dominance" – and
this dominance will, among other things, be used on behalf of Israel. In that case, it may
have been a kind of misunderstanding. Trump may have thought that for neocons, it would be
enough if he is pro-Israeli and anti-Iranian and has normal, non-hostile relations with
Russia, as Israel has – ignoring that the roles Israel and the US should play according
to the neocons are very different.
But I am not so sure if Israel would really have minded much if the US had normalized its
relations with Russia. Netanyahu hardly ever was hostile towards Trump, he knew he was a
reliable ally. Some may even think it weakens the ability of the US to support Israel if it
gets entangled in conflicts and confrontations all over the world. So, I suppose that for
many true Israel-firsters, Trump was hardly seen as a problem (as long as he is pro-Israeli
and anti-Iranian, and there had hardly been any doubt that he is). There also do not seem to
be strong indications about Israeli involvement in Russiagate/Spygate. Some Israelis seem to
have been involved in the entrapment of Papadopoulos, but it was not necessarily the Israeli
government as a whole that was behind this (they may just have been needed because Israeli
energy policy is one of the main specializations of Papadopoulos), and I think there are at
least as strong indications of an Israeli involvement on the pro-Trump side.
Russiagate/Spygate mainly seems to be an affair of US and British intelligence services, not
so much of Israel. Certainly, in the US, many neocons were strongly involved, but it may not
have so much to do with Israel. While support of Israel is one of the reasons why some
neocons passionately pursue „full-spectrum dominance", for many of them, this has
probably become a goal in itself, even in cases in which it is not needed for Israel –
partially for ideological reasons, partially because many of them profit from increased
military spending.
The right ((neocons)), on the other hand, see Trump as a quisling to rally the hated
white men into dying for greater Israel. The perfect Commander and Chief of the Janissaries
for Zion.
i agree that initially it was always a possibility he was a neocon plant i.e. neocons
couldn't get a war in Syria so decided to put up a candidate who'd promise stuff on trade and
immigration to get into office but then ignore it all afterwards and just do neocon stuff
but
1) if so he didn't need to say the anti-war stuff
and
2) neocons like Kristol hated him and did everything they could to stop him.
You might call them the Alan Dershowitz wing of the Jewish supremacists. I see that mug
on Tucker Carlson defending Trump, and he's positively beaming.
right but he'd be beaming like that even more if he knew Trump was originally isolationist
but now is compromised and compliant.
too early to tell for sure but my take is if neocons and the media now start going easier
on him i think that will prove they got him and want to keep him in office.
(nb it doesn't change anything if he was always a shill or he wasn't but they got him
– the end result is the same)
1) if so he didn't need to say the anti-war stuff
and
the only reason I was duped into voting for Dubya his first term, was because I was
appalled at Clinton's flouting of international law when he bombed Serbia, and Dubya said
specifically said he wasn't a "nation builder". Boy oh boy was I chumped by that one.
And we were all chumped by Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, and serial war pig.
But what choice do we have but to at least vote for the peace candidate, and then
wait until, on cue, we're all betrayed once again by the Jewish supremacist deepstate.
So far, Trump hasn't started any new wars. So as Mr. Giraldi says, "one hopes"
if neocons and the media now start going easier on him
then we're toast
it seems the only metric we have for determining whether or not a person is rotten to the
core, or not, is whether the media likes them, or not.
If the media likes them, then they're as rotten as they come.
If the media hates them, (Ron Paul, Julian Assange
others..)
then there is likely at least something redeeming about them.
The main reason for (pathetically) clinging to some tiny, gossamer wisp of hope for Trump,
is that ((they)) continue to be unhinged in their hysterical enmity for all things Trump.
But considering that he's basically giving them everything they want, (sans an all out war
on Iran), it seems the main reason they still hate his guts, is because the despised rubes in
flyover country still like him. And I suppose because of a few good judges and justices.
But as long as Bubba continues to proudly wear the hat, they're going to hate Donald Trump
with a seething malevolence.
And I have to confess to getting great satisfaction by seeing these rats going apoplectic
over Trump.
a guilty secret of mine is that everyday that this sick, twisted bitch
@Rurik the
other potentially relevant thing about Trump imo is he made some comments on 9/11 at the time
about how strong the twin towers were (i forget the exact details) which could be construed
as walking the edge of disbelief.
this may be related to Brennan in particular having such a hysterical reaction to Trump's
candidacy.
it seems the only metric we have for determining whether or not a person is rotten to
the core, or not, is whether the media likes them, or not.
I would contend, this is not a reliable indicator. If they really dislike someone, they
will simply not report anything at all. It would be a declared and enforced taboo to
report.
Negative publicity is also publicity, and the guys behind the curtain know this.
But what choice do we have but to at least vote for the peace candidate, and then wait
until, on cue, we're all betrayed once again by the Jewish supremacist deepstate.
It won't change anything, but you won't feel betrayed.
One of the reasons I voted for DJT was because I wanted to know if the unelected elites (who
control the Deep State) would ever voluntarily surrender the reigns of power in DC without
bloodshed. Now I unequivocally know the answer to that question. There is no democracy, there
is no Republic and any Constitutional Rights us American citizens have left hang by a thread
(think 1st and 2nd Amendments).
At this point Trump is either a hostage of the Deep State or he has joined them.
This is a good article but it misses a key person, probably the most important, in this whole
sorry mess -- Mike Pence.
I strongly suspect Pence has been pulling a soft coup on Trump since Day 1. Pence is the
biggest Ziocon there is, we had our first hint during his VP debate in 2016 with Tim Kaine
when he said he would go to war with Russia over Syria. Trump countered him in the next
debate. I believe that the NYT op-ed, purportedly by a "senior WH official" that said Trump
was a buffoon but there are "adults" in charge of foreign policy at the WH, was written by
Pence, at least in part. The word "lodestar" was a dead giveaway, and he is the only one who
could not be fired. It is clear that the Pence admin is now running our foreign policy. He
has been making speeches everywhere to gather support against all "our" enemies – Iran,
Ukraine, NKorea, China, Venezuela, Syria.
A while back Trump was furious that Pence had hired (((Jon Lerner))), a Never Trumper and
personal advisor to Nikki Haley at the UN as his personal advisor. Not sure if Pence dump him
in the end but the fact that he even hired him in the first place should tell you who Pence
is. Not since LBJ has there been a VP this involved in foreign policy. Pence is toxic. You
can tell Pompeo and Bolton report to him. Wouldn't surprise me if he worked with Rosenstein
to bring in Mueller. Pence 's wife despises Trump. She probably only agreed to let Pence be
VP because he and his handlers promised her Trump will be impeached so he'd be president.
Of course, Trump is not completely innocent. He is an unprincipled idiot megalomaniac and
is easily manipulated. What he's doing with immigration shows you who he really is, a total
liar. Kushner the treasonous rat SIL is about to unleash a mass Chindian importation
immigration plan that'll piss off all of Trump's base
PAUL JAY Can I–Can I just intervene for just a sec? The problem here is both on
Venezuela and Iran the Democratic Party foreign policy establishment is on the same page as
Trump. Netanyahu is on the same page as Trump. The Saudis are on the same page as Trump. When
Trump throws this missile, missiles into Syria after the supposed gas attack, Chuck Schumer
says finally Trump's acting president -- is a president. The problem is is that as much as
these guys vilify and are dangerous -- these guys meaning the Democrats and that whole
establishment are dangerous on Russia-
STEPHEN COHEN I don't disagree.
PAUL JAY They'll converge with Trump on some very dangerous stuff in Iran.
STEPHEN COHEN I don't disagree. But that brings me to my final point, I guess, because we
are at the time we are in. We now have, I think, at last count 19 or 20 Democratic would be
contenders for the presidential nomination; 19 or 20. We need to ask ourselves which, if any,
of these people see these dangers clearly, and ask them. But I have a feeling that the
mainstream media will not ask them, because these are uncomfortable issues for them. I also
think that the one candidate who has embraced a position similar to my own, Tulsi Gabbard, was
immediately attacked by NBC, as you know. Scurrilously.
That it's a question of what kind of discussion–because according to our democracy
these existential issues that you and I have discussed are discussed during presidential
campaigns. This is when we clarify and make our choices. It seems to me this is unlikely to
happen, partly because the mainstream media doesn't permit voices like mine any longer. Though
they used to welcome me. I used to work for them. It would be interesting to see how they treat
Tulsi Gabbard, who's the closest to this kind of anxiety about the new Cold War with Russia,
has taken positions on this. There may be others, but I haven't–I haven't noted that.
We'll see how they're–if there's an attempt to suppress her view, or to give her a fair
time. Now, she'll have to do well in a primary somewhere to get that. But it's a little
discouraging that of 19 or 20 Democrats, only one thus far has spoken with some clarity about
this, what I consider to be the number one existential issue; the danger of war with
Russia.
"... One might reasonably ask if America in its seemingly enduring role as the world's most feared bully will ever cease and desist, but the more practical question might be "When will the psychopathic trio of John Bolton, Mike Pompeo and Elliott Abrams be fired so the United States can begin to behave like a normal nation?" ..."
"... This hatred of all things Trump has been manifested in the neoconservative "Nevertrump" forces led by Bill Kristol and by the "Trump Derangement Syndrome" prominent on the political left, regularly exhibited by Rachel Maddow. ..."
"... Whether the Mueller report is definitive very much depends on the people they chose to interview and the questions they chose to ask, which is something that will no doubt be discussed for the next year if not longer. Beyond declaring that the Trump team did not collude with Russia, it cast little light on the possible Deep State role in attempting to vilify Trump and his associates. ..."
"... The media has scarcely reported how Michael Horowitz, the Inspector General of the Department of Justice (DOJ), has been looking into the activities of the principal promoters of the Russiagate fraud. Horowitz, whose report is expected in about a month, has already revealed that he intends to make criminal referrals as a result of his investigation. ..."
"... The first phase of the illegal investigation of the Trump associates involved initiating wiretaps without any probable cause. This eventually involved six government intelligence and law enforcement agencies that formed a de facto task force headed by the CIA's Director John Brennan. Also reportedly involved were the FBI's James Comey, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Department of Homeland Security Director Jeh Johnson, and Admiral Michael Rogers who headed the National Security Agency. ..."
"... The British support of the operation was coordinated by the then-director of GCHQ Robert Hannigan who has since been forced to resign. Brennan is, unfortunately still around and has not been charged with perjury and other crimes. In May 2017, after he departed government, he testified before Congress with what sounds a lot like a final unsourced, uncorroborated attempt to smear the new administration ..."
"... The Deep State wants a constant state of tension with 'hostile' countries (Iran, Russia, Venezuela, China, Syria and others). This scares the crap out of ignorant Americans and allows unjustifiable spending on war matériel. ..."
"... The Deep State wants a steady supply of cheap foreign labor to provide wealth to the supporters of the Deep State. ..."
"... You know damn well Adelson sent Bolton and you should also know damn well why the Orange Boy staffed his adm with Zionists. No one in NY except Zionists would associate with Trump. ..."
The real "deplorable" in today's United States is the continuation of a foreign policy based
on endless aggression to maintain Washington's military dominance in parts of the world where
Americans have no conceivable interest. Many voters backed Donald J. Trump because he committed
himself to changing all that, but, unfortunately, he has reneged on his promise, instead
heightening tension with major powers Russia and China while also threatening Iran and
Venezuela on an almost daily basis. Now Cuba is in the crosshairs because it is allegedly
assisting Venezuela. One might reasonably ask if America in its seemingly enduring role as the
world's most feared bully will ever cease and desist, but the more practical question might be
"When will the psychopathic trio of John Bolton, Mike Pompeo and Elliott Abrams be fired so the
United States can begin to behave like a normal nation?"
Trump, to be sure, is the heart of the problem as he has consistently made bad, overly
belligerent decisions when better and less abrasive options were available, something that
should not necessarily always be blamed on his poor choice of advisers. But one also should not
discount the likelihood that the dysfunction in Trump is in part comprehensible, stemming from
his belief that he has numerous powerful enemies who have been out do destroy him since before
he was nominated as the GOP's presidential candidate. This hatred of all things Trump has been
manifested in the neoconservative "Nevertrump" forces led by Bill Kristol and by the "Trump
Derangement Syndrome" prominent on the political left, regularly exhibited by Rachel
Maddow.
And then there is the Deep State, which also worked with the Democratic Party and President
Barack Obama to destroy the Trump presidency even before it began. One can define Deep State in
a number of ways, ranging from a "soft" version which accepts that there is an Establishment
that has certain self-serving objectives that it works collectively to promote to something
harder, an actual infrastructure that meets together and connives to remove individuals and
sabotage policies that it objects to. The Deep State in either version includes senior
government officials, business leaders and, perhaps most importantly, the managed media, which
promotes a corrupted version of "good governance" that in turn influences the public.
Whether the Mueller report is definitive very much depends on the people they chose to
interview and the questions they chose to ask, which is something that will no doubt be
discussed for the next year if not longer. Beyond declaring that the Trump team did not collude
with Russia, it cast little light on the possible Deep State role in attempting to vilify Trump
and his associates. The investigation of that aspect of the 2016 campaign and the possible
prosecutions of former senior government officials that might be a consequence of the
investigation will likely be entertaining conspiracy theorists well into 2020. Since Russiagate
has already been used and discarded the new inquiry might well be dubbed Trumpgate.
The media has scarcely reported how Michael Horowitz, the Inspector General of the
Department of Justice (DOJ), has been
looking into the activities of the principal promoters of the Russiagate fraud. Horowitz,
whose report is expected in about a month, has already revealed that he intends to make
criminal referrals as a result of his investigation. While the report will only cover
malfeasance in the Department of Justice, which includes the FBI, the names of intelligence
officers involved will no doubt also surface. It is expected that there will be charges leading
to many prosecutions and one can hope for jail time for those individuals who corruptly
betrayed their oath to the United States Constitution to pursue a political vendetta.
A review of what is already known about the plot against Trump is revealing and no doubt
much more will be learned if and when investigators go through emails and phone records. The
first phase of the illegal investigation of the Trump associates involved initiating wiretaps
without any probable cause.
This eventually involved six government intelligence and law enforcement agencies that
formed a de facto task force headed by the CIA's Director John Brennan. Also reportedly
involved were the FBI's James Comey, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Attorney
General Loretta Lynch, Department of Homeland Security Director Jeh Johnson, and Admiral
Michael Rogers who headed the National Security Agency.
Brennan was the key to the operation because the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
(FISA) court refused to approve several requests by the FBI to initiate taps on Trump
associates and Trump Tower as there was no probable cause to do so but the British and other
European intelligence services were legally able to intercept communications linked to American
sources. Brennan was able to use his connections with those foreign intelligence agencies,
primarily the British GCHQ, to make it look like the concerns about Trump were coming from
friendly and allied countries and therefore had to be responded to as part of routine
intelligence sharing. As a result, Paul Manafort, Carter Page, Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner
and Gen. Michael Flynn were all wiretapped. And likely there were others. This all happened
during the primaries and after Trump became the GOP nominee.
In other words, to make the wiretaps appear to be legitimate, GCHQ and others were quietly
and off-the-record approached by Brennan and associates over their fears of what a Trump
presidency might mean. The British responded by initiating wiretaps that were then used by
Brennan to justify further investigation of Trump's associates. It was all neatly done and
constituted completely illegal spying on American citizens by the U.S. government.
The British support of the operation was coordinated by the then-director of GCHQ Robert
Hannigan who has since been forced to resign. Brennan is, unfortunately still around and has
not been charged with perjury and other crimes. In May 2017, after he departed government, he
testified before
Congress with what sounds a lot like a final unsourced, uncorroborated attempt to smear the
new administration :
"I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and
interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign that I
was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals. It raised
questions in my mind whether or not Russia was able to gain the co-operation of those
individuals."
Brennan's claimed "concerns" turned out to be incorrect. Meanwhile, other interested parties
were involved in the so-called Steele Dossier on Trump himself. The dossier, paid
for initially by Republicans trying to stop Trump, was later funded by $12 million from the
Hillary campaign. It was commissioned by the law firm Perkins Coie, which was working for the
Democratic National Committee (DNC). The objective was to assess any possible Trump involvement
with Russia. The work itself was sub-contracted to Fusion GPS, which in turn sub-contracted the
actual investigation to British spy Christopher Steele who headed a business intelligence firm
called Orbis.
Steele left MI-6 in 2009 and had not visited Russia since 1993. The report, intended to dig
up dirt on Trump, was largely prepared using impossible to corroborate second-hand information
and would have never surfaced but for the surprise result of the 2016 election. Christopher
Steele gave a copy to a retired of British Diplomat Sir Andrew Wood who in turn handed it to
Trump critic Senator John McCain who then passed it on to the FBI. President Barack Obama
presumably also saw it and, according to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, "If it weren't for
President Obama, we might not have done the intelligence community assessment that we did that
set off a whole sequence of events which are still unfolding today, notably, special counsel
Mueller's investigation."
The report was leaked to the media in January 2017 to coincide with Trump's inauguration.
Hilary Clinton denied any prior knowledge despite the fact that her campaign had paid for it.
Pressure from the Democrats and other constituencies devastated by the Trump victory used the
Steele report to provide leverage for what became the Mueller investigation.
So, was there a broad ranging conspiracy against Donald Trump orchestrated by many of the
most senior officials and politicians in Washington? Undeniably yes. What Trump has amounted to
as a leader and role model is beside the point as what evolved was undeniably a bureaucratic
coup directed against a legally elected president of the United States and to a certain extent
it was successful as Trump was likely forced to turn his back on his better angels and
subsequently hired Pompeo, Bolton and Abrams. One can only hope that investigators dig deep
into what is Washington insiders have been up to so Trumpgate will prove more interesting and
informative than was Russiagate. And one also has to hope that enough highest-level heads will
roll to make any interference by the Deep State in future elections unthinkable. One hopes.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest,
a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a
more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its
email is [email protected].
The President is part of the Deep State. To understand what the Deep State will and will not tolerate answer these questions.
What do both parties agree on? If they appear to disagree, look to see if anything changes
when one party has the power to cause change or does the party in power make excuses to avoid
change? Those things that the populus is against but never change or get worse are what the
Deep State wants
The Deep State wants a constant state of tension with 'hostile' countries (Iran, Russia,
Venezuela, China, Syria and others). This scares the crap out of ignorant Americans and
allows unjustifiable spending on war matériel.
The Deep State wants a steady supply of cheap foreign labor to provide wealth to the
supporters of the Deep State.
The Deep State wants our financial institutions to never fail (FED 2009) even at the
expense of 90% of Americans. The Deep State wants financial institutions to provide financial
products to the wealthy which cripples the vast majority of Americans.
The silly internecine squabbles within the Deep State are a ruse to misdirect the public
from important issues like constant war, legal and illegal immigrants taking jobs from
Americans and the increased transfer of wealth for the 90% to the supper weathy.
There will never be a wall and illegal immigration will continue to be a problem. All the investigations into Trump, the DNC, Hillary and all the rest will never come to
justice. The wealth transfer will not stop
Until Americans realize these diversions for what they are and put an end to it through
what ever means necessary
it was successful as Trump was likely forced to turn his back on his better angels and
subsequently hired Pompeo, Bolton and Abrams.
Oh plezzze .you sound like you've been drugged.
Trump never had any better angels as any reporter and journalist whoever interviewed or
investigated him would tell you.
And come on! .You know damn well Adelson sent Bolton and you should also know damn well
why the Orange Boy staffed his adm with Zionists. No one in NY except Zionists would associate
with Trump.
i think some of the conspiracy was about controlling Trump's foreign policy going forward but
i also think some of it was people like Brennan worried CIA collusion with Saudi funded
jihadist groups since 9/11 (and possibly before) might come out.
While it clear anti-Seminissm to hate Jews as the ethnic groups, it is quite different about
Zionism -- Jewish nationalism with the elements of supremacist ideology that puts Israel as the
central symbol of "jeweshnessh"
In the eyes of Spokoiny, the three types of contemporary anti-Semitism, be it Left, Right
or Islamic ("which is not only fascistic but outright genocidal," according to Spokoiny) are
in fact one by nature: "there's just one type of anti-Semitism that simply dresses its ugly
persona in different ideological garments." So it isn't just the Jews that should be
reunited; the Goyim, or shall we say the rest humanity, aren't diverse either, their
oppositions to Jewish politics, Israel or Zionism are only a matter of "different ideological
garments."
In Spokoiny's universe, the Jews are hated for being Jews. It is not that some oppose
Israel for being racist, expansionist and genocidal. It is not because some may be upset that
the Israeli Lobby dominates Western foreign affairs in the open. It is not because American
and British boys and girls are sent to fight and die in Zio-con wars, it is not because some
have noticed that it was a bunch of prominent Jewish intellectuals who have managed to
reshape the Western ethos by means of so-called progressive ideologies. It is not because the
media seems to be biased in favour of a criminal state, which happens to be a Jewish one. In
Spokoiny, reasoning and self-reflection are pushed aside. In his universe some just hate Jews
blindly, irrationally and for no reason.
But Spokoiny may as well be right. There is a common element in the Left-wing, Right-wing,
Christian and Islamic opposition to Jewish politics, culture and ideology: opposition to
choseness is how Bernard Lazare described it in his 1894 Zionist text Antisemitism:
Its History and Causes . There is a shared common ground that unites all those so-called
'anti-Semites.' The alleged 'enemies of the Jews' are people who want the Jewish past to be
subject to scrutiny like all other historical chapters, Israeli barbarism to be curtailed,
Wall Street to be restricted, Palestine to be free. They want globalisation to be halted,
immoral interventionism to die out. The so-called 'anti-Semites' actually follow the Zionist
promise, they want Jews to finally assimilate and become 'people like all other people.' The
so-called 'enemies of the Jews' are upholding the most enlightened rational universalist
ethical positions. They treat Jews as ordinary people and expect their state and institutions
to subscribe to ethical standards.
Spokoiny hates Alain Soral, the French intellectual who was sentenced this week to one
year in prison by a French court for "negationisme" (history revisionism).
In the eyes of French Jewish institutes and Spokoiny, Soral is the ultimate enemy. He has
managed to present a unifying message that appeals to the Left, the Right and Muslim
immigrants. Soral calls for a universal reconciliation, between them all under a French
nationalist egalitarian ethos. The French Jewish institutions see Soral's call as a vile
anti-Semitic message as it doesn't seem to accommodate Jewish exceptionalism. However, some
Jews have joined Soral's movement. But they clearly demoted themselves to French patriots.
They left chosenism behind, they see themselves primarily as French.
"We in the Jewish community need to believe him (Soral)." Spokoiny writes, "We need to
stop participating in the divide-and-conquer game of those who hate us." In other words,
Spokoiny wants to see Jews as one monolithic identity. One that sticks together and exercises
its power. If Spokoiny or anyone else thinks that such politics may eradicate anti-Semitism,
he or she must be either naïve or just stupid . What Jews need to do is to self-reflect,
to ask themselves why anti-Semitism is rising again. Jews must identify their own role in
this emerging reality. Rather than constantly blaming their so called 'haters,' Jews may want
to repeat the early Zionist exercise and ask what is exactly in Jewish culture, identity and
politics that makes Jewish history into a chain of disasters.
The conclusion of Chapter
1 of Jewish History, Jewish Religion by Israel Shahak:
There are two choices which face Israeli-Jewish society. It can become a fully closed
and warlike ghetto, a Jewish Sparta, supported by the labour of Arab helots, kept in
existence by its influence on the US political establishment and by threats to use its
nuclear power, or it can try to become an open society. The second choice is dependent on
an honest examination of its Jewish past, on the admission that Jewish chauvinism and
exclusivism exist, and on an honest examination of the attitudes of Judaism towards the
non-Jews.
The second choice would require Jews to 'demote themselves' to mere humanity. There
seems to be no hope of that.
Jews do seem to be incapable or completely unwilling to self-reflect on their behavior
and its effects. Instead, they pathologize the goyim saying its somehow inherent.
Zionism is despised all over the political spectrum. So called anti-semitism is not just
some far right nazi ideology. Leftists, muslims, blacks etc. are all seeing Jewish behavior
as a real threat.
The hostility and destructive, subversive behavior to western culture and institutions
is despised by the right. The left hates the racist and hostile murderous behavior to the
Palestinians. Both hate the zio-con wars.
Jews are not in a good situation. However, most of them are completely unwilling to
change their behavior. In fact, they seem to be pushing even harder and faster. It is not
looking like there is going to be a good outcome for the Jews at the rate they're currently
going.
' what is exactly in Jewish culture, identity and politics that makes Jewish history
into a chain of disasters '
One wonders to what extent exactly this characterization is accurate. Even if it is true
to some extent, can't the history of all peoples be characterized as a 'chain of
disasters'?
Take the Jews of any particular region: the Ukraine, say. Okay, fine -- they suffered
the pogroms associated with Khmelnitsky's uprising and the Holocaust. Some would add the
pogroms of late Tsarist Russia, but here's an unpleasant fact: those weren't all that big a
deal
Meantime, what about the gentiles? Well, first off, I don't think anyone did well
out of Khmelnitsky's uprising: gentiles were being slaughtered in job lots as well. Then
there were the artificial famines of Stalin's regime, which were inflicted primarily --
exclusively? -- on the Christian peasantry. The Nazis weren't nice to Ukrainian gentiles
either. There was the holocaust of the Mongol invasions.
Etc. Things are tough all over. We could engage in the same compare and contrast for
Spanish Jews and gentiles, French Jews and gentiles, German Jews and gentiles, and so on.
Some evils were inflicted mostly on the Jews, some mainly on the gentiles, some
indifferently on both.
Even if one could establish that Jews have come in for more than their fair share
of abuse, it's obviously a wild distortion of the past to see Jews alone as victims. The
Thirty Years War was catastrophic for German gentiles as well as German Jews. 75% of the
German gentile civilians trapped in Konigsberg when it fell to the Russians wound up being
murdered, starved to death, or otherwise done in. Was it better to be a Jew or a gentile
then?
Jews don't have a monopoly on victimhood, and to assume otherwise is to indulge in a
pernicious fantasy. We wind up agreeing that Jews are uniquely entitled to misbehave,
because they alone have been abused. Neither end of that proposition is valid.
"Anti-semite" has lost its sting, because every justified criticism of the Zionist Israeli
government is declared to be anti-semitism. The word is so overused and misapplied as to be
useless. Indeed, to be declared "anti-semite" by the Israel Lobby is to be declared a
person of high moral conscience.
Powerful video about US propaganda machine. Based on Iraq War propaganda efforts. This is a
formidable machine.
Shows quite vividly that most US politicians of Bush era were war criminal by Nuremberg
Tribunal standards. Starting with Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. They planned the war of aggression
against Iraq long before 9/11.
"... Donald Trump's presidency, like preceding ones, is trapped by the interests of the power elite that has ruled America since World War II. The constraints imposed on domestic policy by this elite inevitably have a direct impact on America's foreign policy. ..."
"... The growing misalignment between government policies and people's yearnings coincides with the ascent of the military establishment within the power elite that rules America. Despite the country's aggressive expansionism, America's power elite was initially driven mainly by political and economic forces and much less by its growing military strength. It is fair to say that the military establishment, as an influential component of the American power elite, only appeared in the context of World War II. Nowadays, it is a dominant player. ..."
"... Today's power elite in America is fundamentally the same as the one that emerged after World War II and which was accurately described by C. Wright Mills in the 1950s. Consequently, the main forces shaping US domestic and foreign policies have not changed since then. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War did not make irrelevant the existing power elite at that time. The elite only became more vocal in its efforts to justify itself and this explains today's existence of NATO, for instance. ..."
"... Despite its economic and entrepreneurial might, the US distilled version of capitalism is unable to attain the needs of a growing number of its population, as the Great Recession of 2008 has shown. Within the OECD, arguably the club with the highest levels of economic and social development in the world, US rankings are abysmal, for instance concerning education and health, as it lays at the bottom in learning metrics and on critical health measures such as obesity. The wealth gap has widened and the social fabric is broken. American economic decline is evident and growing social conflict across economic, social and geographic lines is just a reaction to this decline. ..."
"... Concerning China, Trump is learning about the limits of his ability to successfully challenge it economically. It seems virtually impossible to reverse China's momentum which, if it continues, will consolidate its economic domination. ..."
"... A fundamental weakness of American foreign policy is its inability to understand war in all its different dimensions ..."
"... Despite the need to see through Trump's true intentions beyond his pomp and circumstance, there is an important warning to be made. Trump's eventual inability to fulfill his promises, combined with his bravado and America's incapacity to take a more sobering approach to world events is a dangerous combination. ..."
Donald Trump's presidency, like preceding ones, is trapped by the interests of the power elite
that has ruled America since World War II. The constraints imposed on domestic policy by this elite
inevitably have a direct impact on America's foreign policy. Alternative social forces, like
the ones behind Trump's presidential triumph, only have a limited impact on domestic and ultimately
on foreign policy. A conceptual detour and a brief on history and on Trump's domestic setting when
he was elected will help clarifying these theses.
Beyond the different costumes that it wears (dealing with ideology, international law, and even
religion), foreign policy follows domestic policy. The domestic policy actors are the social forces
at work at a given point of time, mainly the economic agents and their ambitions (in their multiple
expressions), including the ruling power elite. Society's aspirations not only relate to material
welfare, but also to ideological priorities that population segments may have at a given point of
time.
From America's initial days until the mid 1800s, there seems to have been a broad alignment of
US foreign policy with the wishes of its power elite and other social forces. America's expansionism,
a fundamental bulwark of its foreign policy from early days, reflected the need to fulfill its growing
population's ambitions for land and, later on, the need to find foreign markets for its excess production,
initially agricultural and later on manufacturing. It can be said that American foreign policy was
broadly populist at that time. The power elite was more or less aligned in achieving these expansionist
goals and was able to provide convenient ideological justification through the writings of Jefferson
and Madison, among others.
As the country expanded, diverging interests became stronger and ultimately differing social forces
caused a significant fracture in society. The American Civil War was the climax of the conflicted
interests between agricultural and manufacturing led societies. Fifty years later, a revealing manifestation
of this divergence (which survived the Civil War), as it relates to foreign policy, is found during
the early days of the Russian Revolution when, beyond the ideological revulsion of Bolshevism, the
US was paralyzed between the agricultural and farming businesses seeking exports to Russia and the
domestic extractive industries interested in stopping exports of natural resources from this country.
The growing misalignment between government policies and people's yearnings coincides with the
ascent of the military establishment within the power elite that rules America. Despite the country's
aggressive expansionism, America's power elite was initially driven mainly by political and economic
forces and much less by its growing military strength. It is fair to say that the military establishment,
as an influential component of the American power elite, only appeared in the context of World War
II. Nowadays, it is a dominant player.
Today's power elite in America is fundamentally the same as the one that emerged after World War
II and which was accurately described by C. Wright Mills in the 1950s. Consequently, the main forces
shaping US domestic and foreign policies have not changed since then. The collapse of the Soviet
Union and the end of the Cold War did not make irrelevant the existing power elite at that time.
The elite only became more vocal in its efforts to justify itself and this explains today's existence
of NATO, for instance.
Despite its economic and entrepreneurial might, the US distilled version of capitalism is unable
to attain the needs of a growing number of its population, as the Great Recession of 2008 has shown.
Within the OECD, arguably the club with the highest levels of economic and social development in
the world, US rankings are abysmal, for instance concerning education and health, as it lays at the
bottom in learning metrics and on critical health measures such as obesity. The wealth gap has widened
and the social fabric is broken. American economic decline is evident and growing social conflict
across economic, social and geographic lines is just a reaction to this decline.
Trump won his presidency because he was able to get support from the country's growing frustrated
white population. His main social themes (bringing jobs to America by stopping the decline of its
manufacturing industry, preventing further US consumer dependence on foreign imports and halting
immigration) fitted well with the electors' anger. Traditional populist themes linked to foreign
policy (like Russophobia) did not play a big role in the last election. But whether or not the Trump
administration can align with the ruling power elite in a manner that addresses the key social and
economic needs of the American people is still to be seen.
Back to foreign policy, we need to distinguish between Trump's style of government and his administration's
actions. At least until now, focusing excessively on Trump's style has dangerously distracted from
his true intentions. One example is the confusion about his initial stance on NATO which was simplistically
seen as highly critical to the very existence of this organization. On NATO, all that Trump really
cared was to achieve a "fair" sharing of expenditures with other members and to press them to
honor
their funding commitments.
From immigration to defense spending, there is nothing irrational about Trump's foreign policy
initiatives, as they just reflect a different reading on the American people's aspirations and, consequently,
they attempt to rely on supporting points within the power elite which are different from the ones
used in the past.
Concerning China, Trump is learning about the limits of his ability to successfully challenge
it economically. It seems virtually impossible to reverse China's momentum which, if it continues,
will consolidate its economic domination. A far-reaching lesson, although still being ignored, is
that China's economic might is showing that capitalism as understood in the West is not winning,
much less in its American format. It also shows that democracy may not be that relevant, as it is
not necessarily a corollary or a condition for economic development. Perhaps it even shows the superiority
of China's economic model, but this is a different matter.
As Trump becomes more aware about his limitations, he has naturally reversed to the basic imprints
of America's traditional foreign policy, particularly concerning defense. His emphasis on a further
increase in defense spending is not done for prestigious or national security reasons, but as an
attempt to preserve a job generating infrastructure without considering the catastrophic consequences
that it may cause.
On Iran, Obama's initiative to seek normalization was an attempt to walk a fine line (and to find
a less conflictive path) between supporting the US traditional Middle East allies (mainly the odd
combination of Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey) and recognizing Iran's growing aspirations. Deep
down, Obama was trying to acknowledge Iran's historical viability as a country and a society that
will not disappear from the map, while Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, may not be around in a few
years. Trump's Iran policy until now only represents a different weighing of priorities, although
it is having far reaching consequences on America's credibility as a reliable contractual party in
international affairs.
In the case of Afghanistan, Trump's decision to increase boots on the ground does not break the
inertia of US past administrations. Aside from temporary containment, an increasing military presence
or a change in tactics will not alter fundamentally this reality.
Concerning Russia, and regardless of what Trump has said, actions speak more than words. A continuous
deterioration of relations seems inevitable.
Trump will also learn, if he has not done so already, about the growth of multipolar forces in
world's events. Russia has mastered this reality for several years and is quite skillful at using
it as a basic tool of its own foreign goals. Our multipolar world will expand, and Trump may even
inadvertently exacerbate it through its actions (for instance in connection with the different stands
taken by the US and its European allies concerning Iran).
While fulfilling the aspirations of the American people seems more difficult within the existing
capitalist framework, there are also growing apprehensions coming from America's power elite as it
becomes more frustrated due to its incapacity of being more effective at the world level. America's
relative adolescence in world's history will become more and more apparent in the coming years.
A fundamental weakness of American foreign policy is its inability to understand war in all its
different dimensions. The US has never suffered the consequences of an international conflict in
its own backyard. The American Civil War, despite all the suffering that it caused, was primarily
a domestic event with no foreign intervention (contrary to the wishes of the Confederation). The
deep social and psychological damage caused by war is not part of America's consciousness as it is,
for instance in Germany, Russia or Japan. America is insensitive to the lessons of history because
it has a very short history itself.
Despite the need to see through Trump's true intentions beyond his pomp and circumstance, there
is an important warning to be made. Trump's eventual inability to fulfill his promises, combined
with his bravado and America's incapacity to take a more sobering approach to world events is a dangerous
combination.
Oscar Silva-Valladares is a former investment banker that has lived and worked in North and
Latin America, Western & Eastern Europe, Saudi Arabia, Japan, the Philippines and Western Africa.
He currently chairs Davos International Advisory, an advisory firm focused on strategic consulting
across emerging markets.
If our leaders & media want to protect our elections, not just score political pts,
first & most important thing we must do is institute b/up paper ballots by passing my
Securing America's Elections Act so no one can manipulate our votes & hack our
elections
apenultimate on Sat, 04/20/2019 - 2:45pm Hello All,
First, in response to others saying Leftists should support Bernie unless they have an
adversity to winning elections, I propose a couple of thoughts. The first is this link showing
Jimmy Carter's status in the Democratic primary race through June of 1975--he's almost exactly
where Tulsi is right now in polling, and guess what? He won against the giants of his time.
At this point, my advice is to support who you think is best, not who someone tells you is
the only realistic choice.
Here is another factoid for the caucuses/primaries--candidates who do not get at least 15%
of the votes do not get any delegates. Think of the strategic ramificaitons of that for a few
minutes. Assuming Biden enters the race, many of the Harris, Booker, O'Rourke, Buttigieg level
of candidates do not poll above 15% in many (or any) states, but if they remain in the race, it
depresses Biden's results. There are a lot of potential various outcomes there depending on how
things play out, and Tulsi staying in the race is not a major factor at this point.
In the past week, Tusli has made 8 stops in Iowa and 4 stops (including 1 today) in New
Hampshire on the campaign trail. Good to see her get out and stumping in the early states.
Some very good media things going on. Tulsi was on FOX News with Brett Baier, and she
handled it really well. As he tried to talk over her and twist her words, she essentially just
talked over him:
Finally, Tulsi will be on Jimmy Dore today (if she has not been already). Look for that
interview on YouTube in the upcoming week.
In two recent national polls--Emerson and Morning Consult--Tulsi is polling at 1%. This is
important as a second potential placement for the televised Democratic debates (needing to poll
at 1% or greater in at least 3 national or early primary state polls). If there end up being
more than 20 candidates with 65,000 unique donors or polling at least 1% in 3 polls, they will
allow only candidates that met both criteria. Tulsi seems to be there at this point--including
the 2 national polls above, and getting 2% in the last Nevada poll.
"... Much like Brexit, an antiwar/anit interventionist in the USA has nowhere to go. Both parties have substantial hawkish wings. Any move to peace/antiintervention by the party in power is immediately attacked by the party out of power. MSDNC is practically howling for war with Russia. ..."
"... Of course Trump wants to take the war side. Saudi wants war. Israel wants war. Nothing else counts. ..."
"... Tulsi won't surrender. But she obviously won't win the nomination either. ..."
"... Trump may have said 'no more wars' but he never acted on it. So, someone else came along and picked up the discarded slogan. It's not stealing ..."
"... I wish Tulsi could get more traction. I voted trump believing his anti war statements. Hate his veto of Yemen resolution ..."
"... don't underestimate the perpetual war power's grip on the Democrat party. Pro war liberals like the NYtimes aren't going away in fact they are getting louder. ..."
"... It is remarkable that neither Buchanan nor Khanna would ever consider the necessity to impeach Presidents like Bush, Obama, and Trump for their unconstitutional and criminal acts of aggressive war – or the responsibility of The People to replace the Congress of incumbents with representatives that have not already repeatedly and persistently broken their oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution. ..."
"... Instead, Buchanan delivers yet another installment of the Incompetence Dodge: if only the Czar wasn't a sociopathic criminal! If only he listened to us, his loyal supporters! ..."
"... Sanders never "stole" anything, Buchanan. What you're (slowly, dimly) realizing is that your boy Trump never cared a speck for a more sane, less bellicose U.S. foreign policy. ..."
"... I will never understand why Trump cultists ever believed he did. A clown who's big complaint about the Iraq war is that "we didn't take the oil" is an unlikely peace advocate. But to be a member of the Trump cult you have to engage in massive psychological projection, daily. ..."
"The president has said that he does not want to see
this country involved in endless wars . I agree with that," Bernie Sanders told the Fox News
audience at Monday's town hall meeting in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
Then, turning and staring straight into the camera, Bernie added: "Mister President, tonight
you have the opportunity to do something extraordinary: sign that resolution. Saudi Arabia
should not be determining the military or foreign policy of this country." Sanders was talking about a War Powers Act resolution that would have ended U.S. involvement
in the five-year civil war in Yemen that has created one of the great humanitarian crises of
our time, with thousands of dead children amidst an epidemic of cholera and a famine.
Supported by a united Democratic Party on the Hill, and an anti-interventionist faction of
the GOP led by Senators Rand Paul and Mike Lee of Utah, the War Powers resolution had passed
both houses of Congress. But 24 hours after Sanders urged him to sign it, Trump, heeding the hawks in his Cabinet and
National Security Council, vetoed S.J.Res.7, calling it a "dangerous attempt to weaken my
constitutional authorities." With sufficient Republican votes in both houses to sustain Trump's veto, that should have
been the end of the matter.
It is not: Trump may have just ceded the peace issue in 2020 to the Democrats. If Sanders
emerges as the nominee, we will have an election with a Democrat running on the "no-more-wars"
theme Trump touted in 2016. And Trump will be left defending the bombing of Yemeni rebels and
civilians by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia. Does Trump really want to go into 2020 as a war party president? Does he want to go into 2020 with Democrats denouncing "Trump's endless wars" in the Middle
East? Because that is where he is headed.
In 2008, John McCain, leading hawk in the Senate, was routed by a left-wing first-term
senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, who had won his nomination by defeating the more hawkish
Hillary Clinton, who had voted to authorize the war in Iraq. In 2012, the Republican nominee Mitt Romney, who was far more hawkish than Obama on Russia,
lost. Yet in 2016, Trump ran as a different kind of Republican, an opponent of the Iraq war and an
anti-interventionist who wanted to get along with Russia's Vladimir Putin and get out of these
Middle East wars. Looking closely at the front-running candidates for the Democratic nomination of 2020 -- Joe
Biden, Sanders, Kamala Harris, Beto O'Rourke, Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker --
not one appears to be as hawkish as Trump has become. Trump pulled us out of the nuclear deal with Iran negotiated by Secretary of State John
Kerry and reimposed severe sanctions.
He declared Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization, to which
Tehran has responded by declaring U.S. Central Command a terrorist organization. Ominously, the
IRGC and its trained Shiite militias in Iraq are in close proximity to U.S. troops.
Trump has recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital, moved the U.S. embassy there, closed the
consulate that dealt with Palestinian affairs, cut off aid to the Palestinians, recognized
Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights seized from Syria in 1967, and gone silent on Bibi
Netanyahu's threat to annex Jewish settlements on the West Bank.
Sanders, however, though he stands by Israel, is supporting a two-state solution and
castigating the "right-wing" Netanyahu regime. Trump has talked of pulling all U.S. troops out of Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Yet the
troops are still there. Though Trump came into office promising to get along with the Russians, he sent Javelin
anti-tank missiles to Ukraine and announced a pullout from Ronald Reagan's 1987 INF treaty that
outlawed all land-based intermediate-range nuclear missiles. When Putin provocatively sent 100 Russian troops to Venezuela -- ostensibly to repair the
S-400 anti-aircraft and anti-missile system that was damaged in recent blackouts -- Trump,
drawing a red line, ordered the Russians to "get out."
Biden is expected to announce next week. If the stands he takes on Russia, China, Israel,
and the Middle East are more hawkish than the rest of the field, he will be challenged by the
left wing of his party and by Sanders, who voted "no" on the Iraq war that Biden supported. The center of gravity of U.S. politics is shifting towards the Trump position of 2016. And
the anti-interventionist wing of the GOP is growing. And when added to the anti-interventionist and anti-war wing of the Democratic Party on the
Hill, together, they are able, as on the Yemen War Powers resolution, to produce a new
bipartisan majority.
Prediction: by the primaries of 2020, foreign policy will be front and center, and the
Democratic Party will have captured the "no more wars" political high ground that candidate
Donald Trump occupied in 2016.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made
and Broke a President and Divided America Forever. To find out more about Patrick Buchanan
and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at
www.creators.com.
By the way, Pat, do you know that Jimmy Carter did NOT get the US into any war, nor any
"intervention"? Have you showed him any appretiation for it? Or it was a time when you were
all for it as long as it was against Commies?
Prediction: by the primaries of 2020, foreign policy will be front and center, and the Democratic Party will have
captured the "no more wars" political high ground that candidate Donald Trump occupied in 2016.
Agree. But don't worry. On the second ballot, the super delegates will override the
obvious preference of voters for a "no more wars" candidate and give it to Biden. Who will
lose.
Much like Brexit, an antiwar/anit interventionist in the USA has nowhere to go. Both parties
have substantial hawkish wings. Any move to peace/antiintervention by the party in power is
immediately attacked by the party out of power. MSDNC is practically howling for war with
Russia.
No one to blame but himself. The anti-Russia insanity made it hard for him to stick to that
part of his program, but there is a lot more he could have done, starting by not surrounding
himself with war-mongering idiots like Pompeo and Bolton.
I mean, can we actually be honest here? The Neocons simply do not see Sanders as a genuine
threat. He has an unfair advantage. He can, for instance, criticize American foreign policy
without being accused of anti-semitism.
Those who wish Trump had maintained a more maverick
stance of foreign policy should ask themselves if they supported him energetically enough.
He's a survivor first and foremost. If you aren't working to offer him a legit life
preserver, this is all on you.
>>When Putin provocatively sent 100 Russian troops to Venezuela<<<
And this is why Trump is going to win on the 'national security' issue. As long as U.S.
troops don't actually fight and die in foreign countries the voters love U.S. 'being tough
with its enemies'.
As long as Trump confines his actions to tormenting 3rd world countries, like Venezuela,
Cuba, Nicaragua, Syria, and Yemen with sanctions and military assistance to other
belligerents any opposition will be portrayed as 'hating or apologizing for America the force
for good'.
Being objective, what is more provocative, sending a small number of specialists to
prevent cyber sabotage for the standing govt, or trying to install a new President, seizing
their assets and preventing their oil trade. We are the bullies and the day when we finally
squander our wealth we will find out that we have no friends despite being an alleged force
for good.
I thought that we determined a long time ago that taking something out of another persons
trash can was not stealing.
Trump may have said 'no more wars' but he never acted on it. So, someone else came along
and picked up the discarded slogan. It's not stealing
I wish Tulsi could get more traction. I voted trump believing his anti war statements. Hate
his veto of Yemen resolution. I still defend trump from unfair attacks but am not a supporter
any more.
Pat – good analysis. But don't underestimate the perpetual war power's grip on the
Democrat party. Pro war liberals like the NYtimes aren't going away in fact they are getting
louder.
Adriana "By the way, Pat, do you know that Jimmy Carter did NOT get the US into any war, nor
any 'intervention'? Have you showed him any appretiation [sic] for it? Or it was a time when
you were all for it as long as it was against Commies?"
No, but he did initiate funding for the Mujahideen in Afghanistan BEFORE the Soviet
"invasion," specifically to incite the Soviets to invade and get caught in their own Vietnam
War-like quagmire. President Carter succeeded in that effort, but the world has suffered the
unintended consequences of US funding for jihadist militants ever since.
Oh, and the Carter Administration also continued to recognize the Khmer Rouge as the
"legitimate" government of Cambodia after the Vietnamese Stalinists drove them from power in
1978. I'm sure this was partly done with Cold War calculations in mind – US ally
Communist China was an enemy to both the Soviet Union and its Vietnamese client state, and
the Khmer Rouge were clients of China – but I do not doubt that sticking it to the
Vietnamese who had so recently embarrassed the US played a part in that policy decision,
too.
The Reagan Administration maintained both policies, by the way, by continuing to fund the
Mujahideen and to uphold the fiction that the Khmer Rouge was still Cambodia's legitimate
government (kind of like the fiction that Juan Guaidó is Venezuela's "legitimate"
president).
You are right, if I had just more energetically supported Trump he wouldn't be giving Israel
and Saudi Arabia everything they want and trying to start a war with Iran. That poor guy.
Would just saying nice things about him have been enough or should I have completely drank
the koolade, MAGA hat and all?
Regarding Pat's argument as usual there is some truth here, but he keeps acting like this
is a complete surprise and that Trump has "become" a hawk. Yes some of the campaign promises
mentioned are accurate but he was talking about blowing up Iranian ships and tearing up the
nuclear agreement on the campaign trail. He was never an anti-war candidate, he was just
anti-whatever the previous presidents did candidate. Besides one statement about being
even-handed there was every indication he was going to be at least as reflexively pro-Israel
as any previous president and unsurprisingly he is more. Paul was the only
anti-interventionist candidate and anyone who thinks otherwise was either willfully ignorant
or not paying attention.
It is remarkable that Buchanan considers Trump's veto to be constitutional, but then, so
does Khanna. It is remarkable that neither Buchanan nor Khanna would ever consider the
necessity to impeach Presidents like Bush, Obama, and Trump for their unconstitutional and
criminal acts of aggressive war – or the responsibility of The People to replace the
Congress of incumbents with representatives that have not already repeatedly and persistently
broken their oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution.
Instead, Buchanan delivers yet another installment of the Incompetence Dodge: if only the
Czar wasn't a sociopathic criminal! If only he listened to us, his loyal supporters!
It is difficult to decide which kind of unprincipled opportunist is worse – the kind
that successfully profits from Trump, like McConnell, or the kind that hopes in vain for
their paleolithic cause to benefit.
Besides breaking his "no more wars" campaign promises, Trump has not built a wall, jailed
Hillary, capped the deficit, re-instated Glass-Steagall, overturned Obamacare, controlled the
cost of prescription drugs, de-funded Planned Parenthood,
nor pushed legislation for the infrastructure of the country. The potential "peace president"
in 2016 is nothing more than another "perpetual war president".
Sanders never "stole" anything, Buchanan. What you're (slowly, dimly) realizing is that your
boy Trump never cared a speck for a more sane, less bellicose U.S. foreign policy.
I will never understand why Trump cultists ever believed he did. A clown who's big
complaint about the Iraq war is that "we didn't take the oil" is an unlikely peace advocate.
But to be a member of the Trump cult you have to engage in massive psychological projection,
daily.
Of course in Buchanan's case there's another excuse: He's been so dazzled by Trump's
relentless bigotry that everything else, every lie, every cheat, is simply a second- or
third-tier concern, something to explain away. How many pathetic exercises in blame-shifting
has The American Con published under Buchanan's byline since 2016? And all signs are that
they'll keep right on with it until the happy day when Trump is finally gone.
"People get into a lot of conversations about political strategies I might get in trouble for saying this, but what does
it matter if we beat Donald Trump, if we end up with someone who will perpetuate the very same crony capitalist policies, corporate
policies, and waging more of these costly wars?"
And just to drive home this point, quote:
"This is not a joke. This is not about me. This about all of us. This is about our future. About making sure we have
one."
Tulsi did get in to trouble. A day after the video posted on Twitter, it had been deleted by Twitter without explanation
Mark Dierking , April 18, 2019 at 15:53
Thanks to you any everyone that has responded for the thoughtful comments. If you are able to edit yours, a more accessible
link for the Safari browser is:
"People get into a lot of conversations about political strategies I might get in trouble
for saying this, but what does it matter if we beat Donald Trump, if we end up with someone
who will perpetuate the very same crony capitalist policies, corporate policies, and waging
more of these costly wars?"
And just to drive home this point, quote:
"This is not a joke. This is not about me. This about all of us. This is about our future.
About making sure we have one."
Tulsi did get in to trouble. A day after the video posted on Twitter, it had been deleted
by Twitter without explanation
The version with the white board is hard to find. All the msm versions cut the white board out because a picture is worth a
thousand words, and they didn't want Dimon to look as stupid as he did.
Hell, I can come up with a way to fix the problem. Raise the pay of his employees. See? Easy Peasy. But then his salary would
go down by a couple million. Just how many millions people need to live on? Bezos will never come close to spending his over $150
billion. At the start of Trump's presidency Bezos was only worth $100 billion. I'd sure love to know what it is now.
@Centaurea what
Porter is asking him about. He has never had a face to face with a renter. (Not renters of a Swiss chalet, etc...)He has had no
personal relationship with anybody who buys food and clothing only when it goes on sale. He has never shopped at any store, other
than some designer clothing store, although he likely always had tailors come to his home.
He doesn't talk to taxi drivers. He goes in limos.
He is as far from the existence of the 99%ers as an astronaut born and raised on the moon, a Duke of Earl behind a wall, travelling
in a gilded carriage.
I call him ignorant. He has absolutely to knowledge, no education, no exposure to us.
Every day he makes decisions that affect all of us. Yet he has no desire to recognize and understand the consequences of his
actions on his fellow human beings.
His ignorance is willful, and he no doubt believes it's justified. He's proud of himself.
That takes him beyond mere ignorance into sociopathy.
Aye, but considering how fat his own salary is and those at the top who have given themselves so much of the payroll pie over
the decades, as they cut back on the workers wh0o help them get their fatty paychecks,,,Makes me think they are greedy and stupid.
I think we all need a raise but I also think there is a real housing crisis. Rent is too high for our wages because rental
supply is too low. So how do we get more rental buildings? I know Chicago back in the 1950s worked with developers increasing
density by razing smaller dwellings and building the four-plus-one apartments. NYC in the 1920s and 30s had a big (huge) density
push in Brooklyn and the dense development of farmland in The Bronx. Why can't we do something like that today? I don't know.
I would say link that up with the infrastructure rebuild everyone is talking about on the Left. Cities hooking up with banks and
developers to get it done.
@p cook@p cook
So,
here's a story about Steven Schwarzman, CEO of Blackstone, acknowledging the existence of a broad "income insufficiency" problem,
and advocating among other things a much higher minimum wage.
Schwarzman's plan would eliminate taxes for teachers, introduce a higher minimum wage and more technical training for people
who don't go to college.
What Schwarzman did not mention is that the company he runs
was singled
out by a UN report for actively making housing less affordable. During the economic collapse Blackstone slurped up enormous
holdings at bargain-basement prices from banks and liquidators who did what they always do when liquidating during a market crisis:
Package up the assets into large blocs that cannot be purchased by individuals, and auction them off to their pals, while letting
the government eat the banks' losses. Schwarzman big concern is not that folks can't afford to pay rent -- it's that they can't
afford to pay the rent that Blackstone wants to collect on properties it acquired for dimes on the dollar.
I haven't seen the numbers, but I'd guess that this particular event -- the foreclosure and subsequent fire-sale of those owner-occupied
homes, transforming them into rental stock owned by a very small number of Blackstone equity holders -- was one of the largest
transfers of wealth in the history of history, ranking up there with Henry VIII seizing church assets, the Bolsheviks seizing
aristocratic assets, the Russian oligarchs grabbing the people's assets, and the Europeans grabbing the Americas and Africa.
more Katie Porter and AOC types. Smart, to the point, no nonsense, hold their feet to the fire reps.
First time I've heard of KP -- apparently she reps part of Orange County, formerly all GOP. Doubly good.
My other takeaway is that this isn't such a great argument for concentrating too much on raising the minimum wage to a supposed
"living wage" as the wages cited left that hypothetical person still in the red. But it might be a good argument for Andrew Yang's
Freedom Dividend -- everyone over 18 gets $1,000/mo. Would take care of much of the high rent issue too.
Trump betrayed anti-war republicans. As the result he lost any support of anti-war
Republicans. That can't be revered as he proved to be a marionette of Israel lobby. How that will
influence outcome of 2020 elections remains to be seen.
"The president has said that he does not want to see this country involved in endless wars .
I agree with that," Bernie Sanders told the Fox News audience at Monday's town hall meeting in
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
Then, turning and staring straight into the camera, Bernie added: "Mister President, tonight
you have the opportunity to do something extraordinary: sign that resolution. Saudi Arabia
should not be determining the military or foreign policy of this country."
Sanders was talking about a War Powers Act resolution that would have ended U.S. involvement
in the five-year civil war in Yemen that has created one of the great humanitarian crises of
our time, with thousands of dead children amidst an epidemic of cholera and a famine.
Supported by a united Democratic Party on the Hill, and an anti-interventionist faction of
the GOP led by Senators Rand Paul and Mike Lee of Utah, the War Powers resolution had passed
both houses of Congress.
But 24 hours after Sanders urged him to sign it, Trump, heeding the hawks in his Cabinet and
National Security Council, vetoed S.J.Res.7, calling it a "dangerous attempt to weaken my
constitutional authorities."
With sufficient Republican votes in both houses to sustain Trump's veto, that should have
been the end of the matter.
It is not: Trump may have just ceded the peace issue in 2020 to the Democrats. If Sanders
emerges as the nominee, we will have an election with a Democrat running on the "no-more-wars"
theme Trump touted in 2016. And Trump will be left defending the bombing of Yemeni rebels and
civilians by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia.
Does Trump really want to go into 2020 as a war party president? Does he want to go into
2020 with Democrats denouncing "Trump's endless wars" in the Middle East? Because that is where
he is headed.
In 2008, John McCain, leading hawk in the Senate, was routed by a left-wing first-term
senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, who had won his nomination by defeating the more hawkish
Hillary Clinton, who had voted to authorize the war in Iraq.
In 2012, the Republican nominee Mitt Romney, who was far more hawkish than Obama on Russia,
lost.
Yet in 2016, Trump ran as a different kind of Republican, an opponent of the Iraq war and
an anti-interventionist who wanted to get along with Russia's Vladimir Putin and get out of
these Middle East wars.
Looking closely at the front-running candidates for the Democratic nomination of 2020 -- Joe
Biden, Sanders, Kamala Harris, Beto O'Rourke, Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker --
not one appears to be as hawkish as Trump has become.
Trump pulled us out of the nuclear deal with Iran negotiated by Secretary of State John
Kerry and re-imposed severe sanctions.
He declared Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization, to which
Tehran has responded by declaring U.S. Central Command a terrorist organization. Ominously, the
IRGC and its trained Shiite militias in Iraq are in close proximity to U.S. troops.
Trump has recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital, moved the U.S. embassy there, closed the
consulate that dealt with Palestinian affairs, cut off aid to the Palestinians, recognized
Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights seized from Syria in 1967, and gone silent on Bibi
Netanyahu's threat to annex Jewish settlements on the West Bank.
Sanders, however, though he stands by Israel, is supporting a two-state solution and
castigating the "right-wing" Netanyahu regime.
Trump has talked of pulling all U.S. troops out of Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Yet the
troops are still there.
Though Trump came into office promising to get along with the Russians, he sent Javelin
anti-tank missiles to Ukraine and announced a pullout from Ronald Reagan's 1987 INF treaty that
outlawed all land-based intermediate-range nuclear missiles.
When Putin provocatively sent 100 Russian troops to Venezuela -- ostensibly to repair the
S-400 anti-aircraft and anti-missile system that was damaged in recent blackouts -- Trump,
drawing a red line, ordered the Russians to "get out."
Biden is expected to announce next week. If the stands he takes on Russia, China, Israel,
and the Middle East are more hawkish than the rest of the field, he will be challenged by the
left wing of his party and by Sanders, who voted "no" on the Iraq war that Biden supported.
The center of gravity of U.S. politics is shifting towards the Trump position of 2016. And
the anti-interventionist wing of the GOP is growing.
And when added to the anti-interventionist and anti-war wing of the Democratic Party on the
Hill, together, they are able, as on the Yemen War Powers resolution, to produce a new
bipartisan majority.
Prediction: by the primaries of 2020, foreign policy will be front and center, and the
Democratic Party will have captured the "no more wars" political high ground that candidate
Donald Trump occupied in 2016.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made
and Broke a President and Divided America Forever. To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and
read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at
www.creators.com.
I'm not quite sure why I loathe Assange. I've never actually met the man. I just have this
weird, amorphous feeling that he's a horrible, disgusting, extremist person who is working for
the Russians and is probably a Nazi. It feels kind of like that feeling I had, back in the
Winter of 2003, that Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons, which he was going to give to those Al
Qaeda terrorists who were bayonetting little babies in their incubators, or the feeling I still
have, despite all evidence to the contrary, that Trump is a Russian intelligence asset who peed
on Barack Obama's bed, and who is going to set fire to the Capitol building, declare himself
American Hitler, and start rounding up and murdering the Jews.
I don't know where these feelings come from. If you challenged me, I probably couldn't
really support them with any, like, actual facts or anything, at least not in any kind of
rational way. Being an introspective sort of person, I do sometimes wonder if maybe my feelings
are the result of all the propaganda and relentless psychological and emotional conditioning
that the ruling classes and the corporate media have subjected me to since the day I was born,
and that influential people in my social circle have repeated, over and over again, in such a
manner as to make it clear that contradicting their views would be extremely unwelcome, and
might negatively impact my social status, and my prospects for professional advancement.
Take my loathing of Assange, for example. I feel like I can't even write a column condemning
his arrest and extradition without gratuitously mocking or insulting the man. When I try to, I
feel this sudden fear of being denounced as a "Trump-loving Putin-Nazi," and a
"Kremlin-sponsored rape apologist," and unfriended by all my Facebook friends. Worse, I get
this sickening feeling that unless I qualify my unqualified support for freedom of press, and
transparency, and so on, with some sort of vicious, vindictive remark about the state of
Assange's body odor, and how he's probably got cooties, or has pooped his pants, or some other
childish and sadistic taunt, I can kiss any chance I might have had of getting published in a
respectable publication goodbye.
But I'm probably just being paranoid, right? Distinguished, highbrow newspapers and
magazines like
The Atlantic ,
The Guardian ,
The Washington Post , The
New York Times , Vox ,
Vice ,
Daily Mail , and others of that caliber, are not just propaganda organs whose primary
purpose is to reinforce the official narratives of the ruling classes. No, they publish a broad
range of opposing views. The Guardian, for example, just got Owen Jones to write
a full-throated defense of Assange on that grounds that he's probably a Nazi rapist who
should be locked up in a Swedish prison, not in an American prison! The Guardian,
remember, is the same publication that printed
a completely fabricated story accusing Assange of secretly meeting with Paul Manafort and
some alleged "Russians," among a deluge of other such Russiagate nonsense, and that has been
demonizing Jeremy
Corbyn as an anti-Semite for several years.
Plus, according to NPR's Bob Garfield (who is
lustfully "looking forward to Assange's day in court"), and other liberal lexicologists, Julian
Assange is not even a real journalist, so we have no choice but to mock and humiliate him, and
accuse him of rape and espionage oh, and speaking of which, did you hear the one about how
his
cat was spying on the Ecuadorean diplomats ?
But seriously now, all joking aside, it's always instructive (if a bit sickening) to watch
as the mandarins of the corporate media disseminate an official narrative and millions of
people robotically repeat it as if it were their own opinions. This process is particularly
nauseating to watch when the narrative involves the stigmatization, delegitimization, and
humiliation of an official enemy of the ruling classes. Typically, this enemy is a foreign
enemy, like Saddam, Gaddafi, Assad, Milošević, Osama bin Laden, Putin, or whoever.
But sometimes the enemy is one of "us" a traitor, a Judas, a quisling, a snitch, like Trump,
Corbyn, or Julian Assange.
Logic, facts, and actual evidence have little to nothing to do with this process. The goal
of the media and other propagandists is not to deceive or mislead the masses. Their goal is to
evoke the pent-up rage and hatred simmering within the masses and channel it toward the
official enemy. It is not necessary for the demonization of the official enemy to be remotely
believable, or stand up to any kind of serious scrutiny. No one sincerely believes that Donald
Trump is a Russian Intelligence asset, or that Jeremy Corbyn is an anti-Semite, or that Julian
Assange has been arrested for jumping bail, or raping anyone, or for helping Chelsea Manning
"hack" a password.
The demonization of the empire's enemies is not a deception it is a loyalty test. It is a
ritual in which the masses (who, let's face it, are de facto slaves) are ordered to display
their fealty to their masters, and their hatred of their masters' enemies....
... ... ...
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist
based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play
Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant Paperbacks. He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .
I'm not quite sure why I loathe Assange. I've never actually met the man. I just have this
weird, amorphous feeling that he's a horrible, disgusting, extremist person who is working for
the Russians and is probably a Nazi. It feels kind of like that feeling I had, back in the
Winter of 2003, that Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons, which he was going to give to those Al
Qaeda terrorists who were bayonetting little babies in their incubators, or the feeling I still
have, despite all evidence to the contrary, that Trump is a Russian intelligence asset who peed
on Barack Obama's bed, and who is going to set fire to the Capitol building, declare himself
American Hitler, and start rounding up and murdering the Jews.
I don't know where these feelings come from. If you challenged me, I probably couldn't
really support them with any, like, actual facts or anything, at least not in any kind of
rational way. Being an introspective sort of person, I do sometimes wonder if maybe my feelings
are the result of all the propaganda and relentless psychological and emotional conditioning
that the ruling classes and the corporate media have subjected me to since the day I was born,
and that influential people in my social circle have repeated, over and over again, in such a
manner as to make it clear that contradicting their views would be extremely unwelcome, and
might negatively impact my social status, and my prospects for professional advancement.
Take my loathing of Assange, for example. I feel like I can't even write a column condemning
his arrest and extradition without gratuitously mocking or insulting the man. When I try to, I
feel this sudden fear of being denounced as a "Trump-loving Putin-Nazi," and a
"Kremlin-sponsored rape apologist," and unfriended by all my Facebook friends. Worse, I get
this sickening feeling that unless I qualify my unqualified support for freedom of press, and
transparency, and so on, with some sort of vicious, vindictive remark about the state of
Assange's body odor, and how he's probably got cooties, or has pooped his pants, or some other
childish and sadistic taunt, I can kiss any chance I might have had of getting published in a
respectable publication goodbye.
But I'm probably just being paranoid, right? Distinguished, highbrow newspapers and
magazines like
The Atlantic ,
The Guardian ,
The Washington Post , The
New York Times , Vox ,
Vice ,
Daily Mail , and others of that caliber, are not just propaganda organs whose primary
purpose is to reinforce the official narratives of the ruling classes. No, they publish a broad
range of opposing views. The Guardian, for example, just got Owen Jones to write
a full-throated defense of Assange on that grounds that he's probably a Nazi rapist who
should be locked up in a Swedish prison, not in an American prison! The Guardian,
remember, is the same publication that printed
a completely fabricated story accusing Assange of secretly meeting with Paul Manafort and
some alleged "Russians," among a deluge of other such Russiagate nonsense, and that has been
demonizing Jeremy
Corbyn as an anti-Semite for several years.
Plus, according to NPR's Bob Garfield (who is
lustfully "looking forward to Assange's day in court"), and other liberal lexicologists, Julian
Assange is not even a real journalist, so we have no choice but to mock and humiliate him, and
accuse him of rape and espionage oh, and speaking of which, did you hear the one about how
his
cat was spying on the Ecuadorean diplomats ?
But seriously now, all joking aside, it's always instructive (if a bit sickening) to watch
as the mandarins of the corporate media disseminate an official narrative and millions of
people robotically repeat it as if it were their own opinions. This process is particularly
nauseating to watch when the narrative involves the stigmatization, delegitimization, and
humiliation of an official enemy of the ruling classes. Typically, this enemy is a foreign
enemy, like Saddam, Gaddafi, Assad, Milošević, Osama bin Laden, Putin, or whoever.
But sometimes the enemy is one of "us" a traitor, a Judas, a quisling, a snitch, like Trump,
Corbyn, or Julian Assange.
Logic, facts, and actual evidence have little to nothing to do with this process. The goal
of the media and other propagandists is not to deceive or mislead the masses. Their goal is to
evoke the pent-up rage and hatred simmering within the masses and channel it toward the
official enemy. It is not necessary for the demonization of the official enemy to be remotely
believable, or stand up to any kind of serious scrutiny. No one sincerely believes that Donald
Trump is a Russian Intelligence asset, or that Jeremy Corbyn is an anti-Semite, or that Julian
Assange has been arrested for jumping bail, or raping anyone, or for helping Chelsea Manning
"hack" a password.
The demonization of the empire's enemies is not a deception it is a loyalty test. It is a
ritual in which the masses (who, let's face it, are de facto slaves) are ordered to display
their fealty to their masters, and their hatred of their masters' enemies....
... ... ...
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist
based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play
Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant Paperbacks. He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .
Way to brave predictions, I think... I think he grossly underestimates
durability of neoliberal state like the USA. May be in 20 years the USA will really start
experiencing huge problems like he described due to the end of cheap oil". But before that only
huge exogenous shock can crash such a society.
Notable quotes:
"... It will be interesting to see how public and government workers, as a group, react to the realization that the retirements they have been promised no longer exist; perhaps that will tip the entire system into a defunct state. ..."
"... And so, Trump or no Trump, we are going to have more of the same: shiny young IT specialists skipping and whistling on the way to work past piles of human near-corpses and their excrement; Botoxed housewives shopping for fake organic produce while hungry people in the back of the store are digging around in dumpsters ..."
"... well-to-do older couples dreaming of bugging out to some tropical gringo compound in a mangrove swamp where they would be chopped up with machetes and fed to the fish; and all of them believing that things are great because the stock market is doing so well. ..."
"... But he simply does not understand the USA. He’s been predicting collapse for some time and it has not occurred or come close to happening. Washington is filled with smart kleptocrats who understand they cannot afford to destroy the country that keeps on giving them the wealth and power they crave. Trump, can flounce around Washington and the rest of the country and do and say outrageous things and it has no effect on life whatsoever. ..."
"... While, on the surface, people support ideas like higher minimum wage, universal health-care and other aspects of social democracy, it their masters say “no” then they’ll forgo it and take pride in their ability to endure suffering, early death, their children on heroin or meth, and so on. ..."
"... Since I’m fairly “connected” to the lower/working class and its struggles in my part of the world I can assure you people almost enjoy suffering to a degree that foreigners easily miss and seldom ascribe it to the thieves and criminals who run our society. ..."
"... Will there be a civil war in the US, like in the 1861-1865 period ? No, I don’t think so. Will there be severe social disturbances ? Yes, these I do expect, leading to the break up of the US. The only part of the US which probably will emerge as a cohesive force will be the old South, Dixie land, which has history and tradition behind it. The US has been kicking the financial can down the road for a long time. This cannot last for ever. ..."
"... with people like Siluanov and Nabiullina in charge of the nation’s money, I am not optimistic… ..."
"... The acceleration of economic collapse in the West will be likely bring (overt) fascism and war–world war. ..."
"... In particular, the AngloNazi sorry Anglosphere nations (Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and of course America) are a clear and present threat that should not be underestimated, discounted, or spin-doctored away. ..."
"... But the Anglos studiously avoid facing the reality that their precious way of life, capitalist system, and Anglo-American world order itself are premised upon their own ruthless exploitation of the Global South and developing nations in general. ..."
"... Trump and the MAGA hordes, as well as similar xenophobic and nationalist movements throughout the Anglosphere and Europe, are only a precursor to what is coming. They represent the grievances of the lower-middle classes within the Anglo American Empire and Europe who want a greater cut of the economic loot of empire for themselves–which necessitates an even more aggressive and militaristic grab for global resources, markets, and geopolitical power. ..."
"... He’s way too negative on the USA’s domestic prospects. Despite its absurdities, the US system is fundamentally robust and unlikely to suffer any major, sudden collapse, at least for many decades. It will certain decline further, plumbing the depths of depravity more than it has to date, but the system will chug along. The US has vacuumed up talent from all over the world, bolstering it’s economic capacity and the rents extracted by oligo. It’s day to day institutions, such as courts, post offices and the like function better now than they did in the 80s or 90s. ..."
"... All the incentives are there to keep the thing together, with little real risk of some sort of succession movement or serious insurrection. The main advantages the US has on this score are it’s mass surveillance system, policing infrastructure and media. The US media can make the great bulk of the people believe absolutely anything, if given enough time. ..."
The Saker: You recently wrote an article titled " Is the USS
Ship of Fools Taking on Water? " in which you discuss the high level of stupidity in
modern US politics? I have a simple question for you: do you think the Empire can survive Trump
and, if so, for how long?
Dmitry Orlov: I think that the American empire is very much over already, but it hasn't been
put to any sort of serious stress test yet, and so nobody realizes that this is the case. Some
event will come along which will leave the power center utterly humiliated and unable to
countenance this humiliation and make adjustments. Things will go downhill from there as
everyone in government in media does their best to pretend that the problem doesn't exist. My
hope is that the US military personnel currently scattered throughout the planet will not be
simply abandoned once the money runs out, but I wouldn't be too surprised if that is what
happens.
The Saker: Lastly, a similar but fundamentally different question: can the USA (as
opposed to the Empire) survive Trump and, if so, how? Will there be a civil war? A military
coup? Insurrection? Strikes? A US version of the Yellow Vests?
Dmitry Orlov: The USA, as some set of institutions that serves the interests of some
dwindling number of people, is likely to continue functioning for quite some time. The question
is: who is going to be included and who isn't? There is little doubt that retirees, as a
category, have nothing to look forward to from the USA: their retirements, whether public or
private, have already been spent. There is little doubt that young people, who have already
been bled dry by poor job prospects and ridiculous student loans, have nothing to look forward
to either.
But, as I've said before, the USA isn't so much a country as a country club. Membership has
its privileges, and members don't care at all what life is like for those who are in the
country but aren't members of the club. The recent initiatives to let everyone in and to let
non-citizens vote amply demonstrates that US citizenship, by itself, counts for absolutely
nothing. The only birthright of a US citizen is to live as a bum on the street, surrounded by
other bums, many of them foreigners from what Trump has termed "shithole countries."
It
will be interesting to see how public and government workers, as a group, react to the
realization that the retirements they have been promised no longer exist; perhaps that will tip
the entire system into a defunct state.
And once the fracking bubble is over and another third of the population finds that it can
no longer afford to drive, that might force through some sort of reset as well. But then the
entire system of militarized police is designed to crush any sort of rebellion, and most people
know that. Given the choice between certain death and just sitting on the sidewalk doing drugs,
most people will choose the latter.
And so, Trump or no Trump, we are going to have more of the same: shiny young IT specialists
skipping and whistling on the way to work past piles of human near-corpses and their excrement;
Botoxed housewives shopping for fake organic produce while hungry people in the back of the
store are digging around in dumpsters; concerned citizens demanding that migrants be allowed
in, then calling the cops as soon as these migrants set up tents on their front lawn or ring
their doorbell and ask to use the bathroom; well-to-do older couples dreaming of bugging out to
some tropical gringo compound in a mangrove swamp where they would be chopped up with machetes
and fed to the fish; and all of them believing that things are great because the stock market
is doing so well.
At this rate, when the end of the USA finally arrives, most of the people won't be in a
position to notice while the rest won't be capable of absorbing that sort of upsetting
information and will choose to ignore it. Everybody wants to know how the story ends, but that
sort of information probably isn't good for anyone's sanity. The mental climate in the US is
already sick enough; why should we want to make it even sicker?
I love Orlov’s wit and general cynical attitude as it mirrors mine (perhaps not the
wit). I think he seems to understand the Ukraine and Russia relatively well though I’m
not in a position to question him on that but I do know something about the politics of
NATO/EU/USA and their intentions and that Orlov gets.
But he simply does not understand the USA. He’s been predicting collapse for some
time and it has not occurred or come close to happening. Washington is filled with smart
kleptocrats who understand they cannot afford to destroy the country that keeps on giving
them the wealth and power they crave. Trump, can flounce around Washington and the rest of
the country and do and say outrageous things and it has no effect on life whatsoever.
If
anything the economy actually is “better” not as good as the cooked statistics
indicate but things have improved for people I know in that area. Americans, despite the
obvious propaganda nature of the media still are true-believers in the official Narrative
because meaning and myth always trumps reality.
While, on the surface, people support ideas
like higher minimum wage, universal health-care and other aspects of social democracy, it
their masters say “no” then they’ll forgo it and take pride in their
ability to endure suffering, early death, their children on heroin or meth, and so on.
Since
I’m fairly “connected” to the lower/working class and its struggles in my
part of the world I can assure you people almost enjoy suffering to a degree that foreigners
easily miss and seldom ascribe it to the thieves and criminals who run our society. Americans
strut around but feel powerless and don’t have a plan or think they can have a plan
because they lack the conceptual frameworks to understand that their leadership is thoroughly
rotten.
Having said that, I agree with Auslander, Americans don’t need the central
government and would do better, initially, in a highly chaotic situation and establish their
own order in their communities and rig up a new set of arrangements very quickly.
In some
ways the fall of Washington would be the best thing to ever happen in my country.
I am afraid you are wrong. Orlov does understand the US, just like I do, as I have lived
in the US. Yes, Orlov has been predicting the collapse of the US, and it will happen. I would
like to direct your attention to the following video (the second part is very
interesting):
Will there be a civil war in the US, like in the 1861-1865 period ? No, I don’t
think so. Will there be severe social disturbances ? Yes, these I do expect, leading to the
break up of the US. The only part of the US which probably will emerge as a cohesive force
will be the old South, Dixie land, which has history and tradition behind it. The US has been
kicking the financial can down the road for a long time. This cannot last for ever.
“The only part of the US which probably will emerge as a cohesive force will be the old
South, Dixie land, which has history and tradition behind it. ”
Maybe, but actually I would say most regions of the USA have some kind of “old
tradition” —and a lot nicer ones than that of the old racist South. I’ll
take New England and the Maritimes any day over the steamy South where the kudzu creeps over
I mean *everything*, the snakes proliferate, and you can’t survive the summer without
AC 24/7.
Well…I just started in on this piece and already I have a major
beef…Orlov’s notion that the dissolution of the Soviet Union was good for
Russia…
China was [and arguably still is] an empire of diverse regions, ethnicities and
religions…but how is that holding China back today, or during previous centuries of
imperial glory…?
Clearly China doesn’t fit into Orlov’s idea of an empire as a ‘wealth
pump’ that sucks from the periphery to enrich the center…this is true of course
of exploitation-based imperial projects such as western colonialism…but is clearly not
applicable to the Chinese model, which has been both the biggest and most durable empire in
human history…so that is a big hole in Orlov’s ‘theory’…
It is true that the USSR was a fundamentally different kind of empire from the
exploitative western colonialism…and it is also true that it ultimately did not
succeed…although it managed to accomplish almost incomprehensible progress in
modernization, science and technology…and industrialization…the foundations of
Russian strength today rest squarely on the foundations put in place during the Stalin
era…
Elsewhere on this site there is a brilliant series of essays by Ramin Mazaheri about the
tumultuous cultural revolution of the 1960s…and why it was necessary…Russia
also needed a cultural revolution around this time…the system needed to be rejigged to
better serve the people…in living standard…fairness and
justice…opportunity for social advance…etc…
But it never happened…instead the system became more sclerotic than ever…and
the welfare of the people stagnated…at the very moment in time when the capitalist
west, especially the United States, was able to reign in the appetites of its parasite class
and provide the people with a decent share of its [largely ill-gotten, by means of global
finance colonialism] gains…[during the postwar decades, the share of national wealth
of the 0.1 percent fell to an all time low of about 7 percent…about a quarter of
historic, and current levels]…
This was the golden age in the US…well paying jobs in industry were plentiful and
the company president made perhaps ten times what the shop floor worker took home…a
second household income was completely unnecessary…university education at state
colleges was practically free…
The life of the Soviet citizen in the1960s was not too far behind…Stalin’s
five year plans in the1930s had created an industrial powerhouse…it was Russia’s
ability to produce that allowed it to prevail over Germany in the existential war…and
despite the devastation of the people, cities and countryside Russia was able to quickly
become a technological superpower…as an aerospace engineer I have a deep appreciation
of the depth and breadth of Russian technical achievements and the basic scientific advances
that made that possible…the US was laughably left in the dust, despite having skimmed
the cream of Nazi Germany’s technical scientific talent…and contrary to what US
propaganda would have the people believe…
... ... ...
Of course the massive Chinese empire has been adapting like this for centuries, if not
millennia…Russia with the Soviet Union only needed to make similar smart
adjustments…instead they threw out the baby with the bathwater…let’s see
where Russia goes from here, but with people like Siluanov and Nabiullina in charge of the
nation’s money, I am not optimistic…
But back to Orlov…let’s see where he goes after starting off very clumsily.
.
The acceleration of economic collapse in the West will be likely bring (overt) fascism and
war–world war.
In particular, the AngloNazi sorry Anglosphere nations (Britain, Canada, Australia, New
Zealand, and of course America) are a clear and present threat that should not be
underestimated, discounted, or spin-doctored away.
As collapse intensifies, these Anglo American entities led by the USA will surely lash out
in even more aggressive wars to maintain their unipolar world order that they have ruled over
since the fall of the Soviet Union. The use of tactical nuclear weapons, bio-warfare, and
other "exotic" weapons should not be ruled out.
At base, the Anglo Americans possess an inbred sense of economic entitlement. They whine
like snowflakes about the foreign outsourcing of jobs or "illegal immigrants stealing our
jobs" as a chauvinistic demand for a greater share of the economic spoils of imperialism.
But the Anglos studiously avoid facing the reality that their precious way of life,
capitalist system, and Anglo-American world order itself are premised upon their own ruthless exploitation of the Global
South and developing nations in general.
And God forbid that the Anglos lose their parasitic way of life and (horror) are compelled
to live like the vast majority of humanity in the developing world from Africa to Asia to
Latin America to the Middle East.
The disaffected middle classes and labor aristocracy of the Anglosphere will comprise the
grassroots basis for 21st-century fascism, similar to how these socio-economic classes were
the grassroots support for the German Third Reich or Mussolini's Italy in the 1930s-40s.
Trump and the MAGA hordes, as well as similar xenophobic and nationalist movements
throughout the Anglosphere and Europe, are only a precursor to what is coming. They represent
the grievances of the lower-middle classes within the Anglo American Empire and Europe who
want a greater cut of the economic loot of empire for themselves–which necessitates an
even more aggressive and militaristic grab for global resources, markets, and geopolitical
power.
As Martin Lee has put it, the Beast reawakens.
Boswald Bollocksworth on April 17, 2019 · at 9:37 pm EST/EDT
He’s way too negative on the USA’s domestic prospects. Despite its absurdities, the US system is fundamentally robust
and unlikely to suffer any major, sudden collapse, at least for many decades. It will certain decline further, plumbing the
depths of depravity more than it has to date, but the system will chug along. The US has vacuumed up talent from all over the
world, bolstering it’s economic capacity and the rents extracted by oligo. It’s day to day institutions, such as courts, post
offices and the like function better now than they did in the 80s or 90s.
All the incentives are there to keep the thing together, with little real risk of some sort of succession movement or
serious insurrection. The main advantages the US has on this score are it’s mass surveillance system, policing infrastructure
and media. The US media can make the great bulk of the people believe absolutely anything, if given enough time.
The US capacity to meddle overseas will wither, after all how well can a submarine filled with drag queens and single
mothers operate? And who’d be willing to endure shelling for a monstrosity like contemporary America?
But the domestic system is brilliantly designed, not going anywhere.
"... That fact is a very sad and disturbing commentary on what America is or has become. Tolerating torture and excusing such an activity in the name of national security is the same justification that Stalin and Castro employed to punish dissidents. ..."
"... Let me be clear about my position. If Gina was in fact the Chief of Base and oversaw the application of the waterboarding and other inhuman treatment then she lacks the moral authority to head the CIA. Unfortunately, the United States has a long history of overlooking human rights violations and war crimes. ..."
"... Students of WW II will recall that US military intelligence recruited and protect Klaus Barbie, the Butcher of Lyon, as an asset after the war. He murdered Jews and sent others to Auschwitz. He should have been hung. Instead, we turned a blind eye and gave him a paycheck. ..."
"... I've read that she enjoyed torture and mocked a prisoner who was drooling by accused him of faking it. I never knew anything about her sexual orientation but now I have to consider if she's so cruel because she hates men. ..."
"... Yes, waterboarding is torture. We considered it so egregious that we prosecuted Japanese military officers after WWII for using it on POWs. ..."
"... just reinforces the feeling that those at the upper echelons are completely out of touch or alternatively are just lying/posturing to present themselves in a better light. ..."
"... A torturer is a torturer, no matter how one try to glaze it, or sugar coat it. If one is against torture, or the fancy name for it EIT, one should come out and say it like it is. This lady is accused of torturing captives ( enemy combatant) that can't and will not go away unless she come clean. ..."
Before Gina became the Chief of Staff for Rodriguez, what role did she play in the waterboarding of two AQ operatives in Thailand?
It appears that she was at least witting of what was going on. Did she have the authority to decide what measures to apply to the
two? Did she make such decisions?
Those are facts still to be determined. I am inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt. But there are others who I respect
that are adamant in opposing her nomination. The only thing I know for sure is that her nomination will be a bloody and divisive
political battle. If it comes down to embracing waterboarding as an appropriate method to use on suspected terrorists, then a majority
of Americans are supportive of that practice and will cheer the appointment of Haspel.
That fact is a very sad and disturbing commentary
on what America is or has become. Tolerating torture and excusing such an activity in the name of national security is the same justification
that Stalin and Castro employed to punish dissidents. It is true that one man's terrorist is another woman's freedom fighter.
Let me be clear about my position. If Gina was in fact the Chief of Base and oversaw the application of the waterboarding
and other inhuman treatment then she lacks the moral authority to head the CIA. Unfortunately, the United States has a long history
of overlooking human rights violations and war crimes.
Students of WW II will recall that US military intelligence recruited and protect Klaus Barbie, the Butcher of Lyon,
as an asset after the war. He murdered Jews and sent others to Auschwitz. He should have been hung. Instead, we turned a blind eye
and gave him a paycheck.
I've read that she enjoyed torture and mocked a prisoner who was drooling by accused him of faking it. I never knew anything about her sexual orientation but now I have to consider if she's so cruel because she hates men.
IIRC, Haspel was the chief of staff to whom Rodriguez refers. That does not sound like a bit player. Would you say that Kelly
is a bit player in the Trump admin? As you say, we should know the facts, but so far it looks like she both participated in torture
and in its cover-up.
With all the crap going on at the FBI, the last thing we need now is a divisive candidate for any top level government position
(torture advocacy is divisive for many of us).
A woman, a lesbian, who cares as long as they are a capable and decent law-abiding
individual.
Yes, waterboarding is torture. We considered it so egregious that we prosecuted Japanese military officers after WWII for using
it on POWs.
And where do you get "admitted" terrorists from? In America, even with suspected terrorists, there is the principle
of innocent until proven guilty. At least we once believed in that standard.
And I very much respect you for your position on this (it is this American's view as well).
What amazes me (and yet doesn't) is the example of Rodriguez's supposed introspection "How bad could this be?" Really?!? That
just strikes me as not having any feel for the media, US citizenry, or even common sense, and just reinforces the feeling that
those at the upper echelons are completely out of touch or alternatively are just lying/posturing to present themselves in a better
light.
PT -- Thank you. Much to consider in these times. I come down on the "no torture and waterboarding is torture" side of the debate
but am also just eager for some competence and professional experience in key positions.
That these positions may be mutually
exclusive says a great deal about our current situation. Again, thank you, for your opinions and information.
A torturer is a torturer, no matter how one try to glaze it, or sugar coat it. If one is against torture, or the fancy name for
it EIT, one should come out and say it like it is. This lady is accused of torturing captives ( enemy combatant) that can't and
will not go away unless she come clean.
At the end of the day that don't matter, since as a policy, and base on your own statement,
this country's government will prosecut and punish for liking of torture but not torture and tortures. And, furthermore, is not
even willing to do away with it, per it's elected president. Trying to show a clean, moral, democracy on the hilltop image, is
a BS and a joke.
"... I was not in the least surprised at reports that a known torturer was slated to head the CIA, and I expected quick confirmation. Such is my opinion of our ruling classes. ..."
"... Whatever Haspel may be, we can be sure the CIA will continue to torture, detain people without charge, assassinate and terrorize with its own drone force, and cause mayhem around the world and at home. No one can be trusted with the Ring of Power. ..."
"... American Exceptionalism is perhaps the most toxic ideology since Nazism and Stalinism. It says that the United States is always virtuous even when it tortures, when it bombs towns, villages, cities in the name of "freedom or installs dictators, military governments, trains torturers, and, yes, rapes and loots in the name of "democracy." ..."
"... Fast forward to January, 2017 and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer telling MSNBC's Rachael Maddow that President-elect Donald Trump is "being really dumb" by criticizing the intelligence community and its assessments on Russia's cyber activities: Shumer: "Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you, So even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he's being really dumb to do this." No, Shumer wasn't joking. He was serious. ..."
"... There won't be a 'Nuremberg' tribunal because Al Qaida didn't defeat the United States, and you'd have to convict not just Ms. Haspel, but a sizeable portion of the U.S. Government. ..."
"... If nothing else, the appointment of Bloody Gina as CIA head finally drives a wooden stake through the heart of the myth that "we're The Good Guys(tm)!" or its cousin "all we gotta do is elect Team D and we can be The Good Guys(R) again!" ..."
"... I do not know whether to admire Mr. van Buren's idealism or be astonished at his naivete. Has he never heard of the School of the Americas, of sinister reputation, or the Condor Plan, aided and abetted by U.S. intelligence? People in Latin America know better than to believe the U.S. protestations of virtue. They know about torturers, and the U.S. support for them. ..."
"... She was put in charge there not long after and oversaw the waterboarding of at least one prisoner, and later followed orders to destroy the tapes of waterboarding at that site. Your claim that " She had nothing to do with torture anywhere" is incorrect. ..."
"... furbo: your contention that " US extreme interrogation techniques are not equivalent to forcible sodomy, beating the genitals, pounding the kidneys, or breaking bones" is wrong. The UN Convention against Torture, to which the US is a signatory, states " For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person " Ask anyone who has been waterboarded whether that fits the official definition? ..."
"... Ceterum censeo: given that the Iraq invasion and occupation was an act of aggressive war in violation of the UN Charter and thus illegal under US law, it is not just torturers but also war criminals in government and general staff that have to be considered in the contexts of these words. ..."
Nothing will say more about who we are, across three American administrations -- one that demanded torture, one that covered it
up, and one that seeks to promote its bloody participants -- than whether Gina Haspel becomes director of the CIA.
Haspel oversaw the
torture of human beings in Thailand as the chief of a CIA black site in 2002. Since then, she's worked her way up to deputy director
at the CIA. With current director Mike Pompeo slated to move to Foggy Bottom, President Donald Trump has proposed Haspel as the Agency's
new head.
Haspel's victims waiting for death in Guantanamo cannot speak to us, though they no doubt remember their own screams as they were
waterboarded. And we can still hear former CIA officer
John Kiriakousay : "We did
call her Bloody Gina. Gina was always very quick and very willing to use force. Gina and people like Gina did it, I think, because
they enjoyed doing it. They tortured just for the sake of torture, not for the sake of gathering information."
It was Kiriakou who exposed the obsessive debate over the effectiveness of torture as false. The real purpose of torture conducted
by those like Gina Haspel was to seek vengeance, humiliation, and power. We're just slapping you now, she would have said in that
Thai prison, but we control you, and who knows what will happen next, what we're capable of? The torture victim is left to imagine
what form the hurt will take and just how severe it will be, creating his own terror.
Haspel won't be asked at her confirmation hearing to explain how torture works, but those who were waterboarded under her stewardship
certainly could.
I met my first torture victim in Korea, where I was adjudicating visas for the State Department. Persons with serious criminal
records are ineligible to travel to the United States, with an exception for dissidents who have committed political crimes. The
man I spoke with said that under the U.S.-supported military dictatorship of Park Chung Hee he was tortured for writing anti-government
verse. He was taken to a small underground cell. Two men arrived and beat him repeatedly on his testicles and sodomized him with
one of the tools they had used for the beating. They asked no questions. They barely spoke to him at all.
Though the pain was beyond his ability to describe, he said the subsequent humiliation of being left so utterly helpless was what
really affected his life. It destroyed his marriage, sent him to the repeated empty comfort of alcohol, and kept him from ever putting
pen to paper again. The men who destroyed him, he told me, did their work, and then departed, as if they had others to visit and
needed to get on with things. He was released a few days later and driven back to his apartment by the police. A forward-looking
gesture.
The second torture victim I met was while I was stationed in Iraq. The prison that had held him was under the control of shadowy
U.S.-trained Iraqi security forces. Inside, masked men bound him at the wrists and ankles and hung him upside-down. He said they
neither asked him questions nor demanded information. They did whip his testicles with a leather strap, then beat the bottoms of
his feet and the area around his kidneys. They slapped him. They broke the bones in his right foot with a steel rod, a piece of rebar
ordinarily used to reinforce concrete.
It was painful, he told me, but he had felt pain before. What destroyed him was the feeling of utter helplessness, the inability
to control things around him as he once had. He showed me the caved-in portion of his foot, which still bore a rod-like indentation
with faint signs of metal grooves.
Gina Haspel is the same as those who were in the room with the Korean. She is no different than those who tormented the Iraqi.
As head of a black site, Haspel had sole authority to halt the questioning of suspects, but she allowed torture to continue.
New information
and a redaction of earlier reporting that said Haspel was present for the waterboarding and torture of Abu Zubaydah (she was
actually the station chief at the black site after those sessions) makes it less clear whether Haspel oversaw the torture
of all of the prisoners there, but pay it little mind. The confusion arises from the government's refusal to tell us what Haspel
actually did as a torturer. So many records have yet to be released and those that have been are heavily redacted. Then there are
the tapes of Zubaydah's waterboarding, which Haspel later pushed to have destroyed.
Arguing over just how much blood she has in her hands is a distraction from the fact that she indeed has blood on her hands.
Gina Haspel is now eligible for the CIA directorship because Barack Obama did not prosecute anyone for torture; he merely signed
an executive order banning it in the future. He did not hold any truth commissions, and ensured that almost all government documents
on the torture program remained classified. He did not prosecute the CIA officials who destroyed videotapes of the torture scenes.
Obama ignored the truth that sees former Nazis continue to be hunted some 70 years after the Holocaust: that those who do evil
on behalf of a government are individually responsible. "I was only following orders" is not a defense of inhuman acts. The purpose
of tracking down the guilty is to punish them, to discourage the next person from doing evil, and to morally immunize a nation-state.
To punish Gina Haspel "more than 15 years later for doing what her country asked her to do, and in response to what she was told
were lawful orders, would be a travesty and a disgrace,"
claims one of
her supporters. "Haspel did nothing more and nothing less than what the nation and the agency asked her to do, and she did it well,"
said Michael Hayden,
who headed the CIA during the height of the Iraq war from 2006-2009.
Influential people in Congress agree. Senator Richard Burr, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which will soon review
Haspel's nomination,
said , "I know Gina personally and she has the right skill set, experience, and judgment to lead one of our nation's most critical
agencies."
"She'll have to answer for that period of time, but I think she's a highly qualified person,"
offered Senator
Lindsey Graham. Democratic Senator Bill Nelson
defended Haspel's
actions, saying they were "the accepted practice of the day" and shouldn't disqualify her.
His fellow Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein, ranking member on the Intelligence Committee, signaled her likely acceptance,
saying , "Since my concerns were raised over the torture situation, I have met with her extensively, talked with her She has
been, I believe, a good deputy director." Senator Susan Collins
added that Haspel "certainly has the expertise and experience as a 30-year employee of the agency." John McCain, a victim of
torture during the Vietnam War,
mumbled only that Haspel would have to explain her role.
Nearly alone at present, Republican Senator Rand Paul says he will
oppose Haspel's nomination. Senators Ron Wyden and Martin Heinrich, both Democrats, have told Trump she is unsuitable and will
likely also vote no.
Following World War II, the United States could have easily executed those Nazis responsible for the Holocaust, or thrown them
into some forever jail on an island military base. It would have been hard to find anyone who wouldn't have supported brutally torturing
them at a black site. Instead, they were put on public trial at Nuremberg and made to defend their actions as the evidence against
them was laid bare. The point was to demonstrate that We were better than Them.
Today we refuse to understand what Haspel's victims, and the Korean writer, and the Iraqi insurgent, already know on our behalf:
unless Congress awakens to confront this nightmare and deny Gina Haspel's nomination as director of the CIA, torture will have transformed
us and so it will consume us. Gina Haspel is a torturer. We are torturers. It is as if Nuremberg never happened.
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of
We Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People andHooper's War : A Novel of WWII Japan. He tweets@WeMeantWell.
Covering up torture is quite possibly the worst thing Obama did. (I'd put it neck-and-neck with targeted killing.) This nation
desperately needs a president who will expose all of these horrors, and appoint an attorney general who will prosecute these acts
as war crimes.
Trump likes waterboarding. He said so himself. One assumes he meant, being a whimpering coward himself, when someone else does
it to someone else. But who knows? Enjoy judge Gorsuch.
"doing what her country asked her to do, and in response to what she was told were lawful orders"
To complete the parallel, we would need to prosecute and punish those who asked her to do it, and those who told her those
orders were lawful. Instead, some are doing paintings of their toes, some are promoted to be Federal judges, and some are influential
professors at "liberal" law schools. Why punish *only* her?
I was not in the least surprised at reports that a known torturer was slated to head the CIA, and I expected quick confirmation.
Such is my opinion of our ruling classes. I am in full support of Mr. Van Buren's thesis. However, Pro Publica, which seems
to have been the source of much reporting of Haspel's torture record, has retracted the claim that Haspel had tortured in Thailand.
Mr. Van Buren quotes another source from his blog that supports the thesis that Haspel is a torturer. How does one know what to
believe? Whatever Haspel may be, we can be sure the CIA will continue to torture, detain people without charge, assassinate
and terrorize with its own drone force, and cause mayhem around the world and at home. No one can be trusted with the Ring of
Power.
Its because we lost our sense of what makes us who we are. We are an empire that dances for private interests. In Rome they were
called families and led by patricians, they had money private guards, gladiators, and even street people supporting them. In the
Modern USA they are called Interest Groups and/or Corporations. They are lead by CEOs and instead of gladiators they have Lawyers.
Our being better matters less then their own squabbles which is why a torturer could reach the highest seat in intel. The majority
of Americans have lost their sense of being Americans instead they are Republicans, Democrats, etc, etc. Things that once use
to be part of an American have come to define us.
American Exceptionalism is perhaps the most toxic ideology since Nazism and Stalinism. It says that the United States is always
virtuous even when it tortures, when it bombs towns, villages, cities in the name of "freedom or installs dictators, military
governments, trains torturers, and, yes, rapes and loots in the name of "democracy."
At least this appointment along with the election of Trump shows the true face of the United States in international affairs.
When we face the fact we are (a) an oligarchy and (b) a brutal Empire we might have a chance to return to something more human.
Few readers, even of TAC, will want to look at our recent history of stunning brutality and lack of interest in even being in
the neighborhood of following international law.
CIA has purposefully refused to disclose Haspel's role for a decade+ They have selectively released information last week to discredit
those criticizing her. I don't think we should play their game, letting them set the agenda. Instead, I declaim torture itself
and any role she played in it, whether she poured the water or kept the books.
Does Peter Van Buren's criticism of the CIA's Haspel put him at risk?
In the 2003 film "Love Actually" the British Prime Minister (played by Hugh Grant) jokes with a Downing Street employee Natalie
(Martine McCutcheon):
"PM: You live with your husband? Boyfriend, three illegitimate but charming children? –
"NATALIE: No, I've just split up with my boyfriend, so I'm back with my mum and dad for a while.
"PM: Oh. I'm sorry.
"NATALIE: No, it's fine. I'm well shot of him. He said I was getting fat.
"PM: I beg your pardon?
"NATALIE: He said no one's going to fancy a girl with thighs the size of big tree trunks. Not a nice guy, actually, in the end.
"PM: Right You know, being Prime Minister, I could just have him murdered.
"NATALIE: Thank you, sir. I'll think about it.
"PM: Do – the SAS are absolutely charming – ruthless, trained killers are just a phone call away."
It's just a film. It's just a joke. But the joke works because the public knows that – in reality – the security services have
the skills-sets and the abilities, to do damage anyone they want to do damage to -- and to probably get away with it.
Fast forward to January, 2017 and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer telling MSNBC's Rachael Maddow that President-elect
Donald Trump is "being really dumb" by criticizing the intelligence community and its assessments on Russia's cyber activities:
Shumer: "Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you, So even
for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he's being really dumb to do this." No, Shumer wasn't joking. He was serious.
Fast forward again to yesterday, March 17, 2018: Former CIA Director John Brennan wasn't joking when he reacted to the firing
of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe -- and President Donald Trump's tweeted celebration of it -- by tweeting this attack against
Trump:
"When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful
place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy America America
will triumph over you."
Obama UN Representative Samantha Power followed up on the Brennan tweet with this:
"Not a good idea to piss off John Brennan."
When public officials and former public officials -- like Shumer, Brennan and Power -- make such public statements it must
necessarily have a chilling effect on public criticism of the security services.
After all, none of the three are joking. They're serious. And the American people know that they're serious.
Does Peter Van Buren's criticism of CIA operative Haspel put him at risk?
New information makes it less clear whether Haspel oversaw the torture of all of the prisoners at her black site, but pay it little
mind. The confusion is because the government refuses to tell us what Haspel actually did as a torturer. Arguing over just how
much blood she has on her hands is a distraction when she indeed has blood on her hands.
The idea is her participation on any level at the black site is sufficient to disqualify her from heading the Agency. If the
Agency wishes to clarify her role, as was done via trial for the various Nazis at Nuremberg, we can deal with her actions more
granularly.
Since we have not had any more successful attacks on the scale of 9-11, it is very easy to be scrupulous regarding rough treatment
of terrorists.
But if we had suffered a dozen or more such attacks, of increasing magnitude and maybe involving nuclear weapons, how many
of you would still be condemning Mrs Haspel et al.? Or would you then be complaining they had not used water-boarding enough?
The 20th hijacker, Zacarias Moussaoui, was caught weeks before 9-11. Investigators figured out he was up to no good, tried
to get permission to search his computer, but were denied. The U.S. Government carefully protected his privacy rights. So are
you pleased with the outcome, Mr van Buren?
I'm sorry – this whole piece is a massive non sequitur. Ms. Haspel has no 'blood' on her hands as US extreme interrogation techniques
(sleep deprivation, uncomfortable positions, waterboarding) didn't draw any. They are not equivalent to forcible sodomy, beating
the genitals, pounding the kidneys, or breaking bones. US techniques might have been bad policy – won't argue – but lets not fall
for a false equivalency.
Ms. Haspel was an agent of her government, acting on it's orders under it's policies and guidelines. Which leads to
Nuremberg. The Nuremberg tribunals (they were military tribunals – not trials) were conducted by a victorious military force
against a defeated military force. They were widely criticized as vengeance even by such august people as Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court Stone and associate Justice Douglas. There won't be a 'Nuremberg' tribunal because Al Qaida didn't defeat the
United States, and you'd have to convict not just Ms. Haspel, but a sizeable portion of the U.S. Government.
And lastly there's this from a comment of the authors: "The idea is her participation on any level at the black site is sufficient
to disqualify her from heading the Agency." Utter nonsense. That was the mission of the Agency at that time. It's like saying
a 33yr old Drone Pilot who takes out an ISIS/Al Qaida operative as well as 15 civilians is disqualified to be the Sec Def 2 decades
later.
If nothing else, the appointment of Bloody Gina as CIA head finally drives a wooden stake through the heart of the myth
that "we're The Good Guys(tm)!" or its cousin "all we gotta do is elect Team D and we can be The Good Guys(R) again!"
We demonize Russia at every opportunity, but I don't see Russia rewarding torturers by appointing them to high office.
I didn't know too much about this woman's background until I read that Rand Paul opposes her nomination. I tend to take notice
whenever Rand Paul holds forth on any subject. All I can say is that if her actual record even approximates what has been alleged,
then this woman is unfit for the post–Nuremberg or no Nuremberg.
"As we've proved, we're not better than them. Any of them." Oh, -PLEASE-, spare us the hyperbole! WE burn alive captives held
in cages? WE saw off their heads?
Thousands of US Navy and Air Force pilots have been waterboarded as part of their Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape
(S.E.R.E.) training programs.
All of the torturers should be brought to justice. So should all of the officials who ordered or authorized torture.
There is no statute of limitations on capital Federal crimes. For a U.S. citizen to kill via torture is a capital Federal crime,
no matter where the torture took place. If statutes of limitations make it too late to prosecute some acts of torture, it is not
too late to bring about some measure of justice by making torturers pariahs. As many sexual harassers have recently learned, there
is no statute of limitations in the court of public opinion.
The story linking her to torture has been formally retracted. She had nothing to do with torture anywhere. How about a retraction
of this story and an apology.
I do not know whether to admire Mr. van Buren's idealism or be astonished at his naivete. Has he never heard of the School
of the Americas, of sinister reputation, or the Condor Plan, aided and abetted by U.S. intelligence? People in Latin America know
better than to believe the U.S. protestations of virtue. They know about torturers, and the U.S. support for them.
Personally,
I prefer that the cruelty should be, as Lincoln once put it, "unalloyed by the base metal of hypocrisy"
bob sykes: you should read Pro Publica's retraction (
https://www.propublica.org/article/cia-cables-detail-its-new-deputy-directors-role-in-torture
) of the claim that Haspel was in charge of the Thai black site when Abu Zubaydeh was tortured. She was put in charge there
not long after and oversaw the waterboarding of at least one prisoner, and later followed orders to destroy the tapes of waterboarding
at that site. Your claim that " She had nothing to do with torture anywhere" is incorrect.
Winston: why do you suppose "thousands of US Navy and Air Force pilots have been waterboarded as part of their Survival, Evasion,
Resistance and Escape (S.E.R.E.) training programs"? Is it not to prepare them for the possibility of what we call torture when
used by our adversaries?
furbo: your contention that " US extreme interrogation techniques are not equivalent to forcible sodomy, beating the genitals,
pounding the kidneys, or breaking bones" is wrong. The UN Convention against Torture, to which the US is a signatory, states "
For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental,
is intentionally inflicted on a person " Ask anyone who has been waterboarded whether that fits the official definition?
Wilfred, the problem was not that the Feds protected Zacarias Moussaoui's right to privacy. The problem is that it let any of
the 20 Arab Muslims into the US in the first place. Closing our borders and mass deportations would have been the best thing to
do in the aftermath of 9/11, not torture and invasions.
Very well put. Lest we forget: Bush also delivered the stern warning that "war crimes will be prosecuted, war criminals will be
punished, and it will be no defense to say, 'I was just following orders'."
Ceterum censeo: given that the Iraq invasion and occupation was an act of aggressive war in violation of the UN Charter
and thus illegal under US law, it is not just torturers but also war criminals in government and general staff that have to be
considered in the contexts of these words.
Chris Mallory (Mar 19 @1:47 p.m.), I agree with you. We shouldn't be letting them in.
But if someone had sneaked-a-peek at Moussaoui's laptop during the 3 weeks they had him before 9-11, we might have been able
to thwart the attack altogether. (And the Press has been strangely incurious about investigating whoever it was who issued the
injunction protecting Moussie's precious computer). This type of hand-wringing cost us 3,000 lives. Even more, considering the
Afghan & 2nd Iraq wars would never have been launched, were it not for 9-11.
You're right. I see people like Robert Kagan's opinions being respectfully asked on foreign affairs, John Bolton and Elliott Abrams
being hired to direct our foreign policy.
The incompetent, the corrupt, the treacherous -- not just walking free, but with reputations intact, fat bank balances, and
flourishing careers. Now they're angling for war with Iran.
It's preposterous and sickening. And it can't be allowed to stand, so you can't just stand off and say you're "wrecked". Keep
fighting, as you're doing. I will fight it until I can't fight anymore.
Fact-bedeviled JohnT: “McCain was a problem for this nation? Sweet Jesus! There quite simply is no rational adult on the planet
who buys that nonsense.”
McCain had close ties to the military-industrial complex. He was a backer of post-Cold War NATO. He was a neoconservative darling.
He never heard of a dictator that he didn’t want to depose with boots on the ground, with the possible exception of various Saudi
dictators (the oil-weaponry-torture nexus). He promoted pseudo-accountability of government in campaign finance but blocked accountability
for the Pentagon and State Department when he co-chaired the United States Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs with John
Kerry.
And, perhaps partly because of the head trauma and/or emotional wounds he suffered at the hands of Chinese-backed Commies,
it’s plausible to think he was regarded by the willy-nilly plotters of the deep state as a manipulable, and thus useful, conduit
of domestic subversion via the bogus Steele dossier.
Unfortunately, the episode that most defines McCain’s life is the very last one–his being a pawn of M-16 in the the deep state’s
years-long attempt to derail the presidency of Donald Trump.
Measuring success means determining goals. The goals of most wars is to enrich the people in charge. So, by this metric, the war
was a success. The rest of it is just props and propaganda.
“Pyrrhic Victory” look it up the Roman Empire Won but lost if the US is invaded and the government does not defend it I would
like to start my own defense: But the knee jerk politics that stirs America’s cannon fodder citizens is a painful reminder of
a history of jingoist lies where at times some left and right agree at least for a short moment before the rich and powerful push
their weight to have their way.
If All politics is relative Right wingers are the the left of what? Nuclear destruction? or Slavery?
My goodness! I am also a veteran, but of the Vietnam war, and my father was a career officer from 1939-1961 as a paratrooper first,
and later as an intelligence officer. He argued vigorously against our Vietnam involvement, and was cashiered for his intellectual
honesty. A combat veteran’s views are meaningless when the political winds are blowing.
Simply put, we have killed thousands of our kids in service of the colonial empires left to us by the British and the French
after WWII. More practice at incompetent strategies and tactics does not make us more competent–it merely extends the blunders
and pain; viz the French for two CENTURIES against the Britsh during the battles over Normandy while the Planagenet kings worked
to hold their viking-won inheritance.
At least then, kings risked their own lives. Generals fight because the LIKE it…a lot. Prior failures are only practice to
the, regardless of the cost in lives of the kids we tried to raise well, and who were slaughtered for no gain.
We don’t need the empire, and we certainly shouldn’t fight for the corrupt businessmen who have profited from the never-ending
conflicts. Let’s spend those trillions at home, so long as we also police our government to keep both Democrat and Republican
politicians from feathering their own nests. Term limits and prosecutions will help us, but only if we are vigilant. Wars distract
our attention while corruption is rampant at home.
Thanks, I appreciate this article.
I’ll make two points, my own opinion:
it’s the same story as Vietnam, the bull about how the politicians or anti-war demonstrators tied the military ‘hand,’ blah, blah.
Nonsense. Invading a nation and slaughtering people in their towns, houses…gee…what’s wrong with that, eh?
The average American has a primitive mind when it comes to such matters.
Second point I have, is that both Bushes, Clinton, Obama, Hillary and Trump should be dragged to a world court, given a fair trial
and locked up for life with hard labor… oh, and Cheney too,for all those families, in half a dozen nations, especially the children
overseas that suffered/died from these creeps.
And, the families of dead or maimed American troops should be apologized to and compensation paid by several million dollars to
each.
The people I named above make me sick, because I have feelings and a conscience. Can you dig?
Though there is a worldly justification for killing to obtain or maintain freedoms, there is no Christian justification for it.
Which suggests that Christians who die while doing it, die in vain.
America’s wars are prosecuted by a military that includes Christians. They seldom question the killing their country orders
them to do, as though the will of the government is that of the will of God. Is that a safe assumption for them to make? German
Christian soldiers made that assumption regarding their government in 1939. Who was there to tell them otherwise? The Church failed,
including the chaplains. (The Southern Baptist Convention declared the invasion of Iraq a just war in 2003.) These wars need to
be assessed by Just War criteria. Christian soldiers need to know when to exercise selective conscientious objection, for it is
better to go to prison than to kill without God’s approval. If Just War theory is irrelevant, the default response is Christian
Pacifism.
“Iraq Wrecked” a lot of innocent people. Millions are dead, cities reduced to rubble, homes and businesses destroyed and it was
all a damned lie. And the perpetrators are Free.
Now there is sectarian violence too, where once there was a semblance of harmony amongst various denominations. See article link
below.
“Are The Christians Slaughtered in The Middle East Victims of the Actions of Western War Criminals and Their Terrorist Supporting
NATO ‘Allies’”?
We are a globalist open borders and mass immigration nation. We stand for nothing. To serve in this nation’s military is very
stupid. You aren’t defending anything. You are just a tool of globalism. Again, we don’t secure our borders. That’s a very big
give away to what’s going on.
If our nation’s military really was an American military concerned with our security we would have secured our border after 9/11,
reduced all immigration, deported ALL muslims, and that’s it. Just secure the borders and expel Muslims! That’s all we needed
to do.
Instead we killed so many people and imported many many more Muslims! And we call this compassion. Its insane.
Maybe if Talibans get back in power they will destroy the opium. You know, like they did when they were first in power…. It seems
that wherever Americans get involved, drugs follow…
“Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very
structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether
sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.” In Eisenhower’s televised farewell address January 17, 1961.
Rational thought would lead one to believe such words from a fellow with his credentials would have had a useful effect. But it
didn’t. In point of fact, in the likes of Eric Prince and his supporters the notion of war as a profit center is quite literally
a family affair.
The military-industrial complex couldn’t accomplish this all by its lonesome self. The deep state was doing its thing. The two
things overlap but aren’t the same. The deep state is not only or mainly about business profits, but about power. Power in the
world means empire, which requires a military-industrial complex but is not reducible to it.
We now have a rare opportunity to unveil the workings of the deep state, but it will require a special counsel, and a lengthy
written report, on the doings in the 2016 election of the FBI (Comey, Strzok, et. al.), and collaterally the CIA and DIA (Brennan
and Clapper). Also the British government (M-16), John McCain, and maybe Bush and Obama judges on the FISA courts.
It is possible, now that Assange has been arrested, that the American charge against him is
relatively minor only in order to encourage the UK to extradite him. Once he is in American
custody those charges may well change.
btw Trump suddenly dropping any love for Wikileaks after enthusiastically stating his
approval of them over 100 times during the last election is going to cause a lot of damage to
his chances of being reelected.
Wikileaks is probably already putting him under the microscope, and there are all the
Wikileaks fans to contend with as well.
Bad move Donald, you just sacrificed a bishop to no advantage and placed yourself in
danger of checkmate. More people are starting to see your 'veracity' as the facade it is.
We had been inflicted with "Russogate" ad nauseam for the better part of two years and
nothing, absolutely nothing, came of it. But no mention of the Zio-gate where the dog and its
tail reciprocally meddle in each others' election(s) overwhelmingly in favor of Zio-tail
interests. The silence of this issue in the MSM is deafening.
"... "Market capitalism is not a religion. Market capitalism is a tool, like a staple gun or a toaster," Carlson said. "Any economic system that weakens and destroys families isn't worth having." Does this observation make Tucker a socialist? Hardly. As is often the case, TAC founding editor Patrick J. Buchanan was more than a decade ahead of the curve. ..."
"... To me, the country comes before the economy; and the economy exists for the people ..."
"... I believe in free markets, but I do not worship them. In the proper hierarchy of things, it is the market that must be harnessed to work for man -- and not the other way around. ..."
"... Free markets can be corrosive of other values or priorities that are important to authentic conservatives: family, faith, and community. We see major corporations promoting social and cultural liberalism, social media monopolies -- all privately owned -- de-platforming conservatives and suppressing their ideas, big business and big government working hand in hand against religion and tradition. ..."
"... "In states such as Ohio, West Virginia, and Kentucky, countless children are growing up with parents in jail, incapacitated, or underground," writes J.D. Vance in Meyer's publication. "Yes, they live in a country with a higher GDP than a generation ago, and they're undoubtedly able to buy cheaper consumer goods, but to paraphrase Reagan: Are they better off than they were 20 years ago?" ..."
"... The periodic electoral successes conservatives have enjoyed since the 1980s have caused us to lose sight of an important question: what is it that we are trying to conserve? The search for answers is finally ready for primetime. ..."
Capitalist Tool Electoral successes have caused conservatives to lose sight of an important question: what is it that
we are trying to conserve? By TAC Staff
• April 16, 2019
Credit:
Gage Skidmore | Flickr Editor's Note: This editorial was published in the March/April issue of the magazine.
Bernie Sanders. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Tucker Carlson. If one of those names on a list of examples of ascendant socialism strikes
you as out of place, you may have missed weeks of debate on the Right over a reasonable comment made by the popular Fox News host.
"Market capitalism is not a religion. Market capitalism is a tool, like a staple gun or a toaster," Carlson said. "Any economic
system that weakens and destroys families isn't worth having." Does this observation make Tucker a socialist? Hardly. As is often
the case, TAC founding editor Patrick J. Buchanan was more than a decade ahead of the curve.
"To me, the country comes before the economy; and the economy exists for the people," Buchanan said in a 1998 speech to the Chicago
Council on Foreign Relations. "I believe in free markets, but I do not worship them. In the proper hierarchy of things, it is the
market that must be harnessed to work for man -- and not the other way around."
In practice, conservatives often have worshiped free markets. As John Zmirak argued in these pages in 2003, the need to come up
with a universal ideology that could compete with Marxism led some Cold War conservatives to lose the plot. The early neoconservatives
and their forebears, he writes, "brought with them vast talents, literary learning, and serious moral concern for universal issues
of human rights. But they also carried a strong tendency towards pure abstraction, towards viewing national questions purely in ideological
terms."
The end result was they often "defended America bravely during the Cold War -- but they did so not as our homeland, as the particular
place where a people and their treasured institutions took root, but rather as the (almost accidental) spot where certain ideas had
taken hold."
Similarly, the "fusionist" conception of conservatism propounded by National Review senior editor Frank Meyer sought to
use libertarian means to achieve traditionalist ends. Some conservatives have misconstrued that as a decree that libertarian means
will necessarily achieve traditionalist ends.
We know that to not be the case. Free markets can be corrosive of other values or priorities that are important to authentic conservatives:
family, faith, and community. We see major corporations promoting social and cultural liberalism, social media monopolies -- all
privately owned -- de-platforming conservatives and suppressing their ideas, big business and big government working hand in hand
against religion and tradition.
"In states such as Ohio, West Virginia, and Kentucky, countless children are growing up with parents in jail, incapacitated,
or underground," writes J.D. Vance in Meyer's publication. "Yes, they live in a country with a higher GDP than a generation ago,
and they're undoubtedly able to buy cheaper consumer goods, but to paraphrase Reagan: Are they better off than they were 20 years
ago?"
Among conservatives, there has been a course correction. Since the election of Donald Trump, a Republican president who divides
conservatives, more people on the Right speak of the United States as a homeland rather than a mere abstraction. The global economy
and mass immigration are being subjected to cost-benefit analysis, as champions of the marketplace should have it. There is more
of a willingness to contest the idea that what's good for General Motors is good for conservatives -- or America.
Maybe conservatives will overcorrect, putting too much faith in government, even at the local level, at the expense of free markets.
But fusionists once understood that liberty and virtue, individualism and tradition, are to some extent in tension. Efforts to manage
that balance are necessary but will not always produce a perfect synthesis, a straight line from low marginal tax rates to intact
families.
The periodic electoral successes conservatives have enjoyed since the 1980s have caused us to lose sight of an important question:
what is it that we are trying to conserve? The search for answers is finally ready for primetime.
Look on the bright side, Trump's overt pandering to Israel has disgusted the Europeans so
much that Macron is at the lowest point in his popularity as Rothschild's puppet, and there
is rising support for the AfD in Germany.
The NYT reported that 40% of Germans now think it's right to blame Jews for Israel's
policy in the Mideast, German youth couldn't care less about the holocaust, and Merkel is
pivoting to Russia.
It is now (America + Israel) vs. (the rest of the world led by Russia, China, Iran, Syria,
with increasing pivot from Germany and India)
Even the rest of the Five Eyes a.k.a. America's lap dogs are casting a wary eye towards
this unholy alliance, and avoid outright support for Israel. Netanyahu has let his new found
power, i.e. America's muscles, gone to his head. He's digging a grave for himself, turning
Israel more and more into a pariah state with each passing day.
I'm guessing chess is not Trump's strong suit, nor any of the Israel Firsters (incl. Pence
& Pompeo) hanging around him. They're all letting their new found power go to their
collective heads. Things are going to backfire on them sooner or later.
@wayfarer
"Trump panders to his base at the Republican Jewish Coalition."
The trouble is, the Republican Jewish Coalition was never his base. These people were the
biggest Trump haters until he got elected. Now they're just holding their noses to buy power
through him.
Meanwhile, the real Trump's base could care less about Israel, and are frankly disgusted
with his foreign policy and complete failure on immigration.
So newly reelected Israeli monster-in-chief Benjamin Netanyahu
has boasted , with a grin, that America's President Donald J. Trump followed through on his
proposal to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) a terrorist group. Bibi was
smiling because the timing of the move, one day before the Israeli election, strongly suggests
it was done to assist him against what had become a very strong opposition challenge. That
Trump likely colluded with Netanyahu to blatantly interfere in the election has apparently
bothered no one in Israel or in the tame American media.
The gift from Washington came on top of recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan
Heights, threatening members of the International Criminal Court if they try to prosecute
Israel for war crimes, moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, removing the word "occupation"
from the State Department's assessments of human rights infringements on the West Bank,
eliminating relief funding for Palestinian refugees, leaving the U.N. Human Rights Council
because it was too critical of Israel, and looking the other way as Israel declared itself a
state only for Jews. Washington also ignored the bombing of hospitals, schools and water
treatment infrastructure in Gaza while Israeli army snipers were shooting unarmed demonstrators
demanding their freedom.
The labeling of the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group is particularly disturbing as
it means that the United States military by virtue of the Authorization to Use Military Force
(AUMF) now has a mandate to attack the IRGC wherever it appears, including in Syria or even in
the waterway the Straits of Hormuz, where the guard has regular patrols in small boats. It is a
de facto declaration of war and it comes on top of a number of deliberate provocations
directed against Iran starting with the withdrawal from the nuclear agreement Joint
Comprehensive Plan Of Action (JCPOA) one year ago, which led to the unilateral imposition of
harsh sanctions directed against the Iranian economy to bring about a popular uprising as well
as regularly repeated false claims that Iran is the leading "state sponsor of terrorism." Next
month, the U.S. will begin enforcing a unilaterally declared worldwide sanction on any and all
Iranian oil sales.
Netanyahu pledged to annex Israeli settlements on the largely Palestinian West Bank if
elected, which is undoubtedly a move cleared in advance with the Trump team of foreign policy
sociopaths as it de facto puts an end to any delusional speculation over a possible
two-state negotiated solution for the Israel-Palestine conflict. It will also lead to a massive
upsurge in violence as the Palestinians object, which is neither a concern for the White House
or Netanyahu, as they are assuming that it can be suppressed by overwhelming force directed
against an almost completely unarmed civilian population.
And Trump will no doubt expect Bibi to return the favor when he is running for reelection in
2020 by encouraging American Jews who care about Israel to support the Republicans. Trump is
focused on his own electability and is absolutely shameless about his betrayal of actual
American interests in the Middle East, possibly because he has no inkling of the actual damage
that he is doing.
His speech last week before the casino multi-billionaire Sheldon Adelson-hosted Jewish
Republican Coalition Annual Leadership Meeting in Las Vegas was a disgusting pander to a group
that includes many key players who have little or no concern for what happens to the United
States as long as Israel flourishes. The only good news that came out of the meeting was that
Adelson himself appears to be "gravely ill."
Trump at times appeared to be speaking to what he thought was a group of Israelis,
referring to "your prime minister" when mentioning Benjamin Netanyahu and several times
describing Israel as "yours," suggesting that deep down he understands that many American Jews
are more loyal to Israel than to the United States. At another point, Trump declared that "The
Democrats have even allowed the terrible scourge of anti-Semitism to take root
in their party and their country," apparently part of a White House plan to keep playing that
card to turn American Jews and their political donations in a Republican direction before
elections in 2020.
Trump also told the Republican Coalition audience how he came to a decision on recognizing
Israel's sovereignty over the Golan Heights. He described how
"he'd been speaking to his son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, as well as U.S.
ambassador to Israel David Friedman and his Israel adviser, Jason Greenblatt, over the phone
about an unrelated issue when he suddenly brought up the Golan Heights." Trump shared how "I
said, 'Fellows, do me a favor. Give me a little history, quick. Want to go fast. I got a lot of
things I'm working on: China, North Korea. Give me a quickie.' After the advisers filled him
in, Trump said he asked Friedman: 'David, what do you think about me recognizing Israel and the
Golan Heights?' Friedman, apparently surprised by the suggestion, reacted like a 'wonderful,
beautiful baby,' Trump said, and asked if he would 'really do that.' 'Yeah, I think I'm doing
it right now. Let's write something up,' Trump said he responded, prompting applause and cheers
from his audience in Las Vegas. 'We make fast decisions and we make good decisions.'"
Putting the Trump story about the Golan Heights in some kind of context is not really
that difficult. He wanted an answer to please Netanyahu and he went to three Orthodox Jews who
support the illegal Israeli settlements and have also individually contributed financially to
their growth so he was expecting the response that he got. That he was establishing a
precedent by his moves on Jerusalem and the Golan apparently did not occur to him as his
administration prides itself on having a foreign policy vision that extends no longer than the
beginning of next week, which is why he hired Mike Pompeo, John Bolton and Elliott Abrams. And
then there is always the doleful Stephen Miller lurking in the background as well as the three
musketeers of Kushner, Greenblatt and Friedman for really serious questions relating to why
acceding to the wishes of parasite state Israel should continue to be the apparent number one
priority of the government of the United States.
Donald Trump neither poses nor answers the question why he feels compelled to fulfill all
of the campaign pledges he made to the Jewish community, which by and large did not vote for
him, while failing to carry out the promises made to those who actually did support him .
The absurd Jewish Republican Coalition narrative about how Trump gave Israel the Golan Heights
should have resulted in a flood of opprobrium in the U.S. media about his profound ignorance
and fundamental hypocrisy, but there was largely silence.
The nonsense going on in Las Vegas in front of a lot of fat cats who regard the United
States as little more than a cash cow that they control as well as in the White House itself
unfortunately has real world consequences. America is being led by the nose by a
well-entrenched and powerful group of Israeli loyalists and this will not end well. The
U.S. doesn't even have a Middle Eastern foreign policy anymore – it has a "to do" list
handed by Netanyahu to whomever is president. The fact that the current man in charge in
Washington is either so ignorant or so deluded as to allow the process to escalate until the
U.S. is drawn into yet more catastrophic wars is beyond regrettable. U.S. foreign policy should
not depend on the perceptions of Kushner and company. It should be based on real, tangible
American interests, not those of Israel. Someone should explain that to the president.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based
U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address
is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected].
The gift from Washington came on top of recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan
Heights, threatening members of the International Criminal Court if they try to prosecute
Israel for war crimes
It reminds me of the following agreements concluded during the Bush era:
US Bilateral Exemption Agreements
"The Bush Administration is actively opposed to the International Criminal Court. Its
insistence on placing all Americans above international law risks undermining the ICC in its
earliest and most fragile years. Currently, the State Department is pushing individual
countries to conclude bilateral agreements with the US, exempting all Americans (and even
some non-nationals) from accountability for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war
crimes . These proposed agreements, in the form requested by the US government, are
illegal under the Rome Statute and are not required by US law.
· The European Union has concluded that "Entering into US agreements – as
presently drafted would be inconsistent with ICC States Parties' obligations with regard to
the ICC Statute and may be inconsistent with other international agreements."
To bring the US proposal back within the legal scope of Article 98(2), the EU would
require four modifications:
· No impunity: A guarantee that the US would investigate and potentially prosecute
the accused in its domestic courts.
· No reciprocity: Nationals of ICC States Parties must be excluded from
coverage.
· No universal scope: These agreements can only cover persons officially sent on
government business by a State.
· Ratification: The agreement must be approved according to the constitutional
procedures of each individual state.
Soon after WWII, U.S. statesman Dean Acheson warned that creating Israel on land already
inhabited by Palestinians would "imperil" both American and all Western interests in the
region. Despite warnings such as this one, President Truman supported establishing a Jewish
state on land primarily inhabited by Muslims and Christians.
Few Americans today are aware that U.S. support enabled the creation of modern Israel.
Even fewer know that U.S. politicians pushed this policy over the forceful objections of top
diplomatic and military experts.
As this work demonstrates, these politicians were bombarded by a massive pro-Israel
lobbying effort that ranged from well-funded and very public Zionist organizations to an
"elitist secret society" whose members included Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis.
Against Our Better Judgment brings together meticulously sourced evidence to illuminate a
reality that differs starkly from the prevailing narrative. It provides a clear view of the
history that is key to understanding one of the most critically important political issues of
our day.
Interview with Scholar and Journalist, Mark Bruzonsky. Mark Bruzonsky, a Jewish, American
Scholar and Journalist, has been a key member behind the scenes of the Israeli Palestinian
peace initiative in the 1980s, meeting with Former Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and with
Palestinian officials. In this exclusive interview with Press TV's Autograph, Mr. Bruzonsky
talks about the challenges and missed opportunities he witnessed first-hand, and how Zionist
groups infiltrated American politics, US institutions and organizations. He goes further to
explain the specific time and day Obama sold out to the AIPAC lobby, and how President Obama
would never dare oppose the stronghold of the Zionist, Israeli Lobby in the US.
@The
Alarmist Trump doesn't strike me as someone with principles or opinions of his own. He
will say and do whatever his base of "deplorables" likes to hear and whatever helps him get
what he wants.
To understand how such total control is done, one has to look at the role of banking serfdom,
led by the FED and the central bankers, and media brainwash, run by Hollywood and mainstream
media.
In terms of banking, here is a great explanation, including The City of London that owns
UK:
Prof. Werner brilliantly explains how the banking system and financial sector really
work.
402,668 views
The workings of the monetary system have been a mystery throughout globalisation, which is
why we have had so many financial crises.
The central banks were charged with bringing financial stability, but they didn't
understand it either, so they didn't stand a chance.
The BIS is just as bad and Richard Werner points out the Basel regulations are based on
the assumption that banks are financial intermediaries, but they are not.
The central banks know a bit, but obviously not enough.
Financial stability is a lot easier than it looks when you know what you are doing.
Richard Werner was in Japan in the 1980s when it went from a very stable economy and
turned into a debt fuelled monster. He worked out what happened and had all the clues
necessary to point him in the right direction.
The three types of bank lending:
1) Into business and industry – gives a good return in GDP and doesn't lead to
inflation
2) To consumers – leads to consumer price inflation
3) Into real estate and financial speculation – leads to asset price inflation and
gives a poor return in GDP and shows up in the graph of debt-to-GDP
Bank credit has been used for all the wrong things during globalisation and the bankers
have just been inflating asset prices, not creating real wealth as measured by GDP and this
has caused nearly all the financial crises.
1929 and 2008 stick out like sore thumbs when you know where to look, but the FED
didn't.
i) If gentiles are so smart, why are Jews, whom gentiles outnumber 40:1 across the
combined Western World, able to control everything?
If you're so smart, then what makes you think it has much to do with smarts? Violence may
trump intelligence in the likely event you haven't figured that out.
@jacques
sheete Please do not try to teach dishonest person about honesty. Dishonest person know
about honesty. He only did figure out that being dishonest is more rewarding than being
honest.
@Thomm Posing
a question without giving it a thought first will backfire. The same question could be asked
of Whites in the Western world: if they are so smart, why are >99% of them totally
controlled by <1%? It is that <1% that is the dog wagged by the Zio-tail.
Even people on the fringe of the Jewish Israeli society, the Russian Israelis, were all for
Jewish nationalism and against socialism and Arabs. This is really silly. They are hardly
considered Jews, to begin with. The Ministry of Interior plans to check them for DNA and
whether they are Jewish at all.
The Russians are weak economically, and their participation in the national discourse is
minimal. There is not a single Russian on the national Israeli TV channels.
They have a party of their own, the party of Mr Lieberman. However, the main demands of Mr
Lieberman are (1) to bring the death penalty upon Arabs, (2) to bomb and invade Gaza, and (3)
to make Mr Lieberman the Minister of Defence. And the Russian Israelis voted for him – or
for Mr Netanyahu – anyway.
Israelis of Oriental origins who inhabit poor peripheral towns are similar to Russians. They
also vote for Netanyahu and for his nationalist right-wing party, Likud. They are proud they
vote against the Ashkenazi Blue-and-White Party, though all leaders of Likud are Ashkenazi
Jews.
Is there a chance to change things in Israel, with such a Parliament? Well, yes. A military
defeat can change minds, like it did in many countries many times. Otherwise, it is hard to
imagine what would cause Netanyahu to change his course in view of the US support, Saudi
friendship, Syrian weakness, and good election results. He is not for resolving conflicts, he
is for managing conflict, and he is doing that well.
Russia's Putin plays ball with Bibi, too. Perhaps he does not like Bibi's relentless attacks
on Syria, perhaps his heart goes for Palestinians, but he is a cautious statesman, and he does
not want to antagonise the man who can mobilise American Jews into an action against Russia.
There are enough American Jews against Russia and against Putin as things are; Putin does not
need more. Besides, the Israeli opposition is not keen on Putin; they are lining up with the US
Democrats and with Brussels Europeans. They called for direct intervention in Syria on the side
of 'moderate rebels', while Netanyahu had kept Israel out of Syrian War and did not obstruct
Putin's Syrian campaign.
Will Netanyahu annex the whole of the West Bank, as he said during the election campaign?
Probably not; as nothing will be obtained by such an act but making apartheid visible. Instead,
he is likely to annex every place where Jews live in the West Bank, turning the territory of
Palestine into a slug-eaten cabbage leaf. He also may annex Area C, a bigger part of
Palestinian territory presently under Israeli military control and Palestinian civilian
administration. The Jewish settlers demand it, for, they say, Palestinians damage the
contiguity of the Jewish settlements.
The Jewish religious parties came out stronger in the new parliament. They also enjoy a very
high natural growth with families of 5 to 8 children average. They are not eager to compete on
the labour market, and prefer to be paid for studying Talmud and having kids. While it may
annoy some Israelis, in my view, it is an internal issue of little interest or importance for
anybody outside the Jewish milieu.
Is there a possible solution for the conflict? It is definitely not the Deal of the Century
of Mr Jared Kushner, some yet undefined arrangement usually done with smoke and mirrors.
Probably One Democratic State, where Jews and non-Jews are equal, is the only possible
solution, as the place is too small to divide but large enough to share.
"... For Christ's sake! The "Deep State"!?! With a well documented pathological liar and a seemingly endless supply of professional sycophants in our government selling our nation to the highest bidder in plain sight why in the world do you folks continue to need grand delusions of demons in the woodwork??? ..."
"... I have no reason to believe Comey, Clapper and Brennen have served this nation with honor and integrity in dealing with more responsibility than that required to sit safely at home and blabber about as the victim of some grand conspiracy ..."
"... To the extent that McCain comes out looking bad in a special counsel's report, Trump haters like you will no longer be able to talk about Trump's supposed terrible character in dissing noble John McCain, and holding it up as Exhibit A of why Trump shouldn't be president. ..."
"... Our failures of statecraft are quite analogous to the ongoing errors in my field (medicine), well described in "To Err is Human." We've made a lot of progress in medicine in addressing them, mostly though systems engineering. That's because the tendency toward these errors is a result of how human brains are wired, and if you have a human brain, no matter how smart or well educated you are, you have those tendencies. The key is to create systems that catch the errors. ..."
"... Now we have to figure out how to create systems to constrain politicians, and especially the military-industrial-Congressional complex (Eisenhower's actual original term), from making those errors. ..."
"... "Iraq wrecked me, even though I somehow didn't expect it to. I was foolish to think that traveling to the other side of the world and spending a year seeing death and poverty, bearing witness to a war, learning how to be mortared at night and deciding it didn't matter that I might die before breakfast, wasn't going to change me. Of the military units I was embedded in, three soldiers did not come home; all died at their own hands." ..."
"... Here is a thought; the unprovoked American aggression in Iraq wrecked Iraq! There is no comparison between the millions of dead, dispossessed, displaced, terrorized and radicalized Iraqis and a few thousand PTSD cases with the richest government in the world on their side. ..."
"... It's like a pimp complaining about bruised knuckles on account of hitting a woman too many times! ..."
"... The title of your book sounds like "Invading Iraq was a Good Idea but the Implementation was Bad and I Couldn't Fix It". Did you really think we could invade a sovereign country based on lies and win "hearts and minds" if we just did it the right way? Not possible. ..."
The invasion of Iraq was a mistake of historic dimensions. The "weapons of mass destruction" excuse was a lie. When I see George
W. Bush smiling on TV, I want to puke. Likewise, I cannot view an image of Lyndon Johnson without revulsion. They are both responsible
for much death and suffering. I have heard people try to excuse both of them, with the statement that "they meant well." The road
to Hell is paved with good intentions.
For Christ's sake! The "Deep State"!?! With a well documented pathological liar and a seemingly endless supply of professional
sycophants in our government selling our nation to the highest bidder in plain sight why in the world do you folks continue to
need grand delusions of demons in the woodwork???
I have no reason to believe Comey, Clapper and Brennen have served this nation with honor and integrity in dealing with
more responsibility than that required to sit safely at home and blabber about as the victim of some grand conspiracy.
The war In Afghanistan would have ended 15 years ago if the sons of members of Congress were being drafted. "It's easy to send
someone else's sons to war."
You left out the phrase "anything other than" following the phrase "have served this nation with" in your last sentence.
You forgot to express your confidence in John McCain. Good luck with that. McCain's top aide flew to a foreign city to receive
the Steele dossier, gave it to the senator, who then gave it to the FBI–as per Steele's script, I assume. It's another reason
why we need a special counsel to look into the FBI's role. A special counsel can hardly omit the McCain piece of the puzzle, whereas
a regular prosecutor can easily ignore it and cover McCain's keister.
To the extent that McCain comes out looking bad in a special counsel's report, Trump haters like you will no longer be able
to talk about Trump's supposed terrible character in dissing noble John McCain, and holding it up as Exhibit A of why Trump shouldn't
be president.
More than anything else concerning the FBI's election shenanigans, the McCain-Steele nexus–specifically the report written
about it by a special counsel–could expose the deep state's modus operandi. Not even an inspector general's report can do that
as well as a special counsel's report.
Your book will go out of print. In 10 to 20 years it will be reprinted and sell well. It takes that long for people to remove
their heads from their nether regions and be willing to contemplate the errors made.
The real irony is that we know better. There is a vast body of literature on major cognitive errors, and the whole catalog
is on display in the debacle described. Our failures of statecraft are quite analogous to the ongoing errors in my field
(medicine), well described in "To Err is Human." We've made a lot of progress in medicine in addressing them, mostly though
systems engineering. That's because the tendency toward these errors is a result of how human brains are wired, and if you
have a human brain, no matter how smart or well educated you are, you have those tendencies. The key is to create systems that
catch the errors.
Now we have to figure out how to create systems to constrain politicians, and especially the military-industrial-Congressional
complex (Eisenhower's actual original term), from making those errors.
I commiserate with your disillusioning journey because I went through a similar odyssey into self-awareness like yours many decades
ago. I served as a medical corpsman in Vietnam (31 May 1967 – 31 May 1968). It's all been downhill from there. A gradual slide
down the slippy slope of history in our decline as a nation. There's not much one can really do. But at my age, I will be long
gone when our country hits burns and crashes as it hits bottom.
"Iraq wrecked me, even though I somehow didn't expect it to. I was foolish to think that traveling to the other side of the world
and spending a year seeing death and poverty, bearing witness to a war, learning how to be mortared at night and deciding it didn't
matter that I might die before breakfast, wasn't going to change me. Of the military units I was embedded in, three soldiers did
not come home; all died at their own hands."
Enough books and movies about those poor damaged American boys yet?
The navel gazing never stops.
Here is a thought; the unprovoked American aggression in Iraq wrecked Iraq! There is no comparison between the millions
of dead, dispossessed, displaced, terrorized and radicalized Iraqis and a few thousand PTSD cases with the richest government
in the world on their side.
Get over yourselves! Honestly! It's like a pimp complaining about bruised knuckles on account of hitting a woman too many
times!
The title of your book sounds like "Invading Iraq was a Good Idea but the Implementation was Bad and I Couldn't Fix It". Did
you really think we could invade a sovereign country based on lies and win "hearts and minds" if we just did it the right way?
Not possible.
Just a cynical take, but implying that there are lessons to be learned from previous or present wars that should keep us from
engaging in future wars presumes that the goal is to, where possible, actually avoid war.
It also suggests a convenient, simplistic narrative that the military/DOD is incompetent and stupid, and unable to learn from
previous engagements.
I wonder if the Middle East is nothing more than a live-fire laboratory for the military; if it seems as though there is no
plan, no objective, no victory for these engagements, maybe that is because the only objectives and victory are to provide practical
war training for our troops, test equipment and tactics, keep defense contractors employed and the Pentagon's budget inflated,
and to project power and provide a convenient excuse for proximity to our 'real' enemies.
Draping these actions under a pretense of spreading 'peace and democracy' is just a pretense and, as we can see by our track
record, has nothing to do with actual victory. "Victory", depending on who you ask, is measured in years of engagement and dollars
spent, period.
And because it is primarily taking place in the far away and poorly understood Middle East, it is never going to be enough
of an issue with voters for politicians to have to seriously contend with.
This person is a crybaby. At 49 he went to a war that most rational people knew already, was an immoral, illegal waste of people,
time and money. But now he wants to whine about PTSD. I have the same opinion about most soldiers who fought there also. Nobody
made them volunteer for that junk war so quit whining when things get a little hard
Please note that unz.com used be forum of stalwart Trump supporters. Times change.
Notable quotes:
"... This will at least wake up those morons at places like Breitbart that Trump is nothing more than a neocon swine. I mean how much more evidence do they need to see that he is invite the world, invade the world. ..."
"... One doesn't have to be stupid to support Trump but it helps. The same can be said for his prominent enemies though. To unconditionally and faithfully support Trump, Hillary Clinton, or Nancy Pelosi, one would have to be stupid or totally controlled by one's emotions. ..."
"... You and I are voting right now just by publicly engaging in politics. Voting on election day is worth it in the same way posting comments online is worth it. ..."
"... Wouldn't a smart person recognize that falling for a grifter who cares not about Heritage America and who dances to Bibi's tune is never a good option? ..."
"... Yes. But during the election, Trump was the least bad option who sometimes seemed like a good option. That's still true today. ..."
This will at least wake up those morons at places like Breitbart that Trump is nothing more
than a neocon swine. I mean how much more evidence do they need to see that he is invite the
world, invade the world.
On top of that mass censorship being unleashed under Trump, how can anyone still be conned
into supporting him.
@Colin
Wright For one, its not reposing any confidence, faith, and trust in DJT. He is a
charlatan who appeals to low IQ whites.
Why do so many intelligent people delude themselves into rationalizing their support and
vote for Trump upon the basis of the lesser of two evils loser mindset?
Look at the labor participation numbers. Worse under Trump than under the Kenyan
mulatto.
Look at the rate the debt is increasing. Look at the total increase in the debt since the
serial adulterer took office.
Look at the surge in immigration under this congenital prevaricator.
One doesn't
have to be stupid to support Trump but it helps. The same can be said for his prominent
enemies though. To unconditionally and faithfully support Trump, Hillary Clinton, or Nancy
Pelosi, one would have to be stupid or totally controlled by one's emotions.
That being said, a smart person could still support Trump. A smart person could recognize
Trump finishing his term as the least bad option. In 2020, this same smart person might
recognize that, amazingly, a Trump second term had become the least bad option. People can
scream and throw around insults or they can present an alternative to Trump.
Wouldn't a smart person recognize that his vote does not matter?
Wouldn't a smart person recognize that Stalin's maxim, "its not who votes that counts, its
who counts the votes" controls?
Wouldn't a smart person recognize that falling for a grifter who cares not about Heritage
America and who dances to Bibi's tune is never a good option?
@Liberty MikeWouldn't
a smart person recognize that his vote does not matter?
You and I are voting right now just by publicly engaging in politics. Voting on election
day is worth it in the same way posting comments online is worth it.
Wouldn't a smart person recognize that falling for a grifter who cares not about Heritage
America and who dances to Bibi's tune is never a good option?
Yes. But during the election, Trump was the least bad option who sometimes seemed like a good
option. That's still true today.
"... In SUPERCLASS we learn that this class of people actually own and control the three largest Western religions and many of the secondary ones - they all preach obedience to authority as paramount. They also own the drugs trade around the world. 95% of the world supply of opium comes out of Afghanistan under the watchful eye of the Elite through use of the US military. ..."
"... And just as an aside to any historians out there, Thomas Piketty's book Capital in the Twenty-first Century shows how a critical mass of capital was had formed 500 years ago and has grown consistently at a rate greater than the general economy ever sense. He showed that before, during and after the French Revolution and later the US "revolution" the core capital of the west made profits. These revolutions, like government today, were pantomimes whilew the real power profited from the slaughter. The Elite prosper from war that is why there has been continual war and slaughter on their behalf sinse August 6, 1945. The nuclear weapons belong to them. ..."
You ask a question about European political class's perception and defence of European
interests that is as perplexing here as it is in regard to Libya and Syria, to name just
these. There was at least some coherent defence of international law and principle during
Bush II's lead up to the Iraq war, but Europe's defence of law and Europe's common interests
seem to have ceased at some point since then.
Because, like the US European government is a tool of the Global Power Elite, it is
nothing more than pantomime. The West is fully owned and operated by the global elite.
In books going back to C Wright Mills' The Power Elite in 1956 to SUPERCLASS by David
Rothkopf, and GIANTS: The Global Power Elite by Peter Phillips clearly outline just how
powerful the Global Elites really are.
In SUPERCLASS we learn that this class of people actually own and control the three
largest Western religions and many of the secondary ones - they all preach obedience to
authority as paramount. They also own the drugs trade around the world. 95% of the world
supply of opium comes out of Afghanistan under the watchful eye of the Elite through use of
the US military.
There is one and only one Western empire - that of the Global Elites.
85% of the valuable assets in the world are controlled by the Global Elites.
There is no offsetting force against them, there simply does not exist today a force
capable of challenging their ownership of the world.
And just as an aside to any historians out there, Thomas Piketty's book Capital in the
Twenty-first Century shows how a critical mass of capital was had formed 500 years ago and
has grown consistently at a rate greater than the general economy ever sense. He showed that
before, during and after the French Revolution and later the US "revolution" the core capital
of the west made profits. These revolutions, like government today, were pantomimes whilew
the real power profited from the slaughter. The Elite prosper from war that is why there has
been continual war and slaughter on their behalf sinse August 6, 1945. The nuclear weapons
belong to them.
"... These are the forms of White traditional British oriented American traitors, not racial or ethnic groups with historic envy, hatreds of our people. ..."
2) Trucklers – (LBJ) lower class White Americans who gain wealth and power by championing
non White, minority causes just because it's a path to power, pleasing the elites who would otherwise
dismiss them as hicks.
3) Pussyfooters (Bush Sr. Country Club Conservatives) White Americans who prefer their
own safe life, don't hate their own people but rarely defend them – they don't like trouble, they're
pussies. Alt Right has given them a new word "Cuckservatives".
4) Old Believers (Ron Paul, Pat Robertson) Sincere old guys who wish things could go back
to the way things used to be when some systems supposedly worked for us when we were 90% White European
American, before the Great Society, New Deal, feminism, etc
5) Proditors – (John Brown, Jane Fonda, SDS)
These are the forms of White traditional British oriented American traitors, not racial or ethnic
groups with historic envy, hatreds of our people.
Do you have links to other Wilmot Robertson sites?
I really can't emphasize #2 strongly enough. The term "fog of war" is an apt one.
People in a war generally don't know much at all about what's going on, at the time. They're lucky
if they ever do. But in every single orthodox eye-witness account I've ever read, the storytellers
know exactly what was going on, and why . Even when they shouldn't. They set off
my skeptic alarms left and right.
Read some of the accounts critically, and see for yourself. They're mostly "everybody knows,"
"it is known," type stuff. Not credible at all. These are the bricks the orthodox narrative is
made of.
Interesting but very controversial. Jewish people do possess business acumen and are more oriented toward money success. Just
look what happened in the USSR after its dissolution and Yeltsin privatization. Most "oligarchs" turned to be Jewish ;-)
Also the achievement of Jewish people in science should be be underestimated. This nation gave world a lot of top
physicists mathematicians and philosophers.
Notable quotes:
"... Even the Saudi Monarchy's occasional outbursts against Israel do not inhibit it from engaging in large-scale financial transactions with the Jewish banking elite on Wall Street and City of London and from forming covert alliances with Israeli intelligence in order to overthrow secular pro-Palestinian Arab regimes – as has happened in Libya, Iraq and Syria. They have both benefited from the massive ethnic cleansing of the highly educated minority Christian populations of secular Iraq and Syria. ..."
"... Fake anti-Semitism is most recently seen in the launching of series of anti-Semitic 'threats' by ethno-centric Jews to create hysteria, serves many purposes following the recent rise of populism in Europe and the election of the American President Donald Trump who had promised to withdraw the US from wars in the Middle East. First, it secures widespread support from North American and European regimes, especially when Israel is criticized throughout the world and at the United Nations for its war crimes in occupied Palestine. ..."
"... It is almost certain that the US FBI had identified the perpetrator of these acts as they uncovered the sophisticated operation based in Israel. The FBI would have demanded Israeli police arrest 'the culprit' and shut down the operation. Israeli police staged their own 'fake' investigation and concluded that the complex cloaked cyber operations 'were the work of a shy nineteen year old with dyslexia' – clearly another example of the Jewish genius. ..."
"... A review of the top 10 US multi-billionaires finds four who are identified as 'Jews': Mark Zuckerberg with $56 billion, Larry Ellison with $52.2 billion, Michael Bloomberg with $47.5 billion and Sergey Brin $39.4 billion. In other words 40% of the super-richest Americans are 'Jews' while 60% are non-Jews. Among the top ten in the US, billionaire Jews with a total of $195.1 billion are collectively less rich than the top billionaire Gentiles who own $282.7 billion. ..."
"... All the high-tech computer and financial billionaires are just assumed by the tribalists to view themselves as 'Jewish geniuses' even though they may have learned and borrowed ideas and knowledge from their non-Jewish partners and mentors in Silicon Valley or Wall Street. ..."
Ethno-religious (ER) beliefs and practices have been harmless when individuals or
groups linked to those practices have limited influence over the state and economy. In contrast,
when such groups exercise a disproportionately powerful influence over the state and economy, they
dominate and exploit majorities while forming closed self-replicating networks.
Examples of powerful ethno-centric regimes in the 1930's are well known for their brutality and
devastating consequences. These include the white Christians in the US, Germany and the European
colonial settlement regimes in Rhodesia, South Africa, India and Indonesia, as well as the Japanese
imperialists in Asia.
In the post-colonial or neo-colonial era, ethno-centrism has taken the form of virulent anti-Islamic
hysteria resulting in predatory Western regimes embarking on wars and military occupations in the
Middle East.
The rise of Judeo-centrism, as an economic and political force, occurred in the last half of
the 20th century. The Jewish-Zionist seizure, occupation and ethnic cleansing of historic Palestine
and their rising economic and political influence within the United States has created a formidable
power bloc with significant implications for world peace.
The rise of Jewish ethnocentrism (JE) has confounded its proponents as well as its adversaries;
Zionists and anti-Semites alike are surprised by the scope and depth of JE.
Advocates and adversaries, of all persuasions, conflate the power of what they call 'the Jews',
for their own purposes. Advocates find proof of 'Jewish genius' in every prestigious position and
attribute it to their own unique culture, heredity and scholarship, rather than the result of a greater
social-cultural context. The anti-Semites, for their part, attribute all the world's nefarious dealings
and diabolic plots to 'the Jews'. This creates a strange duality of illusions about the exceptionalism
of a minority group.
In this paper I will focus on demystifying the myths buttressing the power of contemporary Judeo-centric
ideology, belief and organizational influence. There is little point in focusing on anti-Semitism,
which has no impact on the economy and the exercise of state power with the possible exception of
Saudi Arabia. Even the Saudi Monarchy's occasional outbursts against Israel do not inhibit it from
engaging in large-scale financial transactions with the Jewish banking elite on Wall Street and City
of London and from forming covert alliances with Israeli intelligence in order to overthrow secular
pro-Palestinian Arab regimes – as has happened in Libya, Iraq and Syria. They have both benefited
from the massive ethnic cleansing of the highly educated minority Christian populations of secular
Iraq and Syria.
Fake Anti-Semitism: Operational Weapon of the Ethno-Centric Jews
Fake anti-Semitism is most recently seen in the launching of series of anti-Semitic 'threats'
by ethno-centric Jews to create hysteria, serves many purposes following the recent rise of populism
in Europe and the election of the American President Donald Trump who had promised to withdraw the
US from wars in the Middle East. First, it secures widespread support from North American and European
regimes, especially when Israel is criticized throughout the world and at the United Nations for
its war crimes in occupied Palestine. Widespread fake anti-Semitic attacks divert attention to Judeo-ethno
centrists and validate their claims to be the first among the history's victims. Second, widely publicized
'fake' acts of anti-Semitism arouse the ethnocentric foot soldiers and increase rich donor contributions
to the illegal Jewish settlements and the Israeli military. Third, 'fake anti-Semitism' is used to
threaten, repress and outlaw any organizations and individuals who criticize Israel and the influence
of Jewish ethnocentric organizations in their home countries.
How many 'anti-Semitic' acts are staged is uncertain: On March 23, 2017, an Israeli-American
man was arrested in Israel for sending hundreds of fake anti-Semitic threats to Jewish institutions
and schools in four European countries and nine US states. Such threats led to the emergency grounding
of two US airlines and the panicked evacuation of countless schools and cultural centers. This man
used a sophisticated system of cloaking accounts to appear to originate in other countries. Despite
his high skills at cyber-terrorism, Israeli authorities preposterously described him as a 'teenager
with a learning disability'. The Israeli-American cyber-terrorist's arrest made the 'back-pages'
news in the US for one day while his (and others') fake threats continued to make international headlines
for weeks.
These scores of fake anti-Semitic bomb threats were cited by the major ethnocentric leaders in
the US to pressure the US President and hundreds of Congressional leaders, University Presidents,
etc. to mindlessly echo their clamor for greater police state investigations against critics of Israel
and to offer special 'protection' for potential 'Jewish victims'. Moves to outlaw criticism of Israel
as 'anti-Semitism' and a 'hate crime' increased.
Not surprisingly the leading Jewish organizations never backed down or called on the US government
to investigate the source of the fake anti-Semitic threats: that is Israeli-American Zionists, who
carry both nations' passports and can enter and exit with total ease and enjoy immunity from extradition.
It is almost certain that the US FBI had identified the perpetrator of these acts as they uncovered
the sophisticated operation based in Israel. The FBI would have demanded Israeli police arrest 'the
culprit' and shut down the operation. Israeli police staged their own 'fake' investigation and concluded
that the complex cloaked cyber operations 'were the work of a shy nineteen year old with dyslexia'
– clearly another example of the Jewish genius.
It is more likely that the hundreds of false-anti-Semitic
threats were part of an Israeli state operation identified by the FBI who 'diplomatically' pressured
Tel Aviv to cut out the monkey business. The news report of the lone-wolf teenager in Israel allowed
the Israeli intelligence to cover-up their role. Once the Israelis passed off the unbelievable tale
of a brilliant, if troubled, young 'lone wolf', the entire US mass media buried the story forever.
In due time the so-called perpetrator will be released, amply rewarded and his identity re-cycled.
In the meantime the US government, as well as several European governments, was forced to allocate
tens of millions of dollars to provide extra security to Jewish institutions in the wake of these
fake threats.
Jewish Power: The Top 25 American Multi-Billionaires
In February 2017, Forbes magazine compiled a list of the world's billionaires, including a country-by-country
account. The top five countries with multi-billionaires among its citizens are: the US with 565,
China with 319, Germany with 114, India with 101, and Russia with 96. Moreover, since 2016 the net
worth of the multi-billionaires grew 18% to $7.67 trillion dollars.
While the US has the greatest number of billionaires, China is fast catching up.
Despite China's advances, the US remains the center of world capitalism with the greatest concentration
of wealth, as well as the greatest and growing inequalities. One reasonably can argue that who controls
US wealth controls the world.
'Jews' among the Top 25 Multi-Billionaires in the US
A review of the top 10 US multi-billionaires finds four who are identified as 'Jews': Mark Zuckerberg
with $56 billion, Larry Ellison with $52.2 billion, Michael Bloomberg with $47.5 billion and Sergey
Brin $39.4 billion. In other words 40% of the super-richest Americans are 'Jews' while 60% are non-Jews.
Among the top ten in the US, billionaire Jews with a total of $195.1 billion are collectively less
rich than the top billionaire Gentiles who own $282.7 billion.
Of the top 25 multi-billionaires in the US, 11 of the 25 are Jews. In other words 'the Jews'
represent 44% of the top 25 biggest billionaires – outnumbered by Gentiles but catching up.
Analysis of the 'Richest Jews'
We place 'Jews' in quotation marks because this is a doubtful signifier – more useful to both
Zionist fanatics and anti-Semitic polemicists. Most are not 'practicing' or are completely disinterested
in tribal religions. Nevertheless, half of secular Jews in the US are active supporters of Israel
or involved in Fifth Column Israeli 'front groups'.
In other words, about half of the richest 'Jews' do not consider themselves to be religiously
or ethnically 'Jewish'. Super rich Jews are divided regarding their ethnic loyalties between the
US and Israel.
Moreover what is murkier, many of the richest so-called 'Jews' were born to 'mixed marriages'.
Strictly religious Jews do not recognize the children of such marriages as Jews because their mothers
are not Jewish. The omnivorous Zionists, on the other hand, classify all of them as Jews on the basis
of their actual or potential contribution to the State of Israel. In other words, the Zionist classification
of 'Jews' becomes arbitrary, politicized and dependent on organizational affiliation. Religious practice
and ethno-cultural purity are less important.
Judeo-Centrism and the Intrinsic Superiority Fallacy
Among the many zealous advocates of the Judeo-centric world, the most tiresome are those who
claim they represent the product of superior genetics, culture and heritage – unique and intrinsic
to Jews.
For many centuries most Jews were illiterate believers of religious tribal myths, taught by anti-scientific
rabbis, who closed off the ghettos from the accomplishments of higher culture and forbade integration
or mixed marriages. The high priests punished and expelled any Jews who were influenced by the surrounding
Hellenistic, Romanized, Arabic, Renaissance and Rationalists cultures, like the great Spinoza.
In other words, Jews who had rejected Jewish law, the Scriptures and the Torah were expelled
as apostates. But these 'apostates' were most open to the modern ideas of science. Jews greatly benefited
from the emancipatory laws and opportunities following the French Revolution. Under Napoleon, Jews
became citizens and were free to advance in science, the arts and finance by attending secular universities
away from the primitive, superstitious Rabbi-controlled ghetto 'schools'.
The dramatic growth of intellectual excellence among Jews in the 19th century was a result of
their ceasing to be Jews in the traditional closed religious sense. Did they suddenly switch on their
'genius genes' or invent a fake history or religion, as the ethno-centrist would have us believe?
It seems far more likely that they took great advantage of the opportunities opened to them with
major social and political developments in the greater society. As they assimilated and integrated
in secular traditions, they ceased to be Jews in the tribal religious sense. Their scientific, medical
and financial success came from learning, absorbing and exchanging scientific ideas, high culture
and conservative, liberal and socialist ideas with the larger progressive non-Jewish society.
It is no coincidence that 'great Jewish achievers' like the totally secular Albert Einstein were
educated in German universities by German professors and drew on scientific knowledge by German and
non-Jewish scholars. His intellectual development was due to his free association with the great
scientists and scholars of Germany and Europe, not closeted away in some ethno-tribal commune.
The Jews who remained embedded in the Polish, Lithuanian and Russian ghettos, under the reign
of the leading Rabbis, remained illiterate, poor and backward. Most of the claims of 'superior' cultural
heritage or traditions are the creation of a mythical folk history serving ethno-national supremacists.
The Myth of the Contemporary Genius
The modern ethnocentric ideologues ignore the 'dilution of Jewishness' in their celebratory identification
with successful 'Jews'.
Many of the best thinkers, writers, scientists and political leaders were conversos (Christian
converts), or integrated European secular nationalists, socialists, monarchists, bankers and professionals.
Some remained 'reformed Jews' or later transformed into secular Zionists: nationalists who despised
non-Europeans as inferior and couldn't even conceive of Arab Palestine as their 'homeland'. It wasn't
until the 20th century that Zionism was in part 'Judacized'. Early Zionists looked at various locations
for a homeland, including Argentina and parts of Africa and Russia.
These ethno-chauvinist ideologues lay claim to all brilliant individuals, no matter how tenuous
as examples of 'Jewish genius'. Even those personally opposed Jewish ethno-religious beliefs and
indifferent to tribal loyalties end up being claimed as examples of the 'Jewish genius'. Once some
'matrilineal link' could be found, their success and brilliance was tied to the mystical lineage,
no matter how tenuous.
This bizarre practice became even more commonplace following the Jewish military conquest and
brutal ethnic cleansing of Palestine, with the military, political and financial backing of non-Jewish
Europe and the United States. With myths and inflated ideas of unique virtue and brilliance, Israel
was established as a racist apartheid state. A new militant, ethnocentric Judaism converted Israel and its overseas backers into an ethno-ideological
international power with religious trappings, based on the myth of its 'exceptionalism'. To maintain this myth, the personal histories of all prominent 'Israel Firsters' were sanitized
and scrubbed of anti-social and destructive behavior.
All Jewish billionaires were to be portrayed as uniquely philanthropic, while the exploits of
Jewish billionaire swindlers (Bernie Madoff, Michael Milken and Ivan Boesky) were not to be mentioned
in polite company. The conquests of billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, rapist-procurer head of
the IMF Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Governor Elliot Spitzer, Congressman Anthony Weiner and other similar
perverts quietly slithered off the edge of the planet although all had once been hailed as examples
of 'ethnocentric genius'.
Major Jewish political donors to US-UK-French electoral parties were hailed while their work
on behalf of Israel was naturally assumed but not discussed. The dizzying shifts between open adulation
and selective whitewash served to reinforce the illusion of superiority. Anyone, Jew or Gentile,
bold enough to point out the obvious hypocrisy would be immediately censored as 'self-hating' (Jew)
or 'anti-Semite' (Gentile).
Return to the Beginning: Judeo-Centric Power
As mentioned above, Jews represent a substantial minority among the top multi-billionaires, but
they are still a minority. Below the top level of wealth are the single digit billionaires and triple
and double digit multi-millionaires; here the proportion of 'Jews' increases. These 'less-than-super-billionaires'
are among the most active and the biggest financial and political supporters of the ethno centric
ideology and tribal cohesion.
Los Angeles-based Israeli-American billionaire Haim Saban contributed tens of millions of dollars
to support of the Jewish state's occupation of Palestine and brutal colonial land grabbing 'settlers'.
His wealth is largely based on his 'genius' in pushing culturally vacuous Japanese cartoons (Mighty
Morphing Power Rangers) on the nation's children. He is the primary donor to the Democratic Party
pushing Israel's agenda – his number one priority as an American citizen.
The lesser 'foot soldiers' of the Zionist power structure are the millionaires and affluent professionals,
dentists, stockbrokers, lawyers, doctors and impresarios. The middle and lower levels of wealth and
power are a diverse group – mostly ethno-religious and secular, but very self-identified ethno-Jews.
A minority is totally secular or converted to non-Jewish religions (especially Buddhism, Christianity)
Despite the constant drumbeat of ethnocentric identity, an increasing number of young US 'Jews'
do not identify with Judaism or Israel. Their influence however is minimal.
The wealthy ethno-religious and secular ethnic Jews may or may not constitute a numerical majority
but they are the best organized, most political and most adamant in their claims to 'speak for and
represent the Jewish community' as a whole, especially during waves of (fake) 'anti-Semitism'!
The many former-Jews, anti-tribal Jews and 'non-Jewish' Jews are no match for the ethnocentric
political apparatus controlled by the chauvinists.
When the tribalists appropriate the glory of a secular non-Jewish Jewish scientist or major 'prize
winner' they claim his or her tribal affiliation in order to impress the 'goys' and to seduce younger
more skeptical Jews about the advantages of ethno-chauvinism.
All the high-tech computer and financial billionaires are just assumed by the tribalists to view
themselves as 'Jewish geniuses' even though they may have learned and borrowed ideas and knowledge
from their non-Jewish partners and mentors in Silicon Valley or Wall Street.
Upward mobility within academia, government and business circles is automatically assumed by
the tribalists to be a reward for superior merit – 'Jewish genius' – rather than nepotism or connections.
Tribal networks and 'understandings' play a powerful unspoken role in career success and immunity
from the consequences of failure, incompetence or dishonesty.
Multi-billionaires and multi-millionaires prospered because they entered establish lucrative
fields or made their career choices highly profitable.
Early on, many powerful Gentile bankers provided entry for talented Jews to succeed. This is
despite revisionist history bemoaning the exclusion of US Jews on Wall Street and their degrading
denial of membership in select WASP country clubs. These myths of brutal oppression on Wall Street
or Long Island yacht clubs have empowered generations of American Jews to assume the role of spokespersons
for the oppressed everywhere. The expression 'crying all the way to the bank' comes to mind.
By the last quarter of the 20th century and especially in the 21st century, deindustrialization
and the shift to financialization in the US economy increased the power and privilege of a disproportionate
number of multi-billionaire/millionaire Jews. This seismic shift has coincided with the pervasive
impoverishment of the marginalized working class in the former 'rust belt' and central parts of the
country and the incredible concentration of national wealth at the top 1%. This is a demographic
shift and ethno-class apartheid of huge, but unstudied, significance.
The most important political question is not how many Jews are super-wealthy but what proportion
of them are influential political donors and active in the Democratic or Republican Parties in order
to intervene on behalf of clan, tribe and motherland (Israel). Majorities among Jews are not crucial
– most are not politically active. What is decisive is the percentage of all the super-wealthy who
are politically active, organized and contribute substantially to influence and control the mass
media to promote their ethno-centric ideology and punish critics.
Conclusion
Overt and covert Jewish supremacists have embroidered a fake history and legacy of exceptional
intelligence ignoring the context of advanced non-Jewish science and cultures, which preceded and
later provided Jews with opportunities for education and wealth.
The danger inherent in all ethno-centric tribes is that they work to dominate majority populations
by creating systems of assigning superiority and inferiority. They then use these to justify growing
inequalities of wealth, education and political power!
Historically favored minorities tend to overreach and, like the eyeless Sampson, bring down the
Temple on everyone. Power corrupts and absolute ethno-chauvinist power corrupts absolutely. Intelligent
Jews of principle are abandoning
Money quote (from comments): This GOP/Israel connection stinks to high heaven. Anyone who studied or remembers our problem with
Communist spies back in the '50s has got to be hearing alarm bells ringing in their ears. Worries about Soviet spying and Russian meddling
pale in comparison to what's now going on in plain sight with Israel.
Notable quotes:
"... As usual, Trump made the announcement of recognizing Israel's claim to the Golan Heights without any consultation with any of the relevant administration officials: ..."
"... After more than two years of watching Trump's impulsive and reckless "governing" style, it doesn't come as a surprise to anyone that he makes these decisions without advance warning. There is no evidence that Trump ever thinks anything through, and so he probably sees no reason to tell anyone in advance what he is going to do. ..."
"... Trump almost never bothers consulting with the people who will be responsible for carrying out his policies ..."
"... There is absolutely no upside for the United States in endorsing illegal Israeli claims to the Golan Heights. It is a cynical political stunt intended to boost Netanyahu and Likud's fortunes in the upcoming election, and it is also a cynical stunt aimed at shoring up Trump's support from Republican "pro-Israel" voters and donors. ..."
"... Once again, Trump has put narrow political ambitions and the interests of a foreign government ahead of the interests of the United States. That seems to be the inevitable result of electing a narcissist who conducts foreign policy based on which leaders flatter and praise him. ..."
"... Bolton is usually the culprit responsible any destructive and foolish policy decision over the last year, and his baleful influence continues to grow. We can also see the harmful effects of the administration's Iran obsession at work. In the end, the Syria "withdrawal" hasn't happened and apparently isn't going to, but Trump nonetheless gives Israel whatever it wants in exchange for nothing so that they will be "reassured" of our unthinking support. ..."
"... I wonder what Mr. Kagan has to say now about "authoritarian" regimes?! ..."
"... Trump is making one hell of a mess for the next president to clean up. ..."
"... The decision to leave the INF treaty was taken in a similar way and with a total disregard for the consequences. The leaders of the European NATO countries have shown utter spinelessness in going along with it. ..."
"... I am shocked and horrified by what I've seen under Trump. I am deeply disappointed that so few Republicans (or Democrats, for that matter) have stood up to him on foreign policy, and I will never vote Republican again. This GOP/Israel connection stinks to high heaven. Anyone who studied or remembers our problem with Communist spies back in the '50s has got to be hearing alarm bells ringing in their ears. Worries about Soviet spying and Russian meddling pale in comparison to what's now going on in plain sight with Israel. ..."
"... To be fair, it ain't just Team R that has the sloppy crush on Israel. Team D is just as bad, even if they don't gush quite so publicly. In fact, episodes such as this one are useful in a way, as they make it hard to pretend that this is just a one-off, a misguided decision that we have to go along with to appease a powerful friend. ..."
"... Nevertheless, Israel should be very concerned about Northern Syria. If war breaks out and the US is forced to go to war with its own NATO ally as a result, Israel should prepare to kiss its alliance with the US goodbye. ..."
"... Many (rightfully or not) will blame Israel due to its connections to neoconservatism and Saudi jingoism, and consequently we may end up seeing BOTH parties becoming unfriendly to Israel over the subsequent generation. ..."
"... All of this could be prevented if President Trump would just tell Saudi Arabia to STOP the nonsense. But no. He's too focused on MIC profits. He's not America First. And quite frankly, I'm starting to think Benjamin Netanyahu is not Israel-first either, because if he were he'd be warning Trump about the mess he's going to end up getting America, Israel, and much of Europe and the Middle East into. ..."
As usual, Trump
made the announcement
of recognizing Israel's claim to the Golan Heights without any consultation with any of the relevant administration officials:
President Donald Trump's tweet on Thursday recognizing the Golan Heights as Israeli territory surprised members of his own
Middle East peace team, the State Department, and Israeli officials.
U.S. diplomats and White House aides had believed the Golan Heights issue would be front and center at next week's meetings
between Trump and Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House. But they were unprepared for any presidential
announcement this week.
No formal U.S. process or executive committees were initiated to review the policy before Trump's decision, and the diplomats
responsible for implementing the policy were left in the dark.
Even the Israelis, who have advocated for this move for years, were stunned at the timing of Trump's message.
After more than two years of watching Trump's impulsive and reckless "governing" style, it doesn't come as a surprise to anyone
that he makes these decisions without advance warning. There is no evidence that Trump ever thinks anything through, and so he probably
sees no reason to tell anyone in advance what he is going to do.
Trump almost never bothers consulting with the people who will be responsible for carrying out his policies and dealing
with the international fallout, and that is probably why so many of his policy decisions end up being exceptionally poor ones. The
substance of most of Trump's foreign policy decisions was never likely to be good, but the lack of an organized policy process on
major decisions makes those decisions even more haphazard and chaotic than they would otherwise be.
There is absolutely no upside for the United States in endorsing illegal Israeli claims to the Golan Heights. It is a cynical
political stunt intended to boost Netanyahu and Likud's fortunes in the upcoming election, and it is also a cynical stunt aimed at
shoring up Trump's support from Republican "pro-Israel" voters and donors.
Whatever short-term benefit Israel gains from it, the U.S. gains nothing and stands to lose quite a bit in terms of our international
standing.
There has been no consideration of the costs and problems this will create for the U.S. in its relations with other regional states
and beyond because Trump couldn't care less about the long-term effects that his decisions have on the country.
Once again, Trump has put narrow political ambitions and the interests of a foreign government ahead of the interests of the
United States. That seems to be the inevitable result of electing a narcissist who conducts foreign policy based on which leaders
flatter and praise him.
Trump's bad decision can be traced back to Bolton's visit to Israel earlier this year:
Administration officials said that National Security Advisor John Bolton was instrumental to the decision, after visiting Israel
in January to assure officials there that the United States would not abandon them in Syria despite Trump's sudden withdrawal
of troops from the battlefield.
Nervous Israeli officials saw an opportunity. "It was an ask," one Israeli source said, "because of the timing -- it suddenly
became a relevant issue about Iran."
Bolton is usually the culprit responsible any destructive and foolish policy decision over the last year, and his baleful
influence continues to grow. We can also see the harmful effects of the administration's Iran obsession at work. In the end, the
Syria "withdrawal" hasn't happened and apparently isn't going to, but Trump nonetheless gives Israel whatever it wants in exchange
for nothing so that they will be "reassured" of our unthinking support.
Well, of course Trump puts America last. There is one and only one person he is interested in -- himself. As you say this is his
narcissistic personality at work.
My never ending question is always, "Why does any Republican with a conscience remain silent? Are they really all this shallow
and self absorbed? Is there nothing Trump does that will finally force them to put country before party and their own ambition?"
It's a really sad state of events that has put this country on the road to ruin.
Trump is making one hell of a mess for the next president to clean up. Straightening out all this stupidity will take
years. Here's hoping that Trump gets to watch his foreign policy decisions tossed out and reversed from federal prison.
The decision to leave the INF treaty was taken in a similar way and with a total disregard for the consequences. The leaders
of the European NATO countries have shown utter spinelessness in going along with it.
The administration says that a Russian missile violates the treaty but it will not tell us what the range of the missile is.
Nor will it allow its weapons inspectors to go and look at it.
The reason is clear: Fear that the weapons inspectors' findings would contradict the administration's claims.
I voted Republican ever since I started voting. I voted for Bush I, Dole, Dubya, and McCain. I couldn't vote for either Obama
or Romney, but I voted for Trump because of Hillary Clinton.
I am shocked and horrified by what I've seen under Trump. I am deeply disappointed that so few Republicans (or Democrats,
for that matter) have stood up to him on foreign policy, and I will never vote Republican again. This GOP/Israel connection stinks
to high heaven. Anyone who studied or remembers our problem with Communist spies back in the '50s has got to be hearing alarm
bells ringing in their ears. Worries about Soviet spying and Russian meddling pale in comparison to what's now going on in plain
sight with Israel.
To be fair, it ain't just Team R that has the sloppy crush on Israel. Team D is just as bad, even if they don't gush quite
so publicly. In fact, episodes such as this one are useful in a way, as they make it hard to pretend that this is just a one-off,
a misguided decision that we have to go along with to appease a powerful friend.
Europoliticians tell that last one a lot. "We really don't want to but the Americans twisted our arms ZOMG Special Relationship
so sorry ZOMG!" Only with a lot more Eurobureaucratese.
I agree with the article's premise, but not because of this move regarding Israel.
Personally, I believe this move will have little impact on the outcome of the crisis in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia and the
other Arab monarchies are too focused on containing Iran and Turkey to give a crap about what Israel does. The only Arab states
that I can see objecting to this move are Syria (obviously) and the others who were already allied with Iran and/or Turkey to
begin with.
Right now, the REAL center of attention in the region should be Northern Syria. THAT's where the next major war likely will
begin. In that area, Saudi Arabia and to a lesser extent Turkey and the United Arab Emirates are the ones doing the major escalations,
while Israel has virtually no role at all aside from sideline cheer-leading. And of course, Trump is doing nothing to stop what
could become the next July Crisis. What's "America First" about that?
Nevertheless, Israel should be very concerned about Northern Syria. If war breaks out and the US is forced to go to war
with its own NATO ally as a result, Israel should prepare to kiss its alliance with the US goodbye.
There is no way our international reputation will come out of this war unscathed, and odds are we'll be in a far worse position
diplomatically than we were at any point in our history, even during the Iraq war. When that happens, the American people will
be out to assign blame. Many (rightfully or not) will blame Israel due to its connections to neoconservatism and Saudi jingoism,
and consequently we may end up seeing BOTH parties becoming unfriendly to Israel over the subsequent generation.
All of this could be prevented if President Trump would just tell Saudi Arabia to STOP the nonsense. But no. He's too focused
on MIC profits. He's not America First. And quite frankly, I'm starting to think Benjamin Netanyahu is not Israel-first either,
because if he were he'd be warning Trump about the mess he's going to end up getting America, Israel, and much of Europe and the
Middle East into.
@Thomm
That's so true that it's almost incredible, Andrew Anglin of the daily stormer has been
campaigning for Tulsi Gabbard & Andrew Yang for well over a month
He could be said to be instrumental in putting Yang on the democratic primaries and
possibly Tulsi as well all the while using his weaponized memes against Trump!! I'm in
disbelief.
Gabbard: Assange arrest is a threat to journalists
By Rachel Frazin – 04/11/19 06:10 PM EDT
Democratic presidential hopeful Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) condemned the arrest of
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Thursday, calling the arrest a threat to
journalists.
"The arrest of #JulianAssange is meant to send a message to all Americans and
journalists: be quiet, behave, toe the line. Or you will pay the price," Gabbard
tweeted.
The Democrat's remark came hours after police in London arrested Assange, citing charges
he is facing in the U.S.
Assange is accused of conspiring to hack into computers in connection with WikiLeaks's
release of classified documents from former Army private and intelligence analyst Chelsea
Manning.
span y apenultimate on Wed, 04/10/2019 - 7:09pm She did it, an hour ago!
Tulsi Gabbard now has enough individual donors to make it into the televised Democratic
debates! Thanks to those of you who helped, either by becoming a donor, or in spirit!
President Trump campaigned against regime change wars when he ran for President, but now he
bows to the wishes of the neocons who surround him, clamoring for the regime change wars that
he claimed to oppose--this time in Venezuela and Iran.
These powerful politicians dishonor the sacrifices made by every one of my brothers and
sisters in uniform, their families - as they are the ones who pay the price for these wars.
In fact, every American pays the price for these wars that have cost us trillions of dollars
since 9/11.
Every dollar that we spend on regime change wars or on the new cold war and this nuclear
arms race is a dollar coming out of our pockets dollars that should be used to address the very
real, urgent needs of our people and our communities right here at home.
Netanyahu and Saudi Arabia want to drag the United States into war with Iran, and Trump is
submitting to their wishes. The cost in money and lives will be catastrophic.
"... In so doing, he has effectively repudiated the entire post-World War II international order and signalled that wars of conquest and territorial aggrandisement are the order of the day. Such annexations were declared illegal under the Geneva Conventions, enacted in the wake of the Second World War to prevent the repetition of similar actions carried out by Germany's Nazi regime, which set the stage for the outbreak of war in 1939. ..."
"... Netanyahu's announcement will give succour to his support base among fascistic layers of the settlers and religious nationalists, driving Israel's capitalist political setup ever further toward outright apartheid, fascism and military dictatorship. It is a prelude to intensified Israeli military aggression in the occupied West Bank, Gaza and the broader Middle East. ..."
"... He has brought into his electoral coalition, and a possible share of government power should he win, outright fascist elements linked to the banned Kach Party of the late Meir Kahane, a party that was designated a terrorist organization by the US, Canada, the European Union, Japan and Israel itself. ..."
"... Trump's naked interference in the Israeli elections is bound up with US imperialism's broader aim of escalating its military intervention in the Middle East to roll back the growth of Iranian influence in the wake of the successive debacles suffered by Washington in Iraq, Libya and Syria. ..."
"... The political antecedents of Netanyahu's Likud Party, Vladimir Jabotinsky's Revisionists, who were to remain a minority tendency until the 1970s, articulated this position most clearly. Their aim was the establishment of a Jewish state on the entire land of Biblical Palestine, including Transjordan. With the Jews a minority in Palestine, such a state would necessarily mean expelling the Arab population to ensure its Jewish character. ..."
"... In 1923, Jabotinsky explained, in an article titled "The Iron Wall," that the Zionist project could be achieved only against the wishes of the native population. He envisaged the need for an iron wall to protect the Jews from the native population. He said, "A voluntary reconciliation with the Arabs is out of the question either now or in the near future." Without a garrison, Zionist colonization of Palestine would be impossible, and "therefore it stands or falls by the question of armed force." ..."
"... Netanyahu has now made explicit what has long been implicit: the incorporation of the West Bank into a Greater Israel. It can be achieved and sustained only through the imposition of military rule. To this end, his government has passed a series of measures, including the openly racist "Nation-State Law" enshrining Jewish supremacy as the legal foundation of the state, bringing the political and legal system into alignment with the reality of Jabotinsky's garrison state, based on the brutal oppression of an entire people, the Palestinians. ..."
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has declared his intention of extending Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank, captured in
the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, if he is re-elected prime minister in Tuesday's general election.
In so doing, he has effectively repudiated the entire post-World War II international order and signalled that wars of conquest
and territorial aggrandisement are the order of the day. Such annexations were declared illegal under the Geneva Conventions, enacted
in the wake of the Second World War to prevent the repetition of similar actions carried out by Germany's Nazi regime, which set
the stage for the outbreak of war in 1939.
Netanyahu's announcement will give succour to his support base among fascistic layers of the settlers and religious nationalists,
driving Israel's capitalist political setup ever further toward outright apartheid, fascism and military dictatorship. It is a prelude
to intensified Israeli military aggression in the occupied West Bank, Gaza and the broader Middle East.
Netanyahu told a television Channel 12 interviewer on Saturday that he would not "evacuate any community." Nor would he divide
Jerusalem, a reference to Palestinian demands for East Jerusalem to serve as the capital of a future Palestinian state. He said,
"I will not divide Jerusalem, I will not evacuate any community and I will make sure we control the territory west of Jordan."
He added, "A Palestinian state will endanger our existence and I withstood huge pressure over the past eight years. No prime minister
has withstood such pressure. We must control our destiny."
Netanyahu made it clear that he viewed President Donald Trump's recognition of Israel's illegal annexation of Syria's Golan Heights,
captured in 1967, as a green light to press on with Likud's long-held expansionist policy of a Greater Israel. He said, "Will we
move ahead to the next stage? Yes. I will extend sovereignty, but I don't distinguish between the settlement blocs and the isolated
ones, because each settlement is Israeli, and I will not hand it over to Palestinian sovereignty."
Speaking about the Bedouin community of Khan al-Ahmar, which he has pledged to evacuate despite international outrage, Netanyahu
promised that "it will happen." He added, "I promised, and it will happen at the soonest opportunity."
Netanyahu's announcement was aimed at bolstering his position in the election, which he had called ahead of schedule in order
to win political backing to ensure his immunity from prosecution on a raft of corruption charges. Facing unexpectedly strong opposition
from a slate of generals assembled by the so-called Blue and White coalition, headed by former chief of staff Benny Gantz, he has
leveraged Trump's support to appeal to his right-wing support base.
He has brought into his electoral coalition, and a possible share of government power should he win, outright fascist elements
linked to the banned Kach Party of the late Meir Kahane, a party that was designated a terrorist organization by the US, Canada,
the European Union, Japan and Israel itself.
Trump's naked interference in the Israeli elections is bound up with US imperialism's broader aim of escalating its military
intervention in the Middle East to roll back the growth of Iranian influence in the wake of the successive debacles suffered by Washington
in Iraq, Libya and Syria.
Netanyahu's growing alliance with the House of Saud and the petro-monarchs of the Gulf has served to ensure their acquiescence
-- with pro forma denunciations -- to this latest assault on the Palestinians.
But apart from Netanyahu's short-term political calculations, his announcement derives from Zionism's foundation upon exclusivist
conceptions of racial, religious and linguistic hegemony to justify the establishment of a Jewish state through the violent dispossession
of the indigenous Arab population, who formed the overwhelming majority of the population, making use of the horrors of the Holocaust
as a rationale for the oppression of another people.
The political antecedents of Netanyahu's Likud Party, Vladimir Jabotinsky's Revisionists, who were to remain a minority tendency
until the 1970s, articulated this position most clearly. Their aim was the establishment of a Jewish state on the entire land of
Biblical Palestine, including Transjordan. With the Jews a minority in Palestine, such a state would necessarily mean expelling the
Arab population to ensure its Jewish character.
In 1923, Jabotinsky explained, in an article titled "The Iron Wall," that the Zionist project could be achieved only against
the wishes of the native population. He envisaged the need for an iron wall to protect the Jews from the native population. He said,
"A voluntary reconciliation with the Arabs is out of the question either now or in the near future." Without a garrison, Zionist
colonization of Palestine would be impossible, and "therefore it stands or falls by the question of armed force."
The establishment of a Jewish state was viewed with sympathy by millions of people around the world, who were appalled at the
catastrophe that had befallen the Jews. But the major powers excluding Britain, but including the Soviet Union, supported the establishment
of a Jewish state as a means of blocking Britain's position in the Middle East. As a result, the UN voted in 1947 for the partition
of Palestine, hailing the new state as a progressive entity dedicated to building a democratic and egalitarian society for the most
cruelly oppressed people of Europe.
As soon as the State of Israel was declared in 1948, war broke out between the Arabs and the Jews, who were able to seize more
land than was included in the 1947 partition plan, driving out some 750,000 Palestinians from their homes. Not wanting to pay the
price of the concessions demanded by the superpowers, in terms of borders and refugees, Israel's Labour government did not try to
make peace after the war, instead instituting a policy of "striving for peace" -- but not too fast -- which became the template for
future governments. The more Israel got used to the situation of neither peace nor war, the louder grew the voices calling for the
maintenance of the status quo.
After the 1967 war, when Israel captured East Jerusalem and the West Bank from Jordan, Gaza from Egypt and the Golan Heights from
Syria, the Labour government moved rapidly to annex East Jerusalem and build settlements in the occupied territories that are now
home to some 700,000 Israeli Jews, many of them extreme nationalists and religious zealots who are heavily armed. Labour had, in
effect, adopted the Revisionists' policy.
The war and the settlement movement spawned the growth of immensely reactionary political and social forces within Israel itself,
with Menachem Begin's Likud party demanding the territories be brought under Israeli sovereignty on the grounds that they were the
Biblical lands of Samaria and Judea, promised by God to the Jewish people.
In 1993, a Labour government signed an illusory peace deal, the Oslo Accords, brokered by the US, with the Palestine Liberation
Organization. Ostensibly, the agreement was to usher in a Palestinian statelet. But its real purpose was to prevent the intifada
that broke out in 1987 from developing into a revolutionary uprising by the Palestinian masses in the occupied territories, and to
subcontract the task of suppressing the masses to the Palestinian bourgeoisie.
Instead of peace and a Palestinian state, the Oslo Accords set the stage for an expansion of the settlements and land seizures
to control the access roads to these enclaves and strengthen their connection to Israel itself, with the Palestinian Authority left
to police small patches of land, mostly impoverished cities, surrounded and cut off by Israeli troops.
In line with its long-held policy, the Likud Party vehemently opposed any territorial concessions to the Palestinians embodied
in the Accords. Its leaders stood by as its angry supporters called Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin a traitor, paving the way for his
murder in 1995 by a right-wing fanatic. With none of the mainstream political parties prepared to make any fundamental changes, the
fraudulent peace process was all but dead.
Netanyahu has now made explicit what has long been implicit: the incorporation of the West Bank into a Greater Israel. It
can be achieved and sustained only through the imposition of military rule. To this end, his government has passed a series of measures,
including the openly racist "Nation-State Law" enshrining Jewish supremacy as the legal foundation of the state, bringing the political
and legal system into alignment with the reality of Jabotinsky's garrison state, based on the brutal oppression of an entire people,
the Palestinians.
The so-called "centre-left" opposition in the elections, led by Gantz, has not challenged Netanyahu's annexation pledge, resorting
to verbal obfuscations and calls for a "regional conference" or "secure separation," thereby signifying consent.
This marks the historic bankruptcy and culmination of the entire reactionary Zionist project and all such nationalist programs.
Tulsi is a really great polemist with a very sharp mind and ability to find weak points in the opponent platform/argumentation
and withstand pressure. In the debate she will probably will wipe the floor with Trump. IMHO he stands no chances against her in the
open debate
Notable quotes:
"... Trump is for socialism when it comes to taxpayers underwriting military contractors and arms manufacturers. The same money would create more jobs used for rebuilding our country's infrastructure and green economy, and it would be better for humanity. ..."
"... While the paper hailed the fact that the Pentagon's budget increase allowed local workers to keep their jobs and encouraged a skilled workforce to move to a small town in rural Ohio, Gabbard apparently hinted that the whole story in fact described what amounted to re-distribution of money from taxpayers to a de-facto depressed area to save some jobs – a social-democratic if not outright socialist move indeed. ..."
"... In her post, Gabbard also added that the US might have had a better use for a $160 billion boost in defense spending over two years. “The same money would create more jobs used for rebuilding our country’s infrastructure and green economy, and it would be better for humanity,” she wrote. ..."
US President Donald Trump, who has been relentlessly bashing everything linked to what he sees as 'socialism,' is himself no stranger
to using socialist principles to support the US arms industry, Tulsi Gabbard has claimed. One could hardly suspect Trump of being
a socialist in disguise.
After all, the US president has emerged as one of the most ardent critics of the leftist ideological platform.
Just recently, he announced he would "go into the war with some socialists," while apparently referring to his political opponents
from the Democratic Party.
But the president also seems to be quite keen on borrowing some socialist ideas when it fits his agenda, at least, according to
the congresswoman from Hawaii and Democratic presidential candidate, Tulsi Gabbard, who recently wrote in a tweet that "Trump
is for socialism when it comes to taxpayers underwriting military contractors and arms manufacturers."
Trump is for socialism when it comes to taxpayers underwriting military contractors and arms manufacturers. The same money
would create more jobs used for rebuilding our country's infrastructure and green economy, and it would be better for humanity.https://t.co/tcNqsNQVbN
She was referring to a
piece in The Los Angeles Times, which cheerfully reported that Trump's whopping military budget helps to breathe some new life
into a Pentagon-owned tank manufacturing plant somewhere in northwestern Ohio that was once on the verge of a shutdown.
While the paper hailed the fact that the Pentagon's budget increase allowed local workers to keep their jobs and encouraged a
skilled workforce to move to a small town in rural Ohio, Gabbard apparently hinted that the whole story in fact described what amounted
to re-distribution of money from taxpayers to a de-facto depressed area to save some jobs – a social-democratic if not outright socialist
move indeed.
It is very much unclear if Trump had this Ohio plant or any other factories like it in mind when he supported the record Pentagon
budget. After all, redistributing large sums of public money in favor of the booming US military industrial complex does not look
very much like socialism.
In her post, Gabbard also added that the US might have had a better use for a $160 billion
boost in defense
spending over two years. “The same money would create more jobs used for rebuilding our country’s infrastructure and green economy,
and it would be better for humanity,” she wrote.
Trump, meanwhile, seems to be pretty confident that his policies indeed “make America great again” while it is those
pesky socialists that threaten to ruin everything he has achieved. “I love the idea of 'Keep America Great' because you know
what it says is we've made it great now we're going to keep it great because the socialists will destroy it,” he told an audience
of Republican congress members this week, while talking about the forthcoming presidential campaign.
"... Tulsi didn't join in the standing ovation for NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg during his warmongering speech to the US Congress on Weds. Good for her. ..."
"... Tracey has allowed Tulsi to explain the nuances of her foreign policy stands concerning regime change, war, and fighting terrorism. I do not believe any other interviewer has been able to bring out those distinctions. ..."
"... I hope people will take the time to listen to Tracey's interview. It is posted on YouTube, but it is an audio interview only. Tracey does a nice introduction to both parts of the interview which was conducted over two days. ..."
The Tulsi2020 campaign continues to gain unique donors, closing in on the
magic number. As of tonight, Tulsi has 61,029 of them, and needs only 3,971 more to get into the Democratic debates. That's only
97 new donors per day through May 14.
Tulsi didn't join in the standing ovation for NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg during his warmongering speech to the US Congress
on Weds. Good for her.
with Tulsi Gabbard so far. Tracey has allowed Tulsi to explain the nuances of her foreign policy stands concerning regime change,
war, and fighting terrorism. I do not believe any other interviewer has been able to bring out those distinctions.
I hope people will take the time to listen to Tracey's interview. It is posted on YouTube, but it is an audio interview only.
Tracey does a nice introduction to both parts of the interview which was conducted over two days.
RobinG
says: April 2, 2019
at 11:35 pm GMT 100 Words @Cloak And
Dagger What do they say about Tulsi? Please note in this interview when Cenk asks her
directly if she opposes the Occupation, she says Yes! A true Zio supporter (as some here have
accused her!) would object to even using the word. And she addresses the Adelson question. On
the conflict, her answer is pretty pablum, but probably as far as she can go strategically.
Cenk has been castigated from both sides, either as too harsh or too easy with her. IMO it's
a very good interview. Can you picture for a moment, Tulsi in a debate with Trump? What are her
boosters doing to prepare her for that? She's handling all the animosity with equanimity, and
she'll arrive at the final contest battle-hardened.
Cenk has been castigated from both sides, either as too harsh or too easy with her.
It is a good interview and she handles herself very well and her positions are well
articulated. I remain wary of her, however, but I will keep an open mind and watch her in the
months ahead to see where her funding comes from.
@JR ssaid:
If one recognizes that Brzezinski's "The Grand Chessboard, American Primacy & Its
Geostrategic Imperatives (1997)" in replacing "Lebensraum" with "control over Eurasia",
"Tausendjähriges Reich" with "American Primacy" and providing our 'elite' with an
"realist" and "amoral" excuse to act completely and consistently immoral one has to recognize
too that this "Grand Chessboard" is an amalgamation of 'Mein Kampf' and 'Il Principe".
Except that Germany did not send Germans into the conquered territories during WWII,
though they wanted to do so.
Junk author, junk book of the butcher of Yugoslavia who would be hanged with Bill clinton by
Nuremberg Tribunal for crimes against peace. Albright is not bright at all. she a female bully
and that shows.
Mostly projection. And this arrogant warmonger like to exercise in Russophobia (which was the
main part of the USSR which saved the world fro fascism, sacrificing around 20 million people)
This book is book of denial of genocide against Iraqis and Serbian population where bombing with
uranium enriched bombs doubled cancer cases.If you can pass over those facts that this book is
for you.
Like Robert Kagan and other neocons Albright is waiving authoritarism dead chicken again and
again. that's silly and disingenuous. authoritarism is a method of Governance used in military.
It is not an ideology. Fascism is an ideology, a flavor of far right nationalism. Kind of
"enhanced" by some socialist ideas far right nationalism.
The view of fascism without economic circumstances that create fascism, and first of
immiseration of middle and working class and high level of unemployment is a primitive
ahistorical view. Fascism is the ultimate capitalist statism acting simultaneously as the civil
religion for the population also enforced by the power of the state. It has a lot of common with
neoliberalism, that's why neoliberalism is sometimes called "inverted totalitarism".
In reality fascism while remaining the dictatorship of capitalists for capitalist and the
national part of financial oligarchy, it like neoliberalism directed against working class
fascism comes to power on the populist slogans of righting wrong by previous regime and kicking
foreign capitalists and national compradors (which in Germany turned to be mostly Jewish)
out.
It comes to power under the slogans of stopping the distribution of wealth up and elimination
of the class of reinters -- all citizens should earn income, not get it from bond and other
investments (often in reality doing completely the opposite).
While intrinsically connected and financed by a sizable part of national elite which often
consist of far right military leadership, a part of financial oligarchy and large part of lower
middle class (small properties) is is a protest movement which want to revenge for the
humiliation and prefer military style organization of the society to democracy as more potent
weapon to achieve this goal.
Like any far right movement the rise of fascism and neo-fascism is a sign of internal problem
within a given society, often a threat to the state or social order.
Still another noted that Fascism is often linked to people who are part of a distinct ethnic
or racial group, who are under economic stress, and who feel that they are being denied rewards
to which they are entitled. "It's not so much what people have." she said, "but what they think
they should have -- and what they fear." Fear is why Fascism's emotional reach can extend to
all levels of society. No political movement can flourish without popular support, but Fascism
is as dependent on the wealthy and powerful as it is on the man or woman in the street -- on
those who have much to lose and those who have nothing at all.
This insight made us think that Fascism should perhaps be viewed less as a political
ideology than as a means for seizing and holding power. For example, Italy in the 1920s
included self-described Fascists of the left (who advocated a dictatorship of the
dispossessed), of the right (who argued for an authoritarian corporatist state), and of the
center (who sought a return to absolute monarchy). The German National Socialist Party (the
Nazis) originally came together ar ound a list of demands that ca- tered to anti-Semites,
anti-immigrants, and anti-capitalists but also advocated for higher old-age pensions, more
educational op- portunities for the poor, an end to child labor, and improved ma- ternal health
care. The Nazis were racists and, in their own minds, reformers at the same time.
If Fascism concerns itself less with specific policies than with finding a pathway to power,
what about the tactics of lead- ership? My students remarked that the Fascist chiefs we remem-
ber best were charismatic. Through one method or another, each established an emotional link to
the crowd and, like the central figure in a cult, brought deep and often ugly feelings to the
sur- face. This is how the tentacles of Fascism spread inside a democ- racy. Unlike a monarchy
or a military dictatorship imposed on society from above. Fascism draws energy from men and
women who are upset because of a lost war, a lost job, a memory of hu- miliation, or a sense
that their country is in steep decline. The more painful the grounds for resentment, the easier
it is for a Fascist leader to gam followers by dangling the prospect of re- newal or by vowing
to take back what has been stolen.
Like the mobilizers of more benign movements, these secular evangelists exploit the
near-universal human desire to be part of a meaningful quest. The more gifted among them have
an apti- tude for spectacle -- for orchestrating mass gatherings complete with martial music,
incendiary rhetoric, loud cheers, and arm-
lifting salutes. To loyalists, they offer the prize of membership in a club from which
others, often the objects of ridicule, are kept out. To build fervor, Fascists tend to be
aggressive, militaristic, and -- when circumstances allow -- expansionist. To secure the
future, they turn schools into seminaries for true believers, striv- ing to produce "new men"
and "new women" who will obey without question or pause. And, as one of my students observed,
"a Fascist who launches his career by being voted into office will have a claim to legitimacy
that others do not."
After climbing into a position of power, what comes next: How does a Fascist consolidate
authority? Here several students piped up: "By controlling information." Added another, "And
that's one reason we have so much cause to worry today." Most of us have thought of the
technological revolution primarily as a means for people from different walks of life to
connect with one another, trade ideas, and develop a keener understanding of why men and women
act as they do -- in other words, to sharpen our perceptions of truth. That's still the case,
but now we are not so sure. There is a troubling "Big Brother" angle because of the mountain of
personal data being uploaded into social media. If an advertiser can use that information to
home in on a consumer because of his or her individual interests, what's to stop a Fascist
government from doing the same? "Suppose I go to a demonstra- tion like the Women's March,"
said a student, "and post a photo
on social media. My name gets added to a list and that list can end up anywhere. How do we
protect ourselves against that?"
Even more disturbing is the ability shown by rogue regimes and their agents to spread lies
on phony websites and Facebook. Further, technology has made it possible for extremist
organiza- tions to construct echo chambers of support for conspiracy theo- ries, false
narratives, and ignorant views on religion and race. This is the first rule of deception:
repeated often enough, almost any statement, story, or smear can start to sound plausible. The
Internet should be an ally of freedom and a gateway to knowledge; in some cases, it is
neither.
Historian Robert Paxton begins one of his books by assert- ing: "Fascism was the major
political innovation of the twentieth century, and the source of much of its pain." Over the
years, he and other scholars have developed lists of the many moving parts that Fascism
entails. Toward the end of our discussion, my class sought to articulate a comparable list.
Fascism, most of the students agreed, is an extreme form of authoritarian rule. Citizens are
required to do exactly what lead- ers say they must do, nothing more, nothing less. The
doctrine is linked to rabid nationalism. It also turns the traditional social contract upside
down. Instead of citizens giving power to the state in exchange for the protection of their
rights, power begins with the leader, and the people have no rights. Under Fascism,
the mission of citizens is to serve; the government's job is to rule.
When one talks about this subject, confusion often arises about the difference between
Fascism and such related concepts as totalitarianism, dictatorship, despotism, tyranny,
autocracy, and so on. As an academic, I might be tempted to wander into that thicket, but as a
former diplomat, I am primarily concerned with actions, not labels. To my mind, a Fascist is
someone who identifies strongly with and claims to speak for a whole nation or group, is
unconcerned with the rights of others, and is willing to use whatever means are necessary --
including violence -- to achieve his or her goals. In that conception, a Fascist will likely be
a tyrant, but a tyrant need not be a Fascist.
Often the difference can be seen in who is trusted with the guns. In seventeenth-century
Europe, when Catholic aristocrats did battle with Protestant aristocrats, they fought over
scripture but agreed not to distribute weapons to their peasants, thinking it safer to wage war
with mercenary armies. Modern dictators also tend to be wary of their citizens, which is why
they create royal guards and other elite security units to ensure their personal safe- ty. A
Fascist, however, expects the crowd to have his back. Where kings try to settle people down,
Fascists stir them up so that when the fighting begins, their foot soldiers have the will and
the firepower to strike first.
Hypocrisy at its worst from a lady who advocated hawkish foreign policy which included the
most sustained bombing campaign since Vietnam, when, in 1998, Clinton began almost daily
attacks on Iraq in the so-called no-fly zones, and made so-called regime change in Iraq
official U.S. policy.
In May of 1996, 60 Minutes aired an interview with Madeleine Albright, who at the time was
Clinton's U.N. ambassador. Correspondent Leslie Stahl said to Albright, in connection with
the Clinton administration presiding over the most devastating regime of sanctions in history
that the U.N. estimated took the lives of as many as a million Iraqis, the vast majority of
them children. , "We have heard that a half-million children have died. I mean, that's more
children than died in Hiroshima. And -- and, you know, is the price worth it?"
Madeleine Albright replied, "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price -- we think
the price is worth it.
While I found much of the story-telling in "Fascism" engaging, I come away expecting much
more of one of our nation's pre-eminent senior diplomats . In a nutshell, she has devoted a
whole volume to describing the ascent of intolerant fascism and its many faces, but punted on
the question "How should we thwart fascism going forward?"
Even that question leaves me a bit unsatisfied, since it is couched in double-negative
syntax. The thing there is an appetite for, among the readers of this book who are looking
for more than hand-wringing about neofascism, is a unifying title or phrase which captures in
single-positive syntax that which Albright prefers over fascism. What would that be? And, how
do we pursue it, nurture it, spread it and secure it going forward? What is it?
I think Albright would perhaps be willing to rally around "Good Government" as the theme
her book skirts tangentially from the dark periphery of fascistic government. "Virtuous
Government"? "Effective Government"? "Responsive Government"?
People concerned about neofascism want to know what we should be doing right now to avoid
getting sidetracked into a dark alley of future history comparable to the Nazi brown shirt or
Mussolini black shirt epochs. Does Albright present a comprehensive enough understanding of
fascism to instruct on how best to avoid it? Or, is this just another hand-wringing exercise,
a la "you'll know it when you see it", with a proactive superficiality stuck at the level of
pejorative labelling of current styles of government and national leaders? If all you can say
is what you don't want, then the challenge of threading the political future of the US is
left unruddered. To make an analogy to driving a car, if you don't know your destination, and
only can get navigational prompts such as "don't turn here" or "don't go down that street",
then what are the chances of arriving at a purposive destination?
The other part of this book I find off-putting is that Albright, though having served as
Secretary of State, never talks about the heavy burden of responsibility that falls on a head
of state. She doesn't seem to empathize at all with the challenge of top leadership. Her
perspective is that of the detached critic. For instance, in discussing President Duterte of
the Philippines, she fails to paint the dire situation under which he rose to national
leadership responsibility: Islamic separatists having violently taken over the entire city of
Marawi, nor the ubiquitous spread of drug cartel power to the level where control over law
enforcement was already ceded to the gangs in many places...entire islands and city
neighborhoods run by mafia organizations. It's easy to sit back and criticize Duterte's
unleashing of vigilante justice -- What was Mrs. Albright's better alternative to regain
ground from vicious, well-armed criminal organizations? The distancing from leadership
responsibility makes Albright's treatment of the Philippines twin crises of gang-rule and
Islamist revolutionaries seem like so much academic navel-gazing....OK for an undergrad
course at Georgetown maybe, but unworthy of someone who served in a position of high
responsibility. Duterte is liked in the Philippines. What he did snapped back the power of
the cartels, and returned a deserved sense of security to average Philippinos (at least those
not involved with narcotics). Is that not good government, given the horrendous circumstances
Duterte came up to deal with? What lack of responsibility in former Philippine leadership
allowed things to get so out of control? Is it possible that Democrats and liberals are
afraid to be tough, when toughness is what is needed? I'd much rather read an account from an
average Philippino about the positive impacts of the vigilante campaign, than listen of
Madame Secretary sermonizing out of context about Duterte. OK, he's not your idea of a nice
guy. Would you rather sit back, prattle on about the rule of law and due process while
Islamic terrorists wrest control over where you live? Would you prefer the leadership of a
drug cartel boss to Duterte?
My critique is offered in a constructive manner. I would certainly encourage Albright (or
anyone!) to write a book in a positive voice about what it's going to take to have good
national government in the US going forward, and to help spread such abundance globally. I
would define "good" as the capability to make consistently good policy decisions, ones that
continue to look good in hindsight, 10, 20 or 30 years later. What does that take?
I would submit that the essential "preserving democracy" process component is having a
population that is adequately prepared for collaborative problem-solving. Some understanding
of history is helpful, but it's simply not enough. Much more essential is for every young
person to experience team problem-solving, in both its cooperative and competitive aspects.
Every young person needs to experience a team leadership role, and to appreciate what it
takes from leaders to forge constructive design from competing ideas and champions. Only
after serving as a referee will a young person understand the limits to "passion" that
individual contributors should bring to the party. Only after moderating and herding cats
will a young person know how to interact productively with leaders and other contributors.
Much of the skill is counter-instinctual. It's knowing how to express ideas...how to field
criticism....how to nudge people along in the desired direction...and how to avoid ad-hominem
attacks, exaggerations, accusations and speculative grievances. It's learning how to manage
conflict productively toward excellence. Way too few of our young people are learning these
skills, and way too few of our journalists know how to play a constructive role in managing
communications toward successful complex problem-solving. Albright's claim that a
journalist's job is primarily to "hold leaders accountable" really betrays an absolving of
responsibility for the media as a partner in good government -- it doesn't say whether the
media are active players on the problem-solving team (which they have to be for success), or
mere spectators with no responsibility for the outcome. If the latter, then journalism
becomes an irritant, picking at the scabs over and over, but without any forward progress.
When the media takes up a stance as an "opponent" of leadership, you end up with poor
problem-solving results....the system is fighting itself instead of making forward
progress.
"Fascism" doesn't do nearly enough to promote the teaching of practical civics 101 skills,
not just to the kids going into public administration, but to everyone. For, it is in the
norms of civility, their ability to be practiced, and their defense against excesses, that
fascism (e.g., Antifa) is kept at bay.
Everyone in a democracy has to know the basics:
• when entering a disagreement, don't personalize it
• never demonize an opponent
• keep a focus on the goal of agreement and moving forward
• never tell another person what they think, but ask (non-rhetorically) what they think
then be prepared to listen and absorb
• do not speak untruths or exaggerate to make an argument
• do not speculate grievance
• understand truth gathering as a process; detect when certainty is being bluffed;
question sources
• recognize impasse and unproductive argumentation and STOP IT
• know how to introduce a referee or moderator to regain productive collaboration
• avoid ad hominem attacks
• don't take things personally that wrankle you;
• give the benefit of the doubt in an ambiguous situation
• don't jump to conclusions
• don't reward theatrical manipulation
These basics of collaborative problem-solving are the guts of a "liberal democracy" that
can face down the most complex challenges and dilemmas.
I gave the book 3 stars for the great story-telling, and Albright has been part of a great
story of late 20th century history. If she would have told us how to prevent fascism going
forward, and how to roll it back in "hard case" countries like North Korea and Sudan, I would
have given her a 5. I'm not that interested in picking apart the failure cases of
history...they teach mostly negative exemplars. Much rather I would like to read about
positive exemplars of great national government -- "great" defined by popular acclaim, by the
actual ones governed. Where are we seeing that today? Canada? Australia? Interestingly, both
of these positive exemplars have strict immigration policies.
Is it possible that Albright is just unable, by virtue of her narrow escape from Communist
Czechoslovakia and acceptance in NYC as a transplant, to see that an optimum immigration
policy in the US, something like Canada's or Australia's, is not the looming face of fascism,
but rather a move to keep it safely in its corner in coming decades? At least, she admits to
her being biased by her life story.
That suggests her views on refugees and illegal immigrants as deserving of unlimited
rights to migrate into the US might be the kind of cloaked extremism that she is warning us
about.
Albright's book is a comprehensive look at recent history regarding the rise and fall of
fascist leaders; as well as detailing leaders in nations that are starting to mimic fascist
ideals. Instead of a neat definition, she uses examples to bolster her thesis of what are
essential aspects of fascism. Albright dedicates each section of the book to a leader or
regime that enforces fascist values and conveys this to the reader through historical events
and exposition while also peppering in details of her time as Secretary of State. The climax
(and 'warning'), comes at the end, where Albright applies what she has been discussing to the
current state of affairs in the US and abroad.
Overall, I would characterize this as an enjoyable and relatively easy read. I think the
biggest strength of this book is how Albright uses history, previous examples of leaders and
regimes, to demonstrate what fascism looks like and contributing factors on a national and
individual level. I appreciated that she lets these examples speak for themselves of the
dangers and subtleties of a fascist society, which made the book more fascinating and less of
a textbook. Her brief descriptions of her time as Secretary of State were intriguing and made
me more interested in her first book, 'Madame Secretary'. The book does seem a bit slow as it
is not until the end that Albright blatantly reveals the relevance of all of the history
relayed in the first couple hundred pages. The last few chapters are dedicated to the reveal:
the Trump administration and how it has affected global politics. Although, she never
outright calls Trump a fascist, instead letting the reader decide based on his decisions and
what you have read in the book leading up to this point, her stance is quite clear by the
end. I was surprised at what I shared politically with Albright, mainly in immigration and a
belief of empathy and understanding for others. However, I got a slight sense of
anti-secularism in the form of a disdain for those who do not subscribe to an Abrahamic
religion and she seemed to hint at this being partly an opening to fascism.
I also could have done without the both-sides-ism she would occasionally push, which seems
to be a tactic used to encourage people to 'unite against Trump'. These are small annoyances
I had with the book, my main critique is the view Albright takes on democracy. If anything,
the book should have been called "Democracy: the Answer" because that is the most consistent
stance Albright takes throughout. She seems to overlook many of the atrocities the US and
other nations have committed in the name of democracy and the negative consequences of
capitalism, instead, justifying negative actions with the excuse of 'it is for democracy and
everyone wants that' and criticizing those who criticize capitalism.
She does not do a good job of conveying the difference between a communist country like
Russia and a socialist country like those found in Scandinavia and seems okay with the idea
of the reader lumping them all together in a poor light. That being said, I would still
recommend this book for anyone's TBR as the message is essential for today, that the current
world of political affairs is, at least somewhat, teetering on a precipice and we are in need
of as many strong leaders as possible who are willing to uphold democratic ideals on the
world stage and mindful constituents who will vote them in.
The book is very well written, easy to read, and follows a pretty standard formula making
it accessible to the average reader. However, it suffers immensely from, what I suspect are,
deeply ingrained political biases from the author.
Whilst I don't dispute the criteria the author applies in defining fascism, or the targets
she cites as examples, the first bias creeps in here when one realises the examples chosen
are traditional easy targets for the US (with the exception of Turkey). The same criteria
would define a country like Singapore perfectly as fascist, yet the country (or Malaysia)
does not receive a mention in the book.
Further, it grossly glosses over what Ms. Albright terms facist traits from the US
governments of the past. If the author is to be believed, the CIA is holier than thou, never
intervened anywhere or did anything that wasn't with the best interests of democracy at
heart, and American foreign policy has always existed to build friendships and help out their
buddies. To someone ingrained in this rhetoric for years I am sure this is an easy pill to
swallow, but to the rest of the world it makes a number of assertions in the book come across
as incredibly naive. out of 5 stars
Trite and opaque
We went with my husband to the presentation of this book at UPenn with Albright before it
came out and Madeleine's spunk, wit and just glorious brightness almost blinded me. This is a
2.5 star book, because 81 year old author does not really tell you all there is to tell when
she opens up on a subject in any particular chapter, especially if it concerns current US
interest.
Lets start from the beginning of the book. What really stood out, the missing 3rd Germany
ally, Japan and its emperor. Hirohito (1901-1989) was emperor of Japan from 1926 until his
death in 1989. He took over at a time of rising democratic sentiment, but his country soon
turned toward ultra-nationalism and militarism. During World War II (1939-45), Japan attacked
nearly all of its Asian neighbors, allied itself with Nazi Germany and launched a surprise
assault on the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor, forcing US to enter the war in 1941. Hirohito
was never indicted as a war criminal! does he deserve at least a chapter in her book?
Oh and by the way, did author mention anything about sanctions against Germany for
invading Austria, Czechoslovakia, Romania and Poland? Up until the Pearl Harbor USA and
Germany still traded, although in March 1939, FDR slapped a 25% tariff on all German goods.
Like Trump is doing right now to some of US trading partners.
Next monster that deserves a chapter on Genocide in cosmic proportions post WW2 is
communist leader of China Mao Zedung. Mr Dikötter, who has been studying Chinese rural
history from 1958 to 1962, when the nation was facing a famine, compared the systematic
torture, brutality, starvation and killing of Chinese peasants compares to the Second World
War in its magnitude. At least 45 million people were worked, starved or beaten to death in
China over these four years; the total worldwide death toll of the Second World War was 55
million.
We learn that Argentina has given sanctuary to Nazi war criminals, but she forgets to
mention that 88 Nazi scientists arrived in the United States in 1945 and were promptly put to
work. For example, Wernher von Braun was the brains behind the V-2 rocket program, but had
intimate knowledge of what was going on in the concentration camps. Von Braun himself
hand-picked people from horrific places, including Buchenwald concentration camp. Tsk-Tsk
Madeline.
What else? Oh, lets just say that like Madelaine Albright my husband is Jewish and lost
extensive family to Holocoust. Ukrainian nationalists executed his great grandfather on
gistapo orders, his great grandmother disappeared in concentration camp, grandfather was
conscripted in june 1940 and decommissioned september 1945 and went through war as
infantryman through 3 fronts earning several medals. his grandmother, an ukrainian born jew
was a doctor in a military hospital in Saint Petersburg survived famine and saved several
children during blockade. So unlike Maideline who was raised as a Roman Catholic, my husband
grew up in a quiet jewish family in that territory that Stalin grabbed from Poland in 1939,
in a polish turn ukrainian city called Lvov(Lemberg). His family also had to ask for an
asylum, only they had to escape their home in Ukraine in 1991. He was told then "You are a
nice little Zid (Jew), we will kill you last" If you think things in ukraine changed, think
again, few weeks ago in Kiev Roma gypsies were killed and injured during pogroms, and nobody
despite witnesses went to jail. Also during demonstrations openly on the streets C14 unit is
waving swastikas and Heils. Why is is not mentioned anywhere in the book? is is because
Hunter Biden sits on the board of one of Ukraine's largest natural gas companies called
Burisma since May 14, 2014, and Ukraine has an estimated 127.9 trillion cubic feet of
unproved technically recoverable shale gas resources? ( according to the U.S. Energy
Information Administration (EIA).1 The most promising shale reserves appear to be in the
Carpathian Foreland Basin (also called the Lviv-Volyn Basin), which extends across Western
Ukraine from Poland into Romania, and the Dnieper-Donets Basin in the East (which borders
Russia).
Wow, i bet you did not know that. how ugly are politics, even this book that could have been
so much greater if the author told the whole ugly story. And how scary that there are
countries where you can go and openly be fascist.
To me, Fascism fails for the single reason that no two fascist leaders are alike. Learning
about one or a few, in a highly cursory fashion like in this book or in great detail, is
unlikely to provide one with any answers on how to prevent the rise of another or fend
against some such. And, as much as we are witnessing the rise of numerous democratic or
quasi-democratic "strongmen" around the world in global politics, it is difficult to brand
any of them as fascist in the orthodox sense.
As the author writes at the outset, it is difficult to separate a fascist from a tyrant or
a dictator. A fascist is a majoritarian who rouses a large group under some national, racial
or similar flag with rallying cries demanding suppression or exculcation of those excluded
from this group. A typical fascist leader loves her yes-men and hates those who disagree: she
does not mind using violence to suppress dissidents. A fascist has no qualms using propaganda
to popularize the agreeable "facts" and theories while debunking the inconvenient as lies.
What is not discussed explicitly in the book are perhaps some positive traits that separate
fascists from other types of tyrants: fascists are rarely lazy, stupid or prone to doing
things for only personal gains. They differ from the benevolent dictators for their record of
using heavy oppression against their dissidents. Fascists, like all dictators, change rules
to suit themselves, take control of state organizations to exercise total control and use
"our class is the greatest" and "kick others" to fuel their programs.
Despite such a detailed list, each fascist is different from each other. There is little
that even Ms Albright's fascists - from Mussolini and Hitler to Stalin to the Kims to Chavez
or Erdogan - have in common. In fact, most of the opponents of some of these
dictators/leaders would calll them by many other choice words but not fascists. The
circumstances that gave rise to these leaders were highly different and so were their rules,
methods and achievements.
The point, once again, is that none of the strongmen leaders around the world could be
easily categorized as fascists. Or even if they do, assigning them with such a tag and
learning about some other such leaders is unlikely to help. The history discussed in the book
is interesting but disjointed, perfunctory and simplistic. Ms Albright's selection is also
debatable.
Strong leaders who suppress those they deem as opponents have wreaked immense harms and
are a threat to all civil societies. They come in more shades and colours than terms we have
in our vocabulary (dictators, tyrants, fascists, despots, autocrats etc). A study of such
tyrant is needed for anyone with an interest in history, politics, or societal well-being.
Despite Ms Albright's phenomenal knowledge, experience, credentials, personal history and
intentions, this book is perhaps not the best place to objectively learn much about the risks
from the type of things some current leaders are doing or deeming as right.
Each time I get concerned about Trump's rhetoric or past actions I read idiotic opinions,
like those of our second worst ever Secretary of State, and come to appreciate him more.
Pejorative terms like fascism or populism have no place in a rational policy discussion. Both
are blatant attempts to apply a pejorative to any disagreeing opinion. More than half of the
book is fluffed with background of Albright, Hitler and Mussolini. Wikipedia is more
informative. The rest has snippets of more modern dictators, many of whom are either
socialists or attained power through a reaction to failed socialism, as did Hitler. She
squirms mightily to liken Trump to Hitler. It's much easier to see that Sanders is like
Maduro. The USA is following a path more like Venezuela than Germany.
Her history misses that Mussolini was a socialist before he was a fascist, and Nazism in
Germany was a reaction to Wiemar socialism. The danger of fascism in the US is far greater
from the left than from the right. America is far left of where the USSR ever was. Remember
than Marx observed that Russia was not ready for a proletarian revolution. The USA with ready
made capitalism for reform fits Marx's pattern much better. Progressives deny that Sanders
and Warren are socialists. If not they are what Lenin called "useful idiots."
Albright says that she is proud of the speech where she called the USA the 'Indispensable
Nation.' She should be ashamed. Obama followed in his inaugural address, saying that we are
"the indispensable nation, responsible for world security." That turned into a policy of
human rights interventions leading to open ended wars (Syria, Yemen), nations in chaos
(Libya), and distrust of the USA (Egypt, Russia, Turkey, Tunisia, Israel, NK). Trump now has
to make nice with dictators to allay their fears that we are out to replace them.
She admires the good intentions of human rights intervention, ignoring the results. She says
Obama had some success without citing a single instance. He has apologized for Libya, but
needs many more apologies. She says Obama foreign policy has had some success, with no
mention of a single instance. Like many progressives, she confuses good intentions with
performance. Democracy spreading by well intentioned humanitarian intervention has resulted
in a succession of open ended war or anarchy.
The shorter histories of Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Venezuela are much more
informative, although more a warning against socialism than right wing fascism. Viktor Orban
in Hungary is another reaction to socialism.
Albright ends the book with a forlorn hope that we need a Lincoln or Mandela, exactly what
our two party dictatorship will not generate as it yields ever worse and worse candidates for
our democracy to vote upon, even as our great society utopia generates ever more power for
weak presidents to spend our money and continue wrong headed foreign policy.
The greatest danger to the USA is not fascism, but of excessively poor leadership
continuing our slow slide to the bottom.
I think Trump completely discredited himself in foreign policy due to appointment of Bush II team of neocon which drive it.
So the only chance for him to win is if US voters do not care about foreign policy. Demagogy will not work like in 2016 as
he now have a dismal record including attempt in regime change in Venezuela.
Notable quotes:
"... the vast majority of Americans don't give a hoot about issues of war, peace, and international diplomacy. Why should they care? It's not as though anything is asked of them as citizens. By cynically ditching the draft, Tricky Dick Nixon took the wind out of the sails of current and future antiwar movements, and permanently cleaved a gap between the U.S. people and their military ..."
"... Mothers no longer lose sleep over their teenage sons serving their country and they – along with the rest of the family – quit caring about foreign policy. Such it is, and so it will be, that the 2020 presidential election is likely to be decided by "kitchen-table" affairs like healthcare, immigration, race, and taxes. ..."
"... In 2016, he (correctly) made Hillary"regime change" Clinton out to be the true hawk in the race. Trump, on the other hand, combined tough guy bravado (he'd "bomb the shit" out of ISIS) with earthy good sense (there'd be no more "stupid" Iraq invasions. And it worked. ..."
"... Mark my words: if the DNC – which apparently picks the party's candidates – backs a conventional neoliberal foreign policy nominee, Trump will wipe the floor with him or her. ..."
"... If they want to stand a chance in 2020, the Dems had better back a nominee with a clear, alternative progressive foreign policy or get one the domestic-focused candidates up to speed and fast. ..."
"... So here's how my mental math works: a progressive candidate needs to win over libertarian-minded Republicans and Independents (think Rand Paul-types) by force of their commonsense alternative to Trump's foreign policy. ..."
"... Still, there's more than a little reason for concern . Look at how "Nasty" Nancy Pelosi and the establishment Dems came down on Ilhan Omar for that representative's essentially accurate tweets criticizing the Israel Lobby. ..."
"... Tulsi Gabbard, though she still looks the long shot, remains intriguing given here genuine antiwar (and combat veteran) credentials. ..."
"... Then again, even Bernie has his foreign affairs flaws – such as reflexively denouncing the BDS movement and occasionally calling for regime change in Syria. Nevertheless, both Bernie and Tulsi demonstrate that there's some promise for fresh opposition foreign policy. ..."
The 2020 election will not turn on global issues – and more's the pity. After all, thanks to decades upon decades of accumulating
executive power in an increasingly
imperial presidency,
it is in foreign affairs that the commander-in-chief possesses near dictatorial power. Conversely, in domestic policy, a hostile
Congress can – just ask Barry Obama – effectively block most of a president's agenda.
Still, the vast majority of Americans don't give a hoot about issues of war, peace, and international diplomacy. Why should
they care? It's not as though anything is asked of them as citizens. By cynically
ditching the
draft, Tricky Dick Nixon took the wind out of the sails of current and future antiwar movements, and permanently cleaved a gap between
the U.S. people and their military.
Mothers no longer lose sleep over their teenage sons serving their country and they – along with the rest of the family –
quit caring about foreign policy. Such it is, and so it will be, that the 2020 presidential election is likely to be decided by "kitchen-table"
affairs like healthcare, immigration, race, and taxes.
Be that as it may, serious observers should pay plenty of attention to international strategy.
First, because the occupant of the Oval Office makes policy almost unilaterally – including the decision of whether or not
to end the human race with America's suicidal nuclear button.
Second, because 2020 is likely to be another close contest, turning on the votes of a few hundred thousand swing state voters.
As such, Trump's opponent will need to win every vote on every issue – including foreign affairs. What's more, there are still
some folks who genuinely care about a potential commander-in-chief's international bonafides.
So, while Dems can't win the White House with foreign policy alone, they can lose it by ignoring these issues or – oh so typically
– presenting a muddled overseas strategy.
This is serious.
Just in case there are any out there still underestimating Trump – I, for one, predict he'll win in 2020 – make no mistake, he's
no pushover on foreign policy. Sure he doesn't know much – but neither does the average voter. Nonetheless, Trump is no dope. He's
got the pulse of (white) voters across this country and senses that the populace is tired of spending blood and cash (but mostly
its cash) on Mideast forever wars. In 2016, he (correctly) made Hillary"regime change" Clinton out to be the true hawk in the
race. Trump, on the other hand, combined tough guy bravado (he'd
"bomb the shit"
out of ISIS) with earthy good sense (there'd be no more
"stupid" Iraq invasions. And it worked.
So, with 2020 in mind, whether you're a progressive, a libertarian, or just a Trump-hater, its vital that the opposition (most
likely the Dems) nominate a candidate who can hang with Trump in foreign affairs.
Mark my words: if the DNC – which apparently
picks the party's
candidates – backs a conventional neoliberal foreign policy nominee, Trump will wipe the floor with him or her. And, if the
Dems national security platform reads like a jumbled, jargon-filled sheet full of boring (like it usually does) than Joe the proverbial
plumber is going to back The Donald.
That's what has me worried. As one candidate after another enters an already crowded field, this author is left wondering whether
any of them are commander-in-chief material. So far I see a huge crew (Liz, Kirsten, Kamala, Beto) that live and die by domestic
policy; two potentially conventional foreign policy guys (Biden and Booker); and two other wildcards (Bernie and Tulsi). That's not
a comprehensive list, but you get the point. If they want to stand a chance in 2020, the Dems had better back a nominee with
a clear, alternative progressive foreign policy or get one the domestic-focused candidates up to speed and fast.
So here's how my mental math works: a progressive candidate needs to win over libertarian-minded Republicans and Independents
(think Rand Paul-types) by force of their commonsense alternative to Trump's foreign policy. That means getting the troops out
of the Mideast, pulling the plug from other mindless interventions and cutting runaway defense spending. Then, and only then, can
the two sides begin arguing about what to do with the resultant cash surplus. That's an argument for another day, sure, but here
and now our imaginary Democratic (or Third Party?) nominee needs to end the wars and curtail the excesses of empire. I know many
libertarians – some still nominally Republican – who could get behind that agenda pretty quickly!
Still, there's more than a little reason for concern . Look at how "Nasty" Nancy Pelosi and the establishment Dems came
down on Ilhan
Omar for that representative's essentially accurate tweets criticizing the Israel Lobby. Then there's Joe Biden. Look, he's
definitely running. He's also definitely been wrong time and again on foreign policy – like how he was
for the
Iraq War before he was against it (how'd that turn out for John Kerry in 2004?). And, for all the talk of a progressive "blue wave"
in the party ranks, Biden still polls as the
top choice for
Democratic primary voters. Yikes.
Behind him, thankfully, is old Bernie – who sometimes shows potential in foreign affairs – the only candidate who has both
backed Omar and
been consistent in a career of generally antiwar votes. Still, Bernie won his household name with domestic policy one-liners – trashing
Wall Street and pushing populist economic tropes. Whether he can transform into a more balanced candidate, one that can confidently
compose and deliver a strong alternative foreign policy remains to be seen.
Tulsi Gabbard, though she still looks the long shot, remains intriguing given here genuine antiwar (and combat veteran) credentials.
Still, she'll have her hands full overcoming
problematic skeletons
in her own closet: ties to Indian Hindu nationalists, opposition to the Iran deal, and sometime backing of authoritarians and Islamophobes.
Then again, even Bernie has his foreign affairs
flaws
– such as reflexively denouncing the BDS movement and occasionally calling for regime change in Syria. Nevertheless, both Bernie
and Tulsi demonstrate that there's some promise for fresh opposition foreign policy.
Here's (some) of what that would look like:
speedily withdraw all U.S. troops from the (at least)
seven shooting wars
in the Greater Middle East;
choke off excessive arms deals and expensive military handouts to Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and other frenemies;
quit bombing or
enabling
the bombing of impoverished civilians in places like Yemen and Gaza; begin dismantling America's
"empire
of bases" overseas;
seek firm détente rather than conflict with Russia and China;
and cut defense and war-related spending down to size.
Our imaginary candidate would need to convey this commonsense course to a war-weary American people as plainly and coherently
as Trump can. No jargon, no Clintonian wonky crap – simple and to the point. Imagine it: a commonsense course for a clear-eyed country!
Less war and more investment at home. Less war and more middle-class tax cuts. Whatever. That fight will come and the progressives
and independents/libertarians will fight it out. For now, though, what's essential is checking the war machine and military-industrial
behemoth before its too late (it may be already!).
None of this will be easy or likely, of course. But count on this much: the establishment Democrats, media-mogul "left," and centrist
DC think tanks won't save us from the imperial monster or deliver a Trump-defeating strategy in foreign affairs. The Mueller-will-save-us,
Mattis-was-a-hero, reflexively anti-Trump, born-again
hawks like Rachel Maddow and the other disappointing chumps at MSNBC or CNN aren't on our side. Worse yet, they're born losers
when it comes to delivering elections.
All of this may be far-fetched, but is not impossible. Neither libertarians nor progressives can countenance Trump. Nor should
they. One of their only true hopes for compromise rest on foreign policy and a genuine antiwar message. It can be done.
Look, on a personal note, even America's beloved and over-adulated soldiers are reachable on this issue – that's how you know
the foreign policy alliance has potential! For every rah-rah war-fever cheerleader in uniform, there's an exhausted foot soldier
on his Nth tour in the Mideast. There's also a huge chunk (
40%! ) who are racial minorities – usually a reliably anti-Trump demographic. Finally, among the white men and women in uniform
I've personally met a solid core of libertarians. And the
data backs up my anecdotal observation – Ron Paul was highly popular among active-duty military members and their families. A
progressive foreign policy alliance with the libertarian wing of Republicans and Independents would sell better with these such voters
both in and out of uniform. You know the type: sick of war but just as sick of stereotypical liberal snowflakes.
So here's a plea to the "opposition" such at it is: avoid the usual mistakes – don't cede foreign affairs to the Trump and the
Republicans; don't nominate anyone remotely resembling Joe Biden; don't alienate libertarians and independents with wonky or muddled
international policy.
Try something new. Like winning
* * *
Danny Sjursen is a retired U.S. Army officer and regular contributor to antiwar.com
. He served combat tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught history at his alma mater, West Point.
He is the author of a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War,
Ghostriders of Baghdad: Soldiers,
Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge . Follow him on Twitter at @SkepticalVet
.
Some people understood the situation in 2017, when most Trump voters were still full of illutions.
Notable quotes:
"... you like most losers are driven by your own projections. You projected your hopes and wishful thinking on Trump and it worked perfectly for him. He got elected. ..."
"... now after firing Bannon there is nothing left. He was the last and the only guarantor of your hopes. That's why MSM hated Bannon so much. ..."
"... torture, Guantanamo and stealing their oil ..."
This turn of events is the biggest challenge ever to my support of Trump. If he really goes the way he is indicating, he will
lose the support of people like me -- and there may be millions like me. We have no alternative candidate, but we will never
again be led down this road.
If Trump turns, that is the end of everything.
" we will never again be led down this road." You will, you will because you like most losers are driven by your own projections.
You projected your hopes and wishful thinking on Trump and it worked perfectly for him. He got elected.
But now after firing Bannon there is nothing left. He was the last and the only guarantor of your hopes. That's why MSM
hated Bannon so much.
The only pre-election promises that actually will be retained are torture, Guantanamo and stealing their oil. Did you vote
for these items? Anyway, that is all you are left with. Get used to it:
"... Define unprecedented. What are your standards for a "major western nation"? Any moral standard? Do they include blowing up countries, using militarized spooks with unlimited secret funding? ..."
"... If you side with the devil what are you? In tilting with the CIA, Trump is a saint. ..."
"... Don't worry. Be happy. Nothing can be done now. The voters wanted someone to "shake things up." Trump will be applying creative destruction to government ..."
"... Obama failed to drive the NeoCons out of government. Trump may do so, but the replacement might be fundamentally more corrupt. ..."
"... Looters on the other hand love destruction. The resulting chaos affords them more opportunity to get windfalls. Trump will give the voters the radical change they think they want. But Trump will use the destruction as an opportunity for personal gain. The public will be left with a gutted government that will need to be rebuilt before it will function again ..."
"... One quibble: The destruction he applies will not be creative. It will be thorough but entirely unimaginative. ..."
"... Why do you think a war is brewing? What do you think is going to happen? They'll give him bad intel like they did with Bush? ..."
"... The meme that Trump will "get US into war" is a Clinton loser-whiner meme! Delusional and misleading; the neocon Clinton would have done Putin first CIA fictional, regime change excuse the yellow press could spread. ..."
"... Because they are already reportedly telling some of their contacts not to trust the government with information in case it ends up with hostile governments. Maybe using the word "war" is misleading. Maybe "cold war" is more accurate, but in general I mean a state of mutual distrust. ..."
Just as an aside - not really economics, but I am really worrying about what the war between the future white house team and the
CIA that seems to be brewing. I don't see good solutions to this. It is sort of unprecedented in a major western country. Can
you think of a similar case (where the intelligence services - and perhaps the military as well regarded there own government
head as an enemy agent)?
Define unprecedented. What are your standards for a "major western nation"? Any moral standard? Do they include blowing up
countries, using militarized spooks with unlimited secret funding?
If you side with the devil what are you? In tilting with the CIA, Trump is a saint.
Don't worry. Be happy. Nothing can be done now. The voters wanted someone to "shake things up." Trump will be applying creative
destruction to government
Obama failed to drive the NeoCons out of government. Trump may do so, but the replacement might be fundamentally more corrupt.
As with Obamacare, the idea is to destroy it and replace it with something better. Most revolutions find it easy to destroy
and very much harder to build Most sane leaders recognize this difficulty and modify the existing rather than destroy and never
getting around to replacement or find the replacement to be worse than the existing.
Looters on the other hand love destruction. The resulting chaos affords them more opportunity to get windfalls. Trump will
give the voters the radical change they think they want. But Trump will use the destruction as an opportunity for personal gain.
The public will be left with a gutted government that will need to be rebuilt before it will function again
I don't believe in "creative destruction", I believe in "destructive creation" which is something quite different. But that is
not the point. This is not about the government as such, it is about the security apparatus in itself. It could get very nasty
if that ends up either totally alienated or politicized.
If I were President, provoking an organization whose specialty is covert operations and which has track record of bringing about
the demise of insufficiently agreeable leaders would not be high on my to-do list.
The meme that Trump will "get US into war" is a Clinton loser-whiner meme! Delusional and misleading; the neocon Clinton would
have done Putin first CIA fictional, regime change excuse the yellow press could spread.
Trump is an isolationist who repeatedly said the Iraq war was a disaster, which it was. If the CIA is going after Trump they're
doing a bad job. The worst they could come up with is some unverified accounts that Trump likes pee-pee parties.
Because they are already reportedly telling some of their contacts not to trust the government with information in case it
ends up with hostile governments. Maybe using the word "war" is misleading. Maybe "cold war" is more accurate, but in general
I mean a state of mutual distrust.
"... Each new president inherits a sea of problems from his predecessor. Donald Trump's biggest legacy headaches and priority will be in the Mideast, a disaster area on its own but made far, far worse by the bungling of the Obama administration and its dimwitted attempts to put the US and Russia on a collision course. ..."
"... Thanks to George W. Bush – who dared show his face at the inauguration – and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Obama, Trump inherits America's longest war, Afghanistan, with our shameful support of mass drug dealing, endemic corruption and war crimes. Add the crazy mess in Iraq and now Syria. ..."
"... This week US B-2 heavy bombers attacked Libya. US forces are fighting in Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan and parts of Africa. For what? No one is quite sure. America's foreign wars, fueled by its $1 trillion military budget, have assumed a life of their own. Once a great power goes to war, its proponents insist, 'we can't be seen to back down or our credibility will suffer.' ..."
"... If President Trump truly wants to bring some sort of peace to the explosive Mideast, he will have to reject the advice of the hardline Zionists with whom he has chosen to surround himself. Their primary interest is Greater Israel, free of Arabs, not in a Greater America. Trump is too smart not to know this. But he may also listen to his blood and guts former generals who lost the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. ..."
"... Trump should be reminded that the 9/11 attackers cited two reasons for their attack: 1. Occupation of Saudi Arabia by the US; 2. Continued US-backed occupation of Palestine. Persistent attacks on western targets that we call terrorism are, in most cases, acts of revenge for our neo-colonial actions in the Muslim world, the 'American Raj' as I term it. ..."
What I found most impressive this time was the reaffirmation of America's dedication to the peaceful transfer of political power.
This was the 45th time this miracle has happened. Saying this is perhaps banal, but the handover of power never fails to make me
proud to be an American and thankful we had such brilliant founding fathers.
This peaceful transfer sets the United States apart from many of the world's nations, even Britain and Canada, where leaders under
the parliamentary system are chosen in a process resembling a knife fight in a dark room. The US has somehow managed to retain its
three branches of government in spite of the best efforts of self-serving politicians to wreck it.
Each new president inherits a sea of problems from his predecessor. Donald Trump's biggest legacy headaches and priority will
be in the Mideast, a disaster area on its own but made far, far worse by the bungling of the Obama administration and its dimwitted
attempts to put the US and Russia on a collision course.
Thanks to George W. Bush – who dared show his face at the inauguration – and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Obama, Trump inherits
America's longest war, Afghanistan, with our shameful support of mass drug dealing, endemic corruption and war crimes. Add the crazy
mess in Iraq and now Syria.
This week US B-2 heavy bombers attacked Libya. US forces are fighting in Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan and parts of Africa. For what?
No one is quite sure. America's foreign wars, fueled by its $1 trillion military budget, have assumed a life of their own. Once a
great power goes to war, its proponents insist, 'we can't be seen to back down or our credibility will suffer.'
Trump will struggle to find a face-saving retreat from these unnecessary conflicts and shut his ears to the siren songs of the
war party and deep state which just failed to stage a 'soft' coup to block his inauguration. Waging little wars against weak nations
is a multi-billion dollar national industry in the US. America has become as addicted to war as it has to debt.
If President Trump truly wants to bring some sort of peace to the explosive Mideast, he will have to reject the advice of the
hardline Zionists with whom he has chosen to surround himself. Their primary interest is Greater Israel, free of Arabs, not in a
Greater America. Trump is too smart not to know this. But he may also listen to his blood and guts former generals who lost the wars
in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Trump appears to have been gulled into believing the canard that Mideast-origin violence is caused by what he called in his inaugural
speech, radical Islamic terrorism. This is a favorite device promoted by the hard right and Israel to de-legitimize any resistance
to Israel's expansion and ethnic cleansing. The label of 'terrorism' serves the same purpose.
Trump should be reminded that the 9/11 attackers cited two reasons for their attack: 1. Occupation of Saudi Arabia by the
US; 2. Continued US-backed occupation of Palestine. Persistent attacks on western targets that we call terrorism are, in most cases,
acts of revenge for our neo-colonial actions in the Muslim world, the 'American Raj' as I term it.
Unfortunately, President Trump is unlikely to get this useful advice from the men who now surround him, with the possibly exception
of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. Let's hope that Tillerson and not Goldman Sachs bank ends up steering US foreign policy.
(Reprinted from EricMargolis.com by permission
of author or representative)
Donald Trump's unorthodox US presidential transition continued on Monday when he held talks with one of the most prominent supporters
of leftwing Democrat Bernie Sanders.
The president-elect's first meeting of the day at Trump Tower in New York was with Tulsi Gabbard, a Democratic maverick who endorsed
the socialist Sanders during his unsuccessful primary battle with Hillary Clinton.
... ... ...
At first glance Gabbard, who is from Hawaii and is the first Hindu member of the US Congress, seems an unlikely counsellor. She
resigned from the Democratic National Committee to back Vermont senator Sanders and formally nominated him for president at the party
convention in July, crediting him with starting a "movement of love and compassion", although by then Clinton's victory was certain.
But the Iraq war veteran has also expressed views that might appeal to Trump, criticising Obama, condemning interventionist wars
in Iraq and Libya and taking a hard line on immigration. In 2014, she called for a rollback of the visa waiver programme for Britain
and other European countries with what she called "Islamic extremist" populations.
In October last year she tweeted: "Al-Qaeda attacked us on 9/11 and must be defeated. Obama won't bomb them in Syria. Putin did.
#neverforget911." She was then among 47 Democrats who joined Republicans to pass a bill mandating a stronger screening process for
refugees from Iraq and Syria coming to the US.
This should be the end of the
Democratic party. This dismal state of affairs is their fault, from the content of the leaked emails to their handling of it.
They have had choices on the way to clean up their act but, they have blankly refused at every juncture. Not one thing has
changed since the emails revealed that the DNC rigs its primaries, and yet here we are in the middle of another fake primary
with everyone going along with it like it's a real thing. It's weird. In a healthy democratic republic the party would be dead
already, and a new one would've taken its place fueled by fresh energy and enthusiasm but the donor-class corruption is so
deeply entrenched that that possibility has seemed like a fantasy.
Gregory Herr , March 27, 2019 at 19:30
As an old-fashioned labor-lefty who used to call himself a Democrat, I'd say the
alienation continues unabated.
No illusions about who and what the party represents. Bad enough at home, but shit, they also
drop bombs like no tomorrow and spout lines from Langley and Likud like the back of their
hand.
As an armchair goof playing early guessing games, I'd say Sanders will pull at least the
weight he did last time as the uninspiring field of corporatists will split Hillary's wing
and the wild card Gabbard may draw support widely.
SteveK9 , March 28, 2019 at 10:03
Lifelong Democrat here that saw the writing on the wall, one year into Obama's first term (gave up on MSM during the runup
to the Iraq invasion). Although, I could hardly have imagined how low the Democratic leadership would sink with Russia-gate.
Gabbard is inspiring, but they are already starting to wear her down. I can't see anyone winning against imperial propaganda
at this point, but I will support her as much as I can.
Gregory Herr , March 28, 2019 at 18:40
I'm sending a small donation to help her get into the Dem debates.
"... Unfortunately, in every way that matters, RussiaGate has been a complete success. ..."
"... Though Trump says he is a Nationalist, his every move in foreign policy shows him to be toeing the line for the interests of the PNACers, and whenever he bucks their interests, he has shown that he can be brought to heel as long as they don't trample his ego. ..."
"... Tell them how utterly abhorrent and degenerate this war of terrorism against the Syrian people has been... ..."
"... I think there will be a major smear campaign against Bernie and Tulsi. Wikileaks has shown that the DNC had plans to smear Bernie as an atheist in 2016, among other things ..."
"... They will say that Socialism will bankrupt the Nation, and if we don't keep bombing everyone the "terrorists" will win. Divide and conquer is the game plan. ..."
"... They have retained the superdelegates for the second ballot, and they are running so many candidates that they are purposely aiming for a second ballot, where the oligarchs will once again decide for the people. ..."
"... Next step for the MSM propaganda machine? Probably assisting the CIA in whipping up war fever against Venezuela. ..."
"... They've pounded "Putin evil!" into the heads of their party fanatics long enough that shouting "Putin plus Maduro!" at them will have the most ardent Democrat voter screaming to massacre all of Caracas. ..."
I posted this on Medium when this article first came out.
Unfortunately, in every way that matters, RussiaGate has been a complete success. When
Donald Trump said "wouldn't it be great to get along with Russia" RussiaGate was born. The
thought of detente was his cardinal sin. That possibility has been completely demolished.
The
MIC and its trillions of wasted dollars are safe. The Evil Empire's Forever War continues
unabated, and even has new horizons in places such as Iran and Venezuela. Nuclear
brinksmanship keeps the R&D money flowing to Lockheed Martin and the other death dealers.
Though Trump says he is a Nationalist, his every move in foreign policy shows him to be
toeing the line for the interests of the PNACers, and whenever he bucks their interests, he
has shown that he can be brought to heel as long as they don't trample his ego.
The DNC/RNC theater will go on, and the MSM will seek to ensure that our choice for 2020
will be corporate sponsored warmonger from column A or B.
... ... ...
The young people of today spend more time on the internet than they do watching network
television, and 42 percent of registered voters didn't bother to cast a ballot in 2016.
Therein lies our hope.
Gregory Herr , March 26, 2019 at 20:30
The time is ripe for leaving the Democrats, Skip. I think Tulsi should take your advice.
But I've a funny feeling she'll throw the support she builds to Bernie towards a VP slot on
the ticket.
Tulsi Gabbard is saying things fairly directly that Americans aren't used to hearing from
their politicians. I love hearing it. But I have to say I'm bothered by her handling of the
"Assad question". She could simply relate some of her experience in Syria, including her time
with Assad. She could, in point of fact, refer to Assad as the President of Syria.
She could
say that Syria's culture and political system are their own and that we would all do better
to seek understanding of that culture before we set about trying to destroy it by arming
terrorists.
She did say the CIA armed terrorists in Syria, didn't she? Come on Tulsi. Just part of the
truth isn't enough truth. Tell them they ought to go to Syria themselves. Tell them the
reporters aren't doing their jobs.
Tell them how utterly abhorrent and degenerate this war of terrorism against the Syrian
people has been...
Skip Scott , March 28, 2019 at 08:13
I think there will be a major smear campaign against Bernie and Tulsi. Wikileaks has shown
that the DNC had plans to smear Bernie as an atheist in 2016, among other things. They have
Bob Parry's "Mighty Wurlitzer" and a vast toolkit.
They will say that the progressives are
splintering the party, and that getting rid of Trump is all that matters, so you need to hold
you nose and choose warmonger from column B.
They will say that Socialism will bankrupt the
Nation, and if we don't keep bombing everyone the "terrorists" will win. Divide and conquer
is the game plan.
They have retained the superdelegates for the second ballot, and they are
running so many candidates that they are purposely aiming for a second ballot, where the
oligarchs will once again decide for the people.
That's why a real progressive needs to split
from the Dems in a dramatic fashion , go third party, and shoot for the 15% to make the
debates. In the end, that's the only venue that matters.
AelfredRex , March 26, 2019 at 06:31
Next step for the MSM propaganda machine? Probably assisting the CIA in whipping up war
fever against Venezuela.
They've pounded "Putin evil!" into the heads of their party fanatics
long enough that shouting "Putin plus Maduro!" at them will have the most ardent Democrat
voter screaming to massacre all of Caracas.
Zhu , March 26, 2019 at 01:44
US elections are like those in the Roman Empire: prestigious but meaningless.
Zhu , March 26, 2019 at 01:47
America. We are definitely a genocidal nation. In all ways we are to blame for your own
problems.
King of Faustian bargain of a US politician. Bernie showed his colors in the 2016 primaries. He can't be trusted...
What Bernie is doing is eliminating chances for Tulsi...
Notable quotes:
"... Thank you Jimi, for calling out even Bernie when he buys the corporate bullshit ..."
"... Seriously, if you still support this clown, you are part of the problem. ..."
"... There's nothing progressive about silence, tepidness, or even support for destructive policies abroad by the same forces -- & for the same interests -- that we claim to oppose at home. ..."
"... this is the bargain Bernie made to run as a Democrat ..."
"... Bernie lost credibility when he endorsed Hilary in 2016... Tulsi is the one for 2020... ..."
Aaron Maté tweets -- Do we need a new category for progressives whose progressive values stop at the US border?
There's nothing progressive about silence, tepidness, or even support for destructive policies abroad by the same forces --
& for the same interests -- that we claim to oppose at home.
Bernie lost credibility when he endorsed Hilary in 2016... Tulsi is the one for 2020...
pandastratton. 23 hours ago
Donate to Tulsi to get her on the debate stage!!!!
Dionysos, 19 hours ago
Jimmy I know Tulsi is the best candidate in terms of foreign policy, but Bernie is our only chance at getting a real progressive
in the White House!
People are suffering economically and that is the issue where the vast majority of support lies. If stuff like this splits
the progressive support and allows someone like Kamala to win in the primaries, things will get really bad.
Robert Rowland23 hours ago
Jimmy (God love ya), the Military Industrial Complex is the single most gut-wrenchingly ruthless, most awesome entity on the
planet. It has the ability to kill pretty much anyone they want without repercussion. No domestic political movement, even one
that holds the Whitehouse, is capable of bringing them down or even reining them in. They will eventually meet their demise through
bad management in combination with a series of misfortunes resulting in defeat in all-out global war. Until then, and while we
as a nation are still able, the best we common folks can hope for is this juggernaut (the true boss) to give us some measure of
these desperately needed social reforms. In other words, Bernie is just being realistic.
Meanwhile, Tulsi, The Real Deal Gabbard (God bless her soul), if successful, will be on a course to join the ranks of JFK,
RFK, and MLK.
Our much-vaunted democracy is a sham and our freedom isn't actually what it is represented as being. May I suggest you watch this
video and view it as a metaphor. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vb8Rj5xkDPk
I am a former Trump supporter, hardcore Trump supporter but I got off the Trump train 2
years ago after he bombed Syria. I got fooled once but I will not be fooled a second time.
This country needs a real leader with real sincerity with a real heart for the American
people and that's Tulsi Gabbard!!!
The main stream media and pollsters are ignoring Tulsi. That means she is doing a lot
better than they are letting on. They will not be able to ignore her forever.
i love tulsi. something ive noticed a lot is her bipartisan support. both sensible
thoughtful republicans and sensible thoughtful democrats (yes they both exist) seem to be for
her. either way her anti war stance is something that i hope gets more coverage and people
see through the blantant mainstream media smear attempts. whether you vote for her or not,
it's refreshing and compelling to hear an iraq veteran take a strong stance against endless
regime change war.
Thanks for your thoughtful analysis. I agree that Tulsi would indeed be THE most
formidable opponent against "The Donald". She offers the greatest contrast to him and in
that, gives the electorate a clear defined choice. As a woman with a multi-cultural and
strong religious upbringing, a Gen Xer and a veteran, she has all the qualities that "The
Donald" lacks. In addition, her life long commitment to public service, as well as her
well-defined policy platform, puts the icing on the cake as the best "Anti-Donald"
candidate.
Some Democrats have been taking a lot of heat at town halls because they refuse to get
behind a 'Medicare For All' system. And it's not just that they're getting booed; their
constituents are literally calling for them to retire. Dianne Feinstein has been one of the
recipients of this outrage. Tulsi Gabbard, however, had overwhelming support from enthusiastic
constituents at her town hall because she actually pledged to support a 'Medicare For All'
system. In this segment, we juxtapose Feinstein's town halls with Gabbard's to illustrate
EXACTLY how you talk with your constituents about healthcare.
************************
The Humanist Report (THR) is a progressive political podcast that discusses and analyzes
current news events and pressing political issues. Our analyses are guided by humanism and
political progressivism. Each news story we cover is supplemented with thought-provoking,
fact-based commentary that aims for the highest level of objectivity.
Is Medicare "government take over of health care"? Hell no. People on Medicare visit the
doctor of their choice, and the doctors are private entrepreneurs - unlike the doctors in the
VA, they aren't paid a salary by the govt. Time to retire, Dianne!
Ecuador is a small country without the resources we have. They have single payer system.
In this country my medication, Xeralto, costs $300 a month. In Ecuador the cost is $90 a
month. I practiced medicine in Canada for two years. It is the way to go. It is less
expensive and provides better care.
Watching this old fartbag talk and STILL have a seat in the senate really boils my blood,
I can't watch this without my blood pressure rising which I'd get checked out if Medicare for
all was a thing lol
Tulsi will be the Bernie of the 2020 election. The problem is, the same corrupt sellouts
are still in control of the DNC. So unless something changes she will be shut down in favour
of people like Corey Booker, Elizabeth Warren and Adam Schiff.
I'm happy to say that my rep, Tim Ryan, was an early co-sponsor of HR676 and is a real
blue color progressive. However, I'm still calling and emailing others. Don't stop at your
own rep, folks. Please contact as many corporate dems as you have time for and let them know
that their job is on the line. The pressure must be turned up to 100!
Great 31 min presentation on Tulsi. Outstanding analysis of Tulsi as a candidate. Bravo
!!!
The idea the contrast between Trump and Tulsi will help Tulsi looks plausible. Trump is dumb,
corrupt, very rich and old chickenhawk. There can't be greater contract. She is almost 100%
opposite of Donald Trump.
In additional picking up voters disappointed with Trump she also will pick up large fraction
of voters that voted for Hillary.
The complication is the Bernie Sanders also runs and will attacks the same category of
voters.
True left was always anti-war, so Tulsi is the natural candidate of "true left"
In this video, I argue that Tulsi Gabbard could potentially make a very strong run in 2020
and that everyone who tries to dismiss her is vastly underestimating her potential.
Tulsi is my first choice, by a mile, for all the reasons you've mentioned. The #1
liability she has, only because of the fact that half of the American populace are ignorant
intolerant lunkheads, is her faith. She's a Hindu (which easily translates as being a Krishna
devotee.)
Only one correction. Assad isn't a dictator, he's been elected president of Syria in
democratic elections. And if you want to argue that the elections in Syria are rigged or that
the opposition candidates don't get impartial coverage in the press Well then I'd say that's
the same case of the USA and many other democracies around the world!
Tulsi Gabbard stands alone, she should form an independent party by asking the people to
donate to her cause. Bernie Sanders is a deferential failed candidate that is too worried
about the democratic party than winning for the people. It is too late to reform the 2
parties in charge since they are part of the cancer created by the Kakistocracy. Eventually
the masses will wake up, unfortunately they are in a catatonic state allowing the current
situation.
Surprised you didn't mention her religion: Hinduism. The left doesn't care, but you
mentioned that the right will have a hard time hitting her on traditional stuff... I think
that's wrong in one instance, religion. If she gets the nomination, the right wing
establishment will absolutely hit her on her religion, no question. I think you shoulda
mentioned that in your analysis.
I think your analysis is outstanding, many thanks! I haven't yet watched your other videos
but it's my intention. I agree with you almost 100% about Tulsi but am not yet convinced
Trump will be defeatable in 2020. I've been watching a lot of coverage from the conservative
right and he is way more popular than people on the left understand.
Michael Tracey (@mtracey) interviewed Democratic presidential candidate and Hawaii
Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (@TulsiGabbard) in New Hampshire on March 23 and 24, 2019. They
discussed topics ranging from the farce of the Trump/Russia saga, her views on identity
politics, her religious background, her relationship with Bernie Sanders, and much more.
She is a real gifted politician. The question was very tricky. "Will you be able to pledge to
return any continuation of people who also donated to AIPAC"
Tulsi needs around 20000 more donors to be eligible for the Democratic debates. Please
donate a dollar to her campaign and tell your friends and family to do the same!
She will be dragged through so much mud by the establishment in the coming days, we saw a
glimpse of it in Colbert show, her training will help her a lot though
Rod, you just gained this subscriber excellent pointing this out! Once again Tulsi is
demonstrating she is on the right side of history and will even stand up to AIPEC like ilhan
Omar did sure would be nice to see Bernie make a similar stand!
Donate to Tulsi Gabbard campaign to help her get into the debates by donating to
tulsi2020.com you can donate more than once and they'll each count as a unique donation
even $1 at a time
AIPAC is a foreign terrorist organization that needs to be outlawed and any American that
takes their bribe money to do their bidding should be arrested for treason.
The more I hear Tulsi Gabbard speak the more I want her to win, and I am Irish living in
Dublin,
Ireland.You can tell by the reaction of the people there, what it means to them not to
have foreign government dictate their foreign policy
Trump is just looking for s big war, I think he reallys believe America can't be touched.
Meaning what he did with the golden Heights. Like really that's so wrong and you did it in
the open like it's not a bad thing. He's pissing off many countries and Russia is one of
them. Putin isn't happy ab the golden height thing.
Is there a website that list where candidates stand as far as the numbers they have and in
what states? I find it hard to believe that Tulsi hasn't reached the number yet, while other
less known candidates who entered after her have already blown past the needed 65K mark. If
this is something that is kept hidden, who's to know if more lying and cheating is going
on?
Tulsi Gabbard on AIPAC: "Our opportunity is to challenge leaders to see where we stand and
the policies we are pushing forward; and the kinds of debates and discussions we need to have
about our foreign policy and where our tax-payer dollars are going." My understanding: FP =
The US position on Israel 's policy vis a vis settlements and military entanglements.
Tax-Payer $$ = The money spent by the government in supporting the above.
This is, in my opinion, a very sane way to open the door to a healthy discussion about
such an important issue which up to now has been lopsided towards the Establishment's
position with little opportunity for the people to have a say in the matter.
The Daily Kos has made it their personal mission to make sure Tulsi has no success - or so
they said in an email just a couple of days after she announced. However, that didn't stop one
of the "Kosters" from putting out a more objective poll on Kos's website. 20k people voted in
this poll, and the results bode well for Tulsi.
Amazing level of polemic and diplomatic skills. That's really high class my fiends. Rare for
any US politician: most are suckers that can answer only prepared questions. MSNBC presstitutes
should be ashamed, but they have not shame. amasing !!!
In this segment, we look at Tulsi's savvy and brutally honest rebuttal when the Morning
Show hosts allege that "Russia" is looking to help Tulsi when the 2020 Democratic Primary
election
How it can be that there not 50K anti war people in the whole USA? Or they are waiting for something ? I do not know
what is the deadline, I do not understand why she still did not got 50K donations to bring her to debate. .
Tulsi needs about 20000 more unique donors to get to the debate stage! Tell your friends
and family to donate a dollar at
tulsi2020.com ! Even if she isn't their preferred candidate, they might still appreciate
a strong anti-interventionist voice on the debate stage!
A calm, thoughtful, anti-war progressive voice that we need to hear in the coming debates.
Please make a donation or buy something at
Tulsi2020.com She needs another 20,000 contributors to meet the DNC
requirement.
"... It gives a formal US stamp of approval to Israel's violation of international law, and, in particular of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits an occupying power from transferring its civilians into occupied territory. Roughly 20,000 Israeli settlers live in the occupied Golan Heights today – now with the unambiguous backing of the US government. ..."
"... Jared Kusher's family is so close Netanyahu that the prime minister once slept in Kushner's childhood bedroom . Between the Trump administration's personnel and rightward lurch in Israeli politics, the pieces that would make the current one-state reality permanent are rapidly falling into place. ..."
No country in the world recognizes Israel's rule over the Golan Heights, occupied by
Israel in 1967 and unilaterally annexed in 1981 – no country,
that is, until now.
Donald Trump signed a presidential proclamation on Monday formally recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, still
considered Syrian territory under international law. Standing by President Trump's side during an address by the two heads of state
in Washington DC, the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, reportedly called Trump's decision "
historic justice " and gifted the president a box of wine from the occupied territory. As they embraced, Israeli forces began
an aerial bombardment of the besieged Gaza Strip after rockets launched from Gaza hit a house in a community north of Tel Aviv earlier
that day.
Trump's announcement is unmistakably an election-time favor for Netanyahu. Saddled with multiple corruption charges, including
one for bribery, Netanyahu and his Likud party have been flagging in the polls. Likud increasingly appears threatened by the center-right
Blue and White party, jointly headed by the taciturn retired general Benny Gantz and former TV personality Yair Lapid. Netanyahu's
desperation can be measured by the extremity of his rhetoric. He and his surrogates have spent the past several weeks waging a hateful,
vicious campaign, accusing the Arab political parties of supporting terrorism and explicitly warning that a Gantz and Lapid victory
would lead to dead Israelis.
Many in Israel, however, view Netanyahu, despite his flaws, as a talented statesman and skilled advocate for the country's interests
on the international stage, and Netanyahu has campaigned on achievements such as normalizing relations with the Gulf states and the
US embassy's move from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The Golan Heights declaration – which initially took even the secretary of state, Mike
Pompeo, who was in Israel at the time, by surprise – is likely meant to bolster this image.
Trump's recognition of the Golan Heights marks the total capture of US policymaking in the Middle East by pro-Israel right
But Trump's Golan Heights proclamation is not just a cynical political gambit. It is a dramatic change in US policy in the Middle
East that could have serious consequences. Trump, unlike his predecessors, has never even pretended to abide by international norms
and conventions. And yet the decision to recognize Israeli sovereignty over territory that the international community nearly unanimously
considers occupied, or at the very least disputed, is unprecedented.
It gives a formal US stamp of approval to Israel's violation of international law, and, in particular of the Fourth Geneva
Convention, which prohibits an occupying power from transferring its civilians into occupied territory. Roughly 20,000 Israeli settlers
live in the occupied Golan Heights today – now with the unambiguous backing of the US government.
This potentially paves the way for Israel's annexation, in part or whole, of the West Bank. It has long been a talking
point on the Israeli hard right that, despite the international community's protestations, there would be few consequences for extending
Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank . Trump's declaration,
it seems, has not only proven them right, but given them an added boost: unlike during the Obama years, they can be confident that
the global hegemon will take their side.
If Netanyahu's Likud wins enough seats on 9 April to form a government, it is very like that annexation, at the very least, will
be on the table for discussion. The Likud's central committee unanimously voted in 2017 in favor of annexing the West Bank. Naftali
Bennett, co-chair of the New Right party, has proposed a plan to annex parts of Area C of the West Bank. And the other rightwing
parties – the extremist Union of Parties of the Right and Moshe Feiglin's Identity party, both of which would almost certainly sit
in a future Likud government – have only more extreme proposals for dealing with "the Palestinian question", including the forced
transfer of Palestinians out of the West Bank and into Jordan.
Trump's recognition of the Golan Heights marks the total capture of US policymaking in the Middle East by pro-Israel right. US
ambassador to Israel David Friedman is an opponent of the two-state solution who previously operated the charitable arm of
a rightwing orthodox religious seminary in the West Bank settlement of Beit El. Jared Kusher's family is so close Netanyahu
that the prime minister once slept
in Kushner's childhood bedroom . Between the Trump administration's personnel and rightward lurch in Israeli politics, the pieces
that would make the current one-state reality permanent are rapidly falling into place.
It is important to remember this in light of the glitz and pablum of the AIPAC policy conference taking place this week in Washington
DC, where the PR hacks and policy flacks are working hard to launder Israel's image, to obscure the fact that there is one sovereign
state between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea that determines the lives of roughly 13 million people; that of those 13
million, only half – Israeli Jews – have full citizenship and social rights; and that the other half, the Palestinians, live under
a range of discriminatory systems, from codified discrimination but legal citizenship within Israel, to residency without the right
to vote in East Jerusalem, to military dictatorship in the West Bank.
Donald Trump , his administration, the pro-Israel lobby,
and Netanyahu all intend to keep it that way.
Joshua Leifer is an associate editor at Dissent. Previously, he worked at +972 Magazine and was based in Jerusalem
Tulsi Gabbard is less than 20K individual donations away from getting on the debate stage!
Help her get there by donating just $1 to her campaign!
Tulsi Gabbard 5:21 PM - 22 Mar 2019
Thank you! So far we have 44,255 unique donors of the 65,000 needed to get on the debate
stage! Almost 4,000 people contributed in the last 2 days. I'm humbled by your support. Stay
tuned for updates! pic.twitter.com/UOd5Ky39vf
This month marks the 20th anniversary of Operation Allied Force, NATO's 78-day air war against Yugoslavia. It was a war waged
as much against Serbian civilians – hundreds of whom perished – as it was against Slobodan Milošević's forces, and it was a campaign
of breathtaking hypocrisy and selective outrage. More than anything, it was a war that by President Bill Clinton's own admission
was fought for the sake of NATO's credibility.
One Man's Terrorist
Our story begins not in the war-torn Balkans of the 1990s but rather in the howling wilderness of Afghanistan at the end of the
1980s as defeated Soviet invaders withdrew from a decade of guerrilla warfare into the twilight of a once-mighty empire. The United
States, which had provided arms, funding and training for the mujahideen fighters who had so bravely resisted the Soviet occupation,
stopped supporting the jihadis as soon as the last Red Army units rolled across the Hairatan Bridge and back into the USSR. Afghanistan
descended deeper into civil war.
The popular narrative posits that Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda network, Washington's former mujahideen allies, turned on the
West after the US stationed hundreds of thousands of infidel troops in Saudi Arabia – home to two out of three of Sunni Islam's holiest
sites – during Operation Desert Shield in 1990. Since then, the story goes, the relationship between the jihadists and their former
benefactors has been one of enmity, characterized by sporadic terror attacks and fierce US retribution. The real story, however,
is something altogether different.
From 1992 to 1995, the Pentagon flew
thousands of al-Qaeda mujahideen, often accompanied by US Special Forces, from Central Asia to Europe to reinforce Bosnian Muslims
as they fought Serbs to gain their independence from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The Clinton administration
armed and trained these fighters in
flagrant violation of United Nations accords; weapons purchased by Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran were secretly shipped to the jihadists
via Croatia, which netted a hefty profit from each transaction. The official Dutch inquiry into the 1995 Srebrenica massacre, in
which thousands of Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim) men and boys were slaughtered by Bosnian Serb and Serbian paramilitary forces, concluded
that the United States was "very closely involved" in these arms transfers.
When the Bosnian war ended in 1995 the United States was faced with the problem of thousands of Islamist warriors on European
soil. Many of them joined the burgeoning Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), which mainly consisted of ethnic Albanian Kosovars from what
was still southwestern Yugoslavia. Emboldened by the success of the Slovenes, Croats, Macedonians and Bosnians who had won their
independence from Belgrade as Yugoslavia literally balkanized, KLA fighters began to violently expel as many non-Albanians from Kosovo
as they could. Roma, Jews, Turks and, above all, Serbs were all victims of Albanian ethnic cleansing.
The United States was initially very honest in its assessment of the KLA. Robert Gelbard, the US special envoy to Bosnia,
called it "without any question a terrorist
group." KLA backers allegedly included Osama bin Laden
and other Islamic radicals; the group largely bankrolled its activities by trafficking heroin and sex slaves. The State Department
accordingly added the KLA to its list of terrorist organizations in 1998.
However, despite all its nastiness the KLA endeared itself to Washington by fighting the defiant Yugoslavian President Slobodan
Milošević. By this time Yugoslavia, once composed of eight nominally autonomous republics, had been reduced by years of bloody civil
war to a rump of Serbia, Montenegro and Kosovo. To Serbs, the dominant ethnic group in what remained of the country, Kosovo is regarded
as the very birthplace of their nation. Belgrade wasn't about to let it go without a fight and everyone knew it, especially the Clinton
administration. Clinton's hypocrisy was immediately evident; when Chechnya fought for its independence from Moscow and Russian forces
committed horrific atrocities in response, the American president
called the war an internal Russian affair
and barely criticized Russian President Boris Yeltsin. But when Milošević resorted to brute force in an attempt to prevent Yugoslavia
from further fracturing, he soon found himself a marked man.
Although NATO
called
the KLA "the main initiator of the violence" in Kosovo and blasted "what appears to be a deliberate campaign of provocation" against
the Serbs, the Clinton administration was nevertheless determined to attack the Milošević regime. US intelligence confirmed that
the KLA was indeed provoking harsh retaliatory strikes by Serb forces in a bid to draw the United States and NATO into the conflict.
President Clinton, however, apparently wasn't listening. The NATO powers, led by the United States, issued Milošević an ultimatum
they knew he could never accept: allow NATO to occupy all of Kosovo and have free reign in Serbia as well. Assistant US Secretary
of State James Rubin later
admitted that "publicly we had to make clear we were seeking an agreement but privately we knew the chances of the Serbs agreeing
were quite small."
Wagging the Dog?
In 1997 the film Wag the Dog debuted to rave reviews. The dark comedy concerns a Washington, DC spin doctor and a Hollywood
producer who fabricate a fictional war in Albania to distract American voters from a presidential sex scandal. Many observers couldn't
help but draw parallels between the film and the real-life events of 1998-99, which included the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Clinton's
impeachment and a very real war brewing in the Balkans. As in Wag the Dog , there were exaggerated or completely fabricated
tales of atrocities, and as in the film the US and NATO powers tried to sell their war as a humanitarian intervention. An attack
on Yugoslavia, we were told, was needed to avert Serb ethnic cleansing of Albanians.
There were two main problems with this. First, there was no Serb ethnic cleansing of Albanian Kosovars until after NATO
began mercilessly bombing Yugoslavia. The German government
issued several reports confirming this. One, from October 1998, reads, in part:
The violent actions of the Yugoslav military and police since February 1998 were aimed at separatist activities and are no
proof of a persecution of the whole Albanian ethnic group in Kosovo or a part of it. What was involved in the Yugoslav violent actions
and excesses since February 1998 was a selective forcible action against the military underground movement (especially the KLA) A
state program or persecution aimed at the whole ethnic group of Albanians exists neither now nor earlier.
Subsequent German government reports issued through the winter of 1999 tell a similar story. "Events since February and March
1998 do not evidence a persecution program based on Albanian ethnicity," stated one report released exactly one month before the
NATO bombing started. "The measures taken by the armed Serbian forces are in the first instance directed toward combating the KLA
and its supposed adherents and supporters."
While Serbs certainly did commit atrocities (especially after the ferocious NATO air campaign began), these were often greatly
exaggerated by the Clinton administration and the US corporate mainstream media. Clinton claimed – and the media dutifully parroted
– that 600,000 Albanians were "trapped within Kosovo lacking shelter, short of food, afraid to go home or buried in mass graves."
This was completely false . US diplomat David
Scheffer claimed that "225,000 ethnic Albanian men are missing, presumed dead." Again, a
total fabrication . The FBI, International War Crimes
Tribunal and global forensics experts flocked to Kosovo in droves after the NATO bombs stopped falling; the total number of victims
they found was around 1 percent of the figure claimed by the United States.
However, once NATO attacked, the Serb response was predictably furious. Shockingly, NATO commander Gen. Wesley Clark declared
that the ensuing Serbian atrocities against the Albanian Kosovar population had been
"fully anticipated" and were apparently of little concern to Washington.
Not only did NATO and the KLA provoke a war with Yugoslavia, they did so knowing that many innocent civilians would be killed, maimed
or displaced by the certain and severe reprisals carried out by enraged Serb forces. Michael McGwire, a former top NATO planner,
acknowledged that "to describe the bombing as a humanitarian intervention is really grotesque."
Bloody Hypocrites
The other big problem with the US claiming it was attacking Yugoslavia on humanitarian grounds was that the Clinton administration
had recently allowed – and was at the time allowing – far worse humanitarian catastrophes to rage without American intervention.
More than 800,000 men, women and children were slaughtered while Clinton and other world leaders stood idly by during the 1994 Rwandan
genocide. The US also courted the medievally brutal
Taliban regime in hopes of achieving stability in Afghanistan and with an eye toward building a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan through
Afghanistan to Pakistan. Clinton also did nothing to stop Russian forces from viciously crushing nationalist uprisings in the Caucuses,
where Chechen rebels were fighting for their independence much the same as Albanian Kosovars were fighting the Serbs.
Colombia, the Western Hemisphere's leading recipient of US military and economic aid, was waging a fierce, decades-long campaign
of terror against leftist insurgents and long-suffering indigenous peoples. Despite
horrific brutality and pervasive human rights violations, US aid to Bogotá increased year after year. In Turkey, not only did
Clinton do nothing to prevent government forces from committing widespread atrocities against Kurdish separatists, the administration
positively encouraged its NATO ally with billions of dollars in loans and arms sales. Saudi Arabia, home to the most repressive fundamentalist
regime this side of Afghanistan, was – and remains – a favored US ally despite having one of the
world's worst human rights
records. The list goes on and on.
Much closer to the conflict at hand, the United States tacitly approved the largest ethnic cleansing campaign in Europe since
the Holocaust when as many as 200,000 Serbs were
forcibly expelled from the Krajina region of Croatia by that country's US-trained military during Operation Storm in August 1995.
Krajina Serbs had purged the region of its Croat minority four years earlier in their own ethnic cleansing campaign; now it was the
Serbs' turn to be on the receiving end of the horror. Croatian forces stormed through Krajina, shelling towns and slaughtering innocent
civilians. The sick and the elderly who couldn't escape were executed or burned alive in their homes as Croatian soldiers machine-gunned
convoys of fleeing refugees.
"Painful for the Serbs"
Washington's selective indignation at Serb crimes both real and imagined is utterly inexcusable when held up to the horrific and
seemingly indiscriminate atrocities committed during the NATO air campaign against Yugoslavia. The prominent Australian journalist
John Pilger noted that "in the attack on Serbia, 2 percent of NATO's missiles hit military targets, the rest hit hospitals, schools,
factories, churches and broadcast studios." There is little doubt that US and allied warplanes and missiles were targeting the Serbian
people as much as, or even more than, Serb forces. The bombing knocked out electricity in 70 percent of the country as well as much
of its water supply.
NATO warplanes also deliberately bombed a building containing the headquarters of Serbian state television and radio in the middle
of densely populated central Belgrade. The April 23, 1999 attack occurred without warning while 200 employees were at work in the
building. Among the 16 people killed were a makeup artist, a cameraman, a program director, an editor and three security guards.
There is no doubt that the attack was meant to demoralize the Serbian people. There is also no doubt that those who ordered the bombing
knew exactly what outcome to expect: a NATO planning document viewed by Bill Clinton, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and French President
Jacques Chirac forecast as
many as 350 deaths in the event of such an attack, with as many as 250 of the victims expected to be innocent civilians living in
nearby apartments.
Allied commanders wanted to fight a "zero casualty war" in Yugoslavia. As in zero casualties for NATO forces, not the people they
were bombing. "This will be painful for the Serbs," Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon sadistically predicted. It sure was. NATO warplanes
flew sorties at 15,000 feet (4,500 meters), a safe height for the pilots. But this decreased accuracy and increased civilian casualties
on the ground. One attack on central Belgrade mistakenly
hit Dragiša Mišović hospital with a laser-guided "precision" bomb, obliterating an intensive care unit and destroying a children's
ward while wounding several pregnant women who had the misfortune of being in labor at the time of the attack. Dragana Krstić, age
23, was recovering from cancer surgery – she just had a 10-pound (4.5 kg) tumor removed from her stomach – when the bombs blew jagged
shards of glass into her neck and shoulders. "I don't know which hurts more," she lamented, "my stomach, my shoulder or my heart."
Dragiša Mišović wasn't the only hospital bombed by NATO. Cluster bombs dropped by fighter jets of the Royal Netherlands Air Force
struck a hospital and a market in the city of Niš on May 7,
killing 15 people and wounding 60 more. An emergency clinic
and medical dispensary were also bombed in the
mining town of Aleksinac on April 6, killing at least five people and wounding dozens more.
Bridges were favorite targets of NATO bombing. An international passenger train traveling from Belgrade to Thessaloniki, Greece
was
blown apart by two missiles as it crossed over Grdelica gorge on April 12. Children and a pregnant woman were among the 15 people
killed in the attack; 16 other passengers were wounded. Allied commander Gen. Wesley Clark claimed the train, which had been damaged
by the first missile, had been traveling too rapidly for the pilot to abort the second strike on the bridge. He then offered up a
doctored video that was sped up more than three times so that the pilot's behavior would appear acceptable.
On May 1, at least 24 civilians, many of them children, were killed when NATO warplanes
bombed a bridge in Lužane just as a bus was crossing.
An ambulance rushing to the scene of the carnage was struck by a second bomb. On the sunny spring afternoon of May 30, a bridge over
the Velika Morava River in the small town of Vavarin was
bombed by low-flying German Air Force F-16 fighters while hundreds of local residents gathered nearby to celebrate an Orthodox
Christian holiday. Eleven people died, most of them when the warplanes returned and bombed the people who rushed to the bridge to
help those wounded in the first strike.
No One Is Safe
The horrors suffered by the villagers of Surdulica shows that no one in Serbia was safe from NATO's fury. They endured some 175
bombardments during one three-week period alone, with 50 houses destroyed and 600 others damaged in a town with only around 10,000
residents. On April 27, 20 civilians, including 12 children,
died when bombs meant to
destroy an army barracks slammed into a residential neighborhood. As many as 100 others were wounded in the incident. Tragedy
befell the tiny town again on May 31 when NATO
warplanes returned to bomb an ammunition depot but instead hit an old people's home; 23 civilians, most of them helpless elderly
men and women, were blown to pieces. Dozens more were wounded. The US military initially said "there were no errant weapons" in the
attack. However, Deputy Defense Secretary John Hamre later testified before Congress that it "was a case of the pilot getting confused."
The CIA was also apparently confused when it relied on what it claimed was an outdated map to approve a Stealth Bomber strike
on what turned out to be the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade. Three Chinese journalists were killed and 27 other people were wounded.
Some people aren't so sure the attack was an accident – Britain's Observer later
reported that the US deliberately bombed the
embassy after discovering it was being used to transmit Yugoslav army communications.
There were plenty of other accidents, some of them horrifically tragic and others just downright bizarre. Two separate attacks
on the very Albanians NATO was claiming to help killed 160 people, many of them women and children. On April 14, NATO warplanes bombed
refugees along a 12-mile (19-km) stretch of road between the towns of Gjakova and Deçan in western Kosovo, killing 73 people including
16 children and wounding 36 more. Journalists reported
a grisly scene of "bodies charred or blown to pieces, tractors reduced to twisted wreckage and houses in ruins." Exactly one month
later, another column of refugees was
bombed near Koriša, killing
87 – mostly women, children and the elderly – and wounding 60 others. In the downright bizarre category, a wildly errant NATO missile
struck a residential neighborhood in the Bulgarian capital Sofia, some 40 miles (64 km) outside of Serbia. The American AGM-88 HARM
missile blew the roof off
of a man's house while he was shaving in his bathroom.
NATO's "Murderous Thugs"
As the people of Yugoslavia were being terrorized by NATO's air war, the terrorists of the Kosovo Liberation Army stepped up their
atrocities against Serbs and Roma in Kosovo. NATO troops deployed there to keep the peace often failed to protect these people from
the KLA's brutal campaign. More than 164,000 Serbs fled or
were forcibly driven from the Albanian-dominated province and by the summer of 2001 KLA ethnic cleansing had rendered Kosovo almost
entirely Albanian, with just a few die-hard Serb holdouts living in fear and surrounded by barbed wire.
The KLA soon expanded its war into neighboring Macedonia. Although NATO Secretary-General Lord Robertson called the terror group
"murderous thugs," the United States – now with George W. Bush as president – continued to offer its invaluable support. National
Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice personally
intervened in an attempt to persuade Ukraine to halt arms sales to the Macedonian army and when a group of 400 KLA fighters were
surrounded at Aracinovo in June 2001, NATO ordered Macedonian forces to hold off their attack while a convoy of US Army vehicles
rescued the besieged militants. It later
emerged that 17 American military advisers were embedded with the KLA at Aracinovo.
Credibility Conundrum
The bombing of Yugoslavia was really about preserving the credibility of the United States and NATO. The alliance's saber rattling
toward Belgrade had painted it into a corner from which the only way out was with guns blazing. Failure to follow threats with deadly
action, said President Clinton, "would discredit NATO." Clinton
added
that "our mission is clear, to demonstrate the seriousness of NATO's purpose." The president seemed willfully ignorant of NATO's
real purpose, which is to defend member states from outside attack. British Prime Minister Tony Blair agreed with Clinton,
declaring on the eve of the war that
"to walk away now would destroy NATO's credibility." Gary Dempsey, a foreign policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute,
wrote that the Clinton administration
"transformed a conflict that posed no threat to the territorial integrity, national sovereignty or general welfare of the United
States into a major test of American resolve."
Waging or prolonging war for credibility's sake is always dangerous and seems always to yield disastrous results. Tens of thousands
of US troops and many times as many Vietnamese, Laotian and Cambodian soldiers and civilians died while Richard Nixon sought an "honorable"
way out of Vietnam. Ronald Reagan's dogged defense of US credibility cost the lives of 299 American and French troops killed in Hezbollah's
1983 Beirut barracks bombing. This time, ensuring American credibility meant backing the vicious KLA – some of whose fighters had
trained at Osama bin Laden's terror camps in Afghanistan. This, despite the fact that al-Qaeda had already been responsible for deadly
attacks against the United States, including the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.
It is highly questionable whether bombing Yugoslavia affirmed NATO's credibility in the short term. In the long term, it certainly
did not. The war marked the first and only time NATO had ever attacked a sovereign state. It did so unilaterally, absent any threat
to any member nation, and without the approval of the United Nations Security Council. "If NATO can go for military action without
international blessing, it calls into question the reliability of NATO as a security partner," Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak,
then Moscow's ambassador to NATO, told me at a San Francisco reception.
Twenty years later, Operation Allied force has been all but forgotten in the United States. In a country that has been waging
nonstop war on terrorism for almost the entire 21st century, the 1999 NATO air war is but a footnote in modern American history.
Serbs, however, still seethe at the injustice and hypocrisy of it all. The bombed-out ruins of the old Yugoslav Ministry of Defense,
Radio Television of Serbia headquarters and other buildings serve as constant, painful reminders of the horrors endured by the Serbian
people in service of NATO's credibility.
Brett Wilkins is a San Francisco-based author and activist. His work, which focuses on issues of war and peace and human rights,
is archived atwww.brettwilkins.com
U.S. out of Iraq. U.S. out of Syria. U.S. out of Afghanistan. U.S. out of South Korea.
U.S. out of Okinawa. U.S. out of Germany. U.S. out of Saudi Arabia. U.S. out of Cameroon.
U.S. out of Djibouti. U.S. out of Qatar. U.S. out of Niger.
Tulsi Gabbard Verified account @ TulsiGabbard Mar 17
For decades, Space has been a model of cooperation between global superpowers. But such
cooperation is the latest victim of the new Cold War. Trump/Neocon efforts to start a space
war/arms race will lead to destruction of our country and planet. #Tulsi2020
Tulsi Gabbard Verified account @ TulsiGabbard Mar 17
For decades, Space has been a model of cooperation between global superpowers. But such
cooperation is the latest victim of the new Cold War. Trump/Neocon efforts to start a space
war/arms race will lead to destruction of our country and planet. #Tulsi2020
Another example of Trump and Netanyahu putting their own political interests ahead of the
interests of our respective countries. Will escalate tensions and likelihood of war between
Israel/US/Syria/Iran/Russia. Shortsighted. https:// twitter.com/nytimes/status /1108783266075684865
Omani 1:12 PM - 21 Mar 2019
How long will this continue to go on? They must be stopped. #Tulsi2020
"So you ask what I will change? I will change our priorities so we stop wasting trillions
of our dollars on wasteful counterproductive wars and dedicate them to taking care of the
urgent needs of our communities across this country." #ServiceBeforeSelf#PeaceDvidend
Tulsi Gabbard 7:44 AM - 20 Mar 2019
"I'm not running for president to BE president. I'm running for president to be able to
bring about this sea change in our foreign policy that is so necessary for us and for the
world, and I'm most qualified to do that." #ServiceBeforeSelf#Tulsi2020pic.twitter.com/wk2M7O0CgR
"... A study of the Syria war coverage by nine leading European newspapers clearly illustrates these issues: 78% of all articles are based in whole or in part on agency reports, yet 0% on investigative research. Moreover, 82% of all opinion pieces and interviews are in favor of the US and NATO intervention, while propaganda is attributed exclusively to the opposite side... ..."
"In a remarkable report by British Channel 4, former CIA officials and a Reuters correspondent spoke candidly about the
systematic dissemination of propaganda and misinformation in reporting on geopolitical conflicts:"
Many thanks, and much respect to you Sir for bringing this important piece to my attention.
I apologize for another somewhat off topic posting, but I have not seen it posted here earlier, and I think that this should be
seen by as many eyes as possible.
It is one of the most important aspects of our media system -- and yet hardly known to the public: most of the international
news coverage in Western media is provided by only three global news agencies based in New York, London and Paris.
The key role played by these agencies means that Western media often report on the same topics, even using the same wording.
In addition, governments, military and intelligence services use these global news agencies as multipliers to spread their messages
around the world.
A study of the Syria war coverage by nine leading European newspapers clearly illustrates these issues: 78% of all articles
are based in whole or in part on agency reports, yet 0% on investigative research. Moreover, 82% of all opinion pieces and interviews
are in favor of the US and NATO intervention, while propaganda is attributed exclusively to the opposite side...
This article was written 4 years ago, but the problem with Putin successor remains. Putin is a unique politician and his replacement
might be much weaker, causing troubles for Russia. This is not new problem for Russia, but this time it will be especially
acute. BTW this comment thread looks like "who is who" list for NATObots.
Notable quotes:
"... We could all use a real leader like Putin who takes no b.s. from anybody and is quick to adapt to any situation in a calm assertive way. He earns our admiration every day, the way he steers across an ever changing minefield and not because of his mucho image. We do not need leaders who deceit people by spewing relentless propaganda and no clarity. They fail as individuals and as a group because they are spineless. If multiple people repeat the same lie it does not make it true. It must be a club membership requirement to play the politics game and keep quiet about wrong things you see. ..."
"... Action man outwitting the Neocons in the international chess game. More surprises to come ..."
"... Karl Rove said "Empire creates its own reality". No wonder the mantra "Assad must go" is now enshrined in international politics by the Neocon alliance. They didnt figure on Putin obviously. ..."
"... It happens regardless, take the example in Volgograd (Vauxhall) two years ago. I am afraid that KSA and the Gulf States will be funding the usual mix of 'moderately terroristic shenanigans" in reprisal, but they did this before anyways. ..."
"... He making the US looked like whiny bitches. Good job; you alienate Russia and manage to strengthen the China-Russo relationrelationship. Sanctions that don't work, secret economic wars and multiple failed coup d'etat in Georgia and Ukraine [also do not work] ..."
"... Like US - Hospital - Afganistain. anyway ISIS are paid money by the CIA and don't care who they work for it's money that they are motivated by not ideology, that ideology stuff is made-up. Google it and dig, get yourself informed. ..."
"... Not quite sure why Mr Putin playing ice-hockey on his birthday is worthy of a story to open up for comments unless the Guardian is ' trawling ' to encourage some new anti-Putin Cold War rhetoric in the comments section. ..."
"... PS / Don't forget that nice Israeli Prime Minister Mr Netanyahu's birthday and how he celebrates it. Ensure you open it up for comment as I'm sure also that many will wish to voice an opinion. Will this now be a standard ' Birthday Feature ' for all world leaders in the Guardian, or has this newspaper just granted an exception for Mr Putin's birthday ? ..."
I wonder if everyone on the Guardian staff has the same "man crush" on Putin? Could explain all these obsessive articles. I
also wonder if he spent any time in the penalty box?
laticsfanfromeurope -> Extracrispy 7 Oct 2015 17:06
You prefer ISIS and Al-Nusra then the legitimate Syrian gov. and the legitimate help of Russia...not a surprise from stupid
western supporters!
pfox33 7 Oct 2015 17:05
There isn't one of our western politicians that wouldn't sell his fucking mother to be getting the attention that Putin's getting.
I thought he was supposed to be isolated.
So to keep the hockey thing going, Putin's stolen the puck in the neutral zone, split the Nato defensemen who were too far
forward and is on a breakaway.
I feel sorry for Obama because I think he's a good leader but when it comes to trying to maneuver in a geopolitical situation
like Syria he's fucked before he leaves the house. Putin can just act without trying to herd cats like Obama has to do with his
Nato minions. He doesn't have a bunch of recalcitrant GOP senators calling him everything but a white man and running their mouths
about what they would do.
... ... ...
filin led -> Braminski 7 Oct 2015 16:55
It's you who are a troll, sir. By what you say, anything can be dismissed as paid propaganda. That means, you are as likely
to be a paid agent yourself. So, if you can't come up with a constructive argument, stop commenting please.
Mordantdude -> Poppy757 7 Oct 2015 16:40
As Russians say: "Envy silently".
giacinto101 7 Oct 2015 15:59
We could all use a real leader like Putin who takes no b.s. from anybody and is quick to adapt to any situation in a calm
assertive way. He earns our admiration every day, the way he steers across an ever changing minefield and not because of his mucho
image. We do not need leaders who deceit people by spewing relentless propaganda and no clarity. They fail as individuals and
as a group because they are spineless. If multiple people repeat the same lie it does not make it true. It must be a club membership
requirement to play the politics game and keep quiet about wrong things you see.
SilkverBlogger 7 Oct 2015 15:54
Action man outwitting the Neocons in the international chess game. More surprises to come
CIAbot007 -> Poppy757 7 Oct 2015 15:39
Most of Aussies have a bit of common sense which says that you can't blame anyone before it is prooved. With Western MSM propaganda
machine blaming Russia and Putin even before anything happens you bet there's no such thing as balanced and unskewed reporting
and even will for any kind of such thing. Don't get fooled, use your brain or your brain will be used by someone else.
SilkverBlogger 7 Oct 2015 14:48
Karl Rove said "Empire creates its own reality". No wonder the mantra "Assad must go" is now enshrined in international
politics by the Neocon alliance. They didnt figure on Putin obviously.
PekkaRoivanen MTavernier 7 Oct 2015 14:30
In the West, we don't have a sycophantic press kissing the leader's backside:
Guardian: Barack Obama scores just 2 out of 22 basketball hoops - video
You wrote that Obama plays basketball and you prove it with this video where Obama wears dress shirt (tie removed :-D) and
scores badly.
Are you sure Obama plays basketball? Or is it just press kissing his backside?
Kev Kev Hektor Uranga 7 Oct 2015 14:28
the USA persecutes and kills people who speak out against it. Only difference is the USA does it in ways that nobody sees..
In other words the USA is the same as Russia only they do their work in the dark. When nobody is looking.
Abiesalba MTavernier 7 Oct 2015 14:26
That's the guy who is wishing Putin a happy birthday.
The US/UK duo have caused with their insane illegal wars more than a million deaths in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and
counting.
I recommend you look up a little the complex history and present situation in Chechnya and the North Caucasus region.
ISIS (which the insanely aggressive US/UK duo have in effect created) is already spreading its influence INSIDE the Russian
Federation. So Putin has direct interests to defeat ISIS and stabilise Syria (and Iraq). In addition, the south of the Russian
Federation is on the map of territories which ISIS plans to conquer.
See for example:
-
8 ISIS supporters killed in N. Caucasus special op
(2 August 2015)
Russian security forces have foiled a terrorist group that recently pledged allegiance to ISIS in Ingushetia, in the Northern
Caucasus, according to the National Anti-Terror Committee (NAC). Security forces seized explosives, weapons and over 2,000 rounds
of ammunition.
-
How Russian Militants Declared A New ISIS 'State' In Russia's North Caucasus
(26 June 2015)
The Islamic State group announced the creation of its northernmost province this week, after accepting a formal pledge of allegiance
from former al Qaeda militants in the North Caucasus region of Russia.
-
-
It is true that at present, the Chechens are begging Putin to let them strike in Syria (and this is also closely linked to the
complicated history of North Caucasus), but Putin has not unleashed them. See for example here:
-
-
Kadyrov asks Putin to allow Chechen infantry to fight in Syria (RT, 2 October 2015)
-
The head of the Chechen Republic has asked the Russian president to send Chechen units to fight Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL)
in Syria, adding that his fighters have sworn to fight terrorists till the end.
"Being a Muslim, a Chechen and a Russian patriot I want to say that in 1999 when our republic was overrun with these devils
we swore on the Koran that we would fight them wherever they are," the Chechen leader said. "But we need the Commander-in-Chief's
decision to do this," he emphasized. According to the Russian Constitution, the president [Putin] is also the commander-in-chief
of the military forces.
BMWAlbert clanview46 7 Oct 2015 14:26
It happens regardless, take the example in Volgograd (Vauxhall) two years ago. I am afraid that KSA and the Gulf States
will be funding the usual mix of 'moderately terroristic shenanigans" in reprisal, but they did this before anyways.
Julian1972 MTavernier 7 Oct 2015 14:21
That was last year...also it was authored by a combination of the CIA and their right-wing 'Operation Stay Behind' cohorts...though,
if you don't know that by now you doubtless never will.
Abiesalba MTavernier 7 Oct 2015 14:16
Murderers, thieves and embezzlers stroking each other's egos.
Putin has a long way to go to match the US/UK.
-
-
Here is a recent report about 'collateral damage' compiled by Physicians for Social Responsibility, Physicians for Global Survival
and the Nobel Prize-winning International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War:
-
Body Count: Casualty Figures After 10 Years of the 'War on Terror' (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan)
(March 2015)
-
This investigation comes to the conclusion that the war has, directly or indirectly, killed around 1 million people in Iraq, 220,000
in Afghanistan and 80,000 in Pakistan, i.e. a total of around 1.3 million.
NOT included in this figure are further war zones such as Yemen.
The figure is approximately 10 times greater than that of which the public, experts and decision makers are aware of and propagated
by the media and major NGOs.
And this is only a conservative estimate. The total number of deaths in the three countries named above could also be in excess
of 2 million, whereas a figure below 1 million is extremely unlikely.
-
-
For more about civilian casualties due to the US-led coalition strikes in Syria and Iraq, see the Airwars website:
584 – 1,720 civilians killed:
To date, the international coalition has only conceded two "likely" deaths, from an event in early November 2014. It is also
presently investigating seven further incidents of concern; is carrying out credibility assessments on a further 13; and has concluded
three more investigations – having found no 'preponderance of evidence' to support civilian casualty claims.
More Power -> MTavernier 7 Oct 2015 14:13
He making the US looked like whiny bitches. Good job; you alienate Russia and manage to strengthen the China-Russo relationrelationship.
Sanctions that don't work, secret economic wars and multiple failed coup d'etat in Georgia and Ukraine [also do not work].
Just look at the World Bank, BRICS is on the door step. Happy birth day Putin. A badass mofo
blueskis -> MTavernier 7 Oct 2015 14:06
The vats majority of the 5500 killed have been civilians in East Ukraine killed by airstrikes ordered by kiev/washington, fully
justifying Russian intervention.
ooTToo -> MTavernier 7 Oct 2015 13:40
Like US - Hospital - Afganistain. anyway ISIS are paid money by the CIA and don't care who they work for it's money that
they are motivated by not ideology, that ideology stuff is made-up. Google it and dig, get yourself informed.
geedeesee -> MTavernier 7 Oct 2015 13:19
Russia is attacking what they said they'd attack, Tavernier. ISIS, al-Nusrah, and other terrorist organisations.
inconvenienttruth13 -> MTavernier 7 Oct 2015 13:18
No he isn't. Anybody with a functioning brain knows he had nothing to do with that. Unlike the US genocide in the Middle East
- over 2 million dead and counting - not to mention the deliberate and sustained attack on a hospital. Maybe you don' get to see
the news in your ward?
inconvenienttruth13 -> MTavernier 7 Oct 2015 13:13
The US created, funds, trains and arms ISIS - they are only supporting terrorists in their campaign to effect regime change.
Russia is responding to a request fro the Syrian government, so its actions are entirely legal. The faces that the USA and the
KSA are the biggest sponsors of terrorism in the world.
monteverdi1610 7 Oct 2015 12:22
Not quite sure why Mr Putin playing ice-hockey on his birthday is worthy of a story to open up for comments unless the
Guardian is ' trawling ' to encourage some new anti-Putin Cold War rhetoric in the comments section.
PS / Don't forget that nice Israeli Prime Minister Mr Netanyahu's birthday and how he celebrates it. Ensure you open it
up for comment as I'm sure also that many will wish to voice an opinion. Will this now be a standard ' Birthday Feature ' for
all world leaders in the Guardian, or has this newspaper just granted an exception for Mr Putin's birthday ?
Foreign policy is no longer controlled by the President of the USA. It is controlled by the Deep state.
This article is from 2015 but can easily be written about Trump administration
Notable quotes:
"... Indeed, as Putin himself had proposed in his visionary October 2011 article, the Eurasian Union could have become one of the pillars of a huge harmonized economic area stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok and based on the EU's single-market rules (acquis communautaire). ..."
"... First and foremost, because the self-proclaimed "exceptional" power (actually, a mere "outlying island" in the Atlantic, according to the founder of geopolitics, Halford Mackinder) and its dysfunctional "deep-state" officialdom did not want it to be. How could they have permitted such a thing? How could they have allowed other countries to get on with improving the lives of their citizens without being obliged to seek Washington's approval every step of the way? ..."
"... In order to make sure that they were not side-lined, the US elites had to intervene. The Western propaganda machine started churning out all sorts of nonsense that Putin is a new Hitler who is bent on restoring the Soviet empire and who is bullying Europe, while continuing to bang on about his "increasingly autocratic rule". ..."
"... Deadly attacks by chauvinistic proxies were launched on the Russophone people in South Ossetia, Georgia in 2008 and more recently in Ukraine. ..."
"... Stuck in an Orwellian nightmare, Europe has to demonstrate its unfailing loyalty to Big Brother and go along with the view that Russia, an intrinsic and valuable part of the European mainstream both historically and culturally, represents universal evil and that the Earth will not be safe until the Federation has been dismembered and Putinism wiped out once and for all. ..."
"... Having self-destructed in two world wars, it has become an easy and even willing prey to an arrogant, ignorant and power-drunk predator that has never experienced the hardships and horrors that Europe has. ..."
"... Even more terrifying, intellectually third-rate Washington viceroys such as Victoria Nuland and the freelancing armchair warrior Senator McCain are allowed to play God with our continent. ..."
"... Indeed, the damage extends beyond the economy. By aligning with the forces of chaos – such as chauvinistic extremists in Ukraine – Washington and its Euro-vassals are corrupting the moral (and intellectual) core of the West. ..."
"... 'My Ph.D. dissertation chairman, who became a high Pentagon official assigned to wind down the Vietnam war, in answer to my question about how Washington gets Europeans to always do what Washington wants replied: "Money, we give them money." "Foreign aid?" I asked. "No, we give the European political leaders bagfuls of money. They are for sale. We bought them. They report to us." Perhaps this explains Tony Blair's $50 million fortune one year out of office'. ..."
"... "We, the [CENSORED] people, control America and the Americans know it." -- Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of [CENSORED] ..."
Washington is betraying the best interests of the American people through its current foreign policy... European
democracy is threatened by US, not Russian, foreign policy
The avalanche of commentary since the Ukrainian crisis erupted a year ago has overshadowed any reflections on the immense forgone
benefits (technically speaking, the "opportunity cost") of what might have been if Washington had been working for peace and stability
instead of war and chaos.
Imagine the following: After the unraveling of the Communist bloc, Europe, in partnership with the US, had forged a new security
system in which Russia was treated as a valued and equal partner – one whose interests were respected. Russia, decimated by a century
of wars and Communist imperialism, would doubtless have eagerly reciprocated in kind. Most countries of the former Soviet Union would
have then proceeded to build a new Eurasian structure of which Russia would have served as the natural umbrella, given its long-standing
interaction with the region's diverse nations and cultures.
Indeed, as Putin himself had proposed in his visionary October 2011 article, the Eurasian Union could have become one of the
pillars of a huge harmonized economic area stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok and based on the EU's single-market rules (acquis
communautaire).
The rising Far Eastern economic powerhouse, with the world's most populous country, China, at its centre, would have linked up
with the world's largest economy (the EU). An enormous Eurasian production and financial bloc would have been created – one that
drew primarily on secure supplies of Russian energy and other natural resources. Untold investment opportunities would have opened
up in Siberia and Russia's Far East as well as in Central Asia. Hundreds of millions of people in Eurasia and elsewhere would have
been lifted out of poverty. And, not least, the EU would have been refashioned as an integral part of the dynamic trans-Eurasian
economy (rather than as a German-centred empire, as appears to be the case today), thereby making a major contribution to overcoming
the ongoing global economic depression.
All of this was not to be, however. Why not? First and foremost, because the self-proclaimed "exceptional" power (actually, a
mere "outlying island" in the Atlantic, according to the founder of geopolitics, Halford Mackinder) and its dysfunctional "deep-state"
officialdom did not want it to be. How could they have permitted such a thing? How could they have allowed other countries to
get on with improving the lives of their citizens without being obliged to seek Washington's approval every step of the way?
European democracy is threatened by US, not Russian, foreign policy
In order to make sure that they were not side-lined, the US elites had to intervene. The Western propaganda machine started
churning out all sorts of nonsense that Putin is a new Hitler who is bent on restoring the Soviet empire and who is bullying Europe,
while continuing to bang on about his "increasingly autocratic rule".
Deadly attacks by chauvinistic proxies were launched on the Russophone people in South Ossetia, Georgia in 2008 and more recently
in Ukraine.
And in what is eerily reminiscent of Stalinist "bloc discipline", the EU/NATO nomenclature was ordered to implement the absurd
strategy of severing the Russian economy from the EU. For their part, the cowering Eurocrats willingly obliged by imposing sanctions
on Russia that, perversely, have had a negative impact on their own economies (but, let it be stressed, not that of the US). No questions
raised and no public debate on the wisdom of such a strategy permitted.
Stuck in an Orwellian nightmare, Europe has to demonstrate its unfailing loyalty to Big Brother and go along with the view
that Russia, an intrinsic and valuable part of the European mainstream both historically and culturally, represents universal evil
and that the Earth will not be safe until the Federation has been dismembered and Putinism wiped out once and for all.
This abuse and humiliation of Europe is unparalleled. The continent that gave the world the wonders of the Antiquity, modern democracy,
the industrial revolution and what is arguably the greatest tradition of philosophy, fine arts and classical music is being bullied
by its oversized offspring. Having self-destructed in two world wars, it has become an easy and even willing prey to an arrogant,
ignorant and power-drunk predator that has never experienced the hardships and horrors that Europe has. War and extermination
camps are etched into the European DNA. America "knows" about them only from afar – and, not least, from the Hollywood entertainment
industry.
Even more terrifying, intellectually third-rate Washington viceroys such as Victoria Nuland and the freelancing armchair warrior
Senator McCain are allowed to play God with our continent. The so-called European "leaders" are colluding with them in plunging
Europe into the abyss and thereby risking nuclear confrontation.
America, too, is a loser
But this is not just a tragedy for Europe and Eurasia. We are also witnessing the wilful misrule of America and, by default, of
the entire West. Indeed, Washington is betraying the best interests of the American people through its current foreign policy. The
"democracy-promoters" running Washington's foreign-policy apparatus apparently do not understand that America has nothing to lose
and a lot to gain from the Eurasian economic project: the rising tide of global economic welfare would lift everyone's boats, including
its own. Why should it matter to Washington if the rising tide comes from other quarters beyond its control?
Indeed, the damage extends beyond the economy. By aligning with the forces of chaos – such as chauvinistic extremists in Ukraine
– Washington and its Euro-vassals are corrupting the moral (and intellectual) core of the West. If it continues to support such
forces against Russia, united Europe will lose not only its backbone but its very soul. The moral consequences of this loss will
be enormous and could lead to the precipitous erosion of Western democracy.
The 'autocrats' want to work with the West, not against it
US and EU leaders believe that the Russian and Chinese "autocrats" are out to destroy the West because the latter hate freedom
(as George W. Bush might have put it). And hence, they argue, the autocrats must be stopped in their tracks. The simple truth is
that Western leaders are too blinkered to understand that far from desiring to destroy the West, Russia and China want it to prosper
so that they can work with it to everyone's benefit. Having enjoyed a privileged position over several centuries and having attained
unprecedented prosperity in recent decades, the West simply cannot understand that the rest of humanity has no interest in fomenting
the "clash of civilizations" but rather craves peace and stability so that it can finally improve its economic lot.
Perhaps, however, all is not yet lost. It is still possible that reason – and economic forces – will prevail and force the West
to correct the errors of its ways. What we need, perhaps, more than ever is the ability to step out of the box, question our fundamental
assumptions (not least about Russia and China) and find the courage to change policies that have proved disastrous. After all, critical
thought, dispassionate analysis and the ability to be open to new ideas is what made the West so successful in the past. If we are
to thrive once again in the future, we must resurrect these most valuable and unsurpassed assets.
What I cannot understand is the naive belief that elected politicians would act in the interests of those whom they represent.
Under what other circumstances do we see human beings act with disinterested altruism? So why would a bunch of people who have
been ruthlessly selected for selfishness, arrogance, and callousness - a bunch of carefully chosen psychopaths, if you will -
behave in that way?
'My Ph.D. dissertation chairman, who became a high Pentagon official assigned to wind down the Vietnam war, in answer to
my question about how Washington gets Europeans to always do what Washington wants replied: "Money, we give them money." "Foreign
aid?" I asked. "No, we give the European political leaders bagfuls of money. They are for sale. We bought them. They report to
us." Perhaps this explains Tony Blair's $50 million fortune one year out of office'.
- Paul Craig Roberts
jabirujoe
"Washington is betraying the best interests of the American people through its current foreign policy".
Not only it's foreign policy but it's domestic policy as well. Let's call it for what it really is. The Wall Street/Corporate
policy which is the driving force behind behind everything the US does
Toddrich
"We, the [CENSORED] people, control America and the Americans know it." -- Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of [CENSORED]
"When we're done with the U.S. it will shrivel up and blow away." -- Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of [CENSORED]
The welfare or future of the American people are not part of the equation.
"... There are numerous clues that point to the 2016 US Presidential Election as having been a set-up. Few seem willing to take a close look at these facts. But it is necessary for an understanding of the world we live in today. ..."
"... Sanders as sheep-dog Black Agenda Report called Sanders a sheep-dog soon after he entered the race . ..."
"... "Enough with the emails!" ..."
"... Not pursuing Hillary's 'winning' of 6 coin tosses in Iowa ..."
"... Virtually conceding the black and female vote to Hillary ..."
"... Not calling Hillary out about her claim to have NEVER sold her vote ..."
"... Endorsing Hillary despite learning of Hillary-DNC collusion ..."
"... Continuing to help the Democratic Party reach out to Bernie supports even after the election ..."
"... As one keen observer noted: Sanders is a Company Man . ..."
There are numerous clues that point to the 2016 US Presidential Election as having been a set-up. Few seem willing to take a
close look at these facts. But it is necessary for an understanding of the world we live in today.
Trump's first 100 days has come and gone and he has proven to be every bit the faux populist that Obama was (as I explained in
a previous post). In hind-sight we can see how a new faux populist was installed.
Sanders made it clear from the start that he ruled
out the possibility of running as an independent. That was only the first of many punches that Sanders pulled as he led his 'sheep'
into the Democratic fold.
Others were:
; "Enough with the emails!"
; Not pursuing Hillary's 'winning' of 6 coin tosses in Iowa;
; Virtually conceding the black and female vote to Hillary;
; Not calling Hillary out about her claim to have NEVER sold her vote;
; Endorsing Hillary despite learning of Hillary-DNC collusion;
; Continuing to help the Democratic Party reach out to Bernie supports even after the election.
She can serve in the army and still be anti interventionist because our military is
supposed to be a defense force not an offense force. You can be willing to fight to protect
your country without wanting to go running round the world creating conflict for oil and
regime change.
'm 66, a Progressive formerly from Boston where we eat and breathe politics and I'll tell
you... never in my life have I seen a Democratic candidate like this fearless young woman who
will simultaneously attract veterans AND anti-war folks AND moderate Republicans AND youth.
NO OTHER CANDIDATE CAN DO THIS. My absolute belief is that if Tulsi's not on the ticket...
Trump wins. Sorry Bernie, this time I'm going with Tulsi.
"... The american entitlement, as if it is your buisness what happens in other countries to the point that you have a right to invade, kill, and oppress their citizens is disgusting. The U.S. sanctions are starving Venezeualans, as is the theft of billions of dollars by the wannabe puppet president. Sanders/Gabbard all the way. ..."
Why doesn't anyone say...Assad did not gas his own people...US backed rebels gassed the
Syrian people. It's called manufactured consent. Sometimes I really hate the ignorance too
many Americans choose.
Megan is such a lying fake news propagandist. Yes Assad is a brutal dictator. However, the
allegations of gassing his people are debunked fake news (her stating them as facts is fake
news). There was no ISIS and Al Qaeda in Syria before the US backed regime change war.
Hundreds of thousands have been killed, millions displaced.
Her calm and poise in the face of these right wing hacks is impressive. The american
entitlement, as if it is your buisness what happens in other countries to the point that you
have a right to invade, kill, and oppress their citizens is disgusting. The U.S. sanctions
are starving Venezeualans, as is the theft of billions of dollars by the wannabe puppet
president. Sanders/Gabbard all the way.
I grew up watching and loving Colbert. Over the last few years I have not really liked him
or his views, but still had a sot spot in my heart for him. This interview makes me never
want to even watch another clip of his again. I felt disgust and anger after watching his
interrogation of Tulsi.
I have never before heard a politician give a straight yes or no answer to a direct
question and follow through with, "in my opinion". She is fantastic.
What Tulsi should point out is that we created the vacuum in the first place. If we had
not intervened there would be no power vacuum for China or Russia to fill. The first rule of
getting out of a hole: stop digging
China is going to become the worlds biggest super power because they're playing the long
game. Although you can say their building is a "debt trap" it's still business deals that the
other countries need and it's not like we Americans dont use credit cards and are in a bunch
of debt.
The US keeps losing trust in the world because of how we've gone about things. We
need someone like Tulsi to gain that trust back and actually do good in the world
Great video as usual. Stephen Colbert is a total disgrace and surprisingly really stupid.
However, it doesn't matter if Tulsi doesn't win the presidency in 2020. What is most
important is she becomes a part of Sander's team so that she can put a stop to the crazy US
military ambition.
Tulsi is perfect as the Sec of State. She can be the president a few years
into a Sanders presidency. Her time is not in 2020, but in 2024 or 2028. Her support will
grow over time.
Once again Tulsi Gabbard was smeared by War Friendly Agents this time it was The View's
Meghan McCain. Tulsi Gabbard explains her positions on a series of issues. #TulsiGabbard#TheView#TimBlackShow Pinned by
TBTV
Meghan McCain is a disgusting little Neocon warmonger who has been brought up in an elite
bubble she wouldn't have the guts or integrity to serve like Tulsi did. Tulsi handed this
with class.
For the record, I always cringe when Meghan McCain opens her mouth Anyone remember her
appearance on Bill Maher's show when she engaged Paul Begalla in a little debate on a
specific moment in history and she replied, "I wasn't born yet," and then Begalla immediately
stated, "I wasn't round during the French Revolution but I know about it"? Time to stop
employing the uninformed daughter of a deceased Senator, dontcha think? Especially one who is
so unmercifully unread.
The fact that Americans are still convinced the reasons they intervene in other countries
are humanitarian help and defending freedom and not economic or strategic reasons is
laughable. Get real, people, you are rarely the good guys. And no, the rest of the world do
not want you barging in and patronize them.
First time I've seen this beautiful intelligent compassionate lady named Tulsi. That
blonde haired land shark thinks she's smart because she has been allowed to masquerade as
some sort of respectable human for so long, she's just a fool even she's fooled by her own
foolishness
Damn! Tulsi Gabbard just gained my respect. She walked through minefield and came out
unscathed because she kept her composure and stuck to her beliefs. And she is right--Assad
has never threatened us!
hated the way Tulsi was attacked by these women there was literally hate on their faces
they were clearly biased unfortunate she had to be interviewed by them but kudos to her, she
answered every question and hell yes, there is vagueness in the green new deal Tulsi is
talking about environment since a long time now but there is suddenly a new deal and new
blood in Congress and all of a sudden ppl are noticing 'women' in Congress talking and making
valid points while women like Tulsi have been making their arguments and many valid points
w/o shouting
You're the only person that I've heard be honest enough to say that the Green New Deal is
just a framework. It is a starting point to a conversation. Thank you. Secondly, it is always
amazing to me when political Talking Heads say we can't pay for universal healthcare or free
higher education but are willing to fund regime changes in other countries. Willing to spend
unnegotiated billions of dollars and Wars and conflicts in other countries. Where's the sense
in that? And finally what would Meghan McCain have done had Hillary Clinton not accepted the
Electoral College results and declared herself president in the United States because she won
the popular vote? What would all of those Talking Heads and politicians have thought or done
at all had all of those voters marched against the White House and Congress to force Hillary
into the presidency? Hmmmm
wow. that was just wow. when she said "I am not someone who will go into the white house
and sit back and rely on the foreign policy establishment in Washington to tell me what to
do, I don't have to. I'm not intimidated by the stars that someone wears on their shoulders.
I am not intimidated by the military industrial complex and what they're pushing for." she
literally could have just dropped the mic. I bet the aforementioned military industrial
complex just peed themselves a little. This is why MSM and DNC hate her. And why we all love
her. I'm all in on #Tulsi2020 .
Hello, Mrs. Gabbard excuse my English which is my third language. I respect you so much,
I'm from Syrian, I live in SF you are the only one who really stood up for the Syrian people
by talking about the lies of the media toward my country, and also by meeting with The Syrian
President who is the legal representative of the Syrian people by election. You had the honor
to visit my country and saw the miserable situation caused by the war that was made and
supported by the US; please if you become the president end this war and end the suffer of
the Syrian people
99 year Old Mother, WWII ARMY Nurse Corp Vet on the Comfort when it was hit by a kamikaze,
"adores" you Tulsi. So moved when watching the CNN Town Hall. You are her hero!
I don't think I've ever seen a politician who I've listened to and said "This person, THIS
is the one I want to be our President. THIS is the one who will truly represent the people,
and lead this nation with a true vision and actually fight to do the things they say they
want to do". But when I see and hear Tulsi, I feel like I'm seeing just that, for maybe the
first time in my life.
Who should I support? An incredible woman who is a combat veteran with original ideas, or
a white skateboarder who pretends to be Latino and married a rich girl? #Tulsi2020
I was overwhelmed with so much warmth when I heard you speak, I swear I have never felt
this before. Thank You for all your hard work! No matter what happens, you have my full
support and my vote :)
I've been all in for Bernie but listening to Tulsi is equally if not more inspiring
given that her focus is on our insane interventionist foreign policy
No teleprompters, no notes, no platitudes or empty rhetoric. Calm and logical and
intelligent. No wonder the establishment is scared of her. GO TULSI!!!!
amazing, simply amazing. You need to watch this Town Hall in full to appreciate the skills she demonstrated in defense of
her principles. What a fearless young lady.
And this CNN warmonger, a prostitute of MIC was/is pretty devious. Question were selected with malice to hurt Tulsi and people who
ask them were definitely pre-selected with an obvious intent to smear Tulsi. In no way those were spontaneous question. This was a session
of Neocon//Neolib inquisition. Tulsi behaves like a modern Joan of Arc
From comments: "People need to donate to Tulsi Gabbard for president so she is allowed on the DNC sponsored debate stages. 65000
unique donors required to be in the debates. Donation can be as small as $1 if you can't afford $25"(mrfuzztone)
Notable quotes:
"... Braver then 99.9% of all men in power. They just enjoy watching the blood sports they create for profit. Looks like people are starting to get fed up with the show. About time ..."
"... WE CURRENTLY HAVE A CRONY CAPITALIST PYRAMID SCHEME AND CNN PLAYS IT'S PART TO KEEP THAT SYSTEM IN PLACE ..."
"... I'm 66, a Progressive formerly from Boston where we eat and breathe politics and I'll tell you... never in my life have I seen a Democratic candidate like this fearless young woman who will simultaneously attract veterans AND anti-war folks AND moderate Republicans AND youth. NO OTHER CANDIDATE CAN DO THIS. My absolute belief is that if Tulsi's not on the ticket... Trump wins. Sorry Bernie, this time I'm going with Tulsi. ..."
Braver then 99.9% of all men in power. They just enjoy watching the blood sports they create for profit. Looks like people
are starting to get fed up with the show. About time✌️ 😉
I'm 66, a Progressive formerly from Boston where we eat and breathe politics and I'll tell you... never in my life have
I seen a Democratic candidate like this fearless young woman who will simultaneously attract veterans AND anti-war folks AND moderate
Republicans AND youth. NO OTHER CANDIDATE CAN DO THIS. My absolute belief is that if Tulsi's not on the ticket... Trump wins.
Sorry Bernie, this time I'm going with Tulsi.
Tulsi handled these hacks like a pro LOOL Are you a capitalist? LOL What s stupid question.....CCN usually stacks there town
halls with corporate cronies. I bet Bernie picks her for a high position in his government.
People need to donate to Tulsi Gabbard for president so she is allowed on the DNC sponsored debate stages. 65000 unique donors
required to be in the debates. Donation can be as small as $1 if you can't afford $25.
CNN is just mouthpiece for intelligence community and MIC
The question of a type "did you finished to beat your wife" are very difficult to ask. So how
skillfully Tulsi handled those "sinking" question comment her skills.
The problem with Jimmy Dore is he has some kind of mental block or is somehow completely
unaware of the reasons we bomb countries that are hostile to Israel and located right on
their border or at least near them. You also have to be completely unaware of the power of
the Jewish lobbies and their obvious bias towards their own interests to ignore Jews role in
promoting wars that benefit Israel. It's not the "military industrial complex" Jimmy, it's
who controls that complex. Jeff Zucker, the head of CNN is a Jew, that like Jake Tapper (also
a Jew) sees any destruction of Syria as beneficial to Israel. The neo-Con Max Boot was born
in Russia and still wants to bomb Russia because he's a Jew that doesn't want Putin
preventing Jewish controlled US from destroying Syria. I can level some similar criticism at
Jimmy that he levels at the mainstream media.
Boeing Co. tumbled early Monday on heightened scrutiny by regulators and prosecutors over
whether the approval process for the company's 737 Max jetliner was flawed.
A person familiar with the matter on Sunday said that the U.S. Transportation Department's
Inspector General was examining the plane's design certification before the second of two
deadly crashes of the almost brand-new aircraft.
Separately, the Wall Street Journal reported that a grand jury in Washington, D.C., on
March 11 issued a subpoena to at least one person involved in the development process of the
Max. And a Seattle Times investigation found that U.S. regulators delegated much of the plane's
safety assessment to Boeing and that the company in turn delivered an analysis with crucial
flaws.
Boeing dropped 2.8 percent to $368.53 before the start of regular trading Monday in New
York, well below any closing price since the deadly crash of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 on
March 10. Ethiopia's transport minister said Sunday that flight-data recorders showed "clear
similarities" between the crashes of that plane and Lion Air Flight 610 last October.
U.S. Federal Aviation Administration employees warned as early as seven years ago that
Boeing had too much sway over safety approvals of new aircraft, prompting an investigation by
Transportation Department auditors who confirmed the agency hadn't done enough to "hold Boeing
accountable."
The 2012 investigation also found that discord over Boeing's treatment had created a
"negative work environment" among FAA employees who approve new and modified aircraft designs,
with many of them saying they'd faced retaliation for speaking up. Their concerns pre-dated the
737 Max development.
In recent years, the FAA has shifted more authority over the approval of new aircraft to the
manufacturer itself, even allowing Boeing to choose many of the personnel who oversee tests and
vouch for safety. Just in the past few months, Congress expanded the outsourcing arrangement
even further.
"It raises for me the question of whether the agency is properly funded, properly staffed
and whether there has been enough independent oversight," said Jim Hall, who was chairman of
the National Transportation Safety Board from 1994 to 2001 and is now an aviation-safety
consultant.
Outsourcing Safety
At least a portion of the flight-control software suspected in the 737 Max crashes was
certified by one or more Boeing employees who worked in the outsourcing arrangement, according
to one person familiar with the work who wasn't authorized to speak about the matter.
The Wall Street Journal first reported the inspector general's latest inquiry. The watchdog
is trying to assess whether the FAA used appropriate design standards and engineering analysis
in approving the 737 Max's anti-stall system, the newspaper said.
Both Boeing and the Transportation Department declined to comment about that inquiry.
In a statement on Sunday, the agency said its "aircraft certification processes are well
established and have consistently produced safe aircraft designs," adding that the "737 Max
certification program followed the FAA's standard certification process."
The Ethiopian Airlines plane crashed minutes after it took off from Addis Ababa, killing all
157 people on board. The accident prompted most of the world to ground Boeing's 737 Max 8
aircraft on safety concerns, coming on the heels of the October crash of a Max 8 operated by
Indonesia's Lion Air that killed 189 people. Much of the attention focused on a flight-control
system that can automatically push a plane into a catastrophic nose dive if it malfunctions and
pilots don't react properly.
In one of the most detailed descriptions yet of the relationship between Boeing and the
FAA during the 737 Max's certification, the Seattle Times quoted unnamed engineers who said the
planemaker had understated the power of the flight-control software in a System Safety Analysis
submitted to the FAA. The newspaper said the analysis also failed to account for how the system
could reset itself each time a pilot responded -- in essence, gradually ratcheting the
horizontal stabilizer into a dive position.
Software Fix
Boeing told the newspaper in a statement that the FAA had reviewed the company's data and
concluded the aircraft "met all certification and regulatory requirements." The company, which
is based in Chicago but designs and builds commercial jets in the Seattle area, said there are
"some significant mischaracterizations" in the engineers' comments.
This MIC prostitute Karan, like his wife Nuland are un-reformable. They just earn their living ing by warmongering. And they
will screem like pigs if they are deprived from those money, and do not care one bit how many people will be
killed as the result of their policies.
There is no war that those neocon chickenhawks do not like. It's their family racket.
Notable quotes:
"... Kagan's preferred foreign policy requires that there is some global "ideological confrontation" for the U.S. to be engaged in. If there isn't one, it has to be invented. ..."
"... Kagan isn't all that interested in details or accuracy. Those are "beside the point." ..."
"... Kagan doesn't make it explicit in this essay, but his larger goal in all of this is to advocate for a more confrontational foreign policy mobilized against the authoritarian enemies that he has described. He hints at this when he disparages contemporary "realists" ..."
"... realists, non-interventionists, and progressives that see no compelling reason for the U.S. to engage in destructive rivalries with major authoritarian powers in their own backyards. Except for a lame, overused comparison to the 1930s, Kagan doesn't even try to explain why we are wrong to think this. Kagan assumes that such destructive rivalries are both necessary and desirable, and this essay is the latest part of his effort to lay the groundwork for the ideological justification for those rivalries. ..."
"... A recent WSJ article (03/11/19) titled "Russian Gas Plan Divides U.S., Allies" with the subtitle "Washington fears undersea project would make Germany too reliant on Moscow" tells the tale of what the real reasons for America to demonize Russia and Putin. The U.S. leaders fear that the German-Russian pipeline project, Nord Stream 2, will make Europe reliant on Russian energy instead of Europe purchasing it energy from the United States. What gives the U.S. the right to stop one nation from doing commerce with other nations? The answer is "Greed." ..."
"... Kagan is and will until the bitter end defend American hegemony and the ideological mantle will be used as a cover ..."
"... People also forget that US is not a democracy, but a managed Republic, and according to all indicators, it is not even that liberal ..."
"... The fallout from the actions of these "interventionists" is millions are dead in a number of countries. Millions are refugees and thousands of soldiers are dead or maimed. More facts on these war criminals at link below. https://graysinfo.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-facts-on-crimes-of-war-criminals.html ..."
"... This Kagan family, with Robert now the lead figure, has done a great deal towards furthering conflicts and violence in the world. It is long past time that they be put in their place, whatever that is, but it will not happen because their Zionist mindset is very well funded. ..."
"... "The U.S. has spent the last twenty years fighting wars that Kagan and other like-minded interventionists advocated for and endorsed. We shouldn't make the same mistake again when the stakes are even higher." We ought to do more than that. He should be muzzled and sent to live in a cave somewhere to repent the consequences of the terrible damage he and other incompetents have done to America. That people like this still have access to the media is almost beyond belief. ..."
Brookings Senior Fellow and author Robert Kagan in March 2018. (Brookings Institution/Paul Morigi) Robert Kagan
warns us about global authoritarianism:
Of all the geopolitical transformations confronting the liberal democratic world these days, the one for which we are least
prepared is the ideological and strategic resurgence of authoritarianism. We are not used to thinking of authoritarianism as a
distinct worldview that offers a real alternative to liberalism.
We are not used to thinking of authoritarianism as a distinct worldview because it isn't one. All authoritarian states share certain
things in common, and they may see some of the same things as threats, but there isn't a single worldview that all authoritarian
governments subscribe to. There is no one ideology that binds them together. Most of them are nationalistic to one degree or another,
but because of that they usually have competing and opposing goals. Treating all authoritarian regimes as part of the same global
threat lumps illiberal and majoritarian democracies together with kleptocracies, communist dictatorships, and absolute monarchies.
That exaggerates the danger that these regimes pose, and it tries to invent a Cold War-like division between rival camps that doesn't
really exist. If the U.S. treats these states as if they are all in league with one another, it will tend to drive together states
that would otherwise remain at odds and keep each other at arm's length.
Kagan's preferred foreign policy requires that there is some global "ideological confrontation" for the U.S. to be engaged in.
If there isn't one, it has to be invented. His account of the history of the 20th century shows how determined he is to see international
politics in terms of grand ideological battles even when there wasn't one. He takes seriously the idea that WWI is one of these struggles:
"But for those who fought it, on both sides, it was very much a war between liberalism and authoritarianism." Kagan makes the mistake
of treating wartime propaganda descriptions of the war as the real motivation for the war, and he relies on stereotypes of the nations
on the other side of the war as well. The world's largest colonial empires were not fighting for "the liberties of Europe" and they
certainly weren't fighting for the rights of small nations, as wartime British propaganda would have it, and that became abundantly
clear in the post-war settlement. It was primarily a war among empires for supremacy in Europe, and the surviving Allied empires
consolidated their hold on their own colonial possessions and gained more. To the extent that Americans genuinely believed that joining
the war had something to do with vindicating the cause of democracy, they were quickly disabused of that notion when they saw the
fruits of the vindictive settlement that their allies imposed on the losing side.
Kagan admits that there are many differences of regime type that he is trying to collapse into one group:
We have become lost in endless categorizations, viewing each type of non-liberal government as unique and unrelated to the
others -- the illiberal democracy, the "liberal" or "liberalizing" autocracy, the "competitive" and "hybrid" authoritarianism.
These different categories certainly describe the myriad ways non-liberal societies may be governed. But in the most fundamental
way, all of this is beside the point.
In other words, Kagan isn't all that interested in details or accuracy. Those are "beside the point." What matters is dividing
up the world into two opposing camps: "Nations are either liberal, meaning that there are permanent institutions and unchanging norms
that protect the "unalienable" rights of individuals against all who would infringe on those rights, whether the state or the majority;
or they are not liberal." The criteria for qualifying as a liberal nation are extremely demanding. What institutions can honestly
be called "permanent" and what norms are ever truly "unchanging"? Judged against this extreme and unreasonable standard, there won't
ever be many nations that qualify as liberal, including quite a few that we would normally consider liberal democracies in good standing.
That makes it a lot easier for Kagan to exaggerate the power of "resurgent authoritarianism."
Kagan doesn't make it explicit in this essay, but his larger goal in all of this is to advocate for a more confrontational foreign
policy mobilized against the authoritarian enemies that he has described. He hints at this when he disparages contemporary "realists"
whom he doesn't name or cite:
Just as during the 1930s, when realists such as Robert Taft assured Americans that their lives would be undisturbed by the
collapse of democracy in Europe and the triumph of authoritarianism in Asia, so we have realists today insisting that we pull
back from confronting the great authoritarian powers rising in Eurasia.
To be much more accurate, there are realists, non-interventionists, and progressives that see no compelling reason for the U.S.
to engage in destructive rivalries with major authoritarian powers in their own backyards. Except for a lame, overused comparison
to the 1930s, Kagan doesn't even try to explain why we are wrong to think this. Kagan assumes that such destructive rivalries are
both necessary and desirable, and this essay is the latest part of his effort to lay the groundwork for the ideological justification
for those rivalries.
Kagan's analysis suffers from the problem of mirror-imaging that always plagues ideologues. He assumes that everyone sees the
world in starkly ideological categories just as he does, and he thinks that other actors are just as determined to export their ideology
as he is. His entire worldview depends on linking great power competition with larger ideological causes, and for almost thirty years
there has been no such "ideological confrontation" for Kagan to theorize about. Despite Kagan's insistence to the contrary, there
still isn't. He wants the U.S. to take a more confrontational approach to dealing with Russia and China, and in order to sell that
today he has to dress it up as something more than the destructive and costly pursuit of hegemony that he has been pushing for decades.
The U.S. has spent the last twenty years fighting wars that Kagan and other like-minded interventionists advocated for and endorsed.
We shouldn't make the same mistake again when the stakes are even higher.
A recent WSJ article (03/11/19) titled "Russian Gas Plan Divides U.S., Allies" with the subtitle "Washington fears undersea
project would make Germany too reliant on Moscow" tells the tale of what the real reasons for America to demonize Russia and Putin.
The U.S. leaders fear that the German-Russian pipeline project, Nord Stream 2, will make Europe reliant on Russian energy instead
of Europe purchasing it energy from the United States. What gives the U.S. the right to stop one nation from doing commerce with
other nations? The answer is "Greed."
All wars are predicated on lies, and all wars are fought for economic reasons and not the so called humanitarian reasons that
are fed to the people.
Always insightful indeed: Kagan is and will until the bitter end defend American hegemony and the ideological mantle will
be used as a cover (Mel Gibson screaming "Freedom!" in Bravehart; killing the babies and stealing the incubators!).
People also forget that US is not a democracy, but a managed Republic, and according to all indicators, it is not even
that liberal
So better save this post because you are still young and in 30 years from now you will be able to re-post it and just change
a couple of names
Anytime, anywhere, anyone comes out and destroys kagan's Zionist globalist babble as you have done, it is a very commendable
exercise for the good of mankind and America.
This Kagan family, with Robert now the lead figure, has done a great deal towards furthering conflicts and violence in
the world. It is long past time that they be put in their place, whatever that is, but it will not happen because their Zionist
mindset is very well funded.
"The U.S. has spent the last twenty years fighting wars that Kagan and other like-minded interventionists advocated for
and endorsed. We shouldn't make the same mistake again when the stakes are even higher."
We ought to do more than that. He should be muzzled and sent to live in a cave somewhere to repent the consequences of the
terrible damage he and other incompetents have done to America. That people like this still have access to the media is almost
beyond belief.
"... As investigative journalist Uri Friedman puts it, for more than 15 years now, the United States has been fighting terrorism with a credit card , "essentially bankrolling the wars with debt, in the form of purchases of U.S. Treasury bonds by U.S.-based entities like pension funds and state and local governments, and by countries like China and Japan." ..."
"... For decades, the DoD's leaders and accountants have been perpetrating a gigantic, unconstitutional accounting fraud, deliberately cooking the books to mislead the Congress and drive the DoD's budgets ever higher, regardless of military necessity ..."
"... That price gouging has become an accepted form of corruption within the American military empire is a sad statement on how little control "we the people" have over our runaway government. ..."
Our nation is being preyed upon by a military industrial complex that is propped up by war
profiteers, corrupt politicians and foreign governments.
America has so much to offer -- creativity, ingenuity, vast natural resources, a rich
heritage, a beautifully diverse populace, a freedom foundation unrivaled anywhere in the world,
and opportunities galore -- and yet our birthright is being sold out from under us so that
power-hungry politicians, greedy military contractors, and bloodthirsty war hawks can make a
hefty profit at our expense.
Don't be fooled into thinking that your hard-earned tax dollars are being used for national
security and urgent military needs.
It's all a ruse.
You know what happens to tax dollars that are left over at the end of the government's
fiscal year? Government agencies -- including the Department of Defense -- go on a "use it or
lose it" spending spree so they can justify asking for money in the next fiscal year.
According to an investigative report by Open the Government, among the items purchased
during the last month of the fiscal year when government agencies go all out to get rid of
these "use it or lose it" funds: Wexford Leather club chair ($9,241), china tableware
($53,004), alcohol ($308,994), golf carts ($673,471), musical equipment including pianos,
tubas, and trombones ($1.7 million), lobster tail and crab ($4.6
million) , iPhones and iPads ($7.7 million), and workout and recreation equipment ($9.8
million).
Anyone who suggests that the military needs more money is either criminally clueless or
equally corrupt, because the military isn't suffering from lack of funding -- it's suffering
from lack of proper oversight.
Rest assured, however, that if Trump gets his way -- to the tune of a
$4.7 trillion budget that digs the nation deeper in debt to foreign creditors, adds
$750 billion for the
military budget , and
doubles the debt growth that Trump once promised to erase -- the war profiteers (and
foreign banks who "own" our debt) will be raking in a fortune while America goes belly up.
This is basic math, and the numbers just don't add up.
As it now stands, the U.S. government is operating in the negative on every front: it's
spending far more than what it makes (and takes from the American taxpayers) and it is
borrowing heavily ( from foreign governments
and Social Security ) to keep the government operating and keep funding
its endless wars abroad .
Certainly, nothing about the way the government budgets its funds puts America's needs
first.
The nation's educational system is pathetic (young people are learning nothing about their
freedoms or their government). The infrastructure is antiquated and growing more outdated by
the day. The health system is overpriced and inaccessible to those who need it most. The
supposedly robust economy is belied by the daily
reports of businesses shuttering storefronts and declaring bankruptcy. And our so-called
representative government is a sham.
If this is a formula for making America great again, it's not working.
The White House wants taxpayers to accept that the only way to reduce the nation's
ballooning deficit is by cutting "entitlement" programs such as Social Security and Medicare,
yet the glaring economic truth is that at the end of the day, it's the military industrial
complex -- and not the sick, the elderly or the poor -- that is pushing America towards
bankruptcy.
We have become a debtor nation , and the
government is sinking us deeper into debt with every passing day that it allows the military
industrial complex to call the shots.
Simply put, the government cannot afford to maintain its over-extended military empire.
To be clear, the U.S government's defense spending is about one thing and one thing only:
establishing and maintaining a global military empire.
Although the U.S. constitutes only 5% of the world's population, America boasts almost
50% of
the world's total military expenditure , spending
more on the military than the next 19 biggest spending nations combined.
The American military-industrial complex has erected an empire unsurpassed in history in its
breadth and scope, one dedicated to conducting perpetual warfare throughout the earth.
Having been co-opted by greedy defense contractors, corrupt politicians and incompetent
government officials, America's expanding military empire is bleeding the country dry at a rate
of more than $32 million
per hour .
The U.S. government is spending money it doesn't have on a military empire it can't
afford.
As investigative journalist Uri Friedman puts it, for more than 15 years now, the United
States has been fighting
terrorism with a credit card , "essentially bankrolling the wars with debt, in the form of
purchases of U.S. Treasury bonds by U.S.-based entities like pension funds and state and local
governments, and by countries like China and Japan."
For decades, the DoD's leaders and accountants have been perpetrating a gigantic,
unconstitutional accounting fraud, deliberately cooking the books to mislead the Congress and
drive the DoD's budgets ever higher, regardless of military necessity. DoD has literally been
making up numbers in its annual financial reports to Congress -- representing trillions
of dollars' worth of seemingly nonexistent transactions -- knowing that Congress would rely
on those misleading reports when deciding how much money to give the DoD the following
year.
Unfortunately, the outlook isn't much better for the spending that can be tracked.
A government audit found that defense contractor Boeing has been massively overcharging
taxpayers for mundane parts, resulting in tens of millions of dollars in overspending. As
the report noted, the American
taxpayer paid :
$71 for a metal pin that should cost just 4 cents; $644.75 for a small gear smaller than a
dime that sells for $12.51: more than a 5,100 percent increase in price. $1,678.61 for another
tiny part, also smaller than a dime, that could have been bought within DoD for $7.71: a 21,000
percent increase. $71.01 for a straight, thin metal pin that DoD had on hand, unused by the
tens of thousands, for 4 cents: an increase of over 177,000 percent.
That price
gouging has become an accepted form of corruption within the American military empire is a
sad statement on how little control "we the people" have over our runaway government.
Mind you, this isn't just corrupt behavior. It's deadly, downright immoral behavior.
The U.S. government is not making the world any safer. It's making the world more dangerous.
It is estimated that the U.S. military
drops a bomb somewhere in the world every 12 minutes . Since 9/11, the United States
government has directly contributed to the deaths of around 500,000. Every one of those deaths
was paid for with taxpayer funds.
Those who call the shots in the government -- those who push the military industrial
complex's agenda -- those who make a killing by embroiling the U.S. in foreign wars -- have not
heeded Johnson's warning.
The U.S. government is not making American citizens any safer . The repercussions of
America's military empire have been deadly, not only for those innocent men, women and children
killed by drone strikes abroad but also those here in the United States.
The transformation of America into a battlefield is blowback.
All of this carnage is being carried out with the full support of the American people, or at
least with the proxy that is our taxpayer dollars.
The government is destabilizing the economy, destroying
the national infrastructure through neglect and a lack of resources, and turning taxpayer
dollars into blood money with its endless wars, drone strikes and mounting death tolls.
As Martin Luther King Jr. recognized, under a military empire, war and its profiteering will
always take precedence over the people's basic human needs.
Similarly, President Dwight Eisenhower warned us not to let the profit-driven war machine
endanger our liberties or democratic processes.
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the
final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not
clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its
laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern
heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power
plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.
It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half
million bushels of wheat. We
pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.
This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.
This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it
is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. [ ] Is there no other way the world may live?"
We failed to heed Eisenhower's warning.
The illicit merger of the armaments industry and the government that Eisenhower warned
against has come to represent perhaps the greatest threat to the nation today.
It's not sustainable, of course.
Eventually, inevitably, military empires fall and fail by spreading themselves too thin and
spending themselves to death.
As long as "we the people" continue to allow the government to wage its costly, meaningless,
endless wars abroad, the American homeland will continue to suffer: our roads will crumble, our
bridges will fail, our schools will fall into disrepair, our drinking water will become
undrinkable, our communities will destabilize, our economy will tank, crime will rise, and our
freedoms will suffer.
So who will save us?
As I make clear in my book, Battlefield
America: The War on the American People , we'd better start saving ourselves: one by one,
neighbor to neighbor, through grassroots endeavors, by pushing back against the police state
where it most counts -- in our communities first and foremost, and by holding fast to what
binds us together and not allowing politics and other manufactured nonrealities to tear us
apart.
Start today. Start now. Do your part.
Literally and figuratively, the buck starts and stops with "we the people."
When we should be paying our seniors a generous amount of social security and pensions to
people who earned them, we are paying illegals and their kids to come to America and act like
parasites. Our children will be debt slaves because of Congress.
We are also paying trillions to the MIC and three letter agencies with absolutely no
oversight. We pay hundreds of thousands of totally useless government employees including the
military and over a 1000 bases on foreign soil.
Eisenhower warned against letting the MIC take control of the country.
What is weird, you spend that money on infrastructure, which would substantially improve
the economy through gained efficiencies and you can afford to waste it but if you waste it,
you can not spend it on infrastructure to be able to afford to burn it, blow it up, fire it
or just plain dump it.
Well, it is pretty clear, from the screams of the insiders, the reform is coming and they
know it. The louder the rants of screams of the establishment, the closer they are to
losing.
Look at what they do, they kill people for profit, if they could silence us by killing us,
they would, they can not, they have already lost, now it is just a matter of political grind
and legal process, to root them out and then investigate and prosecute them, en mass.
They had total control for decades and most knew nothing, now control is broken and most
people know.
Ditch the ABM and INF treaties. Extend NATO to Russia's borders. Regime change in Ukraine.
Demonize Putin/Russia. Then claim umpteen billions more needed for national defense.
Wonderful.
this article would not have seen the light of day on facebook or youtube, but thanks to
Tyler of zerohedge with his total respect for free speech, people can learn why their country
is bankrupt.
Its funny. Less than 40 years after the cold war and the Russian successor state is
putting on the same trick to the USSA that doomed the USSR. Russia is lean and mean now and its forcing the US to spend just truly insane amounts on
weapons.
War spending has always - ALWAYS! - since at least the late 19th Century - been an
instrument of wealth redistribution: from the poor to the rich.
The only question I have is: where did all that wealth go? It would be fun to collect the
dots and find out who now owns AT LEAST $3 TRILLION stolen from the Pentagon since 2001.
I don't get this stolen bit. Nothing is stolen from US tax payers. Its US debt holders
that get screwed. The US is one big worldwide theft of finished goods , resources and
capaital
nothing is lost or stolen, the defense department is totally careless with the people's
money.
$20 billions of weapons were left in Iraq after the us left but the funny part they were
left in far warehouses that only ISIS got hold of them.
If I was a conspiracy theorist , I would say they left these weapons on purpose for isis
to wage war and invade Syria which they did, but all this stuff was in vain as all these
weapons got destroyed by the Russians and the american people lost $20 billion.
Welcome to the New Rome, ruled by the Military Industrial Complex (M.I.C.) and the
Bansksters (Wall Street, FED, Treasury, Corporations, Insurers) and their bought corrupt
CONgress members.
"Save for retirement!" to pay the bonuses of the rats above.
"Support the Troops!" to die for the corrupt rats above.
In this interview with Colbert, Tulsi Gabbard discussed what should be one of the biggest scandals of the 21st century
-- war in Syria and support of jihadists by the USA government
Tulsi demonstrated again "courage under fire". Evidently hostile Colbert is a more dangerous opponent then Megan McCain, even if
he asked basically the same questions. His popularity adds to the weight of the questions. .
Notable quotes:
"... America is not the "policeman of the world". It is the military enforcer of its multinational corporations. ..."
"... Oh my God Colbert. Hack and establishment stooge. Embarrassing line of questioning. ..."
"... They ALL try to pin her on Syria, Assad, how can she be non-interventionist and still support the military, etc etc etc. ..."
"... It's SERIOUSLY as though they're all reading from the same exact script verbatim. Someone could put together a soundbyte of all of the different anchors asking the same questions sycnhronized I bet. ..."
"... @Animus Nocturnus the same recycled questions about meeting Assad she has answered 1000 times before isnt journalism. Journalism is what you need to get NEW information. ..."
"... T his is just one hack beating the war drum. ( dog whistling I believe the new term is) and pushing American exceptionalism ..."
"... Wow.... Colbert is being quite the little imperialist! Thanks for nothing Colbert. ..."
"... Colbert did the Clintons bidding, again ... he tried to ambush Tulsi, but Tulsi was too good, and also right! I'm with Tulsi. I donated, and I want the USA to be involved in the world too, to be a force for good. GO TULSI GABBARD!! ..."
In this rare mainstream interview,
@
TulsiGabbard discussed what should
be one of the biggest scandals of the 21st century (which Colbert has never mentioned on his show):
In its war on Syria, the US armed and trained far-right Salafi-jihadist rebels, empowering al-Qaeda and ISIS
Yea Colbert is
bought and paid for by his NBC/corporate masters, anti-war pro peace is not allowed, we spend $700 billion dollars a year on
the military. They will smear anyone who tries to stop that gravy train and he's one of their puppets that does that
smearing.
8
Actually, that
was a great line of questioning. Instead of the wish-wash "how are you, how are the kids, what did you ate today"
bullshit, he asked real questions and she was able to give real answers. That's what journalism should look like, and
how people running for high government jobs should be interviewed.
Those are jobs that require people who know their
stuff instead of entertainers.
And you will only know about how the people runnig for those jobs will conduct
themselves if they get asked tough questions. And she did a great job answering those questions.
MawcDrums, 6 hours ago (edited)
@Animus Nocturnus
The thing is they "sound like" real questions, BUT, and this is a HUGE but, they
are the EXACT SAME questions she has received from every other mainstream media interview I've seen with her.
They ALL try to pin her on Syria, Assad, how can she be non-interventionist
and still support the military, etc etc etc.
And then some cute jab about Hawaii as if to say "Sorry about that". It's
despicable and it's happening to Bernie and all of the true progressive candidates (AOC as well).
It's SERIOUSLY as though they're all reading from the same exact script
verbatim. Someone could put together a soundbyte of all of the different anchors asking the same questions sycnhronized I bet.
dirtcom7, 4 hours ago
@Animus Nocturnus the same recycled questions about meeting Assad she has
answered 1000 times before isnt journalism. Journalism is what you need to get NEW information. Hence the NEWS.
This is just one hack beating the war drum. ( dog whistling I believe the
new term is) and pushing American exceptionalism
Ron Widelec, 23 hours ago
Wow.... Colbert is being quite the little imperialist! Thanks for nothing
Colbert.
Jesse Prevallet, 1 day ago
Colbert,
if you had any of your 3 kids serving in the military right now, you would not be
such a mouthpiece for the empire. Grow a spine and ask a real question instead of these CIA lapdog questions
Robert S, 23 hours ago
Colbert did the Clintons bidding, again ... he tried to ambush Tulsi, but
Tulsi was too good, and also right! I'm with Tulsi. I donated, and I want the USA to be involved in the world too, to be a force
for good. GO TULSI GABBARD!!
"... If the government can change the designation of Wikileaks from being a news organization (Obama Administration's designation of Wikileaks) to a 'hostile intelligence service' (Trump Administration's designation), then any entity – online and offline – is in danger of being designated a hostile intelligence agency if they carry out investigative reporting that the US government or a particular administration considers to be hostile to itself. ..."
"... This will have a chilling effect on investigative reporting of powerful government agencies or officials, including the president, intelligence agencies, etc. This is a serious breach of our constitutional freedoms and every American – Democrat, Republican or Independent – must stand up against it." ..."
"... This is a follow-up to similar statements she's made about WikiLeaks before. During an event in New Hampshire, she said the stolen information that WikiLeaks published had "spurred necessary change." During her Concord meet and greet she said: "Obviously the information that has been put out has exposed a lot of things that have been happening that the American people were not aware of and have spurred some necessary change there." ..."
If the government can change the designation of Wikileaks from being a news organization (Obama Administration's designation
of Wikileaks) to a 'hostile intelligence service' (Trump Administration's designation), then any entity – online and offline –
is in danger of being designated a hostile intelligence agency if they carry out investigative reporting that the US government
or a particular administration considers to be hostile to itself.
This will have a chilling effect on investigative reporting of powerful government agencies or officials, including the
president, intelligence agencies, etc. This is a serious breach of our constitutional freedoms and every American – Democrat,
Republican or Independent – must stand up against it."
... ... ...
You can see her Facebook post and the responses below.
... ... ...
This is a follow-up to similar statements she's made about WikiLeaks before. During an event in New Hampshire, she said the
stolen information that WikiLeaks published had "spurred necessary change." During her Concord meet and greet she said: "Obviously
the information that has been put out has exposed a lot of things that have been happening that the American people were not aware
of and have spurred some necessary change there."
Her response was an answer to a question about President Donald Trump's administration seeking to prosecute Julian Assange. Just
this week, Chelsea Manning was jailed for not
answering questions from a grand jury about Assange. She refused to testify before a grand jury investigation regarding WikiLeaks,
AP shared . She said she objected to the secrecy
of the grand jury process and had already shared everything that she knows. Because prosecutors granted her immunity for her testimony,
she said she couldn't invoke the Fifth Amendment to defend her right not to speak.
The emails from the DNC shared by WikiLeaks did indeed ultimately bring about some changes, including lesser power to superdelegates
in 2020. Donna Brazile, former DNC chairwoman, has said that the DNC primary in 2016 was "rigged" against Bernie Sanders. Brazile
herself had even leaked some debate questions to Hillary Clinton before her debate with Sanders. Brazile has said that the DNC worked
closely with Clinton's campaign in 2016 because it needed the money, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz let Clinton's campaign help cover
the DNC's debt in exchange for some level of control,
the Miami Herald reported
. The DNC is supposed to be impartial during Democratic presidential primaries, but Brazile said that was not the case.
... ... ...
In July 2016, Wasserman Schultz stepped down as chair of the DNC after WikiLeaks published DNC emails that showed the organization
strongly favored Clinton over Sanders during the primary. Brazile briefly served as interim chair before Tom Perez took over.
I asked and demanded Debbie Wasserman Schultz's resignation many, many months ago and I state that again. I don't think she
is qualified to be the chair of the DNC. Not only for these awful emails which revealed the prejudice of the DNC, but also because
we need a party that reaches out to working people and young people and I don't think her leadership style is doing that."
However, DWS was allowed to resign after the 2016 Convention, which angered some. Meanwhile, Clinton praised DWS and gave her
an honorary position on her campaign.
... ... ...
One of the emails that WikiLeaks leaked showed
a letter from Darnell Strom and Michael Kives to Tulsi Gabbard, saying they were very disappointed that she had resigned from the
DNC to endorse Bernie Sanders. The email read in part: "For you to endorse a man who has spent almost 40 years in public office with
very few accomplishments, doesn't fall in line with what we previously thought of you. Hillary Clinton will be our party's nominee
and you standing on ceremony to support the sinking Bernie Sanders ship is disrespectful to Hillary Clinton. A woman who has spent
the vast majority of her life in public service and working on behalf of women, families, and the underserved. You have called both
myself and Michael Kives before about helping your campaign raise money, we no longer trust your judgement so will not be raising
money for your campaign "
She doesn't have a policy ready yet on the issue, and it is an important one she needs to
address better than this. FWIW, she follows Wikileaks on Twitter and she is critical of the
Deep State- which is better than Bernie Sanders. It matters to me and most Americans, I
believe, that she would not pursue Julian Assange. It also matters that she believes in very
strong progressive taxation. Top marginal rate over a million needs to start at 50 percent.
Progressively increase the rate so it becomes impossible to become a billionare. This is
about fairness and making sure that a single person does not have control of that many
resources. I prefer to talk about resource distribution instead of wealth
inequality.
Tulsi is the bravest candidate for standing against war!! This should indeed be our first
consideration. Please donate to her effort, even if it's just $5!! She needs 65,000 donations
from different people in at least 30 states!! Please donate!! Go Tulsi!!!
Donated! - For once let's say 'No Wars', 'Yes to health care', 'Yes we like to spend our
$s here in the U S of A', 'Let's free ourselves from Employer health care bondage!'. Why not
divert billions of dollars that feed wars go to our health care, our schools. And yes to
retrain those people whom current system is forcing to go back into tunnels and dig dirt to
make money. America is great when her people are living great lives! -- Why not make funds
available to retrain these wonderful people in jobs above ground? Do you know the risks to
health working underground? At minimum you must heard of Radon gas in basements, right?
causes cancer. And basements are only a few feet deep!. Come on people do you really want
this work for your children and their children? no you do not. You deserve to have shot at
good life, a healthy shot!
Nikki2 comment on Youtube: "GUYS! Tulsi needs 65,000 individual donations to get into the
debates. Even if she's not your #1 candidate, please donate a small amount so she can bring the
foreign policy/regime change conversation to the debates"
@ChuckOrloski
Chelsea Manning is imprisoned (from the article you cited) "for refusing to testify in front
of a secretive Grand Jury." The regime is after Julian Assange, so they're trying to squeeze
Manning. Not happening!
Gabbard is set to lay out her vision for the country and her 2020 candidacy during a live
presidential town hall starting at 8 p.m. ET. The "Live From SXSW" event Sunday will be
moderated by CNN's Dana Bash and Jake Tapper. The event will air
live on CNN , CNN International and CNN Español channels.
It's been the biggest money maker for them since -- the Rothschild family invented central
banks -- or loaned money to both sides in every war they could find and/or drum up.
The Rothschilds must be financially liquidated in an orderly and legal manner as a lesson to
the other globalizer plutocrats.
The Koch boys and the Benetton bunch should be legally liquidated financially as well.
There should be no billionaires in European Christian nations.
The Russians excepted; let those Ruski bastards do as they please within reason. I love
Russians, and I would like to see many Russians depart the USA and England to go back to
beautiful Russia. England for the English; America for the Americans; Russia for the
Russians!
Billionaires in European Christian nations should be financially liquidated and exiled to
sub-Saharan Africa. They must never be allowed to leave sub-Saharan Africa once they are
escorted there.
The above is my modest Swiftian proposal to deliver swift justice to globalizer plutocrats
such as the Rothschilds.
"... Instead of serving as a counter weight to the market, then, the family was invaded and undermined by the market. The sentimental veneration of motherhood, even at the peak of its influence in the late nineteenth century, could never quite obscure the reality that unpaid labour bears the stigma of social inferiority when money becomes the universal measure of value. ..."
"... Commercial television dramatizes in the most explicit terms the cynicism that was always implicit in the ideology of the marketplace. The sentimental convention that the best things in life are free has long since passed into oblivion. Since the best things clearly cost a great deal of money, people seek money, in the world depicted by commercial television, by fair means or foul. ..."
"... Throughout the twentieth century liberalism has been pulled in two directions at once: toward the market and (not withstanding its initial misgivings about government) toward the state. On the one hand, the market appears to be the ideal embodiment of the principle-the cardinal principle of liberalism-that individuals are the best judges of their own interests and that they must therefore be allowed to speak for themselves in matters that concern their happiness and well-being. But individuals cannot learn to speak for themselves at all, much less come to an intelligent understanding of their happiness and well-being, in a world in which there are no values except those of the market. Even liberal individuals require the character-forming discipline of the family, the neighbourhood, the school, and the church, all of which (not just the family) have been weakened by the encroachments of the market. ..."
"... The market notoriously tends to universalize itself. It does not easily coexist with institutions that operate according to principles antithetical to itself: schools and universities, newspapers and magazines, charities, families. Sooner or later the market tends to absorb them all. It puts an almost irresistible pres sure on every activity to justify itself in the only items it recognizes: to become a business proposition, to pay its own way, to show black ink on the bottom line. It turns news into entertainment, scholarship into professional careerism, social work into the scientific management of poverty. Inexorably it remodels every institution in its own image. ..."
"... In the attempt to restrict the scope of the market, liberals have therefore turned to the state. But the remedy often proves to be worse than the disease. The replacement of informal types of association by formal systems of socialization and control weakens social trust, undermines the willingness both assume responsibility for one's self and to hold others accountable for their actions destroys respect for authority and thus turns out to be self-defeating. Neighbourhoods, which can serve as intermediaries between the family and the larger world. Neighbourhoods have been destroyed not only by the market-by crime and drugs or less dramatically by suburban shopping malls-but also by enlightened social engineering. ..."
"... "The myth that playgrounds and grass and hired guards or supervisors are innately wholesome for children and that city streets, filled with ordinary people, are innately evil for children, boils down to a deep contempt for ordinary people." In their contempt planners lose sight of the way in which city streets, if they are working as they should, teach children a lesson that cannot be taught by educators or professional caretakers: that "people must take a modicum of public responsibility for each other even if they have no ties to each other." When the corner grocer or the locksmith scolds a child for running into the street, the child learns something that can't be learned simply by formal instruction. ..."
"... The crisis of public funding is only one indication of the intrinsic weakness of organizations that can no longer count on informal, everyday mechanisms of social trust and control. ..."
If terms like "populism" and "community" figure prominently in political discourse today, it is because the ideology of the Enlightenment,
having come under attack from a variety of sources, has lost much of its appeal. The claims of universal reason are universally suspect.
Hopes for a system of values that would transcend the particularism of class, nationality, religion, and race no longer carry much
conviction. The Enlightenment's reason and morality are increasingly seen as a cover for power, and the prospect that the world can
he governed by reason seems more remote than at any time since the eighteenth century. The citizen of the world-the prototype of
mankind in the future, according to the Enlightenment philosophers-is not much in evidence. We have a universal market, but it does
not carry with it the civilizing effects that were so confidently expected by Hume and Voltaire. Instead of generating a new appreciation
of common interests and inclinations-if the essential sameness of human beings everywhere-the global market seems to intensify the
awareness of ethnic and national differences. The unification of the market goes hand in hand with the fragmentation of culture.
The waning of the Enlightenment manifests itself politically in the waning of liberalism, in many ways the most attractive product
of the Enlightenment and the carrier of its best hopes. Through all the permutations and transformations of liberal ideology, two
of its central features have persisted over the years: its commitment to progress and its belief that a liberal state could dispense
with civic virtue. The two ideas were linked in a chain of reasoning having as its premise that capitalism had made it reason able
for everyone to aspire to a level of comfort formerly accessible only to the rich. Henceforth men would devote themselves to their
private business, reducing the need for government, which could more or less take care of itself. It was the idea of progress that
made it possible to believe that societies blessed with material abundance could dispense with the active participation of ordinary
citizens in government.
After the American Revolution liberals began to argue-in opposition to the older view that "public virtue is the only foundation
of republics," in the words of John Adams -- that proper constitutional checks and balances would make it advantageous even for bad
men to act for the public good," as James Wilson put it. According to John Taylor, "an avaricious society can form a government able
to defend itself against the avarice of its members" by enlisting the "interest of vice ...on the side of virtue." Virtue lay in
the "principles of government," Taylor argued, not in the "evanescent qualities of individuals." The institutions and "principles
of a society may be virtuous, though the individuals composing it are vicious."
Meeting minimal conditions
The paradox of a virtuous society based on vicious individuals, however agree able in theory, was never adhered to very consistently.
Liberals took for granted a good deal more in the way of private virtue than they were willing to acknowledge. Even to day liberals
who adhere to this minimal view of citizenship smuggle a certain amount of citizenship between the cracks of their free- market ideology.
Milton Friedman himself admits that a liberal society requires a "minimum degree of literacy and knowledge" along with a "widespread
acceptance of some common set of values." It is not clear that our society can meet even these minimal conditions, as things stand
today, but it has always been clear, in any case, that a liberal society needs more virtue than Friedman allows for.
A system that relies so heavily on the concept of rights presupposes individuals who respect the rights of others, if only because
they expect others to respect their own rights in return. The market itself, the central institution of a liberal society, presupposes,
at the very least, sharp-eyed, calculating, and clearheaded individuals-paragons of rational choice. It presupposes not just self
interest but enlightened self-interest. It was for this reason that nineteenth-century liberals attached so much importance to the
family. The obligation to support a wife and children, in their view, would discipline possessive individualism and transform the
potential gambler, speculator, dandy, or confidence man into a conscientious provider. Having abandoned the old republican ideal
of citizenship along with the republican indictment of luxury, liberals lacked any grounds on which to appeal to individuals to subordinate
private interest to the public good.
But at least they could appeal to the higher selfishness of marriage and parenthood. They could ask, if not for the suspension
of self-interest, for its elevation and refinement. The hope that rising expectations would lead men and women to invest their ambitions
in their offspring was destined to be disappointed in the long run. The more closely capitalism came to be identified with immediate
gratification and planned obsolescence, the more relentlessly it wore away the moral foundations of family life. The rising divorce
rate, already a source of alarm in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, seemed to reflect a growing impatience with the constraints
imposed by long responsibilities and commitments.
The passion to get ahead had begun to imply the right to make a fresh start whenever earlier commitments became unduly burden
some. Material abundance weakened the economic as well as the moral foundations of the "well-'ordered family state" admired by nineteenth-century
liberals. The family business gave way to the corporation, the family farm (more slowly and painfully) to a collectivized agriculture
ultimately controlled by the same banking houses that had engineered the consolidation of industry. The agrarian uprising of the
1870s, 1880s, and l890s proved to be the first round in a long, losing struggle to save the family farm, enshrined in American mythology,
even today, as the sine qua non of a good society but subjected into practice to a ruinous cycle of mechanization, indebtedness,
and overproduction.
The family invaded
Instead of serving as a counter weight to the market, then, the family was invaded and undermined by the market. The sentimental
veneration of motherhood, even at the peak of its influence in the late nineteenth century, could never quite obscure the reality
that unpaid labour bears the stigma of social inferiority when money becomes the universal measure of value.
In the long run women were forced into the workplace not only because their families needed extra income but because paid labour
seemed to represent their only hope of gaining equality with men. In our time it is increasingly clear that children pay the price
for this invasion of the family by the market. With both parents in the workplace and grandparents conspicuous by their absence,
the family is no longer capable of sheltering children from the market. The television set becomes the principal baby-sitter by default.
Its invasive presence deals the final blow to any lingering hope that the family can provide a sheltered space for children to grow
up in.
Children are now exposed to the out side world from the time they are old enough to be left unattended in front of the tube. They
are exposed to it, moreover, in a brutal yet seductive form that reduces the values of the marketplace to their simplest terms.
Commercial television dramatizes in the most explicit terms the cynicism that was always implicit in the ideology of the marketplace.
The sentimental convention that the best things in life are free has long since passed into oblivion. Since the best things clearly
cost a great deal of money, people seek money, in the world depicted by commercial television, by fair means or foul.
Throughout the twentieth century liberalism has been pulled in two directions at once: toward the market and (not withstanding
its initial misgivings about government) toward the state. On the one hand, the market appears to be the ideal embodiment of the
principle-the cardinal principle of liberalism-that individuals are the best judges of their own interests and that they must therefore
be allowed to speak for themselves in matters that concern their happiness and well-being. But individuals cannot learn to speak
for themselves at all, much less come to an intelligent understanding of their happiness and well-being, in a world in which there
are no values except those of the market. Even liberal individuals require the character-forming discipline of the family, the neighbourhood,
the school, and the church, all of which (not just the family) have been weakened by the encroachments of the market.
The market notoriously tends to universalize itself. It does not easily coexist with institutions that operate according to
principles antithetical to itself: schools and universities, newspapers and magazines, charities, families. Sooner or later the market
tends to absorb them all. It puts an almost irresistible pres sure on every activity to justify itself in the only items it recognizes:
to become a business proposition, to pay its own way, to show black ink on the bottom line. It turns news into entertainment, scholarship
into professional careerism, social work into the scientific management of poverty. Inexorably it remodels every institution in its
own image.
Weakening social trust
In the attempt to restrict the scope of the market, liberals have therefore turned to the state. But the remedy often proves
to be worse than the disease. The replacement of informal types of association by formal systems of socialization and control weakens
social trust, undermines the willingness both assume responsibility for one's self and to hold others accountable for their actions
destroys respect for authority and thus turns out to be self-defeating. Neighbourhoods, which can serve as intermediaries between
the family and the larger world. Neighbourhoods have been destroyed not only by the market-by crime and drugs or less dramatically
by suburban shopping malls-but also by enlightened social engineering.
The main thrust of social policy, ever since the first crusades against child labour, has been to transfer the care of children
from informal settings to institutions designed specifically for pedagogical and custodial purposes. Today this trend continues in
the movement for daycare, often justified on the undeniable grounds that working mothers need it but also on the grounds that daycare
centers can take advantage of the latest innovations in pedagogy and child psychology. This policy of segregating children in age-graded
institutions under professional supervision has been a massive failure, for reasons suggested some time ago by Jane Jacobs in The
Death and Life of Great American Cities, an attack on city planning that applies to social planning in general.
"The myth that playgrounds and grass and hired guards or supervisors are innately wholesome for children and that city streets,
filled with ordinary people, are innately evil for children, boils down to a deep contempt for ordinary people." In their contempt
planners lose sight of the way in which city streets, if they are working as they should, teach children a lesson that cannot be
taught by educators or professional caretakers: that "people must take a modicum of public responsibility for each other even if
they have no ties to each other." When the corner grocer or the locksmith scolds a child for running into the street, the child learns
something that can't be learned simply by formal instruction.
What the child learns is that adults unrelated to one another except by the accident of propinquity uphold certain standards and
assume responsibility for the neighbourhood. With good reason, Jacobs calls this the "first fundamental of successful city life,"
one that "people hired to look after children cannot teach because the essence of this responsibility is that you do it without being
hired."
Neighbourhoods encourage "casual public trust," according to Jacobs. In its absence the everyday maintenance of life has to be
turned over to professional bureaucrats. The atrophy of informal controls leads irresistibly to the expansion of bureaucratic controls.
This development threatens to extinguish the very privacy liberals have always set such store by. It also loads the organizational
sector with burdens it cannot support. The crisis of public funding is only one indication of the intrinsic weakness of organizations
that can no longer count on informal, everyday mechanisms of social trust and control.
The taxpayers' revolt, although itself informed by an ideology of privatism resistant to any kind of civic appeals, at the same
time grows out of a well-founded suspicion that tax money merely sustains bureaucratic self-aggrandizement
The lost habit of self-help
As formal organizations break down, people will have to improvise ways of meeting their immediate needs: patrolling their own
neighbourhoods, withdrawing their children from public schools in order to educate them at home. The default of the state will thus
contribute in its own right to the restoration of informal mechanisms of self-help. But it is hard to see how the foundations of
civic life can be restored unless this work becomes an overriding goal of public policy. We have heard a good deal of talk about
the repair of our material infrastructure, but our cultural infrastructure needs attention too, and more than just the rhetorical
attention of politicians who praise "family values" while pursuing economic policies that undermine them. It is either naive or cynical
to lead the public to think that dismantling the welfare state is enough to ensure a revival of informal cooperation-"a thousand
points of light." People who have lost the habit of self-help, who live in cities and suburbs where shopping malls have replaced
neighbourhoods, and who prefer the company of close friends (or simply the company of television) to the informal sociability of
the street, the coffee shop, and the tavern are not likely to reinvent communities just because the state has proved such an unsatisfactory
substitute. Market mechanisms will not repair the fabric of public trust. On the contrary the market's effect on the cultural infrastructure
is just as corrosive as that of the state.
A third way
We can now begin to appreciate the appeal of populism and communitarianism. They reject both the market and the welfare state
in pursuit of a third way. This is why they are so difficult to classify on the conventional spectrum of political opinion. Their
opposition to free-market ideologies seems to align them with the left, but 'their criticism of the welfare state (whenever this
criticism becomes open and explicit) makes them sound right-wing. In fact, these positions belong to neither the left nor the right,
and for that very reason they seem to many people to hold out the best hope of breaking the deadlock of current debate, which has
been institutionalized in the two major parties and their divided control of the federal government. At a time when political debate
consists of largely of ideological slogans endlessly repeated to audiences composed mainly of the party faithful, fresh thinking
is desperately needed. It is not likely to emerge, however, from those with a vested interest in 'the old orthodoxies. We need a
"third way of thinking about moral obligation," as Alan Wolfe puts it, one that locates moral obligation neither in the state nor
in the market but "in common sense, ordinary emotions, and everyday life."
Wolfe's plea for a political program designed to strengthen civil society, which closely resembles the ideas advanced in The Good
Society by Robert Bellah and his collaborators, should be welcomed by the growing numbers of people who find themselves dissatisfied
with the alternatives defined by conventional debate. These authors illustrate the strengths of the communitarian position along
with some of its characteristic weaknesses. They make it clear that both the market and the state presuppose the strength of "non-economic
ties of trust and solidarity" as Wolfe puts it. Yet the expansion of these institutions weakens ties of trust and thus undermines
the preconditions for their own success. The market and the "job culture," Bellah writes, are "invading our private lives," eroding
our "moral infrastructure" of "social trust." Nor does the welfare state repair the damage. "The example of more successful welfare
states ... suggests that money and bureaucratic assistance alone do not halt the decline of the family" or strengthen any of the
other "sustaining institutions that make interdependence morally significant." None of this means that a politics that really mattered-a
politics rooted in popular common sense instead of the ideologies that appeal to elites-would painlessly resolve all the conflicts
that threaten to tear the country apart. Communitarians underestimate the difficulty of finding an approach to family issues, say,
that is both profamily and profeminist.
That may be what the public wants in theory. In practice, however, it requires a restructuring of the workplace designed to make
work schedules far more flexible, career patterns less rigid and predictable, and criteria for advancement less destructive to family
and community obligations. Such reforms imply interference with the market and a redefinition of success, neither of which will be
achieved without a great deal of controversy.
Is America ready for a real antiwar candidate? Clearly the political establishment and the
media aren't. Criticism of presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard and anyone else who questions
foreign policy orthodoxies is swift and unrelenting. Fighting for peace has never been so
difficult.
CrossTalking with Daniel Faraci, Thomas Palley, and Philip Giraldi.
#RT (Russia
Today) is a global #news network broadcasting from
Moscow and Washington studios. RT is the first news channel to break the 1 billion YouTube
views benchmark.
I have met a surprising number of Republicans and Libertarians who support Tulsi, many of
them former Trump supporters. Bernie had a meeting with her in Vermont before she announced
that she is running. Many think that they plan to join forces at some point. They would be a
formidable team for the neoliberal neocons to beat.
its worse than stifling free speech. These neocons are criminals. Anyone who is always for
invading other countries to take control of resources & killing millions of people along
the way should be considered war criminals & enemies of the USA. They should be locked
up. Including the media fanboys.
The Democratic party is trying to keep Tulsi from the debates , they want her to have 60
something thousand individual donations to her campaign, it's the only way for her to
participate. They want her out of the way ...donate a dollar everyone...let's see her at the
debates. She is the only one that can take Trump on.
If just ONE MSM outlet held a show with such open,honest,invigorating discussion as
CROSSTALK allowing real analyst to present facts and reality into the discussion it would be
a totally different world this morning. Instead I need to go to Internet,go outside my own
countries news sources,even watch other countries governments relations on shadow banned or
plain censored sources. To find the facts,the truth in America today is to risk your own
freedom,Physically,Spiritually,or just plain Sanity. 1933 has collided with 1984 to bring us
2019.
No the sheep citizens of US are not ready for anti war establishment because the dual
nationals in congress won't let that happen who works for Israel not their own country.
People like Ron Paul are never elected in US who wants to work to fix the problems in his own
country and US citizens. They need war criminals and zionist puppets to promote the new
liberal world order and globalist agenda. Even now the Trump is not ending the wars. He is
just shifting the illegal wars from middle east to latin america which will also be a
disaster. This will create more chaos, economic and migrant crisis. US needs anti war leaders
or else one day world will be pushed to nuclear ww3 because of these parasites.
Peter your indignation over Tulsa's treatment is just a wonderful thing to see. She has
been treated horribly so far and I don't think it's ever going to stop. Although as far as I
stand right now she is who I will vote for. I just wish Bernie and Tulsi would run on a
ticket together and run on the Green Party. 47% of America voted for Independents last
elections. Bernie could win as an independent.
Thank you for this conversation. I never wanted to hug old white men so much. Ideas that
should be bought up and discussed and never are since everyone is in such a cult of
personality around that guy. These men should be regulars on your show since this was
riveting conversation. Spot On.
Well, what sort of "patsy" do you think the powers that be will use when they go to
assassinate Tulsi? That's my only question at this point. I assume they'll find some modern
version of Sirhan-Sirhan; that is, they'll find some foreign goofball who actually has a mild
political grudge against the candidate, have their Mossad agents to work him up with drugs
and hypnosis, drive him to wherever the candidate is visiting nearby, have an actual assassin
(paid-off security guard) shoot the candidate for real as soon as their drugged-up patsy
starts firing his gun. Only later do we learn the candidate was killed with 9 bullets while
the patsy's gun only held 8 rounds. In fact, I'll make a prediction of the sort of patsy
they'll use: It will be a Venezuelan emigre who dislikes Maduro's socialism and who believes
Tulsi wants to socialize all of America. However, he won't be able to recall where he was the
12 hours before the shooting. That, and one of the recently-hired armed security guards at
the building where she was speaking decides to quit his job and move to some farm in Peru or
Chile right after the assassination. And the mainstream media will give it only one headline
in their newspapers. After that, they'll go back to headlining sports events and whatever
alleged "hate crime" is in vogue this week.
Say what its is: the deepest cause of our political and societal problems is the MSM power
of international Zionism in America and Europe. To break this power at the current rate with
social media, will at least take another generation's time. But probably long before this
time the social media will be blocked for Zionism criticism by a new inquisition. Which we
are already seeing in progress. So what is left for us to shake off the Zionist yoke? Not
Trump!
Megan McCaine have the nerve to claim she supports the military yet here she is attacking
an actual military servicewomen who've lost her brothers and sisters in arms in Iraq for lies
such as WMD and fake Al Qaeda connection. The establishment media should and chickenhawks
should be called out for this treasonous labeling of Tulsi Gabbard.
Gabbard/Sanders or Sanders/Gabbard ~ I am INDEPENDENT and ready to move on for 2020. Trump
has NOT drained the swamp......EX: Reappoint COMEY = No..........But thanks Pres. Trump for
NOT giving us HRC! Dean K.
President Trump just a Robot in the White House and His Foreign Policies decided by Pro
Israel and Anti Russia WAR CRIMINALS,who are a Bullish,Lying and pro War.
Why isn't crosstalk talkin about AIPEC influence on Congress because the neocons And AIPEC
are basically controlling Congress and are the people responsible behind all the Middle East
War chicanery and Benjamin Netanyahu's influence on Congress is obscene and they actually are
passing laws now that if you speak up against AIPEC in anyway whatsoever you are immediately
smeared and called an anti-semite and your words are considered a hate speech crime... as in
the recent case of congresswoman Ilhan Omar... WTF is going on here??!!
Tulsi is on the same page as Bernie, if she aligns with Bernie and they are on the ticket
for the Dem's - they will win the election - zionists hate them both for the same reason they
are against war machine and want to look after the American homeland and people. Notice how
they are the only two in the US that want to pressure dotard through congress to not be able
to pull out of INF and rejoin the Iran deal. They are for peace .. something Americans want
and zionists don't
As a registered independent and former Trump supporter, she has my vote. I don't agree
with 80% of her platform but I do trust her to do her best to end the US perpetual war state.
However, if she should happen to do the obligatory trip to the wailing wall and pledge
allegiance to Israel, she will lose my support immediately. We'll know she's full of sh*t
when she bows to AIPAC.
MSM either makes ridiculous smears on tulsi or/and what's happening the most at the moment
is to COMPLETELY IGNORE her and act like doesnt exist, even when talking about all candidates
they will conveniently never mention her and pass though her name quickly sometimes even say
her name in a like quieter tone then change the subject, so frustrating! While shoving basic
bitches pro establishment pro war morons like Kamal Harris down our throats, no thank you. I
really hope ALL people see though this at very least most. And people still supporting trump
even after he turned on alot lf his main promises and pretending to be "anti interventionist"
while being compete opposite and wanting to invade any country he can see to benefit from,
how can they still Support him and not even call out his hypocrisy and lies. Hes just another
neocon warmonger.
Tulsi is amazing; she is the only dem I would vote for, all the rest are phonies or
brainwashed. Bernie is especially disappointing in his gullible acceptance of the fake Russia
collusion narrative, his voting for every war except the Iraq war, and his do nothing/say
nothing about election fraud. Tulsi is the real deal; in my opinion she is the only dem who
could beat Trump at this point. All the rest of the dems are scary and crazy, including
Bernie.
Peter, there should be more presentations and conversations about Tulsi on Cross talk and
the Duran as she, in my opinion, is the only person who will bring honesty and integrity to
US politics and restore America as a truly democratic country and restore the bad image that
the rest of the world has of the US apart from the current western alliance. I have listened
to her talks in New Hampshire and Iowa and can see her popularity increasing by the day. The
rest of the Democrats are part of the neocon group that supports war along with the
Republicans. When Trump was running in 2016 I thought it was a breath of fresh air compared
to Clinton. He has reneged on most things he promised to his base and has increased foreign
intervention. The world as a whole is looking for and needs peace.
Tulsi will not become the Democratic nominee, to low name recognition and not enough cash.
Donate to her, 1 USD is enough, she needs 65.000 individual donations to get on the televised
debates. She will drive other candidates to take a stance on US military interventions, a
good cause in itself. I would like to see, in the end, Bernie as POTUS, Warren in Treasury
and Tulsi as Sec State OR VP but think Sec State is better.
I love this show and amazing intelligent knowledgeable people as your guests. Excellent.
Please Keep going because you have 99% of humanity with you. The victory is certain and it
takes a bit more time to overcome evil that has built foundations for centuries but not
winning. You are the real champions not Old books or statues, and future generations will
play your each videos again and again and they will analyse it over and over again. What you
say and what you do is part of renaissance and foundation of future of the world. It is
important to say and do right things and be proud that you are making important history for
humanity. You will not have only statues or quotes also will have real videos to play it and
listen and see it. Children in schools, students at colleges and universities and
intellectuals politicians all will listen to your important brave opinions and views in this
curtail time of human history. I hope you realise the importance of this time and your moral
stands
Tulsi is going directly for the jugular of the ultimate origin of all this mess, she is
aiming at the core problem that generates, or makes worse, any other problem in our society,
ranging since: Climate Change on the top at planet level, down to bullying in schools at
street level. Not to mention, of course, that War Business means "Killing Humans by the
Thousands Business".
Tulsi Gabbard would do a better job than Bernie, who supports Government Intervention in
Venezuela and didn't expose the corruption of the DNC when he should have.
The only corporate US news reporter that doesn't try to "gotcha" Gabbard & smear her
is Tucker Carlson who gives her a chance to express her anti foreign intervention
message
So, Lindsey Graham, both Bushes, John McCain, and virtually all the other Republicans are
peaceniks and it's all the Democrats' fault? As to the baby boomers...I am a baby boomer and
have opposed US warmongering ever since Vietnam....ever heard of Jesse Ventura, or horrors!
Jill Stein? Partly, after they came home from Woodstock, it was back to business as usual.
Certainly a component of that is there. Many boomers sold out after the Civil Rights and anti
war movements. So, so far in this discussion, I am not hearing anything about what's left of
the real Left, such as Chris Hedges on RT, or Ventura and many other voices like Michael
Parenti, whom the Establishment either bought off or banished. Dennis Kucinich being a good
example. And let's not even talk about the Greens, who have always been anti war. Their
candidate--a female baby boomer was shackled so she couldn't be in the presidential debates!
And then accused by the Democrats of being a Russian bot.
Neo-Cons are Zionist partisans and former "Troksyists"(as Chris Hitchens would say), AIPAC
is the only foriegn lobby not registered under FARA....this network has infiltrated this
country on every government and social level since even before they accomplished a state,
Mossad is tied hip to hip with our intelligence agencies and have and continue to steal
secrets and material of all kinds.....btw the last president and attorney general to demand
inspections of Dimona, supported Palestinian right of return and gave the Zionist lobby 72
hours to register under FARA were Jack and Bobby Kennedy, read Michael Collins Piper's Final
Judgment if you wan't more about that but we should all know who the real problem is and that
problem comes out of Tel Aviv.....
Do not base your opinion of what the people want by looking at the 2018 mid term
elections. Between the astronomical amount of voter fraud and the sabotaging by Paul Ryan
(because he is one of those neocons or some would call RHINO"s) because Paul Ryan hates
Trump! 2020 will be a huge disappointment if you do. For starters there were about 40 seats
that dems ran completely unopposed!
Tulsi Gabbard does NOT align with Bernie Sanders at all. Sanders is PRO war. Do your
homework, jog your memory. As VP she wouild have zip power over foreign affairs or u.s. war
involvement. She is however, aligned with Rand Paul, if anyone. Sanders' association with
socialist DOMESTIC change has nothing to do with his unspoken position on imperialistic
occupation and regime change.
Its so comical to hear news hosts on all the mainstream media outlets criticizing Tulsi
for going to Syria yet none of them ever discuss Chelsea Manning let alone show the video of
the US Hellicopter gunning down 12 people and the American soldiers laughing after it.
Manning was imprisoned and tortured for her act of journalism. The networks still do not dare
show that video let alone discuss it.
Its so comical to hear news hosts on all the mainstream media outlets criticizing Tulsi
for going to Syria yet none of them ever discuss Chelsea Manning let alone show the video of
the US Hellicopter gunning down 12 people and the American soldiers laughing after it.
Manning was imprisoned and tortured for her act of journalism. The networks still do not dare
show that video let alone discuss it.
She will make an excellent VP. or Secretary of State if not the President ! I am tired of
being taken to war by people who haven't served . (Not even as Boy Scout) !!!
I wish Tulsi well..best candidate since Ron Paul. Unfortunately the stupidity of the
American public never ceases to amaze. Just YouTube a few of Mark Dice interviews when he
asks just the basic of questions...the responses are a scary but albeit reflection of why
America is doomed
"legacy media" !! a great phrase. Oh, I see. I thought legacy media was a reference to
sources like CNN and MSNBC. But it refers more to magazines and other publications (old
media).
The current and past agendas of the neocons can be easily identified as failures from the
viewpoint of making things better for humanity. But this is not their measure. The failure
you are seeing is actually success for them. Their interest is in war and destruction. See
how this cancer is spreading through their thought patterns. The total dismantling of their
military complex is the only way to bring this cancer to heel. This must happen from
within.
The curtains are being raised showing neo cons and neo libs on same team exposing war
mongers in media as well Tulsi Gabbard for president feel the aloha
Tulsi's voting record shows she will feed the DOD machine regardless of pork. She voted
yea on HR 695, HR 3364, HR 1301, etc., all for a DOD that is yet to be held accountable for
lost $ trillions.
What's wrong with Tulsi's fundraisers? They are not PAC money and $125/plate is not that
expensive. Tulsi has a huge disadvantage, because she isn't getting any coverage. Tulsi's
dinners are not sponsored by Corporate money.
Warren said to Cenk Uygur(in a NEW interview!) that her refusal of corporate donations
only extends to the primaries. She said [we] need corporate donations- or as she calls them-
"everything in our arsenal to beat Trump". Still want to lump her in with Bernie?
Never Completely Trust anyone, so thoroughly research everyone before supporting anyone on
anything to be fully aware of who benefits and how, since you may or may not benefit at all
11:16
hours Pacific Standard Time on Tuesday, 26 February 2019
Interview is about forthcoming book "Peak
Trump" In "Peak Trump", Stockman goes after all the sacred cows: Military spending, entitlement spending, MAGA, Trump's tax cut,
the intelligence budget, and the Wall. Trump is a symptom of the problem. He wanted to drain the swamp but failed to do so. He never
really had a good chance of doing that, but he failed to make the most of the chance he had. We are where we are because of decades
of Congressional and monetary mismanagement
All in the name of empire... the Deep state in non-particular and Trump proved to be a "naked king"
At 15:49 min Ron Paul asks the question about Tulsi... She positioned herself as noninterventionists and has similar foreign policy
as Ron Paul used to have. Stockman answer was very interesting and informative.. MSM journalists are essentially federal contractor,
lobbyists of MIC.
He also mentioned that Trump falls from the bait. And the appointment of Elliot Abrams was real betrayal of his voters.
Notable quotes:
"... He was smart enough to understand that the commonplace observation codified as the Laffer Curve, while true, didn't mean that DC could just go on an endless spending spree and expect increased tax revenues to exceed the avarice of politicians, though. ..."
"... No, I don't think Stockman's rhetoric was a lie. He did end up getting shoved out of the Reagan regime, after all, precisely because he resisted giving every cabinet secretary all the money they wanted and, as you say, insisted that the tax cuts needed to be accompanied by spending cuts. ..."
"... But supply-side economics is, perversely, a departure from sound economic policy in the direction of central planning . Its premise is that instead of production being driven by diffuse demand, money should be concentrated in the hands of a few who "know better" what should be produced. ..."
"... And in practice, the "entrepreneurs" intended to benefit were the businesses who already had the clout to make themselves part of the political class, not the guy in his garage designing a better mousetrap. ..."
"... The Laffer Curve is an interesting but much over-used (and badly used) observation: There is a tax revenue curve with a top to it. That is, as you raise taxes, revenues go up ... until the taxation gets onerous enough that additional earnings beyond bare subsistence strike people as not worth the input, beyond which point tax INcreases produce revenue DEcreases. ..."
David Stockman was one of my conservative heroes during the Reagan years. He was the one person in the Administration who seemed
to have an honest understanding of economics. It's nice to see that his experiences with the reality of the DC swamp have made
him go all the way to describing himself as a libertarian, rather than a conservative.
He could have sold out, given up any modicum of principle, and simply become a multi-millionaire Republican Party establishment
hack.
I would venture to say he and I have some policy differences, but it's always nice to see when someone embraces their best,
rather than their worst, instincts.
My recollection of Stockman's economics from those years (based on e.g. The Triumph of Politics) was that he was all-in on
"supply side" economics, which is twaddle. He was smart enough to understand that the commonplace observation codified as
the Laffer Curve, while true, didn't mean that DC could just go on an endless spending spree and expect increased tax revenues
to exceed the avarice of politicians, though.
Yes, supply side is bogus, but my observations were that Stockman was quite critical of the spending increases that the Administration
put forth. He approved of the so called tax-cuts, but he did so with the understanding that there would be spending cuts along
with them.
My own recollections (I was alive back then, but not as politically conscious as I am now) were that Stockman was not endorsing
the supply side theory so much as his own idea that cuts in government spending were necessary, and that tax cuts would put pressure
on Congress and the administration to cut spending. The irony is that, for whatever reason, tax revenues overall increased by
60% in Reagan's two terms, yet spending increased almost 100%. This certainly disproves the idea that there was ever a revenue
problem, and that it has always been a spending problem.
In any event, Stockman was just about the only person with an official capacity in DC, who actually worked toward spending
cuts. Unless you are saying that his rhetoric was a lie, and he was just like all the others. If that is the case then, of course,
you could always be right.
No, I don't think Stockman's rhetoric was a lie. He did end up getting shoved out of the Reagan regime, after all, precisely
because he resisted giving every cabinet secretary all the money they wanted and, as you say, insisted that the tax cuts needed
to be accompanied by spending cuts.
But supply-side economics is, perversely, a departure from sound economic policy in the direction of central planning .
Its premise is that instead of production being driven by diffuse demand, money should be concentrated in the hands of a few who
"know better" what should be produced.
True, the central planning class in question was, broadly and not very honestly defined, "entrepreneurs" rather than government
bureaucrats, but the principle was the same. And in practice, the "entrepreneurs" intended to benefit were the businesses
who already had the clout to make themselves part of the political class, not the guy in his garage designing a better mousetrap.
"But supply-side economics is, perversely, a departure from sound economic policy"
Perhaps the most damning thing about it was that the stated goal was to increase the federal government's revenue. What person
in their right mind would wish to give even more money and power to the federal government?
The Laffer Curve is an interesting but much over-used (and badly used) observation: There is a tax revenue curve with a
top to it. That is, as you raise taxes, revenues go up ... until the taxation gets onerous enough that additional earnings beyond
bare subsistence strike people as not worth the input, beyond which point tax INcreases produce revenue DEcreases.
She folded under pressure, but what would you expect her to do. Being branded as an "Assad stooge", even if wrong, is a death sentence
for the campaign. This is was nasty and effective trick to keep her "in place". And it worked.
Off course, Megan McCain behaved like an angry alcoholic, but that does not change the situation much: all them were neoliberal/neocon
warmongers.
Notable quotes:
"... You know for a FACT that # Assad isn't a brutal dictator and that he never used chemical weapons against his people. You even went to Syria. Yet you're willing to lie just to please a bullying McCain of all people. What a shame. ..."
"... Melissa, when you come up with a reasonable alternative to al nusra, al qaeda and isis to govern the country and unite the syrian people, and have a game plan to impose it, please let us know. ..."
"... Well you have a big problem on your hands @ MeghanMcCain because your dads "moderate rebels" beheaded 2 of our family members in # Syria Not President Assad He has protected our family in the Christian Valley of Syria and we went to over 50 Reporters "experts" who refused to talk ..."
You know for a FACT that #Assad isn't a
brutal dictator and that he never used chemical weapons against his people. You even went to Syria. Yet you're willing to lie just
to please a bullying McCain of all people. What a shame.
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard says "there's no disputing the fact" that Bashar Al-Assad is a "brutal dictator" who "has used chemical weapons"
against his people, but adds that amid the US's "regime-change war," the "lives of the Syrian people have not been improved"
http:// abcn.ws/2Ne74r9
NativeSF @dypraxia Replying to @melmel24 @TheView
Melissa, when you come up with a reasonable alternative to al nusra, al qaeda and isis to govern the country and unite the
syrian people, and have a game plan to impose it, please let us know.
Well you have a big problem on your hands @MeghanMcCain
because your dads "moderate rebels" beheaded 2 of our family members in
#Syria Not President Assad He has protected
our family in the Christian Valley of Syria and we went to over 50 Reporters "experts" who refused to talk
Bernie was a sheepdog. He has no real intention to fight for the presidency in 2016, and he gave up very despicably to Hillary
during the National convention.
At his age he is not a presidential candidate in 2020 (he was born in 1941). He just again play the role of sheep dog,
possibly helping to defeat Tulsi Gabbard. As The Atlantic
pointed out:" Sanders will hurt contenders whose support overlaps with his, reducing the pool of voters available for those who
are targeting the same groups most drawn to him, particularly young people, the most liberal activists, and independents who
participate in Democratic primaries. "
Sanders's entry could also influence his competitors' assessment of the earliest primary states, by causing other candidates
to view the New Hampshire contest as a regional showdown between him and Warren
Notable quotes:
"... "My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders." – Hillary Clinton to investors in a paid speech given to Brazilian Banco Itau in 2013 ..."
"... Had primary voters known everything that was going on, including rigging of the primaries and laundering of money from state and local committees, and Bernie had actually hammered Clinton for those things like any normal candidate would, he'd have won the primary and might very well be President today. Her compromising of national security via email would've been the cherry on top. ..."
Bernie Sanders's quest for the Democratic presidential nomination was one of the biggest
surprises of the 2016 campaign, surpassed only by the election's
ultimate winner . The rumpled septuagenarian socialist senator from the tiny state of
Vermont, who had never even run for office as a Democrat before, went from decades of laboring
in obscurity to competing with Hillary Clinton on something approaching even terms. On Tuesday
he announced he wants to try again, this time in a race with no obvious frontrunner.
The closest parallel to Sanders's success was probably Ron Paul: elderly, ideological
veteran lawmakers who were beloved by younger voters inside the major political party to which
they were intermittently attached (Paul was the 1988 Libertarian Party nominee for president,
Sanders technically won all his elections as an independent or third-party candidate) when they
sought its presidential nomination late in their careers. Despite their vast differences on
economics, both men also wanted an end to perpetual war in the Middle East.
Yet Sanders thrived in a two-way race and came closer than Paul to the nomination, even if
he never quite threatened to pull off a Barack Obama-style upset against Clinton. With the
GOP's small government wing in
decline , Sanders also appears for now to have had more of a transformative effect on the
Democratic Party.
"Socialism" is no longer an epithet in American politics and Sanders proved there was
valuable ground to the left of Obama.
Can Sanders do it again? To get a sense of how the Bernie revolution might eat its own,
let's reflect on why he fell short the first time. Sanders is an old-school leftist who
believes in the centrality of class, not race.
Hailing from one of the whitest states in the country, he never made inroads in the
communities of color that have become such a large part of the Democratic primary electorate --
and the crucial reason Obama prevailed where Sanders' fellow Vermonter Howard Dean did not.
Sanders was pilloried for his refusal to support
open borders in a 2015 interview with liberal pundit Ezra Klein. "No, that's a Koch brothers
proposal," Sanders replied, later calling it "right-wing." He added, "It would make everybody
in America poorer -- you're doing away with the concept of a nation state, and I don't think
there's any country in the world that believes in that." Klein's website then ran a piece with
a headline claiming "Bernie
Sanders's fear of immigrant labor is ugly -- and wrongheaded."
This left-wing economic nationalism might make Sanders attractive to the white working-class
voters who cast the decisive ballots for Donald Trump in 2016. So too would the fact that while
Sanders is reliably liberal on social issues, including the obligatory support for abortion on
demand, he is clearly not animated by them. The key swing voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and
Wisconsin are economically liberal but socially conservative.
What might be assets in the general election against Trump are huge liabilities in the
Democratic primaries, however. In an American progressivism increasingly defined by
intersectionality and identity politics, even a socialist who
honeymooned in the Soviet Union is something of a relic. Centrists and liberals alike
lobbed accusations of sexism against the "Bernie bros" supporting Sanders.
Now these Sanders critics will have liberal women -- in some cases, women of color -- to
choose from in the primaries. Even outside presidential politics, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
offers the same democratic socialism in a more attractive, internet-savvy, diverse, and woke
package. In the primaries, Sanders will have to share the left lane with others. Elizabeth
Warren can compete with him on economics, Tulsi Gabbard for antiwar street cred. Nearly all the
contenders now support "Medicare for All," with many signing up for the $42 trillion Green New
Deal.
If Democrats decide they want an aging white male for old times sake, Joe Biden could do the
trick. His eight years as vice president under Obama revived his political fortunes, as Trump
says in less flattering
terms . A crowded group of progressives could give an establishment icon who starts with
high name recognition a path to the nomination. And Biden could also vie with Trump for
blue-collar white voters.
Of course, Biden would be making much of that appeal on the basis of personality. Trump and
Sanders rail against bad trade deals and the Iraq war. Biden has an even longer record of
supporting such policies than Clinton did. Some of the other Sanders alternatives'
progressivism is of more recent vintage (Kamala Harris) and perhaps of questionable sincerity
(Cory Booker). Bernie is a true believer.
But the modern Democratic Party is like a parade marching leftward so rapidly that it is
hard for anyone, even Bernie Sanders, to keep up for long.
Interesting take on Bernie here,
yet, at the same time, I'm thinkin': The bad jokes continue on the American people, which is, for example, the two names toward
the end of this article.
Booker and Harris? These two intellectually hollow politicians are quite different from
Bernie.
They are opportunists using the labels 'liberal' or simply 'Democrats' to run for office.
And, cynically using the label of being a 'minority.' Come on now!
The joke I refer to is that these two, unlike Bernie don't give a rat's butt about anyone,
ii's all self serving bull.
The difference with Bernie? He, Bernie, is sincere and really cares for people, he has heart.
Now, would some of you care to read old articles, some in the San Francisco newspapers from
the bad old days when mayor Willie Brown was there and how he, married, was having ah,
regular 'get togethers' with Kamala Harris and how he got her high paid positions with
commissions and then helped her become Att. General. And, so they used the exact opposite of
what I and my generation (teens) in the mid-late 60's were told, which was: judge everyone by
THEIR character (as MLK also said). It doesn't matter whether you are of this or that, you
know, race, national origin and so on.
So Kamala Harris was using her ah, whatever to get ego
positions and money. These are facts and I'm being kind here. There's more, Brown himself
said, in recent interviews that he had the ah, affair(we know what that means and it's not
for discussions on Plato and Calvin, ha) with her. So, this clown Booker is running cause
he's black and that's it and Harris is using that too and that she's a female??
More jokes
from jokers on the American people. Again, a betrayal of myself and my fellow liberals from
the 60's and 70's. Run, brother Bernie run! At least you're real and not sleazy, can you all
dig what I'm sayin'?
If memory serves, significant numbers of black and Hispanic voters do not support open
borders either. Bernie should learn from his 2016 mistakes, and go for the jugular against
ex-prosecutor Harris and longtime foe of teachers and water carrier for the charter school
industry Booker. He might also note Gillibrand's flip flop on guns, if he hasn't done the
same.
He also needs to call out the Democratic establishment for supporting Medicare for All
in words, while undercutting it in deed.
And he must learn not to be so solicitous of
corporate Democrats, be they corrupt war criminals like Clinton (he should have kept his
mouth shut about the e-mails) or bait-and-switch types like Andrew Cuomo, who is pulling on a
state level with "free college" and an "increased" minimum wage exactly what Pelosi is doing
at the federal level with Medicare for All. Oh, and talk more about jobs for all, a shortened
workweek, restoring voting rights and the Voting Rights Act, and breaking up and controlling
the banks and near monopolies instead of wonking out about Big Money in politics (nowhere
near as visceral as closing down polling places and purging voter rolls, although
gerrymandering might be turning into a rare winning "wonk" issue).
Respect the voters, Bernie, lay out your records vs. your opponents in targeted
advertising, but treat your opponents as most of them deserve.
Nah. Ideology is meaningless. It's all about GANG POWER. Bernie is not authorized by the
Clinton Mob, so he can't win. Kamala is employed by the Clinton Mob, so she will win.
Re: Sanders was pilloried for his refusal to support open borders in a 2015 interview with
liberal pundit Ezra Klein.
This is lazy writing. Words have meaning and there's no support for "open borders" among
the Democrats either– which would mean tearing down all our border controls so that
travel into the US from either Mexico or Canada would be as unhindered, on our side, as
travel between Michigan and Ohio.
Re: The key swing voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin are economically liberal
but socially conservative.
It would be better stated that they are socially moderate: generally in favor of abortion
rights (with limitations) and at peace with SSM, but not on board with the more extreme forms
of feminism or gay rights advocacy. The days of true social conservatism as the default
working class position are long gone. Mostly these people just want to be left alone–
by both SJWs of the Left and Bible thumping preachers of the Right. In that regard Donald
Trump seemed like a safe vote for them.
As someone who voted for Ron Paul 2008-12, , Bernie in the primaries and then for Trump
(reluctantly) in the general election, I will share what I see in Bernie: Honesty. Unbought.
Unbossed. No taint of scandal, lifelong devotion to his beliefs, went to jail over housing
desegregation, itinerate ne'er-d0-well supporting himself with home-made educational films
for schools and carpentry gigs, a gadfly who won his first election by 10 votes in a four-way
race, etc. , in other words, he's real. I don't share his views on social issues, but Trump's
judicial picks make it a lot easier to contemplate a Bernie Presidency, as the Senate and
courts would check and balance his more lefty impulses.
He's about as un-bought as any
politician in America, and having not been one of the cool kids means he's not beholden to
them.
Teamed with another outsider like Tulsi, Bernie would have a very good chance of
winning, and he's quite possibly do as much good, on balance, as anyone could hope for.
"My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders." –
Hillary Clinton to investors in a paid speech given to Brazilian Banco Itau in 2013
Rep. Jackie Speier: "I have said publically before that if what we're doing is build a
useless wall for a couple of years that we can then tear down, I'm willing to pay that price
to make sure these DACA kids can stay in the country."
zagonostra: "Wow, not one word on the corruption and collusion between HRC and DNC as
evidenced in Podesta emails and Donna Brazile's book."
Had primary voters known everything that was going on, including rigging of the primaries
and laundering of money from state and local committees, and Bernie had actually hammered
Clinton for those things like any normal candidate would, he'd have won the primary and might
very well be President today. Her compromising of national security via email would've been
the cherry on top.
Sorry, that was a very cheap shot to snidely refer to Socialist Bernie's Honeymoon in the
Soviet Union. He was mayor of Burlington, Vermont at the time and he officially visited the
town's sister city in Russia with his new bride. Did he have fun while he was there, God
forbid? Probably, as the video link clearly shows. Was he there to report to his Kremlin
masters?
Obviously not, since he has never been suspected of spying or of being a Russian stooge.
TAC in general -- but Pat Buchannan and Rod Dreher in particular -- continues to exaggerate
the portion of Democrats who are on the extreme far-left, and thus more "radical" than
Bernie. Clinton hangers-on and hardcore DNC insiders aside, most Democrats can easily square
their ideals and beliefs with Bernie's and have stronger incentives to do so than they did in
2016. Beyond the Democrats, those who saw him as too extreme in 2016 must re-calibrate and
consider him as a viable alternative to the fiasco of Trump. However, it's difficult to
imagine the extreme MAGA club defecting to Sanders, given how deeply they've entrenched
themselves in Trump's fakery and lies.
Re: Kent, "Then we will have a great national debate over what's more important: a wall to
keep out the Mexicans, or affordable healthcare."
Related to "affordable" healthcare, the Democrat Medicare for All proposal is a naive and
stupid illusion. The U.S. health care system based on the current fee-for-service model
cannot be reformed by moving the "who pays" food around the plate.
U.S. health care per capita costs of over $10,000 a year are 45% higher than German per
capita costs. The ONLY genuine reform would provide a significant reduction in the per cost
of health care to approach than of other advanced nations with some universal health care
model.
The ONLY way Medicare for All could work would be for the government to force massive fee
cram-downs on the health care Crony Cartels. Big Doctor, Big Hospital, Big Pharma, Big
Insurance would all have to be lined up for Big Haircuts.
Only nobody in Washington has the guts to do that. Or has the guts to propose a truly
transformational change in the health care model paradigm, e.g., a variation of the German
model.
The sad thing is that so many Americans are played for chumps by politicians spouting
their simplistic solutions that make no more sense than the obviously wired-for-failure
Obamacare.
Stick a fork in America with Dems running the show too – Because it's still
cooked.
All this concern-trolling from the Right and Center is really amusing.
Polls indicate that the actual voters want what Bernie is selling. Given the chance, he
will crush Trump, defeating ugly and vulgar cruelty with love and kindness.
"the crucial reason Obama prevailed where Sanders' fellow Vermonter Howard Dean did not"
Beyond all the bad faith toothless crushing of sour grapes in the article, this is an
interesting line.
Dean ran on an anti-war platform – against the Bush Doctrine – at a time when
no other Democratic "leader" dared, and Barbara Lee's resolution to disavow the doctrine of
preventive war got cobwebbed in the biparty Congress. His position – which contrasts
well with his pitiful shilling for MEK these days – challenged the blobbed US biparty
foreign policy "consensus" in much the same manner Primary Trump did, and the media and party
backstablishment rallied to derail Dean ASAP.
Obama had the foresight to speak out against the Iraq war without having to deliver a
Senate vote, and he postured as comprehensively dishonest as an anti-war candidate as Trump
did, and then implemented US impunitivism just as Trump does.
The difference was 4 years, from 2004 to 2008. The People, in their finite wisdom, saw fit
to elect a Supreme Court-selected GWB with popular majority, approving of illegal aggressive
war (as well as Congress' unconstitutional authorizations for that crime).
Incidentally, Barbara Lee refrained from re-introducing the disavowal of preventive war
during the Obama years. Presumably the party might have not actually voted for it as long as
they had that uncomfortable majority.
Since 2008, the anti-war "movement" has veritably sublimated, and Obama's continuation of
expansion of Bush's illegal wars has not been challenged and is – Syria, Yemen –
rarely mentioned by those who criticize Trump for delivering Bush 5th term. In this respect,
2012 and 2016 were as different from 2008 as 2008 was from 2004 – and frankly, Obama's
re-election in 2012 had the same "follow the leader" partisan stain that Bush's election in
2004 had: letters of indulgence to Presidents who had proven themselves liars and
criminals.
If there is one valid criticism of Sanders, it is that he has not committed in 2016 or
since to a full, open break with the blob and the foreign policy consensus, and he has not
taken a clear stand against illegal war, wasteful debt-backed military spending, and US
impunitivism.
No candidate for 2020 has committed to repealing the AUMF:
Nice guy, Bernie, though wooly-headed. I would like to think, however, that he truly believes
in what he is saying. Sometimes, however, I wonder if what he says is for public consumption
only and not reflective of what he really believes in–namely, garden variety Old School
Liberalism. If he had been a True Believer and given the way they cooked the books, he would
have flipped the bird to Madame and her DNC flunkies and run third-party (wouldn't THAT have
been fun!). In the end, however he copped out, which makes one wonder where he really stands.
If Sanders is denied the nomination of his party again–a distinct possibility as
suggested by Mr. Antle–let's see if he"bolts" and mounts a third-party candidacy. If he
does, he would be demonstrating the courage of his convictions–a rare commodity among
politicians.
If he doesn't and cops out yet again, falling meekly in lockstep behind the Democrat
nominee, then it says here that Bernie Sanders is just another phony politician.
"When we talk about the word 'socialism,' I think what it really means is just democratic
participation in our economic dignity and our economic, social, and racial dignity. It is
about direct representation and people actually having power and stake over their economic
and social wellness, at the end of the day."
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
"They call it the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it."
Before the George Soros clones start the Revolution, they need to understand who owns most of
the guns and ammunition in this country and knows how to use them. If you ass wipes want to
dance, then start the music or shut the Hell up.
"Nah. Ideology is meaningless. It's all about GANG POWER. Bernie is not authorized by the
Clinton Mob, so he can't win. Kamala is employed by the Clinton Mob, so she will win."
Little known political trivia: in the 2008 primaries, there was a challenger to Clinton,
named Barrack Obama. He was stomped out of the race so fast that most people don't even
remember him.
I am not a fan of Trump, and believe the country would be better off with new leadership. But
the liberal-left wing of the Democratic Party -- well, is it a wing or the party proper,
that's the question -- is seriously delusional to think Bernie, Harris, Warren, Booker and
the rest could carry more than 5 states. My guess is that only Sherrod Brown of Ohio could
pull off a victory, if he has the chops to handle whatever slurs and nicknames Trump will
have for him. Maybe the Democrats should draft Michael Dukakis. He crushed Biden.
The problem for the Republicans is that we can't deny that the economy favors the wealthy,
not because they are creative, or because they are building factories, and providing jobs but
because they are able to borrow money at zero percent interest in order to keep the Wall
Street casinos going. Trillions of dollars have been transferred from savings and pension
plans to the wealthy in the form of bailouts and quantitative easing. And now the Fed has
decided to not unload its balance sheet which means the debt has been monetized. Soon there
will be lowering of interest rates and more quantitative easing. In short, we have a managed
economy that favors the wealthy. Capitalism is dead. Transferring money to the wealthy while
everyone else must bear the burden of austerity cannot, and should not last. The people will
not continue to accept it. The wealthy brought it upon themselves.
"The people will not continue to accept it. The wealthy brought it upon themselves."
Great! So what can the people do? Those wealthy have the ability to send unemployment
skyrocketing. They have the backing of both parties. Those people were progressive before
anything we have today. Those wealthy do not play by the same rules others do. You can blame
Republicans all you want, but many Dems are just as guilty and many Dem voters will feel the
pain. too.
You can't say it any clearer than that. Tulsi will get her chance to shine and break from
the pack in the first debate. She will stand out in stark contrast against the other war
party candidates in both parties. I am looking for Tulsi to come out of the debates as a
clear anti-war alternative while the others split the pro-war vote.
Unlike Trump you don't have to read between the lines to cherry pick anti war nuggets
while ignoring the other 90% of what Gabbard says. Nor do you need to ignore her vids about
"pussy grabbing" or her draft dodging or tabloid scandals and self-centered get rich schemes.
Tulsi is an Iraq War combat zone veteran with a genuine commitment to public service with
crossover appeal to red and blue voters. She would beat Trump head to head.
Trump barely beat Hillary despite Hillary's warmongering , poor judgment and scandalous
foundation. Tulsi has none of Hillary's baggage and would demolish Trump on national TV.
Would you rather your kids grew up to be like Tulsi or like Trump?
I hope Sanders understands that Gabbard will be a much more powerful candidate than he
could ever be, especially since he will be 79 before the 2020 election, he can't connect with
Black voters and has no military service.
Sanders should throw his support to Gabbard early and become her adviser or running mate.
Sanders' support could help Tulsi get off to a strong start in New Hampshire. Here's
hoping.
It's official today, Bernie is running. Even if he wasn't, he doesn't possess the backbone
to support a candidate this dangerous to the DNC. He didn't even have the backbone to stand
up for his own voters when Hillary mugged the vote. The man is on the record as a
Russia-bating, Hugo-bashing, drone-strike-socialist. He's an albatross around the left's
neck. Nobody needs another FDR. Nobody but the Military Industrial Complex that is. People
like Bernie only give such institutions a much needed "compassionate" makeover.
Bernie can shit in his hat. There is only one Democrat left committed to McGovern-style
anti-imperialism and that's Tulsi Gabbard . I left that party of dickless hypocrites
years ago and I have zero intention of ever returning but you can consider this an
endorsement. If you're gonna vote in 2020, vote for Tulsi. We gotta put an end to this
bomb-dropping shitshow we call a super-power. This is a start.
"... So, you can actually help to get her in the Debates by going to her Campaign Page and making a contribution, and encouraging others to do the same. It's the total number of contributions that matters, not the total amount, so anything will help toward the goal. ..."
"... Let's get Tulsi Gabbard on the stage for the first Democratic Primary Debate in June! Donate $5 today at www.tulsi2020.com to help Tulsi get her message out to America! ..."
"... Again, you're a young Hawaiian female. In a field of more than a dozen candidates, you have to quickly establish yourself as "top tier". Barring an endorsement from Bernie Sanders, the only way to do that is to look, speak, and act top tier. ..."
"... Like Ron Paul, Gabbard says things that desperately need saying but that establishment politicians rarely say. She not only says them. She makes them the centerpiece of her campaign, so I support her speaking tour rather than the campaign per se. ..."
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard released this 30-second video in her campaign for
the White House. It is one of the most clear and unequivocal statements I have ever heard
from a presidential candidate:
Please note that this is not an endorsement or statement of support. Antiwar.com is a
nonprofit organization and does not endorse or urge support for any candidates. We do,
however, provide news and commentary on campaigns.
Just because the talk gets tougher doesn't mean the policy will change. Especially from
the top down. We can hope, but if she's at all sincere I doubt she'll ever get close to the
debates since it would be an indictment upon the elite who stack the slate we vote from.
I hope she keeps saying what she's saying but it's abundantly clear to me the five eyes
countries are already beyond the point of no return as far as their sh*tty global debt
peonage and slavery utopia dream goes.......
Without mass civil disobedience this gal will either fade away or get JFK'd.
The rules say that they have to let her in the first Debate if she raises donations from
at least 65,000 people by then. She has to have raised these contributions from at least 20
States, with at least 200 contributors coming from an individual State in order for that
State to count toward the 20 State total.
So, you can actually help to get her in the Debates
by going to her Campaign Page and making a contribution, and encouraging others to do the
same. It's the total number of contributions that matters, not the total amount, so anything
will help toward the goal.
There is also a polling threshold in order to qualify for the
Debates, but you only have to meet one or the other. The polling threshold is too easy for
the Establishment to manipulate and rig. The donation threshold can't be faked, and is the
safer path toward getting her on that Stage.
https://www.tulsi2020.com/s...
I don't give money to politicians. That's how we got to this point remember ? All you're doing is paying consultants who used to work for the Clinton Mafia anyway.
Your comment is paradoxical. You either have hope for recovery or you believe all hope is
lost. You can't claim both.
I don't worry about the debates as each four years that pass reduces the hold the TV debates
have on Joe America and pumps up the internet which the Commission on Presidential Debates
has no control.
Thank you for your passionate comment.
I have no hope the current system will recover. I have hope something new will rise out of
the ashes of the old. The enemy is this stupid idea of there being an "elite" class among
us.
Interesting assertion you have there. I'd be interested if you know of any articles or
books that elaborate on your no elite class among us concept. Thank you for your reply.
Dave chimes in with his usual cynicism and the well worn " only massive civil disobedience
will work" trope. Read John McCarthy below for a solid and effective thing to do for Tulsi -
not that Dave seems to want to help in any way.
Is he cynical or lazy - and those are not mutually exclusive?
I'd say it's the more naive among us that believe that political stump speeches actually
have to mean something that are the lazy ones.
How come voting hasn't changed policy goals so far Cratylus ?
If people like you would pull your head out of your arses and quit supporting the two
funding arms of the war party we would be less likely to get "hope and change" over and over
again.
Here's a clue for you..... Politicians don't always mean what they say in stump
speeches......
Here's another clue for you..... You live in a plutocracy, please take note of this and
quit pretending you have representative government or anything close to a democracy.
FYI for those that don't have their dictionary handy.
The definition of a plutocracy is a political system where the wealthy govern. When the
richest people have all of the power in a society and make all of the political decisions,
this is an example of a plutocracy. YourDictionary definition and usage example.
"The definition of a plutocracy is a political system where the wealthy govern."
You repeat yourself. All existing States are governed by the (relatively) wealthy. It
cannot be otherwise. Once the State has been granted the legal authority to plunder, it is
only a matter of time before the wealthy become the biggest purchasers of the plundering
service.
That just means the state isn't the enemy, the "elite" are. Or in other words, the concept
of their being an elite. The state is just another benign entity like a religion that in
reality is the control mechanism of the so called elite.
Yes, the state is just another benign entity that murdered somewhere in the neighborhood
of 300 million people in the 20th century, excluding war deaths and incidental rather than
intentional killings.
If Trump can win, anything is possible. We're looking at a whole new ballgame here. I
generally prefer general strikes and direct action myself but if there's a ballot box just
lying there, I'm gonna pick it up and throw it through the nearest government window. Why the
f**k not? The brick and the ballot box, that's my motto. Put that shit on a T-shirt and sell
it.
For anyone to actually get elected President and THEN make major policy changes that
GREATLY benefit the American people, as USG policies should, would take a full-scale
revolution against the ruling classes! That is the REALITY of the USA today. All talk about
"freedom and democracy" and nothing but policies that suffocate these two things all over the
globe AND at home! A candidate can have 70% of the vote and STILL be prisoner to the Deep
State in some way.
Even if I didn't vote for her in the general election, I am certainly going to contribute,
as she will probably be the only major party candidate who is remotely antiwar. If she can
get her ideas some exposure, you are correct, she would mop the floor with Trump. My only
concern would be her coziness with Israel, but, perhaps, she will rethink those ties to be
consistent with her overall antiwar message.
Borg, I agree that Gabbard needs to articulate a clearer understanding of Israel and its
lobby in US wars. But she is the only candidate who would never put Israel's interest ahead
of the interests of the American people.
In less than 20 years Gabbard has grown from a homophobic Hawaiian surfer girl to the
youngest woman legislator in American history to a veteran twice deployed in an Iraq war zone
to a resolute critic of the eternal wars who condemned Obama and Trump alike for their neocon
foreign policies. She is still growing. I hope she comes to a deeper understanding of the
Zionist influence on US policy as well as a deeper appreciation of the foreign policy goals
of the Iranian regime. I am optimistic because her past record shows a capacity for change, a
commitment to honesty and the ability to respond effectively and courageously to diverse
challenges. If given the chance Tulsi would resolutely fight against the war mongers in both
parties.
We need Tulsi on that debate stage! She is the only candidate speaking about the issues of
war and peace. Once she gets the exposure, people will like her and her platform. Then she
has a chance to get to the White House.
We can help her!
Let's get Tulsi Gabbard on the stage for the first Democratic Primary Debate in June!
Donate $5 today at
www.tulsi2020.com to help Tulsi get her message out to America!
We need 65,000 supporters across the country to donate so we can meet the DNC's fundraising
threshold requirement to qualify Tulsi for the debate stage.
- Lose the lei. It's distracting and it subconsciously broadcasts that you're an
"other".
- You're a 37-year-old woman from a tiny state. People need to get to know you. Start with
a photo/video montage showing military career, family, speaking in the House, etc. while you
do a voiceover. Then switch to headshot video of you speaking directly to the viewer.
- Instead of attacking "warmongers in their ivory towers", connect with viewers by
explaining that you're a combat veteran who shares their war-weariness. Leave in the stuff
about the monetary and human costs of the wars.
- The "speech" setting for the ad doesn't work: if you're speaking to a crowd, where's the
applause? And the constant looking left and right (to, presumably, imaginary people) makes
you look nervous.
Again, you're a young Hawaiian female. In a field of more than a dozen candidates, you
have to quickly establish yourself as "top tier". Barring an endorsement from Bernie Sanders,
the only way to do that is to look, speak, and act top tier.
People were clapping, but the event was outdoors, and the clips don't feature applause
lines. The entire speech is online if you want to hear it.
Sanders doesn't excite me, and I don't think he'll fare as well in a crowded field, but
I'll be happy with Gabbard as his running mate. She's not remotely like Trump, but because
corporate media paint her this way, they'll help her draw votes from Trump.
I don't vote as a rule, and I don't support political candidates because I expect them to
win. Like Ron Paul, Gabbard says things that desperately need saying but that establishment
politicians rarely say. She not only says them. She makes them the centerpiece of her
campaign, so I support her speaking tour rather than the campaign per se.
The lei and aloha talk also seem overdone to me, but these superficial appeals don't
affect me one way or the other, and for all I know, they're effective for people who are
moved by them.
I think if Tulsi became President, we would know soon whether or not the Trump apologists
are full of crap that Trump is simply "playing 3D Chess" and doing everything in his power
for peace. Tulsi appears to be the real thing, and, if she actually followed through, we
would put an end to this talk of Trump - Peace - MAGA. Of course, there is always the slight
chance, no matter how small, that the Deep State actually does possess mind control weapons
which can morph any pro-peace President into another Trump, but I'd like to think it is not
that late yet.
I would be interested in a few reference links. If this is true, it would complicate
things, but, people, even politicians, can learn and change for the better. If I can be
redeemed after some of the lame headed things I've said and done, anyone can.
"Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have." Power is derived
from 2 main sources – money and people. "Have-Nots" must build power from flesh and
blood.
"Never go outside the expertise of your people." the result is confusion, fear, and
retreat.
"Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy." Here you want to cause
confusion, fear, and retreat.
"Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." You can kill them with this, for they
can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.
"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon ." It is almost impossible to counterattack
ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.
"A good tactic is one your people enjoy." If your people are not having a ball doing it,
there is something very wrong with the tactic.
"A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag." Man can sustain militant interest in
any issue for only a limited time, after which it becomes a ritualistic commitment, like
going to church on Sunday mornings. New issues and crises are always developing, and one's
reaction becomes, "Well, my heart bleeds for those people and I'm all for the boycott, but
after all there are other important things in life" -- and there it goes.
"Keep the pressure on. Never let up." [use] different tactics and actions, and utilize
all events of the period for your purpose.
" The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself. "
"The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a
constant pressure upon the opposition." It is this unceasing pressure that results in the
reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign. It should
be remembered not only that the action is in the reaction but that action is itself the
consequence of reaction and of reaction to the reaction, ad infinitum. The pressure produces
the reaction, and constant pressure sustains action.
"If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside
[positive] " this is based on the principle that every positive has its negative. We have
already seen the conversion of the negative into the positive, in Mahatma Gandhi's
development of the tactic of passive resistance.
"The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative." You cannot risk being
trapped by the enemy in his sudden agreement with your demand and saying "You're right -- we
don't know what to do about this issue. Now you tell us."
"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." the opposition must be
singled out as the target and "frozen." in a complex, interrelated, urban society, it becomes
increasingly difficult to single out who is to blame for any particular evil. There is a
constant passing of the buck. Obviously there is no point to tactics unless one has a target
upon which to center the attacks If an organization permits responsibility to be diffused and
distributed in a number of areas, attack becomes impossible.
So the next time you see a political movement or campaign in action, compare their tactics
to the list above and you'll know how you are being manipulated!
Unfortunately the article does not mention the term McCarthyism, which is fully applicable. Also the role of CNN of the
voice of Clinton wing of Democratic Party presuppose the attitudes the Caitlin is complaining about. This is a party MSM
masquerading as impendent new outlet. This are neoliberal presstitutes and warmongers, for the lack of stronger worlds.
Also correlation with RT policies does undermine the US foreign policy. We need only decide whether this is a good or bad
thing and whether the US imperial policies are good for American people, or only for large transnational corporations. I
think Tucker Carlson also undermines the US foreign policy and as such you can find a correlation between his positions and
RT position. Now what ?
Money quote: "the possibility of
an American opposing US warmongering and the political establishment which drives it without
being ordered to by a rubles-dispensing FSB officer was a completely alien idea to them."
Yes, they actually care only in the "politically correct" reason for suppression. So the only new moment is blatant
hypocrisy. But that's how all societies work and in this sense there is nothing special in the fact that dissident voices
are suppressed. In middle ages heretics were burned at the stake.
The situation is interesting because neoliberalism is definitely on the decline and as such represent now (unlike
say 10 year ago) and rich target of attack and as the USA support it neoliberal empire such attacks usually attack the US
foreign policy. The real question is what alternative the particular outlet proposes -- the return to the New Deal
Capitalism in some form or shape, or new socialist experiment is some form of shape.
Notable quotes:
"... CNN knew that Facebook was going to be suspending the pages of her company Maffick Media before she did, suggesting a creepy degree of coordination between the two massive outlets to silence an alternative media platform. ..."
"... the US government has found a legal loophole to suppress speech, in this case speech that is critical of destructive US government policies around the world. ..."
"... Thirdly, and in my opinion weirdest of all, the article goes to great lengths to make the fact that a dissident media outlet supports the same foreign policy positions as Russia look like something strange and nefarious, instead of the normal and obvious thing that it is. ..."
"... the possibility of an American opposing US warmongering and the political establishment which drives it without being ordered to by a rubles-dispensing FSB officer was a completely alien idea to them. ..."
"... Nimmo said the tone of Maffick's pages is 'broadly anti-US and anti-corporate. That's strikingly similar to RT's output. Maffick may technically be independent, but their tone certainly matches the broader Kremlin family.' ..."
"... This is a truly obnoxious mind virus we're seeing the imperial narrative controllers pushing more and more aggressively into mainstream consciousness today : that anyone who opposes the beltway consensus on western interventionism is not simply an individual with a conscience who is thinking critically for themselves, but is actually "boosting the Kremlin narrative" ..."
"... Don't even subscribe to an anti-establishment subreddit. Those things are all Russian. Listen to Big Brother instead. Big Brother will protect you from their filthy Russian lies. ..."
"... "If CNN would like to hire me to present facts against destructive US wars and corporate ownership of our political system, I'll gladly accept," Khalek told me when asked for comment ..."
"... Russian media influence is not their actual target. Their actual target is leftist, antiwar and anti-establishment voices. That's what they're really trying to eliminate. ..."
"... It doesn't take any amount of sympathy for Russia to see that the unipolar empire is toxic for humanity, and most westerners who oppose that toxicity have no particular feelings about Russia any more than they have about Turkey or the Philippines ..."
In an extremely weird article titled " Russia is backing a viral video company aimed at American
millennials ", CNN reports that Facebook has suspended popular dissident media outlet "In
The Now" and its allied pages for failing to publicly "disclose" its financial ties to a
subsidiary of RT.
According to CNN, such disclosures are not and have never been an actual part of Facebook's
official policy, but Facebook has made the exceptional precondition of public disclosure of
financial ties in order for In The Now to return to its platform.
I say the article is extremely weird for a number of reasons.
Firstly , according to In The Now CEO Anissa Naouai, CNN knew that Facebook was going to be
suspending the pages of her company Maffick Media before she did, suggesting a creepy degree of
coordination between the two massive outlets to silence an alternative media platform.
Secondly, the article reports that CNN found out about Maffick's financial ties thanks to a
tip-off from the German Marshall Fund, a narrative control firm which receives funding from the
US government. In The Now 's Rania Khalek has described this tactic as
"a case where the US government has found a legal loophole to suppress speech, in this case
speech that is critical of destructive US government policies around the world."
Thirdly, and in my opinion weirdest of all, the article goes to great lengths to make the
fact that a dissident media outlet supports the same foreign policy positions as Russia look
like something strange and nefarious, instead of the normal and obvious thing that it is.
The article repeatedly mentions the fact that all the people working for In The Now "claim"
to be editorially independent as opposed to being told what to report by Kremlin officials, a
notion which Khalek says was met with
extreme skepticism when she was interviewed for the piece by CNN. As though the possibility of
an American opposing US warmongering and the political establishment which drives it without
being ordered to by a rubles-dispensing FSB officer was a completely alien idea to them.
Check out the following excerpt, for example of this bizarre attitude:
"Ben Nimmo, a senior fellow for information defense at the Atlantic Council's Digital
Forensic Research Lab, told CNN that while Russian state-backed outlets claim to be
editorially independent, 'they routinely boost Kremlin narratives, especially those which
portray the West negatively.'
"Nimmo said the tone of Maffick's pages is 'broadly anti-US and anti-corporate. That's
strikingly similar to RT's output. Maffick may technically be independent, but their tone
certainly matches the broader Kremlin family.' "
This is a truly obnoxious mind virus we're seeing the imperial narrative controllers pushing
more and more aggressively into mainstream consciousness today : that anyone who opposes the
beltway consensus on western interventionism is not simply an individual with a conscience who
is thinking critically for themselves, but is actually "boosting the Kremlin narrative". If you
say it in an assertive and authoritative tone like Mr Nimmo does, it can sound like a perfectly
reasonable position if you don't think about it too hard. If you really look at it directly,
though, what these manipulators are actually saying is "Russia opposes western interventionism,
therefore anyone who opposes western interventionism is basically Russian."
Which is of course a total non-argument. You don't get to just say "Russia bad" for two
years to get everyone riled up into a state of xenophobic hysteria and then say "That's
Russian!" at anything you don't like. That's not a thing. More to the point, though, there is
no causal relationship between the fact that Russia opposes western interventionism and the
fact that many westerners do.
As we
discussed recently , there will necessarily be inadvertent agreement between Russia and
westerners who oppose western interventionism, because Russia, like so many other sovereign
nations, opposes western interventionism. If you discover that an American who opposes US
warmongering and establishment politics is saying the same things as RT, that doesn't mean
you've discovered a shocking conspiracy between western dissidents and the Russian government,
it means people who oppose the same things oppose the same things.
We're seeing this absurd gibberish spouted over and over again by the mainstream media now.
The other day the delightful pro-Sanders subreddit WayOfTheBern was
smeared as a Russian operation by the Washington Times, not because the Washington Times
had any evidence anywhere supporting that claim, but because the subreddit's members are
hostile to Democratic presidential hopefuls other than Sanders, and because its posts
"consistently support positions that would be amenable to the Kremlin." All this means is that
the subreddit is full of people who support Bernie Sanders and oppose US government
malfeasance, yet an entire article was published in a mainstream outlet treating this as
something dangerous and suspicious.
If you really listen to what the CNNs and Ben Nimmos and Washington Timeses are actually
trying to tell you, what they're saying is that it's not okay for anyone to oppose any part of
the unipolar world order or the establishment which runs it . Never ever, under any
circumstances. Don't work for a media outlet that's funded by the Russian government even
though no mainstream outlets will ever platform you. Don't even subscribe to an
anti-establishment subreddit. Those things are all Russian. Listen to Big Brother instead. Big
Brother will protect you from their filthy Russian lies.
"If CNN would like to hire me to present facts against destructive US wars and corporate
ownership of our political system, I'll gladly accept," Khalek told me when asked for
comment.
"But the corporate media doesn't allow antiwar voices a platform. In The Now does. I've
worked for dozens of different outlets, from Vice to Al Jazeera to RT, and my message has
always been the same: leftist, antiwar and pro justice and equality. People should be asking
why US mainstream media outlets that claim to be free and independent refuse to air critical
and adversarial voices like mine."
Why indeed? Actually, if CNN is so worried about Russian media influence in America, all
they'd have to do is put on a few shows featuring leftist, antiwar and pro-justice voices and
that would be the end of it. They could easily out-spend RT by a massive margin, buy up all the
talent like Khalek, Lee Camp and Chris Hedges, put on a sleek, high-budget show and steal RT
America's audience, killing it dead and drawing all anti-establishment energy to their
material.
But they don't. They don't, and they never will. Because Russian media influence is not
their actual target. Their actual target is leftist, antiwar and anti-establishment voices.
That's what they're really trying to eliminate.
So yes, Moscow will of course elevate some western voices who oppose the power establishment
that is trying to undermine and subvert Russia. Those voices will not require any instruction
to speak out against that establishment, since that's what they'd be doing anyway and they're
just grateful to finally have a platform upon which to speak. And it is good that they're
getting a platform to speak. If western power structures have a problem with it, they should
stop universally refusing to platform anyone who opposes the status quo that is destroying
nations abroad and squeezing the life out of citizens at home.
It doesn't take any amount of sympathy for Russia to see that the unipolar empire is toxic
for humanity, and most westerners who oppose that toxicity have no particular feelings about
Russia any more than they have about Turkey or the Philippines. Sometimes Russia will come in
and give them a platform in the void that has been left by the mainstream outlets which are
doing everything they can to silence them. So what? The alternative is all dissident voices
being silenced. The fact that Russia prevents a few of them from being silenced is not the
problem. The problem is that they are being silenced at all.
* * *
Thanks for reading! My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece
please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , throwing some money into my hat on
Patreon or Paypal , purchasing some of my sweet
merchandise , buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin
Johnstone , or my previous book
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . The best way to get around the internet censors
and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website , which will get you an email
notification for everything I publish.
Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard was greeted with a "warm aloha" on the The View
Wednesday morning. But things didn't stay sunny for long.
As the
2020 Democratic presidential candidate began to lay out how her time serving in Iraq has
influenced her non-interventionist foreign policy position, Meghan McCain was just itching to
push back. "Can I interrupt you?" she asked.
After thanking Gabbard for her service, McCain told her, "When I hear the name Tulsi
Gabbard, I think of Assad apologist. I think of someone who comes back to the United States and
is spouting propaganda from Syria." The co-host was referring to a controversial trip Gabbard
made to Syria two years ago. While there, she met
with President Bashar al-Assad and defended him upon her return. More recently, she told
MSNBC's Morning Joe , "Assad is not the enemy of the United States because Syria does
not pose a direct threat to the United States."
"You have said that the Syrian president, Assad, is not the enemy of the United States,"
McCain continued, "yet he's used chemical weapons against his own people 300 times." When she
says that "regime change" would be hurtful to that country but "gassing children isn't more
hurtful, it's hard for me to understand where you would come from a humanitarian standpoint if
you were to become president."
In response, Gabbard accused McCain of "putting words in [her] mouth," but she did not alter
her fundamental stance. Asked to clarify her position, she said, "An enemy of the United States
is someone who threatens our safety and our security."
"There is no disputing the fact that Bashar al-Assad and Syria is a brutal dictator,"
Gabbard added. "There's no disputing the fact that he has used chemical weapons and other
weapons against his people. There are other terrorist groups in Syria who have used similar
chemical weapons and other weapons of terror against the people of Syria."
Tulsi vs. the war propaganda machine of the US government and MIC. It was tough, but she made it (neocons are
just MIC prostitutes; they have zero independent in their views). I wish we have several anti-war candidates for
president, but we have only one and she has all my support.
This idea of ruling the world after the collapse of the USSR the neolib/neocon elite in Washington pushed
for the last 30 years proves to be a disaster for the country. See
Neocon foreign policy is a
disaster for the USA
I hope that all those despicable warmongers (which happen to be women) are chronic alcoholics because that's the only reliable method to
survive when you have no self-esteem and just parrot view of people who pay you money. That's just a different type of
prostitution...
Judging from her appearance, Megan McCain might have problem with substance abuse, though.
Notable quotes:
"... Meghan's father proudly advocated for the regime change wars in Iraq and Libya, both of which resulted in the deaths of millions of innocent civilians and gave rise to ISIS, which is still wreaking havoc in the Middle East today. He also advocated for the arming and funding of "moderate" rebels (a.k.a. terrorists) in Syria in an attempt to overthrow Assad. ..."
"... Wow didn't expect this candidate to tell the truth about America's intervention in the World. So refreshing ! I understand now why Meghan doesn't like her. ..."
McCain is such an angry interviewer... always thinking about her next attacking retort
without actually listening to the answer of a level-headed, thoughtful guest.
It's not Meghan's tough questions, because tough questions are much appreciated, its the
condescension and the juvenile behaviour. Its cringey, sooo cringey.
She made Meghan look so ignorant which she is. They say if you argue with a fool
from a distance no one knows who the fool is we know who the fool is this debate the
undisputed queen of ignorance Meghan McCain.
Meghan's father proudly advocated for the regime change wars in Iraq and Libya, both of
which resulted in the deaths of millions of innocent civilians and gave rise to ISIS, which
is still wreaking havoc in the Middle East today. He also advocated for the arming and
funding of "moderate" rebels (a.k.a. terrorists) in Syria in an attempt to overthrow
Assad.
Wow didn't expect this candidate to tell the truth about America's intervention in the
World. So refreshing ! I understand now why Meghan doesn't like her.
"... Tulsi Gabbard has recently launched a new attack on New World Order agents and ethnic cleansers in the Middle East, and one can see why they would be upset with her ..."
"... Gabbard is smart enough to realize that the Neocon path leads to death, chaos, and destruction. She knows that virtually nothing good has come out of the Israeli narrative in the Middle East -- a narrative which has brought America on the brink of collapse in the Middle East. Therefore, she is asking for a U-turn. ..."
"... The first step for change, she says, is to "stand up against powerful politicians from both parties" who take their orders from the Neocons and war machine. These people don't care about you, me, the average American, the people in the Middle East, or the American economy for that matter. They only care about fulfilling a diabolical ideology in the Middle East and much of the world. These people ought to stop once and for all. Regardless of your political views, you should all agree with Gabbard here. ..."
Tulsi Gabbard has recently launched a new attack on New World Order agents and ethnic
cleansers in the Middle East, and one can see why they would be upset with her. She said:
" We must stand up
against powerful politicians from both parties who sit in their ivory towers thinking up
new wars to wage, new places for people to die, wasting trillions of our taxpayer dollars and
hundreds of thousands of lives and undermining our economy, our security, and destroying our
middle class."
It is too early to formulate a complete opinion on Gabbard, but she has said the right thing
so far. In fact, her record is better than numerous presidents, both past and present.
As we have documented in the past, Gabbard is an Iraq war veteran, and she knew what
happened to her fellow soldiers who died for Israel, the Neocon war machine, and the military
industrial complex. She also seems to be aware that the war in Iraq alone will cost American
taxpayers at least six trillion dollars.
[1] She is almost certainly aware of the fact that at least "360,000 Iraq and Afghanistan
veterans may have suffered brain injuries."
[2]
Gabbard is smart enough to realize that the Neocon path leads to death, chaos, and
destruction. She knows that virtually nothing good has come out of the Israeli narrative in the
Middle East -- a narrative which has brought America on the brink of collapse in the Middle
East. Therefore, she is asking for a U-turn.
The first step for change, she says, is to "stand up against powerful politicians from both
parties" who take their orders from the Neocons and war machine. These people don't care about
you, me, the average American, the people in the Middle East, or the American economy for that
matter. They only care about fulfilling a diabolical ideology in the Middle East and much of
the world. These people ought to stop once and for all. Regardless of your political views, you
should all agree with Gabbard here.
[1] Ernesto Londono, "Study: Iraq, Afghan war costs to top $4 trillion," Washington
Post , March 28, 2013; Bob Dreyfuss, The $6 Trillion Wars," The Nation , March 29,
2013; "Iraq War Cost U.S. More Than $2 Trillion, Could Grow to $6 Trillion, Says Watson
Institute Study," Huffington Post , May 14, 2013; Mark Thompson, "The $5 Trillion War
on Terror," Time , June 29, 2011; "Iraq war cost: $6 trillion. What else could have
been done?," LA Times , March 18, 2013.
[2] "360,000 veterans may have brain injuries," USA Today , March 5, 2009.
"We must stand up against powerful politicians from both parties who sit in their ivory towers thinking up new wars to wage, new
places for people to die, wasting trillions of our taxpayer dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives and undermining our economy,
our security, and destroying our middle class."
"... US soldiers are butchered, maimed and horribly wounded fighting wars on behalf of Israel and Charles Schumer will start screaming about so-called "anti-Semitism" if anyone questions the foreign policy choices of the American Empire's ruling class ..."
...Charles Schumer is a JEW NATIONALIST who uses his power and the
power of the Israel Lobby to get American soldiers to fight wars on behalf of Israel in the
Middle East and West Asia.
US soldiers are butchered, maimed and horribly wounded fighting wars on behalf of Israel and
Charles Schumer will start screaming about so-called "anti-Semitism" if anyone questions the
foreign policy choices of the American Empire's ruling class.
Tulsi is the person who can heal our deeply wounded national psyche due to the idiocy and
ignorance of the Trump Regime. I have the same feeling watching her that I did when I saw
Obama at the 2004 convention, only Tulsi is a progressive where I sadly learned Obama was way
too corporate. I need to live to see Tulsi Gabbard in the White House. It's the same God, the
Force in everything, and nobody should be forced away from their beliefs or non belief. It's
Time To Show People That NOBODY IS NOBODY!
Tulsi Gabbard, one of the very few good politicians. Too much focus on Left and Right
views. It's time for Right and Wrong to come to the fore. Tulsi will try to clean up the mess
that her predecessors have created. Stop the bullshit deep state wars. Sons and daughters
being sacrificed for gas and oil profits. The benefits then ironically never come
I so want to support Tulsi. Shall we ever get a progressive enough candidate to get a real
investigation on the events of 9/11...to determine why the dust of those buildings had
military grade nano thermite, in which all the evidence suggests an intentional demolition of
those towers, and when, oh when will we get a candidate that unequivocally works for all
money out of campaigns and publicly funded elections like our Canadian neighbors.
This is my prediction - Tulsi Gabbard in 2020 election is like what Trump was in 2016
Election. Eventually, Tulsi is going to strike a chord with American people and almost all
Democrats and Independents are going to vote her and few from Trump base is also going to
vote her and eventually elect her as President in 2020 election. This is too early to make
such prediction but I think majority of Americans are very fair minded people and will do the
justice to her by electing her as President.
Tulsi Gabbard is courageous and stands up against her own party regardless of the
political cost. Elizabeth Warren is a coward; she never stands up against her party; she only
fights the easy fights (GOP,Trump). Elizabeth Warren was a college professor she knows the
words the young kids want to listen and she says them often. Mark my words 'Elizabeth Warren
in 2020 will be the Walter Mondale of 1984'
Tulsi Gabbard. She supports Medicare for all and Elizabeth Warren does not. She's also
really pushing the fake Russia story all over MSNBC. Tulsi was the only one who didn't
endorse Hillary.
Liz voted to get rid of Habeas Corpus and we're going to put her up for president now?
Bernie and Liz will certainly maintain the Democratic Party line on the Middle East.
Mike don't be naive. The Democratic Party has learned NOTHING! They'd definitely cheat a
true progressive in 2020. Have you seen ANY changes? Do you hear what their lawyers say about
cheating Sanders on the record?
I'd take Tulsi Gabbard over Elizabeth Warren. Warren showed her true colors. Always too
little too late and she doesn't do it by mistake. Gabbard just does the right thing because
it's right. I don't think Warren could beat Trump. He can poke way too many holes in her.
"... Congress needs to take back the war powers. The fact that no one wants to be the one responsible for deciding to go to war might help slow down if not stop all these regime change wars. Maybe if Congress votes on it enough of them will be reluctant to make a yes vote. ..."
"... how being a mercenary soldier/terrorist in other people's countries, murdering their people and destroying their infrastructure, for military and multinational corporate profits and Wall St., translates to "serving and sacrificing for the people of our country"? How do you make that weird leap in logic? ..."
Foreign policy is more than just war and peace, it is a nuanced and complex issue that
directly affects us here at home. In this interview, Dr. Jane Sanders sits down with
Representative Tulsi Gabbard to talk about U.S. foreign policy and how it affects us here at
home.
Tulsi this is the first I've explored who you are. This conversation felt like a life
giving refreshment. The constant war and regime change policy of every administration since I
was a young child has been utterly confounding. We are bankrupting our society and
civilization with military expenditure exactly like a life destroying heroin addict except
it's on a global scale. These people in the powers that be together with the masses that back
them are literal sociopaths and they're entirely in control at both the highest and base
levels. The only other time I've felt as nourished by a public figure that somehow pierced
through the mainstream media was Bernie Sanders actually expressing the fact that we are an
oligarchy not a democracy. Like oligarchy, anti-war and imperialism is just not talked about.
US Americans won't acknowledge the scale of our imperialism.
Tulsi should run and both Sanders should follow her lead. As much as I love him, Bernie's
too old to be president - when it gets to the stage against Trump, we need a young, vibrant
face. Add onto that the fact that she's a veteran who actually asked to be deployed in
comparison to him, a draft dodger - he looks like an old fat pathetic septogenarian next to
an early 40s real populist. Ultimately it is up to Sanders whether this whole thing is about
a man or a movement. If he runs, he'll probably win the primary but it is not a guarantee
that he'd win - Tulsi would win and she'd be around for decades to come as a standard barer
too.
"Sensible politics" seems to be an oxymoron these days and pretty much throughout the
history of our country. It's so refreshing to see a politician who has a vision for the
future that the majority of us can get behind. It scares me though. I've read quite a bit
about JFK the past few years, and he amassed a number of very powerful and dangerous enemies.
They won't just stand by and allow someone in a position of influence to get the truth out
about our immoral and illegal wars. Tulsi, I support your efforts to bring peace to the
Middle East and elsewhere, but please do be careful. You're a fighter and I admire that, but
we all want you to be safe and healthy for many years to come.
Tulsi Gabbard, I am thrilled to have someone like you running for president. I am a fellow
Veteran dealing with disability and I am glad to have a candidate who understands the issues
Veterans are dealing with. I also realize that the voting public will support the person who
resonates with their personal lives and issues that don't exist in their life they will
disregard.Thank you for you're support.
The DNC will lie cheat and steal the election from Tulsi Gabbard just like they did Bernie
Sanders, and the 15 million Americans who Left the un-Democratic party will double and
triple....DEMEXIT
Tulsi Gabbard needs to be the president of the United States of America period. If she not
the president of our country will not survive. That is a fact, how stupid can our government
be. I guess very stupid, what else can I say. We don't hear that in main news media, the
reason we do hear it the media . The news media is totally brought, the main news media love
money and the devil, simple as that. How are you going to hear about wars from main news
media. They do care about the citizens or the country. We really don't have a real news
media, it all propaganda. All fake news, that why one doesn't hear anything from the new
medias.
Congress needs to take back the war powers. The fact that no one wants to be the one
responsible for deciding to go to war might help slow down if not stop all these regime
change wars. Maybe if Congress votes on it enough of them will be reluctant to make a yes
vote.
WAKE UP, PEOPLE! Bernie is a sell-out - a sheeple-herder that never intended to win. He
was a gatekeeper for Hillary because she is AIPAC-beloved and he is an Israel-firster. He
threw his supporters under the bus as they told him in real time that the nomination was
being stolen. He's part of the con, and the sooner we realize this, the better off we'll be.
BERNIE WORKS FOR DEMOCRATS. Vote Third Party (REAL third parties, not the Bernie Sanders'
kind).
Kinky, 2 months ago
Tulsi - re your comment about our veterans who have "served and sacrificed for their country," could you clarify how
being a mercenary soldier/terrorist in other people's countries, murdering their people and destroying their infrastructure,
for military and multinational corporate profits and Wall St., translates to "serving and sacrificing for the people of our
country"? How do you make that weird leap in logic?
Jimmy, the whole Tulsi interview was a clinic on real journalism. It's efforts from TJDS
like this that make me wish I had more $ to give to the show than I do. Thank you for the
great work! And, while I was already a big supporter of Tulsi Gabbard, the way she spoke
honestly & addressed some tough questions & uncomfortable truths about the party
(& capitalism- that's what buying off pols is, an aspect of capitalism) just sent her
credibility sky high with me. Thank you Tulsi, & thank you Jimmy & the crew at TJDS.
Well done!
This entire interview, was nothing short of brilliant. Tulsi is the real deal. When Jimmy
mentions her & Bernie start a new party, her face said it all. She seemed genuinely
flattered and became very humble. Wish there was a "Tulsi Gabbard" in all 50 states. She
gives hope to people. Peace. And, thank you.
I hate to say it, but I remember another progressive politician who said all the right
things, at the right time: Barack Obama. I drank up that kool aid by the gallon, and voted
for him twice. Will Gabbard emerge from her first briefing as POTUS as a Stepford Wife of the
MIC, as Obama did? Will it be "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" yet again? By 2013,
specifically after Ukraine and vilification of Snowden (not to mention Libya, Syria,
Iraq/ISIS, Afghanistan, Guantanamo, etc) I vowed to never vote for a Democrat again, after
pulling the lever for dems my entire life. I would vote for Gabbard as an independent in a
hot second, but unfortunately have no hope for her or her seemingly progressive agenda if she
stays tied to the corrupt and warmongering DNC.
Wow, I absolutely love every point she made, what a breath of fresh air. Our less popular presidents that have lost their second
term elections have lost them because.. their opponent was a breath of fresh air. She's going to win by an embarrassing margin,
wish her the best!
Tulsi Gabbard is a really next-level politician. Any amateur can be a traditional US racist
politician, but it takes skill to succeed in America as a Hindu-nationalist racist / tankie
Assad apologist.
A very interesting interview. You need to listed to it in full to appreciates. Probably best interviewer so far interviewed
Tulsi, and Tulsi is really impressive. Cool, definitely high intellect, deep understanding of current US problems
Notable quotes:
"... I'm not a Democrat. I would vote for this person. Just saying. Elizabeth Warren didn't even support Bernie while Tulsi resigned to support Bernie ..."
"... Intellectually gifted. Well prepared. Emotionally stable. Able to change her ideas as life goes on, taking each issue as it comes. Vs a bunch of 70 year old maniacs who have never told the truth, never served, and have made deal with the devil to get where they are. Game over ..."
"... If the establishment weren't smearing her, I wouldn't trust her. They are, which means that she'll fight for working people, and against the neoconservative chickenhawks! ..."
"... Tulsi is the General Smedley Butler of today, someone who knows how war works and is brave enough to tell the truth. Please read his short book "War Is A Racket". Even though it was written in the 30's, as long as things are this way, it'll never go out of style. ..."
"... Let's put our egos aside and work together as citizens! Tell your friends to do the same to overthrow corporate establishment Kamala ..."
I'm a libertarian and love hearing Tulsi!! She's the antithesis of Hillary. Only dem I would support in 2020. Agree 100% with
her foreign policy views.
Combat vet, Currently serving in the Guard, rank of Major. Intellectually gifted. Well prepared. Emotionally stable. Able to change
her ideas as life goes on, taking each issue as it comes. Vs a bunch of 70 year old maniacs who have never told the truth, never
served, and have made deal with the devil to get where they are. Game over
B. Greene, 1 week ago
If the establishment weren't smearing her, I wouldn't trust her. They are, which means that she'll fight for working
people, and against the neoconservative chickenhawks!
Howard Sexton, 2 months ago
Damn! I am republican but she has my vote 🗳! I have never heard a politician talk this long without blaming the opposing
party. Just impressed
Zwart Poezeke, 1 week ago
Man she's smart, critical and actually comes off as honest. She really would be an inspiring leader. Guys I'm from Belgium,
so I can't vote, but do me a favor and vote for her
a_g60, 2 weeks ago
Tulsi Gabbard is the ultimate woman. That's why the DNC is colluding against her.
she's articulate and highly educated
she's extremely attractive
she was a combat medic
she's young
she has a great family
she gets all the attention of men
she's presidential
This is what a candidate looks like. Take notes!
Matthew Mauldon, 1 month ago
She is amazing and I would vote for her as president. It is very disturbing how she sheds light on how Saudi Arabia uses
our us military and how Saudi Arabia murdered many innocents and we said nothing and continue to support them. Also the level
of corruption of our politicians and how they mis use our troops without a care in the world. We need to wake up folks this is
not right
The Scapegoat Mechanism, 1 month ago
Obama was the thesis. Trump was the antithesis. Gabbard will be the synthesis.
Chris Jones, 5 months ago
I absolutely adore this woman. She gave up her Vice chair position in the DNC when she saw they were stealing the
nomination from Bernie. That's integrity.
Paul Peart-Smith, 1 week ago
Tulsi is the General Smedley Butler of today, someone who knows how war works and is brave enough to tell the truth.
Please read his short book "War Is A Racket". Even though it was written in the 30's, as long as things are this way, it'll
never go out of style.
algo, 5 days ago
See Joe, this woman has INTEGRITY, unlike that zionist warmongering shill Bari Weiss regurgitating her fed opinions which
she didn't even know the meaning of!
savita purohit, 2 months ago
this is what 1st female president of US should be like, not Clinton or that virtue signaling Warren, not Nikki either
Ryan Hamilton, 1 day ago (edited)
I'm a conservative, Republican, combat vet. I would follow her into combat. I would vote for her because she's a
pragmatist, puts America first, is skeptical of US foreign policy, and stands up for the little guy. There is some remarkable
overlap between the anti establishment populist left and anti establishment populist right.
Loro sono umano, 2 days ago
Don't forget to change party to Democrat to vote her in the primaries if you're Green, libertarian, independent, or
conservative, even if its temporary. Let's put our egos aside and work together as citizens! Tell your friends to do the
same to overthrow corporate establishment Kamala. Dont let the establishment get their way
Chico Christe Pace, 1 week ago
damn, I never thot there is an American politician who thinks this way. she sees the whole picture and made sense to it.
this lady is kick ass! :) you guys shd keep voting for her :) put her on the top seat, she can be the real hope for the US of
A :)
bestrainingtechnique, 4 months ago
So let me get this straight I don't know much about this woman, but from what I've seen in this interview she seems to be
very intelligent, rational, experienced, has military experience, extremely well spoken, and doesn't trust the mainstream
media and realizes that there are elements of our government that are basically unhinged and looking for war?? And is there
anyone on earth that wouldn't vote for her as president??? Would we really rather have an orange face reality star buffoon or
a war mongering lunatic who has no real experience except being married to a former president?
I really hope she runs as an independent, I think she would win in a landslide, since I think it is the perfect time in our
country where I think a non-Republican or Democrat can definitely win! The two party system needs to go!
Skemoo, 1 week ago
I came back after MSM and Jews started smearing her including Sam Harris. I cant sense any form of malevolence or evil in
her words or body language.. she seems like a sweet empathetic lady.
Im fuking angry that these ppl are smearing her. Im not an american but you ppl better wake the fuk up and vote her into
office i think she is fit to be the first female president. Hope Rogan doesnt do 180 and betray her . im surprized Sam harris
hates her.
David Paley, 1 week ago
If they can keep everyone in need of working 3 jobs just to make ends meet, and make healthcare too expensive to afford
proper care, the people will always be too busy, tired, and worn-out, to actively participate in the electoral process; the
only thing that might change things for the better. The elites know exactly what they're doing, so now they see this woman as
an existential threat, and the smear campaigns have already begun. I hope the sensible people in your country can support her
as much as she is trying to support you. Good luck in 2020, both to Tulsi, and America.
Tulsi Gabbard's platform
is closely aligned with Senator Bernie Sanders' platform – the platform supported by millions and millions of American working class
during his 2016 presidential campaign.
In fact, one of two things are most likely to happen next:
Tulsi Gabbard remains true to her ideals and views and she gets no money for her campaign Tulsi Gabbard caves in to the Neocons and
the Deep State and she become another Obama/Trump
Okay, in theory, a third option is possible (never say never!) but I see that as highly unlikely: Tulsi Gabbard follows in the
footsteps of Trump and gets elected in spite of a massive media hate-campaign against her and once she makes it to the White House
she does what Trump failed to do and appeals directly to the people of the USA to back her in a ruthless campaign to "drain the swamp"
(meaning showing the door to the Neocons and their Deep State). This is what Putin did, at least partially, when he came to power,
by the way. Frankly, for all her very real qualities she does not strike me as a "US Putin" nor does she have the kind of institutional
and popular backing Putin had. So while I will never say never, I am not holding my breath on this one
Finally, if Gabbard truly is "for real" then the Deep State will probably "Kennedy" her and blame Russia or Iran for it.
Still, while we try to understand what, if anything, Tulsi Gabbard could do for the world, she does do good posting messages like
this one:
I don't know about you, but I am rather impressed!
At the very least, she does what "Occupy Wall Street" did with its "1%" which was factually wrong. The actual percentage is much
lower but politically very effective. In this case, Gabbard speaks of both parties being alike and she popularizes concepts like
" warmongers in ivory towers thinking up new wars to wage and new places for people to die ". This is all very good and useful
for the cause of peace and anti-imperialism because when crimethink concepts become mainstream, then the mainstream is collapsing
!
The most important achievement of Tulsi Gabbard, at least so far, has been to prove that the so-called "liberals" don't give a
damn about race, don't give a damn about gender, don't give a damn about minorities, don't give a damn about "thanking our veterans"
or anything else. They don't even care about Israel all that much. But what they do care about is power, Empire and war. That they
really care about.
Tulsi Gabbard is the living proof that the US Democrats and other pretend "liberals" are hell bent on power, empire and war. They
also will stop at nothing to prevent the USA from (finally!) becoming a "normal" country and they couldn't care less about the fate
of the people of the USA. All they want is for us all to become their serfs.
All of this is hardly big news. But this hysterical reaction to Gabbard's candidacy is a very powerful and useful proof of the
fact that the USA is a foreign-occupied country with no real sovereignty or democracy. As for the US media, it would make folks like
Suslov or Goebbels green with envy. Be it
the ongoing US aggression
against Venezuela or the reaction to the Tulsi Gabbard phenomenon, the diagnostics concur and we can use the typical medical
euphemism and say with confidence: "the prognosis is poor".
In fact, one of two things are most likely to happen next:
– Tulsi Gabbard remains true to her ideals and views and she gets no money for her campaign
– Tulsi Gabbard caves in to the Neocons and the Deep State and she become another Obama/Trump
I think it is unlikely that Tulsi Gabbard caves in so soon. The way she has started her campaign, she is certainly aware that
she has cut off herself from the normal donors of Democrats, and the way she talks shows that she is not afraid of alienating
them even more because she won't get money from them, anyway. The plan is to do the same like Bernie Sanders 2016 and raise small
donations. Many Democratic candidates now say they don't take PAC money, but there are different ways of getting money from big
donors – Tulsi Gabbard is probably one of those who are more serious about avoiding reliance on big donors. It could work. In
2016, during the primaries, Hillary Clinton regularly had to interrupt her campaign in order to attend dinners with superrich
donors, while Bernie Sanders asked people to donate as a part of his campaign on social media, and Sanders regularly outraised
Clinton. Of course, 2016, we just saw that for the primaries, but it might also work for the general election (and numbers are
not everything, Hillary Clinton spent far more than Donald Trump and still lost, so even if small donations would lead to a somewhat
lower sum, she could still win with a popular message). And not only could it work, I think it would be the only way for Tulsi
Gabbard to succeed because she has probably already been too outspoken about some things to ever gain back the trust of the neocons
and their allies in the media and the billionaire donor class.
Of course, if Tulsi Gabbard advances in the primaries, she will be attacked most viciously in the media. I am not so sure what
the effect will be. On one hand, Trump's victory in the primaries and the general election showed that being hated by mainstream
media does not have to be an obstacle that cannot be surmounted, and as long as there are so many primary candidates, such vicious
attacks can also make her seem more interesting to some people. On the other hand, her main hurdle are probably the Democratic
primaries, and, according to polls, Democrats have lost trust in the mainstream media to a lesser degree than the general public.
But then again, vilifying her too much in the liberal media (as it has already started) is also a certain risk for them because
it could become too obvious to see that the decisive feature that leads to such attacks is that someone is not seen as reliably
pro-neocon, and that could also lead to doubts about the media in leftists who readily accepted the attacks on Trump because they
hated him for other reasons. Therefore, I think the main hope of the establishment is that Tulsi Gabbard can be treated as a „minor
candidate" and won't get far, in case she becomes a serious contender for the nomination, they are in trouble.
If Tulsi Gabbard wins the nomination, we can almost be certain that the pro-neocon establishment will a) see a re-election
of Trump as the lesser evil and b) they will support a pro-establishment third party candidate (already last time, Michael Bloomberg
threatened to run if the two major candidates are Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, now Howard Schultz seems to have positioned
himself that way, though I think he is too ridiculous and ineffective and will be replaced by someone else if the establishment
needs a third party candidate because they lose the Democratic primaries). Such a third party candidate probably increases the
chances of Trump's re-election (probably a desired side-effect, many of these liberal oligarchs probably prefer Trump to Gabbard
and Sanders by far, but it would be difficult for them to support Trump in public, supporting a third party candidate is much
easier), but a populist campaign against both Trump and that third party candidate as representatives of a corrupt billionaire
class might well be successful.
Then, if Tulsi Gabbard is elected, she certainly runs the risk of ending like JFK, but the fact that so many people now already
talk and write about this risk might also protect her to some degree – the danger is so obvious that many people won't believe
theories about a lonewolf terrorist easily (and blaming Russia and Iran after Tulsi Gabbard had been vilified as an Assadist and
Russian trolls' favorite candidate would also be difficult, if for some reasons relations with Saudi Arabia are not seen as so
important any more, the more realistic option of blaming Saudi terrorists may be chosen). Another option would be to impeach her,
though that could also be a big risk for the establishment, and depending on who would be her VP, it would not be enough. Of course,
there could be bipartisan agreement about blocking all of her initiatives.
Even if she is extremely smart and tough, alone against the united forces of the deep state, establishment media and the bipartisan
war party, Tusli Gabbard probably could not achieve very much – of course, she would still be commander in chief and probably
could prevent new wars, and she could open some people's eyes about who really holds power, but she could hardly achieve very
much. The question is whether she still might get some institutional support like Putin when he became president. I think that
is not so unlikely because there are indications that the deep state is internally divided (one small example is that the communications
of Lisa Page and Peter Strzok were published) and that the neocons' grip on power is far from total. Therefore, it does not seem
impossible that with a combination of support in the general public (and she certainly has the potential of becoming very popular)
and the support of parts of the deep state that have not been subdued by the neocons, she might be successful – it would be a
very harsh power struggle.
As far as caving in to Israel is concerned, Tulsi Gabbard has never been too critical of Israel – there was some relatively
mild criticism of attacks on Gaza (in a way that is fairly common among progressives), but in general, she has not been too critical
of Israel and has also had some friendly contacts with the pro-Israel lobby. So, while she is very strong and consistent in rejecting
neocons and their regime change wars, as far as Israel and Palestinians' rights are concerned, people should probably not expect
too much from her. But if she is serious about fighting the neocons and limiting the power of the military-industrial complex
and still could win an election, that would already be a big achievement.
After witnessing the temper tirades and the teeth gnashing of the deep states media minions after the anti-war-lite Donald Trump
got elected, I'm guessing Tulsi Gabbard is in for one of two things:
1) The 2012 Ron Paul treatment – total media blackout
Or
2) A media Blitzkrieg that will depend on outright lies to discredit her – in which case she might as well bring a hat and a broom
to most debates.
I don't think American Democracy(AKA Empire) is in any mood for another spoiler
By the way, check out how Rep. Ilhan Omar grills that sorry SOB Abrams here:
http://thesaker.is/rep-ilhan-omar-vs-elliott-abrams/
. This young lady clearly has more courage and integrity that all her colleagues taken together!
This is one of the few things I agree with Ilhan Omar about. Abrams is a felonious, warmongering prick.
She is very photogenic. So is Kamala Harris.
Projecting an anti-war position against promoting the bonafides of her army service will be quite the balancing act of cognitive
dissonance, but opposite the hyper-masculine affect a candidate like Trump or Hillary must emote to neutralize an absence of military
experience in their résumé.
Then there's that first husband and her family's political machine.
But damn, Tulsi and Kamala photograph impeccably well from every angle.
What are the chances outside of India that three potential presidential candidates of the female persuasion all share a common
ethnic background, Nimrata Haley, Tulsi and Kamala? No coincidence there.
Finding all this information below takes less time than burning a cigarette.
United Christians for Israel, founded and led by pastor John Hagee, have millions of members and call themselves "the largest
pro-Israel charity in the United States." The organization was an important factor in the decision of US President Donald Trump
in 2017 to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and to transfer the US embassy there.
Gabbard sponsored the resolution of the Congress criticizing Amnesty International for revealing Israeli atrocities against
civilians in his blitzkrieg in Gaza in 2014. The resolution stated that Israel "focuses on terrorist targets" and "goes to extraordinary
efforts to attack only terrorist actors". https://www.counterpunch.org/2014/10/22/gaza-and-the-bi-partisan-war-on-human-rights/
Zionism and Islamophobia Gabbard have gained recognition and support from all kinds of unpalatable characters – like right-wing
billionaire and Zionist Sheldon Adelson, who loudly declared that "all Muslims are terrorists".
In addition to Israel's loyal defender, Gabbard has also proved to be a credible servant of Adelson's business interests. Introduced
regulations against online gambling to protect the casino's empire from competition on the Internet. Adelson thanked her, giving
her the Champion of Freedom award. http://time.com/3695948/sheldon-adelson-online-gambling/
Her prejudices against Islam directly stem from her Hindu fundamentalism. Gabbard became one of the main American political
supporters of Narendra Modi, the leader of the Hindu sectarian party Bharatiya Janata (BJP) and the current Prime Minister of
India.
Being the main minister of the Indian state of Gujarat in 2002, Modi helped spark a pogrom against Muslims, in which they killed
2,000 people and displaced over 200,000 people in the ethnic cleansing campaign. Since his victory in the 2014 elections, Modi
has been a decidedly pro-Israeli Indian politician and has strong relations with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
At the invitation of Modi, Gabbard traveled through India for three weeks during which various Hindu fundamentalists greeted
her as their American master. In probably the worst part of the tour, the India Foundation, a formation tuned to the Hindu fascist
group Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), hosted Gabbard to discuss the future of Indian-American relations. After the reactionary
lovefest, the Indian newspaper Telegraph called it "the American Sangha mascot" https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/sangh-finds-a-mascot-in-american-tulsi/cid/1579985
After returning to the USA, Gabbard defended Modi against any criticism. She was one of the few democrats who spoke against
the federal government's decision to refuse a Modi visa in 2014 because of his abolition of religious freedom
As with other leading liberal democrats, Gabbard's alleged progressive values do not extend to the Palestinian struggle for
freedom. While she may support the resistance of Indian Native at Standing Rock, she will not support the indigenous people of
Palestine and her struggle for self-determination against Israeli colonialism. http://socialistworker.org/2014/08/13/liberal-champions-of-apartheid
Yawn. Tulsi, Bernie, Corbyn – doesn't matter. The ruling elites have the power to co-opt, demonize or kill them. And, that regime
is desperate enough to do this.
We are all waiting for the tectonic impact of some external shocks. Because the system is fragile, over-ripe. Collapse of debt
bubbles, an infectious disease epidemic, a rogue general fires off some nukes. Whatever. Just passes the Global Tipping Point,
then, everything disintegrates. The centre cannot hold. And at that point the tensions release and people go nuts. The regime
divides against itself; the roof falls in. The whole world is waiting, expecting this to happen in some way or form.
Go and max out your credit card, get hard stuff, don't pay, stop buying anything. A few millions doing that. Empty your bank
account. Stop paying your mortgage and car loan. Make them chase you. Work to precipitate the Big One. Help tear the fabric beyond
its tensile strength. Do your bit.
Don't expect to see Tulsi on your side of the barricades.
@Rich1234
Nimrata Randhawa Haley is of Punjabi Sikh ancestry on both sides, genetically closer to southern Europeans than to most Indians.
Kamala Harris is descended from South Indian brahmins on her mother's side. You can't get more Aryan than that – look up the
word. And she is Jamaican on her father's side. I haven't seen a picture of him but I imagine he's about as black as fellow Jamaican
Colin Powell. An octoroon to use that old-fashioned term. But Negro blood was considered so polluting that just a smidgeon put
you with the lower race. It's still working like that, but in victim politics less is more.
Tulsi Gabbard had a WASP mother who became a member of Swami Bhaktivedanta's Krishna devotees. Her father was Polynesian. There's
no genes from India. It's a mistake to think of her religion as Hindu, but it's her mistake as well as that of many Indians. Hinduism
is not *a* religion because Hinduism is the liberating realization that the idea of *a* religion is very shallow. It is a pleasure
to see Tulsi, in videos, going about her devotions.
.. "drain the swamp" (meaning showing the door to the Neocons and their Deep State). This is what Putin did, at least partially,
when he came to power, by the way.
a good article, overall.
Especially:
USA "liberals" do not refer to folks with liberal ideas, but to folks who are hell-bent on imperialism and war; folks who
don't care one bit about any real "liberal" values and who use a pseudo-liberal rhetoric to advocate for war outside the USA
and for a plutocratic dictatorship inside the USA.
Apparently, US public figures like Gabbard and Trump still don't understand the simple fact that NO amount of grovelling
will EVER appease the Neocons or the Ziolobby
the so-called "liberals" don't give a damn about race, don't give a damn about gender, don't give a damn about minorities,
don't give a damn about "thanking our veterans" or anything else. They don't even care about Israel all that much. But what
they do care about is power, Empire and war. That they really care about.
It's interesting to see the prompt [13] Democrat party oppo based on the "right-wing Indian agent" smear. It's exactly analogous
to Democrat/CIA attack on "Russian puppet" Trump, when Democrats had absolutely nothing to offer in lieu of a famous loathsome
TV asshole they hand-picked to beat like a drum and then lost to.
If it were the case that Tulsi were an Indian fifth-column traitor, like Rubio is a Israeli fifth-column traitor, So what?
Objective indicators of world-standard state responsibilities show that the state of India is more developed, more legitimate,
and more entitled to responsible sovereignty than the US government. India exceeds US performance on most of the top-level human
rights indicators.
You can see for yourself, in whatever level of detail you desire, with NGO input exhaustively compiled by elected independent
international experts acting in their personal capacity.
Tulsi's exposure to superior Indian human-rights compliance is likely to build her capacity in terms of Responsibility to Protect
Pillar 2. She will have a better understanding of rights and rule of law than provincial goober candidates with no international
exposure. That will necessarily influence her evolving stance on systematic and widespread Israeli extermination of Palestinian
indigenous peoples.
I have never voted for a Democrat. I plan to vote for Gabbard. I have contributed to her campaign. I cringe at her progressive
agenda, but I fully support her positions on non-intervention.
@der einzige
Hope is such a frail and tenuous emotion.
That said, l'm investing some of my dwindling reserves of hope in Tulsi. Your comments are very considered, and l share your concerns
for peace with the current play of Theo-politics. Modi is an unapologetic Hindu chauvinist who has successfully incited brutal
communalism for electoral gain. But my personal loathing of him has ameliorated over time (I shock myself!) because he has steered
a pretty independent course for India, maintaining friendly relations with China for example,despite U.S. pressure to use India
as a wedge. His Hinduva ideology appears to be a domestic political tool. This is a cunning but pragmatic approach and is distinct
from a religious ideology with global ambitions. The latter is the province of Zionism which is not really a religion but has
(other) religious affiliations or "allies",including Hinduism but most importantly Christian zionism (or evangelicism or dispensationalism
et al). It seems to me that a lot of what Trump is doing re. "Jerusalem as the capital of Israel" is to appease the Christian
Zionists who comprise a large chunk of his support base, and not American Jewry.(They are democrats as a foregone conclusion).There
is great irony in this if you follow the fantastical narrative of the Christian evangelical apocalypse.
Political ambitions are the scourge of religion.I attend an Anglican Church,very traditional, because my preferred form of worship
is hymn singing-the sung mass for Eucharist.I do this in contradistinction(!) to evangelicism. Unfortunately Islam too undergone
a political makeover in recent history which has led to un utter corruption of prophet Mohammad's words.It's apogee is Wahhabism,
a fad made manifest through money and power and war. Shia is also Islam, but not according to Wahhabis,who do not even relate
to Shia as "self-hating Moslems."And do not imagine that the Moslem brotherhood is any better for all the acceptable styling.
Sunnism needs to detach itself from ideology.God is in the poetry and not the small print.
Thanks for your patience with my digression. The Saker suggests we examine the Tulsi phenomenon as a diagnostic tool.
This may be useful. But Tulsi as a Hindi wooden horse?
She cannot be anti war without being anti Israel. Her candidacy is going nowhere.
It would be nice to have an anti war voice in the debates but Gabbard will be adrift in a sea of idiots. How many candidates
will there be for the Democratic nomination? Twenty? Eighty? All of them competing for who hates whitey the most. Featuring as
a side show Biden and Bernie expressing their shame at their skin color.
If Gabbard wants to be heard she should switch parties and primary Trump. Let him defend his Israel first foreign policy.
She is the only prominent politician in the commander-in-chief discussion who has served in Iraq or Afghanistan. Is there a poll
on her standing with the military demographic? An argument can be made that her credibility on fighting more war or fighting less
war is an order of magnitude higher than a dozen Trumps, Clintons, et al all put together.
She has seen firsthand the pointlessness of the waste of blood and treasure. How can you root against Gabbard? She is near
the only elected official to get any positive press at anitwar.com.
I have a somewhat contrary analysis although admittedly, it's not based on much.
Tulsi's speech patterns closely resemble Hillary Clinton's. I put this down to various leadership classes they attended which
likely have a common source. I think we are seeing a divergence of opinion in the Deep State with some wanting Globalism, while
others are unwilling to accept the destruction of the United States as a price for Globalism. Call them the Fortress America
wing of the Deep State. They want to rebuild America and preserve its wealth and autonomy while moving toward a world government.
In other words, Tulsi could emerge as the candidate of the MAGA section of the Deep State.
As for Trump, he is waist deep in the Swamp fighting for his life against pretty much everybody. If Omar had her way he would
be impeached. Trump's support among Republicans is the only thing keeping from being impeached. His partisan attacks are probably
designed to signal his willingness to lead the fight for Republicans, hoping they will defend him in return.
You make such a convincing case that you've painted yourself into a corner. Your point is that the Ziocons or whatever you call
them are so bent on war and empire that they'll destroy anyone who tries to get in their way.
To be credible, because your claim is so extreme, you'd need to explain the abnormal psychology that drives this will to domination.
Can you do that? If not, your article -- and a number of your others -- come off as routine Jew- and liberal-bashing. The bashing
may or may not be deserved depending on your point of view. But that would be all it is: standard prejudice and bigotry in what
you seem to take as a good cause.
We see from where we've been. I supported Ron Paul. He was ignored, and then cheated.
Voting for Washington wannabes is like watching just the "good programs" on TV, or patronizing the non-disgusting movies that
manage to emerge from Hollywood. Those doing so endorse and prop up the tottering, rotten Establishment.
Another very important thing Tulsi is doing is being a completely different person from Trump but hammering home the same Trump
campaign message against the war-lusting elites.
If it wasn't for her, the media and elite mafia could marginalize this entire argument. They'll never let the population vote
on these points because then, the jig will be up.
A media blackout of Tulsi will only work if people continue to get their information from the boob tube and newspapers. Why is
anyone still expecting to get the truth from the MSM? Anyone with half a brain and an internet connection should be able to follow
her. Tell all of your grandparents, uncles, and other old fogies to throw away CNN, NYT, Fox, WaPo, NBC, etc. and find the truth
online.
@jacques
sheete The Anti-federalist's never had a chance, nor would Aloha Tulsi. The Boston tea party itself was a false flag attempting
to pass blame on to the Indians. How typically American. Lexington was caused by the that same Sam Adams and his free masons from
the green dragon, who were firing at both the British and the Militia's, just like they did in Maidan 5 years ago. The US revolution
in 1776 was just another Masonic color revolution on behalf of the Rothschild's. These are the same guys who killed Kennedy and
pulled off 9/11. Now they have Trump 100% corralled and black balled, and he is one of them anyway.
That was when Wonder Woman Tulsi came surfin' into the Washington swamp, all ready to drain it.
True – "The most important achievement of Tulsi Gabbard, at least so far, has been to prove that the so-called "liberals" don't
give a damn about race, don't give a damn about gender, don't give a damn about minorities, don't give a damn about "thanking
our veterans" or anything else. They don't even care about Israel all that much. But what they do care about is power, Empire
and war. That they really care about. Tulsi Gabbard is the living proof that the US Democrats and other pretend "liberals" are
hell bent on power, empire and war."
The average Liberal voter thinks that Conservatives love Empire while Liberals oppose empires. Likewise, the average Middle
American Republican voter thinks America is anything but the new British Empire and that America is always fighting against those
bad empires and so must be very active globally to do good and prevent even worse bad.
True – "As for the US media, it would make folks like Suslov or Goebbels green with envy."
The Anglo-Zionist Empire: the inherent fruit of Anglo-Saxon Puritanism that was not stopped dead in its tracks.
It will get worse before it can get better. It cannot be corrected without a rejection of WASP culture, which is replaced with
an authentically Christian culture.
Tulsi Gabbard presents bill to stop Trump from pulling out of INF treaty
Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard has introduced a bill to Congress which would prevent President Donald Trump
from withdrawing the US from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF).
Speaking at a press conference on Friday morning, Gabbard said that Trump's decision to pull out of the 1988 treaty was
"reckless," was "exacerbating a new Cold War" with Russia, and could spark another arms race.
"Walking away from this agreement doesn't solve our problems, it makes them worse. It doesn't bring us closer to peace,
it moves us closer to war," she said.
I am hoping that Gabbard is the next president because it would mean Hindus beat Jews to the White House, and if she serves a
full term she will be the first nonprotestant* president to serve a full term, take that Catholics. She will be sworn in with
her hand on the Bhagavad Gita, bah ha hah ha. The Evangelicals will go berserk (I hope). She declared herself Hindu as a teen,
was she baptized?
* Jimmy Carter was 'born again' so he might be the first non main line Protestant or even nonProtestant.
@JL
I think both the anti-war Left and anti-war Right are sizeable and growing. Speaking of the Dissident Right, which I am more in
tune with, we just need a courageous leader to rally around. Right now the Dissident Right is more reliably anti-war than any
other faction.
But, really, the dissident right is not doctrinaire right at all as they are against Big Business and reject Libertarianism.
Tulsi probably doesn't even want the open support of the dissident right (very few are racist white supremacists, although the
media has tarred us all with that brush)...
@Biff1) The 2012 Ron Paul treatment – total media blackout
Or
2) A media Blitzkrieg that will depend on outright lies to discredit her – in which case she might as well bring a hat and a broom
to most debates.
But what about social media? The MSM mostly ignored Bernie Sanders but he got a huge boost.
I think the real problem with Tulsi is she comes across as too calm for politics. She's not low-energy like Jeb, but she lacks
fire.
Also, I'm not sure most progs would be interested in her anti-war platform. They liked Bernie because his message was mostly
domestic: Free Stuff!
Americans are anti-war only when too many Americans are getting killed overseas. In the Obama yrs, the US perfected a new way
of Open Borders War where US uses proxies to destroy other nations. So, most Americans don't care.
@Robert
Bruce It's the same 'bait and switch' strategy, that occurs every 4 years. Why change a strategy when the old one works so
well? To date, Trump holds the record for fooling the largest number of people, with anti-war candidate, John Kerry coming in
a distant 2nd.
I suppose there is also a fourth option: Tulsi Gabbard keeps her no-war stance, and follows in the footsteps of Trump and gets
elected in spite of a massive media hate-campaign against her and once she makes it to the White House she does what Trump did
and caves.
Every soldier knows this simple fact: If you don't know your enemy, you will not be able to defeat him. Tulsi
Gabbard Simple , Soldier , Enemy "'Knives are out': Hawaii Dem faces backlash for taking on Obama over 'Islamist' extremism".
Interview with Malia Zimmerman, www.foxnews.com. February 28, 2015.
Through my time in the military and my deployments, I have recognized the importance of having a Commander in Chief who will
not only go after those who threaten the safety and security of the American people, but who will also exercise good judgment
and foresight in stopping these failed interventionist wars of regime change that have cost our country so much in human lives,
untold suffering, and trillions of dollars. Source:
www.glamour.com
>The cost of war impacts all of us - both in the human cost and the cost that's being felt frankly in places like Flint, Michigan,
where families and children are devastated and destroyed by completely failed infrastructure because of lack of investment. Source:
www.glamour.com
Students are suffering under incredibly high tuitions and high student loan interest rates. They graduate from school, and
they're having a very difficult time finding a job. They don't feel as though there are honest leaders who are listening to them,
and who will be a part of the solution. Source:
www.glamour.com
It makes no sense for us to consider going back there and getting involved in what truly is a religious civil war. What real
difference would it make on the ground? And secondly, is it in the best interests of the United States to do that? I would say
that those questions are not being answered in a compelling way that would cause me to support that.
"Gabbard: Back to Iraq 'makes no
sense'" by Jonathan Topaz, www.politico.com. June 13, 2014.
Hawaii is a special place because we have a very diverse population there, who are very respectful and tolerant of those who
have differing opinions and different views.
A military mindset is objectively analyzing a planned course of action and anticipating the likely consequences before you
take that action. Source:
www.glamour.com
It's easy to say, let's go in and get the bad guys. But you have a divided country of Sunnis and Shias. The United States goes
and takes action there on behalf of the Iraqi government. You've got Iran coming in and saying we're going to stand with Iraqi
Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, so now we're aligning ourselves with Iran, and if we do air strikes, becoming de facto air force
for them. "The Lead with Jake Tapper", www.cnn.com.
June 12, 2014.
I'm not a political pundit, and I don't follow these things probably as closely as others, but there are polls that have shown
that Senator Bernie Sanders can beat Donald Trump and, I believe, some of the other Republican candidates as well. Source:
www.glamour.com
As a soldier, I've served with the most brave people in an institution that's built on integrity, honor, and duty. This is
why I'm working very hard to support Senator Bernie Sanders - not only to get through the Democratic primary, but also to win
the presidency. He is the only candidate on both sides who understands the cost of war, who has that foresight to keep our country
safe, and who will make sure that our military power is not being when and where it shouldn't be. Source:
www.glamour.com
I volunteered to deploy to Iraq. I was one of the few soldiers who were not on the mandatory deployment roster - close to 3,000
Hawaii soldiers were.
Hopefully the presence in Congress of an American who happens to be Hindu will increase America's understanding of India as
well as India's understanding of America.
"... Due to her antiwar stance in Syria, Gabbard was at one point rumored to be a potential candidate to head Trump's State Department, and even met with the president-elect at Trump Tower in November 2016, but nothing came of it. ..."
"... In January 2017, she traveled to Syria on a fact-finding trip, outraging the Washington establishment. She has also proposed a bill to outlaw US weapons sales to terrorists. ..."
"... It is unclear whether Gabbard will get much traction among the establishment Democrats, who she has frequently disagreed with on foreign policy issues. ..."
"... So many entrenched bipartisan interests fear the foreign policy debate her presence on the campaign trail will provoke. Look for more obsessive attacks in Omidyar's the Interventionist, republished in his local Hawaii paper. ..."
Due to her antiwar stance in Syria, Gabbard was at one point rumored to be a potential candidate to head Trump's State Department,
and even met with the president-elect at Trump Tower in November 2016, but nothing came of it.
In January 2017, she traveled to Syria on a fact-finding trip,
outraging the
Washington establishment. She has also proposed a bill to
outlaw US weapons
sales to terrorists.
Gabbard first sparked rumors of a 2020 run
in December , when she toured Iowa and New
Hampshire, the first two states to host nationwide party primary elections.
Inspired by the party's strong showing in the November midterms, a number of Democrats are eager to challenge Trump in the 2020
presidential election.
Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) announced on New Year's Eve that she was forming a presidential exploratory committee.
Julian Castro, former Housing and Urban Development secretary in the Obama administration, has also toured Iowa and is expected to
announce his candidacy this weekend.
It is unclear whether Gabbard will get much traction among the establishment Democrats, who she has frequently disagreed with
on foreign policy issues.
Ostensibly, Tulsi Gabbard checks all the correct "diversity boxes" that Democrats claim they want: young, female, minority.
But weirdly, she won't benefit from satisfying these (fake) criteria, because she's hated for unrelated political reasons. So
that should be fun.
Tulsi Gabbard is a really next-level politician. Any amateur can be a traditional US racist politician, but it takes skill
to succeed in America as a Hindu-nationalist racist / tankie Assad apologist.
Say what you want about Tulsi Gabbard (I have my own criticisms) but this is probably an accurate prediction of how opposition
to her campaign from other Democrats will play out https://t.co/xEhdD1ZmyN
So many entrenched bipartisan interests fear the foreign policy debate her presence on the campaign trail will provoke.
Look for more obsessive attacks in Omidyar's the Interventionist, republished in his local Hawaii paper. Also, not sure what
this means for a Bernie run. https://t.co/RD7pCRRkTW
Tulsi Gabbard is a really next-level politician. Any amateur can be a traditional US racist
politician, but it takes skill to succeed in America as a Hindu-nationalist racist / tankie
Assad apologist.
Democratic Representative Tulsi Gabbard from Hawaii announced she will
launch a presidential campaign for 2020. Her campaign is likely to distinguish itself from
other Democratic campaigns by making wars and broader United States foreign policy a major
issue.
Gabbard was elected to the Hawaii state legislature in 2002. She joined the Hawaii Army
National Guard a year later and voluntarily deployed to Iraq, where she completed two tours of
duty in 2004 and 2005.
She was elected to the House of Representatives in 2012, and according to her own website,
she was "one of the first two female combat veterans to ever serve in the U.S. Congress, and
also its first Hindu member."
During Senator Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign, Gabbard gained notoriety after she
resigned from her position as vice chair of the Democratic National Committee so she could
openly support Sanders. She spoke at Sanders campaign rallies to help him distinguish his
foreign policy from the much more hawkish foreign policy of Hillary Clinton.
Gabbard was overwhelmingly re-elected in 2018. She won 83 percent of the vote in the
Democratic primary election.
Most progressives are not as outspoken against U.S. military interventions or what she
refers to as "regime change wars." She witnessed the impact of regime change on the people of
Iraq, as well as U.S. troops, and that inspired her to talk more about the human cost of war
and challenge the military industrial-complex.
Gabbard has persistently called attention to the war in Syria. She traveled to Aleppo and
Damascus in January 2017 to see some of the devastation Syrians have endured since 2011. Syrian
President Bashar al-Assad invited her to a meeting, and she accepted.
"Originally, I had no intention of meeting with Assad, but when given the opportunity, I
felt it was important to take it. I think we should be ready to meet with anyone if there's a
chance it can help bring about an end to this war, which is causing the Syrian people so much
suffering," Gabbard
declared .
Supporters of the Syrian war -- the same people who do not want President Donald Trump to
withdraw U.S. troops -- seized upon Gabbard's meeting with Assad to discredit her, and it has
fueled the backlash among Western media pundits to her decision to run for president.
Yet, in spite of a smear campaign encouraged by the political establishment, Gabbard has not
backed down from protesting U.S. support for terrorists in Syria. She sponsored legislation,
the Stop Arming Terrorists Act.
During an
interview for the Sanders Institute in September 2018, Gabbard said, "Since 2011, when the
United States, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and these other countries started this slow drawn-out
regime change war in Syria, it is terrorist groups like al Qaida, al Nusra, and Hayat Tahrir al
Sham, these different groups that have morphed and taken on names but essentially are all
linked to al Qaida or al Qaida themselves that have proven to be the most effective ground
force against the government in trying to overthrow the Syrian government."
Gabbard opposes what she calls a "genocidal war" in Yemen, and she is one of the few
representatives, who has worked to pass a war powers resolution in the House to end U.S.
military involvement since Congress never authorized the war.
"The United States is standing shoulder to shoulder supporting Saudi Arabia in this war as
they commit these atrocities against Yemeni civilians," Gabbard said during the same Sanders
Institute interview.
Another war Gabbard questions is the war in Libya. In an interview for "The Jimmy Dore Show" on September 11, 2018,
she spoke about the devastating consequences of pursuing regime change without considering what
would happen after Muammar Gaddafi was removed from power.
"After we led the war to topple Gaddafi, we have open human slave trading going on, in open
market. In today's society, we have more terrorists in Libya today than there ever were
before."
Gabbard is also one of the few elected politicians to oppose weapons sales, especially to
Saudi Arabia. She recognizes the military industrial-complex benefits the most from Congress
not exercising its authority over war-making by presidents, whether they are Republican or
Democrat.
She spoke out against Secretary of State Mike Pompeo when he refused to revoke support for
Saudi Arabia and the war in Yemen because it would jeopardize a $2 billion arms deal.
Not many Democrats are willing to be optimistic on North Korea, but Gabbard sees potential
for peace and does not view Trump's meeting with Kim Jong-un as an act of treason.
Gabbard said during the Sanders Institute interview, "For years, I've been working in
Congress and calling for direct engagement with North Korea with Kim Jong-un to be able to try
to broker a peace agreement that will result in de-nuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and
and finally bring about an end to the Korean War."
"So I think that the recent engagement that we have seen -- both the historic meeting
between a sitting U.S. president and the leader of North Korea -- is certainly a positive step
in the right direction. We have to be willing to have these conversation to promote peace,"
Gabbard said. And, "I think the continued engagement between North Korea and South Korea is
positive."
Gabbard acknowledged there are a lot of details that have to be worked out, but that does
not make her hostile to the entire process, which is the attitude of many pundits and Democrats
in the establishment.
Joe Rogan interviewed Gabbard in September 2018. He
raised the issue of Russian troll farms and Facebook's failure to deal with them. She had a
sober response to his concerns.
"The United States has been doing this for a very long time in countries around the world,
both overtly and covertly, through these kinds of disinformation campaigns," Gabbard contended.
"Not even counting like the regime change wars, like we're going to take you out."
She continued, "I think it is very hypocritical for us to be discussing this issue as a
country without actually being honest about how this goes both ways. So, yes, we need to stop
these other foreign countries -- and Russia's not the only one; there are others -- from trying
to influence the American people and our elections. We also need to stop doing the same thing
in other countries."
Such positions on war and U.S. foreign policy effectively make her a pariah to establishment
media pundits and the political class. But her anti-establishment politics do not end
there.
Gabbard has advocated against superdelegates, which are Democratic party insiders that have
an outsized role in influencing the outcome of presidential primaries. She favors open
primaries and same-day voter registration. She is outspoken against the influence of money in
politics, and she is audacious enough to question members of her own political party.
"We have to dig a few layers deeper as people are running for office, say what do you
actually stand for?" she said on "The Jimmy Dore Show." "What is your vision for this country?
That's the debate that we will have to have in Congress should Democrats win over the House or
win more seats in the Senate."
"Otherwise, it will be more of the same status quo, where you'll have lobbyists who have
more of a seat at the table writing policies that affect healthcare and education and Wall
Street and everything else rather than having a true and representative government by and for
the people," she concluded.
She was also critical of self-described progressives, who are pro-war, while on "Jimmy
Dore":
You have these individuals and groups of people who call themselves progressive but are
some of the first to call for more war in the guise of humanitarianism. They look at these
poor people suffering -- and there are people suffering in the other parts of the world.
Let's go drop more bombs and try to take away their suffering. And when you look at example
after example after example, our actions, U.S. policy, interventionist regime change war
policy, [has] made the lives of people in these other countries far worse off than they ever
were before or would have been if we had just stayed out of it.
***
Gabbard was much closer to an establishment politician prior to her resignation from the
DNC. She accepted tens of thousands of dollars in contributions from political action
committees (PACs).
The Center for Responsive Politics noted, "One of the largest contributing sectors was the
defense industry. While Gabbard has gained a following for her
anti-interventionist stances , yet, her 2016 campaign was given $63,500 from
the defense sector . In fact, the campaign
received donations of $10,000 from the Boeing Corporation PAC and from Lockheed Martin's
PAC, two of the biggest names in the military-industrial complex."
In 2017, Gabbard announced she would no longer accept PAC money. She raised $37,000 from
labor associations and trade unions.
Gabbard was "conflicted" over whether to support the Senate report on CIA torture. She said
in 2014 that she thought there were "things missing or it was incomplete." She also endorsed
the "ticking time bomb" scenario that officials use to justify torture, and it is unclear what
her view would be now, if asked about the issue.
She has taken a position on Israeli occupation of Palestine that is
common among Democrats. She supports a two-state solution and describes Israel as the U.S.'
"strongest ally." But it may be shifting. In the last year, she condemned Israel for its
violence against the people of Gaza, and she was reluctant to vote for a House resolution that
condemned the UN Security Council for criticizing Israeli settlements.
Journalist Eoin Higgins
questioned Gabbard's support from the Hindu American Foundation (HAF), which he described
as right-wing. She has garnered criticism for her trip to India in 2014, when she met with
India prime minister Narendra Modi, a Hindu nationalist.
But HAF believes this criticism of Gabbard is unfair because other members of Congress, like
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have attended gatherings with Modi. They also point to financial records
and maintain they are a U.S. organization without ties to any organizations in India.
When she was much younger, Gabbard helped her
father's organization mobilize against a same-sex marriage in Hawaii. The organization,
Alliance for Traditional Marriage, backed conversion therapy
However, there is evidence to suggest that Gabbard has abandoned much of the bigotry that
she probably learned from her father. She backed Edith Windsor when she challenged the Defense
of Marriage Act (DOMA).
"Let me say I regret the positions I took in the past, and the things I said. I'm grateful
for those in the LGBTQ+ community who have shared their aloha with me throughout my personal
journey," Gabbard stated, responding to media coverage of this aspect of her past.
She noted that she has since supported "the Equality Act, the repeal of DOMA, Restore Honor
to Service members Act, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, the Safe Schools Improvement
Act, and the Equality for All Resolution," and added, "Much work remains to ensure equality and
civil rights protections for LGBTQ+ Americans, and if elected President, I will continue to
fight for equal rights for all."
There are powerful forces in American politics that will seize upon her past opposition to
LGBTQ rights and meeting with Assad to neutralize her presidential campaign before she even has
an opportunity to tour the country and meet with potential supporters. They fear the impact she
could have if voters gravitate to her campaign, which will likely promote her
anti-imperialism.
Often Democrats do not bother to connect foreign policy to domestic issues. Gabbard is
likely to run a rare campaign, where she makes the case that they are intertwined -- that in
order to make investments in universal health care, education, infrastructure, etc, the massive
investment in war must be severely curtailed.
Gabbard also aware of the disenchantment among voters, who do not believe either political
party has the answers. She understands President Trump is a symptom of what ails the
country.
As she said on "Jimmy Dore," "If we look at the lead-up to the 2016 election, and if we
actually listen to and examine why people chose to vote the way they did, it points to much
bigger problems, a much bigger disaffection that has been building for quite some time, that
voters have against the establishment of Washington, the political establishment within both
parties."
The problem here is the progressive votes is split between Bernie, Warren, and Tulsi. That means that all three of them
now can be eliminated be invertionaist Dems.
Notable quotes:
"... Tulsi Gabbard is scary to Republicans because a lot of us center-right folks would be tempted to support her ..."
"... Would love to see a Tulsi - Trump debate. She'd be a formidable opponent. ..."
Well, as we all saw, the putatively "liberal" legacy Ziomedia hates Tulsi Gabbard with a passion. Maybe not as much as that legacy
Ziomedia hates Trump or Putin, but still – the levels of hostility against her are truly amazing. This may seem bizarre until you
realize that, just like Donald Trump, Tulsi Gabbard has said all the right things about Israel, but that this was not nearly "enough"
to please the US Ziolobby. Check out the kind of discussions about Gabbard which can be found in the Israeli and pro-Israeli press:
This is just a small sample of what I found with a quick search. It could be summed up "Gabbard is not pro-Israel enough". But
is that really The Main Reason for such a hostility towards her? I don't think so. I believe that Gabbard's real "ultimate sin" is
that she is against foreign wars of choice. That is really her Crime Of Crimes!
The AngloZionists wanted to tear Syria apart, break it up into small pieces, most of which would be run by Takfiri crazies and
Tulsi Gabbard actually dared to go and speak to "animal Assad", the (latest) "New Hitler", who "gasses his own people". And this
is an even worse crime, if such a thing can even be imagined! She dared to disobey her AngloZionist masters.
So, apparently, opposing illegal wars and daring to disobey the Neocons are crimes of such magnitude and evil that they deserve
the hysterical Gabbard-bashing campaign which we have witnessed in recent times. And even being non-Christian, non-White, non-male
and "liberal" does not in any way compensate for the heinous nature of "crimes".
What does this tell us about the real nature of the US society?
It is also interesting to note that the most vicious (and stupid) attacks against Gabbard did not come from "conservative" media
outlets or journalists. Not at all! Most of the attacks, especially the more vicious ones, came from supposedly "liberal" sources,
which tell us that in 2019 USA "liberals" do not refer to folks with liberal ideas, but to folks who are hell-bent on imperialism
and war; folks who don't care one bit about any real "liberal" values and who use a pseudo-liberal rhetoric to advocate for war outside
the USA and for a plutocratic dictatorship inside the USA.
The USA state of continuous war has been a bipartisan phenomenon starting with Truman in Korea and proceeding with Vietnam,
Lebanon, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya and now Syria. It doesn't take a genius to realize that these limited, never ending
wars are expensive was to enrich MIC and Wall Street banksters
Notable quotes:
"... Yes the neocons have a poor track record but they've succeeded at turning our republic into an empire. The mainstream media and elites of practically all western nations are unanimously pro-war. Neither political party has defined a comprehensive platform to rebuild our republic. ..."
The one thing your accurate analysis leaves out is that the goal of US wars is never what the media spouts for its Wall Street
masters. The goal of any war is the redistribution of taxpayer money into the bank accounts of MIC shareholders and executives,
create more enemies to be fought in future wars, and to provide a rationalization for the continued primacy of the military class
in US politics and culture.
Occasionally a country may be sitting on a bunch of oil, and also be threatening to move away from the petrodollar or talking
about allowing an "adversary" to build a pipeline across their land.
Otherwise war is a racket unto itself. "Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable,
and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. "
― George Orwell
Also we've always been at war with Oceania .or whatever that quote said.
Yes the neocons have a poor track record but they've succeeded at turning our republic into
an empire. The mainstream media and elites of practically all western nations are unanimously
pro-war. Neither political party has defined a comprehensive platform to rebuild our
republic.
Even you, Tucker Carlson, mock the efforts of Ilhan Omar for criticizing AIPAC and
Elliott Abrams.
I don't personally care for many of her opinions but that's not what matters:
if we elect another neocon government we won't last another generation. Like the lady asked
Ben Franklin "What kind of government have you bequeathed us?", and Franklin answered "A
republic, madam, if you can keep it."
"... Morning Joe presents the largest collective of Media Shills that think with one Corporate brain(trust). MSNBC and CNN commits the greatest threat to the dumbing down of America, and in the longterm, nothing impacts our American freedoms and World Peace than such lowly, deceptive, shills. Everybody has to make a buck, but come on MSNBC; you guys could stand some old school mothering and have those dirty little pie-holes washed out with soap. ..."
The concerned look on everyone's face, acting like they are coming from a moral high
ground because they support war. Corporate media is garbage! They will never cover her fairly
so its up to us to do so!
Saudi Arabia offered to pay for us to take down Syria. We are aiding Al Qaeda and their
related groups, proxies for Saudi Arabia, in their war against Syria. It's about money and
oil period. The 'humanitarian crisis' has nothing to do with this war and is just as likely
to have been staged by Al Qaeda if not more likely.
Morning Joe presents the largest collective of Media Shills that think with one
Corporate brain(trust). MSNBC and CNN commits the greatest threat to the dumbing down of
America, and in the longterm, nothing impacts our American freedoms and World Peace than such
lowly, deceptive, shills. Everybody has to make a buck, but come on MSNBC; you guys could
stand some old school mothering and have those dirty little pie-holes washed out with
soap.
Neoliberal Dems -- Clinton wing of the Party (and
thedailybeast.com
is Hillary bulletin board) doe no like Tulsi. that's expected.
What what they really fear is that Tulsi can get support of considerable part of former Trump voters and repeat the
maneuver that Trump accomplished in 2016 elections.
Notable quotes:
"... In a Monday evening segment, featuring anti-war leftist journalist Glenn Greenwald, the Fox News host argued that Gabbard had been unfairly maligned because of her deep skepticism about intervention in Syria and willingness to talk to Assad. ..."
"... "There's something so stealthy and feline and dishonest about the way they're attacking her," Tucker said. "If you don't like her foreign policy views, let's just say so. But no one ever really wants to debate what our foreign policy should be. They just attack anyone who deviates from their own dumb ideas." ..."
"... In May 2015, the National Review implored readers to "Meet the Beautiful, Tough Young Democrat Who's Turning Heads by Challenging Obama's Foreign Policy." The conservative outlet touted Gabbard as having "endeared herself to right-wing hawks" by challenging Obama's "rudderless" foreign policy. "I like her thinking a lot," American Enterprise Institute president Arthur Brooks was quoted as saying. ..."
"... And earlier this month, after she accused her fellow Democratic senators of engaging in "religious bigotry" for asking questions about a Trump judicial nominee's faith, she received yet another round of Fox News praise ..."
When she ran for re-election in 2018, she had the backing of liberal groups
including
the AFL-CIO and Planned Parenthood, yet she was briefly considered as a potential member for
Trump's cabinet, and cheered on his diplomatic overtures to North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un.
Since
announcing her bid for the presidency, Gabbard has faced a torrent of criticism for some of her more
eccentric politics, zeroing in on her equivocations on Assad and
her past homophobic comments
.
And, in the process, she has earned one prominent defender: Tucker Carlson.
In a Monday evening segment, featuring anti-war leftist journalist Glenn Greenwald, the Fox News host
argued that Gabbard had been unfairly maligned because of her deep skepticism about intervention in Syria
and willingness to talk to Assad.
"There's something so stealthy and feline and dishonest about the way they're attacking her," Tucker
said. "If you don't like her foreign policy views, let's just say so. But no one ever really wants to debate
what our foreign policy should be. They just attack anyone who deviates from their own dumb ideas."
Gabbard first became
an in-demand
Fox News guest in 2015 after she criticized Barack Obama's unwillingness to use the label
"radical Islamic terrorism." Her media tour explaining that position earned her positively-tilted coverage
in right-wing outlets like Breitbart and The Daily Caller -- a trend that continued when she later expressed
skepticism of Obama's Iran nuclear deal.
One person with direct knowledge told The Daily Beast that in the wake of her Obama criticism of Obama,
Gabbard became an increasingly requested guest for Fox News hosts and producers to appear on-air. They
weren't the only ones in television news who took notice: senior executives at Sinclair Broadcasting made
appeals for Gabbard to appear on their networks after she rebuked Obama.
And her emergence as a left-wing Obama critic further put Gabbard on the map in conservative media.
In May 2015, the
National Review
implored readers to "Meet the Beautiful, Tough Young Democrat
Who's Turning Heads by Challenging Obama's Foreign Policy." The conservative outlet touted Gabbard as having
"endeared herself to right-wing hawks" by challenging Obama's "rudderless" foreign policy. "I like her
thinking a lot," American Enterprise Institute president Arthur Brooks was quoted as saying.
Gabbard has also maintained friendly relationships with high-profile, right-leaning television
personalities, including Carlson and Fox News colleague Neil Cavuto, a long-time anchor and Trump skeptic
who leans conservative on business issues.
And earlier this month, after she
accused
her fellow Democratic senators of engaging in "religious bigotry" for asking questions about a
Trump judicial nominee's faith, she received yet another round of Fox News praise. Todd Starnes, a Fox
pundit with a
long history
of anti-gay comments,
wrote in an op-ed
that he found Gabbard's comments "encouraging."
charley15z
1 month ago
The
establishment left and blue checkmarks on Twitter are gonna go after her HARD. But I will support her, purely on her
policies.
Marcy Clay
1 month ago
She would get
independents and some Republicans to cross over. She is already being attacked by the left, and right for some old remarks
that were homophobic, and for meeting with Assad. I like her better than Warren or Harris by far..
lrein077
1 month ago
I had the
opportunity to meet Tulsi in person and she was the most approachable & genuine person. Congratulations Tulsi.
Jimmy Russle
1 month ago
I'm a Trump
supporter, but she certainly has a better resume than Trump. Her most important issue is peace among nations, I'm all on
board.
27
Thank you to @RepMcGovern@repmarkpocan & @IlhanMN for cosponsoring H.R. 1249, the INF Treaty Compliance Act, to prevent
taxpayer dollars from being used for weapons that would breach the INF treaty. This is one step
Congress can & must take now toward national security and peace
The first day Tulsi arrived at her camp in Iraq, she saw a large sign at one of the gates
that read, "Is today the day?" It was a blunt reminder that today may be the day that any of
the soldiers would be called to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country. It caused her to
reflect on her own life and the reality that each of us could die at any moment.
While serving in a base in the Sunni Triangle at the height of the war, Tulsi had the
heart-wrenching daily responsibility of going through the list of every injury and casualty in
the entire theatre of operations, looking to see if any soldiers in her unit were on the list,
so she could ensure they received the care they needed and their families were notified.
She was hit with the enduring pain and hardship of her brothers and sisters in uniform, and
the stress and pressure on their families. She wondered if those who voted to send soldiers to
Iraq really understood why they were there -- if lawmakers and the President reflected daily on
each death, each injury, and the immeasurably high cost of war.
Having experienced first-hand the true cost of war, she made a personal vow to find a way to
ensure that our country doesn't continue repeating the mistakes of the past, sending our troops
into war without a clear mission, strategy, or purpose. In Congress
Serving over 6 years in Congress, and as a member of the Armed Services, Homeland Security,
and Foreign Affairs Committees, Tulsi has been a leading voice fighting to end regime change
wars and instead focus our military efforts on defeating the terrorist groups that attacked and
declared war on the United States. She has approached every issue through the lens of what will
best serve the American people, secure our country, and promote peace.
She is a champion for protecting our environment, ensuring clean water and air for
generations to come, investing in infrastructure and a green energy economy, healthcare for
all, civil liberties and privacy, support for small businesses, criminal justice reform,
sustainable agriculture, breaking up the big banks and she needs your help!
Regime change wars are bankrupting our country and our moral authority. We need to redirect
those resources into a renewable, sustainable economy that works for everyone and bring about
an era of peace. We must put service above self and reclaim our great democracy from the forces
of hatred and division.
This is a very important point. She can bring a large part of Trump voters (all anti-war votes and most of promiddle
class voters) and part of Sanders voters together.
Notable quotes:
"... As long as we're talking Hawaii, I have found my candidate for President: Tulsi Gabbard. I guess I'm late to the party, and she sure is hated by the intelligentsia, boy do they hate her, but she's really, really electable for President and she would, more than any other candidate, actually start to heal this country. Aloha. ..."
"... I don't believe the Democrats will nominate her. They'll use the electability canard to dismiss her candidacy, much like how Ron Paul was treated by the GOP. ..."
As long as we're talking Hawaii, I have found my candidate for President: Tulsi Gabbard. I
guess I'm late to the party, and she sure is hated by the intelligentsia, boy do they hate
her, but she's really, really electable for President and she would, more than any other
candidate, actually start to heal this country. Aloha.
I don't believe the Democrats will nominate her. They'll use the electability canard to
dismiss her candidacy, much like how Ron Paul was treated by the GOP.
However, she seems to have an agenda I would back.
The goal of any "peddler" is to move product. When perpetual war is the product, then any
rationale that leads to more sales will do. Enemies become interchangeable. The only thing to
apologize for is the lack of sales.
These two hucksters are not experts on the product itself, but rather experts at selling
the product.
Pres. Eisenhower, a genuine "authority on armed conflict", warned us of such peddlers.
"... Because DC is bought and paid for by the defense industry. Constant wars are good for the bottom line, so winning is not the right strategy. Loosing doesn't work either. A constant low level set of global conflicts is perfect. ..."
"... The goal of any "peddler" is to move product. When perpetual war is the product, then any rationale that leads to more sales will do. Enemies become interchangeable. The only thing to apologize for is the lack of sales. ..."
Why Are These Professional War Peddlers Still Around? Pundits like Max Boot and Bill
Kristol got everything after 9/11 wrong but are still considered "experts."
1. The goal of the neocons was to exploit 9/11 to destroy countries in the Middle East
that posed a threat to Israel. As Wesley Clarke told us a long time ago, they were going to
"do" Iraq first, and after that, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon and finally Iran. Most
of this has been accomplished. We are now in the end game and Iran is in their
cross-hairs.
From the perspective of the neocons, everything has gone their way.
2. The only people who got everything thing wrong were useful idiots like Rod Dreher,
Tucker Carlson and Walter "Freedom Fries" Jones who were too dense to see what the neocons
were really up to. You did not a PhD from Harvard to see that Bush and Blair had no evidence
to back up their claims that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction or to figure out the true
intentions of the neocons.
So why are Boot and Kristol still around? Because Iran is not yet reduced to an ash-heap,
courtesy of USA!USA!USA! so they still have work to do.
Why have they paid no price? Let's all pretend like we don't know the answer to this. And
don't forget to condemn Ilhan Omar for her tweets just to be on the safe side.
It's difficult to live in a post-America America where American interests are subordinate to
Israel and AIPAC and lunatics like Bolton and Pompeo, now have replaced the president in
matters of foreign policy.
Trump has done a 180 and given in completely.
I like Tulsi Gabbard
and hope that she might have a chance of winning the Democratic nomination in spite of the
fact that she now is being attacked by members of her own party, along with the
representative from Minnesota who has the courage to talk of the power of the Israel lobby
that functions solely in the interest of Israel. It seems the Democrats are not so tolerant
of strong women after all. And its time for everyone to stop being intimidated by the charge
of anti-Semitism. When Israeli interests are not those of America and Americans.
Because DC is bought and paid for by the defense industry. Constant wars are good for the
bottom line, so winning is not the right strategy. Loosing doesn't work either. A constant
low level set of global conflicts is perfect.
The goal of any "peddler" is to move product. When perpetual war is the product, then any
rationale that leads to more sales will do. Enemies become interchangeable. The only thing to
apologize for is the lack of sales.
These two hucksters are not experts on the product itself, but rather experts at selling
the product.
Pres. Eisenhower, a genuine "authority on armed conflict", warned us of such peddlers.
Yes the neocons have a poor track record but they've succeeded at turning our republic into
an empire. The mainstream media and elites of practically all western nations are unanimously
pro-war. Neither political party has defined a comprehensive platform to rebuild our
republic.
Even you, Tucker Carlson, mock the efforts of Ilhan Omar for criticizing AIPAC and
Elliott Abrams.
I don't personally care for many of her opinions but that's not what matters:
if we elect another neocon government we won't last another generation. Like the lady asked
Ben Franklin "What kind of government have you bequeathed us?", and Franklin answered "A
republic, madam, if you can keep it."
Gabbard is going nowhere, and while it's true that the powers that be will try to bury her,
they don't need to. The simple truth is this: the American public largely doesn't care about
the wars and never has. There hasn't been an anti-war movement of any significance since Bush
left office, and that was mostly a phony anti-war movement in the first place. It was
primarily an anti-Bush movement, and the bulk of the people screaming 'no blood for oil'
would've just been screaming some other anti-Bush slogan had our current path of destruction
through the Mideast never occurred.
Yes, there has always been a small, independent-minded minority on both the right and left
who genuinely oppose American interventionism.
The vast majority of voters, though, don't care much, don't have strong opinions and will
largely just follow their leaders. Rank and file Democrats now oppose drawing down from Syria
and Afghanistan and want to 'contain' Russia.
This is solely because Trump has made noises in the opposite direction, even if he hasn't
done much of anything. And a good portion of the Republicans who say they want out of these
wars would support them if Jeb or Rubio were in the White House.
There is a fair bit more genuine antiwar sentiment on the right now than there was 15
years ago. But it's not a dominant issue for many people on the right who didn't always
oppose the wars from the get-go. And the mainstream left, again, has totally abandoned the
issue.
Only a tiny proportion of the American public considers the endless wars to be the most
important issue facing America today.
You don't win campaigns focusing on issues that are regarded as unimportant and where most
of the voters in your party oppose you on this point. There is no real antiwar movement.
Another full-scale invasion of a previously stable country would generate some serious
opposition, sure, but the current slow bleed of endless occupations and occasional
opportunistic attacks on already destabilizing regimes can continue forever with little
pushback from the public at large.
How anyone could live through the last 15 years of American politics and not realize this
is beyond me.
That one trick happens to the most important trick that America is facing.
No Art, that would be unchecked legal and illegal immigration and as far as I can tell
Tulsi Gandhi is pretty dreadful on that subject. True, the likudniks in the diaspora don't
like her because she would be bad for an expansionist Israel...
If elected Tulsi would probably become a Jew tool just like Trump has become. If not, then
they'll have another special counsel ready to take her down. That's how the (((deep state)))
operates.
Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard attacked Donald Trump for his tweet praising Saudi Arabia after
the CIA report which found the country's crown prince was behind the murder of journalist Jamal
Khashoggi.
Democratic Rep. Gabbard, a National Guard veteran who did two tours in the Middle East,
branded the president 'Saudi Arabia's b**ch' after he announced the U.S. would stand by the
nation.
'Hey @realdonaldtrump: being Saudi Arabia's bitch is not '"America First,'" Gabbard
tweeted.
"... Tulsi's own military experience notwithstanding, she gives every indication of being honestly anti-war. In the speech announcing her candidacy she pledged "focus on the issue of war and peace" to "end the regime-change wars that have taken far too many lives and undermined our security by strengthening terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda." She referred to the danger posed by blundering into a possible nuclear war and indicated her dismay over what appears to be a re-emergence of the Cold War. ..."
"... Gabbard has spoken at a conference of Christians United for Israel, which has defended Israel's settlement enterprise; has backed legislation that slashes funding to the Palestinians; and has cultivated ties with Boteach as well as with major GOP donor casino magnate Sheldon Adelson. She also attended the controversial address to Congress by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in March 2015, which many progressive Democrats boycotted. ..."
"... Nevertheless, Tulsi supported Bernie Sanders' antiwar candidacy in 2016 and appears to be completely onboard and fearless in promoting her antiwar sentiments. Yes, Americans have heard much of the same before, but Tulsi Gabbard could well be the only genuine antiwar candidate that might truly be electable in the past fifty years. ..."
"... What's her angle about immigration? This: https://votesmart.org/public-statement/1197137/rep-tulsi-gabbard-calls-on-congress-to-pass-the-dream-act#.XGXEplUza1s Not optimistic. ..."
"... What's her angle about "outsourcing" jobs overseas? This: https://www.votetulsi.com/node/25011 Not bad, but, still .. ..."
"... Regularly Americans vote for the less interventionist candidate. ..."
"... Of course, it is impossible to predict whether it will be the same with Tulsi Gabbard, but unlike these other candidates in the past , she puts her rejection of neocons and regime change wars so much into the center of her campaign that it should be assumed that she is serious – otherwise it would be complete betrayal. ..."
"... She'll be sabotaged by relentless smears and other dirty tricks. Only someone bought and owned will be allowed to be a candidate which means the MIC must continue being fed enormous amounts of money and war hysteria constantly being stoked. ..."
"... Has anyone discussed the possibility of Tulsi being "marketed" or long-game "branded" through intentional theatre as "anti-war" ? ..."
"... Any serious Democratic candidate, and to some extent any Republican, must fly through the flack of Deep State anti-populist guns. I am skeptical about Gabbard because her policy views are already too good to be true. She is "cruisin' for a bruisin'" and there is already a campaign to erase her from the debate in the manner in which Ron Paul was erased a few years back ..."
"... Gabbard is an attractive woman and on camera she comes across as aggressive and a quick-thinking, highly articulate debater. Like Trump her instinct is to meet force with counter-force rather than roll with the punches and I think that is her best chance. ..."
"... De ja vu. I remember reading these very similar (not exactly but similar) sentiments about Barack Obama back in 2008. What a load of crap that turned out to be ..."
"... Don't know much about this lady. If she is "fair dinkum" in her anti war/anti-imperialism stance her only chance to get into power & then get things done will be to gain a massive, committed popular following. ..."
The lineup of Democrats who have already declared themselves as candidates for their party's presidential nomination in 2020 is
remarkable, if only for the fact that so many wannabes have thrown their hats in the ring so early in the process. In terms of electability,
however, one might well call the seekers after the highest office in the land the nine dwarfs. Four of the would-be candidates –
Marianne Williamson a writer, Andrew Yang an entrepreneur, Julian Castro a former Obama official, Senator Amy Klobuchar and Congressman
John Delaney – have no national profiles at all and few among the Democratic Party rank-and-file would be able to detail who they
are, where they come from and what their positions on key issues might be.
Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts has a national following but she also has considerable baggage. The recent revelation
that she
falsely described herself as "American Indian" back in 1986 for purposes of career advancement, which comes on top of similar
reports of more of the same as well as other resume-enhancements that surfaced when she first became involved in national politics,
prompted Donald Trump to refer to her as "Pocahontas." Warren, who is largely progressive on social and domestic issues, has been
confronted numerous times regarding her views on Israel/Palestine and beyond declaring that she favors a "two state solution" has
been somewhat reticent. She should be described as pro-Israel for the usual reasons and is not reliably anti-war. She comes across
as a rather more liberal version of Hillary Clinton.
And then there is New Jersey Senator Cory Booker, being touted as the "new Obama," presumably because he is both black and progressive.
His record as Mayor of Newark New Jersey, which launched his career on the national stage, has both high and low points and it has
to be questioned if America is ready for another smooth-talking black politician whose actual record of accomplishments is on the
thin side. One unfortunately recalls the devious Obama's totally bogus Nobel Peace Prize and his Tuesday morning meetings with John
Brennan to work on the list of Americans who were to be assassinated.
Booker has carefully cultivated the Jewish community in his political career, to include a close relationship with the stomach-churning
"America's Rabbi" Shmuley Boteach, but has recently become more independent of those ties, supporting the Obama deal with Iran and
voting against anti-Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) legislation in the Senate. On the negative side, the New York Times likes
Booker, which means that he will turn most other Americans off. He is also 49 years old and unmarried, which apparently bothers some
in the punditry.
California Senator Kamala Harris is a formidable entrant into the crowded field due to her resume, nominally progressive on most
issues, but with a work history that has attracted critics concerned by her hard-line law-and-order enforcement policies when she
was District Attorney General for San Francisco and Attorney General for California. She has also
spoken at AIPAC , is anti-BDS, and is considered to be reliably pro-Israel, which would rule her out for some, though she might
be appealing to middle of the road Democrats like the Clintons and Nancy Pelosi who have increasingly become war advocates. She will
have a tough time convincing the antiwar crowd that she is worth supporting and there are reports that she will likely split the
black women's vote even though she is black herself, perhaps linked to her affair with California powerbroker Willie Brown when she
was 29 and Brown was 61. Brown was married, though separated, to a black woman at the time. Harris is taking heat because she clearly
used the relationship
to advance her career
while also acquiring several patronage sinecures on state commissions that netted her hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The most interesting candidate is undoubtedly Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, who is a fourth term Congresswoman from Hawaii, where
she was born and raised. She is also the real deal on national security, having been-there and done-it through service as an officer
with the Hawaiian National Guard on a combat deployment in Iraq. Though in Congress full time, she still performs her Guard duty.
Tulsi's own military experience notwithstanding, she gives every indication of being honestly anti-war. In
the speech announcing her candidacy she pledged "focus
on the issue of war and peace" to "end the regime-change wars that have taken far too many lives and undermined our security by strengthening
terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda." She referred to the danger posed by blundering into a possible nuclear war and indicated her dismay
over what appears to be a re-emergence of the Cold War.
Not afraid of challenging establishment politics,
she called for an end to the "illegal war to overthrow the Syrian government," also observing that "the war to overthrow Assad
is counter-productive because it actually helps ISIS and other Islamic extremists achieve their goal of overthrowing the Syrian government
of Assad and taking control of all of Syria – which will simply increase human suffering in the region, exacerbate the refugee crisis,
and pose a greater threat to the world." She then backed up her words with action by secretly arranging for a personal trip to Damascus
in 2017 to meet with President Bashar al-Assad, saying it was important to meet adversaries "if you are serious about pursuing peace."
She made her own assessment of the situation in Syria and now favors pulling US troops out of the country as well as ending American
interventions for "regime change" in the region.
In 2015, Gabbard supported President Barack Obama's nuclear agreement with Iran and more recently has criticized President Donald
Trump's withdrawal from the deal. Last May, she criticized Israel for shooting "unarmed protesters" in Gaza, but one presumes that,
like nearly all American politicians, she also has to make sure that she does not have the Israel Lobby on her back. Gabbard
has spoken at a conference of Christians United for Israel, which has defended Israel's settlement enterprise; has backed legislation
that slashes funding to the Palestinians; and has cultivated ties with Boteach as well as with major GOP donor casino magnate Sheldon
Adelson. She also attended the controversial address to Congress by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in March 2015, which
many progressive Democrats boycotted.
Nevertheless, Tulsi supported Bernie Sanders' antiwar candidacy in 2016 and appears to be completely onboard and fearless
in promoting her antiwar sentiments. Yes, Americans have heard much of the same before, but Tulsi Gabbard could well be the only
genuine antiwar candidate that might truly be electable in the past fifty years.
What Tulsi Gabbard is accomplishing might be measured by the enemies that are already gathering and are out to get her. Glenn
Greenwald at The Intercept
describes how NBC news published a
widely distributed story on February 1 st , claiming that "experts who track websites and social media linked to Russia
have seen stirrings of a possible campaign of support for Hawaii Democrat Tulsi Gabbard."
But the expert cited by NBC turned out to be a firm New Knowledge,
which was exposed by no less
than The New York Times for falsifying Russian troll accounts for the Democratic Party in the Alabama Senate race to suggest
that the Kremlin was interfering in that election. According to Greenwald, the group ultimately behind
this attack on Gabbard is The Alliance for Securing Democracy (ASD), which sponsors a tool called
Hamilton 68 , a news "intelligence net checker" that
claims to track Russian efforts to disseminate disinformation. The ASD
website advises that "Securing Democracy is a Global Necessity."
ASD was set up in 2017 by the usual neocon crowd with funding from The Atlanticist and anti-Russian German Marshall Fund. It is
loaded with a full complement of Zionists
and interventionists/globalists, to include Michael Chertoff, Michael McFaul, Michael Morell, Kori Schake and Bill Kristol. It claims,
innocently, to be a bipartisan transatlantic national security advocacy group that seeks to identify and counter efforts by Russia
to undermine democracies in the United States and Europe but it is actually itself a major source of disinformation.
For the moment, Tulsi Gabbard seems to be the "real thing," a genuine anti-war candidate who is determined to run on that platform.
It might just resonate with the majority of American who have grown tired of perpetual warfare to "spread democracy" and other related
frauds perpetrated by the band of oligarchs and traitors that run the United States. We the people can always hope.
Just those two. We can leave the rest of "globo-homo" agenda off the table, for the moment. And, the last but not the least,
that nagging angle about automation and (paid) work in general. Let's not get too ambitious here. Those two, only, should suffice
at the moment.
I like Tulsi. but she hasn't been tested in a presidential campaign yet. At least we will have someone who could put peace on
the ballot. She should write a book pulling her policies together and use it to get some publicity.
Regularly Americans vote for the less interventionist candidate. 2008, an important reason for Obama's victory against
Hillary Clinton and John McCain was that he had been against the Iraq war. 2000, George W. Bush said he was against nation building.
Then, after they are elected, the neocons remain in power. Something similar again with Donald Trump who campaigned against stupid
wars in the Middle East and now has surrounded himself with some of the most extreme neocons.
Of course, it is impossible to predict whether it will be the same with Tulsi Gabbard, but unlike these other candidates
in the past , she puts her rejection of neocons and regime change wars so much into the center of her campaign that it should
be assumed that she is serious – otherwise it would be complete betrayal. However, if she is serious about this and is elected,
she will be fought by the deep state and its allies in the media much more harshly than Trump, who isn't even consistently anti-neocons,
just not reliably pro-neocon. What they would probably do to her would make spygate, the Russiagate conspiracy theory, and the
Muller investigation look harmless. She might end like JFK (a VP who is just as anti-neocons might increase the chances of survival).
But despite all the risks, I think it is worth trying. If the US was a parliamentary democracy with proportional representation
and the neocons had their own party, it would hardly have more than a handful of seats in Congress. Although they don't have,
a significant base of their own, neocons have remained in power for a long time, whoever was elected. At the moment, Tulsi Gabbard
is probably the best hope for ending their long reign.
She'll be sabotaged by relentless smears and other dirty tricks. Only someone bought and owned will be allowed to be a candidate
which means the MIC must continue being fed enormous amounts of money and war hysteria constantly being stoked. She won't
have a chance. Besides, the Dem party has gotten radical and out of touch with the majority of Americans so who really wants them
in? There's no cause for optimism anywhere one looks.
Has anyone discussed the possibility of Tulsi being "marketed" or long-game "branded" through intentional theatre as "anti-war"
? Greenwald himself has questionable backers and the WWF good guy/bad guy character creations (like Trump's pre-election
talking points concerning illegal wars , now stuffed down the memory holes of many), all the FAKE and distracting "fights" etc
etc
Any serious Democratic candidate, and to some extent any Republican, must fly through the flack of Deep State anti-populist
guns. I am skeptical about Gabbard because her policy views are already too good to be true. She is "cruisin' for a bruisin'"
and there is already a campaign to erase her from the debate in the manner in which Ron Paul was erased a few years back.
Gabbard is an attractive woman and on camera she comes across as aggressive and a quick-thinking, highly articulate debater.
Like Trump her instinct is to meet force with counter-force rather than roll with the punches and I think that is her best chance.
In that way she calls the bluff of her opponents: Just how confident are they that in the end the public will prefer war to peace?
These points add up to a realistic chance of success but given the Deep State's stranglehold on the media she is definitely a
long shot.
De ja vu. I remember reading these very similar (not exactly but similar) sentiments about Barack Obama back in 2008. What
a load of crap that turned out to be, but I do understand that not all politicians are cut from the same dung heap, so it
is probably best to find out who is funding the little pricks while they are campaigning – for once they are elected, payback
is due.
In the case of Obama it was Robert Rubin( of Goldman Sachs) who bankrolled him, and of course, once elected it was bank bailout
time. Then once Ghaddaffi's gold back Dinar became a monetary powerhouse, he committed another crime for the bankers.
"Is she the real deal?"
Elect her and you'll find out, and there lies the problem – you get to find out when it's too late. On the other hand, she
could actually be honest and sincere, but that alone disqualifies her as a politician (the kind that Americans are used to anyway).
NTL, she's got people's attention and if for anything else – the people are anti-war, but the monied power brokers are definitely
not which begs the question – will democracy actually happen?
Don't know much about this lady. If she is "fair dinkum" in her anti war/anti-imperialism stance her only chance to get
into power & then get things done will be to gain a massive, committed popular following.
She will need to use tactics from both the Sanders & Trump play-books. She will need to appeal to a good number in both the
Sanders & Trump constituencies. Regardless, she will need an iron-will & tsunami of charisma .
@Biff Obama was a creation
of the Pritzker and Crowne families, although the puppet did decide he wanted to somewhat act on his own. Gabbard is certainly
taking flak from the Israel firsters, and her debating Trump on foreign policy in a US Presidential election would be a real paradigm
shift.
@renfro Where do you get
this "obsessive hatred of Muslims and Islam?"
She's been [insistent and consistent] using the term 'radical Islamic terrorists' which, unfortunately, is an accurate description
of ISIS (the bane of the ummah). OTOH, last year Tulsi was a featured speaker at a Moslem conference in NJ, and she has been outspoken
about freedom of religion and mutual respect. If you've got some evidence that she excludes Islam from that, please show it.
[Gabbard's] policy views are already too good to be true.
Not really. Too good to be true would be if she understood Putin in the context of the US and oligarch rape of Russia in the
1990's and how he has restored the Russian economy and dignity; and if she recognized (openly) the US role in the Maidan coup
and accepted the validity of the Crimean decision to return to Russia.
Unfortunately, even though she's taken a brave position on ending US regime-change war on Syria, in many other respects she
remains quite conventional. She also promotes fear of DPRK, and who knows what she thinks about China.
she comes across as aggressive and a quick-thinking, highly articulate debater.
Aggressive? Composed, confident, yes. Aggressive, no. Calm under fire is more like it. Take a look at the whole interview on
Morning Joe. She really outclasses those squirming bitches. BUT, notice her (short) responses on Putin and Assad ("adversary"
and "no"), real Judas moments. Does she believe that, or is she clinging to the Overton Window? https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/rep-gabbard-assad-is-not-an-enemy-of-the-us-1438093891865
Tulsi's presidential timber but she's wasting her life with the Democrats. Their consulting apparatchiks are going to stuff a
bunch of incoherent slogans up her butt. If she wants a real antiwar platform she should steal it wholesale from Stein and Ajamu
Baraka. Baraka built a complete and consistent law-and-order platform. He's the only real antiwar candidate in this country.
Of course the Democrat's CIA handlers will crush Tulsi if she starts to make sense, so she's going to have to take her supporters
and jump to the Greens.
She will lose, but arbitrary forcible repression of the party will discredit bullshit US electoral pageantry once and for all.
Then we move into the parallel government zone in conformity with world-standard human rights law and destroy the parasitic kleptocratic
USA.
@jack daniels You know .there
IS one thing nobody wants, really, to talk about.
.given the Deep State's stranglehold on the media she is definitely a long shot
Why, in this age, the "stronghold on the media" is so decisive? A person who gets the most of media exposure wins? That's how
it works?
Or, do anyone reading and posting here gets his/her information from the "media"? I'd say not.
Isn't the bottom, the very heart of the matter NOT a Deep State, Dem Joos, Anglo-Saxons, Masons, Illuminati and .whatever but
simple, eternal, laziness and stupidity of an average person?
Or, even worse: the real, true, needs and wants of an average person are simply "breads and circuses". Nothing more.
Combine those two and here we are.
I am aware that throws the spanner into works of those into Aryans, White supremacy, Western man and similar stuff, but, the
conclusion seems inevitable.
That's the heart of the problem "we" face at the moment. How to fix it, or even is it possible, I don't know. Have some ideas,
of course.
CIA Giraldi probably has more Cherokee DNA than Warren. Another fact he failed to provide to the Government during the security
clearance process. The troll has supported the republican establishment all his career, this distinguishes him from the trolls
that support the democratic establishment all of their careers. The fact that people can debate the relative merits of political
leaders from the dark lagoon reveals their complete lack of rational thought. No politician decides anything important.
@Anonymous No, then she is
toast in Hawaii politics, and she is probably running not because she plans on winning, but to raise her profile and perhaps open
doors for herself on the national or state level, which won't happen if you shoot yourself in the foot at the same time.
Besides, leaving aside Krishna consciousness, she is too close to Sanders to get any traction among the Republicans. I suppose
getting the bipartisan support of the Internet kook vote is something, but hard to translate into political office.
You're never going to get anything worthwhile from a Democratic politician because they're indoctrinated worse that the brightest
little Pioneer in Juche class. Take Ro Khana's meaningless pap.
What is this 'we should' crap? The law is perfectly clear. The right to self-defense is subject to necessity and proportionality
tests, and invariably subject to UN Charter Chapter 7 in its entirety. See Article 51. Instead of this 'restraint' waffle, just
say, the president must commit to faithfully execute the supreme law of the land, including UN Charter Chapter 7 and Article 2(4).
That means refrain from use or threat of force. Period.
Second, national security is not a loophole in human rights. Khana uses the legally meaningless CIA magic word 'threat.' Under
universal jurisdiction law, it is a war crime to declare abolished, suspended or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and
actions of the nationals of the hostile party. Domestic human rights are subject to ICCPR Article 4, HRC General Comment 29, and
the Siracusa Principles. Instead of CIA's standard National Security get-out clause, state explicitly that US national security
means respect, protection and fulfillment of all human rights. To enforce that, ratify the Rome Statute or GTFO.
Third, internationalism is OK as far as it goes, but Ro Khana doesn't deal with the underlying problem: CIA has infested State
with focal points and dotted-line reports, and demolished the department's capacity for pacific resolution of disputes. You have
to explicitly tie State's mission to UN Charter Chapter 6, and criminalize placement of domestic CIA agents in State.
Fourth, Congressional war-making powers are useless with Congress completely corrupted. Bring back the Ludlow Amendment, war
by public referendum only, subject to Article 51.
Tulsi is a far Left democrat. She supports raising taxes to pay for free college for people earning less than 125K and universal
health care, she actually joined protesters against the Dakota Access Pipeline, has a 100% rating from NARAL and Planned Parenthood,
supports homosexual marriage (changed her previous position in 2012), and has an F rating from the NRA. She's a Lefty. Not for
me, anyway.
I like the one on here who says the Democrat party has "gotten radical."
I assume this is sarcasm, but there is no denying the fact that the neocons(radical whack jobs) have jumped ship from the Republicans
and attached themselves to the Democrats (although there are filtering back into the Trump administration – drunk with power they'll
suck up to anyone)
The DNC NeverTrump crowd is all but calling for a nuclear exchange with Russia because they colluded with Trump to throw the
election, and they pose a National Security threat to the United States(in their head). Hillary also went on to say that Russians
Hacking the DNC is another 9/11. The radical Antifa crowd is made up of 99.999999% of Democratic voters.
"... They divide us with race, sex, and religion. If we came together all the working class people, from every race, you'd see the oligarchs true face. They'd innact martial law in a heartbeat, and run to their underground base in the Ozarks. That's the painful truth. ..."
"... That's why Richard Nixon replaced the draft with a lottery that has evolved into a volunteer armed forces. We were nearly the verge of another civil war in this country. ..."
"... So Jimmy, once again, hit it out of the ballpark with this podcast on why the war hawks fear Tulsi ..."
"... She really scares the war hawks and just as importantly she scares the huge profits these war hawks and allied corporations (the parent company of GE which owns MSNBC makes turbine engines for the military) have made off these unnecessary and tragic wars since the 9/11 attacks. ..."
They divide us with race, sex, and religion. If we came together all the working class
people, from every race, you'd see the oligarchs true face. They'd innact martial law in a
heartbeat, and run to their underground base in the Ozarks. That's the painful
truth.
I served in Vietnam (31 May 1967 - 31 May 1968), so I'm approximately around the same age
as Phil. I told everyone I knew that if we invaded Iraq - this was during the lead-up in 2002
to vote on GWB's Iraq War resolution - having just a volunteer armed forces in the strategic
sense, let alone the invasion of Iraq would violate international covenants against illegal
wars of aggression - we would eventually have down the road a military blunder and a foreign
policy debacle that would rival the one we had in the Vietnam War.
If GWB had somehow
convinced the American people and the Congress to bring back the draft after the 9/11
attacks, I assure you we would have withdrawn from Afghanistan and Iraq long, long ago. But
the war hawks in Congress and the Pentagon love their private, (essentially) quasi-mercenary
volunteer armed forces after how badly they got burnt during the anti-war protests against
the Vietnam War.
That's why Richard Nixon replaced the draft with a lottery that has evolved
into a volunteer armed forces. We were nearly the verge of another civil war in this country.
So Jimmy, once again, hit it out of the ballpark with this podcast on why the war hawks fear Tulsi. Remember they can't smear her based on the fact that she was an officer who did two
tours of duty in the war zone, so they try to smear her because she is supposedly a puppet of
Putin, that is, a fifth columnist or fellow traveler as they did during the Red Scare in the
McCarthy era. I would definitely vote for her as a fellow war veteran for president, but she
has a very hard road to travel to win the nomination.
She really scares the war hawks and
just as importantly she scares the huge profits these war hawks and allied corporations (the
parent company of GE which owns MSNBC makes turbine engines for the military) have made off
these unnecessary and tragic wars since the 9/11 attacks.
"... Establishment NeoCons and Neolibs are going to erase Tulsi's candidacy by not mentioning her, not including her in polls, and not letting into debates. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich received this treatment in 2008/2012 ... because of their Antiwar stance. ..."
Establishment NeoCons and Neolibs are going to erase Tulsi's candidacy by not mentioning her,
not including her in polls, and not letting into debates. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich
received this treatment in 2008/2012 ... because of their Antiwar stance.
I get goosebumps every time I listen to this lady speak, even without the dramatic music.
Happy Valentines day to the heart of America, Tulsi Gabbard!!
I really don't think Bernie is going to run. and tulsi should announce
early on that her pick for vp is bernie. bernie for domestic solutions and tulsi for foreign
ones. That's the winning ticket.
If the dnc rigs the election again then i think the people
should conduct our own regime change here with tulsi as our commander-in-chief of the
peoples' army. this nonsense has to stop.
"... I'm not American but after seeing how Tulsi Gabbard conducted herself in this (so called) interview I urge ALL thinking Americans to put all of their support behind her candidacy for the Presidency. ..."
I'm not American but after seeing how Tulsi Gabbard conducted herself in this (so called)
interview I urge ALL thinking Americans to put all of their support behind her candidacy for
the Presidency.
I am a Syrian and I appreciate everything Tulsi Gabbard is trying to do to stop regime
change. The US media is criminal and responsible for the blood shed in Syria and many other
places. Assad was never an enemy to the US or other western countries.
Gabbard is young, but her metal shows in this clip as she just smiles at the msnbc
stupidity. She doesn't even take these jokers seriously, and that is going to allow her to go
over their heads and connect directly with the public. This is actually awesome.
I am a Trump supporter on the right but truly appreciate Jimmy Dore. I am hopeful that the
left & right can unite against these pro-war establishment propagandists. Let's stop
foreign wars, neocon/neolib policies & MSM deceit ... then we can debate progressive vs
conservative issues.
Putin actually said that, other than the cold war, Russia and the U.S. have always been
allies, and that's what he wants. I have two recent videos where Putin is calling for peace
and good relations with America. Do I really need to find the links and post them here? I'm a
busy man. Let's all help Jimmy, Ron and Steph by doing some homework. Americans should stop
smearing good people and start applying some critical thinking skills. "Putin-puppets"?
What
about " military industrial complex puppets" who robotically repeat false Russian collusion
accusations in order to silence honest dissent? Talk about the pot calling the kettle
black.
Hey Jimmy, hey Jimmy! Have you seen the vid of Putin talking to the western press? I think
it was 2015 or so. He's calmly talking about NATO and weapons being put on Russia's borders
and how bad it would be if this goes ahead and Russia has to respond. He's practically
pleading with them to let the American people know this doesn't have to happen. I saw him
saying much the same thing in a Charlie Rose interview before Rose moved into the Big Bucks
on network TV. Yet as things were heating up about Russia Rose never mentioned this as he sat
at that morning show desk.
MSNBC and especially the panel of Morning Joe are some of the most shameless tools in
America. If DC is a sewer inhabited by big fat sewer rats; then Kasie (and her ilk), are the
plague-infected fleas that take their blood-meals from those rats.
This is a good reason to vote for her the only thing she represents is good and they want her gone it seems, she has the majority
of America on her mind.
I was a huge Bernie fan in the last election, but I would love it if he holds a huge press conference to announce his plans
and instead gives a HUGE endorsement to Tulsi. That would be a great way to stick it to the media and give her more coverage.
They need to make sure Tulsi won't make it to any debates, because they can't allow the discussion that would ensue about expensive,
illegal and useless military adventures that we need to stop. And in a debate, they can't simply interrupt her like they can in
an interview. That's not a discussion they can allow because people could think they might actually have a choice in the matter.
For war mongers, they sure are chicken-shits who obviously don't even have any confidence in their own arguments in favor of it.
Politics as usual. Voters always end up with two oligarch picks that have been groomed to mouth what they are told. MSM employees
are not independent thinkers either. The two party system has been around for a long time, although in reality it is one party
with a and b choices.
Press Release Washington, DC -- Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02) joined a
coalition of over 160 lawmakers in introducing legislation that would create a national paid
family and medical leave program. The Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act, known as the
FAMILY Act, would ensure that every American worker can take up to 12 weeks of paid leave for a
pregnancy or the birth or adoption of a child, to recover from a serious illness, or to care
for a seriously ill family member.
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard said: "Across the country, people are working hard every day, living
paycheck to paycheck, barely making enough to get by. When a crisis arises, like a parent who
falls sick, a personal health crisis, or a newborn child, the demands of balancing a job and
family needs can be too much. Without a national family leave policy, millions of Americans are
forced to make an impossible choice between their family's health, and their financial
security. Our legislation will provide the security our working families need to care for their
loved ones, without risking their ability to keep a roof over their heads and food on the
table."
Background: The FAMILY Act establishes a national family and medical leave insurance
program. Receiving paid leave benefits allows workers to take time away from their jobs to
address their most-pressing needs. Specifically, the legislation would provide eligible
employees up to 12 weeks of partial income to address:
A serious personal health condition, including pregnancy or childbirth,
A family member with a serious health condition,
A newborn, newly-adopted child, or a newly-placed foster child, or
"... So how did Trump finally get the liberal corporate media to stop calling him a fascist? He did that by acting like a fascist (i.e., like a "normal" president). Which is to say he did the bidding of the deep state goons and corporate mandarins that manage the global capitalist empire the smiley, happy, democracy-spreading, post-fascist version of fascism we live under. ..."
"... Notwithstanding what the corporate media will tell you, Americans elected Donald Trump, a preposterous, self-aggrandizing ass clown, not because they were latent Nazis, or because they were brainwashed by Russian hackers, but, primarily, because they wanted to believe that he sincerely cared about America, and was going to try to "make it great again" (whatever that was supposed to mean, exactly). ..."
"... Unfortunately, there is no America. There is nothing to make great again. "America" is a fiction, a fantasy, a nostalgia that hucksters like Donald Trump (and other, marginally less buffoonish hucksters) use to sell whatever they are selling themselves, wars, cars, whatever. What there is, in reality, instead of America, is a supranational global capitalist empire, a decentralized, interdependent network of global corporations, financial institutions, national governments, intelligence agencies, supranational governmental entities, military forces, media, and so on. If that sounds far-fetched or conspiratorial, look at what is going on in Venezuela. ..."
"... And Venezuela is just the most recent blatant example of the empire in action. ..."
Maybe Donald Trump isn't as stupid as I thought. I'd hate to have to admit that publicly,
but it does kind of seem like he has put one over on the liberal corporate media this time.
Scanning the recent Trump-related news, I couldn't help but notice a significant decline in the
number of references to Weimar, Germany, Adolf Hitler, and "
the brink of fascism " that America has supposedly been teetering on since Hillary Clinton
lost the election.
I googled around pretty well, I think, but I couldn't find a single
editorial warning that Trump is about to summarily cancel the U.S. Constitution, dissolve
Congress, and
proclaim himself Führer . Nor did I see any mention of Auschwitz , or any other Nazi
stuff which is weird, considering that the Hitler hysteria
has been a standard feature of the official narrative we've been subjected to for the last two
years.
So how did Trump finally get the liberal corporate media to stop calling him a fascist? He
did that by acting like a fascist (i.e., like a "normal" president). Which is to say he did the
bidding of the deep state goons and corporate mandarins that manage the global capitalist
empire the smiley, happy, democracy-spreading, post-fascist version of fascism we live
under.
I'm referring, of course, to Venezuela, which is one of a handful of uncooperative countries
that are not playing ball with global capitalism and which haven't been "regime changed" yet.
Trump green-lit the attempted coup purportedly being staged by the Venezuelan "opposition," but
which is obviously a U.S. operation, or, rather, a global capitalist operation. As soon as he
did, the corporate media immediately suspended calling him a fascist, and comparing him to
Adolf Hitler, and so on, and started spewing out blatant propaganda supporting his effort to
overthrow the elected government of a sovereign country.
Overthrowing the governments of sovereign countries, destroying their economies, stealing
their gold, and otherwise bringing them into the fold of the global capitalist "international
community" is not exactly what most folks thought Trump meant by "Make America Great Again."
Many Americans have never been to Venezuela, or Syria, or anywhere else the global capitalist
empire has been ruthlessly restructuring since shortly after the end of the Cold War. They have
not been lying awake at night worrying about Venezuelan democracy, or Syrian democracy, or
Ukrainian democracy.
This is not because Americans are a heartless people, or an ignorant or a selfish people. It
is because, well, it is because they are Americans (or, rather, because they believe they are
Americans), and thus are more interested in the problems of Americans than in the problems of
people in faraway lands that have nothing whatsoever to do with America. Notwithstanding what
the corporate media will tell you, Americans elected Donald Trump, a preposterous,
self-aggrandizing ass clown, not because they were latent Nazis, or because they were
brainwashed by Russian hackers, but, primarily, because they wanted to believe that he
sincerely cared about America, and was going to try to "make it great again" (whatever that was
supposed to mean, exactly).
Unfortunately, there is no America. There is nothing to make great again. "America" is a
fiction, a fantasy, a nostalgia that hucksters like Donald Trump (and other, marginally less
buffoonish hucksters) use to sell whatever they are selling themselves, wars, cars, whatever.
What there is, in reality, instead of America, is a supranational global capitalist empire, a
decentralized, interdependent network of global corporations, financial institutions, national
governments, intelligence agencies, supranational governmental entities, military forces,
media, and so on. If that sounds far-fetched or conspiratorial, look at what is going on in
Venezuela.
The entire global capitalist empire is working in concert to force the elected president of
the country out of office. The US, the UK, Canada, France, Germany, Spain, Austria, Denmark,
Poland, the Netherlands, Israel, Brazil, Peru, Chile, and Argentina have officially recognized
Juan Guaido as the legitimate president of Venezuela, in spite of the fact that no one elected
him. Only the empire's official evil enemies (i.e., Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Cuba, and other
uncooperative countries) are objecting to this "democratic" coup. The global financial system
(i.e., banks) has frozen (i.e., stolen) Venezuela's assets, and is attempting to transfer them
to Guaido so he can buy the Venezuelan military. The corporate media are hammering out the
official narrative like a Goebbelsian piano in an effort to convince the general public that
all this has something to do with democracy. You would have to be a total moron or hopelessly
brainwashed not to recognize what is happening.
What is happening has nothing to do with America the "America" that Americans believe they
live in and that many of them want to "make great again." What is happening is exactly what has
been happening around the world since the end of the Cold War, albeit most dramatically in the
Middle East. The de facto global capitalist empire is restructuring the planet with virtual
impunity. It is methodically eliminating any and all impediments to the hegemony of global
capitalism, and the privatization and commodification of everything.
Venezuela is one of these impediments. Overthrowing its government has nothing to do with
America, or the lives of actual Americans. "America" is not to going conquer Venezuela and
plant an American flag on its soil. "America" is not going to steal its oil, ship it "home,"
and parcel it out to "Americans" in their pickups in the parking lot of Walmart.
What what about those American oil corporations? They want that Venezuelan oil, don't they?
Well, sure they do, but here's the thing there are no "American" oil corporations.
Corporations, especially multi-billion dollar transnational corporations (e.g., Chevron,
ExxonMobil, et al.) have no nationalities, nor any real allegiances, other than to their major
shareholders. Chevron, for example, whose major shareholders are asset management and mutual
fund companies like Black Rock, The Vanguard Group, SSgA Funds Management, Geode Capital
Management, Wellington Management, and other transnational, multi-trillion dollar outfits. Do
you really believe that being nominally headquartered in Boston or New York makes these
companies "American," or that Deutsche Bank is a "German" bank, or that BP is a "British"
company?
And Venezuela is just the most recent blatant example of the empire in action. Ask yourself,
honestly, what have the "American" regime change ops throughout the Greater Middle East done
for any actual Americans, other than get a lot of them killed? Oh, and how about those bailouts
for all those transnational "American" investment banks? Or the billions "America" provides to
Israel? Someone please explain how enriching the shareholders of transnational corporations
like Raytheon, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin by selling billions in weapons to Saudi Arabian
Islamists is benefiting "the American people." How much of that Saudi money are you seeing?
And, wait, I've got another one for you. Call up your friendly 401K manager, ask how your
Pfizer shares are doing, then compare that to what you're paying some "American" insurance
corporation to not really cover you.
For the last two-hundred years or so, we have been conditioned to think of ourselves as the
citizens of a collection of sovereign nation states, as "Americans," "Germans," "Greeks," and
so on. There are no more sovereign nation states. Global capitalism has done away with them.
Which is why we are experiencing a "neo-nationalist" backlash. Trump, Brexit, the so-called
"new populism" these are the death throes of national sovereignty, like the thrashing of a
suffocating fish before you whack it and drop it in the cooler. The battle is over, but the
fish doesn't know that. It didn't even realize there was a battle until it suddenly got jerked
up out of the water.
In any event, here we are, at the advent of the global capitalist empire. We are not going
back to the 19th Century, nor even to the early 20th Century. Neither Donald Trump nor anyone
else is going to "Make America Great Again." Global capitalism will continue to remake the
world into one gigantic marketplace where we work ourselves to death at bullshit
jobs in order to buy things we don't need, accumulating debts we can never pay back, the
interest on which will further enrich the global capitalist ruling classes, who, as you may
have noticed, are preparing for the future by purchasing luxury
underground bunkers and post-apocalyptic compounds in New Zealand. That, and militarizing
the police, who they will need to maintain "public order" you know, like they are doing in
France at the moment, by
beating, blinding, and hideously maiming those Gilets Jaunes (i.e., Yellow Vest) protesters
that the corporate media are doing their best to demonize and/or render invisible.
Or, who knows, Americans (and other Western consumers) might take a page from those Yellow
Vests, set aside their political differences (or at least ignore their hatred of each other
long enough to actually try to achieve something), and focus their anger at the politicians and
corporations that actually run the empire, as opposed to, you know, illegal immigrants and
imaginary legions of Nazis and Russians. In the immortal words of General Buck Turgidson, "I'm
not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed," but, heck, it might be worth a try, especially
since, the way things are going, we are probably going end up out there anyway.
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist
based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play
Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant Paperbacks. He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .
The inimitable CN commenting system just ate my detailed reply to your question of who
else besides Gabbard has spoken up, and won't let me repost it. But the short version is that
Rep. Ilhan Omar came out with a decent statement, like
Tulsi.
Rep. Ro Khanna hedged his bets by insulting Maduro while criticizing the coup attempt.
Saint Bernie came out with something that was two-thirds State Department talking points
followed by limp disapproval of U.S. sponsored coups in general. Classic Sanders.
Saint Alexandria doesn't want to talk about it.
As far as I know, everybody else is on board the regime-change express, enjoying the bar
car.
Summary: Tulsi rocks.
KiwiAntz, February 12, 2019 at 7:04 am
Trump & his corrupt Administration with the Troika of morons such as Pompeo, Bolton & Abrams, are the most dangerous bunch
of idiots ever to be in power?
Hopelessly inept & out of his depth, Trump doesn't have a clue about Foreign Policy & his stupid Regime change
antics are going to blow up in his & his meddling Nations face!
This buffoonish Clown is really accelerating America's downfall & declining Hegemonic power & turning the World away from
the corrupt US Dollar, Petrodollar system with other Countries, actively moving away from this tyranny?
He not only acknowledged early on that his initial support for the Iraq war was wrong, but
spent the rest of his career fighting for a more restrained and peaceful foreign policy. Rep.
Jones was one of the original Republican co-sponsors of
the first House antiwar resolution to end
U.S. involvement in the war on Yemen . He co-authored an op-ed with
Reps. Khanna and Pocan in 2017 in support of their resolution:
We believe that the American people, if presented with the facts of this conflict, will
oppose the use of their tax dollars to bomb and starve civilians in order to further the
Saudi monarchy's regional goals. Our House resolution is a first step in expanding democracy
into an arena long insulated from public accountability. Too many lives hang in the balance
to allow this American war to continue without congressional consent. When our bill comes to
the floor for a vote, our colleagues should consider first the solution proposed by the
director of Unicef, Anthony Lake, for stopping the unimaginable suffering of millions of
Yemenis: "Stop the war."
It is unfortunate that Rep. Jones did not live to see the House pass that resolution to end
U.S. support for the war, but when a new version of that resolution passes later this month it
will be thanks in no small part to his leadership.
Jones became a reliable scourge of
unnecessary and unauthorized foreign wars wherever they happened to be
. He saw the continuation of open-ended and illegal wars as an attack on the Constitution and
an abuse of the men and women who volunteered to serve their country. His opposition to these
wars earned him the enmity
of Republican hawks , who repeatedly and
unsuccessfully sought to unseat him through primary challenges. Whatever their disagreements
with him may have been over the years, his constituents recognized and appreciated his
integrity and his dedication to the country.
The cause of peace and restraint has lost one of its great defenders, TAC has lost
one of our good friends, and America has lot one of its most honorable and decent public
servants. May his memory be eternal.
I hope that good and true Americans inspired by his example will pick up the colors he
carried so long and faithfully, carry them forward, renewing his dogged efforts to rein in
military intervention and preserve true freedom.
For all that, you may be certain that somewhere the vermin are jumping for joy, because
when it comes to their vile wars and meddling they brook no dissent, and Jones's voice was
strong and sure, grounded in truth and "the better angels of our nature".
Very sorry to have lost this good and valuable American. Hats off also to the people of
his district, many of them soldiers or families of soldiers, who kept sending him back to
Washington. May they find someone to replace who has the same gumption, character, and
commitment to basic Americanism.
If there were more people like him in Washington, we wouldn't be in the state we're in. I
wrote him a "fan" letter back in 2006 or thereabouts, about his regrets about the Iraq war
and writing to all the families of those KIA. Also appreciated him being one of the few in
Congress that actually tried to follow the Constitution and do something about our national
debt. He also was all about constituent service,especially for veterans and those in Eastern
North Carolina affected by the recent hurricanes. Eternal rest, grant him, Oh Lord, and let
perpetual light shine upon him.
Ocasio-Cortez is rolling out the "Green New Deal" with Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA), which she says
calls for a "national, social, industrial and economic mobilization at a scale not seen since
World War II and the New Deal," and is "a wartime-level, just economic mobilization plan to get
to 100% renewable energy."
The plan also aims "to promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future,
and repairing historic oppression of indigenous communities, communities of color, migrant
communities" and other "frontline and vulnerable communities. "
Ocasio-Cortez's plan, which has several doesn't outline specific policy proposals (they'll
"work it out" we guess), and promises grandiose measures using broad brush strokes such as
achieving "net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all
communities and workers. Everybody gets a job, clean water, healthy food, and "access to
nature," whatever that means.
Where it does get slightly more specific, the resolution, obtained by
NPR , mandates among other things (via
NPR ):
" upgrading all existing buildings" in the country for energy efficiency ;
working with farmers " to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions... as much as
is technologically feasible " (while supporting family farms and promoting "universal access
to healthy food");
"Overhauling transportation systems" to reduce emissions -- including expanding electric
car manufacturing, building "charging stations everywhere," and expanding high-speed rail to
"a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary";
A guaranteed job "with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid
vacations and retirement security" for every American ;
"High-quality health care" for all Americans.
For a deeper analysis which we noted earlier,
click here .
"... However, he was one of the few politicians initially supporting the Iraq invasion to later express profound public regret over his decision , and went on to become a consistent advocate for ending regime change wars and Washington's military adventurism abroad. As part of these efforts, he was an original Board Member of the Ron Paul Institute. ..."
Rep. Walter Jones, Jr. died at the age of 76 on Sunday after an extended illness for which was a granted a leave of absence from
Congress last year.
The Republican representative for North Carolina's 3rd congressional district since 1995 had initially been a strong supporter
of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and even became well-known for getting french fries renamed as "freedom fries" in the House cafeteria
as a protest against French condemnation of the US invasion.
... ... ...
However, he was one of the few politicians initially supporting the Iraq invasion to later express profound public regret
over his decision , and went on to become a consistent advocate for ending regime change wars and Washington's military adventurism
abroad. As part of these efforts, he was an original Board Member of the Ron Paul Institute.
Remembering Jones as a tireless advocate of peace, Ron Paul
notes that he " turned
from pro-war to an antiwar firebrand after he discovered how Administrations lie us into war . His passing yesterday is deeply mourned
by all who value peace and honesty over war and deception." The Ron Paul Institute has also called him "a Hero of Peace" for both
his voting record and efforts at shutting down the "endless wars".
And Antiwar.com also describes Jones as having been among the "most consistently antiwar members of Congress" and
a huge supporter
of their work:
By 2005, Jones had reversed his position on the Iraq War. Jones called on President George W. Bush to apologize for misinforming
Congress to win authorization for the war. Jones said, "If I had known then what I know today, I wouldn't have voted for
that resolution."
Jones went on to become one of the most antiwar members of Congress, fighting for ending US involvement in Afghanistan,
Syria, Libya, and Yemen.
Also the BBC describes Rep. Jones' "dramatic change of heart" concerning the Iraq war starting in 2005, after which he began reaching
out to thousands of people who had lost loves ones in combat.
Rep. Walter Jones led an effort in the House to call French Fries "Freedom Fries" instead, but came to profoundly regret his role
in supporting Bush's war.
Noting that "no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq" and that the war was justified by the Bush administration based
entirely on lies and false intelligence, the BBC describes:
At the same time, Mr Jones met grieving families whose loved ones were killed in the war. This caused him to have a dramatic
change of heart, and in 2005 he called for the troops to be brought home.
He spoke candidly on several occasions about how deeply he regretted supporting the war, which led to the deaths of more than
140,000 Iraqi and American people.
"I have signed over 12,000 letters to families and extended families who've lost loved ones in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars,"
he told NPR in 2017. "That was, for me, asking God to forgive me for my mistake."
In total he represented his district for 34 years, first in the North Carolina state legislature, then in Congress. He took a
leave of absence last year after a number of missed House votes due to declining health.
'Populism' is just democracy in action and most people seem to think democracy is a good
thing. So what's the problem? Apparently the masses don't want what's being shoved down their
throats by undemocratic rulers so now we have this ongoing conflict. One can only hope that
the populists get the upper hand in all this. We need a new political terminology because it
seems strange to use the label "liberal" for a group of people that are such aggressive
war-mongers. There doesn't seem to be much that's liberal about them.War lovers and
anti-democratic, they have much in common with fascism.
"... Now the Times acknowledges: "The price tag, which includes the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and increased spending on veterans' care, will reach $5.9 trillion by the end of fiscal year 2019, according to the Costs of War project at Brown University. Since nearly all of that money has been borrowed, the total cost with interest will be substantially higher More than 2.7 million Americans have fought in the war since 2001. Nearly 7,000 service members-and nearly 8,000 private contractors-have been killed. More than 53,700 people returned home bearing physical wounds, and numberless more carry psychological injuries. More than one million Americans who served in a theater of the war on terror receive some level of disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs." ..."
"... Kagan has a great deal invested in the Afghanistan war. He and his wife Kimberly served as civilian advisers to top generals who directed the war and elaborated the failed strategies of counterinsurgency (COIN). He has been a vociferous supporter of every US war and every escalation, arguing most recently for the US military to confront Russian- and Iranian-backed forces in Syria. ..."
"... A leading figure in the Democratic Party, Smeal is no Jane-come-lately to the filthy campaign to promote the war in Afghanistan as a "humanitarian" exercise in promoting the rights of women ..."
"... Aside from costing the lives of hundreds of thousands of Afghan women, the US war has left women, like the entire population, under worse conditions than when it began. Two-thirds of Afghan girls do not attend school, 87 percent of Afghan women are illiterate, and 70-80 percent face forced marriage, many before the age of 16. ..."
"... The attempt by the likes of Smeal and leading elements within the Democratic Party to cloak the bloodbath in Afghanistan as a crusade to "liberate" women and promote "democracy" is itself a criminal act. ..."
"... Afghanistan is a shitshow due to elite meddling. This editorial was nothing more than virtue-signaling to those that still hate war. But the anti-war movement is effectively dead anyway. There are anti-war people, but no anti-war movement. That's the crowd that the New York Times was appealing to. This is a stunt; nothing more. ..."
"... It was USA imperialism (under Carter and Brzezinski) which first had made Afghanistan a hell for women, but colonial feminists do not care for the facts. ..."
"... That is very true. "Death by a thousand cuts" was Brzezinski's scheme to destroy the Soviet Union in Central Asia. A few years ago, he was interviewed by a journalist from PRC who asked if he had any regrets with all the destruction and death it caused. Brzezinski said, "None". ..."
An editorial published by the New York Times on February 4 titled "End the War in Afghanistan" has provoked a backlash from prominent
supporters of the decades-long US "war on terrorism" and the fraud of "humanitarian intervention."
The Times editorial was a damning
self-indictment by the US political establishment's newspaper of record, which has supported every US act of military aggression,
from the invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001, to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 and the US wars for regime change in Libya
and Syria beginning in 2011.
The editorial presents the "war on terror" as an unmitigated fiasco, dating it from September 14, 2001, when "Congress wrote what
would prove to be one of the largest blank checks in the country's history," i.e., the Authorization for Use of Military Force against
Al Qaeda and its affiliates, which is still invoked to legitimize US interventions from Syria to Somalia, Yemen and, of course, Afghanistan.
On the day that this "blank check" was written, the Times published a column titled "No Middle Ground," which stated "the Bush
administration today gave the nations of the world a stark choice: stand with us against terrorism, deny safe havens to terrorists
or face the certain prospect of death and destruction. The marble halls of Washington resounded with talk of war."
It continued, "The nation is rallying around its young, largely untried leader-as his rising approval ratings and the proliferation
of flags across the country vividly demonstrate "
This war propaganda was sustained by the Times, which sold the invasion of Afghanistan as retribution for 9/11 and then promoted
the illegal and unprovoked war against Iraq by legitimizing and embellishing the lies about "weapons of mass destruction."
With the first deployment of US ground troops in Afghanistan, the Times editorialized on October 20, 2001: "Now the nation's soldiers
are going into battle in a distant and treacherous land, facing a determined and resourceful enemy. As they go, they should know
that the nation supports their cause and yearns for their success."
Now the Times acknowledges: "The price tag, which includes the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and increased spending on veterans'
care, will reach $5.9 trillion by the end of fiscal year 2019, according to the Costs of War project at Brown University. Since nearly
all of that money has been borrowed, the total cost with interest will be substantially higher More than 2.7 million Americans have
fought in the war since 2001. Nearly 7,000 service members-and nearly 8,000 private contractors-have been killed. More than 53,700
people returned home bearing physical wounds, and numberless more carry psychological injuries. More than one million Americans who
served in a theater of the war on terror receive some level of disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs."
The massive loss of life, destruction of social infrastructure and vast human suffering inflicted by these wars on civilian populations
are at best an afterthought for the Times. Conservative estimates place the number killed by the US war in Afghanistan at 175,000.
With the number of indirect fatalities caused by the war, the toll likely rises to a million. In Iraq, the death toll was even higher.
What does the Times conclude from this bloody record? "The failure of American leaders-civilians and generals through three administrations,
from the Pentagon to the State Department to Congress and the White House-to develop and pursue a strategy to end the war ought to
be studied for generations. Likewise, all Americans-the news media included-need to be prepared to examine the national credulity
or passivity that's led to the longest conflict in modern American history."
What a cowardly and cynical evasion! Three administrations, those of Bush, Obama and Trump, have committed war crimes over the
course of more than 17 years, including launching wars of aggression-the principal charge leveled against the Nazis at Nuremberg-the
slaughter of civilians and torture. These crimes should not be "studied for generations," but punished.
As for the attempt to lump the news media together with "all Americans" as being guilty of "credulity" and "passivity," this is
a slander against the American people and a deliberate cover-up of the crimes carried out by the corporate media, with the Times
at their head, in disseminating outright lies and war propaganda. The Times editors should be "prepared to examine" the fact that
journalistic agents of the Nazi regime who carried out a similar function in Germany were tried and punished at Nuremberg.
The Times editorial supporting a US withdrawal reflects the conclusions being drawn by increasing sections of the ruling establishment,
including the Trump administration, which has opened up negotiations with the Taliban. It is bound up with the shift in strategy
by US imperialism and the Pentagon toward the preparation for "great power" confrontations with nuclear-armed Russia and China.
The Times ' call for an Afghanistan withdrawal has provoked a heated rebuke by defenders of the "war on terrorism" and "humanitarian
intervention," who have denounced the newspaper for defeatism. Such a withdrawal, a letter published by the Times on February 8 argued,
would "accelerate and expand the war," "allow another extremist-terrorist phenomenon to emerge," and "result in the deaths and abuse
of thousands of women."
The signatories of the letter include Frederick Kagan, David Sedney and Eleanor Smeal.
Kagan has a great deal invested in the Afghanistan war. He and his wife Kimberly served as civilian advisers to top generals
who directed the war and elaborated the failed strategies of counterinsurgency (COIN). He has been a vociferous supporter of every
US war and every escalation, arguing most recently for the US military to confront Russian- and Iranian-backed forces in Syria.
Likewise Sedney, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense responsible for Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asia, now working
at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Married to a top lobbyist for Chevron who worked extensively
in Central Asia, he has his own interests in the continuation of US military operations in the region.
Smeal is the president of the Feminist Majority Foundation (FMD) and a former president of the National Organization for Women
(NOW), who is widely described as one of "the major leaders of the modern-day American feminist movement."
A leading figure in the Democratic Party, Smeal is no Jane-come-lately to the filthy campaign to promote the war in Afghanistan
as a "humanitarian" exercise in promoting the rights of women. In 2001, Smeal and her FMD circulated a petition thanking the Bush
administration for its commitment to promoting the rights of women in Afghanistan. After the bombing began on October 7, she declared,
"We have real momentum now in the drive to restore the rights of women." A few days later, she and representatives of other feminist
organizations showed up at the White House to solidarize themselves with the US war.
Urging on the conquest of Afghanistan, she wrote, "I should hope our government doesn't retreat. We'll help rip those burqas off,
I hope. This is a unique time in history. If you're going to end terrorism, you've got to end the ideology of gender apartheid."
Aside from costing the lives of hundreds of thousands of Afghan women, the US war has left women, like the entire population,
under worse conditions than when it began. Two-thirds of Afghan girls do not attend school, 87 percent of Afghan women are illiterate,
and 70-80 percent face forced marriage, many before the age of 16.
Recent reports suggest that the maternal death rate may be higher than it was before the war began, surpassed only by South Sudan.
While USAID has poured some $280 million into its Promote program, supposedly to advance the conditions of Afghan women, it has done
nothing but line the pockets of corrupt officials of the US-backed puppet regime in Kabul.
The attempt by the likes of Smeal and leading elements within the Democratic Party to cloak the bloodbath in Afghanistan as a
crusade to "liberate" women and promote "democracy" is itself a criminal act.
On October 9, two days after Washington launched its now 17-year-long war on Afghanistan and amid a furor of jingoistic and militarist
propaganda from the US government and the corporate media, the World Socialist Web Site editorial board posted a column titled "Why
we oppose the war in Afghanistan." It rejected the claim that this was a "war for justice and the security of the American people
against terrorism" and insisted that "the present action by the United States is an imperialist war" in which Washington aimed to
"establish a new political framework within which it will exert hegemonic control" over not only Afghanistan, but over the broader
region of Central Asia, "home to the second largest deposit of proven reserves of petroleum and natural gas in the world."
The WSWS stated at the time: "Despite a relentless media campaign to whip up chauvinism and militarism, the mood of the American
people is not one of gung-ho support for the war. At most, it is a passive acceptance that war is the only means to fight terrorism,
a mood that owes a great deal to the efforts of a thoroughly dishonest media which serves as an arm of the state. Beneath the reluctant
endorsement of military action is a profound sense of unease and skepticism. Tens of millions sense that nothing good can come of
this latest eruption of American militarism.
"The United States stands at a turning point. The government admits it has embarked on a war of indefinite scale and duration.
What is taking place is the militarization of American society under conditions of a deepening social crisis.
"The war will profoundly affect the conditions of the American and international working class. Imperialism threatens mankind
at the beginning of the twenty-first century with a repetition on a more horrific scale of the tragedies of the twentieth. More than
ever, imperialism and its depredations raise the necessity for the international unity of the working class and the struggle for
socialism."
These warnings and this perspective have been borne out entirely by the criminal and tragic events of the last 17 years, even
as the likes of the New York Times find themselves compelled to admit the bankruptcy of their entire record on Afghanistan, and their
erstwhile "liberal" allies struggle to salvage some shred of the filthy banner of "human rights imperialism."
"The failure of American leaders -- civilians and generals through three administrations, from the Pentagon to the State Department
to Congress and the White House -- to develop and pursue a strategy to end the war ought to be studied for generations. Likewise,
all Americans -- the news media included -- need to be prepared to examine the national credulity or passivity that's led to the
longest conflict in modern American history."
What the New York Times should propose is a Nuremberg-style trial for the war criminals responsible for the genocide of millions,
the devastation of of the Middle East and Africa, and the looting of the US Treasury by war profiteers and the political duopoly.
If these criminals are NOT held accountable for their actions NOTHING will be learned and the violence, death and destruction
will continue.
"The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law, acted as Head of State or responsible
government official, does not relieve him from responsibility under international law."
Gore Vidal rightly named America as the United States of Amnesia. They NEVER learn from their own history and they are never told
about what their terrorist government does in their name.
Eleanor Smeal's comment about "ripping off those burqas" in Afghanistan reminds me of Louisiana congressman John Cooksey's post-9/11
suggestion that police should pull over and question anyone with ''a diaper on his head''. Both use religious intolerance to increase
the power of the state.
"A leading figure in the Democratic Party, Smeal is no Jane-come-lately to the filthy campaign to promote the war in Afghanistan
as a "humanitarian" exercise in promoting the rights of women."
wouldn't it be more correctly "Janey comes lately" ..as in "Johnny come lately"..?
The completely insane fraud of waging imperialist war for "women rights" has been , unfortunately, extensively documented..the
US occupation has strengthened not weakened the Taliban
"The WSWS stated at the time: "Despite a relentless media campaign to whip up chauvinism and militarism, the mood of the American
people is not one of gung-ho support for the war. "
Not really in agreement with this statement although, everything has changed in almost 20 years.....
There are always elements that are gung ho for war. And I'll agree that the number was abnormally high for Afghanistan. But I
do think the majority still reluctantly agreed to the war as a necessary measure to fight "terrorism" as the more-than-likely-to-be-a-false-flag
9/11 event was very fresh in everyone's mind.
Afghanistan is a shitshow due to elite meddling. This editorial was nothing more than virtue-signaling to those that still
hate war. But the anti-war movement is effectively dead anyway. There are anti-war people, but no anti-war movement. That's the
crowd that the New York Times was appealing to. This is a stunt; nothing more.
What's more interesting is that the liberal elites will probably do their best to continue on with the war. But either way,
the USA will likely lose. In fact, it's already lost the war. The Taliban have won this one. That the elitists can't see that
shows just how far gone they are.
It was USA imperialism (under Carter and Brzezinski) which first had made Afghanistan a hell for women, but colonial feminists
do not care for the facts.
That is very true. "Death by a thousand cuts" was Brzezinski's scheme to destroy the Soviet Union in Central Asia. A few years
ago, he was interviewed by a journalist from PRC who asked if he had any regrets with all the destruction and death it caused.
Brzezinski said, "None".
"... "Am I crazy?" -Bari Weiis Well Bari Weiis you're either crazy or you're a yet another worthless establishment shill whose job is spread deliberate misinformation about the most genuine anti-war candidate running at a time when the entire MSM, MIC, and the neoliberal rightwing establishment (including AIPAC) is deliberately smearing her to immediately kill her campaign. And you didn't come across as crazy so... ..."
This woman had NO CLUE what she was talking about. She thought she was on a show that would just tow the party line and let
her get away with wrong statements. She's just repeating what critics say with no idea of the truth. What a fool. As a woman,
THIS IS WHY I WON'T JUST VOTE FOR ANY WOMAN. We are just as capable of being stupid as anyone else.
Bari: "I think Tulsi Gabbard is an Assad toadie." Joe: "What do you mean by toadie?" Bari: "Oh, I don't know what that means."
Joe: "Okay, I looked it up, and it's like a sycophant." Bari: "Then Tulsi is like an Assad sycophant." Joe: "So what do you mean
by that?" Bari: "I'm not sure what sycophant means either." Joe: "I looked up the definition, it's like a suck-up." Bari: "All
right, Tulsi is an Assad suck-up." Joe: "Could you explain that further?" Bari: "I don't know what suck means." Joe: "It's what
you're doing right now."
"Am I crazy?" -Bari Weiis Well Bari Weiis you're either crazy or you're a yet another worthless establishment shill whose job
is spread deliberate misinformation about the most genuine anti-war candidate running at a time when the entire MSM, MIC, and
the neoliberal rightwing establishment (including AIPAC) is deliberately smearing her to immediately kill her campaign. And you
didn't come across as crazy so...
I will be very surprised if neocons would not frame her Putin toady as well. This is how this
system works. It eliminates undesirable to the neoliberals candidates with 100% efficiency.
They
serve as local STASI and some former STASI official might well envy neocons efficiency of
silencing opponents (with much less blood and overt repression, by pure magic of neocon
propaganda ).
Notable quotes:
"... She has "monstrous ideas, she's an Assad toady," Weiss tells Rogan. ..."
"... Rogan then reads the definition: "Toadies. The definition of toadies: A person who flatters or defers to others for self-serving reasons." "A sycophant. So I did use it right!" Weiss exclaims. "So she's an Assad sycophant? Is that what you're saying?" "Yeah, that's, proven -- known -- about her." ..."
"... When Rogan asks what Gabbard has said that qualifies her as a sycophant, Weiss replies: "I don't remember the details." ..."
"... Gabbard, who announced her presidential campaign on January 11, has drawn incredible amounts of ire from mainstream Democrats tripping over themselves for war with Syria because in January 2017, Gabbard met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and denounced the opposition rebels in the country's civil war as "terrorists." ..."
"... She has also expressed skepticism about accusations that Assad's government has used chemical weapons during the conflict and spoken out against cruise missile attacks by the US and its allies against the country. ..."
Monday to discuss current events, but
things got embarrassing when she went in on Gabbard, a progressive Democrat whose foreign
policy positions have turned more than a few heads.
Neocon NY Times columnist Bari Weiss smeared Tulsi Gabbard (who bravely opposed regime
change and US support for Salafi-jihadist contras) as an "Assad toady," then couldn't
spell/define toady or offer any evidence to prove her smear. Embarrassingly funny pic.twitter.com/m0MLaHFPiX
When Rogan asks for clarification, she says, "I think that I used that word correctly." She
then asks someone off camera to look up what toady means. "Like toeing the line," Rogan says,
"is that what it means?" "No, I think it's like, uh " and Weiss drones off without an answer.
She then attempts to spell it, and can't even do that. "T-O-A-D-I-E. I think it means what I
think it means "
Rogan then reads the definition: "Toadies. The definition of toadies: A person who flatters
or defers to others for self-serving reasons." "A sycophant. So I did use it right!" Weiss
exclaims. "So she's an Assad sycophant? Is that what you're saying?" "Yeah, that's, proven --
known -- about her."
When Rogan asks what Gabbard has said that qualifies her as a sycophant,
Weiss replies: "I don't remember the details."
"We probably should say that before we say that about her -- we should probably read it,
rather, right now, just so we know what she said," Rogan notes. "I think she's, like, the
motherlode of bad ideas," Weiss then says. "I'm pretty positive about that, especially on
Assad. But maybe I'm wrong. I don't think I'm wrong." It seems to us here at Sputnik that such
claims should be made with a bit more confidence than this. So let's set the record
straight.
Gabbard, who announced her presidential campaign on January 11, has drawn incredible amounts
of ire from mainstream Democrats tripping over themselves for war with Syria because in January
2017, Gabbard met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and denounced the opposition rebels in
the country's civil war as "terrorists."
She has also expressed skepticism about accusations that Assad's
government has used chemical weapons during the conflict and spoken out against cruise missile
attacks by the US and its allies against the country.
"Initially I hadn't planned on meeting him," Gabbard, an Iraq War veteran, told CNN's Jake
Tapper following the meeting. "When the opportunity arose to meet with him, I did so, because I
felt it's important that if we profess to truly care about the Syrian people, about their
suffering, then we've got to be able to meet with anyone that we need to if there is a
possibility that we could achieve peace. And that's exactly what we talked about."
"I have seen this cost of war firsthand, which is why I fight so hard for peace," Gabbard
said. "And that's the reality of the situation that we're facing here. It's why I have urged
and continue to urge [US President Donald] Trump to meet with people like Kim Jong Un in North
Korea, because we understand what's at stake here. The only alternative to having these kinds
of conversations is more war."
Moreover, in a March 2016 speech before Congress, Gabbard called Assad
"a brutal dictator," noting that her opposition to what she called a "war bill" was over the
legal ramifications that she feared would lead to the overthrow of Assad, which she opposes on
anti-interventionist grounds.
"[T]oppling ruthless dictators in the Middle East creates even more human suffering and
strengthens our enemy, groups like ISIS and other terrorist organizations, in those countries,"
Gabbard
said at the time.
Gabbard has been thoroughly demonized for her pro-peace views by global liberal media, as
Trump has been for his moves to end the war in Syria and avoid another on the Korean Peninsula.
For example, The Daily Beast's
article announcing her candidacy called Gabbard "Assad's Favorite Democrat" in its
headline; a Haaretz
headline from last week say she had "Tea With Assad," and the Washington Post has
called her "Assad's Mouthpiece in Washington." The UK Independent
called her a "defender of dictators."
It's not clear what Weiss had in mind when she called Gabbard a "sycophant" and a "toady,"
since the congresswoman's rhetoric about Assad has consisted of skepticism and opposition to
intervention, and she hasn't hesitated to call the Syrian president a "brutal dictator." What
Gabbard's treatment has demonstrated is that a Democrat who steps out of line from the party's
pro-regime change agenda in Syria and who condemns Muslim extremists associated with Daesh and
al-Qaeda should be prepared to suffer for it in the mainstream media.
I love Tulsi; her ad was great. She's the only dem I would vote for at this point. Kamala is an evil hypocrite. And Tulsi's
right, love is the most powerful force in the planet.
Wake up folks -Tulsi would not have run if Bernie was going run. Bernie will endorse her early on and she will have a much
tougher fight than he did, because while Sanders caught the corporate establishment sleeping in 2016, they are now frightened
and see Gabbard coming. They will use every dirty trick at their disposal to keep her from catching fire -and that begins with
dividing progressives like us. Tulsi is not perfect because no one is perfect. But she is young, bright and fucking fearless compared
to other politicians about putting the long term good of the American people above the moneyed interests who think they own our
media and our government. This is why the establishment despises her more than even Sanders. 2020 will reveal weather or not we
can retake ownership of our media and our government. That fight will require all of us - so Kyle get on the bus!
Tulsi is an amazing candidate in her own right, but IMO she would be a perfect VP pick for Bernie. She has the amazing foreign
policy cred and would really shore up Bernie's weakest areas.
Tulsa Gabbard's ad doesn't mention the people who die in the countries we invade. That's 600k people in Iraq for example. A
significant omission me thinks.
The Aloha Spirit Law is a big deal in Hawaii. Government officials are required to approach dignitaries from other countries
or states with the spirit of aloha. "Aloha" means mutual regard and affection and extends warmth in caring with no obligation
in return. Aloha is the essence of relationships in which each person is important to every other person for collective existence.
I think that's what we want in a President or a diplomat.
She's great and unique as she doesnt fall back to identity politics and sjwism as much as the standard left politicians. I
hope she doesnt bend her ethics when the sjws come for her. I'm putting my trust in her. I hope she wins. And if she isn't in
the race, i wont be voting.
The question I would love her to address specifically is will her campaign focus on decreasing military spending like Bernie
Sanders? She has a military background and the US loves war. This ad is good but it is tip toing around the MIC ( military industrial
complex) She can be non interventionist but not decrease military spending is what worries me
This is why we need Gabbard on the debate stage. She will push the Overton window on revealing to the public what our military
is actually doing overseas. She's also a staunch progressive. Bernie/Tulsi 2020. Their weakness match well with each other, and
Tulsi was one of the first to jump ship on the sinking DNC ship when Hillary got caught cheating being the DNC. Keep small donations
going into your favorite progressive candidates to hear their voice. It doesn't work any other way folks.
Intervention isn't only an issue about morality. As Dwight Eisenhower put it (even though he himself was far from an anti imperialist),
you can't have an endless stream of money dedicated to military endeavors AND a sufficient investment in domestic public priorities.
This easily explains why we have increasingly decrepit infrastructure, increasingly worse performing education, increasingly worse
performing health care, absurdly insufficient regulation between government and business (although the pay to play system certainly
is the top reason) and a generally decaying public atmosphere. Beyond the fact that getting involved everywhere creates humanitarian
crises, countless dead people, hopelessly destroyed countries, and so much more, even if other countries haven't in return bombed
our shores from sea to sea, even if generally speaking those who consider not only the US but Americans the "enemies" haven't
overwhelmed with non stop attacks, this non stop and ever growing appetite for more money for more war priorities has created
the very decline we see in our country today. Until there is a change in priorities in general, these problems in the US will
only continue to get worse.
Man, Tulsi made me tear up. She's my girl. This message reminds me more of the message of Jesus than many of the fundamentalists.
She's not even Christian, yet represents Christ very well. I love this woman.
Prepare for BAE, Systems, Boeing, Lockheed Martin and other weapons corporations and their bum lickers to launch a viscous
smear campaign against her suggesting she's somehow a Neo Nazi communist anti Semitic islamophobic islamist.
Tulsi 2020 she's saying some of the same things Trump said in his 2016 campaign. Unfortunately, he didn't deliver. Per the
corporate Democrates, making America better is a bad thing.
Tulsi can actually beat Trump...if she gets the nomination. The wars are the elephant in the room, and whoever is willing to
take that on full force, can win.
"... Tucker is an interesting thinker who doesn't tow a party line. We need more people like Jimmy and Tucker in the news. This is easily the 10th video of Jimmy taking Tucker's side ..."
I don't agree with Jimmy Dore on much, but he and Tucker are 100% right about Syria. There is a segment of the left and right
that aren't that far apart, but we keep getting manipulated to hate each other.
Jimmy, Just admit that you like and agree with Tucker. Every Tucker video has the premise of, "I disagree with 99% of what
Tucker says" or "If Tucker sees this then everyone should see it." Tucker is an interesting thinker who doesn't tow a party
line. We need more people like Jimmy and Tucker in the news. This is easily the 10th video of Jimmy taking Tucker's side
.
Why are we there? To destabilize and baulkanize the remaining Middle East Who are we there for? For the greater 1srae1 project.
Who is isis? Massads people. What is our objective? Oil pipelines for 1srae1. Who are we going after next? Iran
Why are we there? To destabilize and baulkanize the remaining Middle East Who are we there for? For the greater 1srae1 project.
Who is isis? Massads people. What is our objective? Oil pipelines for 1srae1. Who are we going after next? Iran
Jimmy Dore: the only leftist journalist with any integrity. I legitimately believe that while he's wrong all the time (to my
far-right view), he's not lying.
Most important part in my opinion is comment about christians celebrating Christmass in Damascus. They wouldn't celebrate under
Al Nusra or Isis or other wahabi supported fractions, but they are celebrating under Assad. By the way US government is in some
way protecting HTS in Idlib wich is rebranded Al Nusra, Syrian ofshoot of Al Kaida so Assad army is not attacking them.
Pro war people don't just want to be there for the sake of it. They want to have US forces on the ground there for a whole
host of reason all related to maintaining US hegemony wherever they can. We have forces deployed throughout the middle east because
we want to be the primary hegemon in the middle east. Our primacy is threatened by no one nation but by a coalition of anti US
nations particularly Iran, Syria and Syria's longstanding alliance with Russia.
I find it a shame that the western nations are vilifying Russia as Putin hates the globalists and is fighting against the terrorists.
It appears that Russia should be our allies rather than Isra Hell and the Saudi regime. Putin was invited by Assad to help him
rid his country of the terrorists but the US weren't asked and just illegally invaded. Out of interest why does the US support
Isra hell when it has over 300 nukes but it thinks Iran is a problem? Isn't it more that Iran doesn't have a central (Rothschild)
bank? Just like North Korea, Cuba and now, Russia due to paying them off and ridding his country of the Rotschilds! They don't
own Russia like they do the US. Edited as I forgot to say I love Tucker and his common sense.
The best part by far of this was when Jimmy yelled, we are in these countries ILLEGALLY!! Jimmy I love you bc you are unbiased
but for you to complain we are somewhere illegally is rich considering how much you defended ILLEGAL immigration in America. Must
have been a freudian slip.
The best part by far of this was when Jimmy yelled, we are in these countries ILLEGALLY!! Jimmy I love you bc you are unbiased
but for you to complain we are somewhere illegally is rich considering how much you defended ILLEGAL immigration in America. Must
have been a freudian slip.
This guy can't admit that the Obama Administration started the Syrian civil war and created ISIS. What he really wants is to
PROTECT ISIS because after Syria they were trained to attack Russia in the Caucasus. Russia is sensibly wiping out ISIS in Syria
so they don't have to fight them in Chechnya. The Democrats and the neocons created Russiagate to prevent Trump from pulling out
two years ago, now Trump doesn't care, because they will invent shit about him regardless.
You're missing a major point -- I S R A E L These neocon and establishment democrats have tightened ass cheeks because Trump's
decision bypasses these Zionists' fervent wishes of keeping the US there in a proxy war as Israel's protectors.
Tucker is slowly but surely becoming increasingly sympathetic towards the third position.He's the only figure on the MSM who
thinks critically and asks uncomfortable questions. I wonder when the Zionists over at Fox News will pull the plug on him? You
should have Tucker on if it's at all possible. He is actually aligned with the left somewhat on economic issues.
The freezing of Venezuelan gold by the Bank of England is a signal to all countries out of
step with US interests to withdraw their money, according to economist and co-founder of
Democracy at Work, Professor Richard Wolff. He told RT America that Britain and its central
bank have shown themselves to be "under the thumb of the United States."
"That is a signal to every country that has or may have difficulties with the US, [that
they had] better get their money out of England and out of London because it's not the safe
place as it once was," he said.
US Sanctions as a Tool To Perpetuate Neocolonialism
by Nauman
Sadiq Posted on
February 02, 2019 January 31, 2019 It's an evident fact that neocolonial powers are ruled
by behemoth corporations whose wealth is measured in hundreds of billions of dollars, far
more than the total GDP of many developing nations. The status of these multinational
corporations as dominant players in international politics gets official imprimatur when the
Western governments endorse the congressional lobbying practice of so-called "special
interest" groups, which is a euphemism for corporate interests.
Since the Western governments are nothing but the mouthpiece of business interests on
international political and economic forums, therefore any national or international entity
which hinders or opposes the agenda of corporate interests is either coerced into accepting
their demands or gets sidelined.
In 2013, the Manmohan Singh's government of India had certain objections to further
opening up to the Western businesses. The Business Roundtable, which is an informal
congregation of major US businesses and together holds a net wealth of $6 trillion, held a
meeting with the representatives of the Indian government and literally coerced it into
accepting unfair demands of the Western corporations.
The developing economies, such as India and Pakistan, are always hungry for foreign direct
investment (FDI) to sustain economic growth, and this investment mostly comes from the
Western corporations. When the Business Roundtables or the Paris-based International Chamber
of Commerce (ICC) form pressure groups and engage in "collective bargaining" activities, the
nascent and fragile developing economies don't have a choice but to toe their line.
State sovereignty, that sovereign nation states are at liberty to pursue independent
policies, particularly economic and trade policies, is a myth. Just like the ruling elites of
the developing countries which maintain a stranglehold and monopoly over domestic politics;
similarly, the neocolonial powers and multinational corporations control international
politics and the global economic order.
Any state in the international arena which dares to transgress the trade and economic
policies laid down by neocolonial powers and multinational corporations becomes an
international pariah like Castro's Cuba, Mugabe's Zimbabwe; or more recently, Maduro's
Venezuela.
Venezuela has one of the largest known oil reserves in the world. Even though the
mainstream media's pundits hold the socialist policies of President Nicolas Maduro
responsible for economic mismanagement in Venezuela, fact of the matter is that
hyperinflation in its economy is the effect of US sanctions against Venezuela which have been
put in place since the time of late President Hugo Chavez.
Another case in point is Iran which was cut off from the global economic system from 2006
to 2015, and then again after May last year when President Donald Trump annulled the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), because of Iran's supposed nuclear ambitions. Good for
Iran that it also has one of the largest oil and gas resources, otherwise it would have been
insolvent by now.
Such is the power of Washington-led global financial system, especially the banking
sector, and the significance of petrodollar, because the global oil transactions are pegged
in the US dollars all over the world, and all the major oil bourses are also located in the
Western financial districts.
The crippling "third party" economic sanctions on Iran from 2006 to 2015 have brought to
the fore the enormous power that the Western financial institutions and the petrodollar as a
global reserve currency wields over the global financial system.
It bears mentioning that the Iranian nuclear negotiations were as much about Iran's
nuclear program as they were about its ballistic missile program, which is an equally
dangerous conventional threat to Israel and the Gulf's petro-monarchies, just across the
Persian Gulf.
Despite the sanctions being unfair, Iran felt the heat so much that it remained engaged in
negotiations throughout the nearly decade-long period of sanctions, and such was the
crippling effect of those "third party" sanctions on Iran's economy that had it not been for
its massive oil and gas reserves, and some Russian, Chinese and Turkish help in illicitly
buying Iranian oil, it could have defaulted due to the sanctions.
Notwithstanding, after the brutal assassination of Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi consulate
in Istanbul on October 2, and the clear hand of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman in the
murder, certain naïve political commentators of the mainstream media came up with a
ludicrous suggestion that Washington should impose sanctions on Saudi Arabia.
As in the case of aforementioned Iran sanctions, sanctioning Saudi Arabia also seems
plausible; however, there is a caveat: Iran is only a single oil-rich state which has 160
billion barrels of proven oil reserves and has the capacity to produce 5 million barrels per
day (mbpd) of crude oil.
On the other hand, the Persian Gulf's petro-monarchies are actually three oil-rich states.
Saudi Arabia with its 266 billion barrels of proven oil reserves and 10 mbpd of daily crude
oil production, and UAE and Kuwait with 100 billion barrels of proven reserves, each, and 3
mbpd of daily crude oil production, each. Together, the share of the Gulf Cooperation
Countries (GCC) amounts to 466 billion barrels, almost one-third of the world's 1477 billion
barrels of total proven oil reserves.
Therefore, although imposing economic sanctions on the Gulf states might sound like a good
idea on paper, the relationship between the Gulf's petro-monarchies and the industrialized
world is that of a consumer-supplier relationship. The Gulf states are the suppliers of
energy and the industrialized world is its consumer, hence the Western powers cannot sanction
their energy suppliers and largest investors.
If anything, the Gulf's petro-monarchies had "sanctioned" the Western powers in the past
by imposing the oil embargo in 1973 after the Arab-Israel War. The 1973 Arab oil embargo
against the West lasted only for a short span of six months during which the price of oil
quadrupled, but Washington became so paranoid after the embargo that it put in place a ban on
the export of crude oil outside the US borders, and began keeping sixty-day stock of reserve
fuel for strategic and military needs.
Recently, some very upbeat rumors about the shale revolution have been circulating in the
media. However, the shale revolution is primarily a natural gas revolution. It has increased
the probable recoverable resources of natural gas by 30%. The shale oil, on the other hand,
refers to two starkly different kinds of energy resources: firstly, the solid kerogen –
though substantial resources of kerogen have been found in the US Green River formations, the
cost of extracting liquid crude from solid kerogen is so high that it is economically
unviable for at least a hundred years; secondly, the tight oil which is blocked by shale
– it is a viable energy resource but the reserves are so limited, roughly 4 billion
barrels in Texas and North Dakota, that it will run out in a few years.
More than the size of oil reserves, it is about per barrel extraction cost, which
determines the profits for the multinational oil companies. And in this regard, the Persian
Gulf's crude oil is the most profitable. Further, regarding the supposed US energy
independence after the purported shale revolution, the US produced 11 million barrels per day
(bpd) of crude oil in the first quarter of 2014, which was more than the output of Saudi
Arabia and Russia, each of which produces around 10 million bpd. But the US still imported
7.5 million bpd during the same period, which was more than the oil imports of France and
Britain put together. More than the total volume of oil production, the volume which an
oil-producing country exports determines its place in the hierarchy of petroleum and the
Gulf's petro-monarchies constitute the top tier of that pyramid.
Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based attorney, columnist and geopolitical analyst focused
on the politics of Af-Pak and Middle East regions, neocolonialism and
petro-imperialism.
When Hawaii congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard
announced her candidacy for the presidency on CNN last month, I had a feeling I'd be
writing about her a fair bit. Not because I particularly want her to be president, but because
I knew her candidacy would cause the narrative control mechanizations of the political/media
class to overextend themselves , leaving them open to attack, exposure, and the weakening of
their control of the narrative.
Mere
hours before her campaign officially launched, NBC News published an astonishingly blatant smear piece titled "Russia's
propaganda machine discovers 2020 Democratic candidate Tulsi Gabbard," subtitled "Experts who
track websites and social media linked to Russia have seen stirrings of a possible campaign of
support for Hawaii Democrat Tulsi Gabbard." One of the article's authors shared it on Twitter with the
caption, "The Kremlin already has a crush on Tulsi Gabbard."
The article reported that media outlets tied to the Russian government had been talking a
lot about Gabbard's candidacy, ironically citing as an example an RT article which
documented the attempts by the US mainstream media to paint Gabbard as a Kremlin agent. The
article's authors cited the existence of such articles combined with the existence of "chatter"
about Gabbard on the anonymous message board 8chan (relevant for God knows what reason) as
evidence to substantiate its blaring headline. Even more hilariously, the source for its weird
8chan claim is named as none other than Renee DiResta of the narrative control firm New
Knowledge, which was
recently embroiled in a scandal for staging a "false flag operation" in an Alabama Senate
race which gave one of the candidates the false appearance of being amplified by Russian
bots.
This pathetic, juvenile language from one of the authors of that astronomically awful NBC
News article gives you a sense of what they're trying to accomplish here. Smear campaign
fully underway https://t.co/jvl5pFRr0P
This article is of course absurd. As we
discussed recently , you will always see Russia on the same US foreign policy page as
anti-interventionists like Tulsi Gabbard, because Russia, like so many other nations, opposes
US interventionism. To treat this as some sort of shocking conspiracy instead of obvious and
mundane is journalistic malpractice. There are many, many very good reasons to oppose the war
agendas of the US-centralized empire, none of which have anything to do with having any loyalty
to or sympathies for the Russian government.
But we will continue to see this tactic used again and again and again against any and all
opposition to US-led interventionism for as long as the Russiagate psyop maintains its grip
upon western consciousness. And make no mistake, these smears have everything to do with
anti-interventionism and nothing to do with Russia. There will never, ever be an antiwar voice
who the political/media class and their centrist followers espouse as good and valid; they'll
never say "Ahh, finally, someone who hates war and also isn't aligned with Russia! We can get
behind this one!" That will never, ever happen, because it is the opposition to war and
interventionism itself which is being rejected, and in the McCarthyite environment of Russia
hysteria, tarring it as "Russian" simply makes a practical excuse for that rejection.
All the biggest conflicts in the world can be described as unipolarism vs multipolarism: the
unipolarists who support the global hegemony of the US-centralized empire at any cost, versus
the multipolarists who oppose that dominance and support the existence of multiple power
structures in the world. The governments of Russia, China, Iran and their allies are
predominantly multipolarist in their geopolitical outlook, and they tend to be more in favor of
non-interventionism, since unipolarity can only be held in place by brute force and aggression.
Unipolarists, therefore, can always paint western anti-interventionists as Russian assets,
since the Russian government is multipolarist and opposed to the interventionism of the
unipolarists.
The nonstop propaganda campaign to keep the coals of Russia hysteria burning white hot at
all times can therefore be looked at first and foremost as a psychological operation to kill
support for multipolarism around the world. It can of course be used to manufacture consent for
escalations against Russia, China, Syria, Venezuela, Iran etc as needed, but it can also be
used to attack the ideology of anti-interventionism itself by smearing anyone who opposes
unipolar oppression and aggression as an agent of a nefarious oppositional government.
The social engineers have succeeded in constructing a narrative control device which
encapsulates the entire agenda of the unipolar world order in a single bumper sticker-sized
talking point: "Russia opposes Big Brother, therefore anyone who opposes Big Brother is
Russian." This device didn't take an amazing intellectual feat to create; all they had to do
was recreate the paranoid insanity of the original cold war, and they already had a blueprint
for that. It was simply a matter of shepherding us back there.
After the fall of the Soviet Union, there emerged a popular notion of a " peace dividend " in which defense
spending could be reduced in the absence of America's sole rival and the abundant excess funds
used to take care of the American people instead. The only problem was that a lot of people had
gotten very rich and powerful as a result of that cold war defense spending, and it wasn't long
before they started circulating the idea of using America's newly uncontested might for a very
expensive campaign to hammer down a liberal world order led by the beneficent guidance of the
United States government. Soon the neoconservatives were pushing their unipolarist narratives in high levels
of influence with great effect, and shortly thereafter they got their " new Pearl
Harbor " in the form of the 9/11 attacks which justified an explosion in defense spending,
interventionism and expansionism, just as the neoconservative Project for a New American
Century had called
for . And the rest is history.
And now our collective consciousness is planted right back in the center of that paranoid,
hawkish political environment of the first cold war. The main difference now is of course that
Russia is nothing remotely like a superpower today, and that the establishment Russia narrative
is made entirely out of narrative, but the most important difference is that this time the
establishment narratives are not taking place within the hermetically sealed bubbles of major
news media corporations. People are able to communicate with each other and share information
far more easily than they were prior to the fall of the Berlin wall, and westerners are able to
easily access Russian media and anti-interventionist narratives if they want to.
Whoever controls the narrative controls the world, as I never tire of saying. This
difficulty in replicating the hermetically sealed media environment of the original cold war
poses a severe challenge for narrative control, and it is for this reason reason that there is
now so much skepticism of the establishment Russia narrative. It is also the reason for the
establishment's aggressive maneuvers to censor the internet, to demonize Russian media, and to
smear anti-interventionist perspectives.
But we can't keep living this way. We all know this, deep down. The people at the helm of
the unipolar world order are advancing an ecocidal world economy which is stripping the earth
bare and filling the air with poison while at the same time pushing more and more aggressively
against the multipolarist powers, one of which happens to have thousands of nuclear warheads at
its disposal. The unipolarity so enthusiastically promoted by the neoconservatives and their
fellow travelers has reached the end of the line after just a few short years, and now it's
time to dispense with it and try something else. They will necessarily smear us with everything
but the kitchen sink for saying so, but we are right and they are wrong. The state of the world
today proves this beyond a doubt.
* * *
Thanks for reading! My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece
please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , throwing some money into my hat on
Patreon or Paypal , purchasing some of my sweet
merchandise , buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin
Johnstone , or my previous book
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . The best way to get around the internet censors
and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website , which will get you an email
notification for everything I publish.
"... Afghanistan is now the longest war in U.S. history, making any withdrawal seem anything but "precipitous." Syria hasn't even been authorized by Congress. In both cases, our men and women in the armed forces have already achieved the goals that are militarily attainable. "It doesn't get much more pathetic," Congressman Justin Amash, a Michigan Republican, said of the Senate vote. ..."
"... taken at face value, it inverts Congress's constitutional war powers by allowing lawmakers to shirk their power to declare war while frustrating presidential efforts to pursue peace. ..."
"... When Trump twice bombed Syria without congressional approval, the Beltway applaude ..."
"... The one bright spot in the Senate vote was that Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Amy Klobuchar were all on the side of withdrawal. ..."
"... Trump has heeded the hawks in his party -- and inside his own administration -- on Yemen, Iran, and perhaps soon Venezuela. Breaking free of their stranglehold could help put his presidency back on track. Otherwise he will end up ceding foreign policy to the progressives who want to usher him out of office either by impeachment or electoral defeat. ..."
"... Trump's call to bring the troops home has left him isolated in Washington. If he makes withdrawal a priority in the State of the Union, he may find that he has more company throughout the country than he thinks. ..."
"... Seriously, he's got too many warmongers in his administration to go after Congress. If he's serious about ending these wars he needs to clean house in his administration of the perpetual warmongers. Once he's done that then go after Congress. To do anything less is Trump talking it one way, while his administration does something completely different. ..."
"... I believe the above quote shows that there are lawbreakers and warmongers in both political parties. None of the above countries "Afghanistan and Syria" invaded or attacked America. Therefore I believe they are in violation of international law. ..."
Who says Democrats and Republicans can't agree on anything? Washington closed ranks Thursday
behind two wars President Donald Trump has proposed winding down as the Senate voted 68-23 to
advance a resolution warning against "precipitous withdrawal" from Afghanistan and Syria.
Afghanistan is now the longest war in U.S. history, making any withdrawal seem anything
but "precipitous." Syria hasn't even been authorized by Congress. In both cases, our men and
women in the armed forces have already achieved the goals that are militarily attainable. "It
doesn't get much more pathetic," Congressman Justin Amash, a Michigan Republican, said of the
Senate vote.
The resolution is non-binding, like the Democrats' toothless measures to stop George W.
Bush's Iraq "surge" over a decade ago. Still, taken at face value, it inverts Congress's
constitutional war powers by allowing lawmakers to shirk their power to declare war while
frustrating presidential efforts to pursue peace.
When Trump twice bombed Syria without congressional approval, the Beltway applaude
d. Veteran Washington reporter Bob Woodward's book repeats the president's probing questions
about how long we must stay in Afghanistan with an air of disbelief better suited to "fake
news" shared on Facebook. Trump's call late last year to bring troops home from both war-torn
countries elicited bipartisan criticism and the abrupt resignation of Pentagon chief James
Mattis.
To make matters worse, only three Republican senators -- Ted Cruz of Texas, John Kennedy of
Louisiana, and Mike Lee of Utah -- voted to stand with their president against these endless
nation-building exercises. Kentucky's Rand Paul, who was not present for the vote, would surely
have been a fourth. Even Chuck Schumer, the third straight Senate Democratic leader to have
voted for the Iraq war, opposed this anti-withdrawal amendment.
During the State of the Union address on Tuesday night, Trump should call Congress's bluff.
He should dare legislators to do their jobs and vote to authorize continuing these wars -- or
he will end them. Put the onus on the House and Senate to fulfill their constitutional
duties.
Trump may find that he has unlikely allies in his would-be 2020 Democratic presidential
foes. The one bright spot in the Senate vote was that Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren,
Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Amy Klobuchar were all on the side of
withdrawal. How many ambitious Democrats will vote to give a Republican president a blank
check for war as an election year approaches?
GOP lawmakers will have to decide whether they stand with their president -- who wants to
cut America's multi-trillion dollar losses in the Middle East -- and
rank-and-file Republican voters in ending these wars. Those who want to stay in Syria and
Afghanistan quite likely cast their ballots for Hillary Clinton.
Up until now, Trump's big fight with the establishment has been over immigration and the
border wall. Amid his belated turn towards the more populist parts of his program, he should
not forget to spend political capital on America's wars as well. Trump
now says Republican congressional leaders misled him on the wall. It has been even worse on
foreign policy.
Partisans are dug in on the border. But on war, Trump has some opportunities to win over
converts. Will House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sit stone-faced behind him as he agrees with the
Progressive Caucus on foreign policy?
Much is riding on whether a course correction is possible in Afghanistan and Syria.
Trump has heeded the hawks in his party -- and inside his own administration -- on Yemen,
Iran, and perhaps soon Venezuela. Breaking free of their stranglehold could help put his
presidency back on track. Otherwise he will end up ceding foreign policy to the progressives
who want to usher him out of office either by impeachment or electoral defeat.
Trump's call to bring the troops home has left him isolated in Washington. If he makes
withdrawal a priority in the State of the Union, he may find that he has more company
throughout the country than he thinks.
Mearsheimer has some main tenets of realist foreign policy include:
The lobby and its fellow travelers are not used to being told no. Time for them to create
and fund volunteer corps and do their own dirty work on their dime and at their own risk.
Trump should demand Congress debate and authorize the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. It
would be good policy and good politics. And good for the Constitution.
Wouldn't hold my breath on Trump doing any such thing on ending of the Middle Eastern Wars.
Seriously, he's got too many warmongers in his administration to go after Congress. If he's
serious about ending these wars he needs to clean house in his administration of the perpetual
warmongers. Once he's done that then go after Congress. To do anything less is Trump talking it
one way, while his administration does something completely different.
The article states: "Who says Democrats and Republicans can't agree on anything? Washington
closed ranks Thursday behind two wars President Donald Trump has proposed winding down as the
Senate voted 68-23 to advance a resolution warning against "precipitous withdrawal" from
Afghanistan and Syria."
-- -- -- -
I believe the above quote shows that there are lawbreakers and warmongers in both
political parties. None of the above countries "Afghanistan and Syria" invaded or attacked
America. Therefore I believe they are in violation of international law. More info at link
below.
I am extremely disappointed that both of my State's Democratic Senators voted to keep the wars
going.
However, I'm sure they did so only to spite Trump.
They don't either of them support more Long War. Of course, they don't want to be blamed
either in the case of another terrorist attack for not being tough enough. But this vote was
not one of principle.
That means they would not fight for it. They just did it. I suspect much of the vote in the
Senate was like that, and that the rather large number of non-votes is because of that.
During the State of the Union address on Tuesday night, Trump should call Congress's bluff.
He should dare legislators to do their jobs and vote to authorize continuing these wars -- or
he will end them. Put the onus on the House and Senate to fulfill their constitutional
duties.
Would that he would but he won't.
Mr. Trump shan't read this good advice because it seems he only reads what the Kushners put
in front of him and (for the most part) hires only people who despise him–people who are
married to the pro-war Blob in DC.
"... President Trump on Sunday ratcheted up his attacks on the news media as the "enemy of the people," saying they "can also cause War." He accused journalists in an early morning tweet of "purposely" causing "division & distrust" in the country. ..."
"... "The Fake News hates me saying that they are the Enemy of the People only because they know it's TRUE," he said. "I am providing a great service by explaining this to the American People." ..."
"... "They purposely cause great division & distrust," he added. "They can also cause War! They are very dangerous & sick!" ..."
"... I have so many news sources @ TV, radio, social media, internet, direct source as much as possible (all vetted for accuracy) so I will state who I NEVER use as a news source: CNN, MSNBC. The following I watch for comparison with the grain of salt only: ABC, CBS. Never read NYT, WAPO ..."
"... There are really great journalists out there especially the investigative ones that do a terrific job digging and bringing the truth to light. However these journalist that we know of took $ to keep Hillary in the headlines and are in trouble because of it! Fake news is lies! ..."
President Trump on Sunday ratcheted up his attacks on the news media as the "enemy of the
people," saying they "can also cause War." He accused journalists in an early morning tweet of "purposely" causing "division &
distrust" in the country.
"The Fake News hates me saying that they are the Enemy of the People only because they know
it's TRUE," he said. "I am providing a great service by explaining this to the American
People."
"They purposely cause great division & distrust," he added. "They can also cause War!
They are very dangerous & sick!"
The Fake News hates me saying that they are the Enemy of the People only because they know
it's TRUE. I am providing a great service by explaining this to the American People. They
purposely cause great division & distrust. They can also cause War! They are very dangerous
& sick!
I have so many news sources @ TV, radio, social media, internet, direct source as much as
possible (all vetted for accuracy) so I will state who I NEVER use as a news source: CNN,
MSNBC. The following I watch for comparison with the grain of salt only: ABC, CBS. Never read NYT,
WAPO
There are really great journalists out there especially the investigative ones that do a
terrific job digging and bringing the truth to light. However these journalist that we know of took $ to keep Hillary in the headlines and are in trouble because of it! Fake news is lies!
"... Capitalism has at different times or in different places offered concessions to mobilisations of the working class. It offers the fiction of political choice and representation. It provides a fig-leaf of regulation to impinge on the very worst excesses of the free market and private accumulation ..."
An anti-Trotskyist rationale for supporting imperialist war The war for regime change waged in Syria by the NATO powers, in
alliance with Al Qaeda, behind the backs of the peoples of America and Europe, is the outcome of three decades of US-led wars across
the Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Central Asia.
These crimes of US and European imperialism have not only claimed millions
of lives and turned more than 60 million people into refugees. They have exposed the fact that the basic contradictions of capitalism,
which led to world war and the October Revolution in the 20th century, remain unresolved.
Despite the deep unpopularity of these bloody wars, which have cost trillions of dollars amid the deepest economic crisis of capitalism
since the 1930s, attempts by voters to end or limit them, by voting governments out of office in America and Europe, have failed.
Successive governments of all political colorations have, on the contrary, stepped them up, and it is clear that this has become
a policy endorsed by an entrenched ruling class. When the Syrian regime invited Moscow to help it fight the NATO-backed opposition
militias in 2015, for example, NATO escalated the war into a military standoff with Russia, a nuclear power. A century after the
outbreak of World War I and the Russian Revolution, the capitalist system is teetering on the brink of a nuclear conflagration.
The paragraphs quoted from Hensman in which she extols Western capitalist states providing democratic mechanisms through which
the working class can "fight back" - notwithstanding the 4 decades of unbroken counterrevolution that bring us into the present
- don't just embody the political dead end reached by those who broke from international revolutionary solidarity and Trotskyist
struggles against both Stalinism and imperialism.
They do something much worse and, in my view, more fundamental. They highlight how the thinkers that cluster around groups
like the ISO have completely lost - if they ever had it - the ability to think dialectically. Their political conclusions lead
me to conclude in turn that they actually don't comprehend the most essential principles of Marxist critical analysis of capitalism
or how dialectical materialism builds a complete picture of the totality that is our socio-economic environment.
Capitalism has at different times or in different places offered concessions to mobilisations of the working class. It
offers the fiction of political choice and representation. It provides a fig-leaf of regulation to impinge on the very worst excesses
of the free market and private accumulation.
But - and this is the key thing! - it is in its essence, in the most primitive, unchanging logic of its momentum and inexorable
development, always but always a system in which the privileges and power of capital will be elevated above those of workers.
It is constitutionally organised around that core function. If you don't understand that, every analysis that follows will be
useless.
By proceeding in his analysis from revolutionary concepts of class struggle, exploitation, alienation, and the material basis
for historical development, Marx was able to build - brick by brick - a critique of capitalism itself. Pseudo-left groups like
the ISO or the DSA do the exact opposite - they start from false principles and work towards over-elaborated false conclusions.
It isn't in other words just the case that they err on this or that detail. The whole premise and therefore all the conclusions
are useless - and must be rejected wholesale!
The MSM and its allies in the controlled alternative media, and the global private-interest
financial, investment and banking system, are a tag-team, indispensable to each other.
Control of money and control of information. The first narrowly concentrates wealth and thus
power and influence. The second through agenda-driven selection, lies, censorship, spin,
misdirection and so on – disinformation – controls people's sense of what is real
and possible, thus dis-empowering them.
The American military and CIA have provided most of the overt and covert 'muscle' for that
control system.
The combined effort of narrowly controlled and narrowly advantaging globe straddling
finance, media, and muscle has facilitated the development of a near global Empire. In common
with traditional Empires this new Empire had totalitarian ambitions: but since its reach was
global, this is really a first attempt at global totalitarian control.
Russia under Putin – leaving aside China – has developed enough strength to
attempt alternative modes of communication and finance and development, not as adjuncts or
subordinates to the Empire's efforts in those regards. And their military is antidote and
opposition to the totalitarian project.
The forgoing is pretty obvious stuff, but I think that the Saker's concluding paragraph
provides a limiting summary of how the issue can play out.
"But fundamentally the Russian people need to decide. Do they really want to live in a
western-style capitalist society (with all the russophobic politics and the adoption
of the terminally degenerate "culture" such a choice implies), or do they want a
"social society" (to use Putin's own words) – meaning a society in which social and
economic
justice and the good of the country are placed above corporate and personal profits.
You could say that this is a battle of greed vs ethics."
This is a simplistic way of looking at the choices available. We are all caught up in
transitional culture processes, no matter where we live. The conjunction of the cornucopia of
new technology and unprecedented environmental and social challenges is everywhere at play,
leading who knows where?
What the Russian people have been given, and this is near singular on Earth, is a
protected and enhanced opportunity of developing a culture in which honest national discourse
is a predominant feature. This is in complete contrast to the predominant 'fake news' system
of discourse control that is in place in so many countries. And full and honest discourse
will create its own original cultural developments.
The Russian adoption of more honest discourse is already having global influence. An
example is Russia Today, which far from perfect and all that, still provides an enormous
advance over the extremely controlled western mass media, and a powerful foe to 'fake
news'.
Perhaps the most visible exemplar of rationale discourse has been Putin himself, with for
example his marathon annual Q and A with the Russian people, or his articulate well
considered sallies on many issues
And with that – if Russia can use unfettered reason writ large as a prime ingredient
of cultural and political development, as a basic developmental 'steering tool' – then
the simple dichotomy of "western-style capitalist society" vs "a society in which social and
economic justice and the good of the country are placed above corporate and personal profits"
, as much as I'm sympathetic to the latter, seems to me to be a limiting way of expressing
the range of potential beneficent possibilities.
The quote below is from Tucker book... Tucker Carlson for President ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... What was written as an allegory is starting to feel like a documentary, as generations of misrule threaten to send our country beneath the waves. ..."
"... Facts threaten their fantasies. And so they continue as if what they're doing is working, making mistakes and reaping consequences that were predictable even to Greek philosophers thousands of years before the Internet. ..."
"... They're fools. The rest of us are their passengers. ..."
Most terrifying of all, the crew has become incompetent. They have no idea how to sail. They're spinning the ship's wheel like
they're playing roulette and cackling like mental patients.
The boat is listing, taking on water, about to sink. They're totally
unaware that any of this is happening. As waves wash over the deck, they're awarding themselves majestic new titles and raising
their own salaries. You look on in horror, helpless and desperate. You have nowhere to go. You're trapped on a ship of fools.
Plato imagined this scene in The Republic. He never mentions what happened to the ship. It would be nice to know. What
was written as an allegory is starting to feel like a documentary, as generations of misrule threaten to send our country beneath
the waves.
The people who did it don't seem aware of what they've done. They don't want to know, and they don't want you to tell them.
Facts threaten their fantasies. And so they continue as if what they're doing is working, making mistakes and reaping consequences
that were predictable even to Greek philosophers thousands of years before the Internet.
They're fools. The rest of us are their passengers.
If [neoliberal] left is understood as Clinton DemoRats, then it's just a second war party. Just look at Hillary. Such an
anti-war hero.
Notable quotes:
"... For decades, a common myth pervading the American political arena has been that the left is anti-war. ..."
"... But they are as much opposed to war as Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) – at least he is honest about his appetite for blood and desire for perpetual regime change, no matter who occupies the Oval Office. So, from where did this mendacity come? ..."
"... In 2008, the United States was entrenched in an election battle and two major wars – Afghanistan and Iraq. The Democrats portrayed themselves as the anti-war party, promising to correct the foreign disasters of the incumbent administration. Since then, it's as if former President George W. Bush never departed. The Democrats have championed military interventions, twiddled their thumbs under President Barack Obama, and nominated a hawk to lead the party in 2016. ..."
"... Today, the [neoliberla] left has united with the neoconservatives in opposition to President Donald Trump's decision to bring 2,000 troops home from Syria and potential plans to withdraw from Afghanistan. Because they loathe Trump so much and don't want him to be portrayed as a more peaceful president than his predecessor, leftists demand that U.S. forces permanently stay in the region, facing death or serious injury. ..."
"... Attempting to locate a handful of consistent anti-war Democrats is like trying to spot Vice President Mike Pence with a woman other than his wife at a restaurant: It's never going to happen. ..."
"... For the last century, virtually every war, invasion, and occupation have been given the stamp of approval by Democrats. President Woodrow Wilson dragged the U.S. into one of those wars-to-end-all- wars fiascos. President Harry Truman sent thousands of young men to their deaths in Korea, setting the stage for perpetual global interventionism. President Lyndon Baines Johnson escalated American involvement in Vietnam. The Democratic leadership approved of the Iraq War, and Obama destabilized an entire region, killed American citizens, and intensified the drone bombing campaign. ..."
"... Outside of Capitol Hill, the predominantly left-leaning mainstream media have never seen a war it didn't like. In the last two years alone, the vacuous TV commentators have employed the same two strategies: Demand action against Russia (eh, Paul Begala ?) and oppose President Trump for using diplomacy and other tactics to institute peace ..."
Otto von Bismarck once said, "People never lie so much as after a hunt, during a war or
before an election." For decades, a common myth pervading the American political arena has been that the left
is anti-war.
But they are as much opposed to war as Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) – at least he is
honest about his appetite for blood and desire for perpetual regime change, no matter who
occupies the Oval Office. So, from where did this mendacity come?
In 2008, the United States was entrenched in an election battle and two major wars –
Afghanistan and Iraq. The Democrats portrayed themselves as the anti-war party, promising to
correct the foreign disasters of the incumbent administration. Since then, it's as if former
President George W. Bush never departed. The Democrats have championed military interventions,
twiddled their thumbs under President Barack Obama, and nominated a hawk to lead the party in
2016.
Progressives, the same ones who, under Republican administrations, routinely held massive
anti-war rallies on days that ended in "y," have been eerily silent for the last ten years.
Today, the [neoliberla] left has united with the
neoconservatives in opposition to President Donald Trump's decision to
bring 2,000 troops home from Syria and potential plans to
withdraw from Afghanistan. Because they loathe Trump so much and don't want him to be
portrayed as a more peaceful president than his predecessor, leftists demand that U.S. forces
permanently stay in the region, facing death or serious injury.
Is this a case of Freaky Friday politics, or has the left always been
pro-war?
Anti-War Democrats, Please Stand Up
Attempting to locate a handful of consistent anti-war Democrats is like trying to spot Vice
President Mike Pence with a woman other than his wife at a restaurant: It's never going to
happen.
Even Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), the man who switches from Independent to Democrat when it
suits the occasion, has come out of the closet on occasion as a hawk. In addition to
supporting the so-called Little War in Kosovo in the 1990s, Sanders
revealed to ABC News in September 2015 that the U.S. could use its military forces when not
attacked and apply sanctions on adversaries.
For the last century, virtually every war, invasion, and occupation have been given the
stamp of approval by Democrats. President Woodrow Wilson dragged the U.S. into one of those
wars-to-end-all- wars fiascos. President Harry Truman sent thousands of young men to their
deaths in Korea, setting the stage for perpetual global interventionism. President Lyndon
Baines Johnson escalated American involvement in Vietnam. The Democratic leadership approved of
the Iraq War, and Obama destabilized an entire region, killed American citizens, and
intensified the drone bombing campaign.
Outside of Capitol Hill, the predominantly left-leaning mainstream media have never seen a
war it didn't like. In the last two years alone, the vacuous TV commentators have employed the
same two strategies: Demand action against Russia (eh, Paul
Begala ?) and oppose President Trump for using diplomacy and other tactics to institute
peace.
So, how exactly is the left anti-war?
The Born-Again Right
When it comes to foreign policy, there are now three wings of the GOP: hawks, doves, and
those who realize the doctrine of the last 20 years has failed.
One of the biggest surprises since Trump's election is that the right has become
increasingly more cautious about seeking dragons to slay and erecting Old Glory on every plot
of land in the world. House Republicans have
slashed foreign aid in the billions, Senate Republicans have voted to end America's
role in Yemen's humanitarian crisis, and prominent figures in the White House have asked one
simple question: Why should the United States be the policeman of the world?
Stephen Miller, a senior adviser to the president, recently
dismantled the hawkish Counterfeit News Network when he told Wolf Blitzer:
"What I'm talking about, Wolf, is the big picture of a country that through several
administrations had an absolutely catastrophic foreign policy that cost trillions and
trillions of dollars and thousands and thousands of lives and made the Middle East more
unstable and more dangerous. And let's talk about Syria. Let's talk about the fact -- ISIS is
the enemy of Russia. ISIS is the enemy of Assad. ISIS is the enemy of Turkey. Are we supposed
to stay in Syria generation after generation, spilling American blood to fight the enemies of
all those countries?"
Comments that should draw praise from the left have been met with mockery and
scorn.
US Foreign Policy
H.L. Mencken was right when he said that "every decent man is ashamed of the government he
lives under." There is no other area in government that should instill more shame in the
population than foreign policy.
The political theater of sending young men and women overseas to fight in wars is a
tragicomedy: a comedy for those who don't have to wield a weapon and a tragedy for those who
do. It is easy and comfortable for politicians and pundits, a paltry few of whom have ever done
any of the fighting, to shout platitudes as if they were reincarnated John Waynes.
It's clear that politicians of all stripes have blood on their hands. The only difference is
that some policymakers showcase this human flesh with pride, while others pretend to be
benevolent. Trump's foreign policy has not been perfect, but it has been far superior to what
has transpired over the years. To rebuke the president's withdrawal of soldiers in an NPC-like
manner makes you complicit to atrocity.
"... Over 60,000 US troops either killed or wounded in conflicts ..."
"... The study estimates between 480,000 and 507,000 people were killed in the course of the three conflicts. ..."
"... Civilians make up over half of the roughly 500,000 killed, with both opposition fighters and US-backed foreign military forces each sustaining in excess of 100,000 deaths as well. ..."
"... This is admittedly a dramatic under-report of people killed in the wars, as it only attempts to calculate those killed directly in war violence, and not the massive number of others civilians who died from infrastructure damage or other indirect results of the wars. The list also excludes the US war in Syria, which itself stakes claims to another 500,000 killed since 2011. ..."
Over 60,000 US troops either killed or wounded in conflicts
Brown University has released a new study on the cost
in lives of America's Post-9/11 Wars, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. The study estimates between 480,000 and 507,000 people
were killed in the course of the three conflicts.
This includes combatant deaths and civilian deaths in fighting and war violence. Civilians make up over half of the roughly
500,000 killed, with both opposition fighters and US-backed foreign military forces each sustaining in excess of 100,000 deaths as
well.
This is admittedly a dramatic under-report of people killed in the wars, as it only attempts to calculate those killed directly
in war violence, and not the massive number of others civilians who died from infrastructure damage or other indirect results of
the wars. The list also excludes the US war in Syria, which itself stakes claims to another 500,000 killed since 2011.
The report also notes that over 60,000 US troops were either killed or wounded in the course of the wars. This includes 6,951
US military personnel killed in Iraq and Afghanistan since 9/11.
The Brown study also faults the US for having done very little in the last 17 years to provide transparency to the country about
the scope of the conflicts, concluding that they are "inhibited by governments determined to paint a rosy picture of perfect execution
and progress."
Sebastian Rotella reports
on how many of the people that worked with Bolton remember his tendency to distort intelligence
and ignore facts that contradicted his assumptions:
"Anyone who is so cavalier not just with intelligence, but with facts, and so
ideologically driven, is unfit to be national security adviser," said Robert Hutchings, who
dealt extensively with Bolton as head of the National Intelligence Council, a high-level
agency that synthesizes analysis from across the intelligence community to produce strategic
assessments for policymakers. "He's impervious to information that goes against his
preconceived ideological views." [bold mine-DL]
That assessment lines up with what I understood about Bolton, and it points to one of the
biggest problems with his appointment. I wrote this shortly
before Trump announced that he was choosing Bolton:
The real danger is that he is such an ideologue that he would keep information from the
president that contradicts his views and prevent Trump from getting the best available
advice. Trump is poorly informed to begin with, and having Bolton as his main adviser on
matters of national security and foreign policy would make sure that he stays that way.
Trump is especially susceptible to being manipulated by his advisers into endorsing the
policies they want because he knows so little and responds so favorably to flattery, and he has
shown that he is already more than willing to select a more aggressive option when he is told
that it is the "presidential" thing to do. We should expect that Bolton will feed Trump bad or
incomplete information, present aggressive options in the most favorable light while dismissing
alternatives, and praise Trump's leadership to get him to go along with the hard-line policies
Bolton wants. Bolton will run a very distorted policy process and he will be the opposite of an
honest broker. That won't serve Trump well, and it will be terrible for our foreign policy.
Journalists are always "soldiers of the party". You just need to understand what party.
Notable quotes:
"... 'Fair and balanced' was a mid-20th century marketing tool and really, a confabulation of the times. ..."
"... The great Joseph Pulitzer largely founded his namesake prize for the same motives as Alfred Nobel, when the latter tried to make up for the incalculable injuries and deaths caused by the explosives he invented by endowing a Peace Prize. Pulitzer was attempting to atone for the "yellow journalism" sins of his own papers -- and even more, those of his arch rival, William Randolph "Citizen Kane" Hearst -- when he launched the prize that bears his name. ..."
"... To put it bluntly, as Frances McDormand's professor-mother in Almost Famous might have said, "Objective Journalism" was as much a marketing tool as anything else. It took off not because news neutrality was always enshrined in American journalistic ethics, but because of how rare it actually was. ..."
"... the Ochs-Sulzbergers of New York, the Meyer-Grahams of Washington, and the Chandlers of Los Angeles -- made a conscious decision to brand their newspapers as being truly fair and balanced to differentiate them from the competition. ..."
"... And even then, "objectivity" only went as far as the eyes and ears of the beholder. ..."
"... National Review ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Whether it's MSNBC on the left or Fox News on the right, the editorial decisions of how to spin a piece, where and how often to broadcast it, what kind of panelists you invite to "debate" a story, which anchors should be promoted and which ones will forever remain mere worker bees -- all these decisions are anything but "objective" or "unbiased." ..."
'Fair and balanced' was a mid-20th century marketing tool and really, a confabulation of the times.
"The Yellow Press", by L. M. Glackens, portrays newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst as a jester distributing sensational stories
in 1910. (Library of Congress/Public Domain) What the Greatest, Silent, and Boomer generations always regarded as the ideal of "objective
journalism" was actually the exception, not the rule. That was true from the time of Gutenberg until that of Franklin Roosevelt.
The great Joseph Pulitzer largely founded his namesake prize for the same motives as Alfred Nobel, when the latter tried to
make up for the incalculable injuries and deaths caused by the explosives he invented by endowing a Peace Prize. Pulitzer was attempting
to atone for the "yellow journalism" sins of his own papers -- and even more, those of his arch rival, William Randolph "Citizen
Kane" Hearst -- when he launched the prize that bears his name.
And if Pulitzer repented of his past, Hearst never did -- he went full speed ahead well into the 1920s and beyond, normalizing
Nazi science,
openly endorsing eugenics and white superiority, and promoting "Birth of a Nation"-like racism against African Americans, Latinos,
and Native Americans. His dehumanizing attacks against so-called
sneaking and treacherous "Japs" and "Chinks" -- well before Pearl Harbor, the Korean War, and communist China -- were even uglier.
To put it bluntly, as Frances McDormand's professor-mother in Almost Famous might have said, "Objective Journalism"
was as much a marketing tool as anything else. It took off not because news neutrality was always enshrined in American journalistic
ethics, but because of how rare it actually was. High-minded notions of "fairness" and "objective journalism" came to
the print media largely because the visionary first families of the papers that finally succeeded the Hearsts and Pulitzers in clout
and cache -- the Ochs-Sulzbergers of New York, the Meyer-Grahams of Washington, and the Chandlers of Los Angeles -- made a conscious
decision to brand their newspapers as being truly fair and balanced to differentiate them from the competition.
Meanwhile, the broadcast media (which didn't exist until the rise of radio and "talking pictures" in the late 1920s, followed
by TV after World War II) labored under the New Deal's famed Fairness Doctrine.
And even then, "objectivity" only went as far as the eyes and ears of the beholder. The fairness flag was fraying when
Spiro Agnew and Pat Buchanan took "liberal media elites" to task a generation ago during the Vietnam and civil rights era, while
Tom Wolfe made good, unclean fun out of the "radical chic" conceits of Manhattan and Hollywood limousine liberals.
What today's controversies illustrate is that a so-called "Fairness Doctrine" and "objective" newspaper reporting could only have
existed in a conformist Mad Men world where societal norms of what was (and wasn't) acceptable in the postwar Great Society
operated by consensus. That is to say, an America where moderate, respectable, white male centrist Republicans like Thomas Dewey,
Dwight Eisenhower, Nelson Rockefeller, and Gerald Ford "debated" moderate, respectable, white male centrist Democrats like Harry
Truman, Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey, and Jimmy Carter.
Now contrast that with today. On November 25, the New York Times made a now-notorious attempt to
understand the Nazi next door,
running a profile of young suburban white supremacist, Tony Hovater. Transgender social media superstar Charlotte Clymer spoke for
her fellow liberals when she savagely satirized the Times with a
tweet-storm that included things like:
Bob is a vegan. He believes we should protect the environment. He likes "Big Bang Theory". He pays taxes. He served in the
military.
He's a serial killer who has tortured and murdered 14 people. He dissolved their bodies in acid at a remote site. He made
them beg for their lives as he tortured them.
He attends PTA meetings. He DVR's episodes of his wife's fave shows when she's late at work.
The moral of the fable being (as Miss Clymer put it): "Bob is a mass-murdering f***head. STOP GIVING BOB NUANCE!"
When the Times followed their neo-Nazi profile by turning an entire op-ed column over to Donald Trump supporters in mid-January,
the Resistance went to red alert. And after Ross Douthat penned a column in defense of (Jewish) anti-immigration hardliner Stephen
Miller on Holocaust Memorial Day in January,
they went full DEFCON.
"F*** you @nytimes for publishing this article on #HolocaustMemorialDay from me & from those in my family whose voices were silenced
during the Holocaust. Shame on you!" said Nadine Vander Velde on Twitter. London left-wing journalist Sarah Kendzior agreed that
"The NYT is now a white supremacist paper. The multiple Nazi puff pieces, constant pro-Trump PR, and praise for Miller on today of
all days is not exceptional – it's [now] the guiding ideology of the paper."
And the current furor over The Atlantic
's hiring of National Review firebrand Kevin D. Williamson only underscores that it isn't just campus leftists or Tea Partiers
who are hitting the censor button.
But revealingly, it wasn't just the usual left-wing snowflakes who have needed a trigger warning of late. Just six weeks into
the new year, the Washington Post and CNN ran a series of tabloidy, Inside Edition -style stories glamorizing Kim Yo-jong,
the sister of North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un. The Washington Post even went so far as to call Ms. Yo-jong North Korea's
answer to Ivanka Trump (just ignore the fact she is the DPRK's assistant head of the Ministry of Propaganda and Agitation). That
led Bethany Mandel of the New York Post to wonder
what
was up with all the "perverse fawning over brutal Kim Jong-un's sister at the Olympics?"
Additionally, some of the most provocative critiques of "journalistic objectivity" have come from liberal polemicists like Matt
Taibbi and Sam Adler-Bell, who argue that before we go on blathering about untrammeled First Amendment freedom and "objectivity,"
the first question that must be asked is who has the balance of power and whose hands are on deck in the editing room. (And they're
not wrong to ask that question -- it was the same one that Pat Buchanan asked 50 years ago and Ann Coulter asked 20 years ago from
the opposite side of the newsroom.)
Whether it's MSNBC on the left or Fox News on the right, the editorial decisions of how to spin a piece, where and how often
to broadcast it, what kind of panelists you invite to "debate" a story, which anchors should be promoted and which ones will forever
remain mere worker bees -- all these decisions are anything but "objective" or "unbiased."
Let's face it: the supposedly more civilized, serious ecosystem of the pre-social media past would come across to identity-conscious
Millennials today as nothing more than stale white bread dominated by stale white men. Even among the campus leftists who protest
and violently riot to shut down and silence "hate speech," most of them would probably rather live in a world where Steve Bannon
and Richard Spencer anchored the nightly news on one channel -- so long as there was a hijab-wearing Muslim or a transgendered man
on another, equally highly-rated one.
What would be totally unacceptable to today's young consumer is any kind of return to the mid-century world where "the
news" was whatever Ben Bradlee, Johnny Apple, Robert Novak, and The Chancellor/Brinkley Nightly News said it was -- in essence,
the world where Punch Sulzberger, Otis Chandler, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, and Tom Brokaw white-mansplained "facts" through their
own elite establishment filters, de facto ignoring everyone else.
Meanwhile, the beat goes on. From the left, conservative Sinclair Media
is accused of "forcing" its local anchors to read "pro-Trump propaganda." The Nation stalwart Eric Alterman
says that "When one side is
fascist, there's no need to show Both Sides." As for the right -- just ask your Fox-watching or Limbaugh-listening friends and families
what they think of the "mainstream media," the "Communist News Network," or the "opinion cartel."
The great Joan Didion once said "We tell ourselves stories in order to live." Maybe "objective journalism" was always just a little
social white lie we in the media told ourselves to make ourselves feel better -- fairer, kinder, gentler, more "professional." But
if there's one lesson that Barack Obama, the Tea Party, Bernie Sanders, Antifa, Donald Trump, and the Great Recession have taught
us over the past decade, it isn't just that the mythical "center" will no longer hold. It's that there may no longer be a center
for any of us to hold on to.
Telly Davidson is the author of a new book on the politics and pop culture of the '90s,Culture War : How the 90's Made Us Who We Are Today (Like it Or Not). He has written on culture for ATTN, FrumForum, All About Jazz, FilmStew, and Guitar Player ,andworked
on the Emmy-nominated PBS series "Pioneers of Television."
This is about American Imperialism and MIC. Neocons are just well-laid MIC lobbyists. Some
like Bolton are pretty talented guys. Some like Max Boot are simply stupid.
Notable quotes:
"... What sort of political system allows someone with his views to serve in high office, where he helps talk the country into a disastrous war, never expresses a moment's regret for his errors, continues to advocate for more of the same for the next decade, and then gets a second chance to make the same mistakes again? [bold mine-DL] ..."
"... So by all means worry. But the real problem isn't Bolton -- it's a system that permits people like him to screw up and move up again and again. ..."
The conclusion of Stephen Walt's column on
John Bolton is exactly right:
Don't get me wrong: I'm not trying to "normalize" this appointment or suggest that it
shouldn't concern you. Rather, I'm suggesting that if you are worried about Bolton, you
should ask yourself the following question: What sort of political system allows someone
with his views to serve in high office, where he helps talk the country into a disastrous
war, never expresses a moment's regret for his errors, continues to advocate for more of the
same for the next decade, and then gets a second chance to make the same mistakes again?
[bold mine-DL]
So by all means worry. But the real problem isn't Bolton -- it's a system that permits
people like him to screw up and move up again and again.
There is a strong bias in our foreign policy debates in favor of "action," no matter how
stupid or destructive that action proves to be. That is one reason why reflexive supporters of
an activist foreign policy will never have to face the consequences of the policies they
support. Bolton has thrived as an advocate of hard-line policies precisely because he fills the
assigned role of the fanatical warmonger, and there is always a demand for someone to fill that
role. His fanaticism doesn't discredit him, because it is eminently useful to his somewhat less
fanatical colleagues. That is how he can hang around long enough until there is a president
ignorant enough to think that he is qualified to be a top adviser.
Bolton will also have reliable supporters in the conservative movement that will make
excuses for the inexcusable. National Review recently published an article by
David French in defense of Bolton whose conclusion was that we should "give a hawk a chance."
Besides being evasive and dishonest about just how fanatical Bolton is, the article was an
effort to pretend that Iraq war supporters should be given another chance to wreck U.S. foreign
policy again. It may be true that Bolton's views are "in the mainstream of conservative
foreign-policy thought," but that is an indictment of the so-called "mainstream" that is being
represented. Bolton has been wrong about every major foreign policy issue of the last twenty
years. If that doesn't disqualify you from holding a high-ranking government position, what
does?
Hawks have been given a chance to run our foreign policy every day for decades on end, and
they have failed numerous times at exorbitant cost. Generic hawks don't deserve a second chance
after the last sixteen-plus years of failure and disaster, and fanatical hard-liners like
Bolton never deserved a first chance.
French asserts that Bolton is "not extreme," but that raises the obvious question: compared
to what?Bolton has publicly, repeatedly urged the U.S. government to launch illegal preventive
wars against Iran and North Korea, and that just scratches the surface of his fanaticism. That
strikes me as rather extreme, and that is why so many people are disturbed by the Bolton
appointment. If he isn't "extreme" even by contemporary movement conservative standards, who
is? How psychopathic would one need to be to be considered extreme in French's eyes? If
movement conservatives can't see why Bolton is an unacceptable and outrageous choice for
National Security Advisor, they are so far gone that there is nothing to be done for them and
no point in listening to anything they have to say.
Another chickenhawk in Trump administration. Sad...
Notable quotes:
"... Bolton's high-profile advocacy of war with Iran is well known. What is not at all well known is that, when he was under secretary of state for arms control and international security, he executed a complex and devious strategy aimed at creating the justification for a U.S. attack on Iran. Bolton sought to convict the Islamic Republic in the court of international public opinion of having a covert nuclear weapons program using a combination of diplomatic pressure, crude propaganda, and fabricated evidence. ..."
"... Despite the fact that Bolton was technically under the supervision of Secretary of State Colin Powell, his actual boss in devising and carrying out that strategy was Vice President Dick Cheney. Bolton was also the administration's main point of contact with the Israeli government, and with Cheney's backing, he was able to flout normal State Department rules by taking a series of trips to Israel in 2003 and 2004 without having the required clearance from the State Department's Bureau for Near Eastern Affairs. ..."
"... During multiple trips to Israel, Bolton had unannounced meetings, including with the head of Mossad, Meir Dagan, without the usual reporting cable to the secretary of state and other relevant offices. Judging from that report on an early Bolton visit, those meetings clearly dealt with a joint strategy on how to bring about political conditions for an eventual U.S. strike against Iran. ..."
"... Unfortunately, John Bolton is not just your typical neocon pathological liar and warmonger. Even by their abysmal standards he's pretty unhinged. He is one of the most dangerous people around these days. ..."
"... Bolton, Gen. Jack Keane, Lt. Col. Ralph Peters and the whole warmongering crowd that frequent the air waves at FOX will not rest until they have us at war with Iran and Russia. ..."
"... So Trump is thinking of hiring a loudmouthed incompetent who is a known conduit for botched Israeli spy service forgeries used to gin up war with Iran. What a sick farce. ..."
"... Bolton is a cancer for the US. As a warmonger, he thrives in hostile environnements so no wonder Bolton wants to create them with no regards for consequences. ..."
"... I doubt anyone will be surprised to learn that Bolton was duped by Israeli forgers (very droll story, by the way). You'd think that no serious person would consider giving him a National Security Council post, particularly given the current level of concern about "foreign meddling". ..."
"... I do not agree that Iran could prevent a conventional bombing/invasion of their country. But they could make it sooo expensive, the dollar ceases to be the world reserve currency, and if they do that, they will have done mankind a favor. ..."
"... But after the conquest, imagine the guerrilla war! The US basically had to fight an insurgency from amongst 5 million Sunni Arabs in Iraq. Iran is much more ethnically homogeneous. So even if you get some minorities to turncoat and work for the occupiers, you are still left with about 60 million ethnically Persian Shiites. That is a 12 times larger insurgency than what you had in Iraq. ..."
"... Bolton and Cheney must have been livid about Stuxnet, for all the wrong reasons ..."
"... Hiring a ghoul like Bolton will mark a new low even for the Trump administration. And that's saying something. These chickenhawk bastards should all be required to fight on the front lines of the wars they push. That was true, I'll guarantee you Bolton would shut up in a hurry. ..."
"... Gareth Porter is an investigative reporter and regular contributor to ..."
John Bolton (Gage Skidmore/Flikr)
In my reporting on U.S.-Israeli policy, I have tracked numerous episodes in which the
United States and/or Israel made moves that seemed to indicate preparations for war against Iran. Each time -- in
2007
,
in
2008,
and again in 2011
-- those moves, presented in corporate media as presaging
attacks on Tehran, were actually bluffs aimed at putting pressure on the Iranian government.
But the strong likelihood that Donald Trump will now choose John Bolton as his next
national security advisor creates a prospect of war with Iran that is very real. Bolton is no ordinary neoconservative
hawk. He has been obsessed for many years with going to war against the Islamic Republic, calling repeatedly for bombing
Iran in his regular appearances on Fox News, without the slightest indication that he understands the consequences of
such a policy.
His is not merely a rhetorical stance: Bolton actively conspired during his tenure as
the Bush administration's policymaker on Iran from 2002 through 2004 to establish the political conditions necessary for
the administration to carry out military action.
More than anyone else inside or outside the Trump administration, Bolton has already
influenced Trump to tear up the Iran nuclear deal. Bolton parlayed his connection with the primary financier behind both
Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump himself -- the militantly Zionist casino magnate Sheldon Adelson -- to get Trump's ear
last October, just as the president was preparing to announce his policy on the Iran nuclear agreement, the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). He spoke with Trump by phone from Las Vegas after
meeting
with Adelson
.
It was Bolton who
persuaded
Trump
to commit to specific language pledging to pull out of the JCPOA if
Congress and America's European allies did not go along with demands for major changes that were clearly calculated to
ensure the deal would fall apart.
Although Bolton was passed over for the job of secretary of state, he now appears to
have had the inside track for national security advisor.
Trump
met with Bolton on March 6
and told him, "We need you here, John," according
to a Bolton associate. Bolton said he would only take secretary of state or national security advisor, whereupon Trump
promised, "I'll call you really soon." Trump then replaced Secretary of State Rex Tillerson with former CIA director
Mike Pompeo, after which White House sources
leaked
to the media
Trump's intention to replace H.R. McMaster within a matter of
weeks.
The only other possible candidate for the position
mentioned
in media accounts
is Keith Kellogg, a retired lieutenant general who was
acting national security advisor after General Michael Flynn was ousted in February 2017.
Bolton's high-profile advocacy of war with Iran is well known. What is not at all well
known is that, when he was under secretary of state for arms control and international security, he executed a complex
and devious strategy aimed at creating the justification for a U.S. attack on Iran. Bolton sought to convict the Islamic
Republic in the court of international public opinion of having a covert nuclear weapons program using a combination of
diplomatic pressure, crude propaganda, and fabricated evidence.
Despite the fact that Bolton was technically under the supervision of Secretary of
State Colin Powell, his actual boss in devising and carrying out that strategy was Vice President Dick Cheney. Bolton
was also the administration's main point of contact with the Israeli government, and with Cheney's backing, he was able
to
flout
normal State Department rules
by taking a series of trips to Israel in 2003
and 2004 without having the required clearance from the State Department's Bureau for Near Eastern Affairs.
Thus, at the very moment that Powell was saying administration policy was not to
attack Iran, Bolton was working with the Israelis to lay the groundwork for just such a war. During a February 2003
visit, Bolton
assured Israeli
officials in private meetings
that he had no doubt the United States would
attack Iraq, and that after taking down Saddam, it would deal with Iran, too, as well as Syria.
During multiple trips to Israel, Bolton had
unannounced
meetings, including with the head of Mossad,
Meir Dagan, without the usual
reporting cable to the secretary of state and other relevant offices. Judging from that report on an early Bolton visit,
those meetings clearly dealt with a joint strategy on how to bring about political conditions for an eventual U.S.
strike against Iran.
Mossad played a very aggressive role in influencing world opinion on the Iranian
nuclear program. In the summer of 2003, according to journalists Douglas Frantz and Catherine Collins in their book
The
Nuclear Jihadist
, Meir Dagan created a new Mossad office tasked with
briefing the world's press on alleged Iranian efforts to achieve a nuclear weapons capability. The new unit's
responsibilities included circulating documents from inside Iran as well from outside, according to Frantz and Collins.
Bolton's role in a joint U.S.-Israeli strategy, as he
outlines
in his own 2007 memoir
, was to ensure that the Iran nuclear issue would be
moved out of the International Atomic Energy Agency and into the United Nations Security Council.
He
was determined to prevent IAEA director general Mohamed ElBaradei from reaching an agreement with Iran that would make
it more difficult for the Bush administration to demonize Tehran as posing a nuclear weapons threat.
Bolton began accusing Iran of having a covert nuclear weapons program in mid-2003, but
encountered resistance not only from ElBaradei and non-aligned states, but from Britain, France, and Germany as well.
Bolton's strategy was based on the claim that Iran was hiding its military nuclear
program from the IAEA, and in early 2004, he came up with a dramatic propaganda ploy: he sent a set of satellite images
to the IAEA showing sites at the Iranian military reservation at Parchin that he claimed were being used for tests to
simulate nuclear weapons. Bolton demanded that the IAEA request access to inspect those sites and leaked his demand to
the Associated Press in September 2004. In fact, the satellite images showed nothing more than bunkers and buildings for
conventional explosives testing.
Bolton was apparently hoping the Iranian military would not agree to any IAEA
inspections based on such bogus claims, thus playing into his propaganda theme of Iran's "intransigence" in refusing to
answer questions about its nuclear program. But in 2005 Iran allowed the inspectors into those sites and even let them
choose several more sites to inspect. The inspectors found no evidence of any nuclear-related activities.
The U.S.-Israeli strategy would later hit the jackpot, however, when a large cache of
documents supposedly from a covert source within Iran's nuclear weapons program surfaced in autumn 2004. The documents,
allegedly found on the laptop computer of one of the participants, included technical drawings of a series of efforts to
redesign Iran's Shahab-3 missile to carry what appeared to be a nuclear weapon.
But the whole story of the so-called "laptop documents" was a fabrication. In 2013, a
former senior German official
revealed
the true story
to this writer: the documents had been given to German
intelligence by the Mujahedin E Khalq, the anti-Iran armed group that was well known to have been used by Mossad to
"launder" information the Israelis did not want attributed to themselves. Furthermore, the drawings showing the redesign
that were cited as proof of a nuclear weapons program were clearly done by someone who didn't know that Iran
had
already abandoned the Shahab-3's nose cone
for an entirely different design.
Mossad had clearly been working on those documents in 2003 and 2004 when Bolton was
meeting with Meir Dagan. Whether Bolton knew the Israelis were preparing fake documents or not, it was the Israeli
contribution towards establishing the political basis for an American attack on Iran for which he was the point man.
Bolton reveals in his memoirs that this Cheney-directed strategy took its cues from the Israelis, who told Bolton that
the Iranians were getting close to "the point of no return." That was point, Bolton wrote, at which "we could not stop
their progress without using force."
Cheney and Bolton based their war strategy on the premise that the U.S. military would
be able to consolidate control over Iraq quickly. Instead the U.S. occupation bogged down and never fully recovered.
Cheney proposed taking advantage of a high-casualty event in Iraq that could be blamed on Iran to
attack
an IRGC base in Iran in the summer of 2007.
But the risk that pro-Iranian
Shiite militias in Iraq would retaliate against U.S. troops was a key argument against the proposal.
The Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs of Staff were also well aware that Iran had the
capability to retaliate directly against U.S. forces in the region, including against warships in the Strait of Hormuz.
They had no patience for Cheney's wild ideas about more war.
That Pentagon caution remains unchanged. But two minds in the White House unhinged
from reality could challenge that wariness -- and push the United States closer towards a dangerous war with Iran.
I believe "War With Iran" is on the agenda.
I wrote the article below some time ago.
"Will There Be War With Iran"?
Is it now Iran's turn to be subjected to the planned and hellish wars that have already engulfed Iraq, Libya,
Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan and other countries? Will, the gates of hell be further opened to include an attack
on Iran?
Unfortunately, John Bolton is not just your typical neocon pathological liar and warmonger. Even by their abysmal
standards he's pretty unhinged. He is one of the most dangerous people around these days.
The re-emergence of Bolton is the result of Trump's electoral victory, a phenomenon that resembles the upheavals
that followed when an unhinged hereditary ruler would take the reins of power in bygone empires.
There's a big difference between the wars with Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and Somalia, and a war with Iran. The
difference is, this is a war the United States could lose. And lose very, very badly. As Pompeo remarked, it would
take "only" 2000 airstrikes to eliminate the Iranian nuclear facilities. But what will it take to land 20,000
marines on the northern coast of the Persian Gulf to secure the straits, and there fend off 1.7 million Iranian
regulars and militia on the ground? How will the navy cope with hundreds and hundreds of supersonic cruise
missiles fired in volleys? What about the S-300 missiles that are by now fully operational in Iran?
A look at
the map shows that this is a war that the US simply cannot win.
Unless it uses nuclear weapons and simply sets out to kill every last man, woman, and child in Iran, all 80
million of them.
Which I suppose is not out of the question. As all options are sure to be on the table.
"Everyone worshipped the dragon because he had given his authority to the beast. They worshipped the beast also,
saying, 'Who is like the beast? Who can fight against it?'" Revelation 13:4
Who can fight against the U.S/NATO?
Bolton, Gen. Jack Keane, Lt. Col. Ralph Peters and the whole warmongering crowd that frequent the air waves at
FOX will not rest until they have us at war with Iran and Russia.
So Trump is thinking of hiring a loudmouthed incompetent who is a known conduit for botched Israeli spy service
forgeries used to gin up war with Iran. What a sick farce.
Bolton is a cancer for the US. As a warmonger, he thrives in hostile environnements so no wonder Bolton wants to
create them with no regards for consequences.
Well, we need the John Bolton's of this world for times in which a uncompromising use of force is required.
But I don't need background to know that advocating for wars that serve little in the way of US interests
because we simply are not in any "clear and present danger".
Odd that so many "old schoolers" have abandoned some general cliche's that serve as sound guide.
Just when you think you've heard the last of the various catastrophes, blunders, and odd capering about involving
Bolton, you hear that voice from the old late night gadget commercials barking "wait,
there's more
!!"
I
doubt anyone will be surprised to learn that Bolton was duped by Israeli forgers (very droll story, by the way). You'd think that no serious person would consider giving him a National Security Council post, particularly
given the current level of concern about "foreign meddling".
"The Boltons, Frums, and Boots of the world never have to fight the wars they start."
Hey now, Bolton's service
in the Maryland National Guard made sure the North Vietnamese never landed in Baltimore. Can you imagine the
horror if the Russians had captured our supply of soft shell crab?
John Bolton a 75 year old loser, a has Never-been, which is the mouth piece of the Zionists who keep him on the
pay roll. He likes to hear his own voice and to feel important because he wants war with Iran or all the Middle
East. He's actions and speeches are all emotional and lack logic and reasoning.
So, what is he good for?!
Re: "Well, we need the John Bolton's of this world for times in which a uncompromising use of force is required."
Not sure about that. We definitely need Roosevelts and Lincolns, Grants and Shermans and Eisenhowers and Pattons.
I'm not clear on what function the likes of Bolton serve.
I do not agree that Iran could prevent a conventional bombing/invasion of their country. But they could make it
sooo expensive, the dollar ceases to be the world reserve currency, and if they do that, they will have done
mankind a favor.
But after the conquest, imagine the guerrilla war! The US basically had to fight an insurgency
from amongst 5 million Sunni Arabs in Iraq. Iran is much more ethnically homogeneous. So even if you get some
minorities to turncoat and work for the occupiers, you are still left with about 60 million ethnically Persian
Shiites. That is a 12 times larger insurgency than what you had in Iraq.
And if the Iranians had any sense RIGHT NOW, they would make sure every family had a stock of 10 powerful
anti-vehicle mines, REALLY powerful mines. Make sure all are safely buried with locations memorized. And make sure
everyone had the training to use them, even older children (who will be the front-line guerrillas in 5 years).
So if that devil Bolton gets his way, his own country will pay a price too, and deservedly too. I want my
country to be peaceful and friendly to the world like the Germans are now. But it may take the same type of "WWII
treatment" to get my hateful war-loving countrymen to walk away from their sin.
The guerrilla war in Iraq was fought against only 5 million Sunni Arabs, the US occupiers having successfully
pealed away the Kurds and Shia to be collaborators, or at least stay uninvolved with the insurgency.
But Iran is
not just bigger than Iraq, but much more ethnically and religiously homogeneous. Imagine what kind of insurgency
you might get from 60 million ethnically Persian Shiites?
My advice to the Iranians RIGHT NOW is to mass-produce the most lethal anti-vehicle mines possible and
distribute them to the entire civilian population. Train everyone how to use them, then once trained, bury maybe
20 mines per family, all in known but hidden locations.
THAT will stop the Bolton/Zionist plan dead in its tracks.
Maybe it was a career-enhancing move. It is a legitimate question, along
with "follow the money"? Regardless of why sociopaths like Keith Payne or John Bolton become obsessed with
"winning nuclear war" or "bombing Iran" . How do they make a living? Who would bankroll somebody – over many decades – to not just consider or plan, but actively provoke illegal
acts of aggressive war, against declared policy of the government and the demands of the Constitution they have
sworn an oath to uphold?
It is also educational to see that the fabrications and other "war-program related activities" in regards to
Iran resemble the same stovepipelines that provide the Iraq 2003 pretexts – with Powell reprising his role as
useful idiot – which clashes badly with the "blunder" narrative that anybody in the US government actually
believed Iraq had WMD – was beyond "the point of no return".
This also bodes ill for a Bolton-formulated policy on Korea, and any "National Security Advice" he would see
fit to fabricate and feed to the Bomber In Chief.
Furthermore, we learn just how unhinged Cheney et.al. really were – expecting Iraq to be a mere stepping stone
along their adventures on the "Axis of Evil" trail. If these are our gamblers, nobody would suspect them of
counting cards.
We must look into our very national soul and ask why are we entertaining a war with Iran? The answer is clear. It
is to further the goals of a fanatical, right-wing, group of Zionists. When a truthful history is written about
this era of endless wars, the errant and disgraceful behavior of this group will be clearly identified and they
will not have anywhere to hide. You may fool some of the folks, some of the time, but not all the folks, all of
the time.
Hiring a ghoul like Bolton will mark a new low even for the Trump administration. And that's saying something.
These chickenhawk bastards should all be required to fight on the front lines of the wars they push. That was
true, I'll guarantee you Bolton would shut up in a hurry.
Israel and the Zionists are exactly the "foreign entanglements" that George Washington warned us about. Bolton is
a neocon-Zionist who wants the United States blood and taxes to ensure Israel's dominance of the Middle East.
So Gareth Porter cites his own Truthout article as authority for the assertion that the "laptop documents" are
fabrications. Most of the cited article seems to be devoted to "Curveball", the impeached source of Iraqi
intelligence, in order to prop up the bona fides of the German who claims the Iranian intelligence is a forgery.
Any other sourcing for this allegation available?
Judging from a quick look at what else Truthout has on offer,
I'm not sure about the credibility of Mr. Porter.
Thank you Mr. Porter for your insightful and intelligent articles, being that I am from Iran Originally brings
tears to my eyes to even imagine such tragedy, I pray this will never happen. Having lived in America more than
half of my life and having children that are Americans makes these thoughts even more horrifying . I am however
thankful to read all the comments from so many intelligent , decent and true Americans and that gives me hope that
such disaster will not take place. The people of Iran are decent and kind and cultured , I am hopeful that they
will find their way and bring about a true democracy soon and again become a positive force to the humanity.
Essentially CIA dictates the US foreign policy. The tail is wagging the dog. The current Russophobia hysteria mean
additional billions for CIA and FBI. As simple as that.
The article contain some important observation about self-sustaining nature of the US
militarism. It is able to create new threats and new insurgencies almost at will via CIA activities.
The key problem is that wars are highly profitable for important part of the ruling elite,
especially representing finance and military industrial complex. Also now part of the US
ruling elite now consists of "colonial administrators" which are directly interested in maintaining
and expanding the US empire. This is trap from which nation might not be able to escape.
Notable quotes:
"... The U.S. government may pretend to respect a "rules-based" global order, but the only rule Washington seems to follow is "might makes right" -- and the CIA has long served as a chief instigator and enforcer, writes Nicolas J.S. Davies. ..."
"... Once the CIA went to work in Vietnam to undermine the 1954 Geneva Accords and the planned reunification of North and South through a free and fair election in 1956, the die was cast. ..."
"... No U.S. president could extricate the U.S. from Vietnam without exposing the limits of what U.S. military force could achieve, betraying widely held national myths and the powerful interests that sustained and profited from them. ..."
"... The critical "lesson of Vietnam" was summed up by Richard Barnet in his 1972 book Roots of War . "At the very moment that the number one nation has perfected the science of killing," Barnet wrote, "It has become an impractical means of political domination." ..."
"... Even the senior officer corps of the U.S. military saw it that way, since many of them had survived the horrors of Vietnam as junior officers. The CIA could still wreak havoc in Latin America and elsewhere, but the full destructive force of the U.S. military was not unleashed again until the invasion of Panama in 1989 and the First Gulf War in 1991. ..."
"... Half a century after Vietnam, we have tragically come full circle. With the CIA's politicized intelligence running wild in Washington and its covert operations spreading violence and chaos across every continent, President Trump faces the same pressures to maintain his own and his country's credibility as Johnson and Nixon did. ..."
"... Trump is facing these questions, not just in one country, Vietnam, but in dozens of countries across the world, and the interests perpetuating and fueling this cycle of crisis and war have only become more entrenched over time, as President Eisenhower warned that they would, despite the end of the Cold War and, until now, the lack of any actual military threat to the United States. ..."
"... U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1955 to 1964, managing the global military support system for the CIA in Vietnam and around the world. Fletcher Prouty's book, The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and the World , was suppressed when it was first published in 1973. Thousands of copies disappeared from bookstores and libraries, and a mysterious Army Colonel bought the entire shipment of 3,500 copies the publisher sent to Australia. But Prouty's book was republished in 2011, and it is a timely account of the role of the CIA in U.S. policy. ..."
"... The main purpose of the CIA, as Prouty saw it, is to create such pretexts for war. ..."
"... The CIA is a hybrid of an intelligence service that gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence and a clandestine service that conducts covert operations. Both functions are essential to creating pretexts for war, and that is what they have done for 70 years. ..."
"... Prouty described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S. military, the State Department, the National Security Council and other government institutions, covertly placing its officers in critical positions to ensure that its plans are approved and that it has access to whatever forces, weapons, equipment, ammunition and other resources it needs to carry them out. ..."
"... Many retired intelligence officers, such as Ray McGovern and the members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), saw the merging of clandestine operations with intelligence analysis in one agency as corrupting the objective analysis they tried to provide to policymakers. They formed VIPS in 2003 in response to the fabrication of politicized intelligence that provided false pretexts for the U.S. to invade and destroy Iraq. ..."
"... But Fletcher Prouty was even more disturbed by the way that the CIA uses clandestine operations to trigger coups, wars and chaos. The civil and proxy war in Syria is a perfect example of what Prouty meant ..."
"... The role of U.S. "counterterrorism" operations in fueling armed resistance and terrorism, and the absence of any plan to reduce the asymmetric violence unleashed by the "global war on terror," would be no surprise to Fletcher Prouty. As he explained, such clandestine operations always take on a life of their own that is unrelated, and often counter-productive, to any rational U.S. policy objective. ..."
"... This is a textbook CIA operation on the same model as Vietnam in the late 1950s and early 60s. The CIA uses U.S. special forces and training missions to launch covert and proxy military operations that drive local populations into armed resistance groups, and then uses the presence of those armed resistance groups to justify ever-escalating U.S. military involvement. This is Vietnam redux on a continental scale. ..."
"... China is already too big and powerful for the U.S. to apply what is known as the Ledeen doctrine named for neoconservative theorist and intelligence operative Michael Ledeen who suggested that every 10 years or so, the United States "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business." ..."
"... As long as the CIA and the U.S. military keep plunging the scapegoats for our failed policies into economic crisis, violence and chaos, the United States and the United Kingdom can remain the safe havens of the world's wealth, islands of privilege and excess amidst the storms they unleash on others. ..."
"... But if that is the only "significant national objective" driving these policies, it is surely about time for the 99 percent of Americans who reap no benefit from these murderous schemes to stop the CIA and its allies before they completely wreck the already damaged and fragile world in which we all must live, Americans and foreigners alike. ..."
"... Douglas Valentine has probably studied the CIA in more depth than any other American journalist, beginning with his book on The Phoenix Program in Vietnam. He has written a new book titled The CIA as Organized Crime : How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World, in which he brings Fletcher Prouty's analysis right up to the present day, describing the CIA's role in our current wars and the many ways it infiltrates, manipulates and controls U.S. policy. ..."
"... In Venezuela, the CIA and the right-wing opposition are following the same strategy that President Nixon ordered the CIA to inflict on Chile, to "make the economy scream" in preparation for the 1973 coup. ..."
"... The U.S. willingness to scrap the Agreed Framework in 2003, the breakdown of the Six Party Talks in 2009 and the U.S. refusal to acknowledge that its own military actions and threats create legitimate defense concerns for North Korea have driven the North Koreans into a corner from which they see a credible nuclear deterrent as their only chance to avoid mass destruction. ..."
"... Obama's charm offensive invigorated old and new military alliances with the U.K., France and the Arab monarchies, and he quietly ran up the most expensive military budge t of any president since World War Two. ..."
"... Throughout history, serial aggression has nearly always provoked increasingly united opposition, as peace-loving countries and people have reluctantly summoned the courage to stand up to an aggressor. France under Napoleon and Hitler's Germany also regarded themselves as exceptional, and in their own ways they were. But in the end, their belief in their exceptionalism led them on to defeat and destruction. ..."
The U.S. government may pretend to respect a "rules-based" global order, but the only rule Washington
seems to follow is "might makes right" -- and the CIA has long served as a chief instigator and enforcer,
writes Nicolas J.S. Davies.
As the recent PBS documentary on the American War in Vietnam acknowledged, few American officials
ever believed that the United States could win the war, neither those advising Johnson as he committed
hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops, nor those advising Nixon as he escalated a brutal aerial bombardment
that had already killed millions of people.
As conversations tape-recorded in the White House reveal, and as other writers have documented,
the reasons for wading into the Big Muddy, as
Pete Seeger satirized it
, and then pushing on regardless, all came down to "credibility": the domestic political credibility
of the politicians involved and America's international credibility as a military power.
Once the CIA went to work in Vietnam to undermine the
1954 Geneva Accords
and the planned reunification of North and South through a free and fair election in 1956, the die
was cast. The CIA's support for the repressive
Diem regime and its successors
ensured an ever-escalating war, as the South rose in rebellion, supported by the North. No U.S. president
could extricate the U.S. from Vietnam without exposing the limits of what U.S. military force could
achieve, betraying widely held national myths and the powerful interests that sustained and profited
from them.
The critical "lesson of Vietnam" was summed up by Richard Barnet in his 1972 book
Roots
of War . "At the very moment that the number one nation has perfected the science of killing,"
Barnet wrote, "It has become an impractical means of political domination."
Even the senior officer corps of the U.S. military saw it that way, since many of them had survived
the horrors of Vietnam as junior officers. The CIA could still wreak havoc in Latin America and elsewhere,
but the full destructive force of the U.S. military was not unleashed again until the invasion of
Panama in 1989 and the First Gulf War in 1991.
Half a century after Vietnam, we have tragically come full circle. With the CIA's politicized
intelligence running wild in Washington and its covert operations spreading violence and chaos across
every continent, President Trump faces the same pressures to maintain his own and his country's credibility
as Johnson and Nixon did. His predictable response has been to escalate ongoing wars in Syria, Iraq,
Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia and West Africa, and to threaten new ones against North Korea, Iran and
Venezuela.
Trump is facing these questions, not just in one country, Vietnam, but in dozens of countries
across the world, and the interests perpetuating and fueling this cycle of crisis and war have only
become more entrenched over time, as
President Eisenhower warned that they would, despite the end of the Cold War and, until now,
the lack of any actual military threat to the United States.
Ironically but predictably, the U.S.'s aggressive and illegal war policy has finally provoked
a real military threat to the U.S., albeit one that has emerged only in response to U.S. war plans.
As I explained in a recent article , North Korea's discovery in 2016 of a U.S. plan to assassinate
its president, Kim Jong Un, and launch a Second Korean War has triggered a crash program to develop
long-range ballistic missiles that could give North Korea a viable nuclear deterrent and prevent
a U.S. attack. But the North Koreans will not feel safe from attack until their leaders and ours
are sure that their missiles can deliver a nuclear strike against the U.S. mainland.
The CIA's Pretexts for War
U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs
of Staff from 1955 to 1964, managing the global military support system for the CIA in Vietnam and
around the world. Fletcher Prouty's book,
The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and the World ,
was suppressed when it was first published in 1973. Thousands of copies disappeared from bookstores
and libraries, and a mysterious Army Colonel bought the entire shipment of 3,500 copies the publisher
sent to Australia. But Prouty's book was republished in 2011, and it is a timely account of the role
of the CIA in U.S. policy.
Prouty surprisingly described the role of the CIA as a response by powerful people and interests
to the abolition of the U.S. Department of War and the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947.
Once the role of the U.S. military was redefined as one of defense, in line with the United Nations
Charter's
prohibition against the threat or use of military force in 1945 and similar moves by other military
powers, it would require some kind of crisis or threat to justify using military force in the future,
both legally and politically. The main purpose of the CIA, as Prouty saw it, is to create such
pretexts for war.
The CIA is a hybrid of an intelligence service that gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence
and a clandestine service that conducts covert operations. Both functions are essential to creating
pretexts for war, and that is what they have done for 70 years.
Prouty described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S. military, the State Department, the National
Security Council and other government institutions, covertly placing its officers in critical positions
to ensure that its plans are approved and that it has access to whatever forces, weapons, equipment,
ammunition and other resources it needs to carry them out.
Many retired intelligence officers, such as Ray McGovern and the members of Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), saw the merging of clandestine operations with intelligence analysis
in one agency as corrupting the objective analysis they tried to provide to policymakers. They formed
VIPS in 2003 in response to the fabrication of politicized intelligence that provided false pretexts
for the U.S. to invade and destroy Iraq.
CIA in Syria and Africa
But Fletcher Prouty was even more disturbed by the way that the CIA uses clandestine operations
to trigger coups, wars and chaos. The civil and proxy war in Syria is a perfect example of what Prouty
meant. In late 2011, after destroying Libya and aiding in the torture-murder of Muammar Gaddafi,
the CIA and its allies began
flying fighters
and weapons from Libya to Turkey and infiltrating them into Syria. Then, working with Saudi Arabia,
Qatar, Turkey, Croatia and other allies, this operation poured
thousands of tons of weapons across Syria's borders to ignite and fuel a full-scale civil war.
Once these covert operations were under way, they ran wild until they had unleashed a savage Al
Qaeda affiliate in Syria (Jabhat al-Nusra, now rebranded as Jabhat Fateh al-Sham), spawned the even
more savage "Islamic State," triggered
the heaviest
and
probably the deadliest U.S. bombing campaign since Vietnam and drawn Russia, Iran, Turkey, Israel,
Jordan, Hezbollah, Kurdish militias and almost every state or armed group in the Middle East into
the chaos of Syria's civil war.
Meanwhile, as Al Qaeda and Islamic State have expanded their operations across Africa, the U.N.
has published a report titled
Journey to Extremismin Africa: Drivers, Incentives and the Tipping Point for Recruitment
, based on 500 interviews with African militants. This study has found that the kind of special operations
and training missions the CIA and AFRICOM are conducting and supporting in Africa are in fact the
critical "tipping point" that drives Africans to join militant groups like Al Qaeda, Al-Shabab and
Boko Haram.
The report found that government action, such as the killing or detention of friends or family,
was the "tipping point" that drove 71 percent of African militants interviewed to join armed groups,
and that this was a more important factor than religious ideology.
The conclusions of Journey to Extremism in Africa confirm the findings of other similar
studies. The Center for Civilians in Conflict interviewed 250 civilians who joined armed groups in
Bosnia, Somalia, Gaza and Libya for its 2015 study,
The People's Perspectives: Civilian Involvement in Armed Conflict . The study
found that the most common motivation for civilians to join armed groups was simply to protect themselves
or their families.
The role of U.S. "counterterrorism" operations in fueling armed resistance and terrorism, and
the absence of any plan to reduce the asymmetric violence unleashed by the "global war on terror,"
would be no surprise to Fletcher Prouty. As he explained, such clandestine operations always take
on a life of their own that is unrelated, and often counter-productive, to any rational U.S. policy
objective.
"The more intimate one becomes with this activity," Prouty wrote, "The more one begins to realize
that such operations are rarely, if ever, initiated from an intent to become involved in pursuit
of some national objective in the first place."
The U.S. justifies the deployment of 6,000 U.S. special forces and military trainers to
53 of the 54 countries in Africa as a response to terrorism. But the U.N.'s Journey to Extremism
in Africa study makes it clear that the U.S. militarization of Africa is in fact the "tipping
point" that is driving Africans across the continent to join armed resistance groups in the first
place.
This is a textbook CIA operation on the same model as Vietnam in the late 1950s and early
60s. The CIA uses U.S. special forces and training missions to launch covert and proxy military operations
that drive local populations into armed resistance groups, and then uses the presence of those armed
resistance groups to justify ever-escalating U.S. military involvement. This is Vietnam redux on
a continental scale.
Taking on China
What seems to really be driving the CIA's militarization of U.S. policy in Africa is China's growing
influence on the continent. As Steve Bannon put it in an
interview with the Economist in August, "Let's go screw up One Belt One Road."
China is already too big and powerful for the U.S. to apply what is known as the Ledeen doctrine
named for neoconservative theorist and intelligence operative Michael Ledeen who suggested that every
10 years or so, the United States "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against
the wall, just to show we mean business."
China is too powerful and armed with nuclear weapons. So, in this case, the CIA's job would be
to spread violence and chaos to disrupt Chinese trade and investment, and to make African governments
increasingly dependent on U.S. military aid to fight the militant groups spawned and endlessly regenerated
by U.S.-led "counterterrorism" operations.
Neither Ledeen nor Bannon pretend that such policies are designed to build more prosperous or
viable societies in the Middle East or Africa, let alone to benefit their people. They both know
very well what Richard Barnet already understood 45 years ago, that America's unprecedented investment
in weapons, war and CIA covert operations are only good for one thing: to kill people and destroy
infrastructure, reducing cities to rubble, societies to chaos and the desperate survivors to poverty
and displacement.
As long as the CIA and the U.S. military keep plunging the scapegoats for our failed policies
into economic crisis, violence and chaos, the United States and the United Kingdom can remain the
safe havens of the world's wealth, islands of privilege and excess amidst the storms they unleash
on others.
But if that is the only "significant national objective" driving these policies, it is surely
about time for the 99 percent of Americans who reap no benefit from these murderous schemes to stop
the CIA and its allies before they completely wreck the already damaged and fragile world in which
we all must live, Americans and foreigners alike.
Douglas Valentine has probably studied the CIA in more depth than any other American journalist,
beginning with his book on
The Phoenix Program in Vietnam. He has written a new book titled
The CIA as Organized Crime: How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World, in which he brings Fletcher Prouty's
analysis right up to the present day, describing the CIA's role in our current wars and the many
ways it infiltrates, manipulates and controls U.S. policy.
The Three Scapegoats
In
Trump's speech to the U.N. General Assembly, he named North Korea, Iran and Venezuela as his
prime targets for destabilization, economic warfare and, ultimately, the overthrow of their governments,
whether by coup d'etat or the mass destruction of their civilian population and infrastructure.
But Trump's choice of scapegoats for America's failures was obviously not based on a rational reassessment
of foreign policy priorities by the new administration. It was only a tired rehashing of the CIA's
unfinished business with two-thirds of Bush's "axis of evil" and Bush White House official
Elliott Abrams'
failed 2002 coup in Caracas, now laced with explicit and illegal threats of aggression.
How Trump and the CIA plan to sacrifice their three scapegoats for America's failures remains
to be seen. This is not 2001, when the world stood silent at the U.S. bombardment and invasion of
Afghanistan after September 11th. It is more like 2003, when the U.S. destruction of Iraq split the
Atlantic alliance and alienated most of the world. It is certainly not 2011, after Obama's global
charm offensive had rebuilt U.S. alliances and provided cover for French President Sarkozy, British
Prime Minister Cameron, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Arab royals to destroy Libya,
once ranked by the U.N. as the
most developed country
in Africa , now mired in intractable chaos.
In 2017, a U.S. attack on any one of Trump's scapegoats would isolate the United States from many
of its allies and undermine its standing in the world in far-reaching ways that might be more permanent
and harder to repair than the invasion and destruction of Iraq.
In Venezuela, the CIA and the right-wing opposition are following the same strategy that President
Nixon ordered the CIA to inflict on Chile, to
"make the economy
scream" in preparation for the 1973 coup. But the
solid victory of Venezuela's
ruling Socialist Party in recent nationwide gubernatorial elections, despite a long and deep
economic crisis, reveals little public support for the CIA's puppets in Venezuela.
The CIA has successfully discredited the Venezuelan government through economic warfare, increasingly
violent right-wing street protests and a global propaganda campaign. But the CIA has stupidly hitched
its wagon to an extreme right-wing, upper-class opposition that has no credibility with most of the
Venezuelan public, who still turn out for the Socialists at the polls. A CIA coup or U.S. military
intervention would meet fierce public resistance and damage U.S. relations all over Latin America.
Boxing In North Korea
A U.S. aerial bombardment or "preemptive strike" on North Korea could quickly escalate into a
war between the U.S. and China, which has reiterated
its commitment to North
Korea's defense if North Korea is attacked. We do not know exactly what was in the
U.S. war plan discovered by North Korea, so neither can we know how North Korea and China could
respond if the U.S. pressed ahead with it.
Most analysts have long concluded that any U.S. attack on North Korea would be met with a North
Korean artillery and missile barrage that would inflict unacceptable civilian casualties on Seoul,
a metropolitan area of 26 million people, three times the population of New York City. Seoul is only
35 miles from the frontier with North Korea, placing it within range of a huge array of North Korean
weapons. What was already a no-win calculus is now compounded by the possibility that North Korea
could respond with nuclear weapons, turning any prospect of a U.S. attack into an even worse nightmare.
U.S. mismanagement of its relations with North Korea should be an object lesson for its relations
with Iran, graphically demonstrating the advantages of diplomacy, talks and agreements over threats
of war. Under the
Agreed Framework
signed in 1994, North Korea stopped work on two much larger nuclear reactors than the small experimental
one operating at Yongbyong since 1986, which only produces 6 kg of plutonium per year, enough for
one nuclear bomb.
The lesson of Bush's Iraq invasion in 2003 after Saddam Hussein had complied with demands that
he destroy Iraq's stockpiles of chemical weapons and shut down a nascent nuclear program was not
lost on North Korea. Not only did the invasion lay waste to large sections of Iraq with hundreds
of thousands of dead but Hussein himself was hunted down and condemned to death by hanging.
Still, after North Korea tested its first nuclear weapon in 2006, even its small experimental
reactor was shut down as a result of the
"Six Party Talks" in
2007, all the fuel rods were removed and placed under supervision of the International Atomic Energy
Agency, and the cooling tower of the reactor was demolished in 2008.
But then, as relations deteriorated, North Korea conducted a second nuclear weapon test and again
began reprocessing spent fuel rods to recover plutonium for use in nuclear weapons.
North Korea has now conducted six nuclear weapons tests. The explosions in
the first five tests increased gradually up to 15-25 kilotons, about the yield of the bombs the
U.S. dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but estimates for the yield of the 2017 test range
from 110
to 250 kilotons , comparable
to a small hydrogen bomb.
The even greater danger in a new war in Korea is that the U.S. could unleash part of its arsenal
of
4,000 more powerful weapons (100 to 1,200 kilotons), which could kill millions of people and
devastate and poison the region, or even the world, for years to come.
The U.S. willingness to scrap the Agreed Framework in 2003, the breakdown of the Six Party Talks
in 2009 and the U.S. refusal to acknowledge that its own military actions and threats create legitimate
defense concerns for North Korea have driven the North Koreans into a corner from which they see
a credible nuclear deterrent as their only chance to avoid mass destruction.
China has proposed a
reasonable framework for diplomacy to address the concerns of both sides, but the U.S. insists
on maintaining its propaganda narratives that all the fault lies with North Korea and that it has
some kind of "military solution" to the crisis.
This may be the most dangerous idea we have heard from U.S. policymakers since the end of the
Cold War, but it is the logical culmination of a
systematic normalization of deviant and illegal U.S. war-making that has already cost millions
of lives in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan. As historian Gabriel Kolko
wrote in Century of War in 1994, "options and decisions that are intrinsically dangerous
and irrational become not merely plausible but the only form of reasoning about war and diplomacy
that is possible in official circles."
Demonizing Iran
The idea that Iran has ever had a nuclear weapons program is seriously contested by the IAEA,
which has examined every allegation presented by the CIA and other Western "intelligence" agencies
as well as Israel. Former IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei revealed many details of this wild
goose chase in his 2011 memoir,
Age of Deception: Nuclear Diplomacy in Treacherous Times .
When the CIA and its partners reluctantly acknowledged the IAEA's conclusions in a 2007 National
Intelligence Estimate (NIE), ElBaradei issued
a press release confirming that, "the agency has no concrete evidence of an ongoing nuclear weapons
program or undeclared nuclear facilities in Iran."
Since 2007, the IAEA has resolved all its outstanding concerns with Iran. It has verified that
dual-use technologies that Iran imported before 2003 were in fact used for other purposes, and it
has exposed the mysterious "laptop documents" that appeared to show Iranian plans for a nuclear weapon
as forgeries. Gareth Porter thoroughly explored all these questions and allegations and the history
of mistrust that fueled them in his 2014 book,
Manufactured
Crisis: the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare , which I highly recommend.
But, in the parallel Bizarro world of U.S. politics, hopelessly poisoned by the CIA's
endless disinformation campaigns, Hillary Clinton could repeatedly take false credit for disarming
Iran during her presidential campaign, and neither Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump nor any corporate
media interviewer dared to challenge her claims.
"When President Obama took office, Iran was racing toward a nuclear bomb," Clinton fantasized
in a
prominent foreign policy speech on June 2, 2016, claiming that her brutal sanctions policy "brought
Iran to the table."
In fact, as Trita Parsi documented in his 2012 book,
A Single
Roll of the Dice: Obama's Diplomacy With Iran , the Iranians were ready, not just
to "come to the table," but to sign a comprehensive agreement based on a U.S. proposal brokered by
Turkey and Brazil in 2010. But, in a classic case of "tail wags dog," the U.S. then rejected its
own proposal because it would have undercut support for tighter sanctions in the U.N. Security Council.
In other words, Clinton's sanctions policy did not "bring Iran to the table", but prevented the U.S.
from coming to the table itself.
As a senior State Department official told Trita Parsi, the real problem with U.S. diplomacy with
Iran when Clinton was at the State Department was that the U.S. would not take "Yes" for an answer.
Trump's ham-fisted decertification of Iran's compliance with the JCPOA is right out of Clinton's
playbook, and it demonstrates that the CIA is still determined to use Iran as a scapegoat for America's
failures in the Middle East.
The spurious claim that Iran is the world's greatest sponsor of terrorism is another CIA canard
reinforced by endless repetition. It is true that Iran supports and supplies weapons to Hezbollah
and Hamas, which are both listed as terrorist organizations by the U.S. government. But they are
mainly defensive resistance groups that defend Lebanon and Gaza respectively against invasions and
attacks by Israel.
Shifting attention away from Al Qaeda, Islamic State, the
Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and other groups that actually commit terrorist crimes around the
world might just seem like a case of the CIA "taking its eyes off the ball," if it wasn't so transparently
timed to frame Iran with new accusations now that the manufactured crisis of the nuclear scare has
run its course.
What the Future Holds
Barack Obama's most consequential international achievement may have been the triumph of symbolism
over substance behind which he expanded and escalated the so-called "war on terror," with a vast
expansion of covert operations and proxy wars that eventually triggered the
heaviest U.S.
aerial bombardments since Vietnam in Iraq and Syria.
Obama's charm offensive invigorated old and new military alliances with the U.K., France and
the Arab monarchies, and he quietly ran up the
most expensive military budget of any president since World War Two.
But Obama's expansion of the "war on terror" under cover of his deceptive global public relations
campaign created many more problems than it solved, and Trump and his advisers are woefully ill-equipped
to solve any of them. Trump's expressed desire to place America first and to resist foreign entanglements
is hopelessly at odds with his aggressive, bullying approach to every foreign policy problem.
If the U.S. could threaten and fight its way to a resolution of any of its international problems,
it would have done so already. That is exactly what it has been trying to do since the 1990s, behind
both the swagger and bluster of Bush and Trump and the deceptive charm of Clinton and Obama: a "good
cop – bad cop" routine that should no longer fool anyone anywhere.
But as Lyndon Johnson found as he waded deeper and deeper into the Big Muddy in Vietnam, lying
to the public about unwinnable wars does not make them any more winnable. It just gets more people
killed and makes it harder and harder to ever tell the public the truth.
In unwinnable wars based on lies, the "credibility" problem only gets more complicated, as new
lies require new scapegoats and convoluted narratives to explain away graveyards filled by old lies.
Obama's cynical global charm offensive bought the "war on terror" another eight years, but that only
allowed the CIA to drag the U.S. into more trouble and spread its chaos to more places around the
world.
Meanwhile, Russian President Putin is winning hearts and minds in capitals around the world by
calling for a recommitment to the
rule of international
law , which
prohibits
the threat or use of military force except in self-defense. Every new U.S. threat or act of aggression
will only make Putin's case more persuasive, not least to important U.S. allies like South Korea,
Germany and other members of the European Union, whose complicity in U.S. aggression has until now
helped to give it a false veneer of political legitimacy.
Throughout history, serial aggression has nearly always provoked increasingly united opposition,
as peace-loving countries and people have reluctantly summoned the courage to stand up to an aggressor.
France under Napoleon and Hitler's Germany also regarded themselves as exceptional, and in their
own ways they were. But in the end, their belief in their exceptionalism led them on to defeat and
destruction.
Americans had better hope that we are not so exceptional, and that the world will find a diplomatic
rather than a military "solution" to its American problem. Our chances of survival would improve
a great deal if American officials and politicians would finally start to act like something other
than putty in the hands of the CIA
Nicolas J. S. Davies is the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction
of Iraq . He also wrote the chapters on "Obama at War" in Grading the 44th President: a Report Card
on Barack Obama's First Term as a Progressive Leader .
This is way too simplistic interpretation of the events, but still she shed
a light on the problems of anti war movement in the USA. As sson as soch movemetn
grow to represnt a threat to status wquo they instantly get in cross hears of intelligence
agencies. Arrests follow.
Bill Ayers part is better and he managed to land a couple of quotes with rather
deep observations about the nature of the problems with the US media.
Notable quotes:
"... UnAmerican Activities ..."
"... "Empire always, then and now, cloaks itself in the garments of mystification and deceit," Ayers said. "The message from the corporate media was unambiguous: the US loves peace and fights only when it must, and always selflessly in defense of freedom and democracy." ..."
"... "The lies and misdirection go on and on," Ayers said. "And don't believe the narcissistic media today rewriting its role in moving the country against the war 50 years ago, making itself a forerunner and a major actor, heroizing its efforts and turning reality on its head." ..."
"... The Will to Resist: Soldiers Who Refuse to Fight in Iraq and Afghanistan ..."
"... Beyond the Green Zone: Dispatches From an Unembedded Journalist in Occupied Iraq ..."
"... The Mass Destruction of Iraq: Why It Is Happening, and Who Is Responsible ..."
In 1970, the Weather Underground Organization (WUO), a group that emerged
out of Students for a Democratic Society, issued a "Declaration of a State of
War" against the US government, and shortly thereafter began carrying out bombings
against symbols of US Empire, including even the Pentagon itself. Targeting
mostly government buildings and several banks -- and taking care not to injure
human beings -- the actions were designed to "bring the war home" in order to
highlight imperial injustices against the oppressed, and the egregious violence
of US imperialism.
... ... ...
"[The Media's role was] so important that the US military learned to never
again allow independent journalists into their war zones," Dohrn explained.
"[Significantly], the mainstream media never again allowed images of human people,
families, women or children who suffer the consequences of US bombings or invasions."
With the dominant media avoiding these responsibilities, one of the many
roles the WUO played was, according to Dohrn, to communicate to the public the
ways in which people, cultures and whole civilizations were suffering under
US air strikes and CIA repression.
"The media was plenty corporatized during the '60s and '70s, and it was the
anti-war movement in concert with the Black Freedom Movement and the returning
vets who changed the hearts and minds of the US people from 1965-1968," she
said.
WUO member David Gilbert told Truthout he believes it was the strength of
the anti-war movement, and the US losses in Vietnam, that finally pushed sectors
of the media to start reporting some of the truth about the war.
He echoes Dohrn's point that the media was already corporatized back then
(though the conglomerates were not nearly as large as they are today), and the
pro-war bias of the media was just as real as it is now.
"An example was the use of napalm bombs, designed to cling to and burn through
flesh, on civilians," Gilbert said. "The mainstream media completely whited-out
these horrible war crimes."
In fact, in January 1967 a radical magazine, Ramparts, published a series
of color photos of children and babies burned by napalm.
"That's the point when some of us became absolutely frantic to stop the war,"
Gilbert said. "But it also exposed the mainstream media for what they were covering
up."
According to Gilbert, by 1967 a whole network of small radical papers had
a combined readership of roughly 6 million, making up a crucial wing of the
movement. Of course, it was therefore ripe for targeting by intelligence agencies.
"An important part of the FBI and police offensive to beat the radical movements
was to destroy the radical media, a campaign that's detailed in Geoffrey Rips's
UnAmerican Activities ," he said.
By the late '60s, largely due to constant pressure from the increasingly
powerful anti-war movement, portions of the media started to come around to
presenting some of the realities of the Vietnam War. Plus, by then, it was clear
the US was likely going to lose the war, US brutality abroad was being exposed
to the world, and the political upheaval on the home front was becoming white
hot.
Gilbert went on to explain how, then as now, "The hawks waged a concerted
campaign to blame that on 'the liberal media,' to the point that this lie has
become accepted today."
At that time, the myth of the "liberal media" accomplished several things
for the right wing, according to Gilbert. "It's covered up the truth that the
US military machine was defeated by a Global South nation, it's convinced the
public that the 'truth lies somewhere in between' the hawks and the media, when
in fact the media didn't do nearly enough to expose the injustice and horrors
of the war, and it's intimidated the media, which fell into line as pure propaganda
organs in subsequent wars."
Naomi Jaffe, one of the WUO's founding members who joined in solidarity with
movements for Black self-determination, agreed with Gilbert in that pressure
from the anti-war movement was a leading factor that pushed the media to share
more images of the war. However, she was quite critical of the overall role
the media played during Vietnam.
"Remember the Gulf of Tonkin? Not a hint of independent reporting ever questioned
it until long after the war was over," Jaffe told Truthout. "The body counts?
Regular reports of how the US was winning by killing more 'Viet Cong' every
week than could possibly have existed overall."
Bill Ayers, who is married to Dohrn, was also a leader and cofounder of the
WUO.
"Empire always, then and now, cloaks itself in the garments of mystification
and deceit," Ayers said. "The message from the corporate media was unambiguous:
the US loves peace and fights only when it must, and always selflessly in defense
of freedom and democracy."
For example, Ayers says, the New York Times announced that it saw the "light
at the end of the tunnel" -- the turning point when the war would at long last
be turned around and won -- days before the decisive defeat during the Tet Offensive
in 1968. In 1966, Walter Cronkite, CBS anchor and the most trusted journalist
of his generation, presented a fawning interview with the puppet and fascist
Nguyen Cao Ky and called him the George Washington of Viet Nam.
"The lies and misdirection go on and on," Ayers said. "And don't believe
the narcissistic media today rewriting its role in moving the country against
the war 50 years ago, making itself a forerunner and a major actor, heroizing
its efforts and turning reality on its head."
Ayers said it wasn't the media that played a role in helping end the war
in Vietnam, it was, by far, the decisive actions of the Vietnamese people themselves
"in defeating the most potent military force on earth." He pointed out, "Vietnam
was engaged in an authentic social revolution, deep and broad, in which peasants
and workers were massively engaged in the overthrow of colonialism and foreign
control as well as feudal relationships and capitalism itself."
Moreover, Ayers said, this revolution was part of "the anti-colonial and
Third World moment, a context that allowed us to understand the revolution in
Vietnam as part of a world phenomenon sweeping from South Africa to Egypt to
Chile to Indonesia."
He also pointed to "the important role of the underground -- popular or alternative
or movement -- press in the US, and its ability to tap international sources
like the Cuban media, for example, to uncover the truth of events."
He sees the typical narrative -- the idea that the military draft made the
war real in the eyes of the US public, and the media cemented that reality,
helping to end the war -- as skewed. It "buys into a simplistic and largely
self-serving explanation," Ayers said. "The Vietnamese revolution and war resistance
at home impacted the media coverage, not the other way around."
"... Unlike the Roman Empire, the 1990's were not to be the prelude to an unchallenged US empire of long duration. Since the 'unipolarists' were pursuing multiple costly and destructive wars of conquest and they were unable to rely on the growth of satellites with emerging industrial economies for its profits. US global power eroded. ..."
"... The domestic disasters of the US vassal regime in Russia, under Boris Yeltsin during the 1990″s, pushed the voters to elect a nationalist, Vladimir Putin. President Vladimir Putin's government embarked on a program to regain Russian sovereignty and its position as a global power, countering US internal intervention and pushing back against external encirclement by NATO. ..."
"... The mostly likely site for starting World War III is the Korean peninsula. The unipolarists and their allies in the state apparatus have systematically built-up the conditions to trigger a war with China using the pretext of the North Korean defensive weapons program. ..."
"... The unipolarists' state apparatus has gathered its allies in Congress and the mass media to create public hysteria. Congress and the administration of President Trump have fabricated the North Korean missile program as a 'threat to the United States'. This has allowed the unipolarist state to implement an offensive military strategy to counter this phony 'threat'. ..."
"... The elite have discarded all previous diplomatic negotiations and agreements with North Korea in order to prepare for war – ultimately directed at China. This is because China is the most dynamic and successful global economic challenger to US world domination. ..."
"... South Korea's deeply corrupt and blindly submissive regime immediately accepted the US/THADD system on their territory. Washington found the compliant South Korean 'deep state' willing to sacrifice its crucial economic links with Beijing: China is South Korea's biggest trading partner. In exchange for serving as a platform for future US aggression against China, South Korea has suffered losses in trade, investments and employment. Even if a new South Korea government were to reverse this policy, the US will not move its THAAD installation. China, for its part, has largely cut its economic and investment ties with some of South Korea's biggest conglomerates. Tourism, cultural and academic exchanges, commercial agreements and, most important, most of South Korean industrial exports face shut down. ..."
"... The rise and fall of unipolar America has not displaced the permanent state apparatus as it continues to pursue its deluded strategies ..."
"... On the contrary, the unipolarists are accelerating their drive for global military conquest by targeting Russia and China, which they insist are the cause of their losing wars and global economic decline. They live on their delusions of a 'Golden Age' of the 1990's when George Bush, Sr. could devastate Iraq and Bill Clinton could bomb Yugoslavia's cities with impunity. ..."
"... You don't seem to understand the definitions of legal and illegal in the current context: Anything the US declares legal and subject to its jurisdiction anywhere in the world is legal, otherwise it is still subject to US interpretation on its legality or not. In other words, US troops always operate legally, international law notwithstanding, and US laws have effect everywhere and at all times. What an idiotic statement. ..."
Introduction: US Empire building on a world-scale began during and shortly after WWII. Washington
intervened directly in the Chinese civil war (providing arms to Chiang Kai Shek's army while the
Red Army battled the Japanese), backed France's re-colonization war against the Viet Minh in Indo-China
and installed Japanese imperial collaborator-puppet regimes in South Korea, Taiwan and Japan.
While empire building took place with starts and stops, advances and defeats, the strategic goal
remained the same: to prevent the establishment of independent communist or secular-nationalist governments
and to impose vassal regimes compliant to US interests.
Bloody wars and coups ('regime changes') were the weapons of choice. Defeated European colonial
regimes were replaced and incorporated as subordinate US allies.
Where possible, Washington relied on armies of mercenaries trained, equipped and directed by US
'advisors' to advance imperial conquests. Where necessary, usually if the client regime and vassal
troops were unable to defeat an armed people's army, the US armed forces intervened directly.
Imperial strategists sought to intervene and brutally conquer the target nation. When they failed
to achieve their 'maximum' goal, they dug in with a policy of encirclement to cut the links between
revolutionary centers with adjoining movements. Where countries successfully resisted armed conquests,
empire builders imposed economic sanctions and blockades to erode the economic basis of popular governments.
Empires, as the Roman sages long recognized, are not built in a day, or weeks and months. Temporary
agreements and accords are signed and conveniently broken because imperial designs remain paramount.
Empires would foment internal cleavages among adversaries and coups in neighboring countries.
Above all, they construct a worldwide network of military outposts, clandestine operatives and regional
alliances on the borders of independent governments to curtail emerging military powers.
Following successful wars, imperial centers dominate production and markets, resources and labor.
However, over time challenges would inevitably emerge from dependent and independent regimes. Rivals
and competitors gained markets and increased military competence. While some vassal states sacrificed
political-military sovereignty for independent economic development, others moved toward political
independence.
Early and Late Contradictions of Expanding Imperialism
The dynamics of imperial states and systems contain contradictions that constantly challenge and
change the contours of empire.
The US devoted immense resources to retain its military supremacy among vassals, but experienced
a sharp decline in its share of world markets, especially with the rapid rise of new economic producers.
Economic competition forced the imperial centers to realign the focus of their economies – 'rent'
(finance and speculation) displaced profits from trade and production. Imperial industries relocated
abroad in search of cheap labor. Finance, insurance, real estate, communications, military and security
industries came to dominate the domestic economy. A vicious cycle was created: with the erosion of
its productive base, the Empire further increased its reliance on the military, finance capital and
the import of cheap consumer goods.
Just after World War II, Washington tested its military prowess through intervention . Because
of the immense popular resistance and the proximity of the USSR, and later PRC, empire building in
post-colonial Asia was contained or militarily defeated. US forces temporarily recognized a stalemate
in Korea after killing millions. Its defeat in China led to the flight of the 'Nationalists' to the
provincial island of Taiwan. The sustained popular resistance and material support from socialist
superpowers led to its retreat from Indo-China. In response, it resorted to economic sanctions to
strangle the revolutionary governments.
The Growth of the Unipolar Ideology
With the growing power of overseas economic competitors and its increasing reliance on direct
military intervention, the US Empire took advantage of the internal disintegration of the USSR and
China's embrace of 'state capitalism' in the early 1990's and 1980s..The US expanded throughout the
Baltic region, Eastern and Central Europe and the Balkans – with the forced breakup of Yugoslavia.
Imperial strategists envisioned 'a unipolar empire' – an imperial state without rivals. The Empire
builders were free to invade, occupy and pillage independent states on any continent – even bombing
a European capital, Belgrade, with total impunity. Multiple wars were launched against designated
'adversaries', who lacked strong global allies.
Countries in South Asia, the Middle East and North Africa were targeted for destruction. South
America was under the control of neo-liberal regimes. The former USSR was pillaged and disarmed by
imperial vassals. Russia was ruled by gangster-kleptocrats allied to US stooges. China was envisioned
as nothing more than a slave workshop producing cheap mass consumer goods for Americans and generating
high profits for US multinational corporations and retailers like Walmart.
Unlike the Roman Empire, the 1990's were not to be the prelude to an unchallenged US empire
of long duration. Since the 'unipolarists' were pursuing multiple costly and destructive wars of
conquest and they were unable to rely on the growth of satellites with emerging industrial economies
for its profits. US global power eroded.
The Demise of Unipolarity: The 21st Century
Ten years into the 21st century, the imperial vision of an unchallenged unipolar empire was crumbling.
China's 'primitive' accumulation led to advanced domestic accumulation for the Chinese people and
state. China's power expanded overseas through investments, trade and acquisitions. China displaced
the US as the leading trading partner in Asia and the largest importer of primary commodities from
Latin America and Africa. China became the world's leading manufacturer and exporter of consumer
goods to North America and the EU.
The first decade of the 21st century witnessed the overthrow or defeat of US vassal states throughout
Latin America (Argentina, Bolivia, Venezuela, Ecuador and Brazil) and the emergence of independent
agro-mineral regimes poised to form regional trade pacts. This was a period of growing global demand
for their natural resources and commodities- precisely when the US was de-industrializing and in
the throes of costly disastrous wars in the Middle East.
In contrast to the growing independence of Latin America, the EU deepened its military participation
in the brutal US-led overseas wars by expanding the 'mandate' of NATO. Brussels followed the unipolarist
policy of systematically encircling Russia and weakening its independence via harsh sanctions. The
EU's outward expansion (financed with increasing domestic austerity) heightened internal cleavages,
leading to popular discontent .The UK voted in favor of a referendum to secede from the EU.
The domestic disasters of the US vassal regime in Russia, under Boris Yeltsin during the 1990″s,
pushed the voters to elect a nationalist, Vladimir Putin. President Vladimir Putin's government embarked
on a program to regain Russian sovereignty and its position as a global power, countering US internal
intervention and pushing back against external encirclement by NATO.
Unipolarists continued to launch multiple wars of conquest in the Middle East, North Africa and
South Asia, costing trillions of dollars and leading to the loss of global markets and competitiveness.
As the armies of the Empire expanded globally, the domestic economy (the 'Republic') contracted .The
US became mired in recession and growing poverty. Unipolar politics created a growing multi-polar
global economy, while rigidly imposing military priorities.
The Empire Strikes Back: The Nuclear Option
The second decade of the 21st century ushered in the demise of unipolarity to the dismay of many
'experts' and the blind denial by its political architects. The rise of a multi-polar world economy
intensified the desperate imperial drive to restore unipolarity by military means, led by militarists
incapable of adjusting or assessing their own policies.
Under the regime of the 'first black' US President Obama, elected on promises to 'rein in' the
military, imperial policymakers intensified their pursuit of seven, new and continuing wars. To the
policymakers and the propagandists in the US-EU corporate media, these were successful imperial wars,
accompanied by premature declarations of victories in Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan. This triumphal
delusion of success led the new Administration to launch new wars in Ukraine, Libya, Syria and Yemen.
As the new wave of wars and coups ('regime change') to re-impose unipolarity failed, even greater
militarist policies displaced economic strategies for global dominance. The unipolarists-militarists,
who direct the permanent state apparatus, continued to sacrifice markets and investments with total
immunity from the disastrous consequences of their failures on the domestic economy.
A Brief Revival of Unipolarity in Latin America
Coups and power grabs have overturned independent governments in Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay,
Honduras and threatened progressive governments in Bolivia, Venezuela and Ecuador. However, the pro-imperial
'roll-back' in Latin America was neither politically nor economically sustainable and threatens to
undermine any restoration of US unipolar dominance of the region.
The US has provided no economic aid or expanded access to markets to reward and support their
newly acquired client regimes. Argentina's new vassal, Mauricio Macri, transferred billions of dollars
to predatory Wall Street bankers and handed over access to military bases and lucrative resources
without receiving any reciprocal inflows of investment capital. Indeed the servile policies of President
Macri created greater unemployment and depressed living standards, leading to mass popular discontent.
The unipolar empire's 'new boy' in its Buenos Aires fiefdom faces an early demise.
Likewise, widespread corruption, a deep economic depression and unprecedented double digit levels
of unemployment in Brazil threaten the illicit vassal regime of Michel Temer with permanent crisis
and rising class conflict.
Short-Lived Success in the Middle East
The revanchist unipolarist launch of a new wave of wars in the Middle East and North Africa seemed
to succeed briefly with the devastating power of US-NATO aerial and naval bombardment .Then collapsed
amidst grotesque destruction and chaos, flooding Europe with millions of refugees.
Powerful surges of resistance to the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan hastened the retreat
toward a multi-polar world. Islamist insurgents drove the US into fortress garrisons and took control
of the countryside and encircled cities in Afghanistan; Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia and Libya drove
US backed regimes and mercenaries into flight.
Unipolarists and the Permanent State: Re-Group and Attack
Faced with its failures, unipolarists regrouped and implemented the most dangerous military strategy
yet: the build-up of nuclear 'First-Strike' capability targeting China and Russia.
Orchestrated by US State Department political appointees, Ukraine's government was taken over
by US vassals leading to the ongoing break-up of that country. Fearful of neo-fascists and Russophobes,
the citizens of Crimea voted to rejoin Russia. Ethnic Russian majorities in Ukraine's Donbass region
have been at war with Kiev with thousands killed and millions fleeing their homes to take refuge
in Russia. The unipolarists in Washington financed and directed the Kiev coup led by kleptocrats,
fascists and street mobs, immune as always from the consequences.
Meanwhile the US is increasing its number of combat troops in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria to buttress
its unreliable allies and mercenaries.
What is crucial to understanding the rise and demise of imperial power and the euphoric unipolar
declarations of the 1990's (especially during the heyday of President Clinton's bloody reign), is
that at no point have military and political advances been sustained by foundational economic building
blocks.
The US defeated and subsequently occupied Iraq, but it also systematically destroyed Iraq's civil
society and its economy, creating fertile ground for massive ethnic cleansing, waves of refugees
and the subsequent Islamist uprising that over ran vast territories. Indeed, deliberate US policies
in Iraq and elsewhere created the refugee crisis that is overwhelming Europe.
A similar situation is occurring during the first two decades of this century: Military victories
have installed ineffective imperial-backed unpopular leaders. Unipolarists increasingly rely on the
most retrograde tribal rabble, Islamist extremists, overseas clients and paid mercenaries. The deliberate
US-led assault on the very people capable of leading modern multicultural nations like Iraq, Libya,
Syria and Ukraine, is a caricature of the notorious Pol Pot assaults on Cambodia's educated classes.
Of course, the US honed its special skills in 'killing the school teachers' when it trained and financed
the mujahedin in Afghanistan in the 1980's.
The second weakness, which led to the collapse of the unipolar illusion, has been their inability
to rethink their assumptions and re-orient and rebalance their strategic militarist paradigm from
the incredible global mess they created
They steadfastly refused to work with and promote the educated economic elites in the conquered
countries. To do so would have required maintaining an intact social-economic-security system in
the countries they had systematically shredded. It would mean rejecting their paradigm of total war,
unconditional surrender and naked, brutal military occupation in order to allow the development of
viable economic allies, instead of imposing pliable but grotesquely corrupt vassal regimes.
The deeply entrenched, heavily financed and vast military-intelligence-police apparatus, numbering
many millions, has formed a parallel imperial state ruling over the elected and civilian regime within
the US.
The so-called 'deep state', in reality, is a ruling state run by unipolarists. It is not some
'faceless entity': It has a class, ideological and economic identity.
Despite the severe cost of losing a series of catastrophic wars and the multi-billion-dollar thefts
by kleptocratic vassal regimes, the unipolarists have remained intact, even increasing their efforts
to score a conquest or temporary military victory.
Let us say it, openly and clearly: The unipolarists are now engaged in blaming their terrible
military and political failures on Russia and China. This is why they seek, directly and indirectly,
to weaken Russia and China's 'allies abroad' and at home. Indeed their savage campaign to 'blame
the Russians' for President Trump's election reflects their deep hostility to Russia and contempt
for the working and lower middle class voters (the 'basket of deplorables') who voted for Trump.
This elite's inability to examine its own failures and the political system's inability to remove
these disastrous policymakers is a serious threat to the future of the world.
Unipolarists: Fabricating Pretexts for World War
While the unipolarist state suffered predictable military defeats and prolonged wars and reliance
on unstable civilian regimes, the ideologues continue to deflect blame onto 'Russia and China as
the source of all their military defeats'. The unipolarists' monomania has been transformed into
a provocative large-scale offensive nuclear missile build-up in Europe and Asia, increasing the risk
of a nuclear war by engaging in a deadly 'game of chicken'.
The veteran nuclear physicists in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists published an important
description of the unipolarists' war plans. They revealed that the 'current and ongoing US nuclear
program has implemented revolutionary new technologies that will vastly increase the targeting capability
of the US ballistic missile arsenal. These new technologies increase the overall US killing power
of existing US ballistic missile forces threefold'. This is exactly what an objective observer would
expect of a nuclear-armed US unipolar state planning to launch a war by disarming China and Russia
with a 'surprise' first strike.
The unipolar state has targeted several countries as pretexts for launching a war. The US government
installed provocative missile bases in the Baltic countries and Poland. These are regimes chosen
for their eagerness to violate Russia's borders or airspace and insanely willing to invite the inevitable
military response and chain reaction onto their own populations. Other sites for huge US military
bases and NATO expansion include the Balkans, especially the former Yugoslav provinces of Kosovo
and Montenegro. These are bankrupt ethno-fascist mafia states and potential tinderboxes for NATO-provoked
conflicts leading to a US first strike. This explains why the most rabid US Senate militarists have
been pushing for Kosovo and Montenegro's integration into NATO.
Syria is where the unipolarists are creating a pretext for nuclear war. The US state has been
sending more 'Special Forces' into highly conflictive areas to support their mercenery allies. This
means US troops will operate (illegally) face-to-face with the advancing Syrian army, who are backed
by Russian military air support (legally). The US plans to seize ISIS-controlled Raqqa in Northern
Syria as its own base of operation with the intention of denying the Syrian government its victory
over the jihadi-terrorists. The likelihood of armed 'incidents' between the US and Russia in Syria
is growing to the rapturous applause of US unipolarists.
The US has financed and promoted Kurdish fighters as they seize Syrian territory from the jihadi-terrorists,
especially in territories along the Turkish border. This is leading to an inevitable conflict between
Turkey and the US-backed Kurds.
Another likely site for expanded war is Ukraine. After seizing power in Kiev, the klepto-fascists
launched a shooting war and economic blockade against the bilingual ethnic Russian-Ukrainians of
the Donbass region. Attacks by the Kiev junta, countless massacres of civilians (including the burning
of scores of unarmed Russian-speaking protesters in Odessa) and the sabotage of Russian humanitarian
aid shipments could provoke retaliation from Russia and invite a US military intervention via the
Black Sea against Crimea.
The mostly likely site for starting World War III is the Korean peninsula. The unipolarists
and their allies in the state apparatus have systematically built-up the conditions to trigger a
war with China using the pretext of the North Korean defensive weapons program.
The unipolarists' state apparatus has gathered its allies in Congress and the mass media to
create public hysteria. Congress and the administration of President Trump have fabricated the North
Korean missile program as a 'threat to the United States'. This has allowed the unipolarist state
to implement an offensive military strategy to counter this phony 'threat'.
The elite have discarded all previous diplomatic negotiations and agreements with North Korea
in order to prepare for war – ultimately directed at China. This is because China is the most dynamic
and successful global economic challenger to US world domination. The US has 'suffered' peaceful,
but humiliating, economic defeat at the hands of an emerging Asian power. China's economy has grown
more than three times faster than the US for the last two decades. And China's infrastructure development
bank has attracted scores of regional and European participants after a much promoted US trade agreement
in Asia, developed by the Obama Administration, collapsed. Over the past decade, while salaries and
wages have stagnated or regressed in the US and EU, they have tripled in China.
China's economic growth is set to surpass the US into the near and distant future if trends continue.
This will inevitably lead to China replacing the US s as the world's most dynamic economic power
. barring a nuclear attack by the US. It is no wonder China is embarked on a program to modernize
its defensive missile systems and border and maritime security.
As the unipolarists prepare for the 'final decision' to attack China, they are systematically
installing their most advanced nuclear missile strike capacity in South Korea under the preposterous
pretext of countering the regime in Pyongyang. To exacerbate tensions, the US High Command has embarked
on cyber-attacks against North Korea's missile program. It has been staging massive military exercises
with Seoul, which provoked the North Korean military to 'test' four of its medium range ballistic
missiles in the Sea of Japan. Washington has ignored the Chinese government's efforts to calm the
situation and persuade the North Koreans to resist US provocations on its borders and even scale
down their nuclear weapons program.
The US war propaganda machine claims that Pyongyang's nervous response to Washington's provocative
military exercises (dubbed "Foal Eagle') on North Korea's border are both a 'threat' to South Korea
and 'evidence of its leaders' insanity.' Ultimately, Washington intends to target China. It installed
its (misnamed) Terminal High Altitude Area Defense System (THAAD) in South Korea .An offensive surveillance
and attack system designed to target China's major cities and complement the US maritime encirclement
of China and Russia. Using North Korea as a pretext, THAAD was installed in South Korea, with the
capacity to reach the Chinese heartland in minutes. Its range covers over 3,000 kilometers of China's
land mass. THAAD directed missiles are specifically designed to identify and destroy China's defensive
missile capacity.
With the THADD installation in South Korea, Russia's Far East is now encircled by the US offensive
missiles to complement the build-up in the West.
The unipolar strategists are joined by the increasingly militaristic Japanese government – a most
alarming development for the Koreans and Chinese given the history of Japanese brutality in the region.
The Japanese Defense Minister has proposed acquiring the capacity for a 'pre-emptive strike', an
imperial replay of its invasion and enslavement of Korea and Manchuria. Japan 'points to' North Korea
but really aims at China.
South Korea's deeply corrupt and blindly submissive regime immediately accepted the US/THADD
system on their territory. Washington found the compliant South Korean 'deep state' willing to sacrifice
its crucial economic links with Beijing: China is South Korea's biggest trading partner. In exchange
for serving as a platform for future US aggression against China, South Korea has suffered losses
in trade, investments and employment. Even if a new South Korea government were to reverse this policy,
the US will not move its THAAD installation. China, for its part, has largely cut its economic and
investment ties with some of South Korea's biggest conglomerates. Tourism, cultural and academic
exchanges, commercial agreements and, most important, most of South Korean industrial exports face
shut down.
In the midst of a major political scandal involving the Korean President (who faces impeachment
and imprisonment), the US-Japanese military alliance has brutally sucked the hapless South Korean
people into an offensive military build-up against China. In the process Seoul threatens its peaceful
economic relations with China. The South Koreans are overwhelmingly 'pro-peace', but find themselves
on the frontlines of a potential nuclear war.
China's response to Washington's threat is a massive buildup of its own defensive missile capacity.
The Chinese now claim to have the capacity to rapidly demolish THAAD bases in South Korea if pushed
by the US. China is retooling its factories to compensate for the loss of South Korean industrial
imports.
Conclusion
The rise and fall of unipolar America has not displaced the permanent state apparatus as it
continues to pursue its deluded strategies.
On the contrary, the unipolarists are accelerating their drive for global military conquest
by targeting Russia and China, which they insist are the cause of their losing wars and global economic
decline. They live on their delusions of a 'Golden Age' of the 1990's when George Bush, Sr. could
devastate Iraq and Bill Clinton could bomb Yugoslavia's cities with impunity.
Gone are the days when the unipolarists could break up the USSR, finance violent breakaway former
Soviet regimes in Asia and the Caucuses and run fraudulent elections for its drunken clients in Russia.
The disasters of US policies and its domestic economic decline has given way to rapid and profound
changes in power relations over the last two decades, shattering any illusion of a unipolar 'American
Century'.
Unipolarity remains the ideology of the permanent state security apparatus and its elites in Washington.
They believe that the marriage of militarism abroad and financial control at home will allow them
to regain their lost unipolar 'Garden of Eden'. China and Russia are the essential new protagonists
of a multipolar world. The dynamics of necessity and their own economic growth has pushed them to
successfully nurture alternative, independent states and markets.
This obvious, irreversible reality has driven the unipolarists to the mania of preparing for a
global nuclear war! The pretexts are infinite and absurd; the targets are clear and global; the destructive
offensive military means are available; but so are the formidable defensive and retaliatory capacities
of China and Russia.
The unipolarist state's delusion of 'winning a global nuclear war' presents Americans with the
critical challenge to resist or give in to an insanely dangerous empire in decline, which is willing
to launch a globally destructive war.
"This means US troops will operate (illegally) face-to-face with the advancing Syrian
army, who are backed by Russian military air support (legally)."
You don't seem to understand the definitions of legal and illegal in the current context: Anything
the US declares legal and subject to its jurisdiction anywhere in the world is legal, otherwise
it is still subject to US interpretation on its legality or not. In other words, US troops always
operate legally, international law notwithstanding, and US laws have effect everywhere and at
all times. Read More
What's this "unipolarist" stuff ..some kind of trendy academic euphemism? A land war in Asia?
Even the American public isn't that stupid.
There is zero chance of an attack on Korea .for a couple of reasons:
1) nothing in it for the jooies who need to conserve their satrap's military for an attack
on Iran,
2) if feasible, would have already happened, and lastly
3) the paper tiger would lose another one.
Think about it .goodbye Seoul, goodbye 30,000 US troops, goodbye all those lucrative samsung-kia-hyundai
franchises, kiss off a couple carriers from torpedos, goodbye lots of attack aircraft ..and that's
all before the Chinese enter the fray. Right now the biggest problem is how to let jooie butt
boy Trumpstein and his ridiculous VFW geezer generals back down without losing face. Face is everything
to westerners, you know . Read More
No doubt the Zionists want to focus on Syria and Iran because there is a direct benefit to
them there, but don't forget their goal. Their goal is total control of the world, and China and
Russia stand in their way.
Using N Korea to threaten China and Russia is probably high on their to do list too.
But I do agree with you. There is no way a N Korea war would be easy or fast for America. We
would probably lose 30k soldiers and many ships at least. Wr would burn through a ton of money
when we are flat broke. And I doubt we can be in a 2 front war right now anyway. So probably Middle
East will take the priority.
So the most plausible explanation to me is that Trump re-read one of the chapters he wrote
on negotiation and tried to convince China to go to war for us. But the Chinese aren't stupid
and they didn't take the bait.
China talked tough to N Korea and suspended their coal exports to make it look like they would
play game, and America sent ships to threaten N Korea. But that was all Trump negotiation tactics.
And Trump would be stupid to go to war and have this define his presidency.
China is not happy with North Korea either. Speculation is that China is planning an invasion
with a secret green light from Washington. Even if the US went in, it may be that if China were
granted basing rights in the North, or if there was an agreement for a multinational peacekeeping
force, with equal US/Chinese troops, there may be a way of providing assurance to China on the
national security front while getting rid of a gangster regime that threatens the security of
everyone.
Robert
Magill ,
April 26, 2017 at 5:30 pm GMT \n
China was envisioned as nothing more than a slave workshop producing cheap mass consumer
goods for Americans and generating high profits for US multinational corporations and retailers
like Walmart.
Walmart announced this week the planned opening of 40 new stores in China by 2020. This adds
to the nearly 500 Walmart stores already operating. Very cleaver of them to sell cheap mass consumer
goods made in China to Chinese customers and still generate profit. Where is the disconnect here?
The mostly likely site for starting World War III is the Korean peninsula. The unipolarists
and their allies in the state apparatus have systematically built-up the conditions to trigger
a war with China using the pretext of the North Korean defensive weapons program.
What happened in New York on 9/11 totally unhinged America for a generation. One small nuke
landing anywhere in the US would totally do us in. Russia and China could probably survive a dozen
each and soldier on.
One small nuke landing anywhere in the US would totally do us in.
What do you mean by this ? Are you talking about most Americans leaving their cities and thus
collapsing the entire economic system. Or are you saying that people will get so unhinged that
it will launch all its missiles (without knowing who is responsible) and thus have more nuclear
strikes hitting it ? Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter Display
All Comments
Washington intervened directly in the Chinese civil war providing arms to Chiang Kai
Shek's army while the Red Army battled the Japanese
This is COMPLETELY ass-backwards and there is not enough facepalm for such a statement. The
Red Army kept itself well ensconced and recruited desperate peasants while Chiang Kai Check fought
against the Japanese with not a lot of support from the US, then got the cold shoulder from Churchill.
After that, the Nationalist Chinese were such an utter wreck that Mao could easily clean the floor.
Any student of the Sino-Japanese war should have the basics right.
The per cent of Americans killed on 9/11 was less than 0.000097. The per cent of Japanese killed
in the 2011 Tsunami was 0.0144 with nary a whimper. The Japanese total was 148 times the US total!
from what I have read. the first half of that statement is true, while the 2nd half is wrong.
45-49, ccp got the left overs of manchuria, while the kmt got hardware and training directly from
the usa.
Didn't we fight China for many years in a place called Vietnam? How did that war work for
us? Of course we are stupid and our conscious memory is hardly good for 4 years. Our distant memory
is as good as every election cycle and the Vietnam war happened centuries ago on the US memory
calendar! Read More
The White Muslim Traditionalist ,
April 29, 2017 at 11:30 am GMT \n
"This means US troops will operate (illegally) face-to-face with the advancing Syrian army,
who are backed by Russian military air support (legally)."
You don't seem to understand the definitions of legal and illegal in the current context:
Anything the US declares legal and subject to its jurisdiction anywhere in the world is legal,
otherwise it is still subject to US interpretation on its legality or not. In other words, US
troops always operate legally, international law notwithstanding, and US laws have effect everywhere
and at all times. What an idiotic statement.
The United States doesn't decide what is right and what is wrong.
200 Words
@Monty Ahwazi Didn't we fight China for many years in a place called Vietnam? How did that
war work for us? Of course we are stupid and our conscious memory is hardly good for 4 years.
Our distant memory is as good as every election cycle and the Vietnam war happened centuries ago
on the US memory calendar! Didn't we fight China for many years in a place called Vietnam?
It was a mixed bag. Primarily Vietnam was more a Soviet ally than Chinese. You must remember
that during the '60s the Chinese and Soviets were at odds, and Chinese-Vietnamese relations were
not good, either. After the Americans retreated (Nixon-Kissinger's "Peace with Honor"), China
and Vietnam fought some skirmishes over Vietnam's Cambodian intrigue.
Amazing, when you think about it, how Vietnamese, Japanese, Chinese, and Korean brothers and
cousins can't get along. If they could, it would be very difficult for the Anglo-American-Jewish
alliance in the region. Think about it. Chinese are as crafty as Jews, they are patient as hell
(they think in long terms), they are every bit as tribal as Jews. Plus, unlike Jews, they have
demonstrated an ability to create an indigenous (i.e., non parasitic) culture. Finally, Chinese
don't feel any guilt over the Jew's Holocaust Six Million shekel religion, so they can't be whipped
into a subservient paroxysm over it. Maybe that makes war with them inevitable.
Read More
Walmarts in China are not like the one's in America. I'm convinced the US stores are supported
by welfare checks and food stamps. Without those, my guess is that the stores would have closed
a long time ago. Also, in China you don't see half the store filled up with overweight diabetics
on disability, riding around on motorized scooters, looking like land-locked Barron Harkonnens,
etc.
Exactly. The doomsday prognosticators keep up with the Fake News about the
impending end of the world scenarios and they fail to materialize repeatedly.
Just my little thought : in fact China is not going to intervene in a conflict between US-SK-Japan
versus NK. It will sit back and just wait until they all are exhausted and then collect .
Agent76
,
April 29, 2017 at 3:35 pm GMT \n
Mar 25, 2016 Is China Ready to Challenge the Dollar?
Introduction to the report: Is China Ready to Challenge the Dollar? Internationalization of
the Renminbi and Its Implications for the United States.
Apr 12, 2017 China Russia Move For Gold Against Dollar Makes Them A Target By Trump
In this video we talk about all the latest breaking news regarding the financial quite feud
between Russia, China and U.S. Its important to note that this move against Donald Trump and the
U.S petro dollar being the world reserve currency was made before Trumps aggressive actions against
a mutual ally to Russia and China.
@mp Didn't we fight China for many years in a place called Vietnam?
It was a mixed bag. Primarily Vietnam was more a Soviet ally than Chinese. You must remember
that during the '60s the Chinese and Soviets were at odds, and Chinese-Vietnamese relations were
not good, either. After the Americans retreated (Nixon-Kissinger's "Peace with Honor"), China
and Vietnam fought some skirmishes over Vietnam's Cambodian intrigue.
Amazing, when you think about it, how Vietnamese, Japanese, Chinese, and Korean brothers and
cousins can't get along. If they could, it would be very difficult for the Anglo-American-Jewish
alliance in the region. Think about it. Chinese are as crafty as Jews, they are patient as hell
(they think in long terms), they are every bit as tribal as Jews. Plus, unlike Jews, they have
demonstrated an ability to create an indigenous (i.e., non parasitic) culture. Finally, Chinese
don't feel any guilt over the Jew's Holocaust Six Million shekel religion, so they can't be whipped
into a subservient paroxysm over it. Maybe that makes war with them inevitable. OK until you come
to "the Chinese are every bit as tribal as Jews," Whatever you might say about some 12 million
Jews who; if in Israel, learn to speak a version of their old tribal language makes little sense
when applied to 1.3 billion people speaking many mutually incomprehensible languages (or dialects
as some prefer if you think Russian and Polish are two dialects) and with a long history of warlordism
and the barbarism of the Cultural Revolution less than two generations behind them. Still I guess
that it is wise to protect your IP from a Mandarin speaking Chinese employee who only became an
Amrrican citizen yesterday .
"... Many "never-Trumpers" of both parties see the deep state's national security bureaucracy as their best hope to destroy Trump and thus defend constitutional government, but those hopes are misguided. ..."
"... As Michael Glennon, author of National Security and Double Government, pointed out in a June 2017 Harper's essay, if "the president maintains his attack, splintered and demoralized factions within the bureaucracy could actually support - not oppose - many potential Trump initiatives, such as stepped-up drone strikes, cyberattacks, covert action, immigration bans, and mass surveillance." ..."
"... Corraborative evidence of Valentine's thesis is, perhaps surprisingly, provided by the CIA's own website where a number of redacted historical documents have been published. Presumably, they are documents first revealed under the Freedom of Information Act. A few however are copies of news articles once available to the public but now archived by the CIA which has blacked-out portions of the articles. ..."
"... This led to an investigation by New Times in a day when there were still "investigative reporters," and not the government sycophants of today. Based on firsthand accounts, their investigation concluded that Operation Phoenix was the "only systematized kidnapping, torture and assassination program ever sponsored by the United States government. . . . Its victims were noncombatants." At least 40,000 were murdered, with "only" about 8,000 supposed Viet Cong political cadres targeted for execution, with the rest civilians (including women and children) killed and "later conveniently labeled VCI. Hundreds of thousands were jailed without trial, often after sadistic abuse." The article notes that Phoenix was conceived, financed, and directed by the Central Intelligence Agency ..."
"... But the article noted that one of the most persistent criticisms of Phoenix was that it resulted "in the arrest and imprisonment of many innocent civilians." These were called "Class C Communist offenders," some of whom may actually have been forced to commit such "belligerent acts" as digging trenches or carrying rice. It was those alleged as the "hard core, full-time cadre" who were deemed to make up the "shadow government" designated as Class A and B Viet Cong. ..."
"... Ironically, by the Bush administration's broad definition of "unlawful combatants," CIA officers and their support structure also would fit the category. But the American public is generally forgiving of its own war criminals though most self-righteous and hypocritical in judging foreign war criminals. But perhaps given sufficient evidence, the American public could begin to see both the immorality of this behavior and its counterproductive consequences. ..."
"... Talleyrand is credited with saying, "They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing." Reportedly, that was borrowed from a 1796 letter by a French naval officer, which stated, in the original language: Personne n'est corrigé; personne n'a su ni rien oublier ni rien appendre. In English: "Nobody has been corrected; no one has known to forget, nor yet to learn anything." That sums up the CIA leadership entirely. ..."
Douglas Valentine has once again added to the store of knowledge necessary for American citizens
to understand how the U.S. government actually works today, in his most recent book entitled
The CIA As Organized Crime . (Valentine previously wrote The Phoenix Program ,
which should be read with the current book.)
The US "deep state" – of which the CIA is an integral part – is an open secret now and the Phoenix
Program (assassinations, death squads, torture, mass detentions, exploitation of information) has
been its means of controlling populations. Consequently, knowing the deep state's methods is the
only hope of building a democratic opposition to the deep state and to restore as much as possible
the Constitutional system we had in previous centuries, as imperfect as it was.
Princeton University political theorist Sheldon Wolin described the US political system in place
by 2003 as "inverted totalitarianism." He reaffirmed that in 2009 after seeing a year of the Obama
administration. Correctly identifying the threat against constitutional governance is the first step
to restore it, and as Wolin understood, substantive constitutional government ended long before Donald
Trump campaigned. He's just taking unconstitutional governance to the next level in following the
same path as his recent predecessors. However, even as some elements of the "deep state" seek to
remove Trump, the President now has many "deep state" instruments in his own hands to be used at
his unreviewable discretion.
Many "never-Trumpers" of both parties see the deep state's national security bureaucracy as
their best hope to destroy Trump and thus defend constitutional government, but those hopes are misguided.
After all, the deep state's bureaucratic leadership has worked arduously for decades to subvert
constitutional order.
As Michael Glennon, author of National Security and Double Government, pointed out in a June
2017 Harper's essay, if "the president maintains his attack, splintered and demoralized factions
within the bureaucracy could actually support - not oppose - many potential Trump initiatives, such
as stepped-up drone strikes, cyberattacks, covert action, immigration bans, and mass surveillance."
Glennon noted that the propensity of "security managers" to back policies which ratchet up levels
of security "will play into Trump's hands, so that if and when he finally does declare victory, a
revamped security directorate could emerge more menacing than ever, with him its devoted new ally."
Before that happens, it is incumbent for Americans to understand what Valentine explains in his book
of CIA methods of "population control" as first fully developed in the Vietnam War's Phoenix Program.
Hating the US
There also must be the realization that our "national security" apparatchiks - principally but
not solely the CIA - have served to exponentially increase the numbers of those people who hate the
US.
Some of these people turn to terrorism as an expression of that hostility. Anyone who is at all
familiar with the CIA and Al Qaeda knows that the CIA has been Al Qaeda's most important "combat
multiplier" since 9/11, and the CIA can be said to have birthed ISIS as well with the mistreatment
of incarcerated Iraqi men in US prisons in Iraq.
Indeed, by following the model of the Phoenix Program, the CIA must be seen in the Twenty-first
Century as a combination of the ultimate "Murder, Inc.," when judged by the CIA's methods such as
drone warfare and its victims; and the Keystone Kops, when the multiple failures of CIA policies
are considered. This is not to make light of what the CIA does, but the CIA's misguided policies
and practices have served to generate wrath, hatred and violence against Americans, which we see
manifested in cities such as San Bernardino, Orlando, New York and Boston.
Pointing out the harm to Americans is not to dismiss the havoc that Americans under the influence
of the CIA have perpetrated on foreign populations. But "morality" seems a lost virtue today in the
US, which is under the influence of so much militaristic war propaganda that morality no longer enters
into the equation in determining foreign policy.
In addition to the harm the CIA has caused to people around the world, the CIA works tirelessly
at subverting its own government at home, as was most visible in the spying on and subversion of
the torture investigation by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The subversion of democracy
also includes the role the CIA plays in developing and disseminating war propaganda as "information
warfare," upon the American people. This is what the Rand Corporation under the editorship of Zalmay
Khalilzad has described as "conditioning the battlefield," which begins with the minds of the American
population.
Douglas Valentine discusses and documents the role of the CIA in disseminating pro-war propaganda
and disinformation as complementary to the violent tactics of the Phoenix Program in Vietnam. Valentine
explains that "before Phoenix was adopted as the model for policing the American empire, many US
military commanders in Vietnam resisted the Phoenix strategy of targeting civilians with Einsatzgruppen-style
'special forces' and Gestapo-style secret police."
Military Commanders considered that type of program a flagrant violation of the Law of War. "Their
main job is to zap the in-betweeners – you know, the people who aren't all the way with the government
and aren't all the way with the Viet Cong either. They figure if you zap enough in-betweeners, people
will begin to get the idea," according to one quote from The Phoenix Program referring to
the unit tasked with much of the Phoenix operations.
Nazi Influences
Comparing the Phoenix Program and its operatives to "Einsatzgruppen-style 'special forces' and
Gestapo-style secret police" is not a distortion of the strategic understanding of each. Both programs
were extreme forms of repression operating under martial law principles where the slightest form
of dissent was deemed to represent the work of the "enemy." Hitler's Bandit Hunters: The SS and the
Nazi Occupation of Europe by Philip W. Blood describes German "Security Warfare" as practiced in
World War II, which can be seen as identical in form to the Phoenix Program as to how the enemy is
defined as anyone who is "potentially" a threat, deemed either "partizans" or terrorists.
That the Germans included entire racial categories in that does not change the underlying logic,
which was, anyone deemed an internal enemy in a territory in which their military operated had to
be "neutralized" by any means necessary. The US military and the South Vietnamese military governments
operated under the same principles but not based on race, rather the perception that certain areas
and villages were loyal to the Viet Cong.
This repressive doctrine was also not unique to the Nazis in Europe and the US military in Vietnam.
Similar though less sophisticated strategies were used against the American Indians and by the imperial
powers of the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth centuries, including by the US in its newly acquired
territories of the Philippines and in the Caribbean. This "imperial policing," i.e., counterinsurgency,
simply moved to more manipulative and, in ways, more violent levels.
That the US drew upon German counterinsurgency doctrine, as brutal as it was, is well documented.
This is shown explicitly in a 2011 article published in the Journal of Military and Strategic Studies
entitled German Counterinsurgency Revisited by Charles D. Melson. He wrote that in 1942, Nazi commander
Heinrich Himmler named a deputy for "anti-bandit warfare," (Bevollmachtigter fur die Bandenkampfung
im Osten), SS-General von dem Bach, whose responsibilities expanded in 1943 to head all SS and police
anti-bandit units and operations. He was one of the architects of the Einsatzguppen "concept of anti-partisan
warfare," a German predecessor to the "Phoenix Program."
'Anti-Partisan' Lessons
It wasn't a coincidence that this "anti-partisan" warfare concept should be adopted by US forces
in Vietnam and retained to the present day. Melson pointed out that a "post-war German special forces
officer described hunter or ranger units as 'men who knew every possible ruse and tactic of guerrilla
warfare. They had gone through the hell of combat against the crafty partisans in the endless swamps
and forests of Russia.'"
Consequently, "The German special forces and reconnaissance school was a sought after posting
for North Atlantic Treaty Organization special operations personnel," who presumably included members
of the newly created US Army Special Forces soldiers, which was in part headquartered at Bad Tolz
in Germany, as well as CIA paramilitary officers.
Just as with the later Phoenix Program to the present-day US global counterinsurgency, Melson
wrote that the "attitude of the [local] population and the amount of assistance it was willing to
give guerilla units was of great concern to the Germans. Different treatment was supposed to be accorded
to affected populations, bandit supporters, and bandits, while so-called population and resource
control measures for each were noted (but were in practice, treated apparently one and the same).
'Action against enemy agitation' was the psychological or information operations of the
Nazi
period. The Nazis believed that, 'Because of the close relationship of guerilla warfare
and politics, actions against enemy agitation are a task that is just as important as interdiction
and combat actions. All means must be used to ward off enemy influence and waken and maintain a clear
political will.'"
This is typical of any totalitarian system – a movement or a government – whether the process
is characterized as counterinsurgency or internal security. The idea of any civilian collaboration
with the "enemy" is the basis for what the US government charges as "conspiracy" in the Guantanamo
Military Commissions.
Valentine explains the Phoenix program as having been developed by the CIA in 1967 to combine
"existing counterinsurgency programs in a concerted effort to 'neutralize' the Vietcong infrastructure
(VCI)." He explained further that "neutralize" meant "to kill, capture, or make to defect." "Infrastructure"
meant civilians suspected of supporting North Vietnamese and Vietcong soldiers. Central to the Phoenix
program was that its targets were civilians, making the operation a violation of the Geneva Conventions
which guaranteed protection to civilians in time of war.
"The Vietnam's War's Silver Lining: A Bureaucratic Model for Population Control Emerges" is the
title of Chapter 3. Valentine writes that the "CIA's Phoenix program changed how America fights its
wars and how the public views this new type of political and psychological warfare, in which civilian
casualties are an explicit objective." The intent of the Phoenix program evolved from "neutralizing"
enemy leaders into "a program of systematic repression for the political control of the South Vietnamese
people. It sought to accomplish this through a highly bureaucratized system of disposing of people
who could not be ideologically assimilated." The CIA claimed a legal basis for the program in "emergency
decrees" and orders for "administrative detention."
Lauding Petraeus
Valentine refers to a paper by David Kilcullen entitled Countering Global Insurgency. Kilcullen
is one of the so-called "counterinsurgency experts" whom General David Petraeus gathered together
in a cell to promote and refine "counterinsurgency," or COIN, for the modern era. Fred Kaplan, who
is considered a "liberal author and journalist" at Slate, wrote a panegyric to these cultists entitled,
The Insurgents: David Petraeus and the Plot to Change the American Way of War. The purpose of this
cell was to change the practices of the US military into that of "imperial policing," or COIN, as
they preferred to call it.
But Kilcullen argued in his paper that "The 'War on Terrorism'" is actually a campaign to counter
a global insurgency. Therefore, Kilcullen argued, "we need a new paradigm, capable of addressing
globalised insurgency." His "disaggregation strategy" called for "actions to target the insurgent
infrastructure that would resemble the unfairly maligned (but highly effective) Vietnam-era Phoenix
program."
He went on, "Contrary to popular mythology, this was largely a civilian aid and development program,
supported by targeted military pacification operations and intelligence activity to disrupt the Viet
Cong Infrastructure. A global Phoenix program (including the other key elements that formed part
of the successful Vietnam CORDS system) would provide a useful start point to consider how Disaggregation
would develop in practice."
It is readily apparent that, in fact, a Phoenix-type program is now US global policy and - just
like in Vietnam - it is applying "death squad" strategies that eliminate not only active combatants
but also civilians who simply find themselves in the same vicinity, thus creating antagonisms that
expand the number of fighters.
Corraborative evidence of Valentine's thesis is, perhaps surprisingly, provided by the CIA's
own website where a number of redacted historical documents have been published. Presumably, they
are documents first revealed under the Freedom of Information Act. A few however are copies of news
articles once available to the public but now archived by the CIA which has blacked-out portions
of the articles.
The Bloody Reality
One "sanitized" article - approved for release in 2011 - is a partially redacted New Times article
of Aug. 22, 1975, by Michael Drosnin. The article recounts a story of a US Army counterintelligence
officer "who directed a small part of a secret war aimed not at the enemy's soldiers but at its civilian
leaders." He describes how a CIA-directed Phoenix operative dumped a bag of "eleven bloody ears"
as proof of six people killed.
The officer, who recalled this incident in 1971, said, "It made me sick. I couldn't go on with
what I was doing in Vietnam. . . . It was an assassination campaign . . . my job was to identify
and eliminate VCI, the Viet Cong 'infrastructure' – the communist's shadow government. I worked directly
with two Vietnamese units, very tough guys who didn't wear uniforms . . . In the beginning they brought
back about 10 percent alive. By the end they had stopped taking prisoners.
"How many VC they got I don't know. I saw a hell of a lot of dead bodies. We'd put a tag on saying
VCI, but no one really knew – it was just some native in black pajamas with 16 bullet holes."
This led to an investigation by New Times in a day when there were still "investigative reporters,"
and not the government sycophants of today. Based on firsthand accounts, their investigation concluded
that Operation Phoenix was the "only systematized kidnapping, torture and assassination program ever
sponsored by the United States government. . . . Its victims were noncombatants." At least 40,000
were murdered, with "only" about 8,000 supposed Viet Cong political cadres targeted for execution,
with the rest civilians (including women and children) killed and "later conveniently labeled VCI.
Hundreds of thousands were jailed without trial, often after sadistic abuse." The article notes that
Phoenix was conceived, financed, and directed by the Central Intelligence Agency, as Mr. Valentine
writes.
A second article archived by the CIA was by the Christian Science Monitor, dated Jan. 5, 1971,
describing how the Saigon government was "taking steps that could help eliminate one of the most
glaring abuses of its controversial Phoenix program, which is aimed against the Viet Cong political
and administrative apparatus." Note how the Monitor shifted blame away from the CIA and onto the
South Vietnamese government.
But the article noted that one of the most persistent criticisms of Phoenix was that it resulted
"in the arrest and imprisonment of many innocent civilians." These were called "Class C Communist
offenders," some of whom may actually have been forced to commit such "belligerent acts" as digging
trenches or carrying rice. It was those alleged as the "hard core, full-time cadre" who were deemed
to make up the "shadow government" designated as Class A and B Viet Cong.
Yet "security committees" throughout South Vietnam, under the direction of the CIA, sentenced
at least 10,000 "Class C civilians" to prison each year, far more than Class A and B combined. The
article stated, "Thousands of these prisoners are never brought to court trial, and thousands of
other have never been sentenced." The latter statement would mean they were just held in "indefinite
detention," like the prisoners held at Guantanamo and other US detention centers with high levels
of CIA involvement.
Not surprisingly to someone not affiliated with the CIA, the article found as well that "Individual
case histories indicate that many who have gone to prison as active supporters of neither the government
nor the Viet Cong come out as active backers of the Viet Cong and with an implacable hatred of the
government." In other words, the CIA and the COIN enthusiasts are achieving the same results today
with the prisons they set up in Iraq and Afghanistan.
CIA Crimes
Valentine broadly covers the illegalities of the CIA over the years, including its well-documented
role in facilitating the drug trade over the years. But, in this reviewer's opinion, his most valuable
contribution is his description of the CIA's participation going back at least to the Vietnam War
in the treatment of what the US government today calls "unlawful combatants."
"Unlawful combatants" is a descriptive term made up by the Bush administration to remove people
whom US officials alleged were "terrorists" from the legal protections of the Geneva Conventions
and Human Rights Law and thus to justify their capture or killing in the so-called "Global War on
Terror." Since the US government deems them "unlawful" – because they do not belong to an organized
military structure and do not wear insignia – they are denied the "privilege" of belligerency that
applies to traditional soldiers. But – unless they take a "direct part in hostilities" – they would
still maintain their civilian status under the law of war and thus not lose the legal protection
due to civilians even if they exhibit sympathy or support to one side in a conflict.
Ironically, by the Bush administration's broad definition of "unlawful combatants," CIA officers
and their support structure also would fit the category. But the American public is generally forgiving
of its own war criminals though most self-righteous and hypocritical in judging foreign war criminals.
But perhaps given sufficient evidence, the American public could begin to see both the immorality
of this behavior and its counterproductive consequences.
This is not to condemn all CIA officers, some of whom acted in good faith that they were actually
defending the United States by acquiring information on a professed enemy in the tradition of Nathan
Hale. But it is to harshly condemn those CIA officials and officers who betrayed the United States
by subverting its Constitution, including waging secret wars against foreign countries without a
declaration of war by Congress. And it decidedly condemns the CIA war criminals who acted as a law
unto themselves in the torture and murder of foreign nationals, as Valentine's book describes.
Talleyrand is credited with saying, "They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing." Reportedly,
that was borrowed from a 1796 letter by a French naval officer, which stated, in the original language:
Personne n'est corrigé; personne n'a su ni rien oublier ni rien appendre. In English: "Nobody has
been corrected; no one has known to forget, nor yet to learn anything." That sums up the CIA leadership
entirely.
Douglas Valentine's book is a thorough documentation of that fact and it is essential reading
for all Americans if we are to have any hope for salvaging a remnant of representative government.
Todd E. Pierce retired as a Major in the US Army Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps in November
2012. His most recent assignment was defense counsel in the Office of Chief Defense Counsel, Office
of Military Commissions. This originally appeared at
ConsortiumNews.com .
"... It's shameful that this country hasn't rejected the first use of nuclear weapons. It's also shameful that instead of working to eliminate nuclear weapons, the U.S. is actually planning to spend nearly a trillion dollars over the next 30 years to upgrade that arsenal. For what possible strategic purpose, one must ask? America's current nuclear deterrent is the most powerful and survivable in the world. No other country comes close. There's no rational reason to invest more money in nuclear weapons, unless you count the jobs and money related to building new nuclear submarines, weaponry, bombs, and all the other infrastructure related to America's nuclear triad of Trident submarines, land-based bombers, and fixed missile silos. ..."
"... Next time, Mr. Trump and Secretary Clinton, let's have some rigor, some honesty, and some wisdom on the issue of nuclear weapons. Not only America deserves it – the world does. ..."
It's shameful that this country hasn't rejected the first use of nuclear weapons. It's also shameful that instead of working
to eliminate nuclear weapons, the U.S. is actually planning to spend nearly a trillion dollars over the next 30 years to upgrade
that arsenal. For what possible strategic purpose, one must ask? America's current nuclear deterrent is the most powerful and survivable
in the world. No other country comes close. There's no rational reason to invest more money in nuclear weapons, unless you count
the jobs and money related to building new nuclear submarines, weaponry, bombs, and all the other infrastructure related to America's
nuclear triad of Trident submarines, land-based bombers, and fixed missile silos.
Neither Trump nor Hillary addressed this
issue. Trump was simply ignorant. Hillary was simply disingenuous. Which candidate was worse? When you're talking about nuclear genocidal
death, it surely does matter. Ignorance is not bliss, nor is a lack of forthrightness and honesty.
Next time, Mr. Trump and Secretary Clinton, let's have some rigor, some honesty, and some wisdom on the issue of nuclear weapons.
Not only America deserves it – the world does.
William J. Astore is a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF). He taught history for fifteen years at military and civilian schools
and blogs at Bracing Views. He can be reached at
[email protected]. Reprinted from Bracing
Views with the author's permission.
"... As General Smedley Butler, twice awarded the Medal of Honor, said: War is a racket . Wars will persist as long as people see them as a "core product," as a business opportunity. In capitalism, the profit motive is often amoral; greed is good, even when it feeds war. Meanwhile, the Pentagon is willing to play along. It always sees "vulnerabilities" and always wants more money. ..."
"... Wars are always profitable for a few, but they are ruining democracy in America. Sure, it's a business opportunity: one that ends in national (and moral) bankruptcy. ..."
A good friend passed along an
article at Forbes from a month ago with the pregnant title, "U.S. Army Fears Major War Likely
Within Five Years - But Lacks The Money To Prepare." Basically, the article argues that war is possible
- even likely - within five years with Russia or North Korea or Iran, or maybe all three, but that
America's army is short of money to prepare for these wars. This despite the fact that America spends
roughly $700 billion each and every year on defense and overseas wars.
Now, the author's agenda is quite clear, as he states at the end of his article: "Several of the
Army's equipment suppliers are contributors to my think tank and/or consulting clients." He's writing
an alarmist article about the probability of future wars at the same time as he's profiting from
the sales of weaponry to the army.
As General Smedley Butler, twice awarded the Medal of Honor, said:
War is a racket
. Wars will persist as long as people see them as a "core product," as a business opportunity.
In capitalism, the profit motive is often amoral; greed is good, even when it feeds war. Meanwhile,
the Pentagon is willing to play along. It always sees "vulnerabilities" and always wants more money.
But back to the Forbes article with its concerns about war(s) in five years with Russia or North
Korea or Iran (or all three). For what vital national interest should America fight against Russia?
North Korea? Iran? A few quick reminders:
#1: Don't get involved in a land war in Asia or with Russia (Charles XII, Napoleon, and Hitler
all learned that lesson the hard way).
#2: North Korea? It's a puppet regime that can't feed its own people. It might prefer war to distract
the people from their parlous existence.
#3: Iran? A regional power, already contained, with a young population that's sympathetic to America,
at least to our culture of relative openness and tolerance. If the US Army thinks tackling Iran would
be relatively easy, just consider all those recent "easy" wars and military interventions in Iraq,
Afghanistan, Libya, Syria
Of course, the business aspect of this is selling the idea the US Army isn't prepared and therefore
needs yet another new generation of expensive high-tech weaponry. It's like convincing high-end consumers
their three-year-old Audi or Lexus is obsolete so they must buy the latest model else lose face.
We see this all the time in the US military. It's a version of planned or
artificial obsolescence . Consider the Air Force. It could easily defeat its enemies with updated
versions of A-10s, F-15s, and F-16s, but instead the Pentagon plans to spend as much as $1.4 trillion
on the shiny new and
under-performing F-35 . The Army has an enormous surplus of tanks and other armored fighting
vehicles, but the call goes forth for a "new generation." No other navy comes close to the US Navy,
yet the call goes out for a new generation of ships.
The Pentagon mantra is always for more and better, which often turns out to be for less and much
more expensive, e.g. the F-35 fighter.
Wars are always profitable for a few, but they are
ruining democracy in America. Sure, it's a business opportunity: one that ends in national (and
moral) bankruptcy.
William J. Astore is a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF). He taught history for fifteen years
at military and civilian schools and blogs at
Bracing Views . He can be reached at [email protected]. Reprinted
from Bracing Views with the author's permission.
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
Originally from: 
Shpakova
☭@NovaShpakova
euro is beginning to look like a credible rival to the dollar.
MIGA!
© AFP 2018 / Timothy A. CLARY Congresswoman
Tulsi Gabbard Speaks the Truth on Syria, Gets Smeared by the Mainstream Media
© AP Photo / Marco Garcia 'Assad's
Mouthpiece in Washington': Controversial Dem. Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard Announces 2020
Run
© REUTERS / Omar Sanadiki US Lawmakers
Call for Syria Strategy Where Assad Leaving Post, Russian Military Pulls Out
©
AP Photo/ J. Scott Applewhite
House Democrats Will Expand Russiagate in 2019 to Push Trump Toward War
